I watched the Holyfield-Foreman fight the other night and wondered how good Foreman would have been if he allied patience to his ridiculous power and strength, when still in his prime. I can't see many people beating him because he had a solid chin, a good jab and much better stamina when he paced himself. Maybe some could outbox him and use movement to win on points, but a less wild Foreman would be a fearsome proposition for anyone. How do you think some of Foreman's fights would have differed with a more measured approach? How would the Ali fight have gone if Foreman had been taught patience earlier?
Ali said over and over what he was going to do In that fight " 7 8 round he'll be puffin.... He'll be breathin.... Then he's mine. It was easy for Ali. I don't think he could believe how easy Foreman had made it for him, then Foreman went down from that combination, more out of fatigue than anything, and he didn't get up, he basically conceded the title right there out of exhaustion.
If Foreman had not retired he could of been the greatest of all times, but he retired. He basically was out of boxing in what would have been his peak, but for him it was not his peak retiring at that time was part of his genetic make up I guess. The same genetics that made him strong and tough made him want to retire at that time.
He would have been exactly as good as he was. He was not mentally strong enough or stylistically imaginative to stay longer at the top.
Pretty much agreed. The Foreman of the Norton and Frazier1 bouts was as great as he could have been, the maturity and patience he came by later on was with an also older body, it wasn't going to happen in his physical prime. Before his retiring after the Jimmy Young bout Gil Clancey tried unsuccessfully to alter his style and it was a mistake, the young powerful Foreman needed the wider stance and gate to get the most into his punches and to throw them correctly. Had Sadler and Archie still been in charge of George I think he would have stopped Young and avoided being bombed so badly by Lyle.
Can't see this. George at his best was not made to beat someone who could take it and move like Ali, and seeing how easily Lyle reached his chin its at best a toss up what would have happened when Louis did the same and more, and Liston would have nailed him often also. Top 5 all time, in my book a big yes, could he have been number 1, no way.
There is no genetic factor involved in when he wanted to retire, that was circumstantial & psychological. With a different background, history, guidance, he could have lived & acted differently. Foreman could have won against '74 past prime Ali, who was out on his feet a couple times anyway. If he did not slug so indiscrimately, waited more for openings, maybe played possum himself. Though it is a tall order to be the GOAT, & I do not see him beating peak super fleet '60's Ali. A boxer has a stylustic advantage over a slugger. Foreman was off for 15/16 months (except fror that 5 men in one night farce) before Lyle, he was rusty, & he could have employed some defense, both guys were side open. Lyle was also rescued by a round that was prematurely ended at 2 minutes flat.
If Foreman did not retire and expanded upon his craft and developed his body further he could have reached 100 wins and had Tyson and Holmes skelps. Foreman started boxing late in life, his mid 30s is when his prime would have been.
This ^^^^ As great and accomplished as Foreman was, he could have been way better. For starters, **** Sadler was small time and had no business with the Heavyweight champ, and was possibly in with the Ali camp before he officially was with them, but we will never know for sure. If Foreman had been better trained, better advised and managed he would have been unstoppable. Heck, had he just straightened his punches, not abandoned his jab and paced himself he would have been appreciably better. With better defensive coaching, he would have been off the charts. Holmes would have been stiff competition, but with the right game plan George could have beat Mr Peanut. A reign from 73-86 undefeated is not out of the question. Tyson would have known to stay away, and could have taken over the vacant belts when George left the building.
Freman could have been better, those are fair points. Maybe he even stays undefeated for some years into Holmes actual reign. Assuming he had the focus, discipline & conditioning. I do not see him beating prime Ali, at least most times. Would be possible to beat prime Holmes, or Holmes take the title in the '80's. He still would not be very fast, & how much skill & defense he could impement is a question. Though cutting off the ring was already very good, his punches & endurance could be better. Imagining the longest HW reign ever is a bit much in any circumstance though.
Just look at the Foreman vs Moorer fight. At Foreman's age of 45, his reflexes were shot. His speed was glacier slow. However his armor plated chin allowed him to weather the storm of Moorers offensive volly for 10 rounds. His top KO power allowed him to capitalize on that small window of opportunity he needed. You can minimize it all you want, but there is no 45, totally past it Heavyweight in history besides Foreman who could have pulled that off. It is a testimant to what he was in his prime, and what he could have been. It is my belief, that even past prime, the Foreman who fought ****ey in 1990 had the slighr edge at being the best in the Heavyweight division at 41 years old, but from that point on in his comeback I think age started to really show, as it does with any fighter. For comparison, I think Tyson only fulfilled 1/2 of his potential. George only fulfilled 1/3 of his.
Even if George had added his latter day patience to his awesome physical attributes during his prime,I can't see him ever beating the Muhammad Ali of 1974. Their Zaire battle would have lasted a bit longer but with the same conclusion. Even a more measured Foreman would have been outboxed and beaten to the punch on that night.