How Did This Guy Go The Distance With Prime Foreman

[ThatOne]

And Then Get KOed by Floyd Patterson in 2 in the next fight?

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Human:106

[Goodnight, Irene]

Well, this is the theater of the unexpected, you know...;)

In truth, the answer to the question is he didn't, because the article is erroneous. the truth of the matter is, no one faced a prime Foreman & went the distance. Of course, when a fighters', "peak" begins & ends is somewhat subjective, but, in Foreman's case, there's no way anyone can reasonably argue the peak version was taken the distance by anyone, at any time. Foreman's last fight to go the distance preceding his peak was against Peralta. He'd improved since his debut at that point, but was still a fresh 15-0-0.

I haven't seen the fight. Says Forte was down early. Perhaps he got up & ran, or held excessively. That's what Davila did when he lasted against an even-greener Foreman.

[Robinson]

Foreman was still being developed and no doubt wanted to try new things.
Foreman has repeatedly said that he always wanted to be a boxer-mover
like Ali. And at times when he was younger, he tried this. Contray to the
fighter he would become that we love and grow to know.
He was still green, facing an experienced and saavy journeyman. And
everyone has a flat night.

On top of that it is hard to know how the fight went as we have not seen
it on film. Plus some times it is easier to defend against a bigger man who
throws around and into you, than against a guy like Patterson who is
fast and blasts you on the inside and under neath you.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Foreman was still being developed and no doubt wanted to try new things.
Foreman has repeatedly said that he always wanted to be a boxer-mover
like Ali. And at times when he was younger, he tried this. Contray to the
fighter he would become that we love and grow to know.
He was still green, facing an experienced and saavy journeyman. And
everyone has a flat night.

On top of that it is hard to know how the fight went as we have not seen
it on film. Plus some times it is easier to defend against a bigger man who
throws around and into you, than against a guy like Patterson who is
fast and blasts you on the inside and under neath you.

You might think so, but look where the fight took place. Patterson's speed had essentially deserted him at that time.

[Robinson]

Patterson was still fast and some what competitive against Ali even in
his last fight.

[Adamj1987]

Patterson was still fast and some what competitive against Ali even in
his last fight.

indeed he put up quite a fight for an advanced age at that time also foremans punches where for cumbersome back then, floyd could still time the punches well

as they say its the punches you dont see that hurt the most

[The Great John L]

I’m not sure I would say that George was in his prime in that fight. Of course I seem to be one of the few who thinks George is quite over rated. While he was clearly an ATG, I also think he was one of the more vulnerable of the greats and would have had a very tough time against many of the other to HWs of the past who could actually move and box a little.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I’m not sure I would say that George was in his prime in that fight. Of course I seem to be one of the few who thinks George is quite over rated. While he was clearly an ATG, I also think he was one of the more vulnerable of the greats and would have had a very tough time against many of the other to HWs of the past who could actually move and box a little.

Yeah, that's what everyone says. Thing is, getting in the ring & doing it against a monster like that is infinitely more difficult than you imagine it to be.

That's why he's an all-time great.

[The Great John L]

I’m not sure I would say that George was in his prime in that fight. Of course I seem to be one of the few who thinks George is quite over rated. While he was clearly an ATG, I also think he was one of the more vulnerable of the greats and would have had a very tough time against many of the other to HWs of the past who could actually move and box a little.

Yeah, that's what everyone says. Thing is, getting in the ring & doing it against a monster like that is infinitely more difficult than you imagine it to be.

That's why he's an all-time great.

Actually, very few people say it, that's why he keep showing up in peoples top 5 HWs of all time.

And yes, I did say he was an all time great. However, try looking at his career again and try to understand what I'm saying. During his first career he fought 3 decent guys who were known more as boxers who could move. How did he do against them?

During his second career, he did his best to avoid anyone who could move, and had a fine run, capped by his amazing one punch KO of Moorer, who completely dominated the fight up to that point. I'm not saying that he wasn't great, merely that he was probably the most flawed of all of the ATG HWs because of his less than impressive track record against guys who could move.

[HomicideHenry]

"Lucky punches" happen---I think in the Patterson fight, though, maybe it was a simple 'check hook' that got him. you'd be surprised the acceleration that goes on inside the human head when u walk into a flush punch.

[Robinson]

I think some times Foreman as a younger man gets heralded a little bit
more than her perhaps should be. As a fine war machine with so much
raw and violent power that he possesed, I do agree with what John L
has said, that he struggled with good movers.

His jab as thudding as it was, was also some what crude, like a phone
poll being jammed into ones face, and some times his punches were wild,
he loaded up often throwing himself off balance when he missed. Crude
at times, though clearly effective.

Foreman 2.0 was a different animal, in some ways more refined, and better
defensively, though he lacked youth he did hand pick his opponents and
was at times torubled by these guys, Qawi for example who was out of
shape and selected as an opponent because of his 'name' and the fact
he was in and out of rehab with addictions.

In any case, Foreman beats more greats than he loses to, but he is not
the supreme monster of the ring that GI envisions, as he kisses the photo
of Foreman he has tucked under his pillow nightly :P

[Goodnight, Irene]

LOL, I can't believe you guys are gonna get on Foreman's case for selective match-making in his second career. He was obese, almost totally devoid of his once-underrated reflexes, & all but his power & sheer toughness had deserted him (even that famous killer instinct had essentially evaporated). Qawi was overblown & past-it? Was he twelve or thirteen years past his best, like Foreman was? Foreman wasn't, "blown up" beyond his own good when he faced Qawi (& everyone, for that matter, between '87-97?). C'mon, guys. It should be all gravy for Foreman during his second career. Whoever he faced, they were in better condition, & closer to their prime, than he ever was. You'll never be able to name another fighter who achieved quite what he did --- that should resonate heavily with you. I get the feeling John L. (like Seamus) looks at the KO of Moorer & thinks, "lucky punch" (tell me, if I'm wrong, by all means).

What was he even doing there, pushing forty-six, for God's sake!? Not just being in the ring, but still being in the fight, in a position to land a lucky punch, after ten rounds of punishment against a prime Moorer (who, while no machine at Heavyweight, was no worse than a very respectable fighter, & probably gets a tad under-rated). He was in a position so very few could ever have been in. It's more than just a lucky shot --- it's the cumulative effect of his courage, power & will which inspire.

Kym --- I told you about that photo in confidence. You're dead to me, boy, dead...

[hhaehre]

LOL, I can't believe you guys are gonna get on Foreman's case for selective match-making in his second career. He was obese, almost totally devoid of his once-underrated reflexes, & all but his power & sheer toughness had deserted him (even that famous killer instinct had essentially evaporated). Qawi was overblown & past-it? Was he twelve or thirteen years past his best, like Foreman was? Foreman wasn't, "blown up" beyond his own good when he faced Qawi (& everyone, for that matter, between '87-97?). C'mon, guys. It should be all gravy for Foreman during his second career. Whoever he faced, they were in better condition, & closer to their prime, than he ever was. You'll never be able to name another fighter who achieved quite what he did --- that should resonate heavily with you. I get the feeling John L. (like Seamus) looks at the KO of Moorer & thinks, "lucky punch" (tell me, if I'm wrong, by all means).

What was he even doing there, pushing forty-six, for God's sake!? Not just being in the ring, but still being in the fight, in a position to land a lucky punch, after ten rounds of punishment against a prime Moorer (who, while no machine at Heavyweight, was no worse than a very respectable fighter, & probably gets a tad under-rated). He was in a position so very few could ever have been in. It's more than just a lucky shot --- it's the cumulative effect of his courage, power & will which inspire.

Spin it anyway you like but that punch is the very definition of a lucky punch. Otherwise I agree with everything you say about his second career and that is why it is pertinent to put his second career into perspective for those misguided souls who feel he was just as good only different the second time around. No need to criticize Foreman for anything but certainly ok to point out the facts.

How Forte survived Foreman I don't know as I have never seen the fight but it is not a certainty that he ran. Peralta survived while standing in with Foreman, he was just a very cagey old pro and Foreman still green. Something similar could have taken place in the Forte fight but Peralta won several rounds against Foreman and Forte was shut out.

[The Great John L]

I get the feeling John L. (like Seamus) looks at the KO of Moorer & thinks, "lucky punch" (tell me, if I'm wrong, by all means).

George threw the punch and it landed where it was intended, so no it was not a lucky punch. However, George was schooled throughout the rest of the fight, so I would say it was more fortunate that Moorer forgot to duck and didn't have much of a chin.

Not sure why you're so bent out of shape about this. As I noted, George was a great fighter, I just feel that most over look his limitations, and I also believe that his limitations were managed quite well throughout his career, with the possible exception of the Young fight. Why he and his management couldn't have figured that one out I have no idea.

And yes, I think any version of George would have lost to Young that night. In fact, I think the "pre Zaire" George would have probably had even more trouble against a prime Young because he was less disciplined than the George that fought Young.

BTW, I think Kym is correct that George beats more of the AT top HWs than he loses to, but some of those guys, like Tunney, Holmes, Johnson, Walcott, etc, would have been very difficult for George.

[raylawpc]

The last time I saw him, Levi was still a bellman at the Fountainbleu Hotel. I saw him every year at a conference I attended there, and always spent some time talking to him. If you ever get down to Miami Beach, drop by the Fountainbleu and talk to Levi. He loves to talk to fans. He is still very sharp mentally. Sadly, our conference moved from Miami Beach to Orlando about four years ago, so I do not see Levi anymore.

Levi and I talked about both the Foreman and Patterson fights. Levi said that Foreman hit incredibly hard. In fact, Foreman hit him on the forehead so hard that it actually raised hard knot. But he lasted the distance because (a) Foreman was relatively inexperienced at that point, (b) Foreman telegraphed his punches, (c) Foreman tired in the late rounds, and (d) Levi had the right style to stay with Foreman.

Regarding Patterson, Levi said that Patterson hit alot harder than people gave Patterson credit for, and that Patterson had very fast hands. He said the simple fact was that he couldn't follow Floyd's punches that night, and never saw the punch coming that stopped him.

[The Great John L]

Thanks for the post Ray. I don't get to Miami Beach often, but it would be great to talk to Levi.

No surprise with the explanation, as it usualy is the punch you don't see that stops you, and Floyd was still vary quick handed even at the end of his career.

[Goodnight, Irene]

To John L. & Hhaehre, just to clarify, I'm not disputing Foreman's KO punch against Moorer was lucky --- it was. He was clearly fatigued & battered, & was only two rounds away from what was probably going to be a near-shutout defeat on the cards. The only I'm saying is what really makes him the story he is is not the punch per se --- it's the fact he could challenge for the title at that age, the fact he could absorb that at-times brutal punishment from a young Moorer, & hang in there to have the opportunity to throw that punch. There's just about no one you can name, irrespective of the division, who can match up to that achievement. The punch may be the resonating moment for most people, not for me. That's not where the real inspiration lies.

John L, I don't, if I'm honest, believe the pre-Zaire Foreman loses to Young, but to each, his own. I have said myself in the past if I were managing Foreman, one of the all-timers I would have kept him away from was Tunney. I would favour Foreman in a fight, but it's a risky proposition too many people just wouldn't give much credit to if Foreman won it. Tunney's too much risk, too little reward for Foreman --- it's a dicey fight if Foreman doesn't show up in the right headspace.

Gotta say, Foreman-Holmes is damn near 50-50 for mine. Walcott has the style, but he's just not durable enough, for my money, to survive Foreman. I've never been as high on Johnson as others, but I can't agree he seriously challenges Foreman. He was too flat-footed, too dependent upon wrestling tactics & counter-punching at range against smaller men. He might change his gameplan for Foreman, but it wouldn't be his most comfortable position, & I question his capacity to deal with Foreman's power, frankly.

I'll agree Foreman is going to have the most trouble with movers, & also that Foreman's weaknesses, such as his telegraphed punching, are obvious. What I sometimes get the feeling though, is that people think along the lines of glaring weaknesses = easy to exploit. That's not necessarily the case, & with Foreman bearing down on an opponent (the actual, physical pressure of the man must have been nothing short of enormous), he probably looks easier to beat than he truly was.

[The Great John L]

I'll agree Foreman is going to have the most trouble with movers, & also that Foreman's weaknesses, such as his telegraphed punching, are obvious. What I sometimes get the feeling though, is that people think along the lines of glaring weaknesses = easy to exploit. That's not necessarily the case, & with Foreman bearing down on an opponent (the actual, physical pressure of the man must have been nothing short of enormous), he probably looks easier to beat than he truly was.

The first career Foreman fought three guys who were known as boxers and didn't do very well against any of them. While he was somewhat green against Peralta, Peralta was also one weight class and a few years past his best. George never proved, in a single fight that he could handle a world class boxer who was known for defense, and I think that's a pretty damning case.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Damning? I disagree. I don't think there is anything on Foreman's record you could truly call, "Damning." That's a pretty big word, for mine. He lost one fight to a mover, & that, past his best.

Peralta was more than a match, & I think Foreman's green state was more of a detriment than Peralta's age or size. Peralta wasn't washed-up, & his experience was critical, even if he did have the style edge. Also, when you're blowing guys out in two or three rounds, that's setting the bar pretty high. You can't do that with every man, though I admit Peralta's style & fight-plan took their toll.

I don't think as much of the Foreman who lost to Young as I do. I don't think Young gets the better of him at his peak, & I fancy most people wouldn't. Who was the third man you had in mind? No one ever beat a prime Foreman by moving, & Foreman never lost in his prime, save to Ali, who barely moved an inch after the first two rounds of their fight.

What of Johnson, though? He really wasn't a mover, was he? I know that, in a twelve-rounder within the confines of an air-conditioned arena he may've fought quite differently, but you can't project that onto him hypothetically. I think he was too flat-footed to outbox Foreman.

A lot of people like Holmes over Foreman, but when did he ever prove he could tackle someone like Foreman? Please, please don't mention the, 'S' word...he was garbage, next to Foreman.

[Robinson]

I think Foreman beats Johnson, tie him up, parry away and
avoid the blows as best as he could. Foreman is nothing like
anyone Johnson had ever near encountered.

His jab would be no match, his combinations less refined than
Georges and his power blows would be slight to a degree. I see
Foreman hounding him down and chopping away. He would go
down stunned, do his best to come back, but Foreman is
no Ketchel.

Gallant and brave, but Johnson is counted out by big george.

[BoxBuzz]

I'm inclined to think that if the "garbage man" gave Holmes a tough fight, then Foreman probably could get the job done.
I wish that fight would have happened. It's one of the greatest fights that never happened, and people line up on both sides of that discussion as to who the eventual winner would have been.

I know it could have gone either way, but I think Foreman would have won.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I think Foreman beats Johnson, tie him up, parry away and
avoid the blows as best as he could. Foreman is nothing like
anyone Johnson had ever near encountered.

His jab would be no match, his combinations less refined than
Georges and his power blows would be slight to a degree. I see
Foreman hounding him down and chopping away. He would go
down stunned, do his best to come back, but Foreman is
no Ketchel.

Gallant and brave, but Johnson is counted out by big george.

I believe so, yes. Most of Johnson's opposition were much smaller (than Johnson, let alone Foreman) men, & most threw two or three punches at a combo, allowing Johnson to quite leisurely set himself, pull back, & pot-shot them to death. If they got close, he was stronger, & could tie them up.

He'd have to be a lot more active, defensively, against Foreman's assault, & no one Johnson fought hit like Foreman. Johnson wants to tie him up? Good luck. I don't see it. A well-time punch (Johnson's right hand was pretty painful) could hurt Foreman, but I don't believe he has the power to put Foreman away for a second. Foreman knocks out Johnson --- not that John L. said differently, just that Johnson would be a difficult fight for Foreman. With that, I don't concur.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I'm inclined to think that if the "garbage man" gave Holmes a tough fight, then Foreman probably could get the job done.
I wish that fight would have happened. It's one of the greatest fights that never happened, and people line up on both sides of that discussion as to who the eventual winner would have been.

I know it could have gone either way, but I think Foreman would have won.

I feel essentially the same way. No money on it from mine, but I think Foreman deals slightly better with Holmes' style advantage than Holmes does with Foreman's aggression, under-rated quickness, & finishing ability (Holmes never faced anyone who could finish on a world-class level until Tyson).

[HomicideHenry]

I think John L. said it best, with Foreman having problems with movers. If you recall, the 'prime' Foreman in 1975 wasnt able to kayo Charlie Polite (I think) in the Toronto exhibition in the three rounds it was scheduled. The young Foreman was a destroyer, forever chasing the kayo, and while he had stamina [hes often credited as not, but thats not true, he went the distance with Peralta and Young]. Just goes to show that even as late at 1975, Foreman had problems with movers.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I think John L. said it best, with Foreman having problems with movers. If you recall, the 'prime' Foreman in 1975 wasnt able to kayo Charlie Polite (I think) in the Toronto exhibition in the three rounds it was scheduled. The young Foreman was a destroyer, forever chasing the kayo, and while he had stamina [hes often credited as not, but thats not true, he went the distance with Peralta and Young]. Just goes to show that even as late at 1975, Foreman had problems with movers.

I can't see how the loss in Zaire, which precedes an exhibition match where he had to face five consecutive men (really, how much are you gonna take from this?), didn't damage him as a fighter permanently.