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 08-09-2007, 01:24 PM   #46
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 14,048
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

[quote=OLD FOGEY]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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-09-2007, 02:10 PM   #47
Bill1234
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,006
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo
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 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 02:16 PM   #48
Bill1234
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,006
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
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?
Bill1234 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 02:51 PM   #49
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 14,048
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill1234
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.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 03:30 PM   #50
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

[quote=mr. magoo]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 04:01 PM   #51
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 14,048
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

[quote=OLD FOGEY][quote=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, ****ey, 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.
Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Last edited by mr. magoo; 08-09-2007 at 04:45 PM.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 04:02 PM   #52
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 14,048
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

repeat post.

Last edited by mr. magoo; 08-09-2007 at 04:44 PM.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 04:06 PM   #53
Cojimar 1945
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 185
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Holmes, Holyfield, Tyson and Witherspoon were among the best 80s heavyweights though Holmes had faded by the mid 80s.
Cojimar 1945 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 05:13 PM   #54
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
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, ****ey, 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.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 08:14 PM   #55
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 14,048
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

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.
Quote:

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 )

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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 ho****s 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.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 08:37 PM   #56
ironchamp
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 2,831
vCash: 1230
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

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.
ironchamp is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 09:05 PM   #57
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 14,048
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 09:16 PM   #58
Bill1234
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,006
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo
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.
Bill1234 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 09:52 PM   #59
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 14,048
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill1234
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.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 09:56 PM   #60
Russell
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,600
vCash: 118
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

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.
Russell 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 10:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2015