20 billion:Do you agree with D'Amato that a swarming fighter could never beat Foreman

[edgarg]

I would have to read D'Amato's quote exactly and understand the context of what he was saying before giving a proper answer. Its true that a swarming style that puts the fighter in range of Foreman's heavy uppercuts is not ideal.

1970s Foreman was awesome, but lets not pretend that he was a solid 12 or 15 round fighter. Ali and Young did, to a degree expose his issues with pacing and I'm not 100% convinced that were a 1969-1971 Frazier to have faced Foreman that he would have been bombed out quite as conclusively.

1973 Frazier was not quite what he was a few years earlier...... he had taken alot of punishment in the 1971 fight with Ali, he was heavier, his head movement wasn't quite as sharp, he was ring rusty (having only faced two fringe contenders in two years) and he was the heavy betting favorite; a sure recipe for disaster against a murderous puncher like Foreman.

If a prime Frazier had got through 5 rounds (and granted it is an 'if') I'd give him a passable chance at a decision win over 12 or 15 rounds.

I don't see a prime Tyson getting bombed out early, his chin early on in fights was damn good and I'd fancy that he'd be giving as good as he was getting for a few rounds at least. It might just be the case that Foreman would have used up his best before any of Mike's self doubt demons could surface......and they'd both be exhausted by the mid rounds without much left in the tanks.

Tyson was pretty damn sharp for 5 or 6 rounds around 1987/88 and I could see him doing well slipping and hooking with fast counters, Foreman was pretty easy to hit and often clumsily open. Prime Tyson would hit Foreman, I'm in no doubt of that......and vice versa of course! I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd bet on a Tyson win (its a very nasty style matchup for Tyson), but I don't think that it is beyond the realms of possibility if both men were still standing by the end of round 6.

I'd have bet on Tyson at that time. No question. Tyson was a bobbing and weaving defensive expert who rarely got hit until his later years and a ton of ******* did him in. AND they way his feet were always placed he was ALWAYS ready to launch a sudden attack. NO Tyson would have cleaned up on slow, clumsy, non technical Foreman 10 times out of 10, in my opinion.

I don't see why so-called self-styled experts here, cannot see the absolute skill in Tyson's bobbing/weaving defence, which was always ready for attack. Even watching a few of his fights early or later, should show this clearly. He was ALWAYS ready to seize the split-second opening to hit.

[edgarg]

If you're gonna stay close to George for any period of time chances are you're gonna get caught.

And it's not recommended to be caught by Big George.

Now going by a few of the hooks that Frazier managed to land on George that made him shake his head a little (what if they had been on the temple or right on the jaw? Well we'll never know unless George agrees to a rematch), I wouldn't say never just that it's nigh impossible for a swarmer to beat George Foreman.

I think you're wrong. George was NOT an infighter and had none of those skills, so the closer you got, the safer you were from any heavy punches, for which he required SPACE. How would he hit a whirling dervish right under his nose where he couldn't get any leverage, even if he could get the guy to STOP moving so that George could hit him....

THINK...THINK....

[edgarg]

- - I would just point out to our resident Poet Don't Know It Jack Dempsey and Tunney near twins in boxing measurements, and Dempsey the swarmer and Tunney the boxer/puncher, and there are other examples...

Dempsey was finished when he fought Tunney. Hadn't fought for years,(was losing to Sharkey in his first fight in 3 years) living it up in Hollywood partying his drunken head off marrying film stars, etc. There's a BACKGROUND to many a story which it never considered. I doubt if Foreman could lay a glove on Dempsey at his bobbing and weaving best. Foreman was DEAD slow compared to other fighters , and he could only hit you if you came in to him, to make a fight of it.

[Ascended]

I wouldn't have Holyfield, Frazier nor Marciano in it, with the least deserving being the Mafia made Champ Marciano. I'd have Louis before Ali and Frazier barely edging n at the bottom, with Tyson further up on the list.

I'd replace the deleted with Jack Johnson Vitaly Klitschko (who was really unbeatable) and perhaps Wladimir.

I don't agree with D'Amato if it includes tyson, becase he was FAR more than just a swarming fighter. He was an ATTACKING fighter with a stupendous bobbing and weaving defence, which always left him poised for sudden attack, rarely got hit and then rarely clean. In his early years he's have cleaned Foreman's clock pretty well. Foreman was too slow to hardly lay a hand on him.

You cant argee to a quote that never was said I told these crazy idiots that already and already explained why mike destroys George and both Joe's would be destroyed by mike fast

[Ascended]

Money....I'm not that high on Bowe. Maybe its just me being vindictive because he never seemed to respect his own blessings during the short window that he had them. Maybe it's because he was so superbly managed and owed as much of his success to that as to his own talent. His wars with Holyfield were memorable for sure, and he did go 2-1 in those (Against, say Moorer, a nearly equivalent talent going 1-1); but I always looked at the collection of midlings and sunsetters upon whom he built his ledger, and thought that his abysmal failures against Andrew Golota, the hoaky DQs notwithstanding, were the best barometers of his ability we would ever see. All that said, I agree that he'd be trouble for even a Prime George Foreman, but I think that before George went on empty, he'd club Big Dummy into quitting. Joshua? A better Heavyweight than Bowe in some ways, but his resiliency is not one of those ways. Foreman hits him, and Joshua hits the floor. Think Caracas. I know that have a hard on for Foreman and I know that you're pissed off and can scarcely write a sentace about it, but even in the face of all of that...thems the facts. That's all you get from me son.

Im not a son to you and it doesn't matter if you can't see how great bowe was skilled i can which matters everything I said is fact from vid which you or nobody can go over

No match can you explain where george dealt with a person like a bowe Anthony so your talking on a fiction george that never existed just like the idiots who talk on the fiction louis who never existed

So just like I told jab on his joe your fiction george destroys all these dudes in the 1st

The real george which I explained like he is on video is destroyed by bowe Anthony and fury and mutiple others like i said and no video can show george able to deal with these types cause he had trouble with the people who were less then in his time

Your finished crazy idiot

[Ascended]

I'd have bet on Tyson at that time. No question. Tyson was a bobbing and weaving defensive expert who rarely got hit until his later years and a ton of ******* did him in. AND they way his feet were always placed he was ALWAYS ready to launch a sudden attack. NO Tyson would have cleaned up on slow, clumsy, non technical Foreman 10 times out of 10, in my opinion.

I don't see why so-called self-styled experts here, cannot see the absolute skill in Tyson's bobbing/weaving defence, which was always ready for attack. Even watching a few of his fights early or later, should show this clearly. He was ALWAYS ready to seize the split-second opening to hit.

They can't see it cause they have vision problem i said this many times and its not a opinion mike destroyed slow easy to read types like George and never was beat ty them I gave the smith breakdown who was a that way just better polished and he was a better boxer then george yet I was told when I wasnt that Smith wasnt better then george yet vid proving him to be way better technically

The dumb quote/lie is mike comes on to his fighter which is that a lie never in his young years did he ever just walk onto a fighter like joe did and just stand there and take shots
mike was a person who would counter when he could and unload with fast combos

its been exposed years ago on video that mike fought nothing like joe yet these crazy keep saying how they did as if we dont have video or as if they cant see vid which its not a if they can't see at all

[edgarg]

So what was it about 'Bone Crusher' Smith that Tyson couldn't "read'?

Because Smith neutralized Tyson's attack for 15 rounds (but didn't have the prowess to take it to Tyson.)

If Tyson fought 'that fight' against either Foreman I or II, and lets Big George turn him around, tie him up, and lean on him, the way Smith did, Foreman will eventually land hard enough, and often enough to put Tyson down.

Foreman (I or II) brings so much more to the ring than Smith. Tyson would need to be much more than he was agsinst Smith or Foreman would stop him inside of 12.

Smith grabbed Tyson every opportunity, and aimed just to survive. Mills Lane warned him a few times but never DQd him as he should have. Tyson won every round, and Bonecrusher never gat better than a losing 120-7 on any scorecard. He scored ONE punch, in the last round before the grapple.

I SAW the fight and it was disgusting. Smith never came to fight at all. Just for the money.

[Ascended]

Dempsey was finished when he fought Tunney. Hadn't fought for years,(was losing to Sharkey in his first fight in 3 years) living it up in Hollywood partying his drunken head off marrying film stars, etc. There's a BACKGROUND to many a story which it never considered. I doubt if Foreman could lay a glove on Dempsey at his bobbing and weaving best. Foreman was DEAD slow compared to other fighters , and he could only hit you if you came in to him, to make a fight of it.

But george dominated joe who just stood there so that means every short person fights the same no matter if we got vid showing thats a lie they all fight the same as joe did these people are crazy

[edgarg]

Just....no good place to jump in here. Anyway it's going just fine without my two cents. Oh, my two cents? Well, there are a number of heavyweights who Forman would struggle with who Tyson would bob and weave into and dismantle. But in the ring together, Foreman is a nightmare match-up for Tyson. A Nightmare. Foreman looks slow to you, does he? That's not an inhibitor for George. Never was. At whatever speed you're going, and at whatever speed he's going, you'll eventually meet up to settle things. In boxing parlance that's called timing. Foreman's was impeccable just as often in a fight as he needed it to be. Keep watching boxing. The devil's in the details. If he was just a big, strong guy, he wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, Mark Gastineau would.

George generally missed at least 3/4 of his punches, even against ordinary opponents. and pushed them rather more than was good.

[Ascended]

Smith grabbed Tyson every opportunity, and aimed just to survive. Mills Lane warned him a few times but never DQd him as he should have. Tyson won every round, and Bonecrusher never gat better than a losing 120-7 on any scorecard. He scored ONE punch, in the last round before the grapple.

I SAW the fight and it was disgusting. Smith never came to fight at all. Just for the money.

Thats a myth smith did come to fight he just stuggled cause of like I said he was to slow the same as George would he but worst cause his tech was trash and his speed was worst