Triangle Theory in boxing and the fighters it ends up harming most

Sometimes, fighters receive more or less credit for a particular win. The same sometimes applies to a loss. Circumstances of course matter, and the old mantra "styles makes fights" is a simple and true one that many boxing fans seem to forget or disregard entirely.

Some losses, say... Ken Norton's, on paper make one think "vulnerable". I can see why. But at the very same time, Ken Norton was the man to conquer the style of Jimmy Young, where as destroyer George Foreman (A fighter held in far higher regard than Norton and much more highly ranked) who had previously annihilated Ken Norton in 2 brutal rounds, was bamboozled and shut down over the 15 round distance by a much smaller guy without much pop.

Norton also more than favorably matched up against Muhammad Ali 3 times, including drubbing him one time and breaking his jaw, far better than Foreman could ever dream of managing.

I guess my point is, you constantly hear things along the lines of "Norton was very vulnerable to big punchers". Well, yes, of course. Most boxers do have a vulnerability of some sort or another.

At the same time, do you hear as often that George Foreman is vulnerable to slippery, skilled boxers, even in his prime? I don't think so. Less is made of that particular style vulnerability for Foreman.

 

No you dont hear it because people claim that the young loss doesnt count because post ali foreman was a mental midget while the george that ali fought was unstoppable.

Which is BS of course. That notion is made up so that ali's win in zaire(which is a great win) isnt devalued by the fact that george always had certain vulnerabilities which were exposed once he faced different styles.

Georges advantages, even in his 2nd career were always strength size chin and power.

Not reflexes or timing. And he was no technician either. So the change of trainers(his first trainer told him you hit so hard i dont need to teach you anything), or the stoppage loss(which was “just“ a schooling that ended with george being too exhausted to carry on, not a real beating like tyson douglas) probably didnt damage him.

 

Good post.

I'm one of the few who think Byrd at his best could've beaten young Foreman for the same reason.

 

I can see that myself, honestly.

 

We get put in a difficult situation sometimes.

If you match Ken Norton against Tony Galento, then the only data that you have to work with, is that every time Norton fought somebody with that kind of power, he got annihilated.

This pushes you towards picking Galento, despite the difference in class.

Of course if it happened in practice, this might well be the occasion when Ken finally broke the pattern.

 

Futch told Norton to jab with Ali to disrupt his flowing style and Ali wasn`t as quick as he was in his best fight the Cleveland Williams massacre. Ali`s rear jabbing was awesome vs Foreman and his glove control as I spotte in a film study I don`t know how many rear jabs he got off vs Norton.

 

He was past his best but do you think Galento is a better fighter and puncher than Quarry?

 

Norton didnt conquer Youngs style at all. Young won that fight. Norton is the only fighter I can think of who got handed his title without ever winning a championship fight and did so on the basis of a **** poor decision against Young retroactively.

 

You could see cracks in Georges game and vulnerability to boxers at least as early Forte and Peralta. Both guys used a combination of lateral movement and countering to blunt Foremans aggression.

 

I score it for Young myself, narrowly, but you know how it is. It stands in the books how it stands.

 

Agreed. Im not saying it was robbery. That word is overused for close fights. But I definately thought Young won.

 

Would you say Norton did better vs. Young than Ali did?

I like the AP card better than the Judges.

• Judge: [url]Jimmy Rondeau[/url] 147-143

• Judge: [url]Art Lurie[/url] 142-144

• Judge: [url]Raymond Baldeyrou[/url] 147-143

Unofficial AP scorecard: 143-142 Norton

Any power punch or body punch stats here? Norton by a good margin, I suspect.

Young landed more jabs, which lacked force.

 

Really?

Byrd didn't have the lateral movement, strength or chin to beat young Foreman.

George would trap him on the ropes and pummel him to an early to mid rounds stoppage KO defeat.

 

Correct. For example, had Lennox Lewis never fought McCall and Rahman, we would all think Lewis had an ATG chin on par with Ali or Holyfield or Hagler (pound for pound). And let's face it, if Lennox Lewis had an ATG chin, we'd pick him to make mincemeat out of a prime Foreman. But the reason many pick Foreman to hypothetically beat Lewis is because Lewis had been stopped 2x by one punch by less than ATG punchers.

So even though, most agree that Lewis was the more skilled and better boxer, it could all go out the window if Foreman landed big on Lewis chin. This would make many give even Shavers a shot against Lewis. And it's really the same case with Norton.

The same can kind of be said for a hypothetical Louis/Tyson match up. Many assume Tyson would quickly get to Louis and take him out based on the times Louis was floored by lesser (relative to a prime Tyson) opponents. The caveat is that no one ever stopped Louis early so we don't have any record of that. On the other hand, Tyson was never stopped early nor was he ever floored early.

 

Getting floored and stopped in four rounds is kind of early.