But Gil Clancy thought the opposite. Boxing historians who were actual pro boxers think he was just more measured, not better. He was obviously worse https://coxscorner.tripod.com/Foreman2.html Lets be realistic for one second please, Foreman took 7 rounds to get rid of Qawi on 2 weeks notice. h2h prime Foreman is superior, there isn't any physical evidence to suggest otherwise, or Foreman wouldn't have struggled with so many lower tier opponents like Stewart and Schulz, yet apparently he was at his best while fat and in his 40s ? Foreman admitted in his autobiographies he had to old man his way through because he lost his vigor and had to compensate. He had tree feet. Foreman also got his ass whooped by Tommy Morrison who is less skilled and has a comparable if not worse chin than Norton. Foreman supposedly had a much better chin and more skills compared to his younger self so why couldn't he outbox Tommy Morrison or stop him ? You know why, you're just playing devils advocate This content is protected This content is protected
Foreman was an "actual pro boxer." He is, in fact, the only "actual pro boxer" with firsthand experience being George Foreman. He thought his older self would win. You pointed out that @BCS8 had no trainers, etc. supporting his view, which is why I brought Foreman's own statements up. I assume you would agree now that @BCS8 has some support? I think I've explained my view on the matter somewhere or other. 90s Foreman did some stuff better than 70s Foreman. In other ways, he was worse. Overall, Young Foreman was a little better, but the details of who he's being matched against would matter. I have no problem with people who think either version is better.
You certainly misread Also lol at thinking Foreman can't be wrong Foreman thought he'd have beaten AIi in a rematch. I will respect results and reality, not "could have", and the fact is Foreman got his ass beat by a suspect chinned, lesser fighter than Norton in the 1990s. How the hell did he lose to Morrison ???? Dwight on 2 weeks notice went 7 when Foreman smashed Frazier in 2. Explain how these scenarios took place when Foreman was a more skilled boxer, because you keep saying Foreman did certain things better.
Its also a fact reaction times start decreasing by the mid 30s. Nobody takes this into consideration. Foreman was slower with every single punch, ironically more hittable, could barely throw combinations, lost his lateral movement, his ability to box on the backfoot and ability to cut the ring. His timing was worse as a result which is why he missed so many punches and didn't go to the body nearly as frequent. He didn't parry or frame as effectively. We not only have all the physical evidence he declined massively but he looked bad against lower ranked opponents than guys he beat in his prime. Video and resume evidence. And I haven't even mentioned that Foreman avoided many top guys in the 90s. The idea is silly. That's my problem He probably has a better chin maybe because he was fatter ? Paced himself better which resulted in better stamina but worse workrate and his jab didn't get any better. He utilized the cross guard because he lost his reaction time and didn't move his body, feet and head as often.
You initially challenged @BCS8 because he didn't have any respected boxing authorities who agreed with him about Foreman. Now that it turns out Foreman himself, two time lineal champion and literally the guy being discussed, agrees with @BCS8...But, well, Foreman can be wrong. Well, yeah. So can any coach you cite. So if you wanted to talk to @BCS8 about film instead, perhaps you should have led with that. You are shifting your ground to a different subject that I wasn't responding to. That's fine, but it's not something I addressed. On the other stuff about age: Yes, reflexes decline with age. I agree. This is well known. Some heavyweights today can largely compensate for this, though, which is why you have lots of modern heavies holding onto their rankings into their early 40s. Foreman was a forerunner in that respect. Foreman also is unusual, though, because the strength & conditioning techniques improved in his second career compared to what was available in his prime, and he made use of those. Conservatively, Old Foreman is to Young Foreman as Old Vitali was to Young Vitali. And that's being generous to Young Foreman, since unlike Vitali, his older self was better conditioned and prepared than his younger self because of S&C advances. As to why Morrison was able to evade Old Foreman better than Norton evaded the younger version, at a guess, Old Foreman was slower than Young Foreman, and Morrison was better at moving backwards than Norton. I imagine that Morrison's ability to hit like a truck also helped him keep Foreman off a bit. EDIT: One other point at a meta level. The Foreman v Foreman stuff usually comes up when people are debating about which eras were better. In that kind of debate, claiming that Young Foreman had a better resume (and was therefore better, in turn making the 70s the best era) begs the question. It assume what it's trying to prove, that there's some parity between the eras, or that the 70s guys Foreman beat were better. So I don't think that line will work consistently in old vs modern debates.
But how do we decern what's true and what's not ? We look at the physical evidence available, we observe, thats how. Foremans opinion isn't the word of god, and his swerving of the top guys bar Holyfield and Moorer, losing wide to lesser opponents than the opponents he dominated in his physical prime, having controversial fights against gatekeepers level fighters, George physically slowing down, getting hit even more, having worse timing, worse reflexes, being a less effective pressure fighter when that used to be his forte and basic knowledge on biology all add up and indicate the falsity of the claim. All roads lead to observation and results. Foreman was a far more effective boxer in his prime. Thats all there is too it Disagree, it is true to modern athletes generally having longer longevity but i think Foreman is just better than both like Vitali is better than both which is why he beat prime Chisora as a fossil with 1 arm. Another reason is the depth of talent at heavyweight today just steadily decreased over the last few years because the whole generation has been aging, like both Chisora, Pulev, Wilder, Joyce, etc. Zhang couldn't handle Kabayel. Povetkin was done at 41 and looked horrible against Whyte until he set up his KO punch. We haven't gotten any young guys in the top 10 apart from Dubois who cleaned Miller and Aj out. Usyk is aging well but Holmes didn't age too bad either. Foreman arguably beat Briggs at 48, his style aged well despite the obvious decline, but he still declined, and he kept declining all the way to Briggs. Foremans style was just that effective as a boxer puncher and certain people don't want to admit it. Didn't you also suggest that boxers in the 90s were on way more PEDs compared to the 70s ? That makes the feat even better. How did Foreman use his strength win the title in the 1990s ? His rough house tactics weren't very effective mostly because of age. Overall despite improvements is a couple areas he's clearly a shadow of his former self Also I disagree. He had worse defense and got tagged several times. Norton prepared Fraizer for Ali and Norton had a bigger toolkit. Furthermore Foreman walked him down all night, there was no hesitancy, he fought like a 2 ton Juggernaut. The simple answer is Foreman was just too slow with his hands, had cinder blocks in his feet, didn't have the athleticism to step back anymore, failed to cut the ring like he did against Norton, LeDoux and Denis and the same thing happened with Schulz. He couldn't react to most of Morrisons punches which is why he looked like he went thought a hailstorm by the end of it, and was only capable of fighting 1 way. Foreman was actually more limited, he just picked his punches more and used more traps. I find it funny that people often claim Foreman was hitting harder because he was bigger but the evidence indicates the exact opposite, he couldn't drop Tommy once despite landing flush several times and his only remarkable KOs are Moorer and retired Cooney.
The way you're chipping away at Career #2 Foreman, his 90s run is looking less and less impressive. Anyway, we might be derailing the Povetkin vs Frazier thread, since Foreman's 90s career is only marginally relevant to that.
That idea is frankly laughable. Lyle has waaay too many decisions against nobodies to be some kind of monster puncher. Comparing their records Morrison has a higher KO% against a tougher field, and Briggs has more KOs than Lyle has fights. Yeah, I'm thinking 70s Foreman really felt those shots unlike beefed up Old Foreman. ... after a 17 punch combination Wins against a different field. Prime Foreman would have bit the dust a few times against the guys that Old Foreman faced. It's simple. Povetkin usually has stamina for days and he looked winded for about half the fight. A factor could be that he had just split with his long time coach Atlas and was thus undertrained for the fight. Wow Frazier really sucked that night. I guess this is pretty much his ceiling. There is of course a difference between Povetkin struggling with a long time champion quality fighter and Frazier struggling with ****ing 'scrap iron' Johnson who may have been the champion at his local pub, idk are you channelling Dinovelvet now? Klitschko has F-all to do with this. Maybe reconnect your fuses. Chambers was worn out by Povetkin's pace. Chambers (who is bigger than Foreman) couldn't keep up with a green Povetkin. These are the facts. Frazier, who threw less than the bigger, stronger, busier Povetkin, would likewise struggle to keep up. What's funny is that you are comparing an elite fighter like Parker to the no-name dreck that Mathis feasted on. Takam took Parker to the brink and some argue he could have gotten the nod with different judges. Looked good against a field of mattresses and puddings. Big ****ing deal. Everytime he ran into somebody decent he got blown away. Anybody can "look good" against a collection of stiffs. Takam never fought Briedis. Maybe you need to post when sober. Mathis sucked, which is why he lost against every fighter with a pulse.
He had Foreman staggered with 1 right hand before following up with 2 which made George lean over and on rubbery legs, lie again. Holyfield was never a power puncher, and Foreman was far more effective in his prime This content is protected Completely baseless, youre just going to move the goal posts to suggest prime Foreman fought worse guys when he literally lost to glass chin Tommy Morrison who is worse than Ken Norton and struggled with gatekeepers . Whereas a slower less athletic less skilled middle aged Foreman still won a title in the 90s. Keep coping. Nobody in their rabid ass mind would call Beterbiev prime at 40 or a bigger fatter Chisora, but you do in regards to Foreman because you're fundamentally irrational when you see a threat to your argument and you're looking for a way out Mere speculation. I have reality on my side. Also Povetkin looked winded against Chambers and he was breathing heavily with his mouth open by the mid rounds despite the high workrate. Povetkin also never hurt 219lb Chambers. It's simple, Huck pressured in spots Povetkin, wouldn't let him set the pace, forced Povetkin put of his usual comfortable positions which burns nervous energy and huck landing a massive 44% of his power shots contributed to Povetkin getting broken down and fading down the stretch. Let me break it down even further without styling on you Each boxer has a natural rhythm and style that dictates their optimal pace. When an opponent forces them to fight at a faster or slower pace than they are accustomed to or a faster pace than what they're already working at, it can disrupt their flow and demand more energy to adapt. This is like someone who's used to a steady jog having to repeatedly sprint and then walk, rather than maintaining a comfortable rhythm. It's a very good example When a boxer cannot set the pace, they are often reacting to their opponent's movements and attacks rather than dictating the flow of the fight. This reactive approach is more energy-consuming as it involves more sudden bursts of movement and decision-making under pressure. Povetkins jab was also being taken away. He landed a mere 19% of them. We can all make excuses for most bad performances lol, but you're not getting out of this one. "May have been the champion at his local pub, idk" trying to use hypotheticals to disparage Frazier. Dishonest as usual. Fraizer never struggled beyond 1 moment, Klitschko got knocked by a journeyman. next Mentioned that because i know you're a massive Klitschko fan boy and it's a similar example to the one you're trying to blow out of proportion in dishonest fashion. Because smaller skilled heavyweights can cause all sorts of problems. You're arguing with circular logic. You admit straight up Mathis looks good on film and skilled, but since he can't dominate smaller top 5 heavyweights he must suck. Try again. Parker has already lost to fighters who had worse resumes at the time of the fight, like slow as molasses easy to hit Joyce. Joyce had a harder time against Bryant Jennings. He should've lost to Chisora the first time too. Bakole on 2 days notice lol. But I only mentioned Parker because he literally struggled with an unranked cruiserweight, so why is this swept under the rug ? Mathis would certainly do better than 213 pound unranked Jack Massey who had Parker hurt twice and was never knocked down, yet the much smaller Opetaia destroyed Jack Massey. I'm not certain Parker does better than Quarry and Ali when he lost to Whyte who has trash footwork, sloppy punching mechanics, slower and more limited than Mathis. You run to your phrase list and boxrec recorded weights, but you aren't informed enough to explain what Parker technically does better than Mathis, because both are contenders in different eras so resumes aren't going to win the fight here. Break it down. He certainly doesn't counter punch as much or have superior lateral movement, that's for sure Referring to Perez, or are you that intellectually impoverished that you can't put two and two together ? Perez is the only guy mentioned who fought both Briedis and Abdusalamov and your hyping of Perez makes no sense when the fight was a draw. Did i really need to walk you through that ? Lol