Hey I read, with no confirmation in the boxers who had lost street fights thread they used Carnera in a propaganda video in Italy where he was meant to beat a meant to be harmless POW and got KO'd.
Come off it. What did you expect? You challenge the common thought pattern and people lose there minds and refuse to throw up there propaganda. I don’t think anything I’ve said on the topic is totally wrong even from the perspective of the people who most despise my thoughts on the manner.
1) I brought up the weight loss and dehydration because you brought up Frazier gaining a little weight. Fair exchange. Foreman did in fact complain about being dehydrated and cutting weight, that's why he was often so tense and abrasive, which probably affected his known hypertension issues (which affects his stamina). No heavyweight should be cutting weight and being dehydrated unless they're obese, which he wasn't. It certainly would affect someone more than gaining like 5 lbs. 2) if George underestimated Ali that's his problem...sure let's go with that. And if Frazier underestimated George, that's Frazier's problem. 3) well, no one else made Frazier look that bad before or since. So you'd have to give Foreman credit. It's not like that was Fraziers last fight or that he was a shot old man, he had several additional fights and didn't suffer any knockdowns or ass whoopings again until Foreman fought him again. Foreman used a brilliant game plan. Contrary to popular belief, he didn't just go in there swinging away overpowering Frazier.. 4) Norton was past his prime against shavers, who is regarded as a top 5 puncher of all time, and was completely shot when he fought Cooney. His chin wasn't the only issue as he took blows from Ali, Holmes, Quarry, Cobb, and avenged his KO loss to Garcia. Once again, you're basically dismissing whatever strategy Foreman used to dismantle him and using the tailor made argument thay people only seem to use for Foreman for some reason. I can say that about any boxers signature wins. 5) he thought he had Ali where he wanted him, but he was outsmarted and made to gas himself out. His trainers thought that and kept telling him to stick the game plan. Ali's own corner thought that. The whole world was tricked and couldn't tell what was happening until halfway through the fight. It was a once in a lifetime circus trick that couldn't be repeated and Ali knew it. He was getting older and made several obstacles to avoid a rematch even tho Foreman was a mandatory challenger. He couldn't rope a doe again and he couldn't stick and move to dance to victory anymore. My main point was that losing to Ali doesn't make him overrated as very few people would be able to execute that game plan and Ali was the greatest. 6) George and Lyle were not on a similar level. George had just lost, his confidence was shattered, he changed trainers, and changed his style even in the middle of the fight (it looked like a guy playing a fighting game fumbling with the controls learning how to do moves). George has far better wins and beat Lyle despite being at his worst in the 70's. By your logic, Pacquiao and Jeff Horn are on the same level. 7) I'm still not sure where your getting this idea people believe he was an "unstoppable" h2h monster. He lost twice so that obviously isn't true. Many people are of the opinion that he is at or near the top of the hill when it comes to slug fests (which isn't a very crazy of controversial opinion), but that if you had good boxing ability, defense, and speed it was relatively easy to outbox or survive against him. People tend to rate him where he belongs, extremely good at one aspect of boxing but sorely lacking in other fields. I don't see you having this same level of dedication going in on truly overrated "h2h monsters" such as the infamous "prime" Mike Tyson, the invincible Vitali Klitschko, unseasoned Ike Ibeabuchi, David "no belts" Tua, prime Duran, prime Pacquiao, Vasyl "less than 20 matches" Lomachenko, etc. All those boxers have the reputation of Greek gods on this forum and their fans come out in droves like dutiful Spartans to defend them in any thread.
Some of what you have written is totally irrelevant not trying to be snarky and other parts I have covered. The parts in red are already explained or irrelevant. that's the purpose of this thread a reference point for my thoughts on the matter, They are concrete. Okay, anyway read what I said about Frazier's condition going into the fight and the context of the times like Foreman's resume for instance. Norton was a fragile guy, he blocked most of the shots from guys like Ali, Holmes etc because they weren't exactly pouring it on and trying to axe murder him the way Foreman was he was the aggressor, also... Sugar Tex Cobb? Are you kidding? next, Garcia and Quarry yeah look at when he fought Garcia and Quarry. It was known in boxing circles then that Norton had issues taking punches.
The successive destruction of Norton and Frazier contributed to George Foreman's "fear factor." And the words of the commentator: "Down goes Frazier, Down goes Frazier", are probably the most famous words of a commentator in the history of boxing.
It was poor. No version of a punch that starts from behind your head can be called good. That doesn't mean ineffective or that it's unwieldable it just is what it is.
Foreman was an uncommon offensive force. Like a Hurricane or a Tornado guys didn't fight him as much as prayed to survive him. His strength and punching power are at the very top in heavyweight history but he had deceptive quickness, light on his feet. That is a tough combination to beat. In addition to that George Foreman was a bit touched. He was Coco for Cocoa Puffs. When he hurt an opponent there's never been a better finisher along with Joe Louis. Foreman attacked like Kujo. You can't teach that. With that said he wasn't a perfect fighter. He distained the jab at times, left himself open with little headmovement, stamina would have to be an issue for someone who throws those devastating shots all the time. Even if the comeback never happened fans would still hold Big George high regard...like a monster movie. George Foreman was the monster of the 70s. He's not overrated, head to head he is a problem. Take some of the elite heavyweights in history and throw them in with Foreman. With the right game plan a couple of them when pull out a win. They'll pay to learn.
Not at all. I'm really confused how he thinks a low IQ fighter went the distance with Ali 3x (arguably winning 2/3), beat Young in a chess match, and nearly beat a prime Holmes in an extremely close fight. Low IQ fighters don't do that. This whole thread reeks of agenda. He hasn't given Foreman any credit for anything and it's extremely easy to make a thread like this for any boxer. By his logic, Foreman was in the right place at the right time, all his best wins were against opponents tailor made for him and all his losses are inexcusable.