Do most good boxers trounce pre-Zaire Foreman?

To make myself clear, I dont actually consider JIMMY YOUNG the ideal type of "boxer" type to handle Foreman. I'm not holding Jimmy Young up as the type of good boxer who I'd count on to better Foreman, but he did do so and it adds weight to the general point. But my opinion doesn't rest much on that result, and it matters little whether we guess that Foreman "could have" taken Young on another night. On yet another night Young may have won easier, because the flaws were there in Foreman.

I'd rather back a good "boxer-puncher", a proven boxer who can punch a bit, a puncher who can box a bit. A guy that makes you miss and makes you pay for missing - and not with creampuff punches. A guy that doesn't stand square on, and can move in other directions. A fighter who knows how to smother those swinging punches. I'm talking about elite fighters.

And it's the way Ali and Lyle rocked Foreman with those straight right hand counters and (in Ali's case) fast right hand leads that really shows Foreman's vulnerability. If Lyle was more disciplined and well-schooled in strict boxing - and not so fond of tough guy slugging - he would have been on his way to winning.

It's also the way Foreman was wide open to being hit by lots of lesser fighters. Foreman's defense consisted of pushing and spinning men, he had little inclination to duck or slip or parry. Watch the films.

As for talk of Foreman's MENTAL STATE following Zaire, that talk cuts both ways. The fact that he lost the first TOUGH fight he had with a TOP fighter, and then, allegedly, suffered a mental block afterwards suggests that he was mentally weak to start with. Doesn't it ?

To me, that suggests than any clever boxer or anyone who could take a few of his shots and punch back to trouble him at all seriously at that point would stand a great chance of breaking him. It seems - according to the psychobabble - that "PEAK Foreman" needed to win easy or the cracks under the surface were ready to appear. Personally I dont necessarily buy into that. But it baffles me why this apparent "outwardly invincible innerwardly fragile" bully complex that the mythical '73-'74 Foreman supposedly possessed is revered as a positive thing.

 

Iam serious did you see the fight?

 

I too don't think young would have beat him. Foreman was actively trying to pace himself they say, and it played to Young's advantage. Even so he near had him out. Foreman pre hammering would have piled a lot more pressure on Young and taken him out IMO. It's fair debate tho either way.

 

My $.02 for this argument is how did Foreman win an Olympic gold medal if he got trounced by good boxers? It's common knowledge that not only are the cute types at an advantage in the amateurs, but that sluggers/brawlers/knockout men are at a disadvantage (equal punch-punch scoring, standings eights, etc). Look at Tyson - he handled every man pre-Douglas who tried to run from him, and yet his kryptonite in the amateurs was Mr. Henry Tillman, who he brutally stopped in one when they finally met in the pros. If guys like Tillman can run from Tyson in the amateurs, why couldn't they run from Foreman?

I really don't know the answer - just curious. Was the competition especially weak the year he won it?

 

Here's Monte cox's opinion on the very matter, one i wholeheartedly share

 

That sums it up perfectly for me.

 

I understand much of what you are saying, but I think you describing the Zaire fight as a 'tough fight' with a 'top fighter' captures the differences in our positions.

I think it was one of, if not the greatest, performances of a consensus top 2 all time HW. I suspect this position would be supported by many of the posters on this forum.

Therefore, I give Ali more credit than you do, I take less away from Foreman than you do, and I give the likes of J.Young (with his pudgy little frame!) little chance in 1974.

 

Yes. I have the fight. I didn't give George too many rounds.

 

I re-watched it three weeks ago. Young did not do much in most of the rounds, but he did more than Foreman, who chased him like a zombie (Ali had a point) and mostly missed. Young didn't allow him to get his punches off most of the time. Young made for a boring fight, but that's the way a defensive fighter is. Ironically, he was from Philadelphia. I didn't score the fight, but Foreman lost a wide decision.


I also think it's stretching things a bit by saying "he nearly knocked Young out". Young was hurt for sure, but he retained his defensive abilities, ducked, held on, etc, and survived. He did not even go down. It was Foreman who was down himself, which is remarkable because some people here think he has a granite chin, and i think the consensus is that Young can't crack an egg.

 

Yes, I can understand that position too.
I just feel Ali wasn't the only one who would have beaten Foreman.
Yes, perhaps the only one at that time, but Foreman's lacking in fights against many top fighters to really judge.

I think that at the least, Foreman '72 to '74 - IF he hadn't been under protective management - would have had tons of difficulty with some of the other top fighters.

Through the 1970s he only fought FIVE fighters who I'd consider among the "elite" contenders of the time.

The best was Ali - he knocked Foreman out in 8 rounds.

Frazier sits right behind Ali - Foreman's best win. TKO 2.

Then Norton and Young.
Norton TKO2
Young won a decision.

Lyle just behind those two.
A life-and-death struggle to KO4.

Two of the "top fighters" he fought actually beat him. The other three he knocked out, but one of them almost knocked him out.

The rest of the men he fought were fringe guys, journeymen, or most often "tomato cans".

People put a lot of faith in Foreman versus a whole plethora of champions and outstanding contenders, past and present, based on nothing more than one or two results.

 

The problem with George is his lack of technique. It is hard to be technician's fan, look at George, and say "Wow. What a great fighter."

It's hard to visualize a trainer showing a young fighter footage of all time greats, put in George Foreman, and telling the young fighter to fight just like that.

The truth is that he ko'd Frazier and Norton like they were nobodies. He was a competitive until near 50 years of age. The was not because of great technique. It was because his gifts as fighter allowed him to win in spite of his technical flaws. He is probably the strongest of any heavyweight to fight at a high level. He had one of the best chins in history. He had a will to win like few ever possessed. Foreman vs. Lyle was evidence of this will. Later in his career(nearly 20 yrs.), the beating he took from Alex Stewart showed his will had yet to go anywhere. No other fighter should attempt to fight like George, because in all likely hood, no other fighter could.

 

Does anybody know what the amateur scene was like when Foreman won his gold medal?

 

Frazier went 1-4 with the best two fighters he fought and he didn't exactly fill his title reign as unsdiputed champ with glory. Ali aside, he chose light heavies and misfits to fight. His team avoided strongmen like Lyle or Shavers like they had leprosy. When he lost the crown he just took on blokes he knew he could beat (a strategy Larry Holmes was later fond of).

What, like Jack Dempsey?

 

Probably the same as when Frazier won his.

 

I agree.
That's Frazier covered then.

Not sure I buy that stuff about Frazier ducking Earnie Shavers though.
Then again, maybe him and Foreman did.

No, not really.