George Foreman vs Jimmy Ellis 1973

If Ellis does the signature fast start it is very short but thrilling slugfest. Don't think Ellis is that dumb though. I think Ellis could outbox him for a few rounds actually, but would get outmuscled in clinches and corners. Foreman was an opportunist and would wear him down when he got the chance. I would have to say Foreman TKO 5, because beyond five, George's chances are slim. If it goes 10, or 12, Ellis would recover and give George a lathering.

 

I thought of it years ago. Even wrote each round out. I don't think Ellis was better than Young, but he was more of a puncher, which added to his boxing ability, could be pretty dangerous for George. I still favor George, but I think if Ellis trained like never before for this fight that he could have beaten Foreman.

 

I think Foreman kills Ellis. Especially in 1973

 

Actually George cut the ring down very well against movers. He had had faster feet than given credit for. Ali learned this in the 1st round in Zaire. That is why he used the ropes..

 

Ellis had the style to make things interesting for George. I would still pick Foreman to win, but this fight could have given young George some valuable experience and seasoning. Likewise bouts with Jerry Quarry and Joe Bugner.

 

Ya, I wish Foreman would have fought a few more guys like that before he lost the title to Ali.

 

While Ellis would be regarded as a credible opponent, certainly more than Roman, I don't see this as being much of a contest. 1973 was the year Ellis was iced by the then-unrated Earnie Shavers, and he would lose to Boone Kirkman at the end of the year. Jimmy, though he was active and winning, hadn't fought a ranked opponent since Muhammad Ali in the summer of 1971.

I think Ellis lost a step after 1968. I don't know if it was that Patterson was harder on him than we think (Ellis' nose was severely fractured), if the 1969 layoff (three cancelled fights) affected him, or if it was his stepping up to fight better guys in Frazier and Ali. After 1968, Ellis only had one win over a top-ten opponent (George Chuvalo in 1971).

 

Agree. I always liked Ellis. But he had neither the durability nor type of elusive movement which Ali and Young had to beat George Foreman. jimmy was a good boxer but he’d be easier to hit than those other guys were and without the chin to take those bombs it would be over with quick.

 

Plus, Jimmy had a warrior's heart. He had a thing for getting into firefights, however brief the action lasted. I would think if he would try to outslug Shavers that he might try it with Foreman.

 

Ellis was Avery good fighter. I give him full credit for winning a heavyweight belt in a stacked era of talent and especially after starting his career at middleweight . Unfortunately however he was not always as ring smart as he needed to be.

 

I have always detested it how people label Ellis's win over Quarry for the title as "paper", as if he was a fake champion and everything. It was not the thriller that everyone expected, but that doesn't make Ellis not legit. I give Ellis just as much credit as any other champion. He beat Quarry, one of the best heavies of his time (thought handicapped at the time), and put on a beautiful boxing display. I do tend to appreciate a lot of slower, more tactical fights-more than most people at least, but Ellis fought a good fight that night, and it was not such a bad fight. People just expect everything to be amazing.

 

I’ve always felt that Ellis was a true champion. He won that belt by going through a full blown elimination tournament against the best fighters in the world ( except Joe Frazier who chose to stay out of that tournament ) and beat them.... Muhammad Ali was seen as the linear champ but that title was useless given that there was no telling at the time if he’d ever return...

 

Ellis is an underrated fighter to be sure. I loved his boxer-puncher style (I just didn't care for his quick gassing-out). He was not a great champion, but that doesn't make you not a champion. I've always thought some guys were more impressive when they weren't champion. Ellis being one of those. Bonavena and Chuvalo were his best showings imo. Martin also a decent performance, but a very impressive 1st round. Patterson much the same way. Defended the title six times successfully, but only two legit defenses (Jackson II and Johansson III). But before the title (1st time), he beat Jackson, Moore, and Joey Maxim too (robbery). After Liston beat him, he beat Machen, Chuvalo, and Cooper. He defeated Quarry only to get a draw, and then lose a close rematch to him. He whupped Ellis, but was denied winning the title for the record second time and third reign. In '72 he defeated Bonavena, a guy who should have beaten him handily. There's lots of guys like that.