BoxRec

dr_devious wrote:

DoubleM wrote: Yea, I suppose you picked Foreman to knock Young for six as well

You are such an ass, seriously.

No I didnt pick Young over Foreman cos I was about 5 years old at the time. I would pick a peak, focussed Foreman circa 73-74 over Jimmy Young though.
Jersey Joe was stopped on a number of occasions, so the laws of probability would say that there it is highly likely that Foreman would stop him too.

Ha, ha. Now this is funny. Let's all throw factors like circumstances, defence, mentality etc. out the window and think like 'Dr.' Devious

Come on M&M, if Abe Simon stopped Jersey Joe dont you think there is a good chance George Foreman could have?

dr_devious wrote:Come on M&M, if Abe Simon stopped Jersey Joe dont you think there is a good chance George Foreman could have?

If you knew anything about Walcott, you'd realize that the Simon loss meant next to nothing. He was infact handily outboxing Simon until fatigue and exhaustion started to kick in - as he took the fight on very short notice, possibly 24 hours (I don't remember exactly). He didn't have the time to train because of work anyway.

dr_devious wrote:Come on M&M, if Abe Simon stopped Jersey Joe dont you think there is a good chance George Foreman could have?

Yes, George would probably have beaten the Walcott that lost to Simon. But don’t you think that the Walcott that fought Louis would have had a pretty good chance of beating Foreman?

No, I dont think Walcott would beat Foreman, I think Foreman would be too big, too strong and too powerful for Walcott and at some stage would KO him.
I think Walcott would clean up in todays heavyweight division if he were about, but he wouldnt take Foreman. Not the peak Foreman of the early-mid 70s at least.

dr_devious wrote:No, I dont think Walcott would beat Foreman, I think Foreman would be too big, too strong and too powerful for Walcott and at some stage would KO him.
I think Walcott would clean up in todays heavyweight division if he were about, but he wouldnt take Foreman. Not the peak Foreman of the early-mid 70s at least.

C’mon, you don’t think the Walcott that fought Louis would have had a CHANCE of beating George?

Not sure why you mention George’s size advantage, because Walcott was just about 200 with very little body fat -- probably about the same weight that Jimmy Young would have been if he had the same level of body fat. And Young didn’t seem overly bothered by George’s size advantage. Speed and skill will just about always trump size and power.

Ken Norton had plenty of speed and skill........

dr_devious wrote:Ken Norton had plenty of speed and skill........

Except he was not exactly 'tricky' and couldn't box very well on the back foot, so you don't have a point.

DoubleM wrote:Except he was not exactly 'tricky' and couldn't box very well on the back foot, so you don't have a point.

Norton was 'tricky' enough to beat Ali once, give him hell in the other fights and virtually match Larry Holmes

dr_devious wrote:

DoubleM wrote:Except he was not exactly 'tricky' and couldn't box very well on the back foot, so you don't have a point.

Norton was 'tricky' enough to beat Ali once, give him hell in the other fights and virtually match Larry Holmes

No, he was good at parrying/countering jabs and staying close to his defensive-minded opponent... He wasn't anywhere near as cute as Walcott, who invented half his own moves.