Could George Foreman make it undefeated through Larry Holmes title opponents?

Eh, the Tyson loss I could see causing a bit of a breakdown or depression. Think of where he was. He'd just lost his title, lost the rematch, and there he was, climbing in the ring to take part in the time honored tradition of being the old has-been former champ fed to the young tiger in exchange for one final big payday. For a guy on top of the world for so long, that has to feel low as hell after, remembering when he was the young tiger.

 

Witherspoon of 2nd Bonecrusher fight is hardly the same Witherspoon that fought Holmes in 1983 so that's a very unfair comparison by you.

Witherspoon weighed 213 pounds vs Holmes compared to 233 pounds vs Bonecrusher and you seem to forget Witherspoon handled Bonecrusher easily in their 1st fight and gave him a beating.

Foreman has never had 13 title fights in his whole career and you seem to believe that consistently fighting ranked opponents over 5 years and making over 10 title defenses will have no effect on Foreman even though he never actually did any of the above in real time.

Witherspoon would be one of the best opponents Foreman has ever faced and a mid 30s Foreman with wear and tear consistently fighting and defending his world title could definitely lose to Witherspoon.

 

You're getting great underdog mixed up with great champion 'again'. Well done all the same.

 

You must be Mike Weaver's lad if you argued this?

 

Yeah, like his great run in 1976/77, in which he faced some good, solid top 10-ranked fighters... that lasted, what, a year? Amazing that!

 

And he was also old with no expectations from anyone, and also took like 3 years off after the Tyson fight and fought some journeymen when he did come back.

 

George tried the 'ranked fighter' thing in 76/77 and soon realised that it wasn't quite as easy as some arse-licks figured it would be on a random chat forum nearly half a century later.

 

I have nothing against Foreman but it's just pure fantasy mate with some of the takes here regarding Foreman. Foreman made 5 titles defences and that was over 2 different reigns and only 2 out of the 5 defences were against top 10 ranked opponents Norton, Roman, unless I'm mistaken ?

People rubbish Holmes's reign and i have been critical of a few of his opponents myself i can't lie for example Frank, Frazier, instead of Page. But still he kept up a busy schedule and was consistently fighting top 10 ranked opponents and winning can you say the same for Foreman ? No.

I know people like to say Foreman was completely done after Ali but i'm not sure I agree with that and it just sounds like an excuse to me to make up for Foreman’s poor performances. I mean yeah I can maybe forgive that Foreman was a bit rusty after a lay off when facing Lyle granted. But then people make excuses for the Young loss aswell and Foreman had plenty of fights by the time he lost to Ali up to the Young fight and I personally think it was just down to styles myself.

It's easy to say Foreman can beat this guy and that guy but no one ever takes into account a realistic scenario that Foreman would be constantly active fighting ranked opponents over numerous years and that's something Foreman never did in his actual career.

It's just not realistic that Foreman goes 20-0.

 

Funny thing about Roman is that he wasn't even top 10 with the WBA or WBC as of May 73, Roman has been mentioned as a hapless opponent...so, he somehow gets a top 10 ranking at the start of June, despite his last win being about 8 months before (vs "Terrible" Terry Daniels- and the next day he's announced as George's first defence- "Trickerations" indeed.

It is. Like BN said i their preview of the Young fight, Jimmy "could be a bad match, now or anytime"- the same publication who questioned George when he was actually champ on whether if he didn't get his man early, he was "intelligent enough to change tactics or adapt himself to new situations", or would get "tired, frustrated and run out of gas after 6 rounds". Quite right.

File under: Could've, would've, didn't.

 

What are you basing these 2nd or 3rd round stoppages on? Norton? Life and death with Ron Lyle? Come now in the real world not on this forum George Foreman in the 70s was (He'll tell you this) a big strong but dumb fighter who got a lucky shot, he beat Frazier who was done, he beat Norton who was IMO just not that good a chinny guy who can't play keep away with no survival instincts was perfect... then GF fizzled out when he couldn't pull from his lack of depth and skill against Ali in a one sided bout, finishing the 70s by losing to a Journeyman type fighter in his prime years - next to The Homers 19-20 title defences 48-0? pull up all the names you want but he fought a whole career with few exceptions of honest pro's who were good sized heavies trying to win the title, Foreman just didn't have the mental strength or the skill for such a varied run of opponents.

 

It can be noted Holmes was ALSO sick by admission and apparent in the post fight interview.

 

So you’re going to be condescending over a fantasy argument? You know in your heart you wouldn’t talk like this to someone in person over sports, have some manners it’s just pretend boxing.

 

Shavers might have put him on his back. Witherspoon could spring an upset. So could Mike Weaver if he survives the early rounds.

 

I laughed at the "Cossel walks out before the fight is over" part.

 

Ocasio wasn’t terrible he managed to at least beat prime ATG “Joltin” Jimmy Young.