Zaire, who else could have beat Foreman that night ?

Old George certainly divides opinion !
I did live through the era and although i was quite young i remember it in context,but you also then add in what evidentially you have learned/read or observed since.
Look,i like the guy, his autobiography was one of the best i read and he deserves his place in hstory. I just feel he's overrated.That's not to say i dont rate him, that would be crazy,
just overrated.
If he had been beaten by Ali without having fought Frazier or Norton, he would've been seen as amatuerish and out of his depth. His legend was built on his blow out of a terrible version of Frazier.Anyone who knows Joe's story knows that. As for Norton, well he did badly versus punchers. Whilst entertaining,Foremans performance v Lyle was a joke , a career built around that style wasn't gonna end well.
He was then beaten by Young in a fight that had similarities to Zaire,minus the knockout because Young wasn't as good as'74 Ali.
Foremans claim to fame is that the fighters he beat,he generally took out quicker than most other fighters would.
What goes against him (and why i think he's overrated) was he looked terrible v Ali, then Lyle and still against Young . An ATG fighter, shouldnt look that bad in his prime on so many occasions ,should he ?

 

I had a feeling a question comparing Foreman/Tyson may come up.
As i was composing my previous post,someone has asked the question.
For me the answer is simple.
Their peak lasted a similar time and they both fought a long list of no names at the start.The similarities end there.
Tyson (peak 86-89) had far greater boxing skills than Foreman peak 73-76/7.
( he actually had a defence and moved his head, which are good basics) Tyson had a great jab (Foreman did too but hardly used it). Tyson didnt lead with his face. Tyson didnt keep looking over at his corner when he ran out of ideas . Tyson didnt get exposed 3 times at his peak. Tyson didnt have major gas tank issues.Tyson didnt have an issue in boxing a good boxer for 12 rounds if he had too (Tucker) wheras Foreman couldnt (Young). Tyson never looked like an amateur (Zaire) or even when being aggresive , a bar room brawler with no defence (Lyle). Tyson had a far better boxing brain than Foreman .

 

Tyson also came somewhat unstuck due to the superman syndrome but at least he had coming of age fights with Tillis, Ribalta and Green.

 

But the only one of them that was remotely competitive was Tillis. Like Foreman and Peralta, with the exception that Geroge faced Peralta twice.

 

Mostly valid points I'd say. You can look at young Foreman from two perspectives. Either someone who was made to look much better than he was against stylistically suited opponents in Frazier and Norton, who then was exposed against opponents he was less stylistically suited for (primarily skilled counter punchers like Ali and Young). Or you can view him as a devastating fighter who had the misfortune to run into a still very good Ali on one if his great nights, and who after that lost his confidence and direction which resulted in subpar performances against Lyle and Young.

I personally don't really know which one is the more correct.

 

It wasn't a question about if they had similar skill sets, rather if they were managed in a similar manner and has similar problems with too few competitive fights.

 

That is no comparison. Peralta was a tougher small man who came to fight. George still had all the advantages. It was just an exersize with a pesky nuisance who could not hurt him. Tyson overcame the long reach in his fights with Ribalta and Mitch green these were real technical lessons against live prospects. Tyson was going to come against more men like Green and Ribalta because Tucker, Williams and Tyrell Biggs were within the ratings around the same time. Peralta did not resemble anything in the 1972 ratings that included Joe Bugner, Muhammad Ali, Ron Lyle and Ernie Terrell. Instead they dug up Terry Sorrell, Joe Murphy and clearance Boone.

 

But the point still remains that Tyson hadn't had any real competitive fights. If you're going to more or less write off Frazier and Norton because they were very one-sided, you have to do the same with all the quality opponents Tyson beat without breaking a sweat.

And there wasn't that much in size between Tillis and Peralta, about two inches and 10 pounds. Tillis was about the same size relative his contemporaries as Peralta was his.

 

I agree Tyson had not really beat a real rated fighter before challenging Berbick. I think he got that on the strength of the Marvis Frazier win..a complete blow out. I don't know that Marvis had a rating that warranted the #1 rating Tyson was given, I think like many prospects he was a money spinner so the governing bodies competed with each other to "out higher their Tyson rating" within their top tens in the hope he challenged their champion to inflate their percentage of a fight they sanction. And We all know how that works right?

But the circumstances of a 5'11 guy beating 6'5" prospects Green and Ribalta and beating both to the jab when most contenders were all 6'2" plus is a bigger deal than Foreman doing the rounds with a over stuffed light heavyweight who had no significance in the world scene.

I have exhausted myself talking up Foremans talent, his win over Chuvalo, a veteran contender of far less stature than Lee Savold was when Joe Louis knocked him out, was quite a fete at the time.. but Chuvalo was not representative of the heavyweights coming through in 1972, he was a big guy who was not going to get out of the way, not known for being hard to tag.

 

I think your post here is very fair.
I think it was a bit of both. To lose to Ali was no disgrace, although the manner must've taken his confidence.
He had a few other fights to rebuild his confidence including beating up a shot Frazier but I just feel the Lyle and Young fight's showed his progress had flattened out and his aura of destruction was gone.
If he had a ATG 'peak' then it can only be the destructions of Frazier/Norton.

 

Agreed but George was the same man against Ali as he was with Frazier and Norton. The Ali fight simply produced massive problems for him. That was the only difference.

 

I dont disagree. Foreman was one dimensional and Ali used that against him.
Has a previously unbeaten champ ever been so completely dismantled mentally and physically ?
Maybe that could have been another question ?

 

Not that I am looking for simple answers for difficult questions, but whilst it was the same George, Ali did not allow that blow out. Everyone looks great if the other man never gets started. Of course you have to credit Foreman to have the talent to beat top fighters before they even get started but it winds up being one way traffic all the same.

 

The problems with your reasoning is that it goes back and forth between what discredits him most it seems.

On the one hand you argue that the quality of his opposition wasn't much. This is true to a degree, but the quality of his opposition before Zaire was definitely better overall than Frazier's before Mathis, definitely better than Holmes's before Norton and leagues better than Tyson's before Berbick.

On the other hand, you argue that the quality of his opposition isn't what really matters but rather that he had dispatched of it too easily to be tested. There is truth to this also, but you can say pretty much the same of Tyson before Douglas.

You really have to make up your mind about what line of arguing you want to pursue.

 

.