The head trainer at my gym recently said that Foreman couldn't have lost against Ali if he had fought the right fight. He's not impressed by Foreman's skills in any sense, but feels that his power, strength and ability to cut the ring would have been too much for Ali if only he had fought smarter. Personally, I'm not convinced. While I do think Foreman should have tried to pick his shots more and tried to set them up with the jab, basic boxing tactics, I also think his skills were too limited to make any real difference. Ali's jab was faster and sharper, and since Foreman just about lacked a straight right to put behind his jab, I can't see how he could have done much at range. And he was no inside fighter and would have no luck trying to crowd Ali and work him with short hooks like Frazier did. The best he could try for was to step in at mid-distance behind the jab and try to land his right to the body or the head and follow that with a left hook and then perhaps an uppercut. But he was too slow and predictable in his moves too have much luck this way, IMO. Working behind the jab he would have been exposed not only to Ali's own jab but also his right over Foreman's. And as soon Foreman stepped in, Ali's left or left-right or even right-left-right would be there to meet him, just as in the actual fight. In short, I have to contradict my head trainer and say Foreman at best only could have prolonged the inevitable. Your thoughts?
It is very easy to say anyone could've beaten anyone if he had 'fought differently', but what I find that actually means most of the time is that fighter A could've beaten fighter B is you just pretend that he was better than he really was. Was Foreman really capable of fighting differently? Was Foreman really capable of fighting differently and still effectively? If Foreman fought differently, was Ali not capable of adapting? I don't like discussions like this at all, I think they're bull****. They fought, they both brought their best, and the best guy won... by knockout. End of story as I see it.
I think a lot of boxing history could have different had various fighters chosen a different stretegy against their conquerors.. I have to agree with everyone here though, in that I don't think Foreman was destined to win that fight. He would have had to make drastic changes that I simply don't think he was capable of, and by the time he completely changed his fight game, it might have had just as many negative side effects as positive ones.
I believe he could have... If i was in Foremans corner,i would have told him to cut off the ring,get him to the ropes and when he covers up, bang him on his left shoulder to tire the muscles and take away his best weapon- the jab. When he opens up,uppercut to the chin..
I think he may have been more successful had he used a more concentrated body attack. He wouldnt have missed so much and probably drained Ali as much as he was draining himself. That said I feel Ali would have still beaten Foreman as he would have still beaten George to the punch and Fraziers relentless body work didnt stop Ali.
The jab wasnt as much of a factor as Alis deceptively hard right hand lead. Foreman cut the ring off well, hence Ali going to the ropes
First fight Foreman made big mistakes. A Second fight in Houston...in the air conditioned Astrodome before his "home" crowd, I think he could have corrected his mistakes and won a tough fight. Too bad it never happened.
Perhaps it would have been different, but in the first round for example Ali was beating him to the punch in the middle of the ring. The rope a dope was key to his victory, but that's not to say he wouldn't have outsped and sat down on his punches enough to do cumulative damage and win on points or a late knockout. The only real thing George had on Ali was power, and with a chin like Ali's the puncher's marginal chance gets that much smaller.
Question is how many opportunities Foreman would have had with beating Ali's arm down since Ali countered his swings with straight punching all night. Only in the fifth did Foreman have a longer period of banging on Ali's body and arms. All he did was punch himself out while Ali still had enough left to open up on him. Foreman must do something more unexpected, but I don't think he had that in him. He was too limited.
In Allen Rosenfeld's Charley Burley: The Life and Times of an Uncrowned Champion he mentions that he felt Foreman could have won this fight if he used the cross-arm (Archie Moore) style of defence. He did not explain any further than simply stating it. I thry curious thing to say, I do not see, at all, how a slight difference in a fairly non-existdefensive guard could have had any impact on the fight.