Foreman - Is it telling that...

[Russell]

A 40 some odd year old, overweight man from another era completely was able to win a major title and by and far blow through the 80's and
90's heavyweight scene?

Basically, I'm asking if Foreman's the deciding factor in looking at the quality of the 80's/90's HW scene as opposed to the "golden age" of the 70's.
The closest thing to a direct comparison that we have, considering no one really had the longetivity that big George did.

Thoughts? Opinions?

[Thread Stealer]

No, I think it was a case where Foreman was an anomaly in being so good for his age.

There was a thread earlier about weak linear champs in strong eras, and Moorer and Foreman were two of the guys I thought who fit. Moorer was a pretty skilled southpaw but often a lazy fighter, and didn't have the sturdiest of chins. He also ate his way up to heavyweight.

Foreman did amazing things for his age, but he was also very careful in picking his opposition.

[ironchamp]

Foreman was an exception.

Look at Ali, Frazier, Norton, Lyle and Shavers. They never carried any real success past the 70s.


There are two types of fighters that can have extended careers: Technically sound fighters who rely on thier technical ability or Big Strong Durable power punching fighters.

From the HW division guys like Holmes, Lewis are guys that, if in similar circumstances they could have replicated Foreman's sucess.


Remember George's level of opposition was handpicked. Its not like he tore through the division's elite.

[Russell]

He cherry picked, yeah... But he also tore down some impressive guys, even more so looking at his age and weight.

[rr94]

He cherry picked, yeah... But he also tore down some impressive guys, even more so looking at his age and weight.

Holyfield was cherrypicked? Probably the riskiest fight at the time. And he was still for years afterwards calling out Tyson.

[Thread Stealer]

Holyfield was cherrypicked? Probably the riskiest fight at the time. And he was still for years afterwards calling out Tyson.

Well obviously not for the TITLE. Can't cherry-pick there.

But look at who else he faced. In his 24 fights leading up to the Holyfield fight, the closest thing he faced to a top 10 heavyweight contender was Adilson Rodriguez. He was on the fringes of the top 10, and had recently been stretched in 2 by Holyfield.

After the Holyfield fight, Foreman fought journeyman Jimmy Ellis (nice if you go back 20 years and change the skin tone), Alex Stewart (whose own manager said he had lost his confidence and ability to take a shot), a Pierre Coetzer coming off 2 straight stoppage losses (including a brutal fight with Riddick Bowe), and then took on a young dangerous contender in Tommy Morrison, who won handily. Then came the Michael Moorer win, and then Foreman was stripped of his belts not too long after. He faced fringe contenders Alex Schulz, Lou Savarese, Crawford Grimsley, and Shannon Briggs, who fell apart in his biggest fight before that in 3 rounds against Darroll Wilson.

[Russell]

Who doesn't dispose of fringe guys and tomato cans on the way to the top?

That's what Foreman did in the beginning of his comeback. Built his reputation back up. Got to remember, no one was taking him seriously at first. Of course he was going to have to prove himself, all over again at that.

[AnthonyJ74]

It's easy to look good against hand-picked fighters. Sure, Foreman was a gifted fighter who was able to fight well at an advanced age. However, his quality of opposition was horrible, at least prior to Holyfield.

[Lex]

In terms of longevity balanced against averaged quality of opposition, Big George fared pretty well. I'd say he's pretty much in a class of his own in the heavyweight division. But keep in mind he had a long layoff, which helped minimize damage to the old noggin and wear and tear on the body, especially the back and knees, from keeping in shape. Gym work is hard on the body after age 40, even without fighting.

Every boxer who's earned some credibility deserves to pick a cherry now and then, especially after long layoffs and between tough fights. Besides, it gives obscure boxers below the top 10 and 20 level a shot at glory.

What really made Big George ver. 2 special was what he learned from mistakes of his youth. He had more ring smarts. He learned to pace himself. Instead of throwing bombs with every shot he'd mix up deceptively soft punches ("Just keep touching 'em," he used to say), just like a well aged baseball pitcher and spitballer. He learned that focus and concentration counted for more than meanness and intimidation.

And he knew when to get out.

[OLD FOGEY]

A 40 some odd year old, overweight man from another era completely was able to win a major title and by and far blow through the 80's and
90's heavyweight scene?

Basically, I'm asking if Foreman's the deciding factor in looking at the quality of the 80's/90's HW scene as opposed to the "golden age" of the 70's.
The closest thing to a direct comparison that we have, considering no one really had the longetivity that big George did.

Thoughts? Opinions?

The best heavyweights of the 1980's and 1990's were Holmes, M. Spinks, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, and Lewis. Foreman did not defeat any of them and only fought Holyfield. Looking at The Ring's yearly ratings, only Moorer seems to have been rated when George defeated him. Cooney had long fallen out of the ratings. Even Rodrigues had not been rated in 1989.

Does Foreman's success prove anything about the 1970's versus the 1990's. No. I don't think so. If Sonny Liston were about the age Foreman was in 1995 in 1978, could he have perhaps beaten Leon Spinks or Ken Norton?--he certainly would have had a shot.
What if Godoy had gotten the decision over Joe Louis in 1940. Would a comebacking Dempsey have had a shot at beating Godoy? I think so.
Neither would prove the fifties were better than the seventies or the twenties better than the forties. It would only prove things broke right.

All that said, Foreman actually did it and it is a unique achievement.

[AnthonyJ74]

In terms of longevity balanced against averaged quality of opposition, Big George fared pretty well. I'd say he's pretty much in a class of his own in the heavyweight division. But keep in mind he had a long layoff, which helped minimize damage to the old noggin and wear and tear on the body, especially the back and knees, from keeping in shape. Gym work is hard on the body after age 40, even without fighting.

Every boxer who's earned some credibility deserves to pick a cherry now and then, especially after long layoffs and between tough fights. Besides, it gives obscure boxers below the top 10 and 20 level a shot at glory.

What really made Big George ver. 2 special was what he learned from mistakes of his youth. He had more ring smarts. He learned to pace himself. Instead of throwing bombs with every shot he'd mix up deceptively soft punches ("Just keep touching 'em," he used to say), just like a well aged baseball pitcher and spitballer. He learned that focus and concentration counted for more than meanness and intimidation.

And he knew when to get out.

But George picked a whole field of cherries! Yes, I think George was a remarkable fighter with a great story. But in my view, too many people confused George the fighter with George the salesman. George came back as a mellow, happy-go-lucky kind of a guy. He had the angle of him being the feared George Foreman from the 1970's who came back to fight as a bald, overweight preacher. George had a great story, and it was his story - more so than his fighting ability - that gave George the big breaks. He had to pick the weak competition like he did, or he would have been defeated long before he lost to Holyfield. George came back for the money, period. And he wasn't going to stand for any competition to get in his way of a big money fight. I guess a down-home preacher man can be just as easily seduced by the bright lights and big money as the next guy.

[fists of fury]

While I don't think Foreman's comeback proved the 70's were superior to the late 80's / early 90's, I think it does prove that a great chin and a big punch can take you quite far in the heavyweight division.
I can imagine a well-preserved David Tua in 10 years being able to do quite well for a while, and to a point mimic George's comeback.

In the long run though, a big punch and sturdy chin only takes you so far. What impressed me a lot with George was how extremely accurate he was. He improved a thousand fold in this area compared to his prime years.
He also learned tp pace himself and set up the KO instead of wasting all that energy like he did in his youth.
All in all, I think he was a better all-round fighter the second time round.

George was probably just too slow to compete with the likes of Bowe, Lewis, Holyfield & Tyson, but he still remained competitive in all his comeback fights against good opposition like Morrison, Moorer, Briggs etc.

[janitor]

At the end of the day most eras never fulill the potential of their talent because of circumstances and politics and fighters who are not the best around at the time end up as champion.

What sets the 70s apart is not so much that there was more talent but that the big fights were made and it was largley fought out between the bigest names.

[ChrisPontius]

The best heavyweights of the 1980's and 1990's were Holmes, M. Spinks, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, and Lewis. Foreman did not defeat any of them and only fought Holyfield. Looking at The Ring's yearly ratings, only Moorer seems to have been rated when George defeated him. Cooney had long fallen out of the ratings. Even Rodrigues had not been rated in 1989.

Does Foreman's success prove anything about the 1970's versus the 1990's. No. I don't think so. If Sonny Liston were about the age Foreman was in 1995 in 1978, could he have perhaps beaten Leon Spinks or Ken Norton?--he certainly would have had a shot.
What if Godoy had gotten the decision over Joe Louis in 1940. Would a comebacking Dempsey have had a shot at beating Godoy? I think so.
Neither would prove the fifties were better than the seventies or the twenties better than the forties. It would only prove things broke right.

All that said, Foreman actually did it and it is a unique achievement.

This post says it all.

In the end it's the distinction of the contender, not the era.

An old Patterson was also succesful in the 70's while taking the hard path, not the easy one that Foreman took. At high age he was never destroyed in the 70's while he was in the late 50's/early 60's, which many of the people here would hold in lower regard than the 70's.

[fg2227]

George came back to knok out the undefeated heavyweigh champion of the world. Surely that counts for something!

[laxpdx]

I think it was relatively easy for a guy like Foreman to have a successful comeback. Being a natural HW, George had freakish power in his favor. Someone making a comeback at a lighter weight (Tony Ayala) would have to rely more on technical skill, which declines over time.

[mr. magoo]

=OLD FOGEY]The best heavyweights of the 1980's and 1990's were Holmes, M. Spinks, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, and Lewis. Foreman did not defeat any of them and only fought Holyfield. Spinks can't be rated higher than Foreman. In a 3 year period at heavyweight, Spinks fought but 5 times, losing a fight in 91 seconds, and winning two close decisions over an aging champion who some felt was robbed against him. His other two fights consisted of a win over a declining Cooney, and a relatively unknown Steffen Tangstad. Foreman put together a 35 fight career, between 1987 and 1997. He was never knocked out, and his win over a prime Michael Moorer was arguably better than anything Spinks did at heavyweight.

Looking at The Ring's yearly ratings, only Moorer seems to have been rated when George defeated him.

Moorer was heavyweight champion of the world. I think that goes a bit beyond just being rated.


Even Rodrigues had not been rated in 1989.


This is incorrect. In June of 1989, prior to facing Holyfield, Rodriguez was ranked #2 by the WBC. A year later in June of 1990, when he faced Foreman, Addilson had fallen to #10 by the WBC, and like 12 by one of the other organizations. I know the above information to be fact, because I recorded both of those fights live back in the day, and probably still have them in a box somewhere on VHS.



If Sonny Liston were about the age Foreman was in 1995 in 1978, could he have perhaps beaten Leon Spinks or Ken Norton?--he certainly would have had a shot.


George was 47 years old in 1995, he fought Michael Moorer in November of 94 at age 46, ( two months shy of his 47th birthday. ) In 1970, Sonny Liston was a reported 38 years old ( although he may have been older ) He was showing the signs of a shot fighter in his late 30's far more than George was in his late 40's. The Leotis Martin, and Chuck Wepner fights confirmed this. I'm not so sure that Sonny could have hung around until age 47, and even if so, acheived what George did at that age. Lastly, I think that it's a bit unfair to compare a 35-0 champion like Michael Moorer to that of Leon Spinks.



All that said, Foreman actually did it and it is a unique achievement


Agreed.

[mr. magoo]

ChrisPontius]This post says it all.


Actually, there are quite a few inaccuracies, as I've already pointed out.

An old Patterson was also succesful in the 70's while taking the hard path, not the easy one that Foreman took.

First of all, Patterson was in his 30's, and not in his forties when he was winding down his career during the 1970's. At the age of 37, Patterson was KO'd in a title fight, whereas Foreman, 10 years older at the age of 47 became the oldest champ in history, and against a young, talented unbeaten champion.

Also, Patterson's record had a bit of fluff in his later years as well. He had a good win over bonavena, but look at some of the other fighters he fought towards the end of his run.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



At high age he was never destroyed in the 70's while he was in the late 50's/early 60's, which many of the people here would hold in lower regard than the 70's.


This is true, but are you going to compare, most of the guys Patterson fought in the twilight of his career, such as Jerry Quarry and Jimmy Ellis to that of a prime Sonny Liston?

[prime]

The fact that Larry Holmes and George Foreman in their geezer versions competed successfully in the 90s is definitely an indicator of the relative abilities of the two decades' best fighters.

We actually saw: Holmes/Holyfield, Holmes/Mercer, Holmes/McCall, and grandpa Larry never got blown away. He held his own. We saw: Foreman/Holyfield, Foreman/Moorer, with doughy George fighting twelve hard rounds against Holy and destroying Moorer with one punch. Foreman was 45! This speaks of the quality experience and technical resourcefulness of these legends, who learned firsthand from facing top competition to successfully exploit their diminishing yet first-class skills.

[mr. magoo]

The fact that Larry Holmes and George Foreman in their geezer versions competed successfully in the 90s is definitely an indicator of the relative abilities of the two decades' best fighters.

We actually saw: Holmes/Holyfield, Holmes/Mercer, Holmes/McCall, and grandpa Larry never got blown away. He held his own. We saw: Foreman/Holyfield, Foreman/Moorer, with doughy George fighting twelve hard rounds against Holy and destroying Moorer with one punch. Foreman was 45! This speaks of the quality experience and technical resourcefulness of these legends, who learned firsthand from facing top competition to successfully exploit their diminishing yet first-class skills.

This is probably the best post on this thread yet. People are only looking at the fact that Foreman fought in the 90's 20 years past his prime, and not including the fact that Holmes who was at least 10 years past it, and started in the 70's was also competitive in the 90's. I think that it's a telltale sign when not one but 2, guys from the same or closely linked era's can reach top ten status in a later period, with one even getting a world title. Unfortunately, these facts are commonly ignored by many of the posters here.

[OLD FOGEY]

Spinks can't be rated higher than Foreman. In a 3 year period at heavyweight, Spinks fought but 5 times, losing a fight in 91 seconds, and winning two close decisions over an aging champion who some felt was robbed against him. His other two fights consisted of a win over a declining Cooney, and a relatively unknown Steffen Tangstad. Foreman put together a 35 fight career, between 1987 and 1997. He was never knocked out, and his win over a prime Michael Moorer was arguably better than anything Spinks did at heavyweight.



Moorer was heavyweight champion of the world. I think that goes a bit beyond just being rated.



This is incorrect. In June of 1989, prior to facing Holyfield, Rodriguez was ranked #2 by the WBC. A year later in June of 1990, when he faced Foreman, Addilson had fallen to #10 by the WBC, and like 12 by one of the other organizations. I know the above information to be fact, because I recorded both of those fights live back in the day, and probably still have them in a box somewhere on VHS.




George was 47 years old in 1995, he fought Michael Moorer in November of 94 at age 46, ( two months shy of his 47th birthday. ) In 1970, Sonny Liston was a reported 38 years old ( although he may have been older ) He was showing the signs of a shot fighter in his late 30's far more than George was in his late 40's. The Leotis Martin, and Chuck Wepner fights confirmed this. I'm not so sure that Sonny could have hung around until age 47, and even if so, acheived what George did at that age. Lastly, I think that it's a bit unfair to compare a 35-0 champion like Michael Moorer to that of Leon Spinks.




Agreed.

1. Spinks--Well, Spinks defeated a much better fighter in Holmes than Foreman ever did on his comeback, and his only loss to Tyson was to a much better fighter than Morrison, for example. If Spinks had disputed decisions with a great fighter like Holmes, Foreman did with much lesser fighters such as Schultz. Foreman certainly did have more fights at heavyweight.

2. Okay, Moorer was not only rated but the champion.

3. I don't know what the ratings for tha various alphabet organizations were--the only ratings I have available are from the Ring. Rodrigues was not rated in 1989 or 1990, but I'll concede that he was a rated fighter. He was #3 in the Ring ratings for 1988.
By the way, I said I was quoting the Ring Magazine ratings.

4. I don't know how you can assume Sonny Liston was washed up off the Wepner bout. He pounded Wepner into a bloody hulk, and Wepner said Liston hit him harder than Foreman.

5. It is true that Spinks was not as good as Moorer but what has that to do with the question asked--Does Foreman's victory prove the seventies were better than the nineties? You are conceding that the seventies had a champion who was weaker than the worst of the nineties.

6. Foreman was born on Jan 10, 1949, according to boxrec and most sources I have seen. He was 45 when he defeated Moorer.

[mr. magoo]

1. Spinks--Well, Spinks defeated a much better fighter in Holmes than Foreman ever did on his comeback, I would say that Foreman's win over Moorer was at least cpmparable to Spink's contoversial wins over an aging Holmes. Moorer was undefeated in 35 fights, and coming off a win over Holyfield. Holmes was nearly 36, and won a desputed decision over Carl Williams, yet many feel Larry was still robbed against Michael, at least in the second bout. and his only loss to Tyson was to a much better fighter than Morrison, for example.

Yeah, but in only 91 seconds? Not to mention at the age of 31, as opposed to the age of 45, or whatever he was?


If Spinks had disputed decisions with a great fighter like Holmes, Foreman did with much lesser fighters such as Schultz.


True, but to make up for it, Foreman also had better second tier wins then Michael did at heavyweight. George's wins over Savarese, Stewart, Rodriguez, and Coetzer were certainly better than Spink's victories over Tangstad and an inactive Cooney.

2. Okay, Moorer was not only rated but the champion.

Thank you.


3. I don't what the ratings for tha various alphabet organizations were--the only ratings I have available are from the Ring. Rodrigues was not rated in 1989 or 1990, but I'll concede that he was a rated fighter. He was #3 in the Ring ratings for 1988.
By the way, I said I was quoting the Ring Magazine ratings.


The ring is not a valid nor official source for ratings. It's like cosmopolitan magazine rating the celebrities. Who cares?


4. I don't know how you can assume Sonny Liston was washed up off the Wepner bout. He pounded Wepner into a bloody hulk, and Wepner said Liston hit him harder than Foreman.


Okay, so maybe he wasn't completely done, but let's face it. He was brutally KO'd by Martin, and besides, Chuck Wepner wasn't exactly a premier contender either. I find it hard to believe that Liston was still as effective in his late 30's as Foreman was in his comeback. Foreman became heavyweight champion of the world for the second time...........Liston was beaten by Leotis Martin........It's a no brainer.........



5. It is true that Spinks was not as good as Moorer but what has that to do with the question asked--Does Foreman's victory prove the seventies were better than the nineties? You are conceding that the seventies had a champion who was weaker than the worst of the nineties.

I'm not entirely sure that I understand this explanation.


6. Foreman was born on Jan 10, 1949, according to boxrec and most sources I have seen. He was 45 when he defeated Moorer.
[/quote]

I seem to remember him being anounced as 43 in April of 91' for the Holyfield match. Doing the math helped me to arrive at age 46 in November of 94'. I did a search however, on both google and boxrec. and both of them confirm your claim that he was born in January of 1949. I will say, however that fighters ages seem to change more often than the flavor of the month.

[mr. magoo]

Personally, I don't see what made the 90's so special. Consider for a moment that you had:

1. An ex light heavyweight and former Crusierweight, who both moved up and won titles. Furthermore one of them was able to build his reputation as being just about the best fighter of the decade.

2. A Journeyman named Buster Douglas who pulled off a monumental upset and became champ.

3. 2 40+ ex-champs who were able to come out of lengthy retirments, and have an impact on the division. One of whom became world champ.

4. One of the era's best participants was abscent for half the decade.

5. A lot of would be match-ups that sounded good on paper, but never materialized. Bowe-Lewis, Bowe-Tyson, Bowe-Moorer, Tyson-Moorer, Lewis-Moorer, prime Tyson-prime Holyfield, prime Lewis-prime Tyson, Tyson Douglas II, Bowe-Mercer. The list goes on and on.

[OLD FOGEY]

I would say that Foreman's win over Moorer was at least cpmparable to Spink's contoversial wins over an aging Holmes. Moorer was undefeated in 35 fights, and coming off a win over Holyfield. Holmes was nearly 36, and won a desputed decision over Carl Williams, yet many feel Larry was still robbed against Michael, at least in the second bout.

Yeah, but in only 91 seconds? Not to mention at the age of 31, as opposed to the age of 45, or whatever he was?


True, but to make up for it, Foreman also had better second tier wins then Michael did at heavyweight. George's wins over Savarese, Stewart, Rodriguez, and Coetzer were certainly better than Spink's victories over Tangstad and an inactive Cooney.



Thank you.



The ring is not a valid nor official source for ratings. It's like cosmopolitan magazine rating the celebrities. Who cares?



Okay, so maybe he wasn't completely done, but let's face it. He was brutally KO'd by Martin, and besides, Chuck Wepner wasn't exactly a premier contender either. I find it hard to believe that Liston was still as effective in his late 30's as Foreman was in his comeback. Foreman became heavyweight champion of the world for the second time...........Liston was beaten by Leotis Martin........It's a no brainer.........



I'm not entirely sure that I understand this explanation.




I seem to remember him being anounced as 43 in April of 91' for the Holyfield match. Doing the math helped me to arrive at age 46 in November of 94'. I did a search however, on both google and boxrec. and both of them confirm your claim that he was born in January of 1949. I will say, however that fighters ages seem to change more often than the flavor of the month.[/quote]

1. I disagree on the Ring Magazine ratings. The alphabet ratings are far more corrupt. The Ring ratings have their faults over the years, but they are probably the best out there and the only one I know of which is available going back to the twenties and so thereful useful for comparing different eras.

2. Back to Michael Spinks--the fact is his victory over the unbeaten Holmes, generally considered the best heavy of the early eighties, is far more impressive than anything Foreman did on his comeback. How many actually think Moorer was the best heavy out there in 1994. He won the title, as Leon Spinks did, but he was not the best fighter.
Foreman did have more wins over second tier fighters, but also close and disputed fights with Schultz, Stewart, and Sevarese.

3. On Leon Spinks and how he compares to Moorer. I will repeat this, as it is my most important point, I think. The question asked was if Foreman's victory over Moorer proved the 1970's were stronger than the 1990's. You implicitly conceded that Spinks was not in Moorer's class when you rebutted me by saying that Liston defeating Spinks would not be as impressive as Foreman defeating Moorer. In so doing, you conceded that there was a champion from the seventies who was, in fact, weaker than Moorer, a weak champion from the nineties. This is relevant to a comparision between the nineties and the seventies.

4. On Liston and also Floyd Patterson. In my judgement, despite the Liston ko by Martin and the Patterson loss to Ali, both probably could have won plenty of fights against third or fourth tier competition. If they did, and managed to hang around until 1978 and then got a shot at Spinks, I would rate either an underdog, but to me it is not out of the question that they could have won.

5. I want to say, though, that Foreman did accomplish this and Patteron and Liston did not and Foreman should get full credit for accomplishing what no one else ever has. I don't like judging on speculation. I agree, though, with the poster who argued that Foreman's victory is a personal victory and not probative in proving one era better than another.

[OLD FOGEY]

Personally, I don't see what made the 90's so special. Consider for a moment that you had:

1. An ex light heavyweight and former Crusierweight, who both moved up and won titles. Furthermore one of them was able to build his reputation as being just about the best fighter of the decade.

2. A Journeyman named Buster Douglas who pulled off a monumental upset and became champ.

3. 2 40+ ex-champs who were able to come out of lengthy retirments, and have an impact on the division. One of whom became world champ.

4. One of the era's best participants was abscent for half the decade.

5. A lot of would be match-ups that sounded good on paper, but never materialized. Bowe-Lewis, Bowe-Tyson, Bowe-Moorer, Tyson-Moorer, Lewis-Moorer, prime Tyson-prime Holyfield, prime Lewis-prime Tyson, Tyson Douglas II, Bowe-Mercer. The list goes on and on.

I don't think there is anything special about the 1990's, but that was not the question asked.

[mr. magoo]

I seem to remember him being anounced as 43 in April of 91' for the Holyfield match. Doing the math helped me to arrive at age 46 in November of 94'. I did a search however, on both google and boxrec. and both of them confirm your claim that he was born in January of 1949. I will say, however that fighters ages seem to change more often than the flavor of the month.


1. I disagree on the Ring Magazine ratings. The alphabet ratings are far more corrupt. The Ring ratings have their faults over the years, but they are probably the best out there and the only one I know of which is available going back to the twenties and so thereful useful for comparing different eras.


To each his own I guess. But the fact still remains. If you're not ranked by the organization who's title you want to fight for, then it just ain't happening.



2. Back to Michael Spinks--the fact is his victory over the unbeaten Holmes, generally considered the best heavy of the early eighties, is far more impressive than anything Foreman did on his comeback. How many actually think Moorer was the best heavy out there in 1994. He won the title, as Leon Spinks did, but he was not the best fighter.


Given that Holmes was well past his prime, and the decision's desputed ( at least one of them ), and taking into account that Moorer was a 28 year old champion unbeaten in 35 fights with wins over Holyfield, Stewart and Cooper, I'd have to disagree that Spinks win over Holmes was better. Had the victory taken place maybe 3 years earlier, then I'd concur. As it stands, however I'll settle for equal or slightly less but definately not better. What's more, I find it a bit illogical that you're comparing Michael Moorer to Leon Spinks. Leon had but, 7 pro fights, including a draw with Scott Ledoux. He was also known as lacking in discipline, and having poor lifestyle habits. I've already listed my reasons for thinking more highly of Moorer than Spinks above.


Foreman did have more wins over second tier fighters, but also close and disputed fights with Schultz, Stewart, and Sevarese.


Fair enough.


3. On Leon Spinks and how he compares to Moorer. I will repeat this, as it is my most important point, I think. The question asked was if Foreman's victory over Moorer proved the 1970's were stronger than the 1990's. You implicitly conceded that Spinks was not in Moorer's class when you rebutted me by saying that Liston defeating Spinks would not be as impressive as Foreman defeating Moorer. In so doing, you conceded that there was a champion from the seventies who was, in fact, weaker than Moorer, a weak champion from the nineties. This is relevant to a comparision between the nineties and the seventies.


A fair point, but when most people talk about the 70's as being the golden era of the heavyweight division, they are typically refering to the period that extended between maybe 1969 and 1976. By 1978 Foreman was gone. Frazier was gone. Ali and Norton were past their primes. It was at this time that Leon Spinks moved in and pulled off an upset win. Therefore, I don't feel as though I'm conceding myself in any way by listing L.Spinks as a far weaker fighter than Michael Moorer or most others for that matter.


4. On Liston and also Floyd Patterson. In my judgement, despite the Liston ko by Martin and the Patterson loss to Ali, both probably could have won plenty of fights against third or fourth tier competition. If they did, and managed to hang around until 1978 and then got a shot at Spinks, I would rate either an underdog, but to me it is not out of the question that they could have won.


Could be the case. Although I would give Liston a better chance than Patterson. Floyd wouldn't have the power left by that point, and his speed would have long since diminshed.


5. I want to say, though, that Foreman did accomplish this and Patteron and Liston did not and Foreman should get full credit for accomplishing what no one else ever has. I don't like judging on speculation. I agree, though, with the poster who argued that Foreman's victory is a personal victory and not probative in proving one era better than another.


Also a fair point, but keep in mind, that both Foreman and Holmes had an impact in the 1990's. Holmes career stretched from 1974-1985, and he was but maybe only two years younger than Foreman, therefore I'd have to put them together in similar categories. If the only two representatives from the same era, or I should say close eras, can have such a big impact on a more modern era, then I'd say it speaks volumes.

[The Kurgan]

U have to remember that Moorer was destroying George up until the knockout.

True. Had Moorer not gone into that fight with such a gigantic chip on his shoulder (even after the Holyfield fight he was called a coward and a fraud, and that fight was devalued by Holyfield's spurious "heart problems") he would have cautiously out boxed Foreman in the last rounds and won an even wider decision than Morrison did.

Foreman was in the right place, at the right time... But with the right bombs. I think, if nothing else, in his comeback Foreman proved he could hit like a truck and take a beating. It's enough to seriously boost his legacy.

[janitor]

I don't think there is anything special about the 1990's, but that was not the question asked.

I think that if the biggest possible fights had taken place through the 90s it could have been a tremendous era.

[The Kurgan]

And had heart, which were the 3 things he showed that he didn't have in Zaire. He did the comeback for himself and I think he's a better person because of it.

He actually started the comeback because he was broke by the mid-1980s. He'd used up all his career's earnings on building a church, setting up charities, women (in the 1970s) etc.

It wasn't until probably about 1993/1994 that he was fighting for love of the sport and to prove himself as opposed to funding his causes.

[OLD FOGEY]

To each his own I guess. But the fact still remains. If you're not ranked by the organization who's title you want to fight for, then it just ain't happening.




Given that Holmes was well past his prime, and the decision's desputed ( at least one of them ), and taking into account that Moorer was a 28 year old champion unbeaten in 35 fights with wins over Holyfield, Stewart and Cooper, I'd have to disagree that Spinks win over Holmes was better. Had the victory taken place maybe 3 years earlier, then I'd concur. As it stands, however I'll settle for equal or slightly less but definately not better. What's more, I find it a bit illogical that you're comparing Michael Moorer to Leon Spinks. Leon had but, 7 pro fights, including a draw with Scott Ledoux. He was also known as lacking in discipline, and having poor lifestyle habits. I've already listed my reasons for thinking more highly of Moorer than Spinks above.



Fair enough.



A fair point, but when most people talk about the 70's as being the golden era of the heavyweight division, they are typically refering to the period that extended between maybe 1969 and 1976. By 1978 Foreman was gone. Frazier was gone. Ali and Norton were past their primes. It was at this time that Leon Spinks moved in and pulled off an upset win. Therefore, I don't feel as though I'm conceding myself in any way by listing L.Spinks as a far weaker fighter than Michael Moorer or most others for that matter.


Could be the case. Although I would give Liston a better chance than Patterson. Floyd wouldn't have the power left by that point, and his speed would have long since diminshed.



Also a fair point, but keep in mind, that both Foreman and Holmes had an impact in the 1990's. Holmes career stretched from 1974-1985, and he was but maybe only two years younger than Foreman, therefore I'd have to put them together in similar categories. If the only two representatives from the same era, or I should say close eras, can have such a big impact on a more modern era, then I'd say it speaks volumes.

I would to ask you a question about Foreman and Holmes. If you listed the top five heavyweights of the 1980's & 1990's, and leave each off the list of his own potential opponents, how many did each defeat?

Foreman:
Five best possible opponents of 1980's & 1990's--Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis (alternate-Mike Spinks)--defeated none, fought only Holyfield.

Holmes:
Five best possible opponents of 1980's & 1990's--Foreman, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis (Alternate Mike Spinks)-Defeated none-lost to Spinks, Tyson, Holyfield.

The point I am making is neither man really beat any of the best men of the era. What was exactly their big impact. Both had wins over top men of the seventies and their fame carried into the nineties when the best they could do, other than Foreman's win over Moorer, was to beat a contender here or there.

[Cojimar 1945]

Foreman did not beat the very best heavyweights of the 1990s so his comeback does not hurt the 90s that much. A problem I see with the 70s heavyweights is that the depth is not particularly impressive.

[Cojimar 1945]

I don't think there is anything to suggest Michael Spinks was one of the outstanding heavyweights of the 1980s. His resume at heavyweight is not spectacular and he was easily crushed by Tyson.

[OLD FOGEY]

I don't think there is anything to suggest Michael Spinks was one of the outstanding heavyweights of the 1980s. His resume at heavyweight is not spectacular and he was easily crushed by Tyson.

Cojimar-You probably know more about the eighties than I do. Could you list the top five heavyweights of the 1980's, in your judgement.

[OLD FOGEY]

I think that if the biggest possible fights had taken place through the 90s it could have been a tremendous era.

I should have stated that I don't think there is necessarily anything special about any given era. Great records by a few top men might mask a lack of depth. A great champion at his peak might ruin outstanding contenders and create an impression of weakness. I try to avoid talk of a 'golden age' or a 'weak era'. Neither is usually really the case.

[ChrisPontius]

The problem in ranking the 80's heavyweights is their consistent inconsistency.
You have Holmes and Tyson at the top. I'd have Witherspoon, Thomas and maybe Spinks in the top5 but after that it gets blurry. Weaver could be included as well.

[Duodenum]

"I guess I'd better learn how to box!"-Previously undefeated Olympic HW Gold Medalist Ray Mercer, after being taken to school over 12 rounds against Larry "Vintage Assasin" Holmes.

[AnthonyJ74]

He actually started the comeback because he was broke by the mid-1980s. He'd used up all his career's earnings on building a church, setting up charities, women (in the 1970s) etc.

It wasn't until probably about 1993/1994 that he was fighting for love of the sport and to prove himself as opposed to funding his causes.

I remember George being interviewed a year or so into his comeback, and the interviewer asked George if he came back because he was broke. George stated something along the lines that you have four pockets of cash; three pockets you spend on the things that you want, the fourth pocket you put away for savings. George claimed that his fourth pocket was full! LOL.....The guy was such a con man!

I wonder what bothered George more, not having enough money for his charitable causes, or not having enough money to shop at Gucci's and to stockpile classic cars?

[AnthonyJ74]

The fact that Larry Holmes and George Foreman in their geezer versions competed successfully in the 90s is definitely an indicator of the relative abilities of the two decades' best fighters.

We actually saw: Holmes/Holyfield, Holmes/Mercer, Holmes/McCall, and grandpa Larry never got blown away. He held his own. We saw: Foreman/Holyfield, Foreman/Moorer, with doughy George fighting twelve hard rounds against Holy and destroying Moorer with one punch. Foreman was 45! This speaks of the quality experience and technical resourcefulness of these legends, who learned firsthand from facing top competition to successfully exploit their diminishing yet first-class skills.

Agreed! Holmes and Foreman were both very good fighters who were able to compensate effectively for their diminishing skills. I think Holmes was a level above George in terms of skill, but George was tougher and more durable. I always thought Holmes could have done even better in his comeback if he had trained harder. I never got the impression that Larry ever really killed himself in training the way Foreman supposedly did. In the McCall fight, if Holmes had just a little bit more stamina, he could have regained the title.

[mr. magoo]

[
The point I am making is neither man really beat any of the best men of the era. What was exactly their big impact. Both had wins over top men of the seventies and their fame carried into the nineties when the best they could do, other than Foreman's win over Moorer, was to beat a contender here or there.

[/quote]

Did Bowe beat Lewis, or vice versa? Did Tyson beat Bowe? Did Lewis beat Moorer? Did Tyson, Lewis or Holyfield meet each other in their prime? The answer to all the above questions is no. No one really established themselves as a dominearing force in the 90's. That was partially my point when establishing that Holmes and Foreman, 2 members of past ereas, had a profound efect on a division that wasn't really as solid as some make it out to be. If Holyfield was the best fighter of the nineties, and foreman and Holmes both went the distance, plus beat a few contenders along the way, is that not having an impact? Homes completely outboxed a prime class contender in Ray Mercer. Foreman defeated Moorer, stewart, Rodriguez, Savarese, Grimsley, and picked up a world title in the process. I would like to list the acheivements of Ali, Frazier and Norton in the 90's, but unfortunately, they were unable to participate due to Ali's developing parkinson's, Norton's accident on the Sante Monica freeway rendering him crippled, and Frazier was somewhat disabled as well.

[MagnificentMatt]

A 40 some odd year old, overweight man from another era completely was able to win a major title and by and far blow through the 80's and
90's heavyweight scene?

Basically, I'm asking if Foreman's the deciding factor in looking at the quality of the 80's/90's HW scene as opposed to the "golden age" of the 70's.
The closest thing to a direct comparison that we have, considering no one really had the longetivity that big George did.

Thoughts? Opinions?

I understand you jumped on the "i hate the modern HW division" bandwagon.

A 35 year old, with dulled reflexes and speed (who relied "a lot" not completely) on those two things to rule. Was able to clean out a division and win a belt and defend it many times, and impressevily?

My point is, the so called Golden Age is overrated.

There would be no Shavers or Norton if they didnt fight Ali...Wepner..whatever...We remember these people for fighting Ali, its not that Ali was fighting this great opposition its just that people blow it out of proportion when the people he beat for the most part werent that great at all...

Note: I still have great respect for the people who truely were GREAT of that time, I.E. Ali, Frazier, Foreman etc. etc.

I respect the Nortons, Bugners, Shavers, just no more than the Peters, Brocks, and Ibragimovs is all im saying.

[elTerrible]

I think it was relatively easy for a guy like Foreman to have a successful comeback. Being a natural HW, George had freakish power in his favor. Someone making a comeback at a lighter weight (Tony Ayala) would have to rely more on technical skill, which declines over time.


Also they dont have to worry about making weight.

Imagine if Hamed made his comeback what would he be fighting at 140 or 135? He would have been up against the likes of cotto hatton mayweather casamayor corrales ect. in those divisions and would have been brutalized. They would have had to put him in with tomato cans to be successful in those weights.

[OLD FOGEY]

Did Bowe beat Lewis, or vice versa? Did Tyson beat Bowe? Did Lewis beat Moorer? Did Tyson, Lewis or Holyfield meet each other in their prime? The answer to all the above questions is no. No one really established themselves as a dominearing force in the 90's. That was partially my point when establishing that Holmes and Foreman, 2 members of past ereas, had a profound efect on a division that wasn't really as solid as some make it out to be. If Holyfield was the best fighter of the nineties, and foreman and Holmes both went the distance, plus beat a few contenders along the way, is that not having an impact? Homes completely outboxed a prime class contender in Ray Mercer. Foreman defeated Moorer, stewart, Rodriguez, Savarese, Grimsley, and picked up a world title in the process. I would like to list the acheivements of Ali, Frazier and Norton in the 90's, but unfortunately, they were unable to participate due to Ali's developing parkinson's, Norton's accident on the Sante Monica freeway rendering him crippled, and Frazier was somewhat disabled as well.[/quote]

The point is Holmes did not beat any of the top men of the eighties and nineties and Foreman only defeated the second-tier Moorer. I don't see how the top men of the nineties not always fighting each other impacts this fact.

In the seventies, Ali fought everyone. Frazier did not fight Norton or Holmes. Foreman did not fight Holmes. Norton did not fight Frazier. Holmes did not fight Foreman or Frazier.

The nineties would look about the same, with Holyfield fighting everyone and the others missing one here or there, except for Bowe, who missed everyone except Holyfield.

[DamonD]

I think the main distinction in quality between the 70s and 90s HW scenes is that politics nixed a few too many fights in the 90s division. Mostly, all the main players in the 70s division fought each other.

But the 90s HW division should be looked back on as being one of the best decades for HW boxing ever, IMO.

[mr. magoo]

The point is Holmes did not beat any of the top men of the eighties and nineties and Foreman only defeated the second-tier Moorer.

Holmes was still the best man of the 80's up until Tyson's arrival. And he did fairly well in the nineties. Foreman Had a record of 31-3-26, and defeated a lot of top rated fighters within a ten year period, and Morrer by the way, was not a second tier fighter.


I don't how the top men of the nineties not always fighting each other impacts this fact.


You're missing the point that I'm trying to establish. The premis for a strong era is based primarily on weather or not the very best met each other and often, and were they in their primes? There were way too many matches that didn't happen in the nineties taking away from the notion that it was a strong era. What's more, you had two 40+ champions ( Foreman and Holmes ) who were representatives of previous periods, that managed to breach the ranks of the top ten, beat some rated contenders, and one of whom even became world champion, and a repeat contender. What does this say about the 90's as it compares to the era/eras that Foreman and Holmes came from?



In the seventies, Ali fought everyone. Frazier did not fight Norton or Holmes. Foreman did not fight Holmes. Norton did not fight Frazier. Holmes did not fight Foreman or Frazier.


You still had more matchups, and better fights between prime fighters. The best rivalrys of the nineties were probably the Holyfield Bowe fights. The rest of the decade's signature sagas came when it's participants were past their primes. Tyson vs Lewis ( both past prime ) Lewis vs Holyfield ( both past prime ) Tyson vs Holyfield ( both past prime )

You also had several fights which never even occured such as Tyson vs Douglas II, Tyson vs Moorer, Tyson vs Bowe, Bowe vs Lewis. and so on and so forth.

[OLD FOGEY]

Holmes was still the best man of the 80's up until Tyson's arrival. And he did fairly well in the nineties. Foreman Had a record of 31-3-26, and defeated a lot of top rated fighters within a ten year period, and Morrer by the way, was not a second tier fighter.



You're missing the point that I'm trying to establish. The premis for a strong era is based primarily on weather or not the very best met each other and often, and were they in their primes? There were way too many matches that didn't happen in the nineties taking away from the notion that it was a strong era. What's more, you had two 40+ champions ( Foreman and Holmes ) who were representatives of previous periods, that managed to breach the ranks of the top ten, beat some rated contenders, and one of whom even became world champion, and a repeat contender. What does this say about the 90's as it compares to the era/eras that Foreman and Holmes came from?



You still had more matchups, and better fights between prime fighters. The best rivalrys of the nineties were probably the Holyfield Bowe fights. The rest of the decade's signature sagas came when it's participants were past their primes. Tyson vs Lewis ( both past prime ) Lewis vs Holyfield ( both past prime ) Tyson vs Holyfield ( both past prime )

You also had several fights which never even occured such as Tyson vs Douglas II, Tyson vs Moorer, Tyson vs Bowe, Bowe vs Lewis. and so on and so forth.

1. I named Holmes along with Tyson and Spinks as the best of the eighties.

2. I understand you point now about matches not taking place, but I don't know if I agree with it. Was the 1900 to 1910 decade weaker because Jeffries and Johnson did not fight in their primes. Were the twenties weaker because Dempsey and Wills or Tunney and Godfrey did not fight. It effects the legacies of the fighters involved, but the talent was there, so I don't know if the decade should be judged weaker.

3. For one reason or another, very few champions have tried to fight into their forties. This may be in some cases because they could no longer fight, but not always. Corbett lost badly to Jeffries in 1903, but was still impressive sparring years later. Louis and Walcott quit after losses to Marciano, but that does not prove they were not up to beating mere contenders or lesser fighters. Patterson is in the same boat with his final loss to Ali.
And a couple of champions did well in their forties. Johnson won several bouts in 1919, including victories over Tom Cowler and Bob Roper, second-tier contenders of the era. If they had ratings, I think Johnson would have been rated in 1919 at 41. Five years later he was still good enough to beat the trial horse Homer Smith, and in 1926, at 48, could still beat Pat Lester.
Willard came back in 1923 at 41 to knock out Floyd Johnson, a top contender some saw as a coming champion, a victory which put him solidly near the top of the division and potentially in line for a title bout.
Jack Kearns was quoted by Time Magazine on Dempsey's plans versus the top contenders:

"Dempsey will defend his title against either Willard, Firpo, or Wills. It is a case of first come, first served."

Willard was matched with Firpo in an elimination bout.

Compared to Holmes, Johnson and Willard did as well.

Foreman's efforts in his forties is in a class by himself in heavyweight boxing history, as is his longevity, beating his first rated fighter (according to the Boxing Register) in 1970 and his last 24 years later in 1994. Holmes beat his first in 1978, I think, and his last iin 1992, a 14 year run. Louis and Ali did better, and Johnson probably would have if they had ratings back then.

On Moorer--What I meant is that he was not a peer of Lewis, Tyson, Bowe, or Holyfield-but I might be judging him too harshly. I was not not all that impressed with his big win over Holyfield. It seemed Holyfield really had an off night and did not fight well. Moorer was not only Ko'd by Foreman, but also by Holyfield in a rematch, and also by Tua.

[mr. magoo]

1. I named Holmes along with Tyson and Spinks as the best of the eighties.
[quote] Was the 1900 to 1910 decade weaker because Jeffries and Johnson did not fight in their primes. It certainly would have strengthened the legacies of both men, and in so doing, helped the period to be more memorable, as opposed to the actual scenario of Jeffries coming out after a six year layoff with not a single tunup.

Were the twenties weaker because Dempsey and Wills or Tunney and Godfrey did not fight.

I certainly think that it hurt dempsey's legacy and perhaps even the era, by him not facing a #1 contender, and because he was black. As for Tunney and Godrey, I don't enough about them to comment on how it would have effected history.


It effects the legacies of the fighters involved, but the talent was there, so I don't know if the decade should be judged weaker.


Having the mere talent without actually making the matches to determine who was the best, is most definately harmful to any era. It would be like the NFL deciding not to hold the superbowl one year, even though you had two great all time record breaking teams in both conferences. What would people say when they looked back on that particular year?

3. For one reason or another, very few champions have tried to fight into their forties. This may be in some cases because they could no longer fight, but not always. Corbett lost badly to Jeffries in 1903, but was still impressive sparring years later.

Corbett's abilty to spar at an advanced age, does not necessarily reflect that he could have put together a comeback lasting 10 years, and winning a world championship. This example is very inconclusive, and isn't very convincing.

Louis and Walcott quit after losses to Marciano, but that does not prove they were not up to beating mere contenders or lesser fighters.

How many times did Joe Walcott fight for a world title and fail, even in his prime? He managed to lose in 4 title attempts before finally getting it the 5th time. Couple that with the fact that he had 18 career losses ( 6 by stoppage ) and a horrible 1st round knockout loss in his last fight, and I doubt that he'd be contender material much past the age of 38. None of these things ever happened to Foreman or Holmes, to the extent that it did Walcott.



Patterson is in the same boat with his final loss to Ali.


Patterson could have gone on fighting journeyman and tomato cans as long as he wanted, as could Walcott and Louis, but beating top contenders and winning a world title, is not a likely outcome for any of these men, none of whom even continued into their 40's, nor even tried to launch comebacks after periods extending longer than 5 years.


And a couple of champions did well in their forties. Johnson won several bouts in 1919, including victories over Tom Cowler and Bob Roper, second-tier contenders of the era. If they had ratings, I think Johnson would have been rated in 1919 at 41. Five years later he was still good enough to beat the trial horse Homer Smith, and in 1926, at 48, could still beat Pat Lester.
Willard came back in 1923 at 41 to knock out Floyd Johnson, a top contender some saw as a coming champion, a victory which put him solidly near the top of the division and potentially in line for a title bout.
Jack Kearns was quoted by Time Magazine on Dempsey's plans versus the top contenders:

"Dempsey will defend his title against either Willard, Firpo, or Wills. It is a case of first come, first served."

Willard was matched with Firpo in an elimination bout.

Compared to Holmes, Johnson and Willard did as well.


I think I addressed enough with your previous examples.



Foreman's efforts in his forties is in a class by himself in heavyweight boxing history, as is his longevity, beating his first rated fighter (according to the Boxing Register) in 1970 and his last 24 years later in 1994. Holmes beat his first in 1978, I think, and his last iin 1992, a 14 year run. Louis and Ali did better, and Johnson probably would have if they had ratings back then.


Some good points in this paragraph.

[Bill1234]

Also a fair point, but keep in mind, that both Foreman and Holmes had an impact in the 1990's. Holmes career stretched from 1974-1985, and he was but maybe only two years younger than Foreman, therefore I'd have to put them together in similar categories. If the only two representatives from the same era, or I should say close eras, can have such a big impact on a more modern era, then I'd say it speaks volumes.


Larry is only 11 months younger than George, and started in 1973.

[Bill1234]

Foreman's efforts in his forties is in a class by himself in heavyweight boxing history, as is his longevity, beating his first rated fighter (according to the Boxing Register) in 1970 and his last 24 years later in 1994. Holmes beat his first in 1978, I think, and his last iin 1992, a 14 year run. Louis and Ali did better, and Johnson probably would have if they had ratings back then.

Wasn't Roy Williams ranked back in 1976? And also how did Larry get his shot at Olivar McCall for the WBC title in 1995 with out beating a ranked fighter?

[mr. magoo]

Wasn't Roy Williams ranked back in 1976? And also how did Larry get his shot at Olivar McCall for the WBC title in 1995 with out beating a ranked fighter?

I don't think Roy Williams was ranked very high, if even at all. Also, Holmes really didn't beat any ranked fighters after Mercer in 1992. Prior to the Mccall fight, he beat Ferguson and Ribalta, who had long fallen out of the rankings. Plus he had a few wins over Journeyman Ken Lakusta and Paul Poirier, but that's about it.

[OLD FOGEY]

[quote=OLD FOGEY]1. I named Holmes along with Tyson and Spinks as the best of the eighties.
It certainly would have strengthened the legacies of both men, and in so doing, helped the period to be more memorable, as opposed to the actual scenario of Jeffries coming out after a six year layoff with not a single tunup.



I certainly think that it hurt dempsey's legacy and perhaps even the era, by him not facing a #1 contender, and because he was black. As for Tunney and Godrey, I don't enough about them to comment on how it would have effected history.



Having the mere talent without actually making the matches to determine who was the best, is most definately harmful to any era. It would be like the NFL deciding not to hold the superbowl one year, even though you had two great all time record breaking teams in both conferences. What would people say when they looked back on that particular year?



Corbett's abilty to spar at an advanced age, does not necessarily reflect that he could have put together a comeback lasting 10 years, and winning a world championship. This example is very inconclusive, and isn't very convincing.



How many times did Joe Walcott fight for a world title and fail, even in his prime? He managed to lose in 4 title attempts before finally getting it the 5th time. Couple that with the fact that he had 18 career losses ( 6 by stoppage ) and a horrible 1st round knockout loss in his last fight, and I doubt that he'd be contender material much past the age of 38. None of these things ever happened to Foreman or Holmes, to the extent that it did Walcott.




Patterson could have gone on fighting journeyman and tomato cans as long as he wanted, as could Walcott and Louis, but beating top contenders and winning a world title, is not a likely outcome for any of these men, none of whom even continued into their 40's, nor even tried to launch comebacks after periods extending longer than 5 years.



I think I addressed enough with your previous examples.




Some good points in this paragraph.

I don't think answering my speculation on Walcott, Corbett, and Patterson continuing their careers has much to do with Willard and Johnson who in fact fought successfully into their forties.

According to the Boxing Register, Foreman defeated only one man, Moorer, in his entire comback who was a rated fighter when he fought him. Holmes only defeated Mercer. Johnson was undefeated through 16 fights from his 40th birthday until he was 48, and defeated a few fringe contenders such as Cowler, Roper, Homer Smith, and Lester.
Willard at 41 knocked out Floyd Johnson, considered a top contender and made himself a top contender. That is actually as many victories over top level men when past 40 as Foreman or Holmes had.

I repeat that I think Johnson and Willard rank with Holmes among the over forty crowd. Foreman is in a class by himself.

[mr. magoo]

[quote]
I don't think answering my speculation on Walcott, Corbett, and Patterson continuing their careers has much to do with Willard and Johnson who in fact fought successfully into their forties.



Fine, but again Fogey, none of those guys had the impact on their eras that Foreman had in the nineties. He beat 31 opponents between 1987 and 1997, and knocke dout 26 of them. His only 3 losses were decisions to top rated fighters, two of them in title bouts, and another top contender whom he was arguably robbed against in the last fight of his career at nearly 50 years old. The fight's he had with Holyfield, Cooney, Morrison and Moorer, were huge super fights, especially the Holyfield bout. The publicity certainly had an impact, especially from a socialogical standpoint. By winning the heavyweight title at age 45 or something, he exploded long standing myths about a person's 40's being a downward spiral, and the result was numerous athletes in all sports conitnuing their careers. Foreman had a most profound effect on the sport as we know it, and hence had an impact on boxing as well as society. He also proved that the era of the super heavyweights ( 90's ), were not so impossible to compete in afterall.


[quote]According to the Boxing Register, Foreman defeated only one man, Moorer, in his entire comback who was a rated fighter when he fought him.

Foreman defeated addilson rodriguez, Alex Stewart and Lou Savarese. All of whom were rated. I saw these fights, and I clearly remember their ratings being showed. Rodriguez was 10 by the WBC. Stewart was also around 9 or 10. I don't know what Savarese was ranked, but he was unbeaten in 36 fights, and had just defeated Buster Mathis Jr. for the USBA belt, what's more he and Foreman were battling it out for the WBU. I doubt that he was unranked.
Holmes only defeated Mercer. Johnson was undefeated through 16 fights from his 40th birthday until he was 48, and defeated a few fringe contenders such as Cowler, Roper, Homer Smith, and Lester.


Of the 16 straight fights that Johnson had between age 40 and 48, at least 9 of them came against winless opponents, and some of the rest weren't much better. Between age 41 and 52, Holmes beat 21 opponents and not a single one of them was under 500, in terms of wins/ losses. Therefore, I strongly disagree with your claim that Johnson was as noteable as Holmes for his accomplishments post 40.



Willard at 41 knocked out Floyd Johnson, considered a top contender and made himself a top contender. That is actually as many victories over top level men when past 40 as Foreman or Holmes had.



A single win prompts you to think that his accomplishments post 40 were as noteable as that of Holmes or Foreman. George had 34 comeback fights, at least 7 or 8 were against decent opponents. Willard had, but 35 bouts in his entire career. A similar argument could be made for Holmes, only to a slightly lesser degree.

[mr. magoo]

repeat post.

[Cojimar 1945]

Holmes, Holyfield, Tyson and Witherspoon were among the best 80s heavyweights though Holmes had faded by the mid 80s.

[OLD FOGEY]

Fine, but again Fogey, none of those guys had the impact on their era's that Foreman had in the nineties. He beat 31 opponents between 1987 and 1997, and knocked out 26 of them. His only 3 losses were decisions to top rated fighters, two of them in title bouts, and another top contender whom he was arguably robbed against in the last fight of his career at nearly 50 years old. The fight's he had with Holyfield, Cooney, Morrison and Moorer, were huge super fights, especially the Holyfield bout. The publicity certainly had an impact, especially from a socialogical standpoint. By winning the heavyweight title at age 45 or something, he exploded long standing myths about a person's 40's being a downward spiral, and the result was numerous athletes in all sports conitnuing their careers. Foreman had a most profound effect on the sport as we know it, and hence had an impact on boxing as well as society. He also proved that the era of the super heavyweights ( 90's ), were not so impossible to compete in afterall.

THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS WHAT I MEAN WHEN I SAY THAT AS A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE 70'S FOREMAN PROVED THAT NOT ONLY WAS HE PHENOMENAL, BUT THAT THE 90'S WERE NOT NECESSARILY AS TOUGH AS THE 70'S. THIS WHAT LOUIS, WALCOTT, JEFFRIES, JOHNSON, WILLARD AND TUNNEY COULDN'T PROVE......




Wrong!!! Foreman defeated addilson rodriguez, Alex Stewart and Lou Savarese. All of whom were rated. I saw these fights, and I clearly remember their ratings being showed. Rodriguez was 10 by the WBC. Stewart was also around 9 or 10. I don't know what Savarese was ranked, but he was unbeaten in 36 fights. I doubt he was any lower than top 15 or 20.


Of the 16 straight fights that Johnson had between age 40 and 48, at least 9 of them came against winless opponents, and some of the rest weren't much better. Between age 41 and 52, Holmes beat 21 opponents and not a single one of them was under 500, in terms of wins/ losses. Therefore, I strongly disagree with your claim that Johnson was as noteable as Holmes for his accomplishments post 40.




A single win prompts you to think that his accomplishments post 40 were as noteable as that of Holmes or Foreman. George had 34 comeback fights, at least 7 or 8 were against decent opponents. Willard had, but 35 bouts in his entire career. A similar argument could be made for Holmes, only to a slightly lesser degree.

On who was rated and who was not--I specifically stated that according to the Boxing Register, Foreman did not defeat any opponent rated when he fought him. That is true. The Boxing Register is the International Boxing Hall of Fame Official Record Book. It mentions if a fighters opponents were Hall of Famers, were ever champions, or were rated at the time the two men fought. How do they decide if someone was rated? Do they use the Ring Magazine ratings? considering them more objective? Do they use a consensus, a fighter must be rated by more than half of the rating bodies? I don't know.
I think the information I am putting is correct or I would not put it forward. Obviously, erroneous information would merely undercut my arguements, a point you are making right now. I do make mistakes, though.

The 16 fights Johnson had between 40 and 48 included Cowler, a top man who certainly would have been rated earlier if there had been ratings, but probably would not have been in 1919, Roper, probably not rated in 1919, but also probably would have been later, Jack Thompson, probably the best of all of these opponents, a man who had beaten Langford and Ko'd a young Godfrey, Homer Smith, a trial horse of the era who fought almost everyone, and Pat Lester who had a good record and had beaten Roper and Floyd Johnson. There was also Joe Boykin, who supposedly had not had a bout. Boykin went on to hand Angel Rodriguez his only defeat and draw with European champion Erminio Spalla. Boxrec is not complete, so it is difficult to say how complete any given obscure fighter's record is, but even granting your point, Johnson beat some fairly tough opponents, even if one might conclude that no one of them matches Ray Mercer or Michael Moorer.

It is true Willard only had a couple of fights at 41, but Floyd Johnson was considered a top man, that victory vaulted Willard into consideration for a title fight, and he went into an elimination with Firpo. Of all the opponents Foreman and Holmes defeated, only Moorer and Mercer rank above the Floyd Johnson of the Willard fight. A don't think it important that Willard didn't have a slew of fights against second-raters.

Foreman's achievements were phenomenal but I think personal and do not really reflect on the a comparision of the seventies to the nineties. The big problem is that the only close to top man he beat was Moorer. The others were fringe top ten men and I might add, he and Holmes made an impact because they were put in the ring with the champion, not once by twice. The shot at Moorer really wasn't earned. His last fight had been a loss to Morrison 17 months earlier. Johnson obviously got no such break and neither did Willard.

[mr. magoo]

OLD FOGEY]On who was rated and who was not--I specifically stated that according to the Boxing Register, Foreman did not defeat any opponent rated when he fought him. That is true. The Boxing Register is the International Boxing Hall of Fame Official Record Book. It mentions if a fighters opponents were Hall of Famers, were ever champions, or were rated at the time the two men fought. How do they decide if someone was rated? Do they use the Ring Magazine ratings? considering them more objective? Do they use a consensus, a fighter must be rated by more than half of the rating bodies? I don't know.
I think the information I am putting is correct or I would not put it forward. Obviously, erroneous information would merely undercut my arguements, a point you are making right now. I do make mistakes, though.
[/quote]
Rodriguez, Savarese, stewart and Certainly Moorer, were rated by the governing bodies when they fought Foreman. This is not an unreasonbale claim.


The 16 fights Johnson had between 40 and 48 included Cowler, a top man who certainly would have been rated earlier if there had been ratings, but probably would not have been in 1919, Roper, probably not rated in 1919, but also probably would have been later, Jack Thompson, probably the best of all of these opponents, a man who had beaten Langford and Ko'd a young Godfrey, Homer Smith, a trial horse of the era who fought almost everyone, and Pat Lester who had a good record and had beaten Roper and Floyd Johnson. There was also Joe Boykin, who supposedly had not had a bout. Boykin went on to hand Angel Rodriguez his only defeat and draw with European champion Erminio Spalla. Boxrec is not complete, so it is difficult to say how complete any given obscure fighter's record is, but even granting your point,
Johnson beat some fairly tough opponents, even if one might conclude that no one of them matches Ray Mercer or Michael Moorer.



With all due respect, there are way too many maybe's and probably's to consider this as a valid response. ( not being flipant, only honest )


It is true Willard only had a couple of fights at 41, but Floyd Johnson was considered a top man, that victory vaulted Willard into consideration for a title fight, and he went into an elimination with Firpo. Of all the opponents Foreman and Holmes defeated, only Moorer and Mercer rank above the Floyd Johnson of the Willard fight. A don't think it important that Willard didn't have a slew of fights against second-raters.


The fact that Foreman's win over Moorer, and Holmes win over Mercer, rank above Willard's win over Johnson, is a big deal in my opinion. Foreman won the lineal heavyweight championship of the world over an undefeated Moorer, who just defeated an all time great in Evander Holyfield. Holmes beat Ray Mercer, who was an undefeated contender and projected future world champ. I don't know anything about Floyd Johnson, but it doesn't sound like you're making him out to be anything of the sort. What's more, I disagree with your claim that it was unimportant that willard didn't have a slew of wins against second raters. By fighting such profiles, Holmes and Foreman earned their rights to face the better opponents, rather than just sitting back and waiting for an offer. In the mean time, they were staying active, and proving that they at least still had some skills and abilties to get in there and fight. Not to start an entirely different subject, but frankly, I think Foreman's and Holme's title shot(s) were more justified than Jeffries' against Johnson.

Foreman's achievements were phenomenal but I think personal and do not really reflect on the a comparision of the seventies to the nineties. The big problem is that the only close to top man he beat was Moorer.

Moorer was more than just a " close to top man " He was undefeated in 35 fights, and holding the lineal heavyweight title. And Foreman, won it more than convincingly. Also, I personally feel that Foreman's prescence was just one part of telling the story as to how the 70's were more impressive than the 90's.

A. You had two 40+ foremer champions who breached the top ten, despite extended layoffs, and one of whom managed to win a world title.

B. You had two fighters who began their careers as a lightheavyweight and cruiserweight. Both of became world champions, and one whom was deamed as the best fighter of the decade.

C. You had multiple match-ups that were never made, particularly Lewis vs Bowe which was a huge deficit in the mix of things, given that they were viewed as the best heavyweights in the divison in 1992. It would have been a lot like Ali and Frazier never meeting, or Tyson never fighting Spinks for that matter. Plus you had the would be fight of Holyfield-Tyson in 1990, only these guys didn't meet until 1996, by which time, both men had long lost their ora's of incvincibilty and were well past their primes. The list goes on and on, and in fact, I've given it to you before.

D. You had one of the divisions cheif participants, ( Mike Tyson ) who was abscent for a good chunk of the decade. This example does not compare to Ali's abscence during the turn of the decade between 1967 and 1970, as he was present for the entire decade of the 70's.

E. You had two good fighters, but not great, who managed to pull off monumental upsets over what many considered to be invincible champions. Oliver Mccall Ko'd Lennox Lewis in 1994, and Buster Douglas Ko'd Mike Tyson in 1990. The only comparable incident that happened in the 70's, was Ali losing to Spinks, and that was a result of age, which was not the case in the previously listed examples.



The others were fringe top ten men and I might add, he and Holmes made an impact because they were put in the ring with the champion, not once by twice. The shot at Moorer really wasn't earned. His last fight had been a loss to Morrison 17 months earlier. Johnson obviously got no such break and neither did Willard.
[/quote]

Most of this was addressed in one of the above paragraphs. Willard was not an active fighting former champion as you clearly stated yourself. While Holmes and Foreman fought men who could arguably categorized as club fighters/jourmeyman/trial hoarses and tomato cans, Johnson clearly fought worse. Name one fighter who Holmes or Foreman fought who came in with credentials of 0-0-0. I guarantee that you'll find none, whereas Johnson fought multiple.

[ironchamp]

Magoo,

I think your definition of an era is by the quality of fights as opposed to the quality of the fighters.

The 90s had a stellar cast more so than the 70s in terms of supporting characters but thier story wasnt as good.

70s did have the same talent pool but they made a far better story.

[mr. magoo]

Magoo,

I think your definition of an era is by the quality of fights as opposed to the quality of the fighters.

The 90s had a stellar cast more so than the 70s in terms of supporting characters but thier story wasnt as good.

70s did have the same talent pool but they made a far better story.

It sounds as though you're agreeing with me except, I disagree with your claim that the 90's had a more stellar cast than the 70's in terms of supporting characters. If Morrison, Ruddock, Donald, Witherspoon, Mccall, Ruiz, Stewart, Savarese, Golata, Mercer, Rahman and Seldon were the supporting cast of the 90's, then I can't concur with you.

The co-stars of the 70's were, Lyle, Shavers, Quarry, Patterson, Bonavena, M. Foster, Ellis, and young, with Norton being on the border between co-star and star, and Holmes being a future star. The only exception that I'll make was Mccall, who would have been competitive in both eras.

[Bill1234]

It sounds as though you're agreeing with me except, I disagree with your claim that the 90's had a more stellar cast than the 70's in terms of supporting characters. If Morrison, Ruddock, Dokes, Witherspoon, Mccall, Coetzer, Stewart, Savarese, Golata, Mercer and Seldon were the supporting cast of the 90's, then I can't concur with you. The co-stars of the 70's were, Lyle, Shavers, Quarry, Patterson, Bonavena, M. Foster, Ellis, and young, with Norton being on the border between co-star and star, and Holmes being a future star. The only exception that I'll make was Mccall, who would have been competitive in both eras.

I agree. Norton is iffy IMO as of being a star, and a co-star. He wasn't very consistant, and yet, he was still a very good fighter. IMO he was the star of the co-stars. And the semi-star of the full time stars.

[mr. magoo]

I agree. Norton is iffy IMO as of being a star, and a co-star. He wasn't very consistant, and yet, he was still a very good fighter. IMO he was the star of the co-stars. And the semi-star of the full time stars.

A good assesment.

Norton never became a lineal world champion like Ali, Frazier, or Foreman, but he still was a title holder late in his career. He also defeated Ali once, and beat Young, Quarry, Bobbick, Zannon, Cobb, and gave Holmes the best fight of his career.

Norton is a difficult fighter to give an accurate rating to.

[Russell]

Norton beat Ali twice, really.

Ali at a press conference flat out admitted he felt he lost the third fight, similar to Leonard admitting he lost Hearns II.

[OLD FOGEY]

OLD FOGEY]On who was rated and who was not--I specifically stated that according to the Boxing Register, Foreman did not defeat any opponent rated when he fought him. That is true. The Boxing Register is the International Boxing Hall of Fame Official Record Book. It mentions if a fighters opponents were Hall of Famers, were ever champions, or were rated at the time the two men fought. How do they decide if someone was rated? Do they use the Ring Magazine ratings? considering them more objective? Do they use a consensus, a fighter must be rated by more than half of the rating bodies? I don't know.
I think the information I am putting is correct or I would not put it forward. Obviously, erroneous information would merely undercut my arguements, a point you are making right now. I do make mistakes, though.

Rodriguez, Savarese, stewart and Certainly Moorer, were rated by the governing bodies when they fought Foreman. This is not an unreasonbale claim.


With all due respect, there are way too many maybe's and probably's to consider this as a valid response. ( not being flipant, only honest )



The fact that Foreman's win over Moorer, and Holmes win over Mercer, rank above Willard's win over Johnson, is a big deal in my opinion. Foreman won the lineal heavyweight championship of the world over an undefeated Moorer, who just defeated an all time great in Evander Holyfield. Holmes beat Ray Mercer, who was an undefeated contender and projected future world champ. I don't know anything about Floyd Johnson, but it doesn't sound like you're making him out to be anything of the sort. What's more, I disagree with your claim that it was unimportant that willard didn't have a slew of wins against second raters. By fighting such profiles, Holmes and Foreman earned their rights to face the better opponents, rather than just sitting back and waiting for an offer. In the mean time, they were staying active, and proving that they at least still had some skills and abilties to get in there and fight. Not to start an entirely different subject, but frankly, I think Foreman's and Holme's title shot(s) were more justified than Jeffries' against Johnson.



Moorer was more than just a " close to top man " He was undefeated in 35 fights, and holding the lineal heavyweight title. And Foreman, won it more than convincingly. Also, I personally feel that Foreman's prescence was just one part of telling the story as to how the 70's were more impressive than the 90's.

A. You had two 40+ foremer champions who breached the top ten, despite extended layoffs, and one of whom managed to win a world title.

B. You had two fighters who began their careers as a lightheavyweight and cruiserweight. Both of became world champions, and one whom was deamed as the best fighter of the decade.

C. You had multiple match-ups that were never made, particularly Lewis vs Bowe which was a huge deficit in the mix of things, given that they were viewed as the best heavyweights in the divison in 1992. It would have been a lot like Ali and Frazier never meeting, or Tyson never fighting Spinks for that matter. Plus you had the would be fight of Holyfield-Tyson in 1990, only these guys didn't meet until 1996, by which time, both men had long lost their ora's of incvincibilty and were well past their primes. The list goes on and on, and in fact, I've given it to you before.

D. You had one of the divisions cheif participants, ( Mike Tyson ) who was abscent for a good chunk of the decade. This example does not compare to Ali's abscence during the turn of the decade between 1967 and 1970, as he was present for the entire decade of the 70's.

E. You had two good fighters, but not great, who managed to pull off monumental upsets over what many considered to be invincible champions. Oliver Mccall Ko'd Lennox Lewis in 1994, and Buster Douglas Ko'd Mike Tyson in 1990. The only comparable incident that happened in the 70's, was Ali losing to Spinks, and that was a result of age, which was not the case in the previously listed examples.


His last fight had been a loss to Morrison 17 months earlier. Johnson obviously got no such break and neither did Willard.
[/quote]

Most of this was addressed in one of the above paragraphs. Willard was not an active fighting former champion as you clearly stated yourself. While Holmes and Foreman fought men who could arguably categorized as club fighters/jourmeyman/trial hoarses and tomato cans, Johnson clearly fought worse. Name one fighter who Holmes or Foreman fought who came in with credentials of 0-0-0. I guarantee that you'll find none, whereas Johnson fought multiple.[/quote]

1. I don't agree that Johnson fought worse opposition. Cowler, Roper, Homer Smith, and Pat Lester were fringe contenders or trial horses. Jack Thompson had impressive wins over men like Langford and George Godfrey, Joe Boykin had an impressive win over Angel Rodriguez and a draw with Erminio Spalla. The record keeping of that era was so spotty that saying someone had no fights is not convincing to me. How many men who had never fought would jump into the ring with Johnson?

2. Willard did defeat a man considered a potential future champion.

3. There were no ratings, but I think Johnson and Willard would also have breached the top ten.

4. In your comparision of the seventies and the nineties, I find it odd that you focus on Holyfield and Moorer starting as lightheavies. Spinks won his gold medal in 1976 as a lightheavy at 23 years of age.

5. No matter how it is spliced and spun, Leon Spinks was a champion back in the seventies and all champions of the nineties were better.

6. I don't see why the upsets by McCall and Douglas prove the division weak. Why don't they show depth of talent?

7. Foreman and Holmes did not defeat Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield, or Tyson, the four best fighters of the era. The fact that many desirable matchups were not made worked to the advantage of the old champions as they could hang around fighting fringe fighters or worse and then use their box-office pull to leverage a title fight without ever fighting the top man, except for Holyfield, who beat them both.

8. Foreman and Holmes earned their shots at Holyfield. Their second title fights, against Moorer and McCall, were not earned.

[mr. magoo]

1. I don't agree that Johnson fought worse opposition. Cowler, Roper, Homer Smith, and Pat Lester were fringe contenders or trial horses. Jack Thompson had impressive wins over men like Langford and George Godfrey, Joe Boykin had an impressive win over Angel Rodriguez and a draw with Erminio Spalla. The record keeping of that era was so spotty that saying someone had no fights is not convincing to me. How many men who had never fought would jump into the ring with Johnson?


Johnson's wins over the men you listed were still not comparable to Foreman's win's over Moorer, Stewart, Rodriguez, and some of the others. What's more, it's pure speculation that the men he fought with records of 0-0-0, had more fights.

2. Willard did defeat a man considered a potential future champion.

A single guy, Wheras Holmes and Foreman arguably had whole second craeers.


3. There were no ratings, but I think Johnson and Willard would also have breached the top ten.


THis is once again speculation, what Holmes and Foreman did was for real.


4. In your comparision of the seventies and the nineties, I find it odd that you focus on Holyfield and Moorer starting as lightheavies. Spinks won his gold medal in 1976 as a lightheavy at 23 years of age.



Ah, but here's the big difference. Leon Spinks was not viewed by anyone as being one of the best heavyweights of the period, wheras Holyfield was considered as the best of the 90's ,and Moorer probably one of the top 5 or 6. Leon also turned pro as a heavyweight wheras Holyfield and Moorer fought a good portion of their early careers in lighter divisions, and were highly marketed to be future heavyweight champs. Also, Leon's upset over ALi came at the end of the decade, when most of the era's key players were gone, and Ali past his prime.



5. No matter how it is spliced and spun, Leon Spinks was a champion back in the seventies and all champions of the nineties were better.


This has been explained on a multitude of occassions, and I fear probably will have to be again. Please read the above response.

6. I don't see why the upsets by McCall and Douglas prove the division weak. Why don't they show depth of talent?

The best heavyweights of the 70's were Ali Foreman and Frazier. None of whom were upset by fighters, who people considered to be journeyman or fringe contenders. The only possible exception was Leon Spink's upset over Ali, but again this happened when Ali's career was in it's twilight and the decade ending. In 1990, Mike Tyson was in his prime and deemed invincible. He lost to a good fighter, but one whom many considered second rate, and it was a loss that went unavenged. In 1994, Lewis was similarly favored agains MCcall, and lost in similar proportion. Sure he avenged the loss, but did you see that fight that night? I mean Mccall broke down and started crying, and basically quit. The commision, demanded that he not receive his purse for the fight on the basis of unwillingness to compete. Nothing like this happened in the 70's, nor did you have all time record breaking upsets such as you did here.


7. Foreman and Holmes did not defeat Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield, or Tyson, the four best fighters of the era. The fact that many desirable matchups were not made worked to the advantage of the old champions as they could hang around fighting fringe fighters or worse and then use their box-office pull to leverage a title fight without ever fighting the top man, except for Holyfield, who beat them both.


Mike Tyson should not be considered as one of the period's best fighters. He lost to Douglas in 1990, and left the sport for 4 years shortly thereafter. Upon his return, he put together a string of wins against maybe 4 fighters, and then lost twice to Holyfield. Tyson's only value in the 1990's was purely his name, and not what he did.

Riddick Bowe- Failed to fight Lennox Lewis and a number of other top rated fighters in the 90's, save Holyfield. What's more, his two horrible performances against Golata followed by a rather early retirment, dimishes his legacy in my opinion.

Lennox Lewis was a great fighter, but he lost to Mccall in the hay day of the 90's, and picked up his best wins against an aging Holyfiled and shot Tyson.

Holyfield was arguably the best of the 90's, and keep in mind, he lost ot Moorer, whom Foreman then beat.


8. Foreman and Holmes earned their shots at Holyfield. Their second title fights, against Moorer and McCall, were not earned.


I'll concede that Holmes probably got a free payday, although he was fighting actively still. Foreman on the other hand, requires a bit more explaining. Between his first shot at Holy in 1991, and his second shot at Moorer in 1994, Foreman beat recently ranked contender Pierre Coetzer, Fringe ranked Alex Stewart, unbeaten prospect Jimmy Ellis and lost a decision to Top rater Tommy Morrison. You can make all the criticisms you want about who Foreman fought or didn't fight, but for me personally, I think that facing 4 consecutive ranked fighters, and beating three of them, with losing to only one by decision, is better than what a lot of challengers did in the history of the sport. Christ, Louis gave guys rematches just for going the distance. Did Foreman not go the distance with Holyfield? You see, it works both ways.

[JohnThomas1]

The fact that Larry Holmes and George Foreman in their geezer versions competed successfully in the 90s is definitely an indicator of the relative abilities of the two decades' best fighters.

We actually saw: Holmes/Holyfield, Holmes/Mercer, Holmes/McCall, and grandpa Larry never got blown away. He held his own. We saw: Foreman/Holyfield, Foreman/Moorer, with doughy George fighting twelve hard rounds against Holy and destroying Moorer with one punch. Foreman was 45! This speaks of the quality experience and technical resourcefulness of these legends, who learned firsthand from facing top competition to successfully exploit their diminishing yet first-class skills.

A man who has told it exactly as it is

:good

[JohnThomas1]

The problem in ranking the 80's heavyweights is their consistent inconsistency.
You have Holmes and Tyson at the top. I'd have Witherspoon, Thomas and maybe Spinks in the top5 but after that it gets blurry. Weaver could be included as well.

*Ahem*

[ChrisPontius]

I must have been really drunk when i typed that... here is what i really meant:



The problem in ranking the 80's heavyweights is their consistent inconsistency.
You have Holmes and Tyson at the top. I'd have Witherspoon, Thomas and maybe Spinks in the top5 but after that it gets blurry. Weaver could be included as well.

Of course, all of these contenders fade in comparison to the one contender who stood above all, Super Greg Page. He made Holmes drop his title and is rumored to have a veeeeeerry loyal fanbase in Australia even to this day.

[My dinner with Conteh]

*Ahem*


:D

[JohnThomas1]

I must have been really drunk when i typed that... here is what i really meant:

:happy

[TIGEREDGE]

No, I think it was a case where Foreman was an anomaly in being so good for his age.

There was a thread earlier about weak linear champs in strong eras, and Moorer and Foreman were two of the guys I thought who fit. Moorer was a pretty skilled southpaw but often a lazy fighter, and didn't have the sturdiest of chins. He also ate his way up to heavyweight.

Foreman did amazing things for his age, but he was also very careful in picking his opposition.

SPOT ON STATEMENT.

He would never have become champion if bowe, holyfield or lewis held the belts. he was still a good fighter at 45

[AnthonyJ74]

Johnson's wins over the men you listed were still not comparable to Foreman's win's over Moorer, Stewart, Rodriguez, and some of the others. What's more, it's pure speculation that the men he fought with records of 0-0-0, had more fights.



A single guy, Wheras Holmes and Foreman arguably had whole second craeers.



THis is once again speculation, what Holmes and Foreman did was for real.



Ah, but here's the big difference. Leon Spinks was not viewed by anyone as being one of the best heavyweights of the period, wheras Holyfield was considered as the best of the 90's ,and Moorer probably one of the top 5 or 6. Leon also turned pro as a heavyweight wheras Holyfield and Moorer fought a good portion of their early careers in lighter divisions, and were highly marketed to be future heavyweight champs. Also, Leon's upset over ALi came at the end of the decade, when most of the era's key players were gone, and Ali past his prime.




This has been explained on a multitude of occassions, and I fear probably will have to be again. Please read the above response.

6. I don't see why the upsets by McCall and Douglas prove the division weak. Why don't they show depth of talent?

The best heavyweights of the 70's were Ali Foreman and Frazier. None of whom were upset by fighters, who people considered to be journeyman or fringe contenders. The only possible exception was Leon Spink's upset over Ali, but again this happened when Ali's career was in it's twilight and the decade ending. In 1990, Mike Tyson was in his prime and deemed invincible. He lost to a good fighter, but one whom many considered second rate, and it was a loss that went unavenged. In 1994, Lewis was similarly favored agains MCcall, and lost in similar proportion. Sure he avenged the loss, but did you see that fight that night? I mean Mccall broke down and started crying, and basically quit. The commision, demanded that he not receive his purse for the fight on the basis of unwillingness to compete. Nothing like this happened in the 70's, nor did you have all time record breaking upsets such as you did here.



Mike Tyson should not be considered as one of the period's best fighters. He lost to Douglas in 1990, and left the sport for 4 years shortly thereafter. Upon his return, he put together a string of wins against maybe 4 fighters, and then lost twice to Holyfield. Tyson's only value in the 1990's was purely his name, and not what he did.

Riddick Bowe- Failed to fight Lennox Lewis and a number of other top rated fighters in the 90's, save Holyfield. What's more, his two horrible performances against Golata followed by a rather early retirment, dimishes his legacy in my opinion.

Lennox Lewis was a great fighter, but he lost to Mccall in the hay day of the 90's, and picked up his best wins against an aging Holyfiled and shot Tyson.

Holyfield was arguably the best of the 90's, and keep in mind, he lost ot Moorer, whom Foreman then beat.



I'll concede that Holmes probably got a free payday, although he was fighting actively still. Foreman on the other hand, requires a bit more explaining. Between his first shot at Holy in 1991, and his second shot at Moorer in 1994, Foreman beat recently ranked contender Pierre Coetzer, Fringe ranked Alex Stewart, unbeaten prospect Jimmy Ellis and lost a decision to Top rater Tommy Morrison. You can make all the criticisms you want about who Foreman fought or didn't fight, but for me personally, I think that facing 4 consecutive ranked fighters, and beating three of them, with losing to only one by decision, is better than what a lot of challengers did in the history of the sport. Christ, Louis gave guys rematches just for going the distance. Did Foreman not go the distance with Holyfield? You see, it works both ways.

Larry Holmes legitimately earned his first title shot against Evander Holyfield by besting Ray Mercer. For me, George Foreman did not earn his shot against Holyfield; he fought a collection of stiffs and was awarded a title shot based on his popularity. The second title shot George received was a travesty. Losing to Tommy Morrison and then not fighting for over a year shouldn't qualify you for a title shot. Holmes was basically handed his shot against McCall as well.

[Bill1234]

Larry Holmes legitimately earned his first title shot against Evander Holyfield by besting Ray Mercer. For me, George Foreman did not earn his shot against Holyfield; he fought a collection of stiffs and was awarded a title shot based on his popularity. The second title shot George received was a travesty. Losing to Tommy Morrison and then not fighting for over a year shouldn't qualify you for a title shot. Holmes was basically handed his shot against McCall as well.

But at least Holmes gave the very game McCall a great fight. Was it the most exciting fight? No. Was it very close? Yes. McCall actually only won by 1 round on 2 of the 3 score cards. So Larry very near became the linear heavyweight champion of the world again, and with out a come from behind punch.

[AnthonyJ74]

But at least Holmes gave the very game McCall a great fight. Was it the most exciting fight? No. Was it very close? Yes. McCall actually only won by 1 round on 2 of the 3 score cards. So Larry very near became the linear heavyweight champion of the world again, and with out a come from behind punch.

True. Larry looked alot better against McCall than George did against Moorer.

[Sonny's jab]

But at least Holmes gave the very game McCall a great fight. Was it the most exciting fight? No. Was it very close? Yes. McCall actually only won by 1 round on 2 of the 3 score cards. So Larry very near became the linear heavyweight champion of the world again, and with out a come from behind punch.

Holmes-McCall wasn't for the linear championship.
It was for some alphabet crap.

[Sonny's jab]

Foreman's success in the 1990s doesn't really say much about the quality of 70s heavyweights.

In the early 90s, Foreman's best day's result was the KO of Moorer, who was champion by any reckoning by narrowly beating an Evander Holyfield having his worst day.
And when Foreman faced Holyfield he resembled a punching bag for the majority of 12 rounds and lost a one-sided fight.

Foreman's best opponents in the early 90s were Moorer, Morrison, Stewart and Holyfield. He lost 2 of those, scraped past Stewart (many say he lost), and didn't exactly have it all his own way with Moorer.

I think Foreman was a remarkable fighter at any age. He's a beast of a man, he had all those guys wary of his power and strength.
But he looked very beatable in his 40s against fighters of the 90s, and not all of those were elite fighters.

Foreman proved that a 40+ man could compete with the best, he was a threat, and his win over Michael Moorer made him the bona fide heavyweight champion of the world at age 45. That's remarkable. But it says more about his professionalism and dedication and belief in his natural talents than about any difference between the 70s and 90s.

Keeping it in perspective, the sum of Foreman's achievements in significant high-level competion in his second career probably falls somewhere around or behind where the likes of Buster Douglas, Michael Moorer, Tommy Morrison and Oliver McCall are placed in the same era, and those guys are often considered "one hit wonders" or strictly second-tier.

[JohnThomas1]

Foreman's success in the 1990s doesn't really say much about the quality of 70s heavyweights.

In the early 90s, Foreman's best day's result was the KO of Moorer, who was champion by any reckoning by narrowly beating an Evander Holyfield having his worst day.
And when Foreman faced Holyfield he resembled a punching bag for the majority of 12 rounds and lost a one-sided fight.

Personally i was amazed a guy of that age (Holmes too) could get thru a good 12 rounds vs the best of the day in Holyfield. Evander wasn't one to let up and was a handful for anyone ever to go 12 with.

[mr. magoo]

Personally i was amazed a guy of that age (Holmes too) could get thru a good 12 rounds vs the best of the day in Holyfield. Evander wasn't one to let up and was a handful for anyone ever to go 12 with.

I disagree with Mr. Jab, That the prescence and success of not one, but two members of previous eras in the 90's doesn't say something about the difference between the 90's and thier perspective periods. If these men were able to accomplish what they did at such an advanced age, and after extended laoffs, then who could help but wonder what they might have done in their primes, and weather their piers may have done similar. This may be over simplifying things a bit, but I don't feel it's to far from the truth either.

What's more, Sonny is grossly misrepresenting Foreman's win over Moorer as being an average feat. Like it or not, Moorer was the lineal champion, and not just a mere alphabet holder. He defeated a slightly declining Holyfield, but one who was coming off of the biggest win of his career against Bowe nonetheless. Moorer was also undefeated in 35 pro fights, and had held world titles at both lightheavyweight and heavyweight. Foreman's win over Moorer was a clear cut success. There are no excusses. There was no controversy, or gift decisions. Foreman kncked out Moorer. Plain and simple. I'm tired of people trying to diminish this impressive piece of boxing history by saying stupid things like " Foreman landed a lucky shot" or " Moorer just got careless " or " Moorer was a lightheavyweight who became a fluke chamion ", and of course my favorite " I'll bet it was fixed ". Ridiculous.

[KTFO]

Foreman did amazing things for his age, but he was also very careful in picking his opposition.


Pffffft,first of all,who isn't?

Secondly,facing Holyfield,Morrison,Moorer in the 90's isn't peanuts.

[Bill1234]

Pffffft,first of all,who isn't?

Secondly,facing Holyfield,Morrison,Moorer in the 90's isn't peanuts.

Holyfield and Moorer were the champions, he had no choice.

[Bill1234]

What's more, Sonny is grossly misrepresenting Foreman's win over Moorer as being an average feat. Like it or not, Moorer was the lineal champion, and not just a mere alphabet holder. He defeated a slightly declining Holyfield, but one who was coming off of the biggest win of his career against Bowe nonetheless. Moorer was also undefeated in 35 pro fights, and had held world titles at both lightheavyweight and heavyweight. Foreman's win over Moorer was a clear cut success. There are no excusses. There was no controversy, or gift decisions. Foreman kncked out Moorer. Plain and simple. I'm tired of people trying to diminish this impressive piece of boxing history by saying stupid things like " Foreman landed a lucky shot" or " Moorer just got careless " or " Moorer was a lightheavyweight who became a fluke chamion ", and of course my favorite " I'll bet it was fixed ". Ridiculous.


I agree and all, but others go around making it seem like Foreman was destroying Moorer. Fact is, he did sort of get a lucky shot. He set it up though. He saw Moorer was getting careless, and he made him pay. I personally think it is an amazing feet, but its not like he was beating the piss out of Moorer. And IMO if they had a rematch, Moorer would have beaten him.

[KTFO]

And IMO if they had a rematch, Moorer would have beaten him.


Foreman beating Ali in a rematch.:think

[Cojimar 1945]

Foreman did beat Moorer but as others have mentioned none of the other guys he beat were rated very highly. Additionally, other heavyweights were far more deserving of a shot against Moorer than Foreman was.

A young Foreman lost to Jimmy Young who not long after lost to Ossie Ocasio. Does this mean Ossie Ocasio was a better heavyweight than Foreman?

[KTFO]

A young Foreman lost to Jimmy Young who not long after lost to Ossie Ocasio. Does this mean Ossie Ocasio was a better heavyweight than Foreman?


No,just means that Young was mentally shot because of his loss to Norton.

[mr. magoo]

IMO if they had a rematch, Moorer would have beaten him.


Not necessarily. Moorer gave Holyfield a rematch, not long after, and this time lost in eight rounds, suggesting that perhaps Moorer was declining a bit himself. What's more, I belive Foreman had Moorer's number after that match, and knew how to catch him.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=Cojimar 1945]Foreman did beat Moorer but as others have mentioned none of the other guys he beat were rated very highly. Additionally, other heavyweights were far more deserving of a shot against Moorer than Foreman was.


Did every challenger in the history of the sport deserve title shots? I think not not. In the period between the Holyfield fight in 1991, and the Moorer fight of 1994, Foreman defeated fringe contender Alex Stewart, in one of the bloodiest and most grueling fights of the ninties. He also KO'd undefeated prospect Jimmy Ellis, and Pierre Cotezer, who less than a year earlier was ranked #1. Lastly, he lost a decision to top rater Morrison. Point I'm making here, is that the guy fought 4 consecutive respectable opponents beating 3 of them, and losing to the 4th via the distance. Personally, there weren't too many fighters in 1994, who were more deserving than Foreman. In fact, I can't think of any. Bowe had just lost to Holyfield. Holyfield had just lost to Moorer and was in a temporary retirment mode. Lewis had recently lost to Mccall. Tyson was still in Jail.

[AnthonyJ74]

[quote]


Did every challenger in the history of the sport deserve title shots? I think not not. In the period between the Holyfield fight in 1991, and the Moorer fight of 1994, Foreman defeated fringe contender Alex Stewart, in one of the bloodiest and most grueling fights of the ninties. He also KO'd undefeated prospect Jimmy Ellis, and Pierre Cotezer, who less than a year earlier was ranked #1. Lastly, he lost a decision to top rater Morrison. Point I'm making here, is that the guy fought 4 consecutive respectable opponents beating 3 of them, and losing to the 4th via the distance. Personally, there weren't too many fighters in 1994, who were more deserving than Foreman. In fact, I can't think of any. Bowe had just lost to Holyfield. Holyfield had just lost to Moorer and was in a temporary retirment mode. Lewis had recently lost to Mccall. Tyson was still in Jail.

But Foreman got blessed twice. He got a shot against Holyfield, and then he gets another shot two years later against Moorer? Riddick Bowe had a few good wins under his belt by the time Foreman fought Moorer: Buster Mathis, Larry Donald, or Herbie Hide? I can't remember exactly which guys, but I know Bowe was active and winning. So, Foreman losing to Morrison and then not fighting for over a year was worth more than Bowe being the heavyweight champion as of November 1993 and then winning a few fights after he lost it to Holyfield? As for Lewis, Teddy Atlas explained in his new book that the Moorer camp considered Lewis to be too dangerous to fight at the time.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=mr. magoo]

[QUOTE] Riddick Bowe had a few good wins under his belt by the time Foreman fought Moorer: Buster Mathis, Larry Donald, or Herbie Hide?

Riddick Bowe lost his title in November of 1993. The following year in November of 1994, Foreman fought and upset Michael Moorer. During the course of the 12 month period between Nov. of 93' and Nov of 94, Bowe had but one fight, which was a no contest against Buster Mathis. Therefore, he really had no wins to speak of within that time frame.


As for Lewis, Teddy Atlas explained in his new book that the Moorer camp considered Lewis to be too dangerous to fight at the time

This may well be the case, but what does that have to do with the fact that Lewis was K0'd by Mccall in September of 1994?

[AnthonyJ74]

True, he was KO'd in September of 1994. But Moorer and his camp could have chosen to unify against Lewis earlier in the year instead of fighting Foreman. What date was the Foreman/Moorer fight signed? I'm sure a Lewis/Moorer fight would have been a bigger seller than was a Lewis/McCall fight.

[mr. magoo]

True, he was KO'd in September of 1994. But Moorer and his camp could have chosen to unify against Lewis earlier in the year instead of fighting Foreman. What date was the Foreman/Moorer fight signed? I'm sure a Lewis/Moorer fight would have been a bigger seller than was a Lewis/McCall fight.

I don't know , but Moorer had just taken the title from Holy, In April 1994, and Lewis defended his title against Phil Jackson in may of that same year. Therefore the time frames were a bit close to be signing for a unification match.

By the way, can you really hold it against Moorer for fighting Foreman, when Bowe defended his title against Jesse Ferguson, and a washed up Dokes, while Lewis' first two title defenses were against Phil Jackson and Oliver Mccall?

[Cojimar 1945]

Lewis may have been coming off a loss but was still far more deserving of a shot than Foreman.

[mr. magoo]

Lewis may have been coming off a loss but was still far more deserving of a shot than Foreman.


First of all, Lewis lost to MCcall in September of 94'. Foreman and Moorer were scheduled to meet 2 months later in November. There was no possible way for Lewis to meet Moorer, as the fight had already been signed, and Lennox had just gotten his ass kicked. The time frames didn't work. Secondly, I disagree that he was more deserving than Foreman. In 81 career fights, George never got his ass knocked out by a fighter like Mccall.

[Cojimar 1945]

Oliver McCall seems like a more worthy opponnent than the 90s Foreman so I don't think this choice of opponnent is that bad.

[Cojimar 1945]

Lewis had scored far better wins than Foreman had in the 90s and established himself as a contender while Foreman had not done so.

[NickHudson]

spot on mate!

Personally, I don't see what made the 90's so special. Consider for a moment that you had:

1. An ex light heavyweight and former Crusierweight, who both moved up and won titles. Furthermore one of them was able to build his reputation as being just about the best fighter of the decade.

2. A Journeyman named Buster Douglas who pulled off a monumental upset and became champ.

3. 2 40+ ex-champs who were able to come out of lengthy retirments, and have an impact on the division. One of whom became world champ.

4. One of the era's best participants was abscent for half the decade.

5. A lot of would be match-ups that sounded good on paper, but never materialized. Bowe-Lewis, Bowe-Tyson, Bowe-Moorer, Tyson-Moorer, Lewis-Moorer, prime Tyson-prime Holyfield, prime Lewis-prime Tyson, Tyson Douglas II, Bowe-Mercer. The list goes on and on.

[mr. magoo]

Lewis had scored far better wins than Foreman had in the 90s and established himself as a contender while Foreman had not done so.

You're wrong,

Foreman had actually done quite a bit. His record in his comeback going in against Moorer was 27-2-25, and he had beaten some pretty good fighters in Addilson Rodriguez, Gerry Cooney, Jimmy Ellis, Alex Stewart and Pierre Coetzer. Plus he had lost competitive decisions against prime versions of Morrison and Holyfield. Lewis's best win was against a jaded Ruddock who was still recovering from two ass poundings from Tyson, and a loss to Oliver Mccall.

[JohnThomas1]

You're wrong,

Foreman had actually done quite a bit. His record in his comeback going in against Moorer was 27-2-25, and he had beaten some pretty good fighters in Addilson Rodriguez, Gerry Cooney, Jimmy Ellis, Alex Stewart and Pierre Coetzer. Plus he had lost competitive decisions against prime versions of Morrison and Holyfield. Lewis's best win was against a jaded Ruddock who was still recovering from two ass poundings from Tyson, and a loss to Oliver Mccall.

The Lewis victory over Rudduck surpasses Foreman's. Rudduck certainly wasn't considered jaded or ass reamed coming into the bout. Credit has to be given here. Of course i am also immensely impressed with what George did at his age, astonishing.

[AnthonyJ74]

You're wrong,

Foreman had actually done quite a bit. His record in his comeback going in against Moorer was 27-2-25, and he had beaten some pretty good fighters in Addilson Rodriguez, Gerry Cooney, Jimmy Ellis, Alex Stewart and Pierre Coetzer. Plus he had lost competitive decisions against prime versions of Morrison and Holyfield. Lewis's best win was against a jaded Ruddock who was still recovering from two ass poundings from Tyson, and a loss to Oliver Mccall.

Adilson Rodriguez was never much to begin with; Gerry Cooney was inactive since being knocked out by Michael Spinks; Jimmy Ellis was a glorified club fighter; Alex Stewart(Now there's a jaded fighter) was coming off brutal knockouts at the hands of Moorer and Tyson; and Pierre Coetzer had just been pounded by Riddick Bowe and Frank Bruno.

Lewis was the ony fighter that seemed willing to meet Razor Ruddock(outside of Tyson). Ruddock was heavily favored to beat Lewis. Lewis' knockout of Razor was damn impressive. Lewis also beat Tyrell Biggs, Gary Mason, and Mike Weaver; guys who were on the downside but clearly above guys George fought on his way to the title.

[Cojimar 1945]

Lewis had beaten Ruddock, Tucker and Bruno among others. None of Foreman's opponnents were as highly regarded as these three. I don't know if any of the guys Foreman beat were rated in the top 10 when he beat them. Coetzer was ranked at one point but had been kayoed in his two bouts prior to facing Foreman and obviously had dropped in the ratings.

[Cojimar 1945]

I don't think Stewart had any wins over highly ranked guys. Foreman may have struggled greatly with him but a win over Stewart does not seem spectacular, Tyson, Holyfield and Moorer all beat him without great difficulty.

[Sonny's jab]

I disagree with Mr. Jab, That the prescence and success of not one, but two members of previous eras in the 90's doesn't say something about the difference between the 90's and thier perspective periods. If these men were able to accomplish what they did at such an advanced age, and after extended laoffs, then who could help but wonder what they might have done in their primes, and weather their piers may have done similar. This may be over simplifying things a bit, but I don't feel it's to far from the truth either.

It says more about the individuals themselves than about a great difference in the quality of the eras.

Of course, I would agree that a peak Foreman or a peak Holmes would fare much better in the early 90s than the old versions did. But they would have to do so to be perenially ELITE in that era.
The old Holmes didn't go 4 rounds with Tyson, and was clearly beaten by Holyfield.
Foreman took a complete battering from Holyfield for most of 12 rounds. Against these two elite names, Foreman and Holmes could only muster courageous displays, they showed no real hint of winning, the fights were mostly one-way traffic.

Of course, Foreman had a great win over Moorer for the championship. And Holmes over Mercer.
But if I'm wrong in saying Moorer and Mercer are second-tier and not consistent or dominant in that era, then please explain my mistake.

Holmes and Foreman have one convincing win each over a top fighter of the era, and the fighters in question are not considered the ELITE and in fact a bit inconsistent. Having said that, both Moorer and Mercer were UNDEFEATED, highly-rated, and heavily favoured at the time.

Foreman and Holmes were great fighters.



What's more, Sonny is grossly misrepresenting Foreman's win over Moorer as being an average feat. Like it or not, Moorer was the lineal champion, and not just a mere alphabet holder. He defeated a slightly declining Holyfield, but one who was coming off of the biggest win of his career against Bowe nonetheless. Moorer was also undefeated in 35 pro fights, and had held world titles at both lightheavyweight and heavyweight. Foreman's win over Moorer was a clear cut success. There are no excusses. There was no controversy, or gift decisions. Foreman kncked out Moorer. Plain and simple. I'm tired of people trying to diminish this impressive piece of boxing history by saying stupid things like " Foreman landed a lucky shot" or " Moorer just got careless " or " Moorer was a lightheavyweight who became a fluke chamion ", and of course my favorite " I'll bet it was fixed ". Ridiculous.


Please show me where my alleged "gross misrepresenting" took place.
I give Foreman full credit for his win over Moorer.

[mr. magoo]

=Sonny's jab]It says more about the individuals themselves than about a great difference in the quality of the eras.


I think there is a strong implication that one era is stronger than another, when two past prime members are able to breach the ratings of a more modern period, and one of whom becomes a champion. Just the way I see it.



The old Holmes didn't go 4 rounds with Tyson, and was clearly beaten by Holyfield.


The old Holmes who fought Tyson, hadn't fought in two years, and entered the ring with the reigning champ without even so much as a single tunup. This is not a very good example. Holyfield was arguably the best fighter of the 90's and Holmes went the distance, and didn't look to beaten when it was all over.


Foreman took a complete battering from Holyfield for most of 12 rounds. Against these two elite names, Foreman and Holmes could only muster courageous displays, they showed no real hint of winning, the fights were mostly one-way traffic.



Foreman was battered by Holyfield. He lost the fight convincingly enough, but it was not a one way battering. That's bullshit. Foreman managed to rock Holyfield on numerous occassions and even won a few rounds in that fight. It was not a domination.


Of course, Foreman had a great win over Moorer for the championship. And Holmes over Mercer.
But if I'm wrong in saying Moorer and Mercer are second-tier and not consistent or dominant in that era, then please explain my mistake.


I don't know if I'd call Moorer second tier. I'd say that he was probably the #4 or #5 best heavyweight of the period, whereas Holyfield was #1. If Foreman could beat Moorer and go the distance with Evnader, then I'd say that makes him a canidate for one of the best fighters of the decade.

[ChrisPontius]

Foreman was battered by Holyfield. He lost the fight convincingly enough, but it was not a one way battering. That's bullshit. Foreman managed to rock Holyfield on numerous occassions and even won a few rounds in that fight. It was not a domination.



It was a domination. Holyfield outlanded Foreman by a gigantic margin. Foreman won a few round and most of the rounds were lopsided ones for Holyfield. And Foreman didn't rock Holyfield on numerous occasians. It happened once. It that was special mostly because he barely landed anything at all. Holyfield took a few steps back, big deal.

In the end, Foreman beat one guy who you could say was the #5 guy of the era at best (Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson and Bowe are better than him no matter how you look at it) but you can just as well rank him #9 of the era.

Asides from that, he lost his other fight against one of the top4 of the era in lopsided fashion, lost to a normal contender in Morrison and had questionable decision over fringe contenders in Stewart, Savarese, Schulz.
The other wins you mentioned (Cooney, Ellis, Coetzee, etc) are over washed up former contenders or journeymen.

In other words, he beat one of the top10 of the era, lost to two others of the top10 of the era and had questionable decisions over lower rank contenders of the era. A great performance considering his age, but by no means does it prove anything about the 70's being better than the 90's.

The same holds for Holmes.

[prime]

a) Endurance through cardio work and litheness were preached in the 70’s. Strength training became king in the 90’s. A prime “Big” George Foreman began to look small as of the 90’s. If old Foreman had not come back and stunned Holyfield a few times and kayoed Moorer, it could be said that prime George was never that powerful in the first place, certainly not compared to present-day behemoths, and that he mainly feasted on small heavies from the 70’s. Old Foreman’s feat of kayoing a young champ at 45(!), a world record by a margin of 7 years, secured his power as a unique specimen in heavyweight history.

b) Larry Holmes was clearly slipping badly by 1985, when an upstart light-heavy Spinks decisioned him. Three years later, he was rightfully considered astonishingly foolish to come back and challenge undisputed champ Tyson and he was unsurprisingly knocked out in brutal fashion. Four years after that, he comes back and, with Tyson safely out of the picture in jail, convincingly decisions a respected Ray Mercer and goes 12 tough rounds with champion Holyfield. This proves Holmes’ boxing skills were truly great, for he certainly didn’t get by on power or speed.

c) More than any of our mere speculation and theoretical analysis, these blasts from the past give us a clear indication of what would happen if you put in the ring prime versions of Foreman and Holyfield, or Holmes and Holyfield, and so forth. Why not value the actual evidence we have of cross-era competition, rather than overlook it and go with our gut? Cross-era competition happens all the time in the form of an old lion losing out to the young lion. But these two examples show dead-and-buried lions coming back to haunt young lions, four years and seventeen(!) years since their retirements.

d) In other words, if old Foreman could bother Holyfield, what could young Foreman, or a Shavers right, or a Frazier left hook do? Not speculation. Based on a night in April 1991. On the other hand, Ali kayoed Foreman under 8 rounds, but Holyfield never even dropped him over 12. Larry Holmes held his own against heavily-muscled Oliver McCall, never falling, yet Shavers and Snipes dropped him with one punch. An old Norton nearly beat a prime Larry, yet Ray Mercer couldn’t get the best of an avuncular version of Larry.

[Sonny's jab]

a) Endurance through cardio work and litheness were preached in the 70’s. Strength training became king in the 90’s. A prime “Big” George Foreman began to look small as of the 90’s. If old Foreman had not come back and stunned Holyfield a few times and kayoed Moorer, it could be said that prime George was never that powerful in the first place, certainly not compared to present-day behemoths, and that he mainly feasted on small heavies from the 70’s. Old Foreman’s feat of kayoing a young champ at 45(!), a world record by a margin of 7 years, secured his power as a unique specimen in heavyweight history.

b) Larry Holmes was clearly slipping badly by 1985, when an upstart light-heavy Spinks decisioned him. Three years later, he was rightfully considered astonishingly foolish to come back and challenge undisputed champ Tyson and he was unsurprisingly knocked out in brutal fashion. Four years after that, he comes back and, with Tyson safely out of the picture in jail, convincingly decisions a respected Ray Mercer and goes 12 tough rounds with champion Holyfield. This proves Holmes’ boxing skills were truly great, for he certainly didn’t get by on power or speed.

c) More than any of our mere speculation and theoretical analysis, these blasts from the past give us a clear indication of what would happen if you put in the ring prime versions of Foreman and Holyfield, or Holmes and Holyfield, and so forth. Why not value the actual evidence we have of cross-era competition, rather than overlook it and go with our gut? Cross-era competition happens all the time in the form of an old lion losing out to the young lion. But these two examples show dead-and-buried lions coming back to haunt young lions, four years and seventeen(!) years since their retirements.

d) In other words, if old Foreman could bother Holyfield, what could young Foreman, or a Shavers right, or a Frazier left hook do? Not speculation. Based on a night in April 1991. On the other hand, Ali kayoed Foreman under 8 rounds, but Holyfield never even dropped him over 12. Larry Holmes held his own against heavily-muscled Oliver McCall, never falling, yet Shavers and Snipes dropped him with one punch. An old Norton nearly beat a prime Larry, yet Ray Mercer couldn’t get the best of an avuncular version of Larry.

Foreman and Holmes were GREAT fighters, who were actually fighting to win, even at 42 years of age, and used all thir heart and experience when they challenged Evander Holyfield for the title.

But the fights were one-sided.

Foreman "bothering" Holyfield is relative. When two heavyweights fight over 12 rounds, even a winner who proves FAR SUPERIOR could be said to be "bothered" by the man he beat the hell out of. A 258 pound powerhouse is a 258 pound powerhouse, beating him is rarely likely to be "easy" in a literal sense, esp. when you factor in the size disadvantages being overcome.

Old Foreman went the distance against a great young champion, took a 12 round beating, but landed a few hard ones to remind Holyfield he was still there.
I can see why this shows Foreman was GREAT fighter, but I cannot see how this "proves" any huge gulf in the two men in their respective primes, or a huge gulf in their eras.

Holyfield-Holmes is a similar thing, though personally I think it showed me that stylistically Holyfield vs a prime Holmes would be a fight in which I'd back Holmes quite strongly.
Still, that doesn't make me elevate the likes of Earnie Shavers, Renaldo Snipes, Trevor Berbick and Gerry Cooney to be better than a crop of fighters Evander beat in the 90s !
:lol:

[mr. magoo]

Still, that doesn't make me elevate the likes of Earnie Shavers, Renaldo Snipes, Trevor Berbick and Gerry Cooney to be better than a crop of fighters Evander beat in the 90s !


Nor myself either in all honesty.

However, the difference isn't all that vast. Holyfield's best wins in the 90's were, Riddick Bowe ( whom he lost to twice ), Michael Moorer ( whom he tied a two fight series with ), Buster Douglas, who was 247 Lbs and grossly out of shape, and George Foreman. Cooney, Norton, Shavers, Berbick and Witherspoon were not necessarily better, but all pretty good fighters nevetheless, and most of them were in their primes.

[mochabuzz]

George's accomplishment against Moorer was incredible! Most boxers cannot come back and be competitive in their late early 40's as George did. His mental toughness, determination and power are what allowed him to accomplish this great feat. Holyfield, at 44, will have a difficult time winning the WBO crown because he only has 2/3 of what George had (Toughness & determination.... but not much POWER). We'll see what happens....

Whether or not George was deserving of his title shot against Moorer is irrelevant... the point is that he took advantage of his chance and was still throwing hard punches late in the Moorer fight (a fight in which Foreman was getting schooled for the first 9.5 rounds).

[OLD FOGEY]

Nor myself either in all honesty.

However, the difference isn't all that vast. Holyfield's best wins in the 90's were, Riddick Bowe ( whom he lost to twice ), Michael Moorer ( whom he tied a two fight series with ), Buster Douglas, who was 247 Lbs and grossly out of shape, and George Foreman. Cooney, Norton, Shavers, Berbick and Witherspoon were not necessarily better, but all pretty good fighters nevetheless, and most of them were in their primes.

You left off Tyson twice, Mercer, and Holmes. The difference is pretty vast.

[prime]

a) The Seventies were a golden age because it saw four top-ten all-time greats: Ali, Foreman, Frazier and Holmes. The Nineties, by comparison, saw Lewis and Holyfield, to me at best marginal all-time top-ten candidates, but still two. Besides neither was a dominating, unified champ for any reasonable time, like Ali and Holmes were.

b) A “golden era” implies many tangibles and intangibles. A few of the former include the presence of four all-time great fighters who could dominate in any era: Ali had 10 successful defenses of the unified title; Holmes went on to defend 20 times. Foreman proved his vaunted power was crushing in any era. He was 45(!) for Pete’s sake when he unquestionably flattened the man who had beaten the man. These facts must carry weight. A couple of intangibles include fights and fighters that transcended the sport and forever became thrilling, persuasive boxing icons for all time.

c) Finally, how can seeing a 45-year-old George Foreman not blown away by a prime Holyfield, but fighting tooth and nail as allowed by his age over 12 rounds, not mean anything? The fact that Holyfield felt and respected Foreman’s slow-mo blows should tell us that a prime Foreman’s blows would give him the upper hand against Evander. Sonny’s Jab insists the fight was one-sided. On paper, yes. In the ring, grandpa Foreman held his own with very few of his prime tools. It is easy to see, based on this factual evidence, how a prime Foreman could rampage over Evander Holyfield. Sonny’s Jab even admits seeing old Holmes against Holyfield persuades him to back Holmes in a dream match “quite strongly”. That’s exactly my point.

[OLD FOGEY]

I think there is a strong implication that one era is stronger than another, when two past prime members are able to breach the ratings of a more modern period, and one of whom becomes a champion. Just the way I see it.




The old Holmes who fought Tyson, hadn't fought in two years, and entered the ring with the reigning champ without even so much as a single tunup. This is not a very good example. Holyfield was arguably the best fighter of the 90's and Holmes went the distance, and didn't look to beaten when it was all over.



Foreman was battered by Holyfield. He lost the fight convincingly enough, but it was not a one way battering. That's bullshit. Foreman managed to rock Holyfield on numerous occassions and even won a few rounds in that fight. It was not a domination.



I don't know if I'd call Moorer second tier. I'd say that he was probably the #4 or #5 best heavyweight of the period, whereas Holyfield was #1. If Foreman could beat Moorer and go the distance with Evnader, then I'd say that makes him a canidate for one of the best fighters of the decade.

Moorer is not #4 no matter what one thinks of Tyson. David Tua and Ike Ibeabuchi rank ahead of Moorer.

[OLD FOGEY]

First of all, Lewis lost to MCcall in September of 94'. Foreman and Moorer were scheduled to meet 2 months later in November. There was no possible way for Lewis to meet Moorer, as the fight had already been signed, and Lennox had just gotten his ass kicked. The time frames didn't work. Secondly, I disagree that he was more deserving than Foreman. In 81 career fights, George never got his ass knocked out by a fighter like Mccall.

But he got beat by Jimmy Young and Ali got beat by Leon Spinks back in the seventies and neither is as good as McCall or Douglas.

Young 34 wins 19 defeats 2 draws 11 KO's
Besides Foreman, best wins, Lyle x 2, Dunn, Garcia, Gardner

Spinks 26 wins 17 defeats 1 draw 14 Ko's
Besides Ali, bests wins Evangelista, Mercado

McCall 51 wins 8 losses 1 draw 36 KO's
Besides Lewis, best wins Holmes, Seldon, Damiani, Maskaev, Akinwande, Sam

Douglas 38 wins 6 loses 1 draw 25 Ko's
Besides Tyson, best wins Cobb, Page, Berbick, McCall

1970's hype aside, McCall and Douglas are clearly better than Young and Spinks, and, as a matter of fact, I would consider McCall, at least, also better than Ken Norton.

[Russell]

a) The Seventies were a golden age because it saw four top-ten all-time greats: Ali, Foreman, Frazier and Holmes. The Nineties, by comparison, saw Lewis and Holyfield, to me at best marginal all-time top-ten candidates, but still two. Besides neither was a dominating, unified champ for any reasonable time, like Ali and Holmes were.

b) A “golden era” implies many tangibles and intangibles. A few of the former include the presence of four all-time great fighters who could dominate in any era: Ali had 10 successful defenses of the unified title; Holmes went on to defend 20 times. Foreman proved his vaunted power was crushing in any era. He was 45(!) for Pete’s sake when he unquestionably flattened the man who had beaten the man. These facts must carry weight. A couple of intangibles include fights and fighters that transcended the sport and forever became thrilling, persuasive boxing icons for all time.

c) Finally, how can seeing a 45-year-old George Foreman not blown away by a prime Holyfield, but fighting tooth and nail as allowed by his age over 12 rounds, not mean anything? The fact that Holyfield felt and respected Foreman’s slow-mo blows should tell us that a prime Foreman’s blows would give him the upper hand against Evander. Sonny’s Jab insists the fight was one-sided. On paper, yes. In the ring, grandpa Foreman held his own with very few of his prime tools. It is easy to see, based on this factual evidence, how a prime Foreman could rampage over Evander Holyfield. Sonny’s Jab even admits seeing old Holmes against Holyfield persuades him to back Holmes in a dream match “quite strongly”. That’s exactly my point.

Very, very well said.

[Sonny's jab]

I suppose Evander Holyfield had to knock out Foreman in 1 round or go the whole 12 rounds without getting hit once (surely an impossibility when you consider the styles and size differences) to convince some of you that he proved significant superiority against Foreman.

The fact that Foreman managed to land a few hard shots and maybe even win a round while taking a thorough beating is "PROOF" that in his prime he's eat Holyfield for breakfast, run him over, and also proof that all the top fighters in his era were "better" than all the top fighters in the 90s. No further styles analysis or comparison is necessary, apparently.

There's no denying Foreman was a genuine contender in his 40s, and was indeed champion of the world briefly.

Personally, at the time of writing I'd rate Foreman above any fighter who fought in the 1990s, but based on styles and their respective quality of greatness I'd say Holyfield at his best would stand a great chance of beating the best Foreman, and nothing that happened in 1991 fight says otherwise, however much some like to dress up, twist and exaggerate Foreman's galiant performance.

I'd pick a peak Holmes to beat a peak Holyfield based on the way their styles mesh, their known strengths and weakness. Arguably Holyfield could still be rated above Holmes on an all-time list, despite Holmes' "dominant reign" that incidently did NOT occur in the 70s "golden age" or as a unified champion or against remarkably good opposition (some were actually remarkably poor).
None of this is hard science, it's OPINION and SPECULATION.

[mr. magoo]

Moorer is not #4 no matter what one thinks of Tyson. David Tua and Ike Ibeabuchi rank ahead of Moorer.

Head to head maybe, in fact Tua Ko'd Moorer in one round, but this came in 2002, after the 90's were over. Tua's only big wins in the 90's were over Rahman and Ruiz. Ike's only noteable wins were over Tua and Byrd. Moorer had wins over Holyfield, Botha, Stewart, Cooper, Shultz and Bean. Plus he was a world champ at lightheavyweight and a two time champ at heavyweight. Neither Tua nor Ike, were champions. I disagree that Ike or Tua could be ranked higher than Moorer, at least not in the 90's.

[OLD FOGEY]

Head to head maybe, in fact Tua Ko'd Moorer in one round, but this came in 2002, after the 90's were over. Tua's only big wins in the 90's were over Rahman and Ruiz. Ike's only noteable wins were over Tua and Byrd. Moorer had wins over Holyfield, Botha, Stewart, Cooper, Shultz and Bean. Plus he was a world champ at lightheavyweight and a two time champ at heavyweight. Neither Tua nor Ike, were champions. I disagree that Ike or Tua could be ranked higher than Moorer, at least not in the 90's.

Tua also Ko'd Maskaev, Izon, and Dorrall Wilson in the 1990's, certainly on par with the list of victims you gave for Moorer.

Tua and Bryd are a step up from anyone Moorer defeated other than Holyfield, and Ibeabuchi was not beaten, while Moorer lost badly to
Foreman and then to Holyfield in a return match.

[mr. magoo]

=OLD FOGEY]Tua also Ko'd Maskaev, Izon, and Dorrall Wilson in the 1990's, certainly on par with the list of victims you gave for Moorer.


No they weren't. Not by a long shot. Maskaev was 10-1, when he fought Tua. Izon was a nobody, who had never beaten a decent opponent, and who in fact had just been beaten in his previous fight by Maurice Harris who was 5-6-2. Daroll Wilson was okay, but not on par with most of Moorer's top opponents.


Tua and Bryd are a step up from anyone Moorer defeated other than Holyfield,

Exactly!!! Holyfield was better than both of them and Moorer beat Holyfield. What more is there to debate?



and Ibeabuchi was not beaten, while Moorer lost badly to
Foreman and then to Holyfield in a return match


Moorer was unbeaten in his first 35 fights. Ibeabuchi's career ended after compiling a mere 20 bouts, while Tua lost to Ike in his 28th fight. Also, as I said before, neither were world champions, whereas Moorer was a 3 time champ, and neither man ever fought Holyfield or Foreman, the men whom you discredit Moorer for losing to.

I really don't think that there's much left to debate here. Moorer ranks above Tua and Ibeabucci in the 90's, and additionally should be remembered as one of the decades top 5 heavyweights.

If you place all personal bias asside, as well as the natural tendency of human ego to want to win arguments, then it's a no brainer.

[prime]

I have never stated that 45-year-old Foreman’s competitive performance against a prime Evander Holyfield is proof that all 70’s fighters were better than their 90’s counterparts. I have stated that the 70’s were a golden age because they saw four all-time greats plus iconic, one-of-a-kind fights such as “Fight of the Century” and “Rumble”.

I have stated that a very deteriorated, 45-year-old Foreman obliterated the man who beat the man. Moorer beat Evander Holyfield, who had beaten Douglas, who had beaten Mike Tyson. Grandpa Foreman kayoed Moorer. Prior to this amazing feat, Jersey Joe Walcott had been the oldest man to win the title at 38.

As a sports analogy, Babe Ruth’s 60 homers in a season mark lasted 34 years, from 1927 to 1961, before Roger Maris hit 61, in 8 more games. When McGwire and Sosa hit 70 and 66 in 1998, this astonishing anomaly was eventually found to be aided by performance-enhancing substances.

Foreman shattered the oldest-champ mark by seven years, a quantum leap that, to me, finds a partial explanation, not in steroids of course, but in the emergence of four all-time greats who interacted and pushed each other. Yes, greatness rubs off. In fact, Foreman was inspired by his ’74 loss to Muhammad Ali, even wearing the same old trunks to face Moorer. In his mind, he had fought the best. Holyfield and Moorer quite simply didn’t faze him.

What would a prime Foreman do to the likes of Moorer and Holyfield? Yes, all our rambling is speculation, but, until technology allows for better options, it is the best we can do. Yet we saw a time-machine episode of sorts when George Foreman came back to shock the world. Have even a sampling of nonfans watch Holyfield-Foreman and see if the sentiment isn’t that a young, in-shape Foreman would beat Holyfield.

Forget comparing the contenders and pretenders of the 70’s and 90’s. The fantastic four from the 70’s (Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes) were, by sheer number, stats, charisma and factual evidence of cross-era competition, better than anything seen over any other decade.

[Sonny's jab]

I have never stated that 45-year-old Foreman’s competitive performance against a prime Evander Holyfield is proof that all 70’s fighters were better than their 90’s counterparts. I have stated that the 70’s were a golden age because they saw four all-time greats plus iconic, one-of-a-kind fights such as “Fight of the Century” and “Rumble”.

I have stated that a very deteriorated, 45-year-old Foreman obliterated the man who beat the man. Moorer beat Evander Holyfield, who had beaten Douglas, who had beaten Mike Tyson. Grandpa Foreman kayoed Moorer. Prior to this amazing feat, Jersey Joe Walcott had been the oldest man to win the title at 38.

As a sports analogy, Babe Ruth’s 60 homers in a season mark lasted 34 years, from 1927 to 1961, before Roger Maris hit 61, in 8 more games. When McGwire and Sosa hit 70 and 66 in 1998, this astonishing anomaly was eventually found to be aided by performance-enhancing substances.

Foreman shattered the oldest-champ mark by seven years, a quantum leap that, to me, finds a partial explanation, not in steroids of course, but in the emergence of four all-time greats who interacted and pushed each other. Yes, greatness rubs off. In fact, Foreman was inspired by his ’74 loss to Muhammad Ali, even wearing the same old trunks to face Moorer. In his mind, he had fought the best. Holyfield and Moorer quite simply didn’t faze him.

What would a prime Foreman do to the likes of Moorer and Holyfield? Yes, all our rambling is speculation, but, until technology allows for better options, it is the best we can do. Yet we saw a time-machine episode of sorts when George Foreman came back to shock the world. Have even a sampling of nonfans watch Holyfield-Foreman and see if the sentiment isn’t that a young, in-shape Foreman would beat Holyfield.

Forget comparing the contenders and pretenders of the 70’s and 90’s. The fantastic four from the 70’s (Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes) were, by sheer number, stats, charisma and factual evidence of cross-era competition, better than anything seen over any other decade.

I actually agree with most of this.
My own position though is that NONE of the GREAT heavyweights can be written off in fantasy match-ups prime for prime on account of being of inferior quality, because all the great ones at their absolute bests were, by definition, capable of astounding and great feats.

I can speculate and offer opinions, strong or weak, about particularly match-ups based on styles matching up, but sometimes I think people over-stress the point about who's greater than who.

For example, if you rate Holyfield in the top 15 heavyweights of ALL TIME then it should stand to reason that he'd have enough quality to perhaps beat someone you rate in the top 5 or top 10, and enough quality to throw some doubt on almost all of them beating him, based on details or styles and the ability of any of these great ones to surpass themselves at their best.

[mr. magoo]

I have never stated that 45-year-old Foreman’s competitive performance against a prime Evander Holyfield is proof that all 70’s fighters were better than their 90’s counterparts. I have stated that the 70’s were a golden age because they saw four all-time greats plus iconic, one-of-a-kind fights such as “Fight of the Century” and “Rumble”.

I have stated that a very deteriorated, 45-year-old Foreman obliterated the man who beat the man. Moorer beat Evander Holyfield, who had beaten Douglas, who had beaten Mike Tyson. Grandpa Foreman kayoed Moorer. Prior to this amazing feat, Jersey Joe Walcott had been the oldest man to win the title at 38.

As a sports analogy, Babe Ruth’s 60 homers in a season mark lasted 34 years, from 1927 to 1961, before Roger Maris hit 61, in 8 more games. When McGwire and Sosa hit 70 and 66 in 1998, this astonishing anomaly was eventually found to be aided by performance-enhancing substances.

Foreman shattered the oldest-champ mark by seven years, a quantum leap that, to me, finds a partial explanation, not in steroids of course, but in the emergence of four all-time greats who interacted and pushed each other. Yes, greatness rubs off. In fact, Foreman was inspired by his ’74 loss to Muhammad Ali, even wearing the same old trunks to face Moorer. In his mind, he had fought the best. Holyfield and Moorer quite simply didn’t faze him.

What would a prime Foreman do to the likes of Moorer and Holyfield? Yes, all our rambling is speculation, but, until technology allows for better options, it is the best we can do. Yet we saw a time-machine episode of sorts when George Foreman came back to shock the world. Have even a sampling of nonfans watch Holyfield-Foreman and see if the sentiment isn’t that a young, in-shape Foreman would beat Holyfield.

Forget comparing the contenders and pretenders of the 70’s and 90’s. The fantastic four from the 70’s (Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes) were, by sheer number, stats, charisma and factual evidence of cross-era competition, better than anything seen over any other decade.

This post says it all in my opinion. :good

[prime]

I actually agree with most of this.
My own position though is that NONE of the GREAT heavyweights can be written off in fantasy match-ups prime for prime on account of being of inferior quality, because all the great ones at their absolute bests were, by definition, capable of astounding and great feats.

I can speculate and offer opinions, strong or weak, about particularly match-ups based on styles matching up, but sometimes I think people over-stress the point about who's greater than who.

For example, if you rate Holyfield in the top 15 heavyweights of ALL TIME then it should stand to reason that he'd have enough quality to perhaps beat someone you rate in the top 5 or top 10, and enough quality to throw some doubt on almost all of them beating him, based on details or styles and the ability of any of these great ones to surpass themselves at their best.

Agreed! :good

[Thread Stealer]

U have to remember that Moorer was destroying George up until the knockout.

It doesn't matter much to me. Foreman still caught him with a couple of nice right hands and stopped him.

Duane Ford is an idiot by the way.

[OLD FOGEY]

No they weren't. Not by a long shot. Maskaev was 10-1, when he fought Tua. Izon was a nobody, who had never beaten a decent opponent, and who in fact had just been beaten in his previous fight by Maurice Harris who was 5-6-2. Daroll Wilson was okay, but not on par with most of Moorer's top opponents.




Exactly!!! Holyfield was better than both of them and Moorer beat Holyfield. What more is there to debate?




Moorer was unbeaten in his first 35 fights. Ibeabuchi's career ended after compiling a mere 20 bouts, while Tua lost to Ike in his 28th fight. Also, as I said before, neither were world champions, whereas Moorer was a 3 time champ, and neither man ever fought Holyfield or Foreman, the men whom you discredit Moorer for losing to.

I really don't think that there's much left to debate here. Moorer ranks above Tua and Ibeabucci in the 90's, and additionally should be remembered as one of the decades top 5 heavyweights.

If you place all personal bias asside, as well as the natural tendency of human ego to want to win arguments, then it's a no brainer.

Look, Moorer is being puffed up to the stars. So he won 35 in a row. Most of them were at lightheavy, two divisions down. He caught a good champion on the worst off night of his career and ecked out a close decision, but was crushed by that champion in a rematch. Except for Holyfield, none of his heavyweight wins is particularly impressive--Shultz might be the second best heavy he defeated. He could never take a top heavyweight's punch, as Foreman proved and as was later proven when Tua blew him out in one round. The best he could do is fight tomato-cans for over a decade.
Now all the spin in the world won't change that Moorer couldn't get past one round against Tua and did not defeat anyone who beat Tua or Ibeabuchi. I think Ibeabuchi would have flattened him early also.

Izon-I don't think he's a world beater, but he knocked out Savarese right after Savarese went to a split decision with Foreman.

Maskaev-might be weak as far as champions go, but in the fight after his loss to Tua, he knocked out Alex Stewart, another guy who gave Foreman a tough fight. A decade later, Maskaev is still a top heavyweight, which is certainly more than one can say for Moorer.

[mr. magoo]

]Look, Moorer is being puffed up to the stars. So he won 35 in a row. Most of them were at lightheavy, two divisions down.

Do you steadfastly stand by this criticism, or is this just your personal bias at work again? In multiple posts over the past year, you have defended fighters like Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles as being legitimately good fighters at heavyweight, despite their previous careers at middle weight and light heavyweight. Now, are you willing to give moorer the same dues, or are you going to do what I suspect you will, which is to start a whole other debate on why it was ok for Moore and Charles to make the jump without loosing credibility, yet the same doesn't hold true for Moorer, on the basis of what YOU consider to be valid career accomplishments?


He caught a good champion on the worst off night of his career and ecked out a close decision, but was crushed by that champion in a rematch.

Why am I not surprised at this response? Hmmmm. Maybe it's because I figured that you were incapable of leaving a long lost debate alone, and likewise couldn't refute my claim that Holyfield was a better win for Moorer than anyone Tua or Ike ever beat, so your only answer is that it was the worst night of Holyfield's career. Interesting, given that Evander was still only 31 years old, coming off the best win of his career against Riddick Bowe, and managed to floor Moorer. I don't know how many of Evander's fights you've actually seen, but for the record, it was not his worst performance nor even close. Sure Moorer lost in the rematch , but frankly I don't see the shame in having one of only a small handful of losses to an all time great do you?

Except for Holyfield, none of his heavyweight wins is particularly impressive--

Oh really? and how many quality wins did Tua or Ibeabucci have in the 90's? I think I counted maybe 2 a piece. Big deal. Besides which, your statement " except for Holyfield " isn't the reality. That was a big fight and a huge corner stone on Moorer's resume.


Shultz might be the second best heavy he defeated.

Botha, Cooper, Stewart and Bean weren't bums either. You want to talk to me about how good Daroll Wilson and Derek Izon were?

He could never take a top heavyweight's punch, as Foreman proved

Since when is getting knocked out by Foreman ( a man commonly listed as one of the 3 hardest hitters of all time ) an indication of a weak chin?


and as was later proven when Tua blew him out in one round.

Boy, just when I think that you can't come up with something even more irrelevant.

Tua Knocked out Moorer in 2002, when Moorer was on the comeback trail at 35, and what does this fight have to do with Tua's accomplishments in the 90's? Jeeez....


I think Ibeabuchi would have flattened him early also.


Coulda, woulda, shoulda. It never happened, and therefore the mere assumption can't be used to rate Ike higher.


Izon-I don't think he's a world beater, but he knocked out Savarese right after Savarese went to a split decision with Foreman.


Yeah but, that's not when Tua fought him was it? No. He fought Izon, when he was a nobody who had just lost to a 5-6-2 tomato can, and with not a single quality win to his credit. Saying that he beat Savarese in hind site doesn't mean anything. Tua's people thought they were fighting a safe opponent, and they were absolutely right. Izon was a bum.

Maskaev-might be weak as far as champions go, but in the fight after his loss to Tua, he knocked out Alex Stewart,

Stewart fought Foreman in 1992. By the time he fought Maskaev in 1997, he was shot to pieces. Doesn't any of this shit matter to you, or are you still hoping that I'll let you get away with incomplete explanations and half truths?


A decade later, Maskaev is still a top heavyweight, which is certainly more than one can say for Moorer.


Who cares? At the age of 39, Moorer's record is 49-4. At age 38, Makaev's record is 34-5. How does that equate to Maskaev being better? Plus, do you really think Maskaev has beaten a longer list of better opponents?

[OLD FOGEY]

Do you steadfastly stand by this criticism, or is this just your personal bias at work again? In multiple posts over the past year, you have defended fighters like Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles as being legitimately good fighters at heavyweight, despite their previous careers at middle weight and light heavyweight. Now, are you willing to give moorer the same dues, or are you going to do what I suspect you will, which is to start a whole other debate on why it was ok for Moore and Charles to make the jump without loosing credibility, yet the same doesn't hold true for Moorer, on the basis of what YOU consider to be valid career accomplishments?




Why am I not surprised at this response? Hmmmm. Maybe it's because I figured that you were incapable of leaving a long lost debate alone, and likewise couldn't refute my claim that Holyfield was a better win for Moorer than anyone Tua or Ike ever beat, so your only answer is that it was the worst night of Holyfield's career. Interesting, given that Evander was still only 31 years old, coming off the best win of his career against Riddick Bowe, and managed to floor Moorer. I don't know how many of Evander's fights you've actually seen, but for the record, it was not his worst performance nor even close. Sure Moorer lost in the rematch , but frankly I don't see the shame in having one of only a small handful of losses to an all time great do you?



Oh really? and how many quality wins did Tua or Ibeabucci have in the 90's? I think I counted maybe 2 a piece. Big deal. Besides which, your statement " except for Holyfield " isn't the reality. That was a big fight and a huge corner stone on Moorer's resume.




Botha, Cooper, Stewart and Bean weren't bums either. You want to talk to me about how good Daroll Wilson and Derek Izon were?



Since when is getting knocked out by Foreman ( a man commonly listed as one of the 3 hardest hitters of all time ) an indication of a weak chin?




Boy, just when I think that you can't come up with something even more irrelevant.

Tua Knocked out Moorer in 2002, when Moorer was on the comeback trail at 35, and what does this fight have to do with Tua's accomplishments in the 90's? Jeeez....



Coulda, woulda, shoulda. It never happened, and therefore the mere assumption can't be used to rate Ike higher.



Yeah but, that's not when Tua fought him was it? No. He fought Izon, when he was a nobody who had just lost to a 5-6-2 tomato can, and with not a single quality win to his credit. Saying that he beat Savarese in hind site doesn't mean anything. Tua's people thought they were fighting a safe opponent, and they were absolutely right. Izon was a bum.



Stewart fought Foreman in 1992. By the time he fought Maskaev in 1997, he was shot to pieces. Doesn't any of this shit matter to you, or are you still hoping that I'll let you get away with incomplete explanations and half truths?



Who cares? At the age of 39, Moorer's record is 49-4. At age 38, Makaev's record is 34-5. How does that equate to Maskaev being better? Plus, do you really think Maskaev has beaten a longer list of better opponents?

1. Charles and Moore--Charles defeated 40 fighters rated when he fought them, and had 18 victories (against six defeats) against Hall-of-Famers. Moore defeated 44 fighters rated when he fought them, and had 12 victories (against 10 defeats and a draw) against Hall-of-Famers. If Moorer has similar achievements when he retires, he should be ranked with them.
Both Charles and Moore fought often and well at heavy. Charles defeated 16 heavys rated when he fought them--Moore eleven. In fairness, Moorer's victory over Holyfield is more impressive than any single victory by Charles or Moore, but Schmeling's victory over Joe Louis, while more impressive than any single victory of Jeffries, Johnson, or Dempsey, does not, in most people's eyes, elevate him above these old champions, as his overall record is weaker.

2. Izon was a bum?--He was good enough to knockout Savarese and what difference does it make what Tua's braintrust thought of him going in? Beating Savarese in hindsight means that he beat Savarese, period.

3. It is speculation what Ibeabuchi would have done with Moorer--It is not speculation that he defeated Tua, while Moorer was ko'd by Tua in one.

4. Tua knocked out Moorer in 2002. Yes, in one round. Sort of like Sonny Liston knocking out Roy Harris in 1960. Makes it obvious Liston was better, doesn't it, whatever one thinks of each man's accomplishments in the 1950's.

5. Tommy Morrison is another who could be ranked ahead of Moorer. Moorer was knocked out by Foreman, while Morrison defeated Foreman cleanly.

6. Moorer's victory over Holyfield isn't just the cornerstone of his resume--it is practically the whole resume, his only impressive win at heavyweight.

[fists of fury]

The thing I remember most about Holy-Moorer 1 was Teddy Atlas going bananas in the corner. He was begging, pleading, threatening and berating Moorer after every round.
Each to his own, but I was not impressed nor convinced by Moorer as a heavyweight.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=OLD FOGEY]1. Charles and Moore--Charles defeated 40 fighters rated when he fought them, and had 18 victories (against six defeats) against Hall-of-Famers. Moore defeated 44 fighters rated when he fought them, and had 12 victories (against 10 defeats and a draw) against Hall-of-Famers. If Moorer has similar achievements when he retires, he should be ranked with them.
Both Charles and Moore fought often and well at heavy. Charles defeated 16 heavys rated when he fought them--Moore eleven. In fairness, Moorer's victory over Holyfield is more impressive than any single victory by Charles or Moore, but Schmeling's victory over Joe Louis, while more impressive than any single victory of Jeffries, Johnson, or Dempsey, does not, in most people's eyes, elevate him above these old champions, as his overall record is weaker.


My whole point is that Moorer's career accomplishments shouldn't be diminished, nor should his value as a heavyweight in the 90's be tarnished because he was a lightheavyweight. By the way, he was one of the most feared lightheavys in the division during the late 80's/early 90's, during a time when the division had considerable talent. Moorer had knocked out all 23 of his opponents, and none of the other lightheavys wanted anything to do with him, which is part of the reason that he vacated the division.


2. Izon was a bum?--He was good enough to knockout Savarese and what difference does it make what Tua's braintrust thought of him going in? Beating Savarese in hindsight means that he beat Savarese, period.


A single good win that came later. He was a nobody going in against Tua, who had lost to a guy with a record of 5-6-2 in the fight right before facing Tua, and had never beaten a guy who was higher than tomato can status.


3. It is speculation what Ibeabuchi would have done with Moorer--It is not speculation that he defeated Tua, while Moorer was ko'd by Tua in one.


When Moorer was at least 5 years past his prime, and on the comeback trail. A point which for whatever reason you continue to ignore, and I'm not exactly sure why. Besides, how does a single defeat against Tua, create an argument that Ibeabucci was better overall from a career perspective, despite his win over Tua? Not to mention, what does Tua's win over Moorer have to do with the two men's accomplishments in the 90's? Based on Your logic, it would be like claiming that because Holmes beat Ali in the 80's, that he was a better fighter than Ali was in the 70's. I'm begining to wonder if you're getting my point, or if we're even debating the same issue for that matter.



4. Tua knocked out Moorer in 2002. Yes, in one round. Sort of like Sonny Liston knocking out Roy Harris in 1960. Makes it obvious Liston was better, doesn't it, whatever one thinks of each man's accomplishments in the 1950's.


This has already been addressed in depth, but incidently as sort of a side debate, do the outcomes of head to head matchups always determine weather one fighter is better than another from a legacy standpoint, or for that matter deserving of a higher rating in a particular decade? The answer is no. Not always. Iran Barkley scored two unavenged victories against Thomas Hearns. Could you honestly look at someone in the eye and say that Barkley deserves a higher rating Hearns? Bowe beat Holyfield two out of three times. How many people rate Bowe higher in the grand scheme of things? These are just two very basic and over simplified examples. If you go back and research some of the great fighters of old, you'll find that many of them had unavenged losses at some point in their careers to lesser fighters, yet it doesn't seem to effect their legacies.


5. Tommy Morrison is another who could be ranked ahead of Moorer. Moorer was knocked out by Foreman, while Morrison defeated Foreman cleanly.


Doubtful. Morrison was Ko'd badly by Michael Bent, and drew with 8-8 ross purity. He was also Ko'd early by Ray mercer, another fighter whom I'm not so sure I can rate above Moorer. Additionally, he had near losses to Journeyman Joe Hipp, and a washed up Carl Williams. None of these men were the calibur of Moorer, plus Moorer defeated a larger array of better opponents overall, while Morrison primarily feasted on journeyman, tomato cans and has beens. Comparing Tommy Morrison to Michael Moorer is irrelevant, despite Morrison's victory over Foreman, and Moorer's failure to beat George. When you analyze these things, you have to look at the whole picture, and not just the components that conveiniently suite a debate.


6. Moorer's victory over Holyfield isn't just the cornerstone of his resume--it is practically the whole resume, his only impressive win at heavyweight.


It was ceratainly by far his biggest win, and a noteworthy one at that. I disagree however, that it was the only good win he had. Frans Botha was undefeated in 35 fights, and had just taken the IBF world title away from Axel Shultz. Moorer handed Botha his first check mark in the "L" column. Alex Stewart was still a pretty good fighter when Moorer fought him. He was 27 years old, a big heavyweight, had knocked out all 26 of his victoms, and had losses to only prime versions of Holyfield and Tyson. Bert Cooper, was on the best run of his career and a ranked contender. Moorer and Cooper slugged it out for 5 rounds, in what was much like Foreman vs Lyle. If you've never seen these fights, then I strongly recommend that you watch both. Vaugn Bean was undefeated in 27 pro fights, another Moorer victom at heavyweight. Moorer also beat Axel Shultz, who I never thought much of, but hey, he was rated to.

[Sonny's jab]

The thing I remember most about Holy-Moorer 1 was Teddy Atlas going bananas in the corner. He was begging, pleading, threatening and berating Moorer after every round.
Each to his own, but I was not impressed nor convinced by Moorer as a heavyweight.

Nobody was.
When Moorer won the title the story in the heavyweight division was how awful Holyfield suddenly looked (and his diagnosed heart trouble) and how Riddick Bowe should get in shape.

Few people - if any - considered Moorer the best heavyweight in the world. He'd looked totally unconvincing scraping past an utterly dismal and jaded Holyfield.

[ChrisPontius]

Nobody was.

Magoo clearly was. :D

[JohnThomas1]

Magoo clearly was. :D

Undoubtably

:yep