[Deleted by user.]

"How does he beat a better version of Foreman? Just watch the version of him barely survive against a lesser version of Foreman!"

George took a 13 month break after the loss to Ali, I think it's pretty fair to make a distinction between the Foreman of before, and the Foreman after it. It wouldn't be something to talk about if there wasn't a genuine difference between George's ability and skills after his break, BUT WAIT, there was. I talked about it, Swag talked about it, and most people can see the difference between the man who crushed Frazier and Norton, and the one who struggled against Lyle and Young. Just because he beat solid guys after the change doesn't mean that there isn't a difference. I don't think that Foreman was at his best in Zaire, either, which I said before.

Then again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

You can never FULLY predict a fight, but if we're talking in fantasy head to heads, you can lower the variables. Both men are in top shape, both men have whatever they need to do their rounds, it's however amount of rounds, it's got this big of a ring, etc. etc. Thin chances of winning don't mean a lot to me, especially in fantasy matches.

I don't think that Byrd or Young were that durable, but rather that they could keep their heads cool in tough situations. Byrd was hurt against Ike (he was green there, though), Vitali, Wlad, Golota, and others, but he still was able to survive in tough bouts most of the time. The thing is, Foreman isn't like these guys, and if Byrd is having a tough time winning against someone like Golota, I don't doubt that George could beat him, too. Young was hurt against a lesser version of Foreman, Norton, Cooney (that fight should've been stopped before the cut), etc.

Usyk and Holmes both have tough times against George, and like I said in another thread, I wouldn't bet on Usyk to win very many matches against him- Holmes maybe has more luck due to his style and chin, but even then, it depends on which version of him you throw in the ring.

"If you disagree with me, tell me in this specific way." is not very effective when we're talking about two fighters at hand, it's not just about Foreman winning against movers (as he fought very few), it's also about the opponent's history against big time competition. When I look to these fighters, I think of all of their tough times against lesser fighters and punchers, and match that with how George has done against tough competition. You can see how a younger Foreman dealt with Peralta, and how he was able to corner men like Frazier or Norton, and some of his combinations on the ropes against Ali, add that with how whichever opponent fared against this type of pressure, and get a solid idea of just what might happen when the two get in the ring.

 

Jimmy takes it. George wouldn't risk the fight.

 

I was about to say that at that point Holmes wasn't ready for Foreman... but he pulled off that masterclass against Shavers in '78, and later that year looked fantastic against Norton. So, man, that would have been a fight.

 

I don't know why you keep saying "Young barely beat Foreman" or "Young barely survived vs Foreman" 2 judges scored it 116-112, 118-111. Young comprehensively outpointed Foreman with 1 scare along the way in which he recovered in the same round and finished the round stronger.

So your logic is Foreman going 20 rounds vs Light Heavyweight Peralta who never even weighed 200 pounds is evidence he'd deal with the likes of Young, Byrd, who were considerably better Heavyweights that's not making much sense to me.

Foreman did face some tough competition but the likes of Lyle, Norton, Frazier, were aggressive fighters and not remotely like any of the fighters I mentioned stylistically.

You said yourself Foreman doesn't really have a track record of beating tricky boxers so it's more an assumption on your part based on Foreman’s reputation of being a great fighter but that doesn't always mean anything.

If Young had never faced Foreman I doubt many would've picked Young to beat Foreman and that's the beauty of boxing styles make fights.

It doesn't matter if Foreman is greater than the likes of Young or etc stylistically they are still a major problem for him.

 

I scored it 115-112 for Young.

 

Because some of us think the fight … which Young absolutely won, there’s no question of that … was an aberration rather than a conclusive sign of who would have the edge if those individuals met multiple times.

 

Not sure why OP doesn't understand this.

Then again based on his posts here, I'm skeptical that he even watched this fight and the Rumble In The Jungle.

 

Holy ****. Thought I was losing my mind when I saw virtually nobody in this thread saw the difference between Foreman pre and post Zaire. Glad to see I'm not losing my marbles.

Sideways is probably a better term than the one I used (crooked) to describe his uppercut.

 

Why would it be an aberration ? I don't get it.

Peralta went 20 competitive rounds with Foreman over two fights and he was a former Light Heavyweight who didn't weigh 200 pounds and wasn't as good at Heavyweight as someone like Young.

Beating the likes of Frazier, Norton, two fighters who could not fight on the backfoot and were naturally aggressively come forward fighters. Has no relevance to how Foreman deals with a durable tricky defensive boxer.

And there's no real evidence throughout Foreman’s career that he could deal with the stylistic challenge of a boxer on the level of Young in his prime.

Young took Foreman’s best punch in the 7th round and Foreman tried everything in his power to stop Young and couldn't do it and Young comeback strong at the end of the round.

Young was not an easy guy to stop he was only ever stopped twice in his whole career once by Shavers when he was green as grass and the other was to Cooney on cuts.

People are saying if Foreman was more aggressive he'd have better success vs Young but would he really ? Because if he fails to finish Young early which is a big ask considering how many times Young went the distance over a 20 year career. Foreman would be even more gassed in the 2nd half of the fight so its a huge gamble going all out trying to finish a durable tricky defensive boxer early who is very hard to stop historically.

 

I would liked to have seen Holmes vs Young.

 

Honestly? Because Foreman was great and Young was not, and I think greatness will eventually rise to the top, and for that matter should rise to the top. And I think the thing about "styles make fights" while true in a sense gets painfully overblown sometimes.

The bottom line I guess is that I have zero respect for Young as a fighter, although as I said in my other post pondering why he's so adored here I respect the courage of anyone who climbs into a ring.

When I saw him in real time, and in reviewing the old films, I saw someone who I'd rather have root canal with anesthesia than watch fight, not some stylistic genius or savant whose skills were to be savored.

Perhaps that's unfair but it would be a boring world if we all liked the same things or all saw things the exact same way.

 

This is what I said to the other poster.

You're basing it on Foreman being a great and just assuming he would beat Young because he's historically greater but as I said that doesn't always mean anything.

There's many examples throughout history of historically lesser fighters having troubling styles for great fighters a few examples that spring to mind is Jones vs Barrera, Barkley vs Hearns.

You're not a fan of Young that's fine I'm not really his biggest fan his style wasn't really for me either and I'd much rather watch Foreman fight any day of the week.

But Young for a few years period was competing at a good level between 1975-1977. And Historically he's a very hard fighter to stop and I believe without looking at boxrec he's probably gone the distance close to 60 times in his career over a 20 year career.

Foreman has not really shown throughout his career that he can deal with a tricky boxer on the elite level. As I keep saying beating the likes of Norton, Frazier, whilst they're very good wins they don't have any relevance stylistically to Young.

And I truly believe no matter what version of Foreman you want to conjure up he's going to have real difficulty with a peak Young between 1975-1977.

 

And I have said that without question, Young beat Foreman that night and deserves credit for it.

I stand by my belief that it was an aberration, however, and do not think that fight proved in any shape, form or fashion that Jimmy Young could or would replicate it every time he faced Foreman.

 

Certainly. I think Ali was the GOAT but for some reason Ken Norton was just kryptonite for him.

 

I will concede that my views could be colored by the fact that, as I mentioned in the Young thread I started, I would rather be circumcised with a rusty bottle opener and have all my nails pulled out than watch Young fight.