If George Foreman had to fight against every heavyweight Champion before him how would he fare?

Johnson would be frustrating as hell for anyone from a later era, if using a ref from his era that allowed that level of wrestling.

 

The question was fighters prior to him... There's a few I can think of thet may have been a tough night after his prime like Lewis. Possibly Holmes, Bowe if motivated and in shape. Maybe Tyson, if he could handle the pushing qnd pulling tactics Foreman implemented. ( I don't think he could though) . Fury could frustrate him , if he used spoiler tactics like holding and hitting, tying him up. Using his size to its maximum effectiveness. But if he lost focus like he did with Wilder a couple of times. He wouldn't survive.

 

In theory he COULD potentially beat all of them. But something tells me he gets a few surprises

 

Context to those losses. Walcott is just a much better boxer.

 

Rather than tilting the rest of the world to jive the results, perhaps the results accurately speak of his abilities regardless.

 

The full question is for both before and after, so basically, everyone lol

Agree there's some that could potentially be tough nights. I would narrowly side with Foreman over most of them tho if not all.

"If prime George Foreman had to fight against every heavyweight Champion before him would he beat the massive majority? How about those that came after his prime?"

 

My bad. Didn't finish reading the question.

 

By that reasoning, George didn't qualify among Jimmy Young's 32% best opponents, so why not?

 

Faster thinker then me, I was going to respond but let's pretend I said this.

 

On his best night he is at least even money against all of them.

 

George had 2 losses during his first run and one of those was against the GOAT. Jersey Joe lost TWENTY TIMES. You can't context the way out of losing almost 1 out of every 3 fights. That's just a fool's errand.

 

Again, this rebuttal would be a lot more devastating if Jimmy Young hadn't been an elite heavyweight in George's era. Same Jimmy Young who came close against Ali and Norton, and beat George. Young lost eighteen times. Almost 1 out of 3 fights.

I've scrupulously tried to keep my argument as light on context as the one I replied to.

 

Firstly, Young had 5 losses when Foreman faced him. He would rack up the balance of those after he was a non-entity. Secondly, would you say that a mentally and physically prepared Foreman entered the ring in San Juan? Is this the version we have facing Walcott here? George obviously fell apart at a certain juncture in his career, took a decade off and came back reconstructed. Walcott's career is sprinkled with consistent defeats. He just wasn't that good. I have cited many contemporary articles identifying him as a journeyman. This was the belief of his contemporaries, not mine.

 

Ah, good. My nefarious plan to inject context into this discussion has succeeded.

I'll throw a few things out, and then I need to get to bed. So I'll hand off the baton to people who know what they're talking about. Until then, here you go:

* Young was a journeyman in the leadup to his breakout bout with Ali. 17-4-2. Then he hits a nice streak against Lyle, Foreman, narrow loss to Norton. Takes Norton to an SD -- a good result, considering Norton took Holmes and Ali to the brink -- and then...loses to Ocasio twice shortly thereafter. Goes downhill after that. Fights too long.

* Walcott's also a journeyman. His record before he gets to Louis is worse, 44-12-2, but is it truly that much worse than Young's? To my inexpert eye, not by much. More losses, but more wins, more experience. Pick your poison. He also had to worry about the Depression, a society with some vestiges of the Color Line still around, and a culture where fighters' records weren't as protected.

* The level of guys who beat both say pretty much the same thing to me: Both were really good, but inconsistent, contender-level guys. Walcott had more longevity than Young, for whatever reason. So he got lucky. Young didn't. Both hit streaks at some point. Both fell into the journeyman trap for stretches.

* Walcott did manage to get the title, though. And his loss to Louis in Fight 1 was against a tougher adversary than Young's fight against Ali. Conversely, Depressed Foreman was a better scalp than two victories over Charles.

* Both men profited from slumps in the heavyweight division's competitiveness, IMO. They came around at the right time.

* On the Foreman issue, I don't have a firm stance. Zaire clearly goofed the guy up. At the same time, he wasn't shot or ancient. He had enough juice left in him to return a decade later. I'm always a bit skeptical of "Tyson wasn't motivated for Douglas" kinds of arguments. EDIT: And Foreman would have beaten Norton or Ali at that stage, depression or no. So there's that.

 

The guys from before he became champion?

I'd say Ali and Liston are the only ones I'd favor over him. Actually Liston might be 55:45 in Listons favor due to his straighter punches, more consistent jab, and stamina.

Louis would be interesting if he could survive the early onslaught. He might be able to pick him apart late. Wouldn't bet on it it though. Same thing with Johnson, but I give him even less chance because he lacks power and would be attempting to wrestle the huge bull like Foreman in the clinches which would tire Johnson out as well. I only give Johnson maybe a 30-35% chance at best.

The vast majority of the rest get slaughtered.

After Foreman became champ:

Pre Stewart Lewis loses, post Stewart Lewis stops him late or wins a decision as long as he doesn't engage him in a war.

Current Fury could be a serious problem.

Holmes is 50/50, and Usyk might make things interesting we have to see how his career pans out.

Everyone else gets destroyed.