Cus D'amato - No Swarmer Beats Foreman?

Again this is only if you persevere with the unhelpful and misleading “swarmer” description. There are strategies within a style rather than a “change of style”. Morrison did what was required “within” his style.

correct. Foreman adapted with age into a more measured, slower version of himself. Still pressing. Still cutting down the ring. Still hitting hard. And with better stamina.

ok, square one: Did Cus use the word “swarmer” or “swarming”?

square two: Did Cus say “shorter, aggressive type fighters”?

square three: “is it misleading to use an unverified quote open to differing interpretations”?

 

The quote in question says that nobody with a bobbing and weaving, come forward aggressive swarming style can beat Foreman, that Foremans style was kryptonite for those type of fighters. The interview specifically mentions Frazier and Tyson for context.

-Morrison wasn't a swarmer
-None of the fighters people often call swarmers fought the way Morrison did in that fight.
-The quote is referring to 70's Foreman, not 90's.

Until you wrap your head around this, the conversation isn't going anywhere. Can you show me Frazier, Tyson, Rocky, etc effectively using lateral movement, hit and run tactics, all night? If not, then it doesn't matter what Morrison did. Even if you could, the fights foreman had in the 90's are irrelevant to hsi 70's incarnation, but we can't even entertain hypotheticals unless you can show me those boxers fighting like Morrison. Period.

This is my last time addressing this. You literally repeat yourself over and over for dozens of pages without conceding anything, and then months/years ago by and then you go back to same stupid gullick/qawi/Morrison arguments and ignore what dozens of people tell you.

Square 1: read above.

I'm not about to argue with you about semantics or play word games. Whether cus actually said it or not has nothing to do with if it's accurate.

 

can you show me the real quote?

It is accurate to a large extent if you allow for the broadest of broad generalisations. And in a free world it is entirely fair for anyone to believe that is so… even if there isn’t any proof of Cus saying it.

 

What does believing it mean nothing its words if they were said has no meaning punches win matches not words

So it's odd that robots keeps saying it like it means something oh my trainer or friend says I'll win or lose a match like i have no choice in the matter see how ridiculous that sounds

 

Google it if you want to, it's been posted dozens of times in various sites.

Don't answer my question with a question. You used the Morrison fight as an example, now back up your argument. Show me examples of those boxers using a game plan like Morrison from start to finish.

It's pretty self explanatory. Aggressive fighters who bob, weave, duck, and press forward. There is nothing "broad" or generalized in those descriptions. You don't see boxer punchers or defensive fighters or stick and move outside guys fighting that way. If you want to be disingenuous and ignore context to pretend as if you don't know which type of fighters they're talking about (even though the quote uses all those words and mentions Tyson and Frazier by name), then go right ahead.

 

We are going to have to disagree here. And that is all there is to it. You are asking for examples of a type of fighter turning into another style of fighter in order to win one fight. And because of this he isn’t a so called swarmer..

where as I believe he won a fight using tactics within his style.

I can offer examples of Dempsey circling around Willard before pouncing. Or Frazier using footwork around Stander and Chuvalo but you will say it wasn’t exactly like Morrison versus Foreman …you won’t concede anything..and that’s fine. You are entitled to that.

I just think that we can disagree on these fixed modern terms that are not helpful. Where as you dont think we should. And I think that leads to needing to give Cus credit for saying something that he probably never did.

Its because you believe what you believe you have to believe Cus said it.

what do you make of Hagler? He fought Bennie Briscoe fighting one way and he fought Thomas Hearns another way. Was he fighting two style or was he always a fixed mixture of styles?

 

Until they fight Foreman then they can counter their way in. Bob, weave Duck and Smother and turn. Come in from an angle. Walk around him before pressing in aggressively.

 

1) no, I'm asking for an example of the boxers most people call swarmers fighting way Morrison did. You claimed that 90's Foreman losing to Morrison who completely altered his style for one fight is proof Foreman doesn't always best swarmers. This was a very ridiculous claim to begin with because Morrison was not "crowding" or smothering Foreman whatsoever. Your words, not mine. He used an elusive hit and run style. This isn't even up for debate, nobody, not even a casual, would watch that fight and describe it as Morrison crowding and swarming Foreman. It's just flat out wrong.

2) no, I'm not saying they need to fight exactly like Morrison. I'm asking for examples of them winning fights with lateral movement and hit and run tactics as opposed to constantly crowding and smothering the opponent with aggressive pressure. Dempsey did used angles and fast footwork against Willard,but on the front foot. He was directly in front of Willard and attacking very aggressively. Frazier did use angles and movement against stander and Chuvalo, but again, not remotely similar to Morrison getting on his bike and circling around Foreman. You're being disingenuous, as usual. I won't bother making a poll because it could be 90 voted to 1 and you'd still disagree.

3) the terms are not really important. Call them swarmers, pressure fighters, inside fighters, I really could care less. The quote is referring to aggressive shorter fighters who bob and weave. Those type of fighters are not known for being able to adapt and fight in the back foot, which is why they run into problems against tall, strong, hard hitters with good uppercuts. Tyson and Frazier both got nailed hard and struggled with fighters like that. Any trainer in the world would tell his fighters to throw uppercuts and push away an aggressive shorter fighter. Amateurs, pros, world level, I've seen people use that blueprint dozens of times and you're insisting that this is false. You may as well be trying to convince people the earth is flat. Trainers have their boxers do it because it works and it's basic physics.

4) Hagler was a boxer puncher who could also slug it out. I never said boxers could only fight a certain way and could never stray outside their style norms.

Your problem is you're using Morrison as proof swarmers can adapt and use different tactics, which is true, but Morrison wasn't a swarmer. And you would still need to provide evidence that fighters like Tyson, Frazier, Rocky, etc could use those tactics. You can't just assume they could because they were better fighters than Morrison. That's not how that works. To my knowledge, not one of those fighters won a fight primarily on the back foot or using lateral movement the majority of the fight. Therefore, I will assume that they can't.

5) you keep ignoring the fact 90's and 70's Foreman fought completely different.

 

Until he blasts them with a heavy jab, shoves thein, manipulates their guard, pivots then around like a Matador, or walks them into an uppercut. They aren't walking around jack ****, Foreman cut the ring off on Ali, Norton, etc. And they certainly aren't going to smother him, anyone who tried that got knocked out or pushed back. It's suicide.

 

no there is nothing wrong with that blue print. It does work.

I know it’s true.

because for one fight he did what a swarmer has to do to win against Foreman?

No I addressed this. Foreman was a slower more measured version of himself second time around. He still cut down the ring. He was still bigger than everyone he fought.

This is of course the truth in so far as what Foreman’s career showed us using the opponents he fought on the nights he fought them.

 

He fought completely different. Using your idiotic logic, Leon Spinks beats 60's Ali. Danny Williams beats 80's Tyson. Camacho beats prime Leonard. Delahoya always beats prime Chuvalo.

These older boxers fought almost exactly the same as their younger selves, so your logic should be even more applicable here.

No, because he wasn't a swarmer. Morrison in his other fights did not fight like a Frazier or Rocky. He did not use bobbing, weaving, or ducking with non stop pressure to break guys down. He was a slugger who relies on landing one big punch or one big combination. Morrison did not fight out of a crouch and didn't remotely resemble swarmers.

Show.

Me.

The.

Fights.

Where.

Frazier/Rocky/Tyson etc fight using lateral movement and on the back foot for the majority of the fight.

Last time asking.

 

I already addressed this …I even predicted what you would say:

I can’t make it any clearer than that. These are examples of what I was talking about an adaption within a style.

You are talking about something completely different, you are literally asking for examples of Champions looking exactly like Tommy Morrison. Which in another sense is almost as crazy as asking for examples of when other champions entered a ring after perming their hair & using sunbeds to physically look more like Tommy Morrison. You are not far far from this.

 

None of those examples remotely resemble the hit and run tactics of Morrison. I addressed every example you have and explained why they were invalid and you ignored them.

You're just upset that I'm holding you to what you said. The quote is about 70's Foreman, for 10th time, but you chose to use a fight from the 90's, a fight where the opponent used strategies that NONE of the boxers you referenced used.

No, it's a fact that Morrison won with constant lateral movement with hit and run tactics. You're exaggerating what I'm asking for because you know you can't provide any examples. None of the heavyweight swarmers ever employed constant movement with hit and run tactics to win a fight. Why the **** did you use Morrison fight as an example of how a swarmer can beat Foreman if you don't want to provide examples of other boxers fighting that way?

 

I provided examples. You just didn’t like them. And I predicted you wouldn’t.

don’t forget to get back with that quote where Cus says “swarming” or “swarmers”.

 

No, I thoroughly explained why they didn't resemble Morrison's game plan. Dempsey against Willard was right in front of his opponent the whole time, fighting aggressively on the front foot. He used head movement and angles. But that is completely different from Morrison throwing a few quick shots, then backing off and circling around his opponent never planting his feet for very long.

Frazier against Chuvalo didn't remotely resemble the Morrison Foreman fight. Frazier was like a shark smelling blood and was all over Chuvalo once he had him hurt, pouncing on him from start to finish.

You gave terrible examples. You either don't know what stick and move means or you're being dense on purpose. Given your post history, I'm sure it's the latter.