George foreman's early comeback opposition!

Yeah, again, more a product of his brute force, a ramrod of a weapon.

In his 'comeback' it was more as a distracting tool, or to mask further offence. He certainly had big mitts did George....

 

He did, in fact, have his title shot (both of them, actually) just handed out to him. Foreman's popularity and schtick won over the fans, which translated into mega ticket sales and high PPV numbers, which in turn made George a "top contender" based on popularity. A lot of people don't have a problem with that. But I guess I'm more old school (even though I'm only 38) and believe Foreman should have been forced to fight a real contender before getting his shots. It was unfair to the other contenders out there. But George really wanted the money!!!

 

Agreed.

Agreed.

Disagree. Again, George had periods where he hit Moorer soldily in almost every round, and he was clobbering Moorer throughout the last round. If you don't agree with me, check the film.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRAvcuy4g-0[/ame]

Last round starts at 40:00 I count around 12 solid connects in the last round alone, not counting solid jabs or clubbing shots that were partially blocked.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0-WR3qcWp4&feature=related[/ame]


I don't get people's obsession with saying that it was one punch. Moorer took hard shots throughout the fight, and got hit with hard shots throughout the final round before he went down.

 

I agree with a lot of this.

Any fighter who uses the parry to the extent and with the success that George Foreman did is obviously a fighter of very good technique.

The problem with Foreman, in his heyday, is that he often neglected his skills, especially when he started to tire a bit.

 

The biggest factor was George himself was scouting opponents and the opposition he'd face. He proved himself to be a shrewd matchmaker and evaluator of talent. The other smart thing he did was to stay busy busy busy and take fights in small towns. Most othere heavies at the time were pretty much fighting at casinos only. Not George. He'd take on a C grade guy in front of 10k fans and that way it was televised on USA cable.

Very shrewd and what better way to manage a comeback for an old puncher than that, coupled with the personality change?

 

exactly this.:good

 

Agreed.

Then again fighting Pierre Coetzer gave Riddick Bowe a shot and fighting Alex Stewart and Bert Cooper gave Moorer a shot, so why not Big George?

 

Nobody said Foreman hadn't learned a few crafty tricks once he came back. But for the most part he was just too slow by then to make great use of it.

Calling this fighter a technician comparable to Joe Louis is just plain wrong though:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyiFIdbN2H4[/ame]


Throwing short compact punches in comparison to wide looping haymakers is a big part of technique, when it comes down to a contest about punching an opponent in the face, no matter how much Foreman's unorthodox moves sometimes worked in favour of him. I would argue that a George Foreman who threw punches like Joe Louis while creating the same kind of leverage behind them would be an absolute nightmare to face, even for the likes of Ali and Jimmy Young.

It's great how we are trying to build up every aggressive fighter into an "overlooked, underrated" technician nowadays. Who's next, Paul Fuji?

 

Agreed. George is one of my favourite fighters but Big N Bad saying others can't spot the nuances in his style is pathetic.

 

I don't deny that Foreman could cut off the ring well or that his jab wasn't an effective weapon whenever he decided to use it. Few boxers have ever risen to the top without a semblance of boxing skill.

His cross-arm block worked well for him to avoid most of the punishment that the younger men were throwing at him during his second career. The Saddler style stance and parrying, if not exactly ideal for Foreman, also served its purpose in winning the heavyweight title for him as a younger man.

I've pointed most of these things out in a video I made years ago:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApkBgIjOaNI[/ame]


Comparing the skillset of Louis and Foreman as equals is a big call though and one without much substance behind it. There's much to criticize about Foreman's style as well and he would have been nowhere near as effective without his legendary power, strength and toughness.

There were plenty of boxers that imitated Louis without half his ability and they did fairly well for themselves. Can't imagine too many fighters finding success by imitating Foreman.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1452BrhJs0[/ame]

7:00 for a comparison

 

Foreman's best opponents during his first 8 pro comeback fights were against "Sekorski & Qawi." Both of them dude's were tough, yet way out of their element in 1987 and 1988...

MR.BILL:deal

 

I agree that Foreman was not the only fighter to get a title shot by knocking over inferior opposition. But in defense of Moorer, the Bert Cooper that he fought was a very live version and not the coked out, sexed out version that Big George steamrolled. And the version of Pierre Coetzer that Bowe fought was not as battle worn or scarred as the one that George fought. But still, Riddick Bowe did run from a match against Razor Ruddock and opt to fight the less talented and skillful Coetzer.
Again, George was not the only one getting a title shot handed to him, but he faced about the worst opposition of any of the aforementioned fighters. But George's popularity and his 70s accomplishments/aura gave him a huge boost, fairly or unfairly.