Zaire, who else could have beat Foreman that night ?

I don't see it as an argument rather a theory to put forward worth debating.

I think it is both. First that George didn't do himself any favours long term because he beat Frazier and Norton too easily and secondly his opposition before Frazier really was awful, 1972 a particular scandal.

 

Sometimes i wonder if you were among Foremans pre title victims. Every time his name comes up you bang on and on and on and on about his soft run to the title and how he should not have got a shot against Frazier even tho he proved himself by obliterating him at a time when he was feasting on everyone else.

Foremans problem was simply coming up against Ali. As has been stated not many fighters in history would have beaten Foreman that night. If Ali wasn't around who knows where Foremans reign of terror would have ended.

As for Foreman not being a complete fighter, who is? He fought to his own strengths at the time and won with them. Fact is when he laid back a touch (looking to pace himself and conserve energy with a view to an Ali rematch) post Ali he performed worse. Whether this was because his aura of invincibility had been shattered or simply because he fought better going for early ko's (or a combination of both) is up for speculation.

 

no foremans problem was he had no real seasoning.

This thread is about how he was for the Ali fight after all. He was incredibly raw in that fight.

Please Don't turn this into me being biased about George. He really was a super talent but circumstances meant a high rating and a style advantage (if you like) allowed him to get the title when he was still far too wet behind the ears and raw. With hindsight, obviously.

 

It was a joke that he was ranked ahead Ali before Frazier, and that he got the title shot instead of Ali. Had the roles been reversed, Ali the champion and Frazier the contender, you'd not hear the end of it. Frazier reign post FOTC was a joke really, but he gets a pass because he's so blue collar and all.

But that's a different debate. We're talking Foreman in Zaire, and by that time he had had overall pretty good opposition in old but still live Chuvalo, undefeated Frazier and prime Norton. Better than for example C0oney, who had only feasted on left overs pre Holmes, and many others. Better than Bowe's opposition pre Holy, also. You could rack up quite a few names here, I think.

He hadn't had much in terms of competitive fights, though. That point holds true, but again you could say the same for a number of fighters that rank among some ATG:s best wins. C0oney and Mugabi immediately springs to mind.

So a lot comes down to how representative you think his performances post Ali are for the version that stepped into the ring in Zaire. I think that's a difficult one to answer.

 

His performance v Young looked similar to the guy who fought Ali.He maybe tried to pace himself a little.Same story though, trying to catch a guy that he couldnt, whilst exhibiting clumsy boxing skills, before running out of gas.
Only difference was that Young was not as good as '74 Ali, so the fight stumbled the distance.

 

So true about Ali not getting the title shot by early '73 ! Since FOTC Ali had virtually cleaned the division out while Joe's two defences were nothing more than glorified exhibitions. And,yes,Foreman's opponents pre Jamaica were no worse than a lot of men's.

 

From memory he had adopted a more narrow stance and did not cut off the ring with such aggressiveness, was more cautious in his approach.

His trainer, Hil Clancy, has also claimed that he trained poorly and the fact that he was about 10 lbs heavier than he was in Zaire lends credibility to this.

 

Marvis was rated #4 by the WBC and #9 by the IBF and had wins over Smith, Ribalta, Tillis, Banjo, Benton, Bugner and Broad. He was a legit contender by all standards.

 

You have a valid point I must confess. On paper two brutal wins over the top two heavyweights. Ingo Johansson did the same thing so it is a great feat .

I had a thought. If the greatest fighter who ever lived gets knocked out with the very first punch before he gets going it can do two things. It wipes out everything he ever did because he is no longer the greatest fighter of all time. All the other guy did was throw one punch.

Now I am in no way saying George did this. It was not a lucky shot. He knocked the two of them senseless. I'm just saying if you are not a complete fighter before doing that how can you be much better after doing it?

Like I keep saying, you can be a victim of your own success. a blow out looks sensational, but it is a just a blow out. The winner is no better for doing it than he was before doing it. He's just good enough to do it that's all. He throws, he lands and nothing comes back. Where as Some circumstances force an experience on the winner that will improve his over all game. You don't get that from a blow out.

 

yes you are correct. I forget that when there was so many champions the first half of the ring top ten is belt holders or recent belt holders then you have recent challengers then you have the guys coming up. Guys like Tillis were active and fought in good company, you beat him back then you got a rating. Before he won a belt Smith was like that too. So many champs and contenders all the same level. Marvin was no worse than most of the division back then regardless of what Larry and Tyson did to him.

 

That's interesting, but i cant have that as an excuse.Training is part of being a great fighter.
Foreman gets a great shout on here from most of the threads i've read going back over time. I stick with my view that he looked terrible on 3 occasions in a short peak. Ali exposed him and that was where he stayed. After Young he knew he was done. ( give him credit for what he did part 2)

 

I agree with that in theory. Not all fighters improve from adversity, though. But few get to be really great without having gone through at least some.

 

From a legacy standpoint he gets no excuses for the Young performance whether he was in poor shape or not. The job description for a pro is to be in good enough shape for the opponent you face.

But if it is to be used as a comparison with his performance in Zaire, you have to factor in if there were indeed differences in mental and physical preparation and readiness.

 

Jimmy Young, and surely Buster Douglas from Tokyo

 

For what it's worth, i totally 'get' what you are saying.