Before George fought Joe Frazier for the title he'd got to number 2 in the contender's list by the time of the first Frazier-Muhammad Ali fight in 1971. Two years before their fight took place. In this period,George was given safe fights. It obviously paid off,as nobody could fault Foreman's resume once he'd won the title,but did Dick Sadler plan it this way ?
all the top guys like quarry , ellis , patterson ect ect were all fighting eachother in the title tournys fighting for ali's crown probably contributes to his lax in resume prior to the title
There weren't any managers willing to put their guy in with Foreman for the money. And the top 2 guys were the champ Frazier and then Ali. After that, there was a big dropoff in talent. Why put your guy in with a Foreman for chump change? Most of the guys he did fight were the anytime anywhere guys like Chuvalo and Wepner and guys like that. And the other big prospects from 68 George had already ko'd earlier. What the Foreman camp did do was to keep busy and fight regular and not sit on the sidelines waiting for a big money fight. And wait for the championship fight. That type of management is not very popular in recent times.
Foreman fought an apalling bunch of build up fighters - the worst of any champion. so many opponents who lost more than they won. once Foreman made the ratings sandler didnt take any chances and continued to match george soft. Really soft, I mean former LH peralta got him the rating in the back of 71' then he sat on that rating in the 5 fights george had in 1972 against 4 guys who lost more than they won! The best opponent ted gullick made foreman look awful. Dick sadler took a chance that Frazier was still a bit shell shocked from TFOTC and it paid off but I think team foreman knew George was still not yet the finished article, he had not required real seasoning and Ali would exploit this at age 32. I think it was the plan to strike while the iron was hot, Foreman had tallent and his confidence was sky high from all those missmatches. it was not that short sighted since theoreticly George was young enough to out live the top fighters anyway so they took the plunge when they did. The point is it paid off but long term the fallout from the Ali loss prevented george from reaching his full potential first time around.
atsch Why not ? he lost to ALI and YOUNG ! he defended against JOE KING ROMAN for gods sake . And dispite the 70s hype NORTON was koed by a middleweight before GEORGE did it . His resume is not that great .
Truth is, while we can only measure someone's resume by the level of opposition and the outcome of those fights, it truly has nothing to do with who is better than who. George Foreman could live lined up bums from end to end as far as the eye can see, and he'd still have knocked out Frazier and Norton -- and done so quickly. And, I'll wager, still have lost to Ali if he'd have fought every capable contender back-to-back-to-back before facing Ali. Baseball observers agree that the AL East is the toughest division with the Yankees and Red Sox and Devil Rays. By nature of the schedule of playing each other more times than they play outside-the-division teams, the winner of that division is pretty much a lock to have the best resume and toughest schedule of any team. But that doesn't mean the winner of that division has the best team and will win the World Series.
The Joe Roman fight was an easy first defence which a lot of champions get. Back to back defences against Ken Norton and Muhammad Ali is nothing to be sniffed at. Okay,he lost to Ali,but Muhammad could still beat anybody on the scene in 1974,and Ken Norton had already displayed his credentials in his two bouts with Muhammad. A slightly off kilter,albeit still dangerous,Foreman losing to a craftsman such as Jimmy Young is no disgrace either.
Yes it is because foreman was the only champion to get as far as he did without ever learning to pace himself over the distance. Imagine pinning so much on power, getting that far in boxing and not being able to pace yourself?
Outside of Chuvalo, Kirkman was Foreman's best win. He was the other big prospect coming up, even got a Ring Magazine cover. But yes, in contrast to other 70s contenders, Foreman got an easy ride to the title. This tells us several things: You can't judge a contender by his resume, but with your eyes. Despite to contrary claims of such and such wouldn't make it to a title shot in the 70s, wrong! Apparenlty even in the 70s, you can in fact run a record up and get a title shot without real challenges.
Yes sadler and co knew they had a special, special fighter on their hands. The olympic pedigree, size, power and automatic radar george apeared to have to land booming shots (almost without looking where they went) meant that team foreman were prepared to gamble only for the highest stakes. keep him busy keep his confidence high and miss out tricky hurdles along the way.
George and his team had an almost supernatural belief in his power,and why should n't they have done,after what was played out ? Destroying unbeaten Joe Frazier in two rounds,and blitzing Ken Norton in the same timespan.....! Learning to pace himself was considered an unnecessary task. We all recall the script - Ali would do better than Frazier and Norton,by probably lasting five rounds ! In spite of Foreman's limitations,it still took a dangerous 1974 Ali to beat him. And if Ali had n't been around,George would have held the title for a few years.
The way george was fighting then it would not have been that much longer. George was getting more gung-ho the more he was getting away with quick wins. He was destined to becaome complacent on his own. The next contender, seasond enough and capable to take foreman into the later rounds stood an excelent chance. without Ali there it could have been Holmes in 76' but bugner and young would always be a problem to him stylewise also.