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

Foreman was incredibly tired against Young and extremely tired against Ali - i don't see how anything is debatable there. Virtually any good sized heavyweight in history would have been tired in Zaire if they matched Foreman's output and effort in the conditions. could never call Young's KD a KD in the true sense of the term. Lyle absolutely. First incarnation Foreman was plenty durable as seen by the way he shook off Frazier's hooks as if they were a light breeze. Second incarnation paced himself to the extreme and hence never let himself get tired to the point where he was tripping over his own feet. 1st version was a much more destructive fighter however.

 

As far as KD's go it was as tame as they possibly come. The fight was closer than many care to admit and there's plenty of literature about that Foreman was told to carry the fight for a while for the benefit of TV.

 

I actually didn't mean to include your post in my reply .. tech/cut and paste error on my part ..

That aside, we can all make "chicken feed" on anyones positions but I am simply stating my honest take on Foreman. No axe to grind. He didn't have speed like a Tyson or even close. He didn't have skill like Liston .. he was raw strength and power, most of the time arm power as noted he often arm punched. He was slow on foot and tired easily. His defense wasn't great as you see how many times Ali tagged him early in Zarie and later Lyle who everyone forgets was 34 plus at the the time of their fight and gassed. His entire first career is based on highlight reel massacres of Frazier and Norton. It's like basing Cooney on Norton and Lyle. Fast, talented boxers with strong chins, high ring IQ's and stamina could defeat him as Jimmy Young proved. In the Ali and Young fights you see him mentally breakdown, confused, tired and unable to shift gears. He was a one dimensional , limited fighter, extremely strong and dangerous but once out of his sweet spot he fell apart. I feel post Ali/Holmes , against bigger and stronger and better big men he loses to Holyfield more decisively than version 2, Tyson with his speed gets him early, the Bowe that beat Holyfield beats him, Lewis flattens him early, both Klitschko beat him as does Fury. It's not a negative slant by design as I actually like him, completely enjoyed his comeback , what it meant to so many and the fact that he got out on top of sorts , made a ton of money and was smart enough to cherry pick opponents and spared all us all the sight of him flattened on the canvas in his forties. He's an amazing story.

 

Not even going to address the mumbo jumbo but how the hell did he avoid boxers? Who were they? If so why did he fight Peralta twice, and go out of his way to fight Jimmy Young when he didn't have to if that was the case?

Also, it wasn't a case of him being "completely exposed to the degree he couldn't step in a ring for ten years". Ali "exposed" him much worse and he was back just over a year later against the baddest mother****er around.

 

You don't have to address anything nor does your post alter my opinion. If you want to try please tell me the best boxers he defeated in his first career. Lyle, slow, ponderous, thirty four plus in age and who had lost to Ali and Young was believed to be a stylistic tailor made comeback opponent for his comeback. Let's go with facts and park the bravado ..again, who was the best boxer he defeated ?

 

Please show me proof Young was believed to be a "stylistic tailor made comeback opponent". The facts are Foreman did not have to fight him at all, but actually went out of his way to do so which he wouldn't have done if he avoided boxers. Out of curiosity's sake, why did he fight Peralta TWICE if he was so keen on avoiding boxers?

 

His "comeback opponent" after the thirteen month hiatus following the Ali loss was Ron Lyle. Comeback is referred to as an attempt to regain winning ways following a crushing or unexpected defeat much like George suffered in Zaire ... By the time Foreman fought Young he had five fights in one year and was highly active and still lost. That aside , while Young was a very good defensive cutie type I never heard him referred to as baddest or toughest anything ..

Again, still waiting for you to name the best boxer George defeated in his first career ..

 

I never said you referred to Young as the baddest or toughest anything.... my question is why would he have fought Young in a non-mandatory if he was avoiding boxers?

Since you asked maybe Peralta. Who else was there to fight for him though? The only other boxer worth more than a grain of salt was Ellis, and they were never in any position to fight. Who could he have possibly ducked?

 

Actually it proved to be very poor matchmaking on the part of Team Foreman, one that he learned from and never repeated in his second career .. To have Foreman take on Jimmy Young in the heat of Puerto Rico has to be one of the dumber management decisions I have heard of and there is no way George didn't know how tricky Young was because he was an announcer for one of the Young - Lyle bouts on TV .. mind you I never said George was a coward didn't excel against a certain niche of boxer ..

 

I figured as much - all good.

I won't go much into this because your mind is set and your outlook determined to be negative.

I will delve into a couple of very glaring bits tho.

Citing Lyle as being 34 is disingenuous on many fronts. Students of the game will know that Lyle had his very first amateur fight around 23yo and didn't have a professional fight until he was 30yo. He'd actually been boxing as a pro for just 5 years when he fought Foreman and was in fact as good as he ever got. The fight prior he'd actually knocked out Earnie Shavers. Fobbing off Lyle via age is somewhat akin to fobbing off guys like Hopkins and Moore for the same e.g. Trinidad, who you have a lot of faith in, couldn't beat a 36yo Hopkins. Tarver couldn't beat a 41yo Hopkins. Pavlik couldn't beat a 43yo Hopkins.

Lyle was a late bloomer for obvious reasons. Hopkins was too. Citing age as it's generally cited doesn't amount to anything with guys like this.

Also comparing Foreman's annihilation's of Frazier and Norton is not remotely comparable to Cooney's wins over Norton and Lyle. Frazier was still the undefeated lineal champion and Norton was at his peak. Lynn Ball of all people had stopped Lyle in 2 rounds a year before Cooney beat him. Lyle was shot. Norton was in his last fight and was fading by the time he met Holmes let alone 3 years later with a brutal knockout in 1 round by Shavers added to weight of his age. The comparison is brutally unfair but reflects the path and stance you have chosen to take.

 

Jack Sharkey couldn’t beat Tom Heeney, how’s he going to defeat foreman?

 

My outlook isn't negative JT any more then yours is romanticized. I simply see Foreman and his career differently than you do.

As far as Lyle, yes he started late and it was because he was a hard core street thug who smoked and did not take care of his body till into his mid twenties .. add in the factor that he was legally stabbed to death in prison, was clinically dead and revived and suffered massive internal injuries along the way that kept him from ever being 100 percent of what he might have been. Before getting off the deck in a brutal battle with Shavers, Lyle froze and was stopped by Ali in a title bout and was diced up by Jimmy Young . Essentially Lyle was a 34 year old fighter who lost two of his previous three fights in the year coming into the Foreman match up and was picked as comeback opponent because he was hittable, slow, froze against Ali showing an undependable chin and so stylistically good for George while being an interesting TV match up for the network.

My reference to Cooney was one of rating a fighter by wins over tailor made opponents not saying Cooney was better than Foreman. As far and Frazier and Norton, if you refuse to factor in styles when analyzing accomplishments , both advantageous and not so then that's how you choose to rate fighters. I see it very differently and stand by it.

 

If he couldn't beat Jimmy Young how do you rationalize he destroy's Tunney or Sharkey ? Based on what wins against like kind boxers that had speed, excellent chins, conditioning and overall excellent boxing ability ? I know you don't like Sharkey's barrel chested build but there was much more to him than that , especially if you're going by A games.

 

I strongly disagree. You are virtually casting aside his wins over Frazier and Norton and comparing them to Cooney's wins over washed up versions of thoroughly Norton and Lyle. It's like comparing Berbick's win over Ali to Frazier's etc

Whether he ended up short of what he could have been Lyle ended up a fine fighter regardless and was prime. He showed great heart in coming off the canvas and KO'ing Shavers. Holmes did it and gets heavily lauded, well so did Lyle.

As for Ali, well Lyle was winning the fight at the time of stoppage. I wouldn't say he froze as Ali pounded him in the 8th round and he gamely hung in there and came back and actually won the round prior to the stoppage. He came to the end of his tether against the still capable GOAT. No shame in that.

Young beat him both before and after Ali. It's no secret Lyle struggled against slicksters and Young has his number.......hence George being just as stylistically good for Lyle as vice versa. If boxers were his weakness well surely Foreman played into some of his strengths. If anything Foreman should be lauded for taking on a top 5 contender first up after losing to Ali, and after more than a years inactivity to boot. Lyle was a banger too. Brave choice as the orthodox passage is choosing a safe opponent.

Lyle performing well against Foreman completely flies in the face of your claims that he was "so stylistically good for George", layoff or no layoff.

No good poster rates Cooney much on Lyle and Norton as they know they were washed up and or shot. There's jokes made on the forum about it almost on a weekly basis at times. As a matter of fact one poster just bashed Cooney for fighting guys ready for the nursing home just yesterday. If we want to take away and minimize everyone's wins over guys we personally deem to be stylistically suited then there's going to be some huge changes to historic reputations. Post exile Ali was well suited for Frazier so do we write off the FOTC win? Then we have Ali winning twice as well so where does that leave poor Joe? Danny Lopez was beautifully suited for Sanchez but no-ones fobbing those wins off. The smaller Gomez was too for that matter but it's rightfully considered an ATG win and great achievement. Patterson was in Sonny's wheelhouse but not many are undermining those two wins. It's simply unfair as quality is quality.

 

There is no point in going round and round as you grasp at straws getting off point .. I disagree with you , period. Foreman did not beat one quality boxer ( defined by skill, chin , speed and conditioning ) in his career but lost decisively to two in Ali and Young. .. no amount of praising his stylistic match up victories over small swarmer Frazier and catatonic vs huge punchers Norton makes up for that nor am I debating his effectiveness in such match ups . The thread is about how he matches up all time and I say he was very vulnerable to certain styles. It has zero to do with quality, it is styles. A beats B , B beats C , doesn't mean A beats C. Cannot make it any clearer.