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 08-11-2007, 09:26 PM   #91
Cojimar 1945
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 185
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Lewis had scored far better wins than Foreman had in the 90s and established himself as a contender while Foreman had not done so.
Cojimar 1945 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-11-2007, 09:34 PM   #92
NickHudson
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 447
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

spot on mate!

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.
NickHudson is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 10:11 PM   #93
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,715
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 11:10 PM   #94
JohnThomas1
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,119
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo
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.
JohnThomas1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 12:37 AM   #95
AnthonyJ74
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,544
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo
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.
AnthonyJ74 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 12:48 AM   #96
Cojimar 1945
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 185
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

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 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 12:50 AM   #97
Cojimar 1945
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 185
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

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.
Cojimar 1945 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 05:48 AM   #98
Sonny's jab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo
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.


Quote:
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.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 08:56 AM   #99
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,715
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
=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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 09:26 AM   #100
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,658
vCash: 238
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo

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.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 12:23 PM   #101
prime
BOX! Writing Champion
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Guadalajara, Jal., Mexico
Posts: 1,229
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

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.
prime is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 01:37 PM   #102
Sonny's jab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by prime
a) Endurance through cardio work and litheness were preached in the 70ís. Strength training became king in the 90ís. A prime ďBigĒ George Foreman began to look small as of the 90ís. 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 70ís. Old Foremanís 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 Holmesí boxing skills were truly great, for he certainly didnít 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 couldnít 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 !
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 03:18 PM   #103
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,715
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

Quote:
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.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 07:29 PM   #104
mochabuzz
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 242
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman - Is it telling that...

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).
mochabuzz is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2007, 12:02 AM   #105
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
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.
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 11:34 PM.


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