BoxRec

oogiebe wrote: ↑02 Mar 2020, 19:14

Tony1244 wrote: ↑02 Mar 2020, 19:12

I'll straighten you both out. Foreman kinda had 3 careers. 1) 1969-1974 when he came up, won, and lost the title. 2)
The Gil Clancy years 1975-77, and 3) his comeback starting 10 years later.

The first phase he relied on raw power and an excellent lamppost of a jab. He used it well against Norton and Frazier. In the Norton fight he really peaked and his jab set it up.

After his meltdown against Ali, Gil Clancy tried to teach Foreman to rely on boxing. This had mixed results. Foeman-Lyle is known as a slugfest and it certainly was starting in the 4th round, but if you watch it, you see that Foreman really tried to box. GF was an easy target for Ron Lyle. I agree with ambling alp here, Foreman had lousy defense. Even guys like Dino Dennis could hit Foreman. Of course that didn't matter. Foreman's attempt to outbox Jimmy Young had even worse results.

In his 3rd comeback, he did learn patience and he had a new style, but let's face it, almost all his opponents weren't very good other than Holyfield.

What if he had this patience and new style all along? I believe in retrospect (and I was a HUGE Fan) that even at his best he couldn't beat a Jimmy Young, Ali, or Larry Holmes when they were at their best. Tyson? Perhaps/ Styles make fights.

I don't buy that. Also, George was a master at cutting off the ring when he was in the right head. There is no one I"d say George couldn't have beaten.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑02 Mar 2020, 11:44 I think that is the what some people think, but old George being a better boxer is a an exaggeration.

Part of boxing is defense. Old George was easy to hit. Very easy to hit.

As to why I was asking who the best fighter that he beat:
How can we tell he was so much better if his competition was so pathetic? Do you realize Adilson Rodrigues was the only guy that he beat that was even ranked?

His "boxing skills" looked better because he was fighting tomato cans.

His "boxing skills" didn't look impressive when he finally fought Holyfield, his only real opponent during the time period you are talking about.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑03 Mar 2020, 11:47 My point about the patience argument is that he had no choice. He simply could not produce the punch output that he did in his prime. He had to pace himself. That didn't make him better. His opponents didn't get hit as much and could survive getting hurt.

The extra weight didn't help Foreman. It slowed made him slower, reduced his punching power, and his punch out put. Obviously this would have happened to a lesser extent anyway due to age. However, if Foreman was in better shape in his comeback, he would done better

Holmes did use his superior boxing knowledge to beat Mercer. However, he was not any smarter than he been during his prime. At a certain point, you don't actually fight smarter. Holmes simply had no choice than to fight the way that he did against Mercer.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑04 Mar 2020, 12:11 Foreman wasn't as effective. That is the point. Had he been lighter, but in better shape, he would have been stronger. An reasonably in shape Foreman at 220-230 would have been stronger than a fat Foreman at 250-260. The extra 30 pounds of weight didn't make him stronger. It made him slower, easier to hit and worse stamina.