Basically George Foreman vs Joe Louis in a nutshell...

Joe Louis got knocked down a few times but he was fighting the best boxers in the world from 1934 through 1949. That is a long time at the top of the heap.

George Foreman was dropped a few times himself and he was only near the top of the division for a fraction of the time Louis was.
Foreman is the one that will be eating the cleaner shots, not to mention combinations. Louis's hands were much quicker, his punches shorter and sharper with superior accuracy. Joe was clinical.

Yeah George was tough and he may take some leather and keep pressing forward for awhile. He's not walking through Louis.

 

Respectfully, I think some in this thread may be giving the patience, ring IQ, and chin of old Foreman to young Foreman. Remember the first time Foreman fought a guy who could really bang (and hit him with it)? Think Ron Lyle hit harder than Louis? Think Louis isn't a better finisher than Ron Lyle?

Yes, if you COULD give the patience, ring IQ, and chin of old Foreman to young Foreman, he would be a monster. But the two men never existed at the same time.

 

Louis had a well proven record of getting off the canvas and winning the fight. Norton had a proven record of being destroyed by big punchers. This isn't a great comparison.

 

Good points but young George was only dropped twice, in his losses.

even so, I never thought much of 1930s, 1940s heavyweights anyways

they were not much larger than those heavyweights of the early 1900s, nowhere near the size and power of Foreman

and although at the top for a year and a half, that is irrelevant. Frazier had been champ longer than George but that fact could not save Joe.

I admit, Louis is the better technician, and will land the more accurate shots but George would just pick off most while pounding Joe's body and arms.

He WILL eventually get to him and Joe becomes much less effective while hurt. I saw it in the Schmeling fight. He wont be able to get the fight long before getting caught.

Just a handful of clubbing blows and he'll get wobbled. A couple of follow up right hands and he'll be finished for the night

Joe would do better against Ali.

 

I overthink H2Hs honestly when the gap in time is so immense. Like who's to say Louis wouldn't be bigger in Foremans time or vice versa? I know most would just pick them from when they fought but there's so many factors to consider as to why that's difficult for me.

For fun, Louis doesn't move like Ali or is as elusive as Young to deal with Foreman in the way they did. Not saying he can't win but I still would favor Foreman by a hair. The referee would play a factor too regarding Foremans pushing.

 

Foreman was stopped once in eighty one fights.

 

Lol Tony Galento, Abe Simon, and Buddy Baer were not the best in the world. Neither was Braddock despite being champion. He was an Arthritic who hadn’t fought in two years.

 

The Foreman slander. Big George is massively underrated in this thread. He could whup the Brown Bomber's ten best opponents within a calendar year.

 

I dont need to see more of Louis! He was dropped enough times

 

that's right, didnt Jimmy also drop Joe early in their match?

I shudder to think what Big George would have done to him.

 

Two ATG HW Champs. I'm going with Joe Louis

 

^ I'm sticking with Foreman. Hell yeah!

 

Yeah he dropped Louis in the first round

 

Prime Foreman too big, too strong, too powerful