Could anyone out slug young Foreman?

“You can’t show me 70s Foreman KOing multiple ranked guys over 230lbs” etc I mean size matters for chin right so some insist? How do we know he still has the power for someone the size / level of Ruddock or Golota? it’s technically unproven… Marciano is 20lbs too light to be a punchers threat for Liston? but Foreman never is against say Rahman etc? Tyson didn’t flatline Ruddock and he was also 217lbs or whatever, it took Lennox to do it and he was 10lbs heavier then “Prime” Foreman and not finished growing. Conveniently the “cap” for HW size is 210-220lbs and it doesn’t matter anymore lol who made that “rule” I wonder?

 

There are multiple arguments in philosophy of religion that try to prove a miracle happened that start, "Show me a single false story with all of the following very specific characteristics, or concede that mine actually happened..."

There are good ways to make historical arguments. There are good ways to make historical miracle arguments. This one ain't it, IMO. It ends up as a scavenger hunt for historical trivia.

And I think the same applies to the boxing version that seems to have developed organically in this thread.

 

TLDR: “Big” James >

 

"You cannot name a single fighter with all of the following characteristics who managed to beat heavyweight Big James:

- Won the title weighing under 220 pounds
- Lost a championship fight by running out of gas
- Dropped and defeated by a sub-210 pound man with a journeyman's record, not known for his punching prowess
- Named "George"

Since you cannot produce a single example of a fighter defeating James who fit all of these requirements, you should admit that Big James would defeat Foreman. Q.E.D."

EDIT: So as not to seem like I'm making fun of @Glass City Cobra here, I'll emphasize that I'm only pointing out that the argument is bad. And it's an argument that doesn't initially seem as bad as it is. I don't fault him for making it.

 

You’ve pointed that out for me, I’ve probably done that but really you do see that a lot. Smart cookie you are eh?

 

Not all criteria are bad. It's when you start drawing hyper specific ones up shaped around a point that it becomes a problem. It's somewhat similar to the complaint about "moving the goalposts," IMO.

There's nothing wrong with asking, "What good movers did Tyson beat?" or something like that.

 

You should referee debates or something CT -something tells me you’ve got an above average interest in politics lol.

 

"Joe Frazier threw the hook wrong" is quite the bold statement you're going to have to defend.

 

Not being snarky I’ve already explained it in the initial post GCC - I can break it down for you on a technical level if you pin point stuff you’d like to know?

 

With regard to Lennox and slugfests:

He came out very quickly and destroyed Golota and Grant. Wasn't exactly shy or tentative in beating up Shannon Briggs, either. And then there's the Vitali fight.

All of those guys were punchers. Not all of them landed repeatedly and cleanly on Lennox, but it's not like Lennox is required to stick his chin out and let Foreman hit him just because we're talking about him "outslugging" Foreman. Lennox attacked those guys and beat them up.

In fact, Lennox stopped all four. He was in serious danger of being stopped himself exactly zero times across all of those fights, despite being hammered by Vitali and wiping the other three out early.

I anticipate that the next response will be, "But none of those guys were punchers like Foreman!" Unfortunately, this isn't the proper comparison. The proper comparison is Ron Lyle. Lyle is the cornerstone of the case for Foreman's ability to win slugfests. Lyle is the man who nearly stopped Foreman in their fight. Briggs, Vitali, Golota, and Grant are collectively more impressive than Ron Lyle.

 

I agree with everything said. Foreman's ability to time Frazier and land absolute bombs was surreal. Frazier was a good defensive fighter for a come forward guy. Foreman knocked that clean out the window. Little wonder Holyfield spoke about his timing.

Your two points could not be more accurate. The victory gets minimized mostly thru some people (especially modernists it seems) thinking Frazier can't fight bangers, and thru the personal need to snatch credit away.

Top post.

 

Yes. At least one person. Suffice to say, I find that inexplicable.

 

Interesting.

First, the underrating of Foreman’s chin and now the underrating of Frazier’s left hook.

There are clear correlations and trends afoot.

Very few took too many Frazier hooks before crumbling.

Frazier also threw many single hooks that yielded terrific damage in their own right.

So Foreman’s chin was levels below that of Ali’s but Frazier’s not so powerful left hook had Ali rock’n’ and reelin’ time and again, including a single, ATG left hook that saw Ali flat on his back.

A single Frazier left hook also froze big, iron chinned Bugner on his feet, just before he fell from that very same left hook. Fortunately for Bugner, Joe humanely held off from following up when Bugner was free to be hit - otherwise, it would’ve been all over, red rover right then and there.

I said Foreman didn’t blink when Frazier caught him with several left hooks over both fights 1 and 2. George took them far more impressively than most other fighters would have.

Lyle could crack, no question. However, Ron didn’t always fight with fully bad intentions. Rather, he tried to more often box more than slug.

Notably, vs Shavers and Foreman, both elite punchers. Lyle was put upon with little choice but to unload his best in open warfare.

You can see that the shots he hit Foreman with were huge - and he obviously took a leaf out of Ali’s Zaire playbook with his pointed launching of lead/counter rights - but laden with that much more power.

For his part, Foreman was rusty and sloppy as all hell, - meeting Ron halfway for Lyle’s
successes during that fight, Foreman taking Lyle’s best shots flush on the chin.

Calling in the Young KD carries absolutely no meat, notably omitting due qualifications.

Foreman basically fell from exhaustion.

Before the KD, Foreman could barely hold his feet even when he wasn’t being hit.

He was already on Bambi legs due to a near empty tank.

Thereafter, we entered Foreman’s later age comeback - when NO ONE could drop him, despite him taking some obviously big and flush shots - his improved pacing/meter clearly offsetting the stamina issues that took from his whole fight game in his first career.

“Blowing up”? Lol, not from this end. Stop with the false/deflective narratives already. Just providing the facts ma’am.

So, at last count, 15 months out of the ring is hardly any time out at all - just a small blip in time, ring rust isn’t real, “hard” sparring fully substitutes for actual pro fights - (and no evidence that Foreman even did spar “hard”prior to the Lyle fight), Foreman had a questionable chin and Joe Frazier’s left hook wasn’t all that.

I may have missed some other curious “claims”, but that’s enough to be getting on with to identify the “trend” I referenced at the start of this post.

 

I was just looking at a video of Fraziers left hook. On a secondary note how good is haNZAgod's stuff?

Did you know Frazier has 20 stoppages inside 5 rounds? 62.5% of his career wins came inside 5 rounds.

14 of these came inside 3 rounds which means over 43% of his wins were inside 3 rounds. That's awfully impressive. I've always believed his reputation as being a slow starter was somewhat overstated. You don't turn early round stats like that unless you can put some things together early, and obviously you need to be able to punch hard! I think part of the reasoning (slow starter) is that Frazier kept up his pace (or maybe even accelerated a bit) all night, while opponents withered.

This content is protected

 

Yeah couldn’t care less about your giant wall of borderline mumbo jumbo. Frazier did not throw a left hook properly and that’s a fact. I’d invite you to try and explain otherwise but ya couldn’t ya “blew up” about it - Amuse me and try Pug?