Gil Clancy on Foreman

Foreman was just too slow in the 1990s. Any good fighter would see those kind of punches coming from a mile away and he could no longer cut off the ring with his plodding feet. He had improved in some aspects but he wasn't the force he had been in the 1970's, not by any means.

A lot of the time Gil Clancy says some outrageous things but he is knowledgeable for sure. I think he's just too personally involved with Foreman, Monzon to give an unbiased opinion on them.

 

Look, my man Foreman has been dinged since day one about his overall competition. In some area's, its obvious that Foreman did string a huge amount of wins over some bums and stiffs while mixing in a real fighter here and there.. Early on, dudes like "Frazier and Norton" were either made-to-order for Foreman or just scared shitless...

Okay, Foreman's speed was slightly better at age 25 and 220 pounds; that's a no brainer... However, his skills were poor.... Its not hard to cut-off the ring and bully your opponents to death if you are bigger and stronger and have the psychological advantage going into the fight....

All I was saying from before was that while the 40 something Foreman was bigger and slower than ever before, he was also smarter and put his punches together better and owned better stamina in the ring.... His punching power was still there.....

ALSO! Anyone ever noticed that while Foreman was in his 40s and on his comeback trail that all of the supposed brawlers and punchers that he fought became stickers and movers (Cooney, Morrison & Stewart) when they faced Foreman in the ring.?.?

Yeah, Foreman had a tuffer time getting some KO's late in his career, but his later opponents were either too smart or well trained to move about the ring and not stand and trade like many earlier victims did......

MR.BILLbbb

 

They could do so because Foreman was still strong and powerful but very, very slow. I can't see Stewart, Morrison pulling off an exhibition in boxing against a prime Foreman. I wouldn't be surprised if Norton and Frazier beat 1990's Foreman, not at all.

 

Gil Clancy is talking about the Monzon-Griffith bout in which they took forever to add up the scorecards.

 

Joe Frazier would have killed a 1990s foreman. Way too fast for george in his 40s.

 

I think that the 1990s Foreman is one of the weakest lieaql champions of all time.

Of course taken in context, his acomplishments at this stage of his career seal his legacy.

 

we cant take it away from george. What he achieved in regaining the title was outstanding. One of the finest stories in sport

 

:good:happy:happy:happy

During what fights did he do this? I need to dig them up.

 

They were by and large better opponents than he routinely beat in the 70's.

 

I pretty much felt Foreman's manager Big Dick Sadler spoon fed young George Foreman a handful of bums and stiffs on his way to Joe Frazier in '73..... Going in against Frazier, Foreman had more padding on his pro record than a baseball catcher's glove behind home plate...

Foreman never really fought a serious "Live" body until he won the crown against Joe Frazier in Jamaica........ Foreman faced good opponents for the most part from 1973 to 1977......

And, once again, during his comeback from 1987 thru 1989, Foreman racked up another 20 wins over bums, stiffs and hasbeen's, etc....... But I felt while Foreman was aging by 1990, his comp was pretty decent until his final fight with Shannon Briggs in 1997.... Ol' Briggs ran like hell against a 48 year old Foreman........

MR.BILL

 

Foreman may have learned to pace himself, learned to be more defensive but Foreman of the 70's would stop Foreman of the 90's

If we had to judge the Foreman of the 90's, we would have to say Shultz was as good or Better, Morrison was better and Lou Savarese was better

He had a very tough time with 5"6 Dwight Quawi,lost to Holyfield

Cooney had no legs when they fought, a young Foreman would have done the same to a young Cooney for the most part.

A win over Moorer who was Champ?

The 90's Foreman was known for his loses, but he did learn how to survive better, roll with the punches and pace himself, these are things that come with age and experience and lack of choice

If we had to judge George on career 2, I may rate him top 20-25-30, losing to HolyfieldMorrison,wars with Alex Stewart, Shultz,Briggs, Savarese (yes he lost to Lou) at that point in time

 

You are kidding Bill.

 

i think if you put the best qualities of the seventies Foreman and the 90's Foreman, you would have great fighter.Young George so often punched himself out,ALi,Young,Peralta etc showed how to fight young George.Old George of the nineties,knew he didn't have the energy to swing for the fences the whole fight, he rested himself,and took punches off those big arms.Frazier gets knocked out by old George,because this is still a matchup nightmare for Joe.Joe is too damn easy to hit.Joe has heart and stamina,but he beats Foreman as often as Patterson beats Liston.Not in a month of Sundays.

 

John I think you and I can make our own inside joke on this one.


Foreman in his physical prime >>>>>

This content is protected

 

Foreman still had the big punch against Moorer in 1994 at age 45......... But Foreman never again would show that type of power for the remaining two yrs left on his career against "Schulz, Grimsley, Savarese and Briggs."

I love Foreman and I scored in his favor over Axel Schulz in 1995 by a lousy point, but the fight was a goodie and is often forgotten in recent topics concerning Big George........

We ALL know that Foreman was screwed in 1997 against Briggs.......

MR.BILL:bbb