Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-07-2007, 10:00 AM   #16
laxpdx
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,389
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

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.
laxpdx is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-07-2007, 10:26 AM   #17
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,754
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
=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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
All that said, Foreman actually did it and it is a unique achievement
Agreed.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 11:05 AM   #18
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,754
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
ChrisPontius]This post says it all.
Actually, there are quite a few inaccuracies, as I've already pointed out.

Quote:
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. ]


Quote:
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?
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 11:10 AM   #19
prime
BOX! Writing Champion
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Guadalajara, Jal., Mexico
Posts: 1,230
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

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.
prime is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 11:16 AM   #20
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,754
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 02:24 PM   #21
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo
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.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 02:50 PM   #22
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,754
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:

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.

Quote:
2. Okay, Moorer was not only rated but the champion.
Thank you.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.........


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 03:21 PM   #23
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,754
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

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 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 03:23 PM   #24
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo
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 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 03:28 PM   #25
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
I don't think there is anything special about the 1990's, but that was not the question asked.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 03:47 PM   #26
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,754
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
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.
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.


Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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.
Quote:

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.

Quote:
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.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 03:59 PM   #27
The Kurgan
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4,227
vCash: 576
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdp000109
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.
The Kurgan is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 04:15 PM   #28
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,326
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
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.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 04:30 PM   #29
The Kurgan
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4,227
vCash: 576
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdp000109
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.
The Kurgan is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 04:31 PM   #30
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo
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.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013