Lennox Lewis (1999) vs. George Foreman (1973)

This fight would be split in series. But lewis could not win every fight against Foreman,noway, George would ko him in some fight, does not matter the first one or the rematch he would finish Lewis. The problem of Lewis is that he should fight his perfect fight to win and Foreman only has to land a few hard shots and cutting the ring .

 

I'd pick Foreman to beat Lewis maybe six times out of ten but a fight in which Foreman may get knocked out himself, if it wasn't for Lewis getting starched by Rahman & McCall i would have picked him most definitely but that chin may not hold up as Foreman was very powerful.

 

I know this is an old thread, but the amount of people saying Lewis would “just clinch Foreman” misunderstanding of what made Foreman dangerous — and an overestimation of what Lewis could actually do against a fighter like him in the clinch.

Lewis was hittable against bigger, stronger men. He never consistently bullied naturally powerful heavyweights in the clinch. He even struggled inside with Holyfield, and Holyfield is nowhere near Foreman in terms of raw strength or inside craft. Foreman is legitimately one of the best clinch fighters in heavyweight history. Neutralizing clinches — and punishing opponents for even attempting them — was a core part of his game.

Foreman didn’t allow tie‑ups. He broke posture, framed with his forearms, pulled opponents off balance, and created angles for brutal short hooks and uppercuts. Clinching Foreman wasn’t a safe zone; it was exactly where he was most dangerous. He used the clinch offensively, not defensively. He was an anti‑clinch master because he understood the clinch better than almost anyone who ever fought at heavyweight.

The idea that Lewis, who struggled inside with strong fighters, is going to clinch his way to victory against Foreman goes directly against one of the things that made Foreman great. Foreman wasn’t just strong — he had elite balance, elite leverage, and elite short‑range punching. He prevented opponents from tying him up, walked them into shots, and punished every attempt to smother him. Clinching Foreman is one of the worst tactical choices Lewis could make. Lewis could attempt to clinch, but he wouldn’t be able to control Foreman or bully him there.

And the weight argument is completely misunderstood. Foreman wasn’t a natural 220‑lb fighter. He had to heavily diet to make those weights because the 1970s philosophy demanded heavyweights stay under 220 to survive 15 rounds. Foreman’s real walk‑around weight in his prime was closer to 235–245. He cut down because being above 220 was considered unprofessional in that era.

Lewis, on the other hand, fought at his natural walk‑around weight. He wasn’t cutting from 265. Foreman was cutting — hard — to get to 217–225. So this isn’t 245 Lewis vs 220 Foreman. It’s 245 Lewis vs a 240‑lb Foreman who dieted down to meet the expectations of his era.

Weight doesn’t equal strength. Plenty of lighter fighters are stronger than heavier ones. Foreman was one of the strongest heavyweights ever — and he himself said he was physically stronger in his youth than he was at 260 during his comeback, even though his functional strength and balance improved later.

Lewis wouldn’t be bullying Foreman in the clinch. He’d be dealing with a man who had a far more sophisticated inside game, far better balance, and far more dangerous short punches. Foreman’s clinch mastery is one of the most overlooked parts of his style — and it’s exactly why the “Lewis will just clinch him” argument doesn’t hold up

 

People saying Lewis would “just jab and outbox Foreman” are ignoring the actual styles involved. Lewis had trouble with pressure, was hittable early, and didn’t like being forced backward. Foreman would pressure immediately, cut off the ring, and take away the long-range jab, he was one of the best ring-cutters in heavyweight history.

Foreman wasn’t someone you could simply jab at range. He had a heavy, underrated jab of his own, used a long guard to intercept shots, and disguised hooks and uppercuts extremely well. He was far more tactical than people give him credit for.

Lewis was excellent when he could set his feet in the center of the ring, but he wasn’t nearly as effective jabbing while moving backward. Under pressure, he often retreated in straight lines which is exactly the kind of movement Foreman punished. Lewis didn’t like being crowded, and Foreman’s entire style was built around forcing opponents into bad positions and making them pay.

The idea that Lewis could just stay outside and box safely doesn’t match what either man actually did in the ring. Foreman’s pressure, ring-cutting, and inside power directly target Lewis’s weaknesses, not his strengths.

f we’re talking about post‑Ali, 1976 Foreman, then the idea of Lewis jabbing and outboxing him becomes much more realistic. After the loss to Ali, Foreman changed trainers and tried to reinvent himself into a more conservative, patient fighter. He stopped jumping on opponents immediately, let guys settle into the fight, and often let people off the hook instead of overwhelming them early.

That version of Foreman wasn’t the relentless pressure machine of 1973–1974. He was less aggressive, less committed to cutting the ring, and far more hesitant. Against that Foreman, Lewis’s jab‑and‑control approach has real merit. Lewis would have more time to establish range, set his feet, and dictate the pace without the nonstop pressure that defined Foreman’s peak years.

 

Lewis fights tall, doesn't bend or crouch. Foreman's wheelhouse was down low uppercuts. Lewis would have to keep it on the outside much as he can knowing that Geoge is going to come after him.

Foreman's toughness could give him the edge bur at the sametime Lennox will have that righthand answering the door. Lewis right could hurt anybody.

I would lean toward Lennox Lewia because he was the better boxer, taller and Lennox was the smarter fighter.

I wouldn't bet this though. Foreman's early round assault is something a fighter must get through. Thats not a sure thing.

 

Surprisingly fast jab, too. Even Foreman Mach II had a surprisingly fast jab.

 

Lewis 2000 above 1999; Grant, Botha, Tua

 

I think this is a very fair take. In a first matchup, prime Foreman is exactly the kind of fighter who could catch Lewis early and put him out — that’s historically how Lewis was beaten, and Foreman’s fast starts, pressure, and thudding power line up perfectly with those vulnerabilities. But in a rematch, Lewis’s chances improve dramatically. He was one of the best adjusters in heavyweight history, and once he had data on an opponent, he fought much safer and more disciplined. Prime Foreman is simply the type of fighter who could really impose himself on Lewis early, and that’s where Lewis was most at risk.