Foreman's X-factor?

[Bokaj]

In his prime Foreman had power, chin, strength and agressiveness of the very, very highest level, but he also had terrible technique, poor stamina and not much of a tactical brain. For me that doesn't add up to a truly great fighter, so I see two alternatives here:

1. He really was not much better, if better at all, than for example Max Baer ability wise. The reason he achieved more is because of better focus and, especially, smarter management.

2. Foreman had an X-factor that isn't clearly visible when you watch him. This could be that he had great ability to make the most of his assets; had an unrivalled physical presence for one thing.


Your thoughts?

[Bill1234]

He was more focused so he used what he had to the fullest, where as Max Baer basically did whatever he felt like.

[McGrain]

Foreman had a much better jab than Max. That alone is enough to make a significant difference.

[bodhi]

Personally I think Max Baer has a very good chance of beating Big George. Both versions.

[Bokaj]

Foreman had a much better jab than Max. That alone is enough to make a significant difference.

Still, though, he had much larger flaws than most other ATGs.

[McGrain]

Still, though, he had much larger flaws than most other ATGs.


He sure did, flaws that were exposed by Young and Ali and probably would be by many top line fighters of the Young type. Foreman is an example of an archetype, and his results describe this.

[Bill1234]

Still, though, he had much larger flaws than most other ATGs.

Those flaws could be, and were exposed by people who were slick and had decent jabs. Those flaws didn't hurt him much with the people that would come to him and try going toe to toe.

[Bokaj]

So you guys think he ranks lower ability-wise than he does on achievement?

[Squire]

I love George Foreman, but I think he became overrated afer the Frazier fight. He beat the shit out of Frazier but the clash of styles worked in his favour in a big way

[Unforgiven]

In his prime Foreman had power, chin, strength and agressiveness of the very, very highest level, but he also had terrible technique, poor stamina and not much of a tactical brain. For me that doesn't add up to a truly great fighter, so I see two alternatives here:

1. He really was not much better, if better at all, than for example Max Baer ability wise. The reason he achieved more is because of better focus and, especially, smarter management.

2. Foreman had an X-factor that isn't clearly visible when you watch him. This could be that he had great ability to make the most of his assets; had an unrivalled physical presence for one thing.


Your thoughts?

Well, yes, Foreman certainly had the sheer presence and nature of a fighter.
He was a "beast", and that's not just the sum of physical and technical gifts - it comes from within. He could just impose himself.

Having said that, I think he's a bit overrated (I would actually rate Frazier higher) and I do count his lack of depth of opposition and the way he lost to Ali and Young against him. And I dont think Max Baer is a good example of a fighter who lacked what Foreman had. I think Baer was arguably special in his own way too.

[lefthook31]

Foreman compensated his shortcomings with his tremendous size and strength, a common scenario we now see at the lower weights. For example Tito Trinidad was not a technical wizard, but he was strong as a mofo at 147.

So you guys think he ranks lower ability-wise than he does on achievement?

yes

[Unforgiven]

OK, I think I wasn't quite reading the question correctly before.
This is what I think ...



1. He really was not much better, if better at all, than for example Max Baer ability wise. The reason he achieved more is because of better focus and, especially, smarter management.

This is true.


2. Foreman had an X-factor that isn't clearly visible when you watch him. This could be that he had great ability to make the most of his assets; had an unrivalled physical presence for one thing.

This is true too.

[Bokaj]

OK, I think I wasn't quite reading the question correctly before.
This is what I think ...



This is true.




This is true too.

Now you're just spoiling. Not fair.

[PetethePrince]

Underrated heart and determination.

His X factor in his comeback was more obvious, but there are glimpses of it in his prime. The heart and determination are there, no doubt. In his comeback he had great ring-intelligence.

I would say his foot-speed is underrated. He's not just a sitting duck to square up and land on. He cuts the ring very well so you can "Run but can't hide."

Lastly his jab is very very underrated.

[ChrisPontius]

Foreman compensated his shortcomings with his tremendous size and strength, a common scenario we now see at the lower weights. For example Tito Trinidad was not a technical wizard, but he was strong as a mofo at 147.

yes

I agree with the first part, but not so much with the Trinidad comparison. Felix was technically sound. Not the best ever, but he used the high guard effective and threw picture perfect left hooks, uppercuts, etc. He reminds me a bit of Joe Louis.


As for Foreman, it wasn't just his strength and power, but also the way he could impose that on his opponents. Naturally. Even if you watch his amateur fights, you can see that he's always dangerous and forces his opponent on the backfoot, somewhat gunshy. I do think a skilled boxer who can take a punch will always beat him (as Ali and Young did), but against fighters who aren't good on the backfoot, he's dynamite.

[lefthook31]

I agree with the first part, but not so much with the Trinidad comparison. Felix was technically sound. Not the best ever, but he used the high guard effective and threw picture perfect left hooks, uppercuts, etc. He reminds me a bit of Joe Louis.


As for Foreman, it wasn't just his strength and power, but also the way he could impose that on his opponents. Naturally. Even if you watch his amateur fights, you can see that he's always dangerous and forces his opponent on the backfoot, somewhat gunshy. I do think a skilled boxer who can take a punch will always beat him (as Ali and Young did), but against fighters who aren't good on the backfoot, he's dynamite.

Tito had decent technique but his approach was one dimensional. It was glaringly exposed as he moved up in weight. Just an example of how supreme size and strength can cover up a pretty big technical flaw. Footwork would fall under technique

[janitor]

[quote=Bokaj;6191201]
1. He really was not much better, if better at all, than for example Max Baer ability wise.


To be fair to Max Baer, his stamina was awsome.


The reason he achieved more is because of better focus and, especially, smarter management.


Correct, on both counts.


2. Foreman had an X-factor that isn't clearly visible when you watch him. This could be that he had great ability to make the most of his assets; had an unrivalled physical presence for one thing.

Your thoughts?


Yes basicaly.

He made an enourmous amount of what he had.

[punchy]

Foreman appeared to have enormous natural strength he seemed clumsy but when he hit you he hurt even if some of his punches looked like arm punches he was exposed by Ali and Young both though were clever fighters.

[Stevie G]

When I saw the heading 'Foreman's X factor' I was dreading that somebody had posted a dream fight between George and Simon Cowell :lol: Foreman had great natural strength and phenomenal power. He also had great ability in cutting the ring off on opponents. Muhammad Ali said that George did it better than anyone he'd ever fought. George would have beaten a lot of guys who were more technically skilled than him. I would place him fourth or fifth in my all time great heavyweight list.

[tommy the hat]

One thing about Foreman was he had a very good jab, underrated sometimes. He used it alot more in his second career but his jab was excellent when he was young also, when he used it. Look at his win over Chuvalo and see how well his jab worked early on.

[Unforgiven]

When I saw the heading 'Foreman's X factor' I was dreading that somebody had posted a dream fight between George and Simon Cowell :lol:

:lol:
I thought of this show :

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[itrymariti]

Why do you need an X-factor to be great? If your one dimension works extraordinarily well, is that necessarily insufficient?

[El Bujia]

A factor that hasn't been mentioned, and something he didn't use against Young, was his ability to cut off the ring. Made it easy for him to get opponents within his reach, in which case proper punching technique wasn't even necessary most of the time due to his tremendous physical presence and power.

[prime]

In his prime Foreman had power, chin, strength and agressiveness of the very, very highest level, but he also had terrible technique, poor stamina and not much of a tactical brain. For me that doesn't add up to a truly great fighter, so I see two alternatives here:

1. He really was not much better, if better at all, than for example Max Baer ability wise. The reason he achieved more is because of better focus and, especially, smarter management.

2. Foreman had an X-factor that isn't clearly visible when you watch him. This could be that he had great ability to make the most of his assets; had an unrivalled physical presence for one thing.

I wouldn't say George Foreman had chin sturdiness of the "very, very highest level" in his prime. Whether Ali or Lyle, it only took a few hard shots from a big man to either stagger him or floor him cleanly.

Likewise for his having "terrible technique". His stance, guard and footwork are proper, and his jab and uppercuts with both hands are technically excellent. His left hook is thrown with due weight behind it. And his accuracy on the attack could be impressive: watch how he crushes Frazier for a second knockdown in Jamaica; his finding of Norton for the beginning of the end in Caracas; and his two demolitions of Frazier in the rematch.

Personally, I'd say Foreman's X-factor was his unique, precious POWER. It was a gift. Off the charts and scales. As a puncher, he was a seismosaurus of the ring, and had the aggressiveness to deploy.

In fact, this last quality crossed the line into lack of restraint with George, and, in my view, was the reason for his Achilles-heel factor: lack of stamina.

But Foreman's X-factor was so large that quite possibly only a handful of fighters ever could survive to exploit his Achilles factor.