Originally Posted by 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.
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. ****ey 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.