Foreman vs Walcott

I'm surprised that as many people are picking Walcott. Normally when discussing this particular match-up I'd have to point out that Walcott with his superior skill would have a very good chance against Foreman on his best night.

Both were inconsistent though, Walcott even more so. He was overwhelmed a couple of times and could be knocked out.

I would favour Foreman's size and power over Walcott's skills but Walcott could pull it off.

What Foreman's conquerors (and those who had success against him but eventually fell under his power) all had in common was that they were able to counter his wide punches off the ropes. None of them could truly outbox him in traditional fashion by jabbing, moving and countering (I'm not talking about 40+ year old George who did not care to chase down his opponents).

Prime Foreman cut off the ring and used his jab to devastating effect. It was when he would start mindlessly slugging his still-standing opponents that he exposed himself to being countered (as seen against Lyle, Ali, Young, even Peralta and Frazier II).

Walcott could fight and counter off the ropes as seen against Marciano in the first fight but the times he did were also the times when he was hit with the biggest punches of the fight, especially in the 13th round. He had success off the ropes against Louis as well but again, the times he was in most trouble were the times he was fighting against the ropes.

 

Edited. Don't be ashamed. :yep


That was one hell of a post from him, though. And i'm glad to see that other people recognize Walcott's ability and style. If this thread was made when i just joined this board in 2005, then it would've been a whitewash in favor of Foreman.

 

How many think Young would have beaten the pre-rumble Foreman of say, 1973 ?

 

I do. A lot of people think Foreman left part of him in the ring, mentally, in Zaire. And certainly there's truth to that. But there's also truth to the fact that before the Ali fight, his defence was already wide open, his balance was very shaky and his skills in general were very weak, compensated by huge punching power and and special talent to often be able to land shots despite looking amateur-ish.

His opposition pre-73 didn't consist of those to take advantage of that. Chuvalo is just a class lower. Frazier's best attributes never became a factor and all of his worst attributes were fully exploited by Foreman's style. Norton could've done the job, if he had a chin.

I'm convinced that had the '77 Young been in Norton's shoes in '73, he would've beaten Foreman by the same near-shutout decision, or perhaps even by TKO if Foreman wasted his energy the way he did against Ali.

 

This is a fabulous match-up. I hate I'm joining the discussion so late. It is difficult for me to come up with a consistent vision for this fight.

Foreman telegraphed most of his punches, but his strength and chin allowed him to keep clubbing until he got the chance to connect somewhere. Foreman also had the kind of power to make someone stand still after getting hit. Foreman has always had that jab, and he did cut the ring off rather well for someone with such crude technique.

Walcott is a boxer of a caliber that Foreman never faced, technique wise. For those that are going to start yelling that Ali was the best ever, remember I do rate him as the best ever above 200. Ali did not possess the skill set of Walcott. Ali used his speed to avoid Foreman and land first when he could. Ali just sucked it up like few could the part of the time that plan wasn't working. Walcott would be using angles, head movement, and looking for ways to turn an onrushing Foreman in order to thwart his power. Walcott would be trying to make the sweat fly with clean counters as long as the fight would last.

Walcott possessed the skills needed to defeat Foreman. The problem for Walcott is that he could not make any mistakes. One is all it would take for Foreman to violently end to this encounter.

Young George used a lot of energy during his bouts. There is little chance for him to make a snap shot like the 14 round ko by Marciano if the fight goes past 6.

I am usually biased to the smaller fighter, especially one with better technique. I'll go with Walcott by decision. I don't have any problem with those picking Foreman, I may pick him tomorrow.

 

I hear what you're saying regarding Foreman's shortcomings.

But I also feel that one can't underestimate the degree of mental damage Ali inflicted on Big George by defeating him in Zaire.

And this also worked to Young's benefit in two ways.

1. Foreman suffered a psychological blow that hurt his confidence.

2. Young realized the man was beatable. (And for many of us who watched Foreman demolish Frazier, he appeared pretty much invincible).

That would have played on Young's mind too. While he may have had the tools, and while George may have had the exploitable flaws, the persona George projected was formidable. Pretty close to Listonesque and more fearsome than Tyson was later.

Suddenly, he was shown to be beatable. It happened once, so Jimmy could do it again.

So much of the game is psychological. Ali got into George's head. Young was not Ali.

I seriously doubt that the 1977 version of Young (unaware of what was to happen in 1974) would have survived the 1973 version of Big George.

 

Walcott was a great technician but not durable enough to hang in there too long with Big George.

Foreman KO 4 Walcott

 

Muhammad Ali and Jimmy Young defeated Foreman because they had both the boxing ability and the durability to do so. While Jersey certainly had a bit of both himself, it wasn't to the degree that the other two had. Ali was the greatest heavyweight boxer who ever lived and who's chin survived the test of countless punchers. Young was a slickster who would have been a pain in almost anyone's ass, and let's not forget about the version of George that he fought who was throwing up and seeing Jesus in the locker room afterwards. Walcott would not be able to just dance circles around Foreman, and nor would he be able to take his shots for very long. People all too easily fall under the misconception that just because Ali and Young beat the man that anyone who has reasonable footwork and a halfway decent jab could. It works both ways however. Plain and simple, Walcott lost to the vast majority of the big punchers he fought.

 

Foreman doesn't lose to guys 6' tall and 195 pounds..... Walcott was great, but also a Cruiserweight by today's standard..... Plus, yes, Walcott had been dropped and stopped by "Louis & Marciano" on THREE occasions..... If Foreman has his jab working well, he beats Walcott over 10 rds..... Maybe even by KO.?.? Walcott has NO CHANCE at stopping Foreman.... Boxing would be Walcott's key......

MR.BILL

 

I scarcely see the point in debating these topics with you again. However, let's stick to OBJECTIVE facts rather than your perjoratives and relativist debating-club rhetoric: what was it about Young that led to him defeating Foreman so decisively in 1977?

 

Indeed. This is why boxers are generally matched prime-for-prime in head-to-head hypotheticals. Otherwise, one could have Jesse Willard vs. Mike Tyson and claim that Tyson would have no chance because of his loss to McBride!

 

Look at the Young fight again: Young isn't countering off of the ropes (though he did that in some other fights) but instead he's... Jabbing, moving and countering. He's not DANCING (a ridiculous strategy in such a hot environment) since Foreman, who moved very well for a big man, could easily march him down like he did against Ali in the first round of the Rumble.

Instead, Young opted to move in an old-school way: always keep moving just enough to keep your opponent from planting his feet; slip to one side or the other without ever telegraphing the direction; keep on balance at all times in preparation to counter; keep the hands up; keep in a position to punch at all times. It takes outrageous skill to pull off such a strategy at a world-class level, but Young managed to do it against one of the most fearsome boxers of a generation.