i just finished watching the foreman vs norton fight, as we know, norton was ko'd. anyway, it got me thinking.:nut if foreman would of been more of an 'average' puncher instead of possessing that huge knockout punching power, how would he of faired? could he of been as successful having to rely more on boxing skills alone? what do you think? imo he was never one of the greats as far as pure boxing went.
Although, I think this is a reasonable question, its sort of like saying what if Ali was flat footed? What if Holmes had a short reach and no chin? What if Jeffries wasn't such a large fighter for the standards of his day, etc. Nevertheless, I think most people can pretty much answer this for themselves. Without the punching power to aid him through the shark infested waters of the 1970's, I don't think that Big George would have ascended much beyond a journeyman or fringe contender at best. It was his punch that made men respect him. Let's face it, there were lots of big men with mean looks on their faces back then.. Most of them never became heavyweight champion of the world, unless they had something more to offer other than just dirty glares and empty rhetoric.. Foreman did however have skills and other physical abilities that I think are underappreciated, but probably not enough of them to do what he did to Frazier, Norton or Lyle, had the power not been there.... On another note, I think Foreman's power lost some sting in his comeback years, and was replaced with a new set of skills which worked quite well.. Of course, his punching ability was still a very live weapon, but I don't think it was as destructive as it had been 15-20 years earlier. Instead, he had a vastly improved defense, threw straiter punches, worked the body very well, and learned to pace himself and not waste shots, which kept him in the fight longer.. He also paid closer attention to his corner, and was far more mature in his approach to being a professional.. Regardless of what some might say, it wasn't JUST pure power that earned him his KO over Moorer. He was very methodical in that fight, even if he WAS losing most of the rounds leading up to the KO. In closing, I think Foreman was actually a pretty smart fighter when he wanted to be.. In an early match against Boone Kirkman, he did show a fair amount of movement and variety in his approach.... Here it is. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P7B2lYP4Gk[/ame]
I'm not sure what the consensus here is, but I agree with you. I'd make Old George a live underdog against George of the 70s. Sure he was slower, but he was a much, much smarter fighter.
foreman actualy had good footwork and was very acurate. He would still have strength. with less of a punch george would still be as big and physical as he was. He would still be able to push and bare down on people with his strength. Hed still have overwhelming advantages in size and weight over 93% of his opponents so im sure his career would read the same. foreman actualy used feints for his openings. He had a knack of walking up and using angles, catching guys on their blind side because the swiping punch teachnique george used was often under the line of vision & would still catch guys out. without quite so heavy hands his marching forward with that good reach of his would still have guys baking up thus neutralising their power.
