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

What did the size 0 say to the size 8?
Nice belt.

 

Again, I don't see Foreman as a great fighter .. he was wild, undisciplined, over confident, had poor stamina and at times showed the worst wild swinging since Max Baer .. who did Foreman beat ? You rant as if styles don't make fights .. three men ; George Chuvalo, Joe Frazier and Ken Norton .. a plodder, a small swarmer past his prime and blind in one eye and an anomaly that froze against big punchers and folded .. put him in against a man with a chin, some speed / movement and stamina and he was exposed as clumsy and limited. Who was the best boxer this destroyer defeated ? Answer, none. He avoided boxers in his first career like he avoided punchers in his second .. then and later he knew his limitations .. look at how he was exposed by Jimmy Young in PR .. completely exposed to the degree he couldn't step in a ring for ten years. I like George as a extremely strong, tough, exciting, hard punching fighter and totally love the way he engineered a brilliant comeback but it ends there ..

 

IMHO, George Foreman would have always had serious problems with very good or great boxers, with the emphasis on "very good or great." On the other hand, I think anyone who tries to stand in there and trade with him for very long, without a great defense (or an ungodly ability to take a tremendous amount of punishment), has little chance against George. So, I'd say, of those Lineal Champions before him, he loses to Jack Johnson, Joe Louis (with the correct fight plan), and Muhammad Ali.

EDIT: Adding in AFTER George's Prime: I'd say a prime George Foreman loses to Muhammad Ali again. Larry Holmes, Evander Holyfield (with a perfect, Steward designed fight plan), Lennox Lewis (again, with the right fight plan, AND totally focused), Wladimir Klitschko. (I'm not certain about that one, but I'll go with Wladimir, with the correct flight plan). Tyson Fury certainly would have a chance, but he'd need to box George. (If Fury tries to maul him like he did Deontay Wilder, I think George prevails.)

It's not only George's total punching power, it's his punching power WITHOUT loading up. George was the most devastating arm puncher I've ever seen. With no real load up, he was still able somehow to bring power all the way from the bottoms of his feet to his fist. BRUTAL!

 

I don't see our collective posts as a "rant" at all. You have a different opinion is all and it's blatantly obvious you are taking a very very negative slant toward Foreman. I can do that with just about anyone - it's chicken feed.

 

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?