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

Hold on a minute isn't your comment an oxymoron ? You said yourself Foreman never had a long reign but then you laugh at the fact that we don't believe Foreman couldn’t achieve Holmes's reign of 20-0 how does that logically work ?

As for Holmes never beating an ATG neither has the likes of Terence Crawford but he's still rated very highly. You keep talking about this ATG argument but it's not like Foreman beat loads of ATGs opponents. Yes the win over Frazier is the best single win out of Holmes and Foreman’s careers. But its not like Foreman’s lists of wins outside of the Frazier win is so much more superior to Holmes's record. And Foreman as I've said previously lost convincingly twice in his 20s in his physical prime unlike Holmes.

You're suggesting me and @My dinner with Conteh are talking nonsense but all we're doing is giving you a realistic scenario. And for some reason you scoff at it even though you're suggesting Foreman quadruples the amount of title defenses that he actually achieved in his career so I think your scenario is more out there than my scenario.

 

Foreman also went life and death with Lyle in which he came within a fraction of losing, and lost convincingly to Young which were fights that all took place in his 20s. You're so fixated on this short reign from Foreman but somehow the Lyle and Young fights are irrelevant to you which is baffling because they all took place in 70s whilst Foreman was in his 20s.

And yet you're conjuring up a fantasy scenario that Foreman consistently beats ranked fighters and goes on a long undefeated run in world title fights. When in actual reality Foreman only beat 1 ranked fighter after the age of 27, and only achieved 1/4 of Holmes's reign over two different reigns where in total Foreman only beat 2 ranked fighters in those 5 title defences.

Hence my scenario that Foreman wouldn't replicate Holmes's 20-0 title reign is a very realistic scenario.

 

When I brought up Young losing Ocasio someone in this thread implied Young was better than anyone Holmes beat. But yet when Young lost to Ocasio that was only a year after the Foreman fight hence I'm implying that i don't necessarily agree Young is better anyone Holmes beat.

Weaver, Witherspoon, even Berbick, had very solid careers. Weaver went on to become a number 1 ranked Heavyweight champion for a few years, Witherspoon went on to become two time champion, Berbick also become a champion with arguably one of the best wins of the decade for Heavyweight division beating Pinklon Thomas who was undefeated for 7 years.

Young was good but he was also a spoiler and fought a bit too defensive at times I don't see that he stands out anymore than some of the notable 80s Heavyweight contenders/titlists.

 

I know that. It's not impossible.

What's being talked about is what happens if Foreman's title defenses are against the level of opposition Holmes faced, without him 'actually' meeting Ali in Zaire.

You talking about what Foreman 'actually' did, without taking that fly in the ointment into consideration, is to negate the point of the question.

In what way is it blown out of proportion?

The negative impact on Foreman is well-established. Do you have new information to suggest reports were exaggerated?

As I've previously implied, there is a long list of Fighters who never fully recovered from their first loss. Foreman's loss to Ali in Zaire ranks big in the league of catastrophic, high-profile losses. He has more reason than most to be on that list.

So, to trivialize the impact that the loss had on Foreman strikes me as a convenient dismissal of what is a fairly reasonable interpretation of events.

Firstly, putting aside the different career trajectory, had Foreman not faced Ali, I find it just a little amusing that Lyle and Young would more than likely have ranked in Holmes's top-5 wins (and possibly top-3), had Larry fought them during his Championship run. We have no idea how Holmes might have fared against either of them.

Next, I find the "style issue" to be a bit of an over-simplification. Having already dismissed the impact of the loss to Ali, simply because Foreman had a few fights in between Lyle and Young, you omit factors such as Foreman having a new trainer, his level of preparation and acclimatization (or lack thereof) and you also perhaps mistake strategy and tactics for styles.

Foreman's decline after the Ali fight is well-documented --- it's pretty much an open book. His retirement at age 28 to become a street preacher is undeniable. If you believe he was anything like the same person, let alone the same fighter, after Zaire, then you're cherry-picking your position.

 

Yes and considering Foreman never went on a long run of consistently beating ranked opponents as i said he has one win against top 10 ranked opponent after the age of 27. There's nothing to suggest in Foreman's career that he could go year after year consistently beating ranked opposition in his 30s or go on a long unbeaten streak holding a world title when he never done either in real time.

There is no fly in ointment Foreman lost convincingly to Ali who was a bit past his prime. I will give Foreman some leeway that Ali was in good shape, but still if Foreman was broken mentally as you're suggesting after 1 loss. Then how is a younger Foreman having the mental strength to fight year in year out against 14 ranked opponents fighting 20 world title fights ? and what if Foreman loses again to say someone like Witherspoon ? is he broken mentally then ? and doesn't try to regain the title ?

If you believe all that then i don't see how you think a young Foreman has the mental strength to go 7 years without a loss consistently fighting ranked opponents in 20 world title fights. If all it took was one blip for Foreman to completely unravel then obviously a young Foreman had demons and some mental weaknesses there.

One thing Holmes did have was he was mentally very strong and very consistent which is why he achieved what he did and overcome some major crisis during his title fights.

As for Young i do believe that was more of a stylistic issue than anything else and i'm sticking with that opinion.

 

This argument falls into circular reasoning.

You are presupposing that Foreman couldn't do something simply because he didn’t do it before. You keep repeating it, creating a fallacious roundabout and offering it as proof, rather than addressing the hypothetical scenario presented.

This seems like a Straw Man argument.

You are distorting my original point by focusing on whether Foreman had the mental strength to fight ranked opponents year after year. This isn’t what I was arguing. I'm saying that Foreman’s devastating loss to Ali had a significant psychological impact on him, which led to his downfall, and that this loss is extremely significant in understanding why Foreman didn’t perform the way he might have in other circumstances.

Moreover, you are overlooking the unique impact of the Ali fight. It's not simply a case of me asserting that Foreman had one bad loss; I'm arguing that this loss, due to its high profile and catastrophic nature, had an extraordinary effect on him, which changed the course of his career. It seems you're equating Foreman's loss to Ali with any other loss, which is a classic case of false equivalence.

You're creating a false dichotomy here. It seems to be a case of either...

...If Foreman was devastated by one loss (to Ali), he must have had mental weaknesses or demons all along... OR
...If Foreman was mentally strong, he would have been able to consistently fight ranked opponents for 7 years without losing, like Larry Holmes did.

Your argument leaves no room for nuance and, again, it fails to address the central point: Foreman’s reaction was to an extraordinary circumstance, not general mental weakness.

To close, I think it is perfectly reasonable to question whether Foreman would have had the consistency to fight ranked opponents for several years without suffering defeats, as Holmes did. But your line of reasoning is irrelevant to the specific point I was making about the impact of the Ali fight. The discussion we've been having at this stage is about Foreman’s mental state post-Ali, not about whether he could hypothetically go on a long winning streak.

I agree that mental toughness is essential in boxing, and Larry Holmes succeeded in part because of his resilience. However, you’re overgeneralizing by implying that Foreman’s reaction to the Ali loss shows a fundamental mental weakness. Additionally, you are creating a misleading comparison between Foreman and Holmes, given that the latter did not suffer the kind of experience that Foreman did.


Incidentally: Which Heavyweights in history do you think beat Zaire Ali?

 

If he had even a shred of intellectual honesty, he would follow his own logic & conclude that Larry Holmes could never be favoured to beat any ATG Heavy, because he never did so.

 

Why don't you quote me instead of doing these little snide comments to other posters about me ? I'm right here if you have something to say to me say it.

As for intellectual dishonesty ? What are you talking about ? There's plenty of highly rated fighters H2H that didn't beat any ATGs.

Did Liston beat any ATGs ? He's often in the top 10 and very highly regarded in H2H match ups.

Did Wladimir beat any ATGs ? He's also highly rated H2H due to his consistency and long reign.

As for ATGs Holmes could beat ? Well the fact 42 year old Holmes won 4 or 5 rounds off a prime Holyfield in a competitive fight I'm sure most would pick a prime Holmes to beat Holyfield.

I'm also pretty sure Holmes would be heavily favoured over Marciano who is another Heavyweight considered ATG.

You yourself gave Holmes 50/50 chance of beating version of Frazier who fought Foreman I personally give him a much better chance. I also think Holmes would do significantly better vs 1974 version of Ali and would beat Lyle and Young without that much hassle.

 

Foreman held on to the to the for 1 year and then according to you fell apart mentally after losing to Ali. And you totally disregard Foreman's performances vs Lyle, Young, as if they have no relevance because apparently Foreman was so broken mentally after losing to Ali.

Yes a fighter losing their 1st fight can have an effect on them and i'm not saying it didn't effect Foreman at all. But i find it hard to believe that Foreman was that broken mentally that he went on a 5 win streak after the Ali loss, and also beat Lyle who is his 4th best win of his career.

Foreman hasn't shown the level of consistency beating multiple ranked opponents over numerous years hence as i keep saying i don't think it's realistic scenario Foreman goes 20-0 in world title fights vs 14 ranked opponents.

It's not strawman at all i just don't agree with your opinion that Foreman struggling vs Lyle, Young, was all down to "Foreman being so mentally broken after Ali loss"

Foreman had never met a puncher like Lyle before that was of similar size to him, Norton maybe would fall into that category as he could punch but Norton froze against punchers as we all know. I've already said the rust Foreman had should be taken into consideration and i've gave him the benefit of that doubt in the regard. But also credit has to be given to Lyle as Foreman had never been hit that hard as a professional by a puncher like Lyle.

Young was a tricky defensive fighter and would always be a problem for Foreman stylistically and Young was coming off 12-0 victory over Lyle.

These 2 opponents brought something to the ring that Foreman had not come up against before maybe Peralta aside but he didn't have any success as a Heavyweight.

So i'm not buying that both of those performances were mostly down to Foreman being mentally broken i think a significant amount of credit should be given towards the opponents aswell.

It depends if you're talking about Ali applying the same tactic vs Foreman in Zaire ? then i think these fighters would beat Ali off the top of my head.

Tyson
Bowe
Holyfield
Wladimir
Holmes
Frazier prime
Louis
Lewis
Usyk
Douglas Tokyo
Fury

 

This content is protected

 

Kinda surprised how a quite straightforward topic is going on page after page.

If we check Larry's resume case by case, Foreman should beat all of them handily... in a H2H scenario.

The issue is if Foreman would be able to sustain the same level of regularity as Larry, or there would be some nights off.

That is the point where the discussion is stuck in a back and forth because it depends on what version of Foreman each one imagines.

If it is Pre Kinhasa, Foreman beats the heck of everybody.

If it is the Post Kinhasa Foreman, then he probably losses some fights.

There.

 

Do you know what circular reasoning is?

My previous point was in response to your statement: "There's nothing to suggest in Foreman's career that he could go year after year consistently beating ranked opposition in his 30s or go on a long unbeaten streak holding a world title when he never done either in real time."


Premise: Foreman didn’t consistently beat ranked opposition in his 30s or go on a long unbeaten streak holding a world title.
Conclusion: Therefore, Foreman could never do that.
Support for Conclusion: The conclusion (Foreman could never do it) is supported by the premise (because he didn’t do it before).
The premise is being used as evidence here: The only proof being offered that Foreman couldn’t do it is the fact that he didn’t do it before --- this is classic circular reasoning.

At this stage, it's become a Straw Man upon a Straw Man.

It seems you’ve misunderstood my point on two levels. First, I’m not arguing that Foreman’s struggles against ranked opponents years after the Ali fight were solely due to mental weakness. My point is that the specific loss to Ali had a profound psychological impact on his career overall. Secondly, I never stated that Foreman was 'so mentally broken' after the Ali loss. What I’m saying is that this particular defeat had a significant influence on his career trajectory. These are very different arguments from the ones you’re addressing. Please don’t attribute words to me that I never wrote.

You’ve claimed that your previous response wasn’t a Straw Man, but it was --- as is this latest response. A Straw Man distorts an argument to make it easier to refute. By claiming I said Foreman was 'so mentally broken,' which I didn’t, and focusing on ranked opponents, you're avoiding my actual point about the psychological impact of the Ali loss. That’s what makes it a Straw Man.

I do agree that Jimmy Young and Ron Lyle were formidable opponents who posed significant stylistic challenges for Foreman --- Young’s spoiling awkwardness and Lyle’s punching power certainly deserve credit. However, acknowledging the challenges presented doesn’t negate the fact that Foreman’s psychological state, following the Ali loss, played a role in shaping his performances and career trajectory. It’s not about one factor alone; rather, it’s the combination of the psychological toll from the Ali fight and the challenges posed by those opponents that influenced his post-Ali struggles.

Given the OP’s question, I don’t think one can so easily dismiss the impact of the Ali loss, which, in the hypothetical scenario presented in the OP’s question, would not have occurred. Neither would Foreman have faced Lyle or Young.

At this point, I think it’s clear that we’re approaching this from very different perspectives, and that’s why we’re so far apart on several levels of understanding. I respect your viewpoint, but I suspect we’re not going to find much common ground here.

For me, Ali’s performance in Zaire was exceptional, and I believe few, if any, could have beaten him that night.

I don’t have much more to add, so I’ll leave it at that. Thanks for the exchange --- always interesting to read different takes!

Cheers.

 

All good mate i always enjoy engaging with you I respect your knowledge and to be honest I feel like I'm a bit of out my depth at times debating with you. Not to sound like I'm sucking up to you but the way you put things and your vocabulary it feels I'm the student.

But yeah I'm happy to end it here it was nice civil chat as always take care.

 

Brilliant post.

 

Well, I very much like both you and @Man_Machine as posters.

That’s all I have to say.