Oleksandr Usyk vs George Foreman

[Cojimar 1946]

Who wins

[Joson]

Fascinating matchup. You'd think that Foreman rates as the favorite, and that he'd win. That he's simply a higher caliber heavyweight than Usyk, who is really just a blown-up cruiser.

But, when you think about it, this fight has the potential to turn into a replay of Foreman's upset loss to Jimmy Young. Usyk's speed, elusiveness, and highly effective hit-and-run tactics resemble Young's game. Big George was most vulnerable to this kind of opponent. That was proven in his Gregorio Peralta bouts, where he won but struggled, and in his defeats to Young and Muhammad Ali.

Overall, Foreman was a better fighter than Usyk, and capable of accomplishing much more in the heavyweight division. No doubt. But in boxing, there's the phenomenon of a superior fighter losing to an inferior one for reasons of style. That's what it means to "have someone's number."

Usyk may have had Foreman's number, so to speak.

My final judgment: this fight is too tough to call.

[Ambling Alp II]

foreman vs Usyk? It depends. Are we talking about boxing? Then I would go with Foreman by early knockout. However, Foreman was terrible at ping pong and horseshoes.

[HomicideHenry]

It is difficult to analyze Usyk since his career is not over. Sure he beat Joshua twice, but it is very difficult for me to imagine Joshua ever cracking the top 5 in the 1970s. I think guys like Mac Foster might've annihilated Joshua. So how good is the wins exactly? Until Usyk faces the consensus lineal champion Fury and actually wins, he's a big question mark.

George could box. He had a very good jab. But if he couldn't outbox you, he'd just destroy you. By any means necessary. Even the kinder, friendlier uncle George of the 80s and 90s wasn't above low blows and kidney punches. I suspect he'd do whatever it took to either knock Usyk out or to drop him enough times to win a decision. I could see him dropping Usyk 2-3 times over the course of the fight and even if George tired and lost the last few rounds he'd still come out the winner or get a draw.

[Cojimar 1946]

foreman vs Usyk? It depends. Are we talking about boxing? Then I would go with Foreman by early knockout. However, Foreman was terrible at ping pong and horseshoes.

Foreman isn't really known for blowing out guys renowned for defensive slickness. Usyk seems like he would be a more elusive target than Frazier. He wouldn't be coming straight at Foreman and would be using movement. He also has an extremely high punch output.

[gilgamesh]

This one has gotta be on the backburner until Usyk's story is done being told.

[DrDuke]

Then I would go with Foreman by early knockout.

Here enters the retarded artillery of 'every old school fighter kayos every modern in the 1st'.

[Ambling Alp II]

foreman vs Usyk? It depends. Are we talking about boxing? Then I would go with Foreman by early knockout. However, Foreman was terrible at ping pong and horseshoes.

Foreman isn't really known for blowing out guys renowned for defensive slickness. Usyk seems like he would be a more elusive target than Frazier. He wouldn't be coming straight at Foreman and would be using movement. He also has an extremely high punch output.

He took out Norton early. Norton was a good defensive fighter. Who else took Frazier out early? What is Usyk known for? Usyk has one decent hw and had a lot of trouble with him. Foreman was a lot better than that.

[Cojimar 1946]

The heavyweights of Foremans day were around the size of today's cruiserweights so we should be able to use Usyks cruiserweight bouts to assess a match with Foreman. Given the size disparity between today's heavyweights and those of Foremans day I don't think Usyk not having many fights at heavyweight is as much of an issue

[Ambling Alp II]

That is just nonsense. Chuvalo, Fraizer, Norton, Ali, Lyle, and Young were not the size of cruiserweights.
Therefore, we can't use Usyk's fights against cruiserweights. We only have 4 heavyweight fights to go by.
This would be a fight between one of the best heavyweights of all time against a guy who has four hw fights in his career. A proven guy against an unproven guy.

[Cojimar 1946]

That is just nonsense. Chuvalo, Fraizer, Norton, Ali, Lyle, and Young were not the size of cruiserweights.
Therefore, we can't use Usyk's fights against cruiserweights. We only have 4 heavyweight fights to go by.
This would be a fight between one of the best heavyweights of all time against a guy who has four hw fights in his career. A proven guy against an unproven guy.

Sure they were. Fighters frequently rehydrate and add weight after the weigh in so cruiserweights are not entering the ring at 200 pounds but frequently heavier. We know Usyk entered the ring at 207 and 208 pounds for fights were he weighed in at 200 or less and presumably other cruiserweights do the same.

Rehydrating up to 20 pounds is pretty common so someone who likes to fight at 220 or less should be able to make cruiserweight if they want to by drying out.

[Ambling Alp II]

Just stop. Chuvalo, Fraizer, Norton, Ali, Lyle, and Young were heavyweights.

[Cojimar 1946]

Just stop. Chuvalo, Fraizer, Norton, Ali, Lyle, and Young were heavyweights.

In the 1970s anyone over 175 was a heavyweight so everyone Usyk has fought as a pro was a heavyweight by the standards of Foremans day.
Had Foreman fought them they would have been classified as wins against heavyweights. So obviously they are relevant in a Foreman Usyk fight

[Ambling Alp II]

Wow that is some logical gymnastics.
True, there wasn't a cruiserweight division back in the early 1970s.
However, majority of the contenders were well over 200. In 1973, 9 of the top 10 contenders were over 200. In 1974, 9 0f 10. And this was when the talent level of the hw division was at it's highest in history. That doesn't mean that that the victories that Usyk had mean that he was anywhere near Foreman's level.

Usyk still only has 20 fights in his entire career. Doesn't have a win remotely close to beating Joe Frazier or Ken Norton. His resume is a joke compared to Foreman's.

[Cojimar 1946]

Wow that is some logical gymnastics.
True, there wasn't a cruiserweight division back in the early 1970s.
However, majority of the contenders were well over 200. In 1973, 9 of the top 10 contenders were over 200. In 1974, 9 0f 10. And this was when the talent level of the hw division was at it's highest in history. That doesn't mean that that the victories that Usyk had mean that he was anywhere near Foreman's level.

Usyk still only has 20 fights in his entire career. Doesn't have a win remotely close to beating Joe Frazier or Ken Norton. His resume is a joke compared to Foreman's.

Cruiserweights probably rehydrate to 205-210 or so come fight time so let's say the average is 207. Could be more could be less but probably around that. The average I got for top 10 heavyweights of Foremans era at their best is 208.176 pounds so within 2 pounds. We are talking about a minimum difference.

Foremans win over Frazier is pretty good even though Frazier was out of shape and untested against punchers. After that though his resume takes a huge dive and your left with guys like Lyle and Chuvalo who are not really exceptional and probably worse than some of the guys Usyk faced.

Norton lost to every puncher he faced so how is Foreman beating him a big accomplishment given he did no better against non greats like Cooney and Shavers? Clearly you don't have to be great to beat Norton provided you have a big punch.

[goose 5]

They rehydrate to the 215-220 range.

[Ambling Alp II]

I heard 240-250.

[Ambling Alp II]

Wow that is some logical gymnastics.
True, there wasn't a cruiserweight division back in the early 1970s.
However, majority of the contenders were well over 200. In 1973, 9 of the top 10 contenders were over 200. In 1974, 9 0f 10. And this was when the talent level of the hw division was at it's highest in history. That doesn't mean that that the victories that Usyk had mean that he was anywhere near Foreman's level.

Usyk still only has 20 fights in his entire career. Doesn't have a win remotely close to beating Joe Frazier or Ken Norton. His resume is a joke compared to Foreman's.

Cruiserweights probably rehydrate to 205-210 or so come fight time so let's say the average is 207. Could be more could be less but probably around that. The average I got for top 10 heavyweights of Foremans era at their best is 208.176 pounds so within 2 pounds. We are talking about a minimum difference.

Foremans win over Frazier is pretty good even though Frazier was out of shape and untested against punchers. After that though his resume takes a huge dive and your left with guys like Lyle and Chuvalo who are not really exceptional and probably worse than some of the guys Usyk faced.

Norton lost to every puncher he faced so how is Foreman beating him a big accomplishment given he did no better against non greats like Cooney and Shavers? Clearly you don't have to be great to beat Norton provided you have a big punch.

You do know that Norton was past it when he fought Shavers and Cooney? The only one to stop him in his prime was..... Foreman.
Frazier was out of shape and untested? Please.

Lyle was pretty good fighter. Certainly better than anyone Usyk has beaten. As was of course Norton and Frazier.
Usyk competition is a joke compared to Foreman. You are comparing one of the best hws of all time against a guy who us untested at hw, who fights once a year.

[Cojimar 1946]

Wow that is some logical gymnastics.
True, there wasn't a cruiserweight division back in the early 1970s.
However, majority of the contenders were well over 200. In 1973, 9 of the top 10 contenders were over 200. In 1974, 9 0f 10. And this was when the talent level of the hw division was at it's highest in history. That doesn't mean that that the victories that Usyk had mean that he was anywhere near Foreman's level.

Usyk still only has 20 fights in his entire career. Doesn't have a win remotely close to beating Joe Frazier or Ken Norton. His resume is a joke compared to Foreman's.

Cruiserweights probably rehydrate to 205-210 or so come fight time so let's say the average is 207. Could be more could be less but probably around that. The average I got for top 10 heavyweights of Foremans era at their best is 208.176 pounds so within 2 pounds. We are talking about a minimum difference.

Foremans win over Frazier is pretty good even though Frazier was out of shape and untested against punchers. After that though his resume takes a huge dive and your left with guys like Lyle and Chuvalo who are not really exceptional and probably worse than some of the guys Usyk faced.

Norton lost to every puncher he faced so how is Foreman beating him a big accomplishment given he did no better against non greats like Cooney and Shavers? Clearly you don't have to be great to beat Norton provided you have a big punch.

You do know that Norton was past it when he fought Shavers and Cooney? The only one to stop him in his prime was..... Foreman.
Frazier was out of shape and untested? Please.

Lyle was pretty good fighter. Certainly better than anyone Usyk has beaten. As was of course Norton and Frazier.
Usyk competition is a joke compared to Foreman. You are comparing one of the best hws of all time against a guy who us untested at hw, who fights once a year.

Given how effortlessly he was beaten by Shavers and Cooney we can reasonably conclude they would have beaten him prime vs prime that's just basic common sense. That heavily suggests he didn't match up well with punchers which obviously calls into question whether Foreman beating him is really much of an achievement.

Given his record against punchers I should think Gassiev should be favored against Norton probably Joshua too

[margaret thatcher]

Wow that is some logical gymnastics.
True, there wasn't a cruiserweight division back in the early 1970s.
However, majority of the contenders were well over 200. In 1973, 9 of the top 10 contenders were over 200. In 1974, 9 0f 10. And this was when the talent level of the hw division was at it's highest in history. That doesn't mean that that the victories that Usyk had mean that he was anywhere near Foreman's level.

Usyk still only has 20 fights in his entire career. Doesn't have a win remotely close to beating Joe Frazier or Ken Norton. His resume is a joke compared to Foreman's.

ya even his cw career doesnt compare to , say, james toney's either, with all those great '10 round fighters' james beat

ya, quality of opposition really means a lot to you. hell if it's about number of bouts wlad klit is 2x the fighter as joe frazier

[Seamus]

Bad matchup for Foreman. Usyk is a fast mobile southpaw with good stamina. He'd come prepared and would be at his most elusive over the first 3 rds when George would be at his most dangerous. Foreman's always had stamina issues and that's why I think Usyk would control the second half in route to a decision win by around 116-112.

[Ambling Alp II]

Cruiserweights probably rehydrate to 205-210 or so come fight time so let's say the average is 207. Could be more could be less but probably around that. The average I got for top 10 heavyweights of Foremans era at their best is 208.176 pounds so within 2 pounds. We are talking about a minimum difference.

Foremans win over Frazier is pretty good even though Frazier was out of shape and untested against punchers. After that though his resume takes a huge dive and your left with guys like Lyle and Chuvalo who are not really exceptional and probably worse than some of the guys Usyk faced.

Norton lost to every puncher he faced so how is Foreman beating him a big accomplishment given he did no better against non greats like Cooney and Shavers? Clearly you don't have to be great to beat Norton provided you have a big punch.

You do know that Norton was past it when he fought Shavers and Cooney? The only one to stop him in his prime was..... Foreman.
Frazier was out of shape and untested? Please.

Lyle was pretty good fighter. Certainly better than anyone Usyk has beaten. As was of course Norton and Frazier.
Usyk competition is a joke compared to Foreman. You are comparing one of the best hws of all time against a guy who us untested at hw, who fights once a year.

Given how effortlessly he was beaten by Shavers and Cooney we can reasonably conclude they would have beaten him prime vs prime that's just basic common sense. That heavily suggests he didn't match up well with punchers which obviously calls into question whether Foreman beating him is really much of an achievement.

Given his record against punchers I should think Gassiev should be favored against Norton probably Joshua too

Norton got knocked out by Shavers because he was past his best, and way past his best when he fought Cooney. It's not common sense that they would have beaten him in Norton's prime. Do you have any concept of a fighter's prime? Norton had three fights against Ali, a fight against Quarry and a war against Holmes. He had a good chin.

Gassiev and Joshua would be favored over Norton? What are you smoking?

How in the world can Joe Frazier not be ready for Foreman, but somehow Usyk would be?
Foreman's power is light years better than Gassiev or Joshua.

[Cojimar 1946]

He wasn't past his prime to the extent that one would expect him to get blown out easily by guys he would beat at his best. Were talking about a guy who turned pro around 24 and didn't start facing top opponents until 1973. Given that and him not fighting frequently from 1973 onwards he didn't have a lot of wear and tear. At that stage he should have been able to still win or at least had the advantage in the early rounds until he ran out of energy due to age and lack of conditioning. Also I think Shavers was as far past it as Norton when they fought so there the argument doesn't even make sense.

Joshua and Gassiev whatever their flaws certainly seem like bigger punchers than Ali Quarry etc as were Cooney and Shavers so yeah I don't like Nortons chances in either fight

[Seamus]

I'd be the last guy to defend Joshua, but let's not dismiss his punching power.

[Ambling Alp II]

He wasn't past his prime to the extent that one would expect him to get blown out easily by guys he would beat at his best. Were talking about a guy who turned pro around 24 and didn't start facing top opponents until 1973. Given that and him not fighting frequently from 1973 onwards he didn't have a lot of wear and tear. At that stage he should have been able to still win or at least had the advantage in the early rounds until he ran out of energy due to age and lack of conditioning. Also I think Shavers was as far past it as Norton when they fought so there the argument doesn't even make sense.

Joshua and Gassiev whatever their flaws certainly seem like bigger punchers than Ali Quarry etc as were Cooney and Shavers so yeah I don't like Nortons chances in either fight

Gassiev was a bigger puncher than Quarry, Ali, and Holmes? Really?
Norton wasn't fighting enough? He had 19 fights from 1973 to the end of his career. That is one less than Usyk has in his entire career. The Holmes fight alone was a war.
Norton was absolutely shot when he fought Cooney. There is no getting around that.
You don't know what you are talking about.