Monte Cox' article on George Foreman

I tend to agree with does that say that the Ali fight had quite a bit of effect on George Foreman's psyche. Remember, immediately after that fight, he went into some sort of hibernation. When he finally came back, he engaged in some sort of a 'circus', boxing an exhibition with five or so guys in one night. Some of those guys were past Foreman opponents.

When he got serious, fighters like Scott Ledoux and John Dennis felt like they had a chance against him. Ledoux actually had the temerity to taunt Foreman to hit him, a.k.a. Ali. Foreman did, and Ledoux got knocked out. I mean, this sort of thing would never have happened against a pre-Zaire Foreman. Not that Ledoux and Dennis were that bad, but both would have been half-beaten before they entered the ring had it been the earlier version of Foreman. If anything, in his losing effort, Ron Lyle confirmed that Foreman was beatable. When he entered the ring against Jimmy Young, a large degree of his 'aura' had worn off.

Yes, Foreman was susceptible to boxer types as opposed to puncher types and brawler types. Refer to a certain Senor Gregorio Peralta and his record against Big George for an early indication of this. Interestingly, Foreman's most damning loss (Ali) came against a foe who was hardly a 'boxer type' that night. But then, you all know what happened.

Coming to Lewis and Wlad Klitschko, I feel that Monte Cox's analysis would almost certainly come true against Wlad. But against Lewis, it would be anybody's fight. If I have to make a choice, I would give the edge to Big George primarily because of two things. One, Lewis had plenty of confidence in his own power and strength and tended to try to blow away the big guys. This could well be to his detriment against Foreman, as he did not have the best of chins. Two, Lewis, though a fine enough boxer, was never in the same league as Ali and Young in terms of speed and consistent movement.

 

I think something needs to be said here, and that's that Foreman prior his title fight with Joe was hardly considered a destroyer or anything close to unbeatable.
He was often criticised for being slow, clumsy and robotic although with a lot of power.
Foreman only enjoyed man-eater status for a short period - between winning the title and losing it. It's not like in general pre-Zaire Foreman had the same sort of reputation as say, a Sonny Liston, who was feared for many years before facing Ali.

I have listened to what you and Bokaj have said and have taken it on board, but "pre-Zaire Foreman" is starting to reach those mythical, peerless heights of "87 Mega Tyson."

 

Foreman for the fight with Ali was a favorite at 14-5. Compare that to Tyson in the 1980s. Liston-Ali I Sonny was 7-1 favorite. Liston-Patterson II 5-1 Sonny. Patterson-Jonahsson I and III - 4-1 and 17-5 Floyd. Marciano-Charles 7-2 and 4-1 Rocky. Louis-Walcott 10-1 and 13-5 Bomber. Basically George was looked at as being on par with faded Joe Louis in rematch with Walcott, hardly invincible.

 

Odds source?

 

Very true.

I don't think pre-zaire Foreman was proven enough to be considered nigh unbeatable in any way. His reputation are built mostly on two wins: over a slightly depleted Frazier who was the perfect stylistic foil for him, and over Norton who always had trouble against big punchers. They are great wins, but not enough to claim with any reasonable certainity that he would have beaten just about anyone except Ali.

 

I enjoyed the article, anyone know where I can read more by this fella?

 

Source - Ring Record Book. Foreman-Ali odds I think I took from AP article the day before the fight (can't find Norman Mailer's book to cross-check, I had it somewhere, but don't remember where).

 

The 1976 Ring Record Book lists Foreman as a 3-1 favorite against Ali.

Frazier was a 3-1 favorite against Foreman in 1973. Interestingly, Lou Nova was only a 14-5 underdog against Joe Louis in 1941, so Lou Nova was more respected coming into his championship bout than Foreman.

Just as an aside, I think the betting odds really ground how a fighter was actually viewed in his own era. Many times even an historian will fall back on the "so and so was viewed as an unbeatable monster" cliche, but the odds may tell a very different story.

Liston was favored over Patterson at 10-7 in 1962, and a huge favorite over Patterson in the rematch and over young Cassius Clay. He seems to have been viewed as far more the "monster" than Foreman.

 

Thanks

 

Point is, I agree with what you say FoF. But you seem to have taken what I have posted a bit out of context. By 'pre-Zaire Foreman', I meant the Foreman who had developed an aura of devastation and invincibility after destroying Frazier. I clearly did not mean the version of Foreman who went the distance with Gregorio Peralta, Roberto Davila or Levi Forte.

But honestly, if you check his record, you will find that he was beginning to develop his fearsome reputation after the George Johnson (who went 7 rounds with him) fight. Immediately after this fight he absolutely started destroying his opponents, mostly in the 1st or 2nd rounds with only Peralta travelling upto the 10th with him, though this time Gregorio failed to last the distance. The next best effort came from Luis Faustino Pires who was kayoed in the 4th. Boone Kirkman and Ted Gullick were despatched in 2 rounds each, amongst the 17 opponents of Foreman during this period leading up to the Frazier fight. George Chuvalo was stopped in the 3rd. If memory serves me right, Chuvalo's wife rushed to the ringside, imploring that the fight be stopped. Reports has it that she was already crying before the fight began. And George Chuvalo, as we all know, was one tough cookie. If this is not an awesome image, then I don't know what is.

Regards.

 

Peralta took him the distance and went into the 10th the second time. He was a good but aging fighter. Chuvalo had also seen better times and he is adamant today that this fight should not have been stopped and I must say off the film he has a point. Boone Kirkman was a fringe contender. Luis Pires? Ted Gullick? Who cared. The bottom line is Joe Frazier went into the fight with Foreman a 3 to 1 favorite. As many thought Foreman was overrated as thought him awesome.

 

Is this guy any worse than the old school righters who are constantly on Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano and Gene Tunneys nutts? Foreman did show up in Puerto Rico a day before the fight so how is that making excuses for Foreman? Foreman showed up with a lackey of Don King and never listened to anything Gil Clancey said. This is according to Gil Clancey. Jimmy was no better of a boxer than a prime Ken Norton and if Foreman could knock out Young


Foreman faced various big time punchers in his first and second career. Even past his prime nobody out slugged him so again how is this guy wrong? Ali was probably the only boxer type fighter who could lay against the ropes and not be knocked out by Foreman. Ali could take a hell of a body shot and could regroup from head shots better than pretty much any fighter in boxing history. Larry Holmes wouldnt have beat that Foreman

Wladimir Klitschko and Lennox Lewis had glass chins and couldnt handle pressure. They both were knocked out by Lesser fighters. Why wouldnt Foreman be able to do the same? This guy makes some good points

 

Agreed. Also I don't like the way I both Pmed and Emailed him a couple questions I had about Joe Louis's era, and he never responded to me, and the one time he did respond he did not come across as too friendly. I am a full fledged member of the IBRO. Now I respect both Monte and the time Monte puts into his work and his energy, he does great videos for youtube, and gives us a great boxing website, and I love being apart of the IBRO, but all it is a boxing organization that you get alot of rare information out of.


My favorite of his articles were Kid Chocolate, Joe Louis and Jack Johnson ones. I found his Marciano, Dempsey, Foreman pieces to be very biased.

 

I like Lennox and Wladimir to pick George Apart at long range and win by early knockout. Foreman could not deal with 1-2s, he never could. Wlad and Lennox will seal the deal once they land there 1-2s on foreman.

 

This guy is not doing Foreman any favours.

Do you think he has a subtle agenda to damage foremans standing by seeming to over rate him?