Formeman Vs Louis

The greatest in accomplishments, yes. But isn't there a good reason why the cruiserweight division was introduced. Those 190 - 200 pound guys that made up the bulk of the HW division in the 1930's wouldn't look too good at HW today or in Foreman's era for that matter.

 

Yes, but in this thread we're talking about the difference in size between Louis and Foreman specifically, not the difference between eras in general. And it really wasn't that drastic between those two individuals.

 

Louis on points.

 

It's interesting that you say evolution. In the parochial conception of evolution, a concept of qualitative progress (ie. things getting better) is usually assumed. This, as any high school biology student can tell you, is bunk. Sportsmen adapt to the times they live in; the rules and refereeing of boxing fights in 1900 was clearly vastly different from today. Put Wladimir Klitschko in 25 round + fights with very little referee intervention and little regard to fouling on the inside, and he'd look very silly indeed. Equally, takes James J. Jefferies into the modern era and I'm sure he'd go nuts with frustration.

Now, between say 1942 (Louis's prime) and 1974 (Foreman's prime) there was remarkably little difference in rule changes, sports science or training equipment. Title fights were 15 rounds in both eras; there was little difference (if any) in refereeing or scoring. In fact, it was part of a tremendous period of continuity in the framework of boxing that lasted from the late 1930s until the 1980s.

One thing that did change after the 1950s was the number of fights boxers had; this might be because of a booming post-war economy (easier to get a part time job) or the TV era meaning that top level boxers like Sugar Ray Robinson and Ezzard Charles no longer had to fight 8+ times a year to be full time boxers.

One consequence this had, in my opinion, was a deterioration in the craftiness and guile of boxers over time. A 25 year old with 70 professional bouts will be vastly more experienced and likely more clever than a 25 year old with 30 pro bouts. This, in my opinion, is why there were fewer classically skilled boxers the likes of Jersey Joe Walcott, Max Schmeling or even someone like Bob Pastor during this era. Where there were crafty boxers (Jimmy Young and to a much lesser degree Ken Norton) they tended to do very well, despite being (in the case of Young) stunningly unsuited mentally to the sport.

So while I do think the sport evolved somewhat over that 32 year period, it was such to make it a softer flourishing environment for George Foreman. Put Foreman in the 1930s and 1940s, and I think he'd have a far less pretty record. Then again, he'd also have been molded into a better boxer far earlier in his career and would likely be a monstrous force by the time he hit his mid-20s, regardless of his loss column. Strange as it sounds: 1940s Foreman destroys 1970s Ali!

Leaving Ali-Louis behind (that could hijack this thread and take it on a trip to Mexico) I think that Louis would stay away from the ropes and be less apt to taking bodyshots. However, I am pretty sure that Louis would finish Foreman fairly early, making Louis's durability to the body or head pretty irrelevant just as Foreman's quick finish of Frazier made the stamina differential irrelevant.

I think that would be the case if we were talking about a 1969-1971 Frazier, but the Frazier of the Sunshine Showdown was overweight, complacent and unmotivated. Of course, Frazier had also left a lot in Madison Square Garden in the Fight of the Century. I personally think that the best wins on Louis's resume are superior to Frazier.

Norton is a tough one, because while he was very talented, I think he was more or less made for someone like Foreman. To beat Foreman, you really need to be able to fight backing up. However, on the back foot, Norton (who was of course very good at defending himself on the front foot) became a very flimsy defensive fighter. Norton's defense was based on crouching, crossing his arms and spreading his legs like a crab in order to move under his opponents punches, as well getting extra leverage on his own blows. If you look at all the bouts that Norton was backed up in, he really didn't know what to do, most notably when he tried to rope-a-dope Shavers and got wiped out for his troubles. So while I am loathed to take credit away from Foreman, I consider a boxer beating his stylistic nemesis (such as Louis against Walcott or Conn) to be more impressive than beating a boxer who is a relatively easy task. If Foreman had come along five years later and beaten Jimmy Young and Larry Holmes, I'd be much more impressed.

True, but at the heavyweight level, the size differential becomes less important due to the law of diminishing returns. That's why the idea of a 230-240 lb weight category would be laughed out of the room, while the leap up from light-welterweight to welterweight is so challenger when it's just 7 lbs. I doubt that Foreman- who would be a relatively small heavyweight today- would have much trouble with Wladimir Klitschko or Nikolay Valuev, but I do think that Jean-Marc Mormeck at 190 lbs could beat most 6"3 217 lb boxers today. After all, Foreman was only about the size of David Haye, but there'd be little point in him draining down to 200 lbs when (even moreso than Haye) he could be competitive in the heavyweight division today.

I agree with your first point (Foreman after all proved this against Peralta, Frazier, Lyle and Denis) but I think your latter point is based on flawed logic. Yes, Ali beat Foreman via durability; Young beat him by superior defensive ability; but this does not logically mean that these are the only means to beat Foreman. On the 11th January today in Edinburgh it was cold, cloudy and windy, but this is not the only weather than can be experienced on the 11th January in Edinburgh in any year.

I also think that you underrate Louis's defense. If you compare it to Jimmy Young's, I'm not convinced that Young was THAT much better. When one considers the deterrant effect of Louis's power, his superior strength in the clinches and his more intimidating nature, I think Louis becomes a much more difficult fighter for Foreman than Young was. For instance, I can think of no punch that Foreman threw in the 1970s that Louis could not find a major counter to, for example: Foreman's jab came back too low, he sometimes left his chin sticking out after winging punches, and when he punched to the body he didn't move his head.

It's well documented that, after the Rumble in the Jungle, Foreman was a major headcase (sleeping with up to four or five women in one day by some accounts). However, he was a major head case BEFORE that fight. Case in point: it's hard to destroy an opponent less impressively than Foreman against Jose Roman. Foreman managed to look disinterested, angry, hit his man when he was down and look joyless afterwards.

There is also a myth that Gil Clancy tried to make Foreman a more cautious boxer. I don't see this myself: he seemed to try and make Foreman a more technically sound and defensively sharp boxer, and it largely worked. Foreman by 1977 was a vastly better defensive boxer than in 1974, and wasted far less energy with worthless swings and excessive movement. Foreman was in fact often cautious before the Rumble in the Jungle: observe his slow start to the Norton and Frazier fights, or indeed to most of his pre-title opposition. Charge at Foreman or present a stationary target and he'd be very aggressive; move away from him and he tended to march forward in a somewhat confused manner, throwing relatively few punches. Even at his most hungry, Foreman didn't like to go looking for his food.

While Foreman was better in 1974, I think the problems that Young presented to him (good foot movement, clinching, counter-punching) would have been much more difficult for a 1974 Foreman to deal with. Furthermore, the problems of being tied up (and ring generalship as a whole) and of hard counter-punches would be much more apparent against Louis than Young. I don't think Young missed more than 5 right hands against Foreman; if Louis could land just one clean right hand (remember what Lyle was able to do with that punch) I think he had the power to hurt Foreman and the finishing ability to finish him off.

I think you make some very valid points, but overrate Foreman considerable and underrate Louis somwhat. This bout is similar to Foreman-Tyson for me: I respect Tyson a lot, but the styles would be so far out of his favour that I'd give him very little chance; the same is true in my opinion of Foreman's chances against Louis.

 

The Kurgan - it's getting litle too long to quote here.

As for evolution, I am a scientist and when I am talking about sports evolving, I am referring to the observable fact that in any sport which measures athletic ability objectively, there is an improvement between the 1930's and the 1970's, even taking into he account changing rules, equipment etc. Jesse Owens, even with tartan tracks and better shoes, would not have dominated sprinting in the 1970's. Gunder Hagg smashed the world mile record in the 1940's several times but would have been smoked by Jim Ryun or Kip Keino. The list goes on and on. I competed in ironman triathlons in 1988 - 1993 and from that era, only the very best would be competitive today, let alone dominate. Athletes and trainers learn from past athletes and trainers, in the words of Isaac Newton: "I appear so tall because I am standing on the shoulders on giants." Boxing is such a complex sport, it requires speed, functional strength, aerobic and anaerobic endurance, technique, mental strength...how could it not evolve if other sports that require fewer aspects of athletic development do evolve?

 

As you tacitly point out, we can really only measure "progress" in sports by way of sports with objective scoring systems and relatively simplistic compositions. But is this really applicable to a sport like boxing, which has a subjective scoring system?

In my opinion, the implied causation doesn't hold water, especially when we consider that the parameters of boxing aren't constant at all. I mean, it wouldn't make much sense to imply that a good American footballer would be able to walk onto a rugby pitch and do well, would it? Indeed, I'd be amazed if the athlete could make it through the whole 80 minutes before being pulled off. The difference between boxing in 2008 with boxing in 1908 isn't quite so drastic, but it's not so far behind.

Furthermore, whenever I hear this "progress through the ages" theory applied to boxing, I have to ask the proponent: when do you draw the line? I have met VERY few people (Dr. Z being the most notable one) who really push for the idea that, for instance boxers in the turn of the century are far ahead of boxers of the 1970s in terms of athletic ability and skill. 32 years separate a prime Louis and a prime Foreman. 34 years seprate a prime Foreman with today's heavyweights. If we are to carry your argument to its logical conclusion, Foreman is more primitive relative to today than Louis would be to Foreman.

So I'll pose the question: when, if ever, did this march of progress stop? If so, why, and why then? And how do you reconcile it with the changing environment of the sport? Furthermore, why could Foreman be competitive with Wladimir Klitschko (if you would agree to such a proposition) yet Joe Louis would be unable to be competitive with Foreman? Could Muhammad Ali be a top 5 heavyweight today if we transported him forward in history in a time machine straight into the ring?

 

Ken Norton was scared to death going into bout, did not put up fight. How in world you going to put him and Louis in same catagory?????

 

:smoke FORMEN was simply to big and powerful ! GEORGE would survive the early onslaught of JOE but I think JOE is finished as soon as GEORGE catches him ! And GEORGE would catch him as JOE wasnt the hardest guy to hit !:good

 

:smoke I respect your opinion DREX but GEORGE at his best was a good 20 pounds larger then JOE and when you consider the site specific way GEORGE carryed the weight ( Arms and shoulders ) its even larger in boxing terms ! :good

 

I think Foreman would have be much to big for Louis.

 

This fight reminds me of Louis-Baer is some ways, and with the same result possibly. Louis by Knockout.

 

foreman KO 3.

 

Sure. It's not out of the question that George would win.

I haven't actually said who I would pick in this thread, I was just poointing out that the size difference wasn't that huge.

 

Again, everyone who is saying Foreman is too big for Louis: would Wlad thus have an easier time against Foreman, since the size differential is greater?

 

I would hope most people realize that size is only a factor if the smaller fighter doesn't have the skill to overcome it.

Not too sure that is the case with most people on this boeard though....:roll: