Foreman vs Ibeabuchi?

We have to say Foreman based on the information that we have, but if you wanted a non great fighter to beat him, Ibeabuchi would be worth a shot.

 

Going with Ike. Stamina + chin, deadly combination against Foreman.

 

Big George.

Easy pick.

 

foreman stops ike inside 5 rds....horrible style for ike to deal with / foreman isnt byrd or tua .......

 

foreman chin/ hammer of a jab / and a huge puncher who does very well when a man is coming at him and tahts what ike would do ...come straight at him and get knocked the fuk out / i liked ike but hes a fantasy .......george foreman was reality and his record proves it .....ike ibeabuchi ducked razor ruddock in 1999 when ruddock was 35 yrs old = fact :deal

 

Foreman usually lands clubbing, grazing, half-guarded blows. On Ike he might very well land flush, like Tua did with regularity. Foreman has so much more mass behind his punch.

I just don't think you want to take it like Ibeabuchi would.

Ibeabuchi is stopped within four rounds.

 

This Ibeabuchi has taken on mythical proportions since he waxed Chris Byrd. I talked to Byrd and he felt Ibeabuchi was one of the very best he ever fought, and he said he had felt a certain "breathing space" has been created for which he could operate in during their fight. But Byrd is nothing if not honest, even if it is in his own views and opinion. Byrd told me he got a little relaxed, a little arrogant that he had found the right cadence and method, and that he could linger a little longer here and there along the ropes in which to operate. He didn't see the ring generalship, or anticipate the eye for it Ibeabuchi had, and Ike seemed to suddenly hone in while stepping into another gear. To this day Byrd swears the fault was his more so than any matter of skill Ibeabuchi had that he was unable to cope with.

That little insight aside, I was amazed at Ibeabuchi in his episode with what I believe was peak David Tua. He was a huge 235 or so pounds, quick, decently fluid and mobile, damned sturdy and clearly strong enough to back Tua up during many exchanges. In the aftermath of the verdict, I wondered how Holyfield, Tyson and Lewis would do with him, let alone other names of that period such as Moorer, Golota and Akinwande. He left me wanting to see more...which should be the aim of any fighter.

There are some good journeyman that took Ibeabuchi rounds. Keep this in mind.

Then came the Byrd blowout and Jim Lampley stating he felt Ibeabuchi would go through Lennox Lewis like a hot knife through butter. The illusion of the moment took on even bigger proportions with Ken Doll extolling his opinion in spades, emotional as it may have been. If I recall, RJJ expressed concerns that Lamps was prematurely ejaculating, and that Ibeabuchi showed some *****s that a tiger such as Lewis could exploit. The eyes of a great who at the time was doing it versus a popular and somewhat influential cheerleader (key point here).

Both Byrd and Tua were smallish heavyweights, particularly Byrd, who was indeed a manufactured heavy. There were stylistic differences from the premium sized big men. Tua easily reached Ibeabuchi and didn't back off. With Lewis, Tua was kept at bay and backed-off many times because he had been given cause for pause. And lets remember something, Chris Byrd hurt Tua to the body in 2001....something Ike hadn't done; create unusual breathing space.

My point? As compelling as he was, as much as he made us believe he deserved to be on Heavyweight Mount Olympus beside Foreman, Frazier, Ali and Louis...this was still the guy who had yet to face the larger, more revered and skilled heavyweights of the day...the Kirk Johnson gym rumors notwithstanding.

I think George Foreman would back Ibeabuchi up after some equal exchanges. I think Foreman's left jab sets it up. The question for me is does Ike survive? Was he mentally tough when suddenly springing leaks? Was Ike as physically strong as George and could he cut the ring off as well? Would Ike even need to cut the ring off....or would he be looking for space as Foreman continued to come forward? If Ike survived, would he come out of it crazier than he was after Tua.

BTW - we all know about Ike the ******. There is another insight, circa late 1997 early 1998 that has escaped most and was essentially covered up, the details of which make me wish Ike never sees freedom, as I believe the guy to be far darker and more malicious than generally believed. But that's another post altogether.

 

Come on man .. the one thing the Tua fight proved for sure was tat Ike had an iron chin and could slug for 12 rounds .. I actually think Tua may have edged him but that was the best fight Tua ever fought and he was never the same fighter .. the problem w Ike was that other than the Tua and Byrd fights, we have nothing to go on .. two terrific fights but it would be easier to gage him with more of a track record ..

 

Foreman gives the overrated Nigerian ****** a beatdown.

 

Can't think of two fighters with careers that were cut short that receive more quick idiotic posts on "Eastside" regarding their being "overrated" than Ibeabuchi and McClellan.

Has their non-ring activities "colored" some opinions?



I would not be surprised if someone on the General drew a hard line at 03/02/99 and did not have the experience and breadth of knowledge to even try and see beyond twenty fights and two opponents (the best version of Tua with the quickest hands and best engine on the night he would ever bring into the ring and the elusive "Rapid Fire" Byrd who ended up drooling/slobbering that "he didn't hit me" as he climbed up off of his knees twice).


Why must a short career, a shortened career, or a tragically ended career of ANY KIND be viewed so rigidly? If a great musician is killed in a plane crash was the brevity of his career or the comparative few examples of his great performances a mitigation of his talent and quality?

If Ali never returned to the ring in late '70 (when he was 28 or so) to face Quarry would even Ali be torn down and these posters unable to project anything beyond what he did through 03/22/67? [I'd bet on it - having gone through the 60s - how he was viewed at that time - and seeing the same mindset (in other areas) still quite pervasive in so many (even) today]

If Bolt never ran again after the 2008 Summer Olympics because he was injured in a car accident and could never run again would it be impossible to project the then 22 year old bettering his marks in '09 and '12?

If Bo Jackson had not had his injuries would it be impossible to project his level against the best who ever competed in the NFL because he only played the equivalent of three and a half years? [If you are unfamiliar with his talent go look for video]

SO, why is a fighter just one month past 26 years of age (and I'll leave McClellan off for a moment as he is not the subject of this post but the same is applicable to him as well) who had his career cut short given these ridiculous "he's the most OVERRATED GUY" BS?

You'll find these same posters are the ones who regularly JUMP to defend Wlads' "pre-Steward" career in which he was brutally KO'd at 27 years of age by the historically irrelevant Corrie Sanders (and I like Corrie and his natural throwing ability far more than either Klitschko's) and stopped at 28 years of age by the mediocre Lamon Brewster. Ike, at a mere 24 years of age, edges - in a physically tough fight at a level few heavyweights past or present would find easy to sustain - a version of Tua far more fit, active, and potent than Lewis saw three and a half years later (or Byrd faced four and a half years later) and, at just 26 years of age, destroys Byrd.

So, Ike has two great wins by just 26 which means nothing and Wlad has two embarrassing losses and they are to be overlooked. Why? The artifact used is that "well, super heavyweights mature later". The extension of that logic is that Wlad is BETTER today and became BETTER later.

Why is the same application withheld from Ibeabuchi (or McClellan)?

As if a heavyweight like Ibeabuchi with his attributes couldn't be availed of further instruction, investment, and resources to allow for more development/improvement.


[It is likely the same people who would be quick to run down Andre Dirrell more recently. I think he is a late maturing athlete (and there are more than a few of these) and at 26 and a half in the Super Six he was never a "final product" that deserved to be torn down for the veteran Abraham's late punch after the bell. But I digress ...]

Just as Roy Jones continued on to bigger things and an impressive career after 26 years of age and the win over Toney, it would be easy to project a healthy (if that had been the case) McClellan being quite formidable at SMW (considering he went straight into a title fight from MW (on foreign ground to boot) with no weight acclimation at all at just 27 years of age) considering his obvious capabilities and talent (and the dearth of such in the division in the following many years). You don't need to "wonder" if he had the talent or enough talent. The paucity of fights (Jackson twice, Benn, and those who saw him earlier against RJJ and Liles) doesn't change the obvious.

Ike undeniably had sufficient size and the fitness and capability to fight the best, the biggest, and we missed out on some great moments due to his career being cut short. I don't give a **** about rating him as a person or judging his non-ring actions. That is irrelevant.

Anyone with any sense seriously doubts that fights in 2000 between Ike and both Klitschkos would have been real tests for the Klitschkos in particular?

Still, I go with young Foreman clearly versus Ibeabuchi (as far as he got). It would take a high level of toughness though and a youthful George had that innately.

A proposed fight of OLD Foreman versus Ibeabuchi (in say '97) is a no win for George. A near fifty year old against a stacked (almost undoubtedly steroid loaded fighter - like most of the super heavyweights (including the Klitschkos) of the era - twenty six or twenty seven year old that is quicker and able to sustain a pace of constant punching is going to inevitably really hurt the older fighter. It is not a reflection on George's talent at all. It is simply age and reality. Yes, George has the capacity to perhaps be competitive. He might prevail in a statistical consideration of what happens if these two fighters match up enough times. But, the truth is more likely that youth and speed trumps old age. It is not a fight that should have ever happened and it is good that it never did.

When old men comeback and/or continue fighting they are always searching for the right circumstance and the perfect environment to enable a narrow chance of winning. It is never more than that. They are too far removed from their physical prime for it to be anything more.

 

Nice handle.

 

Yes people would have withheld judgment on Ali in that scenario, and they would have been right to do so!

For every fighter that turns out to be an all time great, there are a dozen that look like they have the goods, but turn out to be missing something.

You do not hand out ATG status to somebody, until they prove it prey darn comprehensively!

 

Sorry, but yes and no.

What you contend is applicable - more or less - in attributing some kind of historical standing but is not essential in a HEAD-TO-HEAD comparative. The context and examples I used were focused accordingly (as was the topic - Foreman vs Ibeabuchi).

The only thing that matters in this case (this mythological matchup) is the correct assessment of the athlete - their talent, their capabilities, and their relative attributes.

You can choose not to believe it because you think the evidence is inadequate or not compelling.

But that means nothing to my assessment and view.

Additionally, boxing is the one sport that has been mitigated from where it could be by the cultural change that has occurred in the US (from the 50s and 60s) and has led to a multi-generational decline in youth participation rates to negligible levels. The result has been a dearth of talent and so reflects a rather discernible anomalistic digression or stagnation relative to what has occurred in most if not all other sports in which our youth participate actively. Add to that the normal changes that pertain to all activities as a product of worldwide development and growth over time and the entire ATG argument becomes even less sustainable or viable to my eyes.

I care less for any argument that attempts to suggest that a fighter (an ATG) from a hundred years ago or even a Marciano from the 40s and 50s at 190 lbs is a viable contest for Wladimir Klitschko or Lennox Lewis. On the other hand, I am very certain that US heavyweight boxing (in particular) is dire and has been so with few quality representatives and that development makes this an on-going horrible era. This presents the circumstance in which Wladimir is an ATG and one of the greatest head-to-head heavyweights of all-time. However, it is also quite evident to me that he is hardly an A-LEVEL talent. He is a B-LEVEL talent - at best - in a C-LEVEL sport. It is not his fault. But, his success is not absolute evidence of being an extraordinary fighter. His success is more probably absolute evidence of an absence of quality talent participating in the sport of boxing.

That is my assessment.

You can contend that if Ali had not returned from his forced exile that he would not be an ATG.

I would have no doubt in my mind that Ali was an all-time great fighter nonetheless (just based off of what was seen through '67). In fact, nothing seen afterwards to date has changed or mitigated that attribution at all. I also know he missed out on this three best years. You can (reasonably) say that no assessment can be made for the intervening years because he was unable to fight. I, however, will know that these years in the context of an athletic career were still a part of his upside. Similarly (in the exercise of trying to provide an example), if it were possible, if I had to choose to put one version of Andre Ward in the ring and the choices were a 25 and 1/2 years old version (that dominated Kessler) or a less active (in terms of professional fights) 28 or 29 or 30 year old, I would take the older one every time. No hesitation.

I know his added maturity, physical development, greater strength, will mean a more formidable fighter than that which entered the ring and dominated Kessler in '09. He was "offically" out of the ring; but he hadn't (and hasn't) stopped being an athlete and working on his boxing.

It is like a musician that is not performing publicly but still is active with what he does or loves and improving all the same.

 

Accomplishments in the real physical universe, trump interpretation based on film, every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

If they didn't, we would not need to work for a living!

 

Bingo! :good