It’s weird how personal you and the others take comments about the 70s HWs. I get it, I get red blooded about Azuhma Nelson vs Jeff Fenech to some capacity but you need to lighten up the lot of you you’re a bunch of stiffs who all act like a single featureless blob who could be replaced by a chat bot.
He was certainly a more complete fighter when he was older. Young Foreman was always looking to bang but in his 2nd career he was pretty effective inside with the cross arm guard and effective in the outside with the long guard. He will never be know as great defensively because he wasn't. He was an offensive minded guy like most power punchers are. I disagree with the zero defense statement but acknowledge he wasn't a particular defensive minded dude.
Always had trouble on where to place Foreman on the among the ATGs. He only had two defenses in his first reign, but did manage wins over Frazier, Norton, and Lyle. Came back as an old man and gave an excellent fighter in Holyfield a run. Won a belt at 45, which is remarkable no matter who it was against. He won a Gold Medal in addition to all that, so he damn sure was doing something right. Somehow, even though he was blown out by Foreman, all-in-all, I was more impressed by Frazier's incredible work rate, stamina, and relentlessness than I was with George. Frazier just didn't match up well with him (same goes for Tyson IMO). The Ring had Foreman #7 all-time among Heavyweights (Frazier was #8). Beating Frazier, who's style was made to order for Foreman, had a lot to do with that. How many great wins did George have outside of that? #7 sounds a little high to me, but it's hard to say exactly where he should be...
And for every one of them, you have someone that will say ATGs are overrated compared to today's fighters that are bigger stronger faster etc. Foreman was the type of fighter whose offense was his defense, along with a great deal of mauling & pushing. It was an extremely effective style for him, just check his record.
"Prime" Frazier?...Joe was "shopworn" when he lost to Foreman in 1973. He was never the same after the FOTC on March 8, 1971...he left everything he had in the ring that night in MSG...and beating a "chinney" Ken Norton is no great feat...
LOL Foreman had an excellent defense even in his first career, I have no idea what you guys are watching to make these incorrect judgements. This content is protected This content is protected
Says the guy, who got in early on this thread, just so he could cynically preempt any posts favorable to Foreman. (And, it's not the first time, is it? ) An almost perfect example of projection, right there! Like your clichéd, anti-Foreman drivel couldn't be programmed?
Did you miss the end of the Lyle fight where Geoge delivered over 20 unanswered punches to Lyles head? (After being floored TWICE in the 4th round)? Please, put the crack pipe down. Norton was an excellent fighter, Frazier was still prime when Foreman. Foreman bounced him around the ring like a rubber ball. Have you ever seen the fight? I think it was 6 or 7 KOs, right? Also - Foreman had the highest knockout ratio of any heavyweight during that era, what's your excuse for that? What's your excuse for Foreman's 2nd win over Fraizer? What's your excuse for his gold medal win? LOL I love these guys who like to underrate Foreman because once you reveal the facts they tend not to post again. Perhaps you should watch this video and then try to say Foreman's defense is overrated again so you can laugh at your own ignorance. You want to see real defense? Truth be told, Forman's defense was so good that he was rarely ever hit, relative to most other boxers.
Where exactly are all the posts claiming Foreman was so "fundamentally sound"? I've been here forever and never seen posters going around claiming anything of the like.
