Oleksandr Usyk vs George Foreman
Posted: 22 Jul 2023, 17:40
Who wins
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.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 Jul 2023, 13:04 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.
Here enters the retarded artillery of 'every old school fighter kayos every modern in the 1st'.
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 wrote: ↑24 Jul 2023, 01:59Foreman 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.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 Jul 2023, 13:04 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.
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.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑27 Jul 2023, 19:17 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.
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.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 17:26 Just stop. Chuvalo, Fraizer, Norton, Ali, Lyle, and Young were heavyweights.
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.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑30 Jul 2023, 11:14 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.
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.Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2023, 01:39Cruiserweights 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.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑30 Jul 2023, 11:14 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.
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.
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.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑01 Aug 2023, 19:16You do know that Norton was past it when he fought Shavers and Cooney? The only one to stop him in his prime was..... Foreman.Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2023, 01:39Cruiserweights 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.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑30 Jul 2023, 11:14 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.
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.
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.
ya even his cw career doesnt compare to , say, james toney's either, with all those great '10 round fighters' james beatAmbling Alp II wrote: ↑30 Jul 2023, 11:14 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.
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.Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑02 Aug 2023, 05:46Given 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.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑01 Aug 2023, 19:16You do know that Norton was past it when he fought Shavers and Cooney? The only one to stop him in his prime was..... Foreman.Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑01 Aug 2023, 01:39
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.
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 his record against punchers I should think Gassiev should be favored against Norton probably Joshua too
Gassiev was a bigger puncher than Quarry, Ali, and Holmes? Really?Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑03 Aug 2023, 03:13 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