Was George Foreman REALLY any better than the likes of Sam Peter?

Lets be serious, Peter had a better jab

 

:huh Peter pushes his jab out and falls off balance when he moves forward with it (yes, he falls off balance performing one of the most basic moves in boxing). Foreman's was like a sledgehammer. No contest.

 

^^^^This^^^^Before I got the internet, I was only able to watch a handful of Marciano fights which my grandpa had converted to VHS back in the late 70s. Same goes for Louis, Charles, Robinson, Liston, Patterson and Ali Foreman, Frazier and granddads favorite Ronny Lyle.
I grew up in a S Chicago house where boxing was what you watched. Every big fight was a family reunion, and the VHS tapes are literally filling my front closet to this date. (My wife pissed and moans about it b/c she had her childhood videos combined onto ONE dvd...... and I got a closet full of old fight footage and a shelf full of DVDs of fights from the 90s and 00s till present.)

Anyhoo.....Now that I'm online, I can go and watch any old fight there is, and going back, watching the Louis fights, or the Charles' fights or the old Liston fights, especially Patterson, you can see that Liston was a CRUDE as they come slugger. Technician type counterpunchers like Holyfield(prime) and Haye would destroy the likes of the Ezzard Charles's and the Marcianos and Louis's of the HW division.

Sadly though for many, they are blinded by their hatred for anything new, and refuse to accept the greatness of boxing since guys like Ray Leonard and Diwght Qwari, and Evander Holyfield transformed the sweet science into a painful art exhibit.

 

bubby!

welcome back

hows it feel to be the laughing stock on esb?!

got any more gems for us?
i suppose you want to suggest that eddie chambers is better than joe frazier?

 

Are you talking about the same Sam Peter who never ever heard of a straight punch?

lol...

 

What........the.........****.......

 

:good

 

The bad part is, those comparisons don't tell any kind of story about the two in terms of who was better. That's determined by their fights.

 

Peters is better than Foreman because he destroyed Vitali and Wladmir in 2 rounds.

Whereas Foreman got his ass handed to him by Frazier and Norton.

Foreman is irrelevant to the division, whereas Peters could come back at the age of 45 and still hang tough.

 

Jesus wept...

 

Foreman had more power than Peter and Wlad and Vitali. Better chin than Peter as well. Foreman is an all time great. He would kill Sam Peter in 5 rounds. He would kill Wlad Klitschko in 3 rounds and score a late TKO over Vitali. Foreman was one of the greatest. Only Ali could beat prime Foreman.

 

/ thread

 

Foreman had height, a jab, unsurpassed physical strength, good footwork, focus, and in later years, great stamina. Peter and Foreman are similar fighters, yes, but one is vastly superior to the other. Peter is more in the company of Shavers here.