Older Fans, Who Was Seen As More Dangerous During Their Peak? Mike Tyson or George Foreman?

Wasn't Foreman at least 20 years younger than Liston?

 

Maybe he used some Time machine.

 

Is it possible that hindsight played a role here? Tyson arrived on the scene in 1986, Foreman retired in 1977 and it wasn't on a high note. Prime Foreman is considered one of the most fearsome fighters ever but by the time Tyson came around, people already knew that Foreman was beaten by a faded Ali, they knew he almost got knocked out by Ron Lyle and he lost to Jimmy Young. People also knew that Norton had a weak chin and he lost to every puncher he faced.

I didn't live through either era so I can't answer the question. But I was thinking about how Wilder was viewed after the Ortiz rematch. Then he lost to Fury and he went back to being a "bum". Now people wonder if he can beat fringe contenders. But there was a small window where he was considered the most dangerous fighter on the planet. Losses can change everything. As Tyson's career went on, he racked up his own fair share of underwhelming losses. So now its much easier to make a case for Foreman. BUT, when Tyson was coming off a 1st round KO over Spinks, how would someone go about making a case for Foreman?

 

Yeah I don't take him seriously. He's a blow-hard and a know it all. A very boring and predictable individual who toots his own horn and doesn't respect anyone else's opinions.

Povetkin knocking out come back Foreman...lmao. So apparently the T-rex armed fat PED abusing Russian journeyman who went life and death with cruiserweight Marco Huck, got manhandled and stopped by Joshua, dropped brutally by cave man Whyte twice, rag dolled by Klitschko, got dropped and went life and death with the glass jawed journeyman David Price? That guy is going to grit his teeth and walk through the heaviest ramrod jab in the divisions history, get around the cross armed block, tank those brutal uppercuts, somehow avoid getting shoved back and manhandled despite giving up height, reach, and 20 lbs of weight, and is going to stop the guy who literally never even sat on his stool, let alone got knocked down despite facing huge hitters like Cooney, Briggs, Morrison, Stewart, etc? Comedy.

 

You really question whether Pat works with fighters? Because you disagree with his opinions about older fighters, and he hasn't disclosed his identity to you? That's silly.

Honest question: Have you ever spent any time with a boxing trainer?

 

There are probably dozens of people here who I'd describe in those terms more so than Pat. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

 

I do so because he constantly big notes himself as a boxing oracle and belittles past greats and I want to check his bona fides to see that he had the credentials to do so.

What’s silly about that?

It’s easy to talk a good game from the anonymity of a keyboard but when you’re making out you possess more insight than others because you’re an insider and heavily involved in the sport then I require more than just face value. If Pat just said he was a fan like the rest of us then no problem but constantly mentioning his nameless gym, nameless fighters, vague connections to other fight figures etc rings hollow and I’ll need a bit more than that to swallow his story.

John Scully, Darnell Wilson , Jeff Malcolm on the old Australian forum even Stephen Compton have had no problem about disclosing their identities when interacting with others and proving their legitimacy. What is Pat hiding from?

 

I don’t recall him ever claiming that his resume or the fact that he works with fighters makes his opinion more important than those of others. In fact, he only even mentions it every once in a blue moon. Not sure why you’re so fixated on it. You’ve made it clear in other threads that you don’t really have much appreciation for technique and fundamentals but the trainers I’ve ever met in real life do. Just like Pat.

 

by all means show me a single instance of him respectfully agreeing to disagree. Or changing his mind even once. Or not automatically picking the more recent fighter to win a h2h or having the better resume. Or validating his claims of being a good trainer.

Different strokes, true, but if you can't give me an example then I'm obviously on to something.

 

I don’t have his post history committed to memory so I don’t have any examples at the moment. But how many people ever really change their minds in this forum? I think it’s really strange to single him out as a blowhard know-it-all when this forum is full of people who routinely scoff at and attack anyone whose views differ from theirs or run afoul of the classic boxing conventional wisdom. Guys who have strong opinions about damn near every major fight and fighter, and who throw conniptions if you criticize any of their favorites. I don’t see Pat conducting himself like that at all. If anything, some of the usual suspects who criticize his posts are the know-it-all blowhards.

And “politely agreeing to disagree” is actually a favorite tactic of close-minded know-it-alls who are unable to defend their positions but unwilling to admit that they might be wrong.

 

Really?

What threads were these exactly? Post some examples even. I can’t remember ever going into detail about the technical aspects of boxing in the 15 years I’ve been on here either to show an appreciation or lack thereof. I prefer to talk fights and fighters and read and offer up opinions about fights and fighters end of story.

I’m a fan of the sport and an avid watcher but I’m not a trained fighter admittedly hence I don’t profess to have expertise and leave that to others. But I have an appreciation of fundamentals and technique honed from watching hours and hours of fights and hundreds of different fighters for many, many years. Probably like the majority of posters on here actually.

Pat saying this fighter sucks because he crosses his feet, or that fighters stance is poor because his toe/heel alignment is not correct blah blah doesn’t impress me as much as proving to me he can actually train by naming a single one of his fighters so we can check him out. He talks it maybe he should walk it for a change.

 

This content is protected

 

GCC, I don't think you can show one instance of me arguing about "resume'." My only interest in boxing is in fundamentals/technique/skills. All of my opinions about fighters are formed by video. There is no writer, "historian", announcer, etc. that influences my opinion about boxers and I sure don't have any interest in a fighter's resume'.

Kevin, as you posted, some of the posters have no interest in fundamentals/technique/skill. I don't know why they have any interest in boxing, but it takes all kinds. I have absolutely no interest in watching a fighter fight if he is not fundamentally sound. I don't care if he is a legend or not or if Sugar or Callis rates him highly or not. I'd rather watch Lloyd Marshall or Evander Holyfield shadow box than watch a lot of the "legends" fight. I decide who I think is good and if it offends some, too bad, they can put me on "ignore."

 

I think a case can be made for those who eschew the accepted fundamentals. There’s more than one way to skin a cat. And that’s also how breakthroughs happen: if everyone stuck to the fundamentals of 110-120 years ago the sport would never have evolved.

Ali and Roy Jones Jr are not considered ‘fundamentalists’ but their approach was effective for their particular skill sets. I think also no less valid. You can say that their later losses showed that their fundamentals were lacking and thus they couldn’t cope when their athletic gifts began to fade, but you can also look at many fundamentally sound fighters who found the same thing as they got older and those fundamentals didn’t bail them out.

I remember reading how Benny Leonard would watch the raw beginners sparring in the gym. Someone asked him why. “One of them might do something by accident that I can use,” he replied.

I respect your respect for fundamentals but I look at Archie Moore’s unorthodox approach with the crossed arms and at one time that would have been considered not fundamentally sound ... until he perfected it and made it into an art form of its own. Same with the Philly shell — having one hand down by your waist isn’t according to Hoyle.

I hope you’ll broaden those horizons and appreciate the various approaches and innovations boxers use. I’d also point out that great boxers and trainers will tell you that boxing is 90 percent mental (at least when practiced between two combatants of near-equal ability and conditioning) and what made Ali and many others great was their mental dominance of their opponent rather than technique.

 

I don't consider Ali or RJJ or Archie Moore to be lacking in fundamentals. They all had good fundamentals. Style is optional, IMO, good fundamentals are not.