Ezzard Charles vs George Foreman [Archive]

Longhhorn71

05-22-2008, 08:57 PM

Muchmoore

05-22-2008, 09:02 PM

I think Foremans a little too strong and is able to bully Charles a bit. Charles is a MASTER boxer but he isn't fighting a past prime Louis this time who was somewhat vulnerable to fast movers. He would be fighting a man even bigger and stronger than Louis and would probably get koed within 8. Ali was able to beat him because his durability was superhuman and Charles wouldn't be able to soak up the punishment like Ali.

Peak Foreman was a monster, and only a small handful ever beat him. Charles would certainly make a fight out of it but 15 rounds is too long for him to avoid Foreman.

Sardu

05-22-2008, 09:28 PM

I like Foreman to overpower a game Charles and kayo Ezzard in about 4 or 5 rounds.

Hatesrats

05-22-2008, 09:30 PM

Either era George Foreman by K.O.

radianttwilight

05-22-2008, 10:52 PM

1970s George Foreman knocks Charles out easily within three rounds.

Charles was a master boxer and has a massive advantage in traditional boxing skill, but he's far too undersized and has a suspect jaw at heavyweight IMO, especially against a titanic puncher in prime Foreman. Foreman in the 1970s was faster on his feet than many give him credit for, and adept at cutting off the ring. He will find Charles early and finish him.

The real interesting matchup between these two is a 1992-1993 "prime" comebacking Foreman against prime Charles.

SuzieQ49

05-22-2008, 10:55 PM

The real interesting matchup between these two is a 1992-1993 "prime" comebacking Foreman against prime Charles.

93 foreman was a joke, he couldnt even beat alex stewart or axel shulz. charles shutout decision 11 rounds to 1

Bummy Davis

05-22-2008, 11:15 PM

brownpimp88

05-23-2008, 12:35 AM

Foreman by ko, charles's chin will eventually give up.

Mendoza

05-23-2008, 06:11 AM

PowerPuncher

05-23-2008, 06:19 AM

Hard to judge, in 1 way I can't see Charles keeping Foreman off him, but then I remember George had problems with boxer types with movement, boxer types who could slip and counter and Charles is 1 of the best at both.

Charles seem pretty underrated in this thread, he took everything Marciano threw at him past his prime, didnt get KO'd (first time) and made it damn close.

Either Charles UD or Foreman KO

fists of fury

05-23-2008, 06:48 AM

Charles has a decent shot here...small yes, but a slick mover and very good technical skills. Hard bastard when he wanted to be. Gergorio Peralta wasn't big either and he gave Foreman fits over two fights.

Holmes' Jab

05-23-2008, 07:31 AM

Foreman by mid round KO or Charles on the scorecards. I think I might just side towards the later outcome: Charles was a game fucker, plus he could box and move very well.

Holmes' Jab

05-23-2008, 07:32 AM

Foreman wins. Perhaps by 1st or 2nd round KO.

Let's be fair here, Charles is making it past the 2nd round. No doubt IMO.

SuzieQ49

05-23-2008, 10:59 AM

Foreman wins. Perhaps by 1st or 2nd round KO.

:patsch you give a slick defensive ATG counterpuncher with terrific handspeed like charles 1 round? yet a old gregoria peralta lasted 10 rounds both times?

teeto

05-23-2008, 11:04 AM

Prime for prime i'll give it to George on size difference, at some point this will be a stoppage most likely. I dont care how good the secnd George was though, any1 who thinks he beats prime Charles, or as prime as he could get to at the higher weight is dillusional imo. Charles is one of the very finest fighters ever at his best weight, that means at hw he was still something special

Joe E

05-23-2008, 12:26 PM

:patsch you give a slick defensive ATG counterpuncher with terrific handspeed like charles 1 round? yet a old gregoria peralta lasted 10 rounds both times?Prime Charles can avoid Georges' roundhouses, the same way he avoided Satterfields', who was much quicker. By the 5th, Charles goes to work, as George starts to Gas. By the 10th Georges face is swollen, perhaps cut, as he is now quickly Gassing. Charles scores a knockdown in the 15th to seal the deal and takes a U.D.

Minotauro

05-23-2008, 08:05 PM

Prime Foreman vs Charles is a tough one could go ethier way, old Foreman would lose almost every round to Charles he get totally outboxed by Morrison.

CANNONBALL

05-24-2008, 07:57 AM

nah,no way foreman loses to a blown up middlieweight. that is not to disparage charles,a great fighter indeed and a fine ring general who is top 5 P4P light heavy without a doubt. but he would be giving up 40lbs to a real monster who did totally blitz some very good fighters himself. i see george takin him out 3/4 rounds. just the way i see it...

abraq

05-24-2008, 12:47 PM

First instinct is to pick George by early kayo. But then, I think about Gregorio Peralta and realise that there is probably more to it than meets the eye.

Point is, Foreman was probably still a bit green when he fought Peralta. The Foreman who fought Chuvalo, Frazier, Roman, Norton and Ali was an absolute monster. This Foreman had learnt to cut off the ring and also be a bit patient and look for an opening (Norton), but when he got the chance his urgency was hard to keep off.

Charles was no doubt a beautiful all round fighting machine - very good boxing skills, fast, slick and sharp. His problem would be size and strength. He might avoid Foreman for a couple of rounds. But the prime Foreman mentioned above, would have a very good chance of catching Ezzard and finishing him off by the fifth or sixth round. If the fight goes beyond this stage, and Charles has managed to avoid serious damage, then Ezzard has a fair chance of winning this one on points.

cuchulain

05-24-2008, 01:52 PM

Prime Foreman (1973) vs Charles.

Foreman, most likely by KO.

BOGART

05-24-2008, 03:41 PM

Size and strength play a big factor here. Charles does well early but ends up just being overwhelmed. Foreman by mid round stoppage.

markedwardscott

05-24-2008, 08:50 PM

Very interesting match-up. But Charles fought old Louis. Foreman would catch up and knock out Charles in late rounds.

The Funny Man 7

05-24-2008, 09:56 PM

Charles defuses him with those sneaky right hands.

groove

05-24-2008, 10:00 PM

Coast

05-25-2008, 12:04 AM

You can't compare the 36 year old Louis that fought Charles to a prime Foreman. He came out of retirement because he was broke and hadn't fought in 2 years. At 218 he was at his career heaviest, in his next few fights as he got back into fighting shape he got back under 210.

Foreman showed he had learned how to cut off the ring in the Norton fight and unlike Louis, he wouldn't have to respect Charles power and Charles chin wasn't the best. I have great respect for Ezzard's skills, but I think Big Foreman is too much for him to handle.

Unforgiven

05-25-2008, 05:37 AM

Charles outboxes Foreman.

And I have my doubts over whether the young Foreman could last the distance in a 15 rounder.

SuzieQ49

05-25-2008, 09:16 PM

Foreman is a top heavy, Charles is a great light heavy that had no chance of winning the heavy titlle in the 60s or 70s. Overrated 50s once again. Except for Rocky the 50s heavys would come nowhere against Liston, Ali, Frazier or Foreman.

Overated 50s? What was overated about it? No chance winning in the 1960s when floyd patterson and johannson were champions then?

Chris Warren

05-06-2009, 09:58 AM

Big Cat was one of the fastest punchers ever. His power/speed would seriously give him a very good chance to knock Foreman down here, Foreman didn't have the strongest chin in his first career.

Foreman is also slow, and has a leaky defense which would enable Williams to be able to tee off on him. Williams was able to land big shots and actually hurt Liston in both fights, the only man to do this to prime Liston. Liston had much superior defense than Foreman, a great, hard jab to stop people from getting close. He is also more durable, and Williams broke his nose and had him stunned, Williams would at least have similar results against Foreman.

I see Foreman winning by KO in 4. It looks somewhat like the Lyle fight except Foreman doesn't come as close to being stopped. His edge in power and chin would be the difference here and he'd climb off the canvas once to finish him off.

Charles got knocked out by the 185 pound Rocky Marciano is slower, weaker, less skill ect ect ect than George Foreman

Charles had nothing to keep Foreman off him. Charles was a natural middleweight/ light heavyweight who never beat any 220 pound fighters like Foreman,Bowe, Lewis , Lyle ect ect ect

Charles would never beat Foreman and would be stopped in a few rounds.

SuzieQ49

05-06-2009, 10:07 AM

Charles got knocked out by the 185 pound Rocky Marciano is slower, weaker, less skill ect ect ect than George Foreman

Marciano is not slower than foreman. Marciano is defintley much more skilled in the ring than foreman. Marciano became very adapt thinker in the ring and became almost cute with his defense in his crouch and the way he mixed up his punches...Foreman fought the dumbest fight in boxing history against Ali, foreman was just so dumb and stupid in his prime, outside of his jab he was not skilled in any department. No Brains.

Charles had nothing to keep Foreman off him.

Aging Gregorio Peralta did, so did Jimmy Young. Charles was better than both these men.

Charles was a natural middleweight/ light heavyweight who never beat any 220 pound fighters like Foreman,Bowe, Lewis , Lyle ect ect ect

On the Flipside, foreman struggled greatly with aging lightheavyweight boxer Gregoria Peralta twice, and lost badly to boxing stylist Jimmy Young. I would also argue Charles is proven against big punchers 220lb. Ezzard beat 220lb Joe Louis, and 220lb Big Puncher Johnny Haynes

Charles would never beat Foreman and would be stopped in a few rounds.

Maybe not, but its safe to say Charles was a much better fighter than Gregorio Peralta who twice went 10 rounds with foreman.

GPater11093

05-06-2009, 12:14 PM

wait a minute lads

hasnt Pac man taught us anything. Size isnt that important

i pick Charles by UD give me skills and speed over strength and size anyday

turpinr

05-06-2009, 12:42 PM

i think ezzard charles is the best lightheavy of all time and pound for pound he's one of the very best,but big george would break him apart

Chris Warren

05-06-2009, 01:07 PM

Ezzard Charles was a really good light heayvweight Turpinr but as you just said Foreman would rip break him apart. Charles was a middleweight/light heayweight. I don't see why people here keep putting light heavyweight or cruiserweights against 220 plus pound heavyweights. There are weight classes for a reason.

Joe E

05-06-2009, 01:32 PM

Charles would be a little too slick for George but can not be carefull enough..If Ezz gets past the 1st few rds he starts to land very frequently on a young Foreman, the older version of BIG G is dangerous till the end....but Charles would win a UD the younger version Charles would stopAgreed. The younger Foreman, although a Monsterous puncher with heart was also very predictable in his style and had suspect stamina{see Ali, Young fights.} Charles a very inteligent fighter would understand this and of course be cautious in his approach with the younger Foreman. The older Foreman was much more wise a hence more dangerous throughout a bout. And don't forget, Charles had a Razor in his gloves and could chop a Man up. In a 15 rd. bout I can see a Prime Charles possibly getting a late TKO over a young Foreman if he is patient. I could also see Charles outpointing the older Foreman relatively easily, again, if he is patient and dosn't lose his head and try to mix.

SuzieQ49

05-06-2009, 03:13 PM

I don't see why people here keep putting light heavyweight or cruiserweights against 220 plus pound heavyweights

Then why did it take George Foreman 20 rounds to finally dispose of a 33 year old Lightheavyweight Gregorio Peralta?

janitor

05-06-2009, 04:42 PM

Ezz is a bit of a box of tricks for anybody to deal with.

No sensible manager would get George this fight unless either:

A. Charles held the title

or.

B. Beating Charles would get you a title shot.

Of course if either of those conditions is met then Charles has his work cut out.

Raging B(_)LL

05-06-2009, 05:24 PM

George knocks him out within two/three rounds at most, far too much firepower for Ezzard to defend against and an aggressive Foreman looking for the early KO will more than likely get it.

Raging B(_)LL

05-06-2009, 05:34 PM

Then why did it take George Foreman 20 rounds to finally dispose of a 33 year old Lightheavyweight Gregorio Peralta?

Peralta fought a defensive gameplan in both fights which is why he lasted the distance in fight 1 and almost made it to the end in fight 2, he did not go into either bout looking for the win but rather to last the distance and keep away from George`s firepower. Also keep in mind that Peralta was by far the more durable fighter between him and Ezzard, Gregorio had a cast iron chin and was rarely ever hurt in a fight.

Now Ezzard was a terrific boxer but he wasn`t as agile or fleetfooted as Peralta was, so even if he looks to fight a survival type of fight I doubt he would be able to last the distance let alone win as he isn`t nearly as mobile as Peralta was, he was much more flatfooted than the Argentine. Either way I have hard time imagining Ezz winning this fight, its possible but highly unlikely imho.

JohnThomas1

05-07-2009, 03:58 AM

George knocks him out within two/three rounds at most, far too much firepower for Ezzard to defend against and an aggressive Foreman looking for the early KO will more than likely get it.

I agree.

mcvey

05-07-2009, 04:56 AM

I am a Foreman fan, but I started looking at what 185 lb
Ezzard Charles did to 218 lb Joe Louis by completely
outboxing Joe in dominating fashion to take the World Title.

Who wins, George (of the Norton fight), or Charles (of the Louis Fight)?

15 rounds.

Foreman stops Charles he is too big and powerful for him 8rds ko.Much is made of Gregorio Peralta going the distance with George once and surviving into the 10th rd in their second fight.Well,thats just what Peralta came to do ,survive.The Argentinian was stopped only 3 times and kod only once by Mauro Mina,Willie Pastrano tkod him on a cut eye and Foreman finally got to him in the 10th in the 2nd fight ,the guy was super durable a cagey safety first boxer who ,at the age of 37 twice went the distance with Ron Lyle ,getting a draw in the 2nd fight,his results against Foreman ,have no bearing on how a fight between Foreman and Charles would pan out.

SuzieQ49

05-07-2009, 12:08 PM

Now Ezzard was a terrific boxer but he wasn`t as agile or fleetfooted as Peralta was, so even if he looks to fight a survival type of fight I doubt he would be able to last the distance let alone win as he isn`t nearly as mobile as Peralta was, he was much more flatfooted than the Argentine. Either way I have hard time imagining Ezz winning this fight, its possible but highly unlikely imho.

I disagree here respectfully. Now I have talked about charles footwork before, but the 1949 Charles defintley had better footwork to me than Gregorio Peralta, and he certainly knew how to stick and move and dance around the ring very intelligently and gracefully in 1949. Charles defintley did not fight flatfooted in his best days. Charles against foreman would surely choose to fight a stick and move counterpuncher type fight and he would have alot of success. Lets not forget Gregorio Peraltas best days were when he was tangling with Mauro Mina, Peralta was past it when he took on George.

PowerPuncher

05-07-2009, 01:35 PM

Then why did it take George Foreman 20 rounds to finally dispose of a 33 year old Lightheavyweight Gregorio Peralta?

Because perhaps this wasn't Foreman's best performance and Peralta was there to survive

A fighter only fighting to survive won't take chances and won't get hit flush but someone trying to win, thats a different matter

I'd be gunning for Charles in this fight but don't much fancy his chances