George Foreman's KO fight against SHW Jack O'Halloran

Totally agree.

The opposing methods employed to unjustly diminish Foreman scream of confirmation bias (attempting to find perceived exceptions to the far more exemplified rule and trying to severely overweight same) and the unrealistic application of hyper-criticisms otherwise.

It’s become so ridiculous that some try to almost suggest that basically every man and his dog could have done what Ali did in Zaire - such are their unyielding attempts to discredit George.

 

Canelo is without a doubt a much better combination puncher than Louis ever was, let’s be real. He’s also a much better body puncher, and his defense is better than Louis’s. All due respect to Louis.

 

I am being real.

Canelo was schooled by Mayweather, Bivol, and had very dodgy decisions against Lara, Trout, hell even the Cotto fight is iffy according to some people. Nearly any time he stepped up against an elite boxer with skills, he struggled or lost. The Golovkin trilogy, Saunders, and Jacobs are like the only elite world class fighters you can point to where Canelo really cemented himself displaying hall of fame level skill. I mean if you want to be generous you can add Charlo (who just showed up for a payday fighting or survive) or a very inexperienced Plant.

Louis separated himself from his peers for 25 title defenses. Any close matches, he settled things with brutal revenge KO rematches.

In terms of pure skills,again, Louis had him beat in everything except body shots. Show me the fight where Canelo

-Shows a better jab than Louis
-Better timing
-Better accuracy
-Better ring IQ
-Better combination punching.

Show me. I want a specific fight with time stamps.

 

Yeah, every single accomplishment of George somehow gets twisted with revisionist nonsense to discredit him.

-Wepner and Jack aren't proof he could deal with a height and reach advantage because they were bums
-The Chuvalo stoppage is overblown and isn't enough proof he could stop tough durable opponents because Chuvalo wasn't all that great
-He only KO'd Frazier because Ali softened him up for him and Frazier was simply past his best.
-Norton? Overrated journeyman who got tons of mileage out of the Ali win. He was tailor made for Foreman and was gifted a belt.
-Ali exposed him. Any skilled tough opponent with good stamina who could clinch would've done the same.
-Yeah, yeah, Foreman took on the dangerous Lyle after a loss and inactivity, but Lyle ALMOST beat him, so that's all we should focus on.
-Cooney was old, nevermind the fact Foreman was even older.
-Moorer was there for the taking, anyone could've landed that lucky right hand.
-Briggs deserved the win, he beat Foreman fair and square.

 

Thanks for posting that. Those are my sentiments exactly.

George Foreman is a legend and his achievements will stand for all of history. We should be celebrating the guy instead of trying to discredit what he, and only he could have done.

 

Preach!!

 

GEE I DON'T KNOW, GENIUS. Wasn't it YOU that said

"a poor man's dollar store impression of Mayweather with head movement and counters?"

Wow, you are starting well. You walked right into that.

Wow, ok challenge accepted! Here ya go:

This content is protected

Oh ... wait ... you didn't watch the video did you? Did you just wake up? Feels like it.

Let's be honest for a second: there's a few levels of difference between slipping the punches of an operator like Jacobs and a big meatball like Galento, who said himself that he trained on beer and spaghetti for that fight.

But I guess that Louis wasn't even able to evade Galento's crude swipes. Maybe Louis wasn't ready.

That's it!

Next time Galento needed to send Joe an engraved plaque duly informing him that a great big slow left hook was about to sit him on his ass.

It's only fair!

STOP PRESS!

Where do you get this notion from? Golovkin's KO rate is 88%. Galento struggles to make 70%.

Let's address this issue, which seems to me to be the crux of the matter.

Classic struggles with this concept, which is the reason why I started the whole Louis vs Golovkin story in the first place.

What makes you think Galento hits harder than Golovkin?

 

Flatlined Don Barry who hadn't been stopped prior in 50+ fights. We have examples of guys at a big weight disadvantage hitting harder than their opps at heavyweight because the heavier someone is the less each pound contribites to the overall mass because of percentages, it's just math. It's diminishing returns

 

So you are making the argument that Golovkin would or could hit harder than Galento because the weight simply doesn't mean that much. Have I got it right?

 

Not really

Diminishing returns become apparent after around 200 pounds. Dubois hit harder than Miller while at a 100 pound disadvantage and TKO'd him. That weight difference would never happen below heavyweight

 

Something magical about 200lbs, is there? Is there some sort of scientific basis for this assertion?

 

Science as in observation ? Yes. Several ranging from 200-230lb have won whilst at a weight disadvantage of at least 20+ pounds. How many below 200 pounds have overcome that kind of weight ?

 

I'd like to see the studies that you are drawing this from. I mean, unless you are just straight up inventing stuff.

 

The nessecary data is available for everyone to see, if you were a boxing fan you wouldn't even be asking this. How many boxers below 200 pounds have overcome a 20 pound weight disadvantage ? I guarantee the sample size will cluster near 200 pounds and much more above it if you look at it historically.

 

Canelo's pinky has more boxing skill than Louis' whole body.