Jim Jeffries v George Foreman

I was referring to the Foreman who lost to Ali (age 25) and the Foreman who lost to Young (age 28-

Yes, I consider him prime in both losses.

 

"not many hw's can better his run from shavers 2-norton"

Whatever. He didn't actually win against Shavers, and lost to both the aging Ali and the aging Norton.

Lyle was another aging, slowing fighter who couldn't even defeat an old Peralta a bit earlier.

Only Foreman was, or should have been, at his best.

 

I guess you could use any dominant champions sucess as an argument that the contemporary division was weak.

Either Jeffries was having trouble with his opponents because he wasn't verry good, or he was dominating them because the era was weak!

 

For me, this thread has raised two issues.

How good was Foreman?--I think many here are grossly overrating him.

How good was Jeffries?--He dominated his own era, certainly, but his critics are raising solid points about the quality of his opposition.

That said, the quality of opposition doesn't rest just on glancing at the calendar or the scale.

Joe Louis was quoted after his career as saying Billy Conn was the best man he fought. Louis fought a lot of big fellows, while Conn was a lightheavy.

Some "old" men can fight. Fitz seems to have been one of them. After losing to Jeff, he still had enough left to ko Sharkey and Ruhlin, and later to win the lightheavy title.

 

One of Jeffries problems is that history has obscured the significance of many of his wins.

Corbett and Fitzsimmons were great heavyweight champions. They were top ten all time heavyweights up to the middle of the 20th century, and today they still rank with the likes of Schmeling or Charles.

Jeffries picked them off when they were declining, but lests not forgett that this pair proved their greatness by beating up all the top contenders of the era, over a period of a few months.

Jeffries was seen as having fought the best opposition of all the heavyweight champions up to the 50s, and there are some valid reasons why.

 

I had norton beating him.

As for the other results, blindly follow official results if you want. Ramirez holds a victory over whittaker, chavez held him to a draw etc.

With the advent of modern technology it is very easy to watch and score a whole host of big fights, even easier to to read rbr accounts.

Perhaps you believe he didn't deserve victory over shavers nor ali, but as you said "whatever"

 

I saw Young's fights with both Ali and Norton back in the day. I thought Ali and Norton won at the time. I also thought both Ali and Norton had slipped by the time they fought Young.

Young was a decent contender, but other than the Foreman fight, just didn't ever look all that great to me.

I have never seen the Young-Shavers draw. Is it on film?

 

The point i was really trying to make is that Foreman is much more proven than Jeffries and everything (IMO) points at him winning.

Foreman bulldozed through men significantly bigger and more skilled than the ones Jeffries fought. FACT.

Despite being bigger, heavier stronger and younger than alot of the greatest opposition Jeffries fought, he either fought them the full 20(+) rounds or recieved a horrible beatig before winning. FACT.

Foreman is physically bigger, stronger, harder punching, more durable, more aggressive and more proven than Jeffries. FACT.

Jeffries is not used to an opponent like Foreman. Foreman is. FACT. When Dempsey came along one of the reasons he managed to KTFO almost everybody was because no one at that time was used to a style like that. Boxing was fought at a VERY slow pace and as soon as a man came along who went balls to the walls like Dempsey did AND Foreman does he KO'd everybody.

If Foreman faced the men Jeffries fought when he fought them he would've beaten them all and that goes for Johnson too. If you seriously think that 220lbs Foreman who managed to lift a 215lbs man of the canvas with a single punch loses to a 165lbs man who was KOd by a Welterweight at any stage in his career than your dreaming.

Infact if you put Foreman in the ring with any of the greatest light heavies and super middle weights of all time im sure he wouldve KOd them all. Use your head not your heart.

 

Then where have these lightheavies and middles who once ruled the division, mind you not created a small blip, but RULED the division gone? In the era's of Foreman, Tyson, Douglas, Bowe, Lewis and the Klitschkos, where was the Fitzsimmons, the power punching lighheavy who secured the heavyweight belt and remained a force in the division for years?

This is just pure fantastical historic denial. The division has changed. It is the realm of large, coordinated, skilled athletes, the type that were not produced decades before. Sharkey would never crack the top 20 of today's heavyweight division, likely neither would Fitzsimmons or Corbett. Time has moved on.

 

foreman by ko no doubt at all

 

Understatement of the millenium, my friend. Only Roy Jones and Gene Tunney come close.

I saw a thread once supporting the notion that the 1970 Foreman(you know, the novice kid who'd been fighting pro for barely a year) would beat the 1970 Oscar Bonavena, a seasoned and dangerous professional who'd had around 50 fights and was still hovering around his prime. That's when I realized how delusional some of these Foreman loonies can get. Not all, but many.

How much you want to bet that if a thread is started pitting the 1968 Olympian Foreman vs. the 1968 Bonavena or Joe Frazier that GF will be given a good shot at a KO victory?

Yes, with George Foreman it really DOES get that silly...

 

Foreman beat Chuvalo in 1970 and looked about as good as he ever looked again. He actually looked more measured and well-rounded against Chuvalo than he did 4 years later against Ali.

I agree that Foreman is overrated though.

 

This should give a pretty clear idea of how George Chuvalo was considered around 1970 as compared to Oscar Bonavena:

http://books.google.com/books?id=EN...QKEvsGnDg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false