In contrast to the Bonehugger Dance, I don´t see it going to the cards this time. Early Tyson was a "hit and don´t get hit" fighter (when he sniffed too much power). Foreman wasn´t like that. He was used to force fighters back, make them lose their balance and/or reeling back. He fought fire with fire. Who can blame him, beeing the brightest torch on the battlefield? But eventually someone with a roaring blaze would come and echo the same tactics. Fighting fire with even more gasoline. And he came by the name of Ronald Lyle! I believe there aren´t many boxers able to brawl and out-strength it with 70s Foreman. Liston. Maybe Ruddock. Young AJ and Bruno to a lesser extent. Bowe, Lewis and Vitali could, but would box him. In fact I think strong crude, but durable Bonecrusher is the perfect fighter to try it. Even better might be Ibeabuchi.
The only boxer puncher where prime George struggels with would be Liston (50/50). Maybe Witherspoon also (kinda 70/30). I guess the Lyle brawl was just an "accident". So i say Foreman wins at least 90 out of 100 times.
It's a funny thing. We have plenty of evidence to suggest standing toe to toe or at least up close with George is a very valid option. Boxing him negative is easier but Lyle got to him with a very basic skill set and hurt him bad enough to finish. Ali was right in front of him on the ropes catching his shots and hitting up with rear hands at will. The two guys he made his bones off for that wrecking ball rep were a very fragile come forward fighter and a just about shot Frazier who treated him with the same amount of respect as his last two sad defences coming in about 10lbs heavier? Someone who could see the windmills coming, box, last and hurt him like say Weaver, Louis or Witherspoon could've taken him out rather methodically I reckon. Note I'm not keen on Weaver just an archetype example.
There are more than 70+ George Foreman fights. Ali was the only one who manage to stall by wrestling and he had to take an insane amount of punishment to the body while also having the benefit of loose ropes and muggy heat to drain Foreman. In addition to that, Ali did manage to block or roll with many of Foreman's power punches while mixing his wrestling with superb counters and flurries in between. Show me a single instance of someone beating Foreman by stalling with wrestling the way Smith did.
Problem: Young Foreman didn't fight many contenders, period. Old Foreman paced himself well, so it doesn't really apply to him. Lyle didn't hang on Foreman because he chose a shootout instead. And nearly won. Young was small and chose a different route. Ali we already know. Peralta was small, and didn't try this approach. Norton didn't do anything like what Bonecrusher did to Tyson. Also not a durable, hard puncher himself. Frazier tried to swarm Foreman. The only fighter comparable to Bonecrusher -- a big, strong, hard punching guy who could have given it a shot -- was Lyle. Who chose a different route. And also nearly beat Foreman. That's all I can tell you. EDIT: I guess maybe Chuvalo could've given it a shot, but did he? I don't think so.
No offense but you completely missed my point. In more than 70+ professional bouts, nobody thought wrestling with Foreman was a smart idea or attempted it other than Ali, which had many unique circumstances I already covered. And Lyle was a better fighter than Smith. It's a gross oversimplification to say Lyle nearly beat Foreman and Smith was similar therefore Smith could win. The only instance we have of Smith slugging it out with a big guy his own size was Ruddock and he got destroyed. He didn't exactly win with his clinching tactics against Tyson did he? Why do boxing forum posters use instances of a boxer losing to support their argument? It's Samuel Peter all over again.
No offense taken. Yes, I was responding to that point. Very few people would be capable of wrestling with Foreman and winning anyway. There are a couple contenders who might have the combination of physical abilities to do it. That was why I talked about fights where Foreman actually faced peer opponents. Second: Foreman didn't have 70+ fights in his first career. That's the period we are talking about. Foreman fixed some of the stamina/pacing issues that got him in trouble in Zaire by his second career, so wrestling him wouldn't be viable for second career opponents anyway. Of the remaining first career fights, how sure are you that nobody tried to wear him down by wrestling him? How many of his fights do we have? Third: As to the unique circumstances of Zaire, I did specify that this is a 1974 Zaire scenario. Yeah, probably. But I'm not blown away by Lyle, either. They were both contenders. Neither stood out as great ones, IMO. I said that Smith was more similar to Lyle than Smith was to Norton, Jimmy Young, Peralta, or Frazier. Don't you agree? Of course not. Tyson had better stamina than young Foreman. Bonecrusher Smith's fight plan didn't really have a win condition against Tyson. But it showed that Smith could sometimes stall it out past the rounds where Foreman had trouble. Because losses can show us things about a fighter's abilities. For example: Shavers's power is often attested to by fighters who beat him. Shavers knocked down Holmes in a fight Shavers lost. But Holmes winning the decision didn't suddenly make the knockdown un-happen, or retroactively erase the evidence of Shavers's punching power. I reject the idea that we can't learn positive things about a fighter's abilities from a fight he lost.
True i can't remember much about it really, only seen it once when I was going through Larry Holmes career set years ago. Just remember the ending and that was it, couldn't of been much of a fight, because don't remember anything about it that stood out.
Literally only Peralta went 10 rounds with first career Foreman. He had a 90% KO ratio and the vast majority of opponents didn't make it past the 3rd round. So clearly employing wrestling didn't give them any sort of edge. I have seen every available fight that has footage. Scott Ledoux tried that wrestling **** and Foreman took him up on the challenged and humbled him immediately. This content is protected I'm not blown away by Lyle either. I'm just saying he's more well rounded than Smith and those skills are what helped him against Foreman. Lyle has a good jab, is a better inside fighter, can throw a counter right hand over the opponents jab, can throw 4+ punch combinations. Smith was an incredibly simple and straightforward fighter even compared to Lyle which is saying something. As I said in my first post Smith is outgunned against Foreman. Foreman can do everything he can and more. It's a pretty easy matchup to guess unless Smith lands the proverbial punchers chance or Foreman has constipation from too many burgers. See above. The crucial difference is Lyle had more tools. Lyle was also a lot braver (dumber?) than every single Foreman opponent and was willing to go to war. Smith wasn't willing to open up against Tyson and got blasted out against Ruddock when he did open up against the only other big hitter his own size. Bruno was a miracle late round KO which is astronomically unlikely in this match up. Also crucially, if you watch the Foreman vs Lyle match, it was the counter right hands over Foremans pawing jab that led to Lyle damaging Foreman enough to knock him down. Zaire Foreman would not be using a half assed boxer puncher stance using a pawing jab, unsure of himself, with Gil Clancy in his corner. He would be on a seek and destroy full of confidence. So if you insist on comparing Smith to Lyle you would have to show me footage of Smith countering a jab with right hands. If he doesn't mind peeing blood from body shots he can go right ahead and clinch all night to stall. Smith didn't have a quarter of Ali's wrestling finesse or ability to roll with shots and he still took heavy damage to the body while tying Foreman up. I get that, but other than catching a relatively inexperienced Bruno late, when did Smith dig deep to win a brutal war? All the Tyson fight proves is that Smith had the strength and clinching ability to survive at the elite level and that doesn't mean much because even if Foreman can't KO him he'll win an incredibly wide decision because Smith isn't firing back. That's a bit different from bringing up Shavers knocking down an opponent and than losing because punching power is an x factor that could lead to Shavers winning at any point. Smith being able to clinch well probably won't lead to Smith winning unless he can drag Foreman into deep waters and that simply isn't happening for the reasons I've highlighted.
This is something I really don't get. Smith is very slow and very simple fighter. He didn't do anything exceptional. On top of that, his size advantage wouldn't be that much - likely less than an inch in height and around 10 lbs. Smith is extremely overrated on this board. I don't really understand why, but maybe because of his nickname?
