Would Prime Foreman Ever Beat Jimmy Young?

You’re just making excuses for him. He took two Ls in his prime largely due to stamina issues. There’s no changing that. He was mediocre if he couldn’t hurt his opponent.

 

I'm fine if you disagree-at least if not shading towards the mean & petty, & you are *fine* in that respect here.
But you are just not responding to what I am saying.
You are on Automatic Pilot, Anti-Foreman mode.
I will try again:

1) I AGREE he had stamina issues. And took the L's largely due to that-& Ali being brilliant, although the illegal pulling down on his head helped tire Foreman.

2) Review what I actually siad, he PRESENT for the specific individual.
I was talking about what was his prime: you ignored that issue entirely. Again.

3) He was mediocre if he could not hurt his opponent, but the observation in isolation does not accurately reflect his great prowess.
Because he could almost always hurt elite opponents, almost KOed the 2 guys he lost to, & was 40-0 with 37 KOs by the time he met Ali!

4) Again-& if you respond please show the fortitude to hear & answer my point:
A prime is NOT just being at your physical peak.If anyone for whatever reason is not near their best, by definition they are not at their peak. Whether their fault in part or not.
And having adapted that ill-advised style later in his first career, Foreman's power was cossetted, he was tentative, his combinations were less effective...He was not at his peak, even though by age & condition he could have been.

Unrealized potential.

 

I disagree because he lost to the best guys who could box and weren't chinless that he ever shared a ring with in the 70s. He had a chance to redeem himself and repeated the trick.

Byrd, Tubbs, Toney, and a bunch of other less than ATG heavyweights would have been a problem for him.

 

Despite my careful & patient explanation of you ignoring my points & not being present, you again said nothing about how & why Foreman was not in his prime when he fought Young/after he lost to Ali.

But even on the internal logic of what you said, it is contradictory.
You said he lost to the best GUYS.
Then he repeated the trick, which means he lost again: that would equal 3 losses, so those words are false.

But fuhgettibout that illogic for a moment.
It is FALSE that everyone he beat in the 1970's had no chin & could not box.

Are you that blinded by Hate that you cannot see that so many he beat had good chins & could box very well?
So Norton & Frazier could not box & had poor chins?!?!?

Can you not comprehend that especially in their primes, they were only decked or lost to the very best, & both had a very good chin, just not the very top level?


Let alone all the others he beat who were World Class.
ALL boxers beat some bums too, do not try that tack next.

And all boxers have some weaknesses & failures, like Rocky should have lost at least to Ted Lowry, & fought no very good or great sluggers, nobody very good who was modern sized, etc.

Lewis also had 2 losses & around his PRIME.
Which were embarrassing & in the case of Rahman a bit outrageous, he was unprepared.
That does not stop him from being a top ATG, including head to head.

You are Constitutionally unable to be fair in regards to Foreman.

 

@Dynamicpuncher

I didn't initially see your reply as the quote didn't include my name and therefore, I didn't receive an alert. No biggie.

Thanks for the provision of those scorecards. Much appreciated.

Due respect to your good self and the 3 other scorers but those scorecards in their own right do not indicate that the vast majority opinion would preclude the scoring of a closer fight than those 4 cards reflected.

Genuine question, have you found yourself similarly agreeing with said members on the scoring of a good range of other fights? At any rate, your last post was in fact followed by someone who scored the fight 115-113, 7 rounds to 5. I swear, no money was paid under the table for that timely submission. Lol.

No offence, but I'm reading you circling back to a number of points to merely repeat positions that I have already addressed and/or replied to. I already brought up the Roman fight myself. Yes, Foreman committed a blatant foul. I brought that fight up as possible explanation as why the Puerto Rican spectators appeared to be pro-Young and anti-Foreman.

The Roman fight doesn't otherwise speak for the Foreman vs Young fight and their respective conducts therein. Otherwise, if Foreman's conduct in the Roman fight did somehow factor, I could point to the Ali vs Young fight to illustrate the lengths to which Young himself would go in so far as his own foul tactics - poking his head through the ropes no less than 6 times to avoid Ali's offence. Foul tactics glorified as "spoiling" but called out all the same but only once I think.

I've already described Young's not so legal tactics vs Foreman in detail. Imo, they are as plain as day. If you say you can't see them, then there's nothing more I can say to help you. I also have already reasoned Foreman's shoving of Young as being reactive to Young repeatedly clinging to him like glue - not sure why you are still trying to treat that shoving in abstract terms.

Peralta's record indicates a run of wins prior to and between the Foreman fights and a run of wins for a period thereafter. I didn't at all use those fights to base an early KO being achievable by a prime (operative word) Foreman. Those fights are often used in an attempt to make a case that a Young type of fighter would always trouble Foreman. The fact is, a still developing (operative word again) Foreman did improve his result the second time around.

Peralta's record doesn't indicate that he was flagging around the time of the Foreman rematch. On the other hand, Shavers did have a somewhat up and down career, and his record indicates a loss to Bob Stallings (Earnie was also KD'd in the 9th round) just prior to his rematch vs Young. Would that lead you to necessarily suppose that Shavers might've been less of himself on that occasion, say, in a trough period, against Young the 2nd time round? It wasn't feather in Young's cap that a puncher like Shavers was still able to badly hurt and drop Young early the second time around and I'm required to repeat that prime Foreman was a far better finisher than Earnie at any rate.

Foreman did rematch an opponent from his absolute prime. Joe Frazier. The "new" or "work in progress" Foreman took that much longer to dispose of an overweight, 224 lbs, post Manilla Frazier. That primarily came down to post Zaire Foreman's modified approach. and gaging for the right pacing. Frazier's attempts to be more mobile, while admirable, were mere garnish. Had Foreman stepped on the pedal as he did in Jamaica, he would've likely put Joe out in similarly quick time.

Re prime. Fair. Foreman was still at an age when his best physical potentials were available to him. However, there can be a spectrum for prime and Foreman's performance against Young saw him on the lower end of that spectrum. The question can also be framed toward Young in regard to his own deemed prime and how long it lasted - he certainly fell off a cliff following the Norton fight. I suspect/expect that, in reply, Young's sudden downfall might be qualified by this, that and the other. Reasons that I might not necessarily disagree with but reasons nonetheless that aren't being duly afforded to Foreman.

Re another pre-Zaire opponent, Ken Norton. Ken would've arguably done that much better and lasted longer against the very version of Foreman that presented against Young. Again, that version of Foreman was overly paced/inhibited and literally did hardly any punching for the first several rounds of the fight.

I also already addressed the degree of risk of Foreman gassing when going for and then failing for the earlier round KO - and it was a risk that wasn't peculiar in the face of just Young. Obviously, I believe a prime Foreman opening with due aggression would have a very good chance of taking Young out in say 4-5 rounds.

While Young's record indicates durability supported by very good defense, he was still nearly out on his feet from just a single Foreman left hook just as Foreman was beginning to gas and when George clearly didn't have the energy of the earlier rounds to duly follow up. A case of too little too late from the post Zaire version of Foreman.

Re the more extreme Puerto Rican heat. I already categorically stated that it wasn't an excuse re the fight in itself but nonetheless it was still a factor. I believe that it did in fact impact on Foreman more heavily that it did on Young and the follow through support for that view is the fact that Foreman collapsed in his dressing room shortly, thereafter, diagnosed as being severely dehydrated. The thread question asks could a prime Foreman EVER beat Young. Are we assuming that the hypothesized matches will always occur in the same, impacting heat? Well, obviously not.

Thus, the ingredient of the heat is something that obviously doesn't exist every time ou8t. Again, sincerely no offence but I could perhaps say that you are in the minority in your complete dismissal of the core underscoring of post Zaire Foreman's obviously bad mental space whilst in the midst of trying to re-invent himself - a somewhat confused re-invention I might add and especially in regard to his obviously flawed and counterproductive strategy vs Young. As you would have it, it seems, post Zaire Foreman was no different and no less performed as compared to pre-Zaire Foreman - an unwavering, impenetrable belief that I obviously and strongly disagree with and have already provided strong arguments as to why I disagree.

 

Without taking over or butting in continually.......

Incidentally, i posted this on Peralta in another thread not so long ago -

Their first meeting saw Foreman at the 15 fight mark. Peralta was top 10 rated, Foreman's first fight against a contender. Foreman won by the scores of 9-1, 5-4 and 7-3. In the very post i am quoting you stated "Foreman lost on two of scorecards 118-111, 116-112, which is a pretty comprehensive victory." You also stated the judge that had it by one point was "obviously off the mark". Now you are claiming Peralta gave Foreman a "very competitive bout" despite 9-1, 5-4 and 7-3. You threw out the close card against Young, so if we follow your lead Foreman won 9-1 and 7-3. That's at least as comprehensive as 118-111 and 116-112. Calling one "very competitive" and the other "pretty comprehensive" is a double standard.

Peralta was all of 3 and 4 pounds under 200. He was as tough as they come, and he could fight. Foreman beat him comfortably in the second encounter, when George he was on the rise.

You've labeled Peralta "long in the tooth" yet he had just drew with Oscar Bonavena the fight before Foreman. Did you not know this? Bonavena was Ring rated #5 when this bout took place. It's probably Peralta's best ever result at heavyweight. A green Foreman comfortably outpointed him next fight. You are heavily minimizing Foreman's win over Peralta. It's actually a very impressive performance at that green stage over a guy that had not been beaten in almost 30 fights.

Even 2 years post Foreman Peralta was still going 20 rounds across two bouts with Ron Lyle, drawing the second, Peralta's last ever fight. Tho Lyle should have got the decision (it was the mandatory Argentina draw lol) it was still impressive for Peralta. The man could fight and was as tough as nails.

New York Times had it 115-114 for Young.

 

Peralta wasn't Top 10 rated at the time. But he was Top 11

 

I agree. I’m not buying the idea that everyone who had the fight within ten points for Young was simply biased or had some agenda. The fact that the New York Times scored it 115-114 for Young certainly makes that explanation pretty hard to take seriously.

 

And here's some of the press from the first Peralta fight.......

And Peralta, suffering his first defeat in 30 fights over the last 5 years

The UPI scorecard favored Foreman 9-1

• A ringside poll of the press had it lopsided for Foreman.

 

Isn't that access a weapon and a half. That rating above was taken off the end of March ratings. With the fight taking place 16/02 i would have put decent money on it being accurate. Peralta must have gone up even after losing this fight. I must look.

 

This is quite interesting, I did my own investigation while doing my Top 10 contender projects.

 

Indeed, he wasn't #10 Feb 15. The deeper i looked the less i trust the Ring end of year ratings. Cheers.

It did help me find that Ring Magazine scored Foreman - Peralta 9-1 to Foreman.

 

Thankfully we have the whole archive now.

 

Exactly, it's incredible mate.

 

My inner nerd still can't believe it, haha.