Foreman vs Walcott, who wins?

He could not repeat what Ali did though.

 

I think the difference between Ali and Walcott would be Walcott hit much harder with both hands and Walcott while having a good chin would never lay on the ropes-Rope-a-dope...Walcott would use movement and pin-point punching....but in all fairness to Walcott a fighter like Foreman who could only fight 6 rds would not have been able to make it to a title fight in his day, he would have been cut-off on his way and would not have the benefit of the Olympic build-up in the 1940-1950's..Foreman fought mostly stiffs until Frazier minus a few..Foreman was a 4-6 rd beast that could KO anyone but having the knowledge like Ali did that those heavy arms and wide swings would become slow motion swings Walcott would be encouraged to use the one of the best set of legs of all-time and crisp pin-point punching to bring big George down

 

ali went to the ropes cuz foreman was good at cutting of the ring. young foreman is going to catch you in the first few rounds. ali had to be at the top of his game and adapt, take big shots to beat a young peak foreman. i think he will stop most atg's early cuz he's going to land big shots. i pick walcott over old george but not the young version who destroyed frazier and norton.

 

walcott clowns both versions of foreman.

 

There's a very select few who could beat a physically prime Foreman and Walcott is not one of them, George is just too big and strong. He has a better chance with the older version though.

 

Walcott would kill the older foreman

 

Seriously doubt that.

He would win a wide decision, maybe even a shutout.

But I see nothing in Walcott or Foreman that would indicate a stoppage here.


And I would favour Young (Pre-Ali) Foreman by KO.

Early.

 

I agree with what you said before you backed out on your comment here. Sometimes sheep really are asking for it and the Welsh are the only ones who can see it. It's not germane to the conversation but I do agree regardless. (Was this meant to go on a lounge thread?)

 

The Welsh too ???

 

Same here.

 

Young Foreman wins by knockout early. Old Foreman gets U.D.

 

Foreman's great strength as the young terror was in his absolute disregard for quarrel. He gave you next to no respect, and that is a very dangerous mindset to boast if you can back it up like he could.

George could box rather well when he put it all together before exploding i.e. Chuvalo, but Walcott would assuredly delve him into a fruitless game of cat-n'-mouse if he choose to go down that route. He would need to push him back and force the mistakes as soon as possible; the more he hesitates the more tired he gets, and the easier everything will become for Walcott to condemn Foreman’s ensuing predictability as he wheezes through sloppy efforts.

The fight is likely won in those tender, early moments, where either Foreman closes the deal after barging in or Walcott survives and starts to shift his way towards a frustrating decision or possible late stoppage.

Taking into account both the bludgeoning abilities of Foreman, and Walcott's understated resilience, this is a tough call. Can Foreman catch that slippery phantom clean?

 

When I say "Kill", I am implying a wide unanimous decision win. :good

 

Walcott was plenty strong and fast, with good enough footwork and boxing skill to outbox Foreman and win a decision in either bout. Only problem is Foreman was so darn big and strong that if he can catch up with him and nail him on that chin, Walcott is probably a goner. But who knows if he does that. I think the young ferocious Foreman who was pretty good at cutting guys off has more of a chance to catch up with him, but the old Foreman simply did not have the punch volume, speed, or footwork to catch Walcott. Old Foreman had major troubles with footwork, so I give Joe the edge to outpoint him, but young Foreman was much better at cutting off the ring, so I could see young George possibly taking him out.

 

If Marciano could knock him out then Foreman would do it sooner. Foreman in 1 round.