Marvis Frazier vs Old George Foreman

Were Hagler and Joe close?

 

Prediction: Pain...

 

Marvis was better than that version of Qawi. Stop making things up.

 

I don't think he was. Marvis was not the caliber of fighter that those gents were. That is why he couldn't beat Holmes or Tyson. He only had 19 fights and every time he stepped up he got knocked out. Marvis was no fighter and that broke Joe's heart.

 

You’re talking about Qawi. Qawi failed at heavyweight. Marvis beat legitimate contenders, but lost to prime ATG’s twice.

Old Foreman fought one ATG and lost, along with the middling contenders who beat him like Tommy and Briggs (or Schultz if you’re going to cry about Briggs).

 

I wonder what Joe's advice would have been to Marvis at the time of this fantasy fight?....

 

Marvis was no big heavyweight and what you call legitimate leaves a lot to be desired. Old Foreman knocked out Moorer at 46. To be honest, I think that Morrison and Briggs would have beaten Marvis.

 

Marvis beat Bonecrusher who would also hold a belt and was eerily similar to Old Foreman as a fighter. Moorer wasn’t Superman just because he came to the ring with a belt.

 

Bonecrusher had no where near the boxing IQ of Foreman and as a matter of fact, he lost to Moorer.

 

Could he have been past his best when that happened?

 

Your bias is showing again.
You should know Foreman's boxing IQ is greated than Smith's.
And he would "frame" & manipulate opponents much better, including cutting off the ring.

But IF you do not see this, it would not mean you are LYING.
People have bias & see things differently.
So when you told Manfred that you were being narrow-minded; not fully rational.-you had no cause to believe he was "making things up".

Any more than YOU are a dirty rotten scoundrel #$@%^&* pathological liar...

Just because you somehow believe even prime George Foreman would likely lose to any True Life "Wino from the Alley".

 

Him and George both was past their primes, He was on his 45th fight and George was on his 77th fight.

 

Old George never put together a winning run as solid as Weaver, Ferguson, Bey and Witherspoon in consecutive fights.

 

The great thing about “boxing IQ” is that it’s an intangible that can’t be measured and varies wildly depending on the opponents. Things like slowness are quantitative. Smith and Old Foreman were slow, strong, and carried power. Smith put together a run of wins that Foreman post Zaire never matched.

 

Boxing IQ can be measured, but it is debateable.
Like you can argue that PRIME Smith had a better run of wins than post-champion Foreman.
Not that it was nearly as good as Foreman when he was 40-0 with 37 KOs including 2 second round demolishions of Prime Norton & a still excellent if post-prome ATG, Frazier.

Still you conveniently ignored what you could not deny.
Chief amongst this is that it was wrong-in both senses-to imply Manfred was lying when he merely saw Muhammed as better than Marvis Frazier (which he was for his career, at HW you have a good case).

Maybe you can learn something if you watch these videos-start with "Technique Breakdown".
Move on to "Master of Manipulation".
Then hit "Big Man Savvy".
Your ability to be rational about Foreman appears limited not by intelligence, of which you are well blessed.
But it is limited by your Hatred & Bias against Foreman, personally & professionally.

And the double whammy is completed by your Ego being invested in not being Wrong.

Here is an antidote: [url]https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=george+foreman+skills[/url]