Zaire, who else could have beat Foreman that night ?

George, in light of having zero resistance from either Frazier or Norton, remains a prospect at that point. It makes no matter that Norton and Frazier were better than George made them look. They took no more trouble than Terry Sorrel to deal with.

George as champ was still only an unbeaten prospect. Just like Anthony Joshua is now.

With just one earlier competitive fight at that level George would be better prepared and more complete.

 

Thanks...you beat me to it.
Any man who KO's Norton and the heavyweight champ back to back has got to have a handle on what he is doing! Foreman looked horrible in Zaire, but Ali made him look horrible. Foreman was being patient for 2 rounds but Ali was beating him to the punch every time. It takes a special boxer to make Foreman look that bad. Foreman's record speaks for that, Losses to Ali, Young, Holyfield, Morrison and Briggs which he should have won.

 

I see it similar.

I find myself agreeing with this.
It',s the wins over Frazier and Norton that created 'George the monster'. Prior to Frazier nobody was making that much noise about Foreman,who was a big underdog for the Frazier fight.Frazier had done little after winning the title apart from make 2 defences against guys who had no right and sing in his pop band.
Norton offered the resistance of a punch bag on wheels. I always feel Foreman is overrated. His defence was non existent back then.His fights with Lyle and Young confirmed my view.
I do agree it took a skilled fighter to expose him, but once done i felt the cork had been taken out of Foremans bottle .

 

Completely revisionist thinking. You don't win an Olympic gold medal, have 40 pro fights and beat men like Chuvalo, Frazier AND Norton, win the worlds hwt championship at a time when it really meant something and be called a "prospect". Foreman was a seasoned pro and the worlds hwt champion. Ali just outsmarted and outsped him as he did to Liston ten years prior.

 

Foreman made Norton and Frazier look horrible because neither of them even got started. Foreman was a prospect who beat two elite fighters who did not even get started. Good fighters but they never got started. So the reality is George Foreman was a prospect blowing guys out going into those fights so he remained a prospect blowing guys out. You don't become a complete fighter on blow outs. You remain a guy with everything going your way. Sure George needed talent to do it. A hell of a lot of talent to do it. But he was naked going into a fight where he was going to get hit back.

 

the trouble with Foreman was he was not seasoned. Pity was the fight that seasoned Foreman was the Ali fight. Nobody seasons themselves on blow outs. You can be a victim of your own success if things go easier than they should.

 

"Complete fighter" and "prospect" are at different ends of the rainbow.

No 40-0 worlds hwt champion, Olympic gold medalist who has beaten Chuvalo, Frazier and Norton is a "prospect". You are using the word as incorrectly as it can be used.

 

Go through Foremans fights. 40-0 sounds terrific until you have a closer look. Please check out his 1972 resume. Horrible mismatches. No wonder he fought the way he did against Ali he had begun to believe nobody could withstand him, nobody would hit him back. It was precisely the wrong attitude for an unbeaten gold medal winner who on paper was nearly 40-0.

 

By definition , revisionist thinking does happen when you are using hindsight,i will grant you that.
However we ARE commenting with the bebefit of hindsight, that's simply how it is.
George looked a decent prospect after his first 38 or so fights before Frazier. It was the 2 blow outs v Frazier/Norton that counted for more than those 38 put together that created George the Monster.
Those 2 blow outs Revised thinking at the time that George was a wrecking ball, something that nobody was saying after the first 38. If they had, he wouldnt have gone in as such an underdog as he did against Joe.
George part 1 was a danger man against anyone who stood in front of him, but its now clearly evidential ( rather than revisionist) to state that he could be stood up too (Lyle) outsmarted (Young) or both (Ali). Foremans legend was built on the Frazier/ Norton wins. 2 great names to have on your CV for sure, but im not sure he got a good version of Joe.
Take those 2 fighters off Foremans CV and it looks ordinary.

 

Spot on. Plus i dont think the seasoning improved him , looking at the Lyle and Young fights.

 

One of your worst, and that is saying something. In a later post you call Norton and Frazier good fighters. When the names Foreman and/or Liston come up you lose all logical thought.

 

I am sorry, I just feel that you can be a victim of your own success. Winning early and absolutely clearly over great fighters is just one thing. It might be the goal but it is just one thing. Aquireing seasoning to become a more complete fighter can be a separate thing.

Joe Louis knew not to let Schmeling into the fight when he rematched him. So he blew max away before he got started. It goes down as a great revenge win. It was the right thing to do. Max never got started.

But if Joe Louis fought everyone like that he might have beat Schmeling the first time but he never would have learned anything. He would have no pace for more rounds. It would have worked right up until somebody was ready for him, could mess joe about and hit him back.

In boxing you can't have things all your own way all of the time.

 

People just have no clue. Most hwt champions fight lots of stiffs. Their career is predominantly based upon the key fights and how they did. Calling a 40-0 world hwt champion who koed the top two hwts in the world both inside two rounds each a "prospect" is as absurd and bizarre statement that has ever appeared on this web site.

To the guy who did not live through the period.....Frazier at the time he faced Foreman was considered unbeatable. It was Fraziers perceived greatness not Foremans perceived inabilities that made Joe the betting favorite. Suggest you learn boxing history.

 

I'm enjoying this thread. Nice one guys

 

I am as aware of selective matchmaking and grooming as the next man but Foremans match making took it to a whole new level. Yes Foreman did beat chuvalo then once he had, the entire year he spent at #1, George preserved his rating fighting the most awful mismatches a #1 contender ever had. Joe Murphy Goodwin, Clarance Boone and Terry Sorrell. Those guys had not won fights for decades! 1-14, 3-25, 4-14. These records are guys who not only were career losers but had been around since the 1950s. It is an absolute scandal these fights were ever made for a number one contender. The only reason I can think they were made was for the youngster to believe he really was supersonic. They wanted george to believe nobody could take his blows so that he set off like a maniac to catch Frazier early. If they had matched him against more guys willing to box all the flaws they had been unable to iron out would have been properly addressed. In truth, for all his talent, Foreman was rushed to the title.

It is clear George was not a complete fighter against Ali.

 

What's your take on Tyson then?