George Foreman: What if he would have never come back?

[Ambling Alp]

He was clearly better than Walcott and Charles. Crushing Frazier and Norton and beating Lyle was a lot more impressive than what Charles and Walcott did.
Foreman certainly fought some stifffs early in his career, but he did beat decent guys like Booone Kirkman and Peralta. Chuvalo still had something left when Foreman stopped him.

Walcott and Charles They each beat some decent fighters, but besides each other, there is a dropoff. The best they beat were Elmer Ray (Charles beat Bivins), and then probably Rex Layne and a fading Joe Louis. They each had several embarrasing losses to fighters that Foreman would have crushed.

On the other hand, Walcott and Charles probably would have lost to Frazier, and may have lost to Norton and/or Lyle.

[SolomonDeedes]

When I started watching and obsessing about boxing in the early 80s most of the writers didn't think much to George beyond his amazing punch power. Few had him in the top ten. In fact i can't remember anyone having him in the top ten.

I remember after Holmes beat Bey there was an article on Holmes versus all the greats. Frazier and Foreman were not included on that list. Seems odd now. People wrote in complaining that Frazier was not on the list, nobody wrote in about Foreman.

Yes I remember in the late 80s the Ring did an article on Tyson vs the greats. Frazier was in and so was Max Baer, but no Foreman.

[Bricks]

KO magazine also did an article circa 88 Tyson v the Greats and they had Tyson beating Foreman by KO

Foreman mk1 belongs in any HW top ten list, so utterly mesmerising were his brutal beatdowns of absolute prime peak Frazier and Norton. Just those two wins alone....... Steve Bunce has championed the idea that if Foreman had got the Ali rematch he was desirous of in 1976.....that Foreman chastened by the experience in Zaire would have won on American soil.

Im not sure, I cant see Foreman knocking Ali out or stopping him...and i cant see him outpointing Ali over 15 at that stage.

[yancey]

KO magazine also did an article circa 88 Tyson v the Greats and they had Tyson beating Foreman by KO

Foreman mk1 belongs in any HW top ten list, so utterly mesmerising were his brutal beatdowns of absolute prime peak Frazier and Norton. Just those two wins alone....... Steve Bunce has championed the idea that if Foreman had got the Ali rematch he was desirous of in 1976.....that Foreman chastened by the experience in Zaire would have won on American soil.

Im not sure, I cant see Foreman knocking Ali out or stopping him...and i cant see him outpointing Ali over 15 at that stage.

Frazier was "absolute prime peak" for Foreman, eh?

You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[Giancarlo]

KO magazine also did an article circa 88 Tyson v the Greats and they had Tyson beating Foreman by KO

Foreman mk1 belongs in any HW top ten list, so utterly mesmerising were his brutal beatdowns of absolute prime peak Frazier and Norton. Just those two wins alone....... Steve Bunce has championed the idea that if Foreman had got the Ali rematch he was desirous of in 1976.....that Foreman chastened by the experience in Zaire would have won on American soil.

Im not sure, I cant see Foreman knocking Ali out or stopping him...and i cant see him outpointing Ali over 15 at that stage.

Frazier was "absolute prime peak" for Foreman, eh?

You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Yeah, Joe was just a shell of a man by then.

[yancey]

KO magazine also did an article circa 88 Tyson v the Greats and they had Tyson beating Foreman by KO

Foreman mk1 belongs in any HW top ten list, so utterly mesmerising were his brutal beatdowns of absolute prime peak Frazier and Norton. Just those two wins alone....... Steve Bunce has championed the idea that if Foreman had got the Ali rematch he was desirous of in 1976.....that Foreman chastened by the experience in Zaire would have won on American soil.

Im not sure, I cant see Foreman knocking Ali out or stopping him...and i cant see him outpointing Ali over 15 at that stage.

Frazier was "absolute prime peak" for Foreman, eh?

You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Yeah, Joe was just a shell of a man by then.

Very typical of you to distort the point I'm making. Pitiful.

Of course, Frazier was not "just a shell of a man" for Foreman I. Never have I said that.

I have consistently said that the FOTC took a lot out of Frazier, physically and mentally, and that he was never the same fighter after that.

For anybody to think that Foreman got "absolute prime peak" Frazier in Jamaica is hilariously dumb.

Even someone as pathetic and childish as yourself knows that.

[Ambling Alp]

He was very close to his peak. He just turned 29 years old and had only 29 fights going into the first Foreman fight. If he can't get up for a serious title defense at that stage it's his own fault.

Great fighters will have great wins and have to get up for the next challenge. That is the way that boxing and sports in general are.

Frazier always had his crybaby excuses but the simple truth is that Foreman crushed him and would have most of the time regardless of when they fought.

[yancey]

He was very close to his peak. He just turned 29 years old and had only 29 fights going into the first Foreman fight. If he can't get up for a serious title defense at that stage it's his own fault.

Great fighters will have great wins and have to get up for the next challenge. That is the way that boxing and sports in general are.

Frazier always had his crybaby excuses but the simple truth is that Foreman crushed him and would have most of the time regardless of when they fought.

Yes, Foreman stands to win most of the time. Have consistently said I would not bet any version of Frazier at even money against '73 Foreman.

It is pretty simplistic to think you can base someone's peak on their chronological age.

Frazier had definitely lost something by 1973 and post-FOTC. Forget his chronological age.

[dempseyfire]

He was clearly better than Walcott and Charles. Crushing Frazier and Norton and beating Lyle was a lot more impressive than what Charles and Walcott did.
Foreman certainly fought some stifffs early in his career, but he did beat decent guys like Booone Kirkman and Peralta. Chuvalo still had something left when Foreman stopped him.

Walcott and Charles They each beat some decent fighters, but besides each other, there is a dropoff. The best they beat were Elmer Ray (Charles beat Bivins), and then probably Rex Layne and a fading Joe Louis. They each had several embarrasing losses to fighters that Foreman would have crushed.

On the other hand, Walcott and Charles probably would have lost to Frazier, and may have lost to Norton and/or Lyle.

What complete bollucks. Charles and Walcott lost to Lyle??? That's a joke. I'd pick both over Norton as well peak for peak (although Charles-Norton is about 50/50) Also tough to call matches vs a post FOTC Frazier.

For starters, Walcott has a clear unofficial win vs Joe Louis, which trumps Foreman's best win over Frazier. Walcott also beat Jimmy Bivins, Lee Q Murray, Harold Johnson, Curtis Sheppard, and Joey Maxim, as well as the aformentioned Charles and Ray. He had more losses but one can't discount the circumstances and change in the time period on terms of fighter preparation and the meaning of losses in those different eras. If Walcott had feasted on a slew of bums and had prominent backers/trainers.matchmaking from the advent of his career like Foreman did he could've been 37-0 as well or whatever George was. Even that all said, I'm not 100% sure whether I'd rate Walcott over Foreman if we are only talking 70s George, but at the least they'd be even.

[Bricks]

KO magazine also did an article circa 88 Tyson v the Greats and they had Tyson beating Foreman by KO

Foreman mk1 belongs in any HW top ten list, so utterly mesmerising were his brutal beatdowns of absolute prime peak Frazier and Norton. Just those two wins alone....... Steve Bunce has championed the idea that if Foreman had got the Ali rematch he was desirous of in 1976.....that Foreman chastened by the experience in Zaire would have won on American soil.

Im not sure, I cant see Foreman knocking Ali out or stopping him...and i cant see him outpointing Ali over 15 at that stage.

Frazier was "absolute prime peak" for Foreman, eh?

You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about.

He was undefeated and coming off beating Ali in the fight of the century ....or do you think the 1976 encounter was the first time Foreman and Frazier met?
Even the biggest Frazier apologist couldnt argue Foreman didnt ownhim and his style....Foremans mastery of Frazier is perhaps the greatest most complete mastery of one ATG at his peak over another ATG at his peak as I can recall off the top of my head.

[Ezzard]

Charles and Jersey Joe would have beaten Young and Lyle (most of the time). Frazier and Norton stylistically would always struggle to get into a fight with Foreman but would do well against Ezzard and Walcott.

Didn’t Charles beat Bivins about 3 times? Wasn’t Bivins considered to be the #1 contender during Louis reign for quite a time? He also beat Walcott officially twice and probably deserved a 3rd win if we accept the wise words of Monsieur jaclem…

Foreman was more awe inspiring in his wins but overall better??? I’m not convinced.

[Ezzard]

KO magazine also did an article circa 88 Tyson v the Greats and they had Tyson beating Foreman by KO

Foreman mk1 belongs in any HW top ten list, so utterly mesmerising were his brutal beatdowns of absolute prime peak Frazier and Norton. Just those two wins alone....... Steve Bunce has championed the idea that if Foreman had got the Ali rematch he was desirous of in 1976.....that Foreman chastened by the experience in Zaire would have won on American soil.

Im not sure, I cant see Foreman knocking Ali out or stopping him...and i cant see him outpointing Ali over 15 at that stage.

Frazier was "absolute prime peak" for Foreman, eh?

You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about.

He was undefeated and coming off beating Ali in the fight of the century ....or do you think the 1976 encounter was the first time Foreman and Frazier met?
Even the biggest Frazier apologist couldnt argue Foreman didnt ownhim and his style....Foremans mastery of Frazier is perhaps the greatest most complete mastery of one ATG at his peak over another ATG at his peak as I can recall off the top of my head.

Did Joe come in at a career high weight for that fight?

His fault…I agree…but circumstances and all that…

[Ambling Alp]

Charles and Jersey Joe would have beaten Young and Lyle (most of the time). Frazier and Norton stylistically would always struggle to get into a fight with Foreman but would do well against Ezzard and Walcott.

Didn’t Charles beat Bivins about 3 times? Wasn’t Bivins considered to be the #1 contender during Louis reign for quite a time? He also beat Walcott officially twice and probably deserved a 3rd win if we accept the wise words of Monsieur jaclem…

Foreman was more awe inspiring in his wins but overall better??? I’m not convinced.

Chalres did beat bivins four times, lost to him once. Bivins was pretty past it the last time. However, Foreman still beat better competition. Call it stylistically or whatever you want, but Foremans wins over Frazier, Norton, Lyle and some decent fighters is more Chalres going 2-2 (or 3-1) vs Walcott, Bivins, Ray and his lesser wins. The difference between Foreman and Walcott is even greater.

Look at the losses. Foreman lost to Ali and Young. Besides twice to Walcott, and twice to Marciano and Harold Johnson. Charles lost to Rex Layne, and Nino Vlades which are really embarrassing losses for a great heavyweight.

Walcott lost to Cahrles and Marciano twice. Lost twice to a fading Louis (granted the first one was by all accounts a horrible decision.)
Walcott also lost to Layne, Ray and Joey Maxim. Thats a lot of losses. Not to mention all the losses earlier in his career in which he always gets a free pass. (Were talking losses to people like Roy Lazer,Abe Simon and the great Skippy Allen.)

Considering that Walcott and Charles lost to lesser fighters than Norton, Lyle, and young, it is not a stretch to think they may lose to Norton, Lyle and Young. Even chuvalo and Peralta would have a serious chance considering how often Chalres and Walcott lost to lesser fighters. Losing to Frazier is extremely likely.

Part of rating fighters is considering the losses-The number, how bad they were and who they were to. You have the beat the lesser opponents. Foreman always did that while Charles and Waclott did not.

Foreman beat better opponents, and beat them more easily. He lost a lot less. This is not even close.

[The Great John L]

Foreman beat better opponents, and beat them more easily. He lost a lot less. This is not even close.

He lost a lot less because once you get past a handfull of world class opponents everybody else on George's resume is pretty sad. Charles spent years fighting the best LHs and HWs in the world multiple times. Just look at Walcott's resume leading up to the first Louis fight. Yes, beating Frazier, Norton and Lyle sounds better, but I think it's hardly a stretch to say that if Foreman and Lyle had fought 4-5 times that Ron would have beaten George at least once. And had George fought Young multiple times he would have lost multiple times.

If you fight 15-20 fights against world class opposition losing a few really doesn't mean much. Had George fought a similar lineup prior to the Frazier fight he probably would have never gotten a title fight. Three or four fights each against Bugner, Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena, etc. and I'm sure George probably would have seen God and started preaching a little earlier.

I also think George was a better HW than Charles and Walcott and Marciano. But a prime Charles and Walcott would have presented some serious matchip problems for the slow, crude Foreman. Of course, George's management probably never would have let George near either one of them.

[Ezzard]

I have to agree with John L…

Modern fighters lose less fights because of the way they are managed.

If they fought Foreman might get lucky, like he might have got lucky against Young. But I'd back both men to beat him more often than not.

[oliverfennell]

The fact that a select cabal of the magazines of the time (early 80s) didnt rate Foreman in the top ten HW listings of all times, really pretty much sums up the pettiness and lack of impartiality of those journalists of the times

Part of that could be how many observers underrate boxers in current/recent memory, or at least struggle to place them in a historic context without the passage of time. Almost all boxers are thought more highly of when 10 years or so have passed than when they are active or not long retired. For example, I'd bet very few writers would put Wlad K in their all-time lists right now, but in 10 years' time they may well do.

[The Great John L]

The fact that a select cabal of the magazines of the time (early 80s) didnt rate Foreman in the top ten HW listings of all times, really pretty much sums up the pettiness and lack of impartiality of those journalists of the times

Part of that could be how many observers underrate boxers in current/recent memory, or at least struggle to place them in a historic context without the passage of time. Almost all boxers are thought more highly of when 10 years or so have passed than when they are active or not long retired. For example, I'd bet very few writers would put Wlad K in their all-time lists right now, but in 10 years' time they may well do.

Oliver, you're probably right.

[Bricks]

[quote=]

Did Joe come in at a career high weight for that fight?

His fault…I agree…but circumstances and all that…[/quote]

Um no Joe didnt come in at a career high weight for that fight.....he did so for Foreman 2 in 1976 not Foreman 1. When he fought Foreman the first time, Joe had been heavier during earlier title defences and even heavier when before he won the title. He had put on 5-6 pounds to his median title defence weight but 5-6 pounds is minimal, he didnt look or fightdifferent....he wasnt noticably in worse shape than usual or slower...in fact he was slipping and punching with as much speed and power as ever..its just very easy for extremeJoe apologists like Yancey to come up with bogus theories about things like weight...... it was probably a good idea for Joe to add 5lbs to be very close to Foremans 217lbs.

What ultimately made Joe be crushed like a bug was what Foreman was and did rather than what Joe was or did........Joe did what Joe always did....and it wasnt good enough...wouldnt ever have been 100 times out of 100.....like I say no ATG at their peak owned another ATG at their peak .....off the top of my head like Foreman owned Frazier......and thats based on the first and second battles......a man of immense talent, pride and strength like Joe did what he could....he even crashed a few hellacious left hooks on George but showing glimpses of the granite chin he proved 20 years later , George just took them.

[Bricks]

The fact that a select cabal of the magazines of the time (early 80s) didnt rate Foreman in the top ten HW listings of all times, really pretty much sums up the pettiness and lack of impartiality of those journalists of the times

Part of that could be how many observers underrate boxers in current/recent memory, or at least struggle to place them in a historic context without the passage of time. Almost all boxers are thought more highly of when 10 years or so have passed than when they are active or not long retired. For example, I'd bet very few writers would put Wlad K in their all-time lists right now, but in 10 years' time they may well do.

But in this case....these men like Foreman and Tyson , were vastly overrated and thought of by the same observers as "invincible" during their prime title reigns..it was Farhood and Ryan who said in 88 only Ali and Frazier beat Tyson.....yet as soon as they lost in Foremans case to Ali and than Young and in Tysons to Douglas and than Holyfield......the same observers start to vastly underrated these men....in Ryans case he has been bleating for 15 years that Tyson doesnt even belong in Canastota.

However overall you point is very valid just not to Tyson and Foreman.......who granted are two very very exceptional cases given the career trajectory they had.

But for example the talented HWs of the 80s and early 90s look positively like ATGs next to the crop of no hoper far americans and talentless Eastern Europeans we have had the last dozen years (the Klitchsckos notwithstanding).

[The Great John L]

What ultimately made Joe be crushed like a bug was what Foreman was and did rather than what Joe was or did........Joe did what Joe always did....and it wasnt good enough...wouldnt ever have been 100 times out of 100.....like I say no ATG at their peak owned another ATG at their peak .....off the top of my head like Foreman owned Frazier......and thats based on the first and second battles......a man of immense talent, pride and strength like Joe did what he could....he even crashed a few hellacious left hooks on George but showing glimpses of the granite chin he proved 20 years later , George just took them.

I'm sorry but it's hard to take a statement like this seriously. George crushed Joe in their first fight when Joe was closer to his peak, and then actually had a hard time hitting him solid a few years later when Joe was pretty much shot and grossly over weight. While most would agree, myself included, if you said that Joe's style was made for George, there is not enough actual in ring proof to justify a statement like "...no ATG at their peak owned another ATG at their peak .....off the top of my head like Foreman owned Frazier...".

There is enough evidence in the Bonavena fights to indicate that a younger, fresher Frazier might have been able to adapt his style so that he could stick around long enough to take George deep and bury him. Especially considering that a fat, shot and half blind Frazier was able to survive some rounds in their rematch.

There are a lot of examples throughout history of fighters getting blown out in a fight and then completely turning the tables in subsequent fights. While Joe's style was made to order for a big puncher, their rematch really didn't prove anything due to the obvious decline in Joe except that even the shot Joe was able to adapt enough to survive some rounds compared to their inital fight. It's hardly a stretch to think that a 26yo Frazier might have been able to adapt enough to beat a fighter as limited and one dimensional as George.

And no, Joe was not at his peak in their first fight. He certainly wasn't far from his peak, but few would say that Joe looked as good after the FOTC as he did either in that fight or prior to it.

[Bricks]

Respectfully i enjoy your knowledgable posts John but you have it wrong here in my lone opinion.

RE "George crushed Joe in their first fight when Joe was closer to his peak, and then actually had a hard time hitting him solid a few years later when Joe was pretty much shot and grossly over weight"........ Well the fact is the 2nd fight lasted longer as Joe did not fight his usual fight he became a runner!!! Joe was trying to do a bad Cassius Clay impression. He was actually dancing on the back foot, fooling around, moving around trying to take it the distance in the vain hope he might tire George out he also did a pretty crude rope a dope impersonation which eventually got him brutalised and knocked out on the ropes. If Joe had pressed ahead like he usually did the fight would have handed earlier.
George was missing some shots in the 2nd fight but he was also swinging wildly in the first one. All of your beliefs regarding Joe already being on the downhill slope after the FOTC and before he stepped in to face George in Kingston Jamaica, are all said with a great deal of hindsight . At the time there was absolutely no evidence to suggest he was anything but in the prime of his life going in...George even said he was terrified to face Joe. Even after Foreman destroyed him that time, Joe went on years later to give Ali life and death in Manilla. Some (not neccesarily me) argue he fought a better version of Ali there in 75 than the one he met in 1971 who the same people say was still a little rusty and didnt have the same experience.

Ref my statement"...no ATG at their peak owned another ATG at their peak .....off the top of my head like Foreman owned Frazier...". Its not one i make lightly and it pains me to speak that way of a fearless and legendary warrior like Joe Frazier whose like we may never ever see again. But The fact is Joe didnt lose spectacularly to George once but twice....this wasnt some anomaly like Louis -Schmeling or Lewis -Rahman...this was a systematic taking apart of a legend by a new collosus. i do say beneath my statement is concealed a huge measure of my respect for Joe. If Foreman hadnt come along in the 1970s, its possible Frazier would now be measured as a top 4 HW....! Yes its a few coulda shouldas might have beens a few hypotheticals.........but nowhere near your leap of faith in surmising "Surely a 26 year old FRazier could beat a fighter as limited and one dimensional as Foreman".....for all his greatness, Joe Frazier may have been one of the only one handed HW champions of all time, he only seemingly throw left hooks and pawed with his jab, the right hand didnt exist much. It would be unfair of me to bring into the argument the diversity and multi dimensions of the older Foreman but the offensive artillery of young Foreman, His left hook and right hand, his pounding jab his right uppercut etc may be some of the most multi dimensional attacking tools of all time in the HW division. But Im not gonna go down that path there was nothing limited and one dimensional about these two legends.

Finally with all due respect Oscar Bonavena.......was no George Foreman........

[Ambling Alp]

Foreman beat better opponents, and beat them more easily. He lost a lot less. This is not even close.

He lost a lot less because once you get past a handfull of world class opponents everybody else on George's resume is pretty sad. Charles spent years fighting the best LHs and HWs in the world multiple times. Just look at Walcott's resume leading up to the first Louis fight. Yes, beating Frazier, Norton and Lyle sounds better, but I think it's hardly a stretch to say that if Foreman and Lyle had fought 4-5 times that Ron would have beaten George at least once. And had George fought Young multiple times he would have lost multiple times.

If you fight 15-20 fights against world class opposition losing a few really doesn't mean much. Had George fought a similar lineup prior to the Frazier fight he probably would have never gotten a title fight. Three or four fights each against Bugner, Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena, etc. and I'm sure George probably would have seen God and started preaching a little earlier.

I also think George was a better HW than Charles and Walcott and Marciano. But a prime Charles and Walcott would have presented some serious matchip problems for the slow, crude Foreman. Of course, George's management probably never would have let George near either one of them.

wow, you don't have much respect for Foreman, do you? Do you really think Chalres and Walcott's competition at heavyweight was that much better than Foremans? I don't see that at all. They certainly weren't beating heavyweights the caliber of Lyle, Norton, and Frazier three and four times. They were losing fights they never should have.Foreman could quite possibly went undefeated against Charles and Walcott's competition. No George didn't fight Bugner, Ellis, Quarry or Bonavena. Unless you are Ali you don't fight everyone else that is really good. Frazier never fought Lyle, Young, or Norton but never gets any flack.

Foreman did beat Chuvalo, Peralta and Kirkman before fighting for the title. something that gets overlooked is that Foreman was in his first year as a pro when he beat Peralta. If you think those guys weren't that good look at the guys that Chalres and Walcott lost to during their careers. Then he beat Frazier twice, Norton, and Lyle.
What is the arguement? That Charles and Walcott's 4th best victims were better than Foreman's? That is reaching pretty deep to find and advantage for them.

[yancey]

Did Joe come in at a career high weight for that fight?

His fault…I agree…but circumstances and all that…

Um no Joe didnt come in at a career high weight for that fight.....he did so for Foreman 2 in 1976 not Foreman 1. When he fought Foreman the first time, Joe had been heavier during earlier title defences and even heavier when before he won the title. He had put on 5-6 pounds to his median title defence weight but 5-6 pounds is minimal, he didnt look or fightdifferent....he wasnt noticably in worse shape than usual or slower...in fact he was slipping and punching with as much speed and power as ever..its just very easy for extremeJoe apologists like Yancey to come up with bogus theories about things like weight...... it was probably a good idea for Joe to add 5lbs to be very close to Foremans 217lbs.

What ultimately made Joe be crushed like a bug was what Foreman was and did rather than what Joe was or did........Joe did what Joe always did....and it wasnt good enough...wouldnt ever have been 100 times out of 100.....like I say no ATG at their peak owned another ATG at their peak .....off the top of my head like Foreman owned Frazier......and thats based on the first and second battles......a man of immense talent, pride and strength like Joe did what he could....he even crashed a few hellacious left hooks on George but showing glimpses of the granite chin he proved 20 years later , George just took them.

You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Your earlier "observation" that Frazier was "absolute prime peak" for his first fight with Foreman is one of the most hilarious remarks I've ever come across here. Frazier was never the same post-FOTC.

Now you have Frazier's weights all confused, you have him masterfully sliding punches in Jamaica, and the '76 shot version of Joe crashing huge left hooks on George.



I have never paid much attention to your posts until now, but I certainly see why at least two others here whose knowledge I respect consider you a laughing stock.

What adds to this mess is your limited comprehension skills.

You call me an "extreme apologist" for Frazier losing to Foreman, yet I have repeatedly said that I would NOT bet on ANY version of Frazier at EVEN MONEY against '73 Foreman!

Is this a position a complete homer for Frazier would take?

Please, don't even bother to answer.

[Ezzard]

Did Joe come in at a career high weight for that fight?

His fault…I agree…but circumstances and all that…

Um no Joe didnt come in at a career high weight for that fight.....he did so for Foreman 2 in 1976 not Foreman 1. When he fought Foreman the first time, Joe had been heavier during earlier title defences and even heavier when before he won the title. He had put on 5-6 pounds to his median title defence weight but 5-6 pounds is minimal, he didnt look or fightdifferent....he wasnt noticably in worse shape than usual or slower...in fact he was slipping and punching with as much speed and power as ever..its just very easy for extremeJoe apologists like Yancey to come up with bogus theories about things like weight...... it was probably a good idea for Joe to add 5lbs to be very close to Foremans 217lbs.

What ultimately made Joe be crushed like a bug was what Foreman was and did rather than what Joe was or did........Joe did what Joe always did....and it wasnt good enough...wouldnt ever have been 100 times out of 100.....like I say no ATG at their peak owned another ATG at their peak .....off the top of my head like Foreman owned Frazier......and thats based on the first and second battles......a man of immense talent, pride and strength like Joe did what he could....he even crashed a few hellacious left hooks on George but showing glimpses of the granite chin he proved 20 years later , George just took them.

Sorry, couldn’t be bothered to look it up. I thought that was his heaviest up until that point… Anyway, Foreman beats Frazier, and indeed did twice. But Frazier is the greater of the two in my opnion.

[Ezzard]

The fact that a select cabal of the magazines of the time (early 80s) didnt rate Foreman in the top ten HW listings of all times, really pretty much sums up the pettiness and lack of impartiality of those journalists of the times

Or it sums up the pettiness and impartiality of today...