Am I the only one who just can't watch George in his prime?

The '80s saw contenders like Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page, Tim Witherspoon, Buster Douglas and Tony Tucker. Talent wise, the only fighters '70s Foreman fought as champ compared to them were Norton (chinny), Ali and Young, with the latter two resulting in losses. Lyle was a middling talent at best in terms of boxing skills and had he not fought the stupidest fight in boxing history, he could have defeated Big George. He had Foreman reeling but decided to stand and trade with one of the hardest punchers to ever grace the ring.

And Foreman got robbed against Shannon f'in Briggs, got a gift against Axel Shulz and went tooth and nail against Alex Stewart and Lou Savarese.

 

Wtf, Wlad mulit-faceted?

There was nothing basic with Joe's defence. It was very much superior to Wlad's. Chuvalo had him as the best defensive fighter he met. And Frazier showed in the rematch against Foreman that he had other aspects to his game, but when you're shorter than your opponents the natural thing is to crowd them.

You seem a bit hung up on what Foreman did as that is something anyone could do, when in fact no one else did anything like that to Frazier.

And what then about Tyson, who got pasted by both Douglas and Holy? You really hang everything up on one opponent.

Your reasoning is that Frazier wasn't that hard to beat because Foreman beat him so thoroughly, and therefore Foreman's win isn't that impressive. I e since Foreman beat him it isn't really that a good win for Foreman. That is what we call circular logic, my friend.

 

Wlad was far more effective defensively. Yes, it was due to height, range, and clinching, but it is what it is.

 

Are you an alt for No Neck?

Because all you do there is just state what you personally think without anything to back it up, just like No Neck. There is no reasoning, no facts, nothing to your post. It's just "this is what I think and therefore that is what it is".

Do you even know that Joe Bugner beat Page in the 80's?

As I said, the plain fact is that 70's fighters could compete in the 90's, long past their primes. Something that can't be said of any 80's fighters. Those are facts that directly contradicts what you say of the 70's. What you personally feel is immaterial.

 

Wlad could fight at a distance, control with his jab, had two-fisted power and a very formidable defense after he finally perfected his craft.

And how was Joe's defense "very much superior" to Wlad's? Wlad at his defensive best barely got hit. The same could not be said for Joe, who caught many a punch by many an opponent.

And how many big punchers did Frazier face? Had he fought the likes of Lyle and Shavers, it would have given us a better perspective on his ability to take a shot. Unfortunately, he didn't and the only elite puncher he fought was Foreman who mopped the floor with him, and that's all we have to go by.

 

You don't seem to know much about boxing. You really should study up before you make claims about ATGs.

Wlad had height, reach, timing and huge power. That made him very hard to get to. But there's nothing multi-facted about being tall. His defence was to grab and lean back if he had to. He didn't slip and counter or even block much. He is the antitheses to mulit-faceted. He was very good at using the advatanges he had, which is a different thing.

Don't know if Lyle was a bigger puncher than Bonavena and Quarry. Quarry definitely took out Shavers with less fuss than Lyle did and Bonavena hurt Ali way worse than Lyle did.

Anyhow, just because Joe didn't face them, isn't the same as he'd lose to them.

 

Is the hostility really necessary? And I am simply giving you my opinion -- at no point have I ever said I was arguing objective facts.

And I was talking about prime Page. Bugner beat Page when he clearly didn't give a f*ck and had been fairly stagnant. A year earlier he had lost to a very uninspired Mark Wills -- do you believe Page of 1980-1982 would have lost that fight?

And what do you mean it can't be said for any '80s fighters? Tyson and Holyfield were competing well into the 2000s.

 

I'm not going to argue with you if you're going to use ad hominems. Not worth either of our time. Fun while it lasted, though.

 

Yeah, kind of. If you say great fighters "lacked rudimentary skill" and have nothing to back it up I think it's fair that you get called on it here in Classic. There's always General for pointless hyperbole.

And you of course completely fail to acknowledge how very past it Bugner was. You're not going to get any respect here when you have such a biased take on everything.

Tyson was retired 20 years into his pro career. At a point where Foreman was at the start of his comeback and Holmes (who became a pro at a relatively old age) ran McCall close. Holy didn't have one good one win 20 years into his pro career, but he did have a good showing against Valuev, I'd say.

 

While I do lean towards that earlier Page, it's hard to forget his being firmly beaten by a Berbick who'd been practically shut out by Holmes the year before.

Page was inconsistent and just plain not really great from the start imo.

No offense meant.

 

Fair enough. I could have expressed that in a nicer tone. But I do recommend a bit more humility in your approach.

 

Foreman had a singular good win 20+ years into his career, and he was losing the fight. I guess you could count barely beating Savarese and Stewart.

McCall, the guy who reminds me of Foreman, beat Oquendo in 2010 and a 12-0 Marvin Rekowski in 2014.

 

Absolutely none taken, and you make a good point: Page had always been fairly inconsistent. I sort of look at Page through rose-tinted glasses as his early fights (like against Coetzee and Evangelista) are some of my favorites. At his absolute peak, he was sort of my ideal fighter: Ali-esque footwork and handspeed but with good power in both hands. Admittedly I've always been prone to that style, which explains my distaste for crude sluggers.

 

I found the instance in which Pacheco unequivocally called Frazier “dumb” in the absolute sense. Sure, he had said nice, respectful things re Frazier in the past, but as with a lot of people as they age, their “filters” erode - a very stupid and untrue thing for Pacheco to have said any rate, imo. Pacheco was a smart enough man himself to know better. Go to 1:11:50

This content is protected

 

I'd agree. His defense in those fights is surprisingly effective. His leverage blocks, parrying, side stepping and reflexes all at their best. Foreman is interesting, in his prime he generally fought in the old long guard style which even then was seen as outdated but boy he made it work. Some of those wide shots he threw were designed so the opponent would see them coming and thus would walk into his next one.