Jack Johnson of course being a good sized, albeit smaller fighter, but a defensive mastermind with pretty good punching power and being better in almost every way. But of course, 90s Foreman could punch, so he eventually catches Johnson, right? opcorn:
:laugh11: I love the MM section. Jack Johnson- One of the best defensive fighters of all time, a solid 74 inch reach, 6'1 204ish lbs, good chin, phenomenal stamina, a good punch. 90s Foreman- He hit hard, and KO'd a chinny LHW after losing lopsided in every major fight ever, was slower than a slug, had no handspeed, easy to hit, bad stamina, no punch output, not an outstanding chin even in his prime, this was only masked by ducking good fighters and fighting only light hitters like Moorer and Holyfield. But the important part is bolded. Therefore Foreman wins.
I think you're crazy to suggest Foreman didn't have a great chin --- not exactly solid ground to be claiming Moorer couldn't punch, either. Johnson's chin is also more suspect than often purported.
There are some things you don't consider. Johnson was one of the best defensive fighters yes, compared to his time. His tactics worked well against the techniques of that day, which included mainly swinging haymakers. There is no proof that he could block a good jab, combinations etc. Foreman would throw. Same goes with his power: he was usually much bigger than his opponents, and his opponents were wide open for his uppercuts (which very few heavyweights back then knew how to defend, since very few used the punch). Also, Johnson's strategy was to clinch a lot and use his strength against his smaller opponents. Does that sound like a plan against George? Personally I'd rank Johnson over Foreman all-time, but a fight between is a hideous mismatch
