George Foreman compares his two punching styles

The truth is usually shades of gray.

Foreman threw his hardest possible punches against Ali's arms, body and head in Zaire. His form was just like that he employed in training on the heavy bag, and Ali was practically a heavy bag in covering up in the rope-a-dope. He also swung freely against the hapless Roman. He definitely deployed his best shots in destroying Frazier and even in sloppily disposing of Chuvalo. We didn't see this youthful, unbridled savagery from his old, savvy, born-again version.

Foreman is a chronic harmless bullsh*tter, but here I pronounce him truthful.

Louis never wound up because his power came from the balls of his feet and proper body mechanics. So he stopped Schmeling with his hardest right hand for that given moment - and ditto for most of his other kayo wins - but in training he could probably generate more power against a stationary bag, which he never had occasion to do in an actual bout, because it wasn't practical nor was it his inclination by any stretch.

Louis had to watch his words, deeds and demeanor. But in this regard he also spoke truthfully or else he just would have held his peace.

 

I understand where you're coming from but that would only make things worse. Here Joe Louis is, knocking out white boys by the dozen, then he goes on and says "I never hit 'em as hard as I could have!" That would only make things worse. White people then would have taken it as an insult as if it made them look weak as a race.

 

That's a pretty shallow way of looking at a great display of heart Gordon. Lyle didn't so much as collapse and get belted out. He took some serious punishment, as did George.

 

You may be right on that one.It was a brainless display by GF ,intent on being the macho man, but yes , he did display heart. Ive never questioned his heart in anything ive ever said.
Ive never wavered from my original point ,which is that i feel he is way overrated.

 

I understand you're not the field of law, but all of this is very basic. In the court of law, the way you prove your case is by bringing up relevant facts to support your case or evidence questioning the credibility or facts of the opposing side. This is what you do. So when somebody is citing their main supporting evidence as... Well he said this or that... it's then appropriate to call into question the validity of said statement. That is how these things work. It certainly doesn't work like... Ohh, everybody has lied or distorted the truth, so don't bring up evidence showing that... because then how would we believe anybody. That is a far cry of how things work.

You continually miss the point, Joe Louis is competing in a sport where the object is to beat your foe and not get hit. When you have somebody hitting you or trying to knock you out, it stands to reason you're trying to do the same. Yet here, you expect me to believe Louis, never, is his entire boxing career threw a punch as hard as he could in the ring. THAT DEFIES LOGIC AND COMMON SENSE. It matters not if, in the gym he somehow in the right circumstances could throw a punch fractions harder than in the ring. We would be talking fractions at that point, and that would be neither here nor there. While in the ring, there were situation where he loaded up and put everything he had into a punch. Period. It may not have been the ULTIMATE MAXIMUM EXPONENTIAL GREAT THUNDEROUS punch he could ever throw this side of the Mississippi but for all intense and purposes it was as hard as he could throw. Which again is the point.

 

I love how cuck has somehow become a normal word people actually use in daily conversation.

 

Us millennials are taking over.

 

Foreman threw punches with little regard to balance.... swinging from the hip. Ultra heavy singular blows one after another.

Louis was taught proper stance, positioning, balance and setting up opponents for combinations. He threw bunches of punches with excellent technique and explosive power.

 

Well, that's because we don't need to be in a court of law to call into question credibility of other statements showing the inverse of truth. That's like saying you can't call into question what a friend says to you, and bring up times he's lied about that or similar things in the past, because... this isn't a court of law? Come on Rez, you're better than this. It absolutely is relevant and applicable.

Because for all intents of purposes he WAS hitting guys as hard as he could in a boxing match. What your 40 yard dash time outside the ring is irrelevant, it only matters his speed in the ring. The statement was, I never hit anybody as hard as I could which is suspect on two fronts. First, he's talking about hitting someone, not in innate object, so thus the only thing that might apply is in the boxing ring or sparring. Not heavy bag work. Second, even if we want to say it's all inclusive, then we're still left with it POSSIBLY being fractions less. He doesn't have sensor on a person body or face that he's boxed in the ring to exactly measure the impact, and then compare it to the hardest he's hit a heavy bag. He didn't, nor do we have that info. So how would he exactly know, and why would we take it as a fact? Never mind the fact that, even if so, it might be fractions less and for all intense and purposes it's his hardest punch. Imo it fails on both fronts.