Foreman - Is it telling that...

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by janitor

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]

Originally Posted by The Kurgan

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

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.