Foreman's comments on Ali's power...

What the hell is the point of Halloween? It just seems stupid.

 

Bill - I guess i should have said Happy Halloween Eve. Actually in the city where I grew up, the 29th was Damage Night ...nothing all that destructive- just soaping windows, turning over garbage cans, etc. The 30th we called Beggar's Night, and the term trick or treat wasn't around then. That's when we went out in costume and got candy. The 31st was Halloween, and if there were parties, and there always were somewhere in the neighborhood, that's the night they were held, and again, we wore costumes.

I suppose I should do something boxing related here, so....what do you think would happen if a guy in a prime Mike Tyson costume rang Bruce Seldon's doorbell and said BOO! when he came to the door?

 

thank you buddy

I can actually believe that he is scared. A very good poster long ago explained to me why. I made the same argument as you. You see the weigh in photos and Foreman just towers over Frazier and looks at him disdainfully. You can look and feel physically superior to someone. Even then, you're a new fighter and you hear of a guy that went 15 grueling rounds with Ali and made Ali's face into a balloon and beat him up. It can be expecteded that a single round with this guys is going to be pure HELL and that he is as bad of a man as you can find. Which was fairly accurate with fighting Frazier. For just about any great save a few (maybe ONLY Foreman?), a night with Frazier is a night in hell getting tortured. Just ask Ali. You see a fight in high school and the smaller guys turns out to be unexpectedly vicious and ferrocious even if the other is bigger and stronger looking. Sort of like a wolverine being so ferocious that it can back up a grizzly bear (true fact). Given Frazier's background and Foreman's lack of experience, regardless of how Foreman felt physically, he didn't really know what he was in for until the fight. Turns out Foreman was a gross exception.

Yep, I had noticed and I will agree. Can't KO Foreman with one shot. Just wanted to point out the KD anyway.

Thanks for your interesting anecdote about Foreman's remark on Frazier's left hook. Maybe for granite chinned Foreman it was nothing but even in those 2 rounds, Frazier landed several left hooks total that would have equalled several knockouts.

 

And Foreman is going to say Ali had average power?

Wonder how good of a chin Foreman had?

It should also be remembered Foreman ranked Marciano ahead of Ali by two spots... Just threw that in so the Ali huggers wouldn't get too excited over this thread

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Wow. That's amazing.

He also has Patterson in the top 10. :roll:

 

I don't agree with Holyfield or, perhaps, Tyson being top 10 either... but that's HIS list. I personally think Foreman belongs there, but he chose to exclude himself.

I'd give a shove to Lennox and Holmes belonging in the top 10 as well.

 

George is a lot smarter than he lets on sometimes. If we were to slip him an injection of sodium pentathol, it would be real interesting to see how this list changes. Despite himself, his genuine opinions slip out from time to time, and they are informative flashes of insight.

Marciano gets something of a free ride for 49-0. (As Ali does for his ring smarts, where his heart and toughness deserves credit instead,) What would that rating be if Rocky hadn't decked LaStarza in their first meeting? (LaStarza would have likely been awarded a razor thin split decision.) Would Marciano's position change at all, if he finished at 48-1? What if Holmes had gone 50-0 instead? (I try to rate Holmes and Marciano as if these things had indeed happened, as well as integrating their actual career outcomes.)

Foreman has admitted his observation that Ali never really learned the art of defense, relying on youthfull physical gifts to avoid punishment more than skill. He also praised Jerry Quarry to the rafters years before internet serivces allowed the rest of us to see how good Quarry really was at his best.

He shared the ring with four of the heavyweights on his list, as either an opponent or sparring partner, and desperately wanted to get a fifth one into a match. (Tyson, of course.) He is clearly giving Patterson credit for his skills and resilience, but I somehow doubt he truly believes Floyd is a top ten heavyweight. It would be very interesting to have an authentic idea of where he actually believes he fits into the pantheon of champions. He's fully cognizant of what his abilities were, and whose styles he might and might not have handled.

 

Marciano doesn't get a free ride because of his 49-0. He gets a free ride because he fought everyone, knocked ALL his top opposition out (a feat never accomplished in the 50 years before or after him) and always gave rematches when their was any doubt. If he had been 48-1 because of a close decision loss when he was green but having convingingly avenged that loss when he was more experienced (remember, he barely had an amature career unlike Holmes and Ali), it wouldn't have made much of a difference to me.

Why would you rank Holmes and Marciano "as if these things happened"? That's stupid. How about we rate Holmes asif he lost the verdict to 16 fight Witherspoon? Or against Carl Williams? Or against Norton? At least we would've seen rematches in that case though, he wouldn't have to run from them like he didn't with Spinks when he lost that one.
But what you basically say is you rate on speculation. I might just as well rate Tyson in the top3 because "what if he didn't lose to Douglas".




I have to say i'm not suprised to see Holyfield in there by the way. He thought very much of Holyfield after they fought, particularly his left hook to the body hurt according to him.

 

A stupid person wouldn't have enjoyed the sort of success outside the ring which Jim Corbett, Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Max Baer, Max Schmeling, Primo Carnera, Larry Holmes, Mike Spinks and some others like Foreman have enjoyed. Boxing history is littered with prominent competitors who wound up destitute, and some of those actually did have reasonable intelligence.

Joe Frazier is one example of somebody who rates Marciano number two on the basis of 49-0. I sometimes wonder if boxing shouldn't simply return to the no-decision format, instead of accepting the subjective opinion of judges who may or may not be competent or honest. There is the argument that where subjective judging is involved, true competition is dead.

Without speculation, this would be a far more dull forum than it is. Concerning Holmes, yes, Norton, Witherspoon and Carl Williams could indeed have gone against him, depending on the judges. The same is true for Marciano with LaStarza I, Lowry I and Charles I. What happened between Douglas and Tyson was not a matter of subjective scoring.

The one glaring rematch omission in Larry's record is Witherspoon. Norton was eliminated from contention by Shavers. Otherwise, it would have been Kenny rematching Holmes, not a challenger who Larry had already won 34 of 36 minutes against. (Tommy Farr was eliminated from a potential rematch with Louis by his losses to Braddock, Baer, Nova and Burman.) Carl Williams was the final successful defense for Holmes. Larry didn't have the chance to rematch him before losing the title. It can be argued that Pinklon Thomas was no more worthy of a shot against Holmes than several other green contenders he actually did supply an opportunity to, until Thomas actually won the WBC Title over Tubbs. (Losing it to Berbick was rather appalling though.)

Quality is Marciano's legacy, quantity and longevity are that of Holmes. I have very strong feelings about Marciano, having long ago went through the time and effort to read his biography and manual with Charley Goldman on boxing and bodybuilding, as well as staying up late twice to view Murray Woroner's staged performance between Rocky and Ali (taking studious notes the second time). But Holmes was recognized as the top dog (and in fact called his jabs his "dogs") for a very substantial interval, yet only three of the decisions which went his way were questionable verdicts over an eight year, 21 bout period. That's still 18 challenges which are not disputed outcomes by most observers. (In Louis's case, Farr, Godoy I and Walcott I were somewhat debated judgements, although I'm satisfied that the scoring in favor of Louis was correct. Ditto for Pastor I.)

As you say Chris, 48-1 wouldn't have made much of a difference to you, but then you immediately follow that up with the claim that to adopt the attitude that rating Rocky as if he did go 48-1 is "stupid." I happen to agree with your first assertion, and disagree with the second.

I have a certain respect for anybody who got into the ring with George in the first place myself. As a professional, Holyfield has publicly conducted himself impeccably, in and out of the ring, even if he has privately ingested growth enhancing substances or liberally mated with numerous females in heat.

By virtue of publicly conducting oneself well, private misbehaviour can often be forgiven by the media, as Holyfield and Arguello have demonstrated. (Incidentally, Alexis Arguello is a walking advertisement for Dale Carnegie's, "How to Win Friends and Influence People," a manual his mentor and manager, Dr. Eduardo Roman, had him read early on.)

 

Although Foreman has flirted with hyperbole from time to time, I have to take his assessment as truth. I'd be interested in knowing who #6 through #10 was.

 

..it's up a few posts from here but i recommend the goblin's entry on Foreman, and Frazier and fighters in general. Can't think of a better summary.:thumbsup

 

It seem by most reports, Marciano beat Charles in the first contest pretty handly. The late round surge from rounds 8-15 put Marciano head. The only way on a reasonble scorecard for Charles to win was by knockout. It was a great fight, but going soley on rounds and score cards, it was not that close.

 

Yes, and although I stated I was satisfied with the judgements in favor of Louis against Pastor, Farr, Godoy and Walcott, it was an oversight on my part to express the same opinion for the decisions in favor of Rocky against Lowry, LaStarza and Charles. My apologies for those omissions, especially having previously viewed Marciano/Charles I in it's entirety.

 

You have the fight complete?

 

I don't really know how i inspired you to typing that. I didn't mean to say Foreman was stupid if that's how you interpreted it. I don't know much about Foremans intelligence, but i do know he is very smart in making money (selling grills if you like) and a good & entertaining commentator even if he has some stupid calls here and there.

...But i just thought the "If we were to slip him an injection of sodium pentathol, it would be real interesting to see how this list changes." was funny.

Well, okay i don't feel like going over the same Holmes discussion again.

I will keep it short by saying that Norton got knocked out AFTER Holmes refused a rematch. That Holmes lost to spinks AFTER he refused to give Williams a rematch.



I said that it wouldn't matter much to me if Marciano was 48-1 because of an early close, avenged loss to LaStarza or Lowry, but he is 49-0 (43) and it's ridiculous to rate him asif he's 48-1 even if it doesn't matter much.

Like i said, i don't see you rate Holmes asif he lost his close decisions.... which weren't when he was green like Marciano by the way, and he didn't avenge them like Marciano did, either.