BoxRec

Both in the primes. How does it go?

It goes Seamus and DempseyFire backing Johnson, and everyone else correctly predicting Foreman hits him like a freight train.

Johnson wont be getting up to do to Foreman what he managed with Ketchel. He wont be getting up at all.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:It goes Seamus and DempseyFire backing Johnson, and everyone else correctly predicting Foreman hits him like a freight train.

Johnson wont be getting up to do to Foreman what he managed with Ketchel. He wont be getting up at all.

Foreman doing well against a brilliant defensive fighter. If it goes into the later rounds Foreman is goosed.

Foreman would never be denied by Johnsons brand of D.

Foreman by death. Johnson gets ran over like a squirrel by a freight train.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Foreman would never be denied by Johnsons brand of D.

Johnson sparred top HWs into his 50s and they couldn't touch him. Foreman has a chance with practically anybody early but Jack would frustrate the hell out of him and grind George down to a late stoppage.

dempseyfire wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Foreman would never be denied by Johnsons brand of D.

Johnson sparred top HWs into his 50s and they couldn't touch him. Foreman has a chance with practically anybody early but Jack would frustrate the hell out of him and grind George down to a late stoppage.

Which top heavyweights?

George Godfrey, Bearcat Wright, Bill Hartwell, Floyd Johnson

I think Seamus will go with Foreman. Pretty sure of it...

I'll go with Johnson and confidently so. Once Johnson filly matured he was as hard to beat as anyone.

Foreman lost twice in his peak years to defensive boxers.

Ezzard wrote:I think Seamus will go with Foreman. Pretty sure of it...

I'll go with Johnson and confidently so. Once Johnson filly matured he was as hard to beat as anyone.

Foreman lost twice in his peak years to defensive boxers.

I've got to agree with you mate. Johnson would be too defensively sound.

Ezzard wrote:I think Seamus will go with Foreman. Pretty sure of it...

I'll go with Johnson and confidently so. Once Johnson filly matured he was as hard to beat as anyone.

Foreman lost twice in his peak years to defensive boxers.

I strongly dispute Foreman being in his prime against Young. I even more strongly contest the liking of Young to Johnson. No, thank you.

Perhaps Im confusing Seamus with John L, however.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:It goes Seamus and DempseyFire backing Johnson, and everyone else correctly predicting Foreman hits him like a freight train.

Johnson wont be getting up to do to Foreman what he managed with Ketchel. He wont be getting up at all.

Foreman doing well against a brilliant defensive fighter. If it goes into the later rounds Foreman is goosed.

Johnson doing well against a brilliant offensive fighter. This is not a man to be held off with one paw, and swiped at with another, let me assure you of that.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:It goes Seamus and DempseyFire backing Johnson, and everyone else correctly predicting Foreman hits him like a freight train.

Johnson wont be getting up to do to Foreman what he managed with Ketchel. He wont be getting up at all.

Foreman doing well against a brilliant defensive fighter. If it goes into the later rounds Foreman is goosed.

Johnson doing well against a brilliant offensive fighter. This is not a man to be held off with one paw, and swiped at with another, let me assure you of that.

I understand Irene, but style wise Foreman was better against people with limited defensive skills.

Johnson had all of the defensive tricks and was also a prime athlete.

I accept George had issues but if he wasn't in his prime in 1977 at age what? 27? 28? Then he should have been.

In 1974 Ali didn't need to hold him with one glove and hit him with the other. He just stood in front of him and threw straight.

George could win... I just don't see him in this league.

If George doesn't take him out within 6-7 rounds, he doesn't win this, may it be a 12-15 or 25 rounder. But I think he does 6-7 times out of 10.

A complete mismatch. One guy learned how to fight by fighting the top HWs of his era while the other guy spent most of his time avoiding anyone who might actually challenge him. A slick defensive specialist with great infighting skills against a big, slow, clumsy powerhouse is almost always a mismatch and there is absolutely nothing in their resumes to indicate this shouldn't follow the typical pattern.

Ezzard wrote:I accept George had issues but if he wasn't in his prime in 1977 at age what? 27? 28? Then he should have been.

Of course he wasn't in his prime at 27 after having fought Frazier, Norton, Ali and Lyle. He was a much better fighter when he was fighting Sorrell, Scott, Boone and Goodwin. Using the logic of a certain Foreman admirer, George seems to be one of the few fighters in history who wasn't able to learn by fighting quality fighters.

This is one case where I think the older version of George Foreman does better than the younger one.

Ezzard wrote:Johnson had all of the defensive tricks and was also a prime athlete.

I accept George had issues but if he wasn't in his prime in 1977 at age what? 27? 28? Then he should have been.

In 1974 Ali didn't need to hold him with one glove and hit him with the other. He just stood in front of him and threw straight.

George could win... I just don't see him in this league.

Quoting Ezzard as he can word it far better than I.

Cutman Scabbers wrote:This is one case where I think the older version of George Foreman does better than the younger one.

I've never understood why some people think an older George did ANYTHING better than his younger self. Yeah, maybe he paced himself better, but that better pacing doesn't really equate to any net positive considering George couldn't keep up near the workrate he did when he was younger, was much slower and still fatigued late in most fights. The older George also got hit far more. The guy was outboxed by the likes of Axel Schultz and Tommy Morrison . . does anyone think either of those two see the 6th round vs a peak Foreman at age 25?

dempseyfire wrote:

Cutman Scabbers wrote:This is one case where I think the older version of George Foreman does better than the younger one.

I've never understood why some people think an older George did ANYTHING better than his younger self. Yeah, maybe he paced himself better, but that better pacing doesn't really equate to any net positive considering George couldn't keep up near the workrate he did when he was younger, was much slower and still fatigued late in most fights. The older George also got hit far more. The guy was outboxed by the likes of Axel Schultz and Tommy Morrison . . does anyone think either of those two see the 6th round vs a peak Foreman at age 25?

I probably haven't watched enough of the young Foreman's fights, but I saw him do a lot of things when he came back that I hadn't seen him do before. Seemed like he boxed much more skillfully in his second incarnation. I remember him slipping punches (particularly in some of his early comeback fights) by turning his head an inch or two to one side. The way he jabbed guys and set them up... the way he controlled Shannon Briggs with feints, the nonchalant walk-by uppercut he took out Cooney with (not to mention the little right hand sucker punch from a high parrying position that set up the first knockdown)... did he do any of these things the first time around? Maybe he could have, but didn't need to -- but I tend to think his boxing changed during those ten years off, and he put it all together when he came back in a different, more technically expert way.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: Foreman doing well against a brilliant defensive fighter. If it goes into the later rounds Foreman is goosed.

Johnson doing well against a brilliant offensive fighter. This is not a man to be held off with one paw, and swiped at with another, let me assure you of that.

I understand Irene, but style wise Foreman was better against people with limited defensive skills.

Yes, he was. I don't contest that. Johnson was better avoiding his top challengers like a dog --- of which, Foreman would surely surge to the top of the pile.

Ezzard wrote:Johnson had all of the defensive tricks and was also a prime athlete.

I accept George had issues but if he wasn't in his prime in 1977 at age what? 27? 28? Then he should have been.

In 1974 Ali didn't need to hold him with one glove and hit him with the other. He just stood in front of him and threw straight.

George could win... I just don't see him in this league.

I agree he should've been. Just like Mike Tyson should've been in his prime at 29. That's a typical prime year for your average boxer. Ditto for Lennox Lewis at 27, another typical prime year. How about Riddick Bowe at 29? Meldrick Taylor at 25? Wilfred Benitez at 26?

It happens, Ezz.

The thing to remember is fighters aren't robots, there are a multitude of factors that make it so different fighters peak at vastly different ages due to all kinds of stuff like mentality, changes in lifestyle, changes in fighting style, complacency, newfound focus, a shift in training methods, etc.

Foreman technically wasn't superior over a lot that he beat, but in terms of raw power, he was arguably the most powerful HW ever. After Ali, he definitely lost something. The loss to Ali was devastating to him, and if anyone remembers it was about 95, humid, and fought at 3am. Maybe the voodoo dolls that put a hex on him there messed with his head too. lol

Anyway, from tapes I saw of JJohnson, he was a skilled fighter that Ali claimed he learned the phantom punch from that KO'd Liston. I don't think he could have withstood Foreman's punches though. I still can't believe he demolished Frazier and Norton the way he did, and frankly still can't believe Ali beat him. Foreman was mentally not the same after that.