1974 George Foreman vs 2017 Anthony Joshua: Does Foreman make it to the finish line

I bring it up because that was the only puncher he faced that could match him in size and strength and didn't collapse like a house of cards when Foreman landed something solid.

Unfortunately, a 73-74 Foreman didn't fight a Ron Lyle or someone comparable to gauge how he would do, so we have to go with what we have.

But remember, Foreman isn't Foreman without the punching power. And even if he had some issues going on from the Ali loss, unless it somehow affected how hard he could hit, I still think Lyle fight is valid in some ways.

For one it shows that it is possible for someone to take clean punches from Foreman and not immediately fall unconscious.

It showed he could be hurt early by a heavyweight puncher of any consequence.

Frankly, I'm not convinced that the Foreman who starched Norton would have just plowed Lyle down. I just think that the fireworks would have commenced sooner.

 

Fraizer was 9 pounds over his best weight, had fought handpicked opponents since 1971 and did more partying than training leading up to the Foreman fight.

Now, say what you will about whats on paper, but in the real world of the boxing ring, its highly likely that most fighters would find the version of Wlad Klitchsko that AJ beat a more difficult opponent to beat than the version of Fraizer that Foreman beat.

Put it this way, if say a prime Bowe or Lewis had to fight 1973 Fraizer or 2017 Wlad Klitchsko, odds are, it would take them longer and more effort to beat Wlad.

 

What about the return fire coming back at him?

 

But that doesn't nullify the above points. Are you saying that a 74 Foreman bulldozes Lyle and if so, how do you defend that opinion?

Because if a prime Foreman doesn't bulldoze Lyle I cannot possibly understand how you leap to the conclusion he bulldozes AJ.

 

I'll meet you halfway and agree that a prime Foreman clubs Michael Moorer into unconsciousness.

 

No it's just that I'm more impressed by actual skill plus physical attributes rather than ones rank as an ATG.

Going back to the Ali example and let me know if you agree or disagree with these points or if they don't logically follow:

1. In 1965, Ali was not considered an ATG

2. Fighters like say Jack Dempsey or Jim Jefferies were considered ATG

3. If this were 1965, by your own criteria, with Ali not yet being proven as an ATG, we would be forced to come to the conclusion that Dempsey and Jefferies beat Ali. Cased closed end of story.

4. Today in 2017, we can readily say, looking at the same skills Ali had in 65, that at that point, even though he was unproven as an ATG, he had an excellent chance to beat proven ATG fighters in Dempsey and Jefferies.

The point is that, a fighter doesn't have to be proven as an ATG to be favored over a past ATG. In 1965, Ali was unproven as ATG and yet I don't think that you'd say anyone back then was incorrect or disrespectful if they favored Ali over a past and proven ATG like Dempsey.

I just take that same logic and apply it to AJ.

 

Im not making anything up. You cant possibly say that no boxing fan thought back in the 60s that Ali beats Dempsey or gives him a tough fight? Even with Ali not being proven.

My question to you is at that time would they have been correct or incorrect?