George Foreman: Monster

[Ambling Alp II]

Fury would go 0-10. Wilder would have the proverbial "punchers chance" and win one in 10. Foreman was simply a lot better than these guys.

[Cojimar 1946]

Once the maniacally defensive  Kalan was eliminated and the infantile mythical fights was relocated, the thoughts were this could return to a serious discussion about boxing history, but, alas, the recent stupidity of Foreman proves otherwise.

No need to publicly shame the miscreants who will recognize themselves soon enough.

The 6-4 Foreman is obviously taller with more bone and muscle mass than the 6-3 Norton and Ali. He debuted at 219 lb, age 20, and at the same age Ali first touched the 200 mark. Moreover George was withheld water and nutrition in the last day and fight night to make him more surly and destructive while under the regrettable Sadler who sold George down the river in Zaire. Norton turned pro at 205, age 24. Wlad turned pro age 20 at 220. Only thing small here is the intellect thinking George is a small heavy. After ditching Sadler to swing with Clancy, he jumps to 224-231 because now he's allowed small portions of food and drink. Today he'd be hydrated out the gills and muscled up like nobody's biz because they'd have him on a body weight/weight lifting program. 

AJ! Kalan still rules your hearts, minds, and souls so admit it. AJ set some modern day records probably to never be repeated for 100 years and may well be back where he started if he regains his belts.

Ruiz a midget! He's formidable looking in the 240s, now you dullards pray tell me when you've ever seen a one off build like this in boxing? In the 260s for Josh his pant size near the same as Josh, but compare the inseam to his stumps. He's got a longer upper body than the 6-6 Josh. The Dempsey dumpster would be telling us he's a lightheavy if he was still around! Only thing midget here is your demonstrable IQs.



If Ali and Young had defensive genius they would not have ended up in such a pitiable, dangerously derelict condition...duh!!!

The only guy to definitively beat Foreman was Tommy, and even he risked DQ by turning his back to walk away from old, slow George by then. Zaire was an orchestrated and documented French Farce, and all Jimmy did was stink and run from his beating until he was lucky enough to walk the exhausted George being ducked by Ali for the flash KD. George had Mr. Evan Field hanging on for his life, and point in fact after Ali and Field took beatings by George, they looked like stink as their KO% shrunk to your popcorn levels. Briggs ran like the school girl he really is.

You sweethearts have yet to rise above the infantile mythical fights section. Time to firm up the flab lest ye dissolve into a tub of communal goo.

Thanks for that. This thread was intended as a tribute to the size and power of George. It went off the rails as you point out. I started watching boxing in the 60's and my dad and uncles never opined that George would lose to the 'old timers.' Quite the contrary, they were awed by the raw strength and power of the big guy. It's too bad that posters seem to have the need to put their contrarian opinions on seemingly every thread they see. Simply put and to repeat myself, this is about appreciating Foreman for what he was and always will be.

That's interesting that your dad and uncle never indicated they thought he would lose to the old timers. It surprises me a bit since many people seem inclined to pick fighters of their own era over those of other eras. Did they discuss any matchups in particular?

[oogiebe]

Thanks for that. This thread was intended as a tribute to the size and power of George. It went off the rails as you point out. I started watching boxing in the 60's and my dad and uncles never opined that George would lose to the 'old timers.' Quite the contrary, they were awed by the raw strength and power of the big guy. It's too bad that posters seem to have the need to put their contrarian opinions on seemingly every thread they see. Simply put and to repeat myself, this is about appreciating Foreman for what he was and always will be.

That's interesting that your dad and uncle never indicated they thought he would lose to the old timers. It surprises me a bit since many people seem inclined to pick fighters of their own era over those of other eras. Did they discuss any matchups in particular?

I remember them saying Rocky was too small. They did pick Louis over everyone! And if you think about it, at the time they may have been right. But no Dempsey/Tunney/Baer/Walcott/Charles.

[Ambling Alp II]

Some people do think the world began when they got interested in something. Others don't.
If you notice, you don't hear people saying that the featherweight weight welterweight division was great in the 1970s.
When Larry Holmes was the champion, nobody was saying Holmes was the best; and many were saying the division overall was mediocre.

[Caractacus]

for the record,what is Andy Ruiz's inseam anyway ?
and shouldn't that have always been a "Tale of The Tape" for all boxers since the days of the Great John L. Sullivan ?
( that and shoe size)

[dr_devious]

Neither Fury nor Wilder have the punch resistance to survive a monster like Foreman and to think otherwise is silly.

No it’s not. Boxing is full of upsets or fights that were harder than people expected. To not give a world class HW no chance in a two man fight is ridiculous. So if Foreman fought Fury or Wilder ten times each he would win every time? Reputations, records and past achievements don’t win fights. If that were the case predicting fights would be easy.

Wilder, Fury et al are world class in a very poor era, in the 70s they'd be lunch for Foreman. We aren't going to agree about this

[Controversial]

No it’s not. Boxing is full of upsets or fights that were harder than people expected. To not give a world class HW no chance in a two man fight is ridiculous. So if Foreman fought Fury or Wilder ten times each he would win every time? Reputations, records and past achievements don’t win fights. If that were the case predicting fights would be easy.

Wilder, Fury et al are world class in a very poor era, in the 70s they'd be lunch for Foreman. We aren't going to agree about this

So the best fighter in a poor era doesn't stand a chance against someone from a better era? Sorry but that's a very short sighted view point, plenty of good fighters lose to guys on paper they shouldn't. Wilders punch is no less hard and Fury is no less awkward, the era is irrelevant.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes but Wilder has weaknesses that some fighters from other eras would expose.
Fury really isn't that impressive at anything.

[dr_devious]

So the best fighter in a poor era doesn't stand a chance against someone from a better era? Sorry but that's a very short sighted view point, plenty of good fighters lose to guys on paper they shouldn't. Wilders punch is no less hard and Fury is no less awkward, the era is irrelevant.

Foreman isn't just "someone from a better era" he is one of the great heavyweights. His wreaking ball power, toughness and genuine bad ass persona make him a terrible match up for both Fury and Wilder whose vulnerabilities would be shown up in short order if they'd met him in the ring.

[oogiebe]

So the best fighter in a poor era doesn't stand a chance against someone from a better era? Sorry but that's a very short sighted view point, plenty of good fighters lose to guys on paper they shouldn't. Wilders punch is no less hard and Fury is no less awkward, the era is irrelevant.

Foreman isn't just "someone from a better era" he is one of the great heavyweights. His wreaking ball power, toughness and genuine bad ass persona make him a terrible match up for both Fury and Wilder whose vulnerabilities would be shown up in short order if they'd met him in the ring.

Agreed.

[Controversial]

Yes but Wilder has weaknesses that some fighters from other eras would expose.
Fury really isn't that impressive at anything.

That doesn't mean they don't stand a chance. Wilder has shown true one punch KO power, that power makes him a danger against anyone. The same way any big puncher in boxing is a danger. Shavers wasn't a great fighter, he had poor stamina, pretty slow, an average chin and was small for a HW but he was capable of knocking anyone out.

I'm no Fury fan but his sheer size, speed and style make him a difficult opponent. He can blow hot and cold but seems to be a fighter that performs better when the opposition is better. Foreman performed better against fighters who stood in front of him. Fury doesn't fight that way and has shown he can take a punch.

[Onetimeonly]

Yes but Wilder has weaknesses that some fighters from other eras would expose.
Fury really isn't that impressive at anything.

That doesn't mean they don't stand a chance. Wilder has shown true one punch KO power, that power makes him a danger against anyone. The same way any big puncher in boxing is a danger. Shavers wasn't a great fighter, he had poor stamina, pretty slow, an average chin and was small for a HW but he was capable of knocking anyone out.

I'm no Fury fan but his sheer size, speed and style make him a difficult opponent. He can blow hot and cold but seems to be a fighter that performs better when the opposition is better. Foreman performed better against fighters who stood in front of him. Fury doesn't fight that way and has shown he can take a punch.

You think fury is fast? Faster than shavers? Lol

[Controversial]

That doesn't mean they don't stand a chance. Wilder has shown true one punch KO power, that power makes him a danger against anyone. The same way any big puncher in boxing is a danger. Shavers wasn't a great fighter, he had poor stamina, pretty slow, an average chin and was small for a HW but he was capable of knocking anyone out.

I'm no Fury fan but his sheer size, speed and style make him a difficult opponent. He can blow hot and cold but seems to be a fighter that performs better when the opposition is better. Foreman performed better against fighters who stood in front of him. Fury doesn't fight that way and has shown he can take a punch.

You think fury is fast? Faster than shavers? Lol

Where did I compare Shavers to Fury?

[dr_devious]

Yes but Wilder has weaknesses that some fighters from other eras would expose.
Fury really isn't that impressive at anything.

That doesn't mean they don't stand a chance. Wilder has shown true one punch KO power, that power makes him a danger against anyone. The same way any big puncher in boxing is a danger. Shavers wasn't a great fighter, he had poor stamina, pretty slow, an average chin and was small for a HW but he was capable of knocking anyone out.

I'm no Fury fan but his sheer size, speed and style make him a difficult opponent. He can blow hot and cold but seems to be a fighter that performs better when the opposition is better. Foreman performed better against fighters who stood in front of him. Fury doesn't fight that way and has shown he can take a punch.

This is George Foreman we are talking about though who annhilated far better heavyweights than Wilder and Fury who have only beaten one elite HW between them who was nearly 40 at the time. They've never been anywhere near someone like Foreman and have both shown vulnerability in the ring which Big George would be all over like a shark after blood. That's why I give them no chance whatsover in a hypothetical match with Foreman.

I'm sure you'll come back with Wilder has this monster punch and Fury is very awkward which I agree with, and its possible they could have fleeting moments of success e.g. Wilder could rock Foreman early, Fury could win a couple of early rounds. But in the end both are getting KOd and probably sooner rather than later.

[Controversial]

That doesn't mean they don't stand a chance. Wilder has shown true one punch KO power, that power makes him a danger against anyone. The same way any big puncher in boxing is a danger. Shavers wasn't a great fighter, he had poor stamina, pretty slow, an average chin and was small for a HW but he was capable of knocking anyone out.

I'm no Fury fan but his sheer size, speed and style make him a difficult opponent. He can blow hot and cold but seems to be a fighter that performs better when the opposition is better. Foreman performed better against fighters who stood in front of him. Fury doesn't fight that way and has shown he can take a punch.

This is George Foreman we are talking about though who annhilated far better heavyweights than Wilder and Fury who have only beaten one elite HW between them who was nearly 40 at the time. They've never been anywhere near someone like Foreman and have both shown vulnerability in the ring which Big George would be all over like a shark after blood. That's why I give them no chance whatsover in a hypothetical match with Foreman.

I'm sure you'll come back with Wilder has this monster punch and Fury is very awkward which I agree with, and its possible they could have fleeting moments of success e.g. Wilder could rock Foreman early, Fury could win a couple of early rounds. But in the end both are getting KOd and probably sooner rather than later.

Why does it matter who you have beaten before? Boxing isn't that black and white and easy to predict. Boxing is full of upsets. Most HWs are the first to admit it only takes one punch and styles do make fights. Fighters like Frazier and Norton were made for Foreman, Peralta gave Foreman a tougher fight than they did, that doesn't mean Peralta was a better fighter than them.

Rahman beat Lewis, Braddock beat Baer, Douglas beat Tyson, Spinks beat Ali and so on. Had these fights never happened would anyone have given them any chance. Had Cooper landed that left hook 30 seconds earlier he may have stopped Ali. So all I'm saying in a two man fight it's silly to dismiss guys like Wilder and Fury because they have their own skillsets, which love it or hate it, has proven to be successful.

.

[Ruthless-RKO]

[Onetimeonly]

You think fury is fast? Faster than shavers? Lol

Where did I compare Shavers to Fury?

You said fury had speed and shavers was slow. You quoted it yourself.

[Controversial]

Where did I compare Shavers to Fury?

You said fury had speed and shavers was slow. You quoted it yourself.

You are taking it out of context. I said Shavers wasn't a particularly great fighter, his only real asset was his power and he was capable of knocking anyone out. You don't have to be a great 'fighter' sometimes having one punch power is enough. The same as Wilder is capable of knocking anyone out. Thats what I meant.

[Onetimeonly]

You said fury had speed and shavers was slow. You quoted it yourself.

You are taking it out of context. I said Shavers wasn't a particularly great fighter, his only real asset was his power and he was capable of knocking anyone out. You don't have to be a great 'fighter' sometimes having one punch power is enough. The same as Wilder is capable of knocking anyone out. Thats what I meant.

That's what you meant by calling him slow?

[Controversial]

You are taking it out of context. I said Shavers wasn't a particularly great fighter, his only real asset was his power and he was capable of knocking anyone out. You don't have to be a great 'fighter' sometimes having one punch power is enough. The same as Wilder is capable of knocking anyone out. Thats what I meant.

That's what you meant by calling him slow?

You think he was fast? You are still missing the point, he wasn't a great fighter, his power was his main asset.

[Onetimeonly]

That's what you meant by calling him slow?

You think he was fast? You are still missing the point, he wasn't a great fighter, his power was his main asset.

He was faster than the "speedy" fury. I didn't miss any point I simply addressed that ridiculous comparison.

[Controversial]

You think he was fast? You are still missing the point, he wasn't a great fighter, his power was his main asset.

He was faster than the "speedy" fury. I didn't miss any point I simply addressed that ridiculous comparison.

And I repeat where did I compare Shavers to Fury? I was comparing Shavers power to Wilder and just saying you don't have to be a great fighter to be dangerous. They both rely on their power to win fights.

Fury has his own skillset which bring its own set of difficulties to opponents and one them is his movement (speed). Fury uses movement, size and awkward style to beat opponents.

[Onetimeonly]

He was faster than the "speedy" fury. I didn't miss any point I simply addressed that ridiculous comparison.

And I repeat where did I compare Shavers to Fury? I was comparing Shavers power to Wilder and just saying you don't have to be a great fighter to be dangerous.

Fury has his own skillset which bring its own set of difficulties to opponents and one them is his movement (speed).

If you can't read your own words I can't help you.

[Controversial]

And I repeat where did I compare Shavers to Fury? I was comparing Shavers power to Wilder and just saying you don't have to be a great fighter to be dangerous.

Fury has his own skillset which bring its own set of difficulties to opponents and one them is his movement (speed).

If you can't read your own words I can't help you.

If you don't understand paragraphs and plain english I can't help you either.

[Onetimeonly]

If you can't read your own words I can't help you.

If you don't understand paragraphs and plain english I can't help you either.