Prime George Foreman vs Zhang

Sure, ok, then, let's address the actual footage.
1) Ted Gullick is 200lb soaking wet. That is microbial by modern heavyweight standards. In fact, he's a cruiser. Foreman has a 20lb weight advantage on him and it clearly shows in the way that he is able to shove him about and make him respect his power. Funny thing is when I was a kid all the "special combos" I invented worked on my kid brother who was half my size. But it can't be because I was much bigger. No, I was actually a fighting genius!
2) Ted Gullick sucks balls as a fighter. He never beat a fighter that had any sort of a name and furthermore a good deal of his wins were against opponents with a losing record. He contrived to lose to end-of-the-road Cleveland Williams who had, iirc literally been shot by that point in addition to being shot.
3) Zhang would have 2-3 times the weight advantage on Foreman that Foreman had on Gullick. Good luck in shoving Zhang all night to reset him. But I guess on Classic FORTEman would manhandle Zhang because he could lift livestock.
4) Foreman is actually slower than Zhang in this footage. He never was the swiftest fighter but usually made up for it through his strength and being able to manhandle opponents. I think that Zhang's straighter, faster and heavier punches would pose a significant problem for Foreman, whose gameplan of bullying lil Gullick would be warped out of proportion due to Zhang's size and skill.

 

Well these cases were pretty rare but if you want to make yourself feel all intellectual and stuff by all means pretend everyone did it and everything back then was prehistoric and ineffective. Then go and watch Duran from half a century ago before slapping on some SRR from almost three quarters of a century ago and revel in their ineffectiveness comparative to today.

 

OK so then you are agreeing that Foreman was significantly smaller than Zhang and that trying to take an imaginary version that was not dehydrated is bogus reasoning?

 

Strawman. I never put forward any finessed version of Foreman. Didn't even come close and for mine don't need to.

 

If you didn't others are.

 

1) "Microbial" blown up cruisers such as Holyfield, and Usyk, Haye and Byrd won straps in recent times. Last I checked, Byrd won his strap by beating your 6'7, 240+ homie Vitali Klitschko. Not sure how that's a valid argument at all. Foreman was able to use effective defense on various 220+ HWs including Frazier, Lyle, Ledoux, Gordwin, etc.

He demolished

6'5, 219 Ollie Wilson
5'10, 235 Samford Harris
6'6 235 Jack Ohalloran
6'5 221 Chuck Wepner

Clearly, simply being tall or heavy is not going to save you from Foreman's power, nor will the height difference prevent him from reaching your jaw.

2) Never said Gullick was some amazing world beater. Would you say Frazier or Norton sucked...? Because Foreman displayed good defense in those fights and made it look easy, parrying their shots, guard manipulation, etc. You're also forgetting that smaller fighters are often faster than bigger ones and you better believe many of Foreman's best opponents were significantly faster than Zheng. He'd have a field day landing on him and evading his shots if he can time the quick hands of Smoking Joe Frazier.

This content is protected

3) Foreman didn't need to shove Zheng back or charge in head on. He could use his jab, pivot with lateral movement, and counter at times. He could also rip away with some of the strongest body shots the division has seen and he can't possibly miss the large belly of Zheng, draining his already low stamina. This was one of his best performances in the 70's.

This content is protected

4) Foreman is not slower than Zheng. You are drunk. Ali even said he was surprised by Foreman's speed and ability to cut the ring.

Foreman would have an incredibly easy time landing on Zheng whose huge size could actually be a disadvantage as he's no defensive wizard himself, has slow feet, no head movement, and is wide open for right hands down the middle (as I showed in the Jaun Goode fight) and body shots.

 

Show 'em who's boss

 

To be fair, Zhang is a bit of an old codger.

But that's all the more reason not to big him up as a "New age superheavyweight" (a line that got a genuine LOL from me) and perhaps instead question the state of the division, at the moment.

If Zhang and his relatively modest success at Heavyweight represents what modern methods and nutrition can churn out, there's maybe a lot more to be said about the merits of past approaches.

 

Usyk was heavier than Foreman ffs.

You may want to check some of those weights. These guys were nowhere near Zhang in size either.

A list of ATG heavies especially noted for their skill

Zhang being a distinctly better boxer than Foreman may well be a factor

Foreman was bigger and stronger with a vastly better chin than Frazier who was trying to very unwisely slug with him up close.

Huh, I've never seen "master boxer" versions of Foreman. Seems to me he was best using his size, such as against Chuvalo who gave up significant size in their fight.

I forget about Ali's famous bout against Zhang in '72. Clearly Ali's opinion is gold here.

Zhang would have an incredibly easy time landing on Foreman who was slow, had average footwork at best, was not very good defensively and whose wide looping punches would not only be easier to anticipate and absorb, but which would be beaten to the target by Zhang's own stright ones down the pipe. If you want I can write a whole imaginary matchup about this to trump your write up. What round do you want Zhang to KO Foreman in?

 

"Zhang being a distinctly better boxer than Foreman may well be a factor"

Oh my.

"Zhang would have an incredibly easy time landing on Foreman who was slow, had average footwork at best, was not very good defensively and whose wide looping punches would not only be easier to anticipate and absorb, but which would be beaten to the target by Zhang's own stright ones down the pipe. If you want I can write a whole imaginary matchup about this to trump your write up. What round do you want Zhang to KO Foreman in?"

Your villany knows no bounds.

 

Just wanted to check, this is 41 year old Zhang who has never been in a title fight yeah?

This is 41 year old Zhang who hasn’t fought a top 3 fighter?

This is 41 year old Zhang who just lost to Joseph Parker?

Is this who you think has any remote chance of beating George Foreman? I sure hope you are talking about someone else because if this is the Zhang you are referring to then you’re a bona fide moron.

 

By far the dumbest point you've attempted to make in this thread.

Usyk's weight in 5 of his best fights

Chisora (217), 221 (Joshua 1&2), Dubois (221), Fury (223)

Average: 221

Foreman's weight in 5 of his best fights

217 (Frazier 1), 224 (Norton), 226 (Lyle), 224 (Fraizer 2), 231 (Dennis)

Average: 224

By what metrics do you figure Usyk is heavier or bigger than Foreman? Usyk was a middleweight in the amateurs and moved up from cruiserweight. Foreman was well over 200 in the amateurs and dehydrated himself yet his average weight is higher than Usyk's. Arguing just to argue at this point.

Your point? 30 lbs of fat is going to make Zheng's fists unlockable...?

Foreman's resume in the 70's is 3x better than Zheng.

What makes Zheng a "distinctly better" boxer?

What does Foreman being bigger or stronger have to do with his reflexes to catch hands that were significantly faster than Zheng's? Foreman about the same size as Norton who also has faster hands than Zheng.

If you watched that fight (which you didn't) and came to the conclusion Foreman won just by using his size you are blind. He fought behind a smart jab, controlled the distance, and used his legs.

If Ali says someone is fast, they are fast. You've already disqualified yourself when it comes to math, and now you're disqualifying yourself when it comes to reading comprehension.

Literally all of this is wrong. Foreman has better accuracy, speed, footwork, versatility, is a better finisher, and more experience.

I am 10x the writer you are, so if I wanted to read a story about Zheng winning I could write it myself.

 

Did you notice the new argument for GF? GF now has super "mugger strength and courage." One of the GF Fan Club actually wrote this: "Foreman was only an infamous mugger in one of the worst neighborhoods in America... I'm sure a 40 year old fat guy with a thin resume would have him quaking in his boots."

This poster is saying that any man who will grab a lady's purse or beat up a falling down drunk and take his wallet is brave enough to fight Zhang? Muggers fall into the predator category. Predators are not looking for an even fight, they want the weakest and easiest prey. When some of these posters accidentally tell us what they admire or think is courageous, it explains their perceptions about boxers and boxing. As Tex Cobb told Joan Rivers when she asked him if Rocky was an accurate movie about boxing, Cobb said,"I think it's an accurate portrayal of how an actor thinks a boxer lives."

 

Wasn't Foreman from some hicktown in Texas? Odd place for one of the world's worst neighborhoods.

I'm waiting for the "bone structure" arguments to come out as if they're a bunch on anthropologists.

 

Take a pill my friend this is all hypothetical.