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 08-23-2007, 10:50 AM   #1
cross_trainer
Bergeron Avatar Club
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,685
vCash: 1000
Default Foreman/Holmes' Generation

Both of these guys remained top contenders (one a champion) during the 90's, despite their primes being in the mid-to-late-70's and early 80's. That they were both the same age strengthens the point. Holmes was 21-3 in his comeback post-Tyson, with a win over Mercer (who arguably beat Lewis) and a close defeat against McCall (who did beat Lewis). Foreman was 30-3...he beat Moorer (lineal champ) and arguably Shannon Briggs (still in the top 10) along with several lesser lights. Both were in their mid-40's.

Both of these men were comparable during their primes to a far older Ali--who beat the two best fighters that Holmes defeated (Norton and Shavers), the three best fighters Foreman defeated (Norton, older Frazier, Lyle), and Foreman himself.

Normally I don't like connect-the-dots games, but this one is more valid than most. Boxing has declined since the glory days.
cross_trainer is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-23-2007, 10:55 AM   #2
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,574
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman/Holmes' Generation

Quote:
Originally Posted by cross_trainer
Both of these guys remained top contenders (one a champion) during the 90's, despite their primes being in the mid-to-late-70's and early 80's. That they were both the same age strengthens the point. Holmes was 21-3 in his comeback post-Tyson, with a win over Mercer (who arguably beat Lewis) and a close defeat against McCall (who did beat Lewis). Foreman was 30-3...he beat Moorer (lineal champ) and arguably Shannon Briggs (still in the top 10) along with several lesser lights. Both were in their mid-40's.

Both of these men were comparable during their primes to a far older Ali--who beat the two best fighters that Holmes defeated (Norton and Shavers), the three best fighters Foreman defeated (Norton, older Frazier, Lyle), and Foreman himself.

Normally I don't like connect-the-dots games, but this one is more valid than most. Boxing has declined since the glory days.
Agreed.

We had a similar thread like this about two weeks ago which I believe was entitled " Is it telling that Froeman's come back in the 90's " or something to that effect. Some people tried to argue that Holmes and Foreman's success in the 90's were isolated incidents of personal acheivements as opposed to being any indication of the 70's being a better era.

Naturally, I begged to differ.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 10:57 AM   #3
Shake
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 75
Default Re: Foreman/Holmes' Generation

Correction; the heavyweight division has declined since the glory days. I do agree that the results of Foreman go directly against the notion that champions of yesteryear would be B-level nowadays. Especially since Foreman was not only old, but very overweight.
Shake is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 01:39 PM   #4
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,643
vCash: 238
Default Re: Foreman/Holmes' Generation

Quote:
Originally Posted by cross_trainer
Both of these guys remained top contenders (one a champion) during the 90's, despite their primes being in the mid-to-late-70's and early 80's. That they were both the same age strengthens the point. Holmes was 21-3 in his comeback post-Tyson, with a win over Mercer (who arguably beat Lewis) and a close defeat against McCall (who did beat Lewis). Foreman was 30-3...he beat Moorer (lineal champ) and arguably Shannon Briggs (still in the top 10) along with several lesser lights. Both were in their mid-40's.

Both of these men were comparable during their primes to a far older Ali--who beat the two best fighters that Holmes defeated (Norton and Shavers), the three best fighters Foreman defeated (Norton, older Frazier, Lyle), and Foreman himself.

Normally I don't like connect-the-dots games, but this one is more valid than most. Boxing has declined since the glory days.
Disagree for two reasons:

1)

Foreman and Holmes were fighting in the 90's and you make a nice notion of their positive records, but it's what's behind the numbers. In this case, a truckload of tomato cans.
Fact:
Neither Foreman or Holmes beat any of the best 4 of the 90's, i.e. Lewis, Tyson, Bowe and Holyfield. Both of them tried against what they viewed as the weakest of those (Holyfield), and got dominated in pretty one-sided fashion.

To make an analogy: Patterson, a 50's/60's fighter was able to beat some of the guys in the 70's, but no one would say the 70's is weak because Patterson had some wins in the 70's. Why not? He didn't beat any of the best 4 of the 70's (Ali/Foreman/Frazier/Holmes). He faced Ali and got stopped twice. He probably should've gotten the verdict against Quarry and beat Bonevena, in my opinion that is just as good or better than beating Moorer and Mercer. He could've beat up the 70's tomato cans as well to have a nice 21-3 record, so would you say the 50's are stronger than the 70's?

Fact: Foreman's official record against ranked contenders in the 90's is 2-2.
He lost by a landslide to Holyfield and Morrison (yes, the same glass chinned Morrison that got layed out in 1 by Michael Bennt), he beat Moorer after being outclassed for 9 rounds and he got overconfident (no suprise he didn't want to know about a rematch) and he lost to Briggs although i thought he won that one.

On top of that, he got a horrific beating from Alex Stewart (unranked), he should not have gotten the decision against Axel Schulz (unranked, he had to pay 250.000 not to face a live contender) and had yet another questionable decision Savarese. Good thing he got robbed against Briggs after that travesty hijacking and splitting of the titles.

So to conclude, Foreman lost, struggled or got gift decisions when he stepped up with the only exception being Moorer after losing every round and Briggs.
That's a 2nd tier heavy of the 90's and a third tier heavy of the 90's, when not even looking at his other struggles against mediocreties, how in God's name does this prove anything about the 90's ??

Fact:
Larry Holmes' official record against ranked contenders in the 90's is 1-1. Mercer being the win, an impressive one (although Jesse Fergusson also beat him) and he lost, like Foreman, in a very one-sided fight to Holyfield.


Besides that, he beat up some 90's tomato cans. Impressive considering his age, but by no means does it prove anything about the 90's.

Note that he was knocked out by Mike Tyson in '88, who is also one of the top4 heavies of the 90's. Basically he got dominated by both of the top4 90's heavies just like Foreman.


To put it short, they weren't fighting the best fighters of the 90's and struggled and lost a lot when stepping up to even fringe contenders.
Again, i refer to the example of Patterson having succes against some of the 70's contenders and the tomato cans, but losing while facing the better heavies of that period. What if he beat Leon Spinks. He would be linear but would certainly not be the best, just like Foreman was after he beat Moorer. No one makes a fuss about that because everyone loves the 70's and no one considers Patterson to be THAT good.


2)

The classic A beat B and C beat B, so C beats A does not hold in boxing.
Shavers effortlessly beat Norton who just gave Holmes hell, so Shavers should easily be able to handle Holmes. Which of course he didn't.

Experience is a big factor and sometimes fighters can still be quite good despite having faded reflexes, mantits and what not.

Reggie Johnson, a middleweight and not a huge puncher, knocked Toney down in their fight in 1991. Samuel Peter, a big punching heavyweight only managed to do it once in two fights with a jab, which may have been due to Toney being off-balance. Does that mean Johnson punches harder than Peter? I don't think so. Experience, body chance, style, composure are all big factors in boxing and they change as a fighter gets older.

Foreman was very calm and had a tide stance and guard as well as being well-balanced in his comeback. This saved him from a lot of knockdowns, if he fought the way he did in the 70's he would've probably been knocked down a lot. His larger mass also helped absorbing shots.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 02:26 PM   #5
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,574
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman/Holmes' Generation

[quote=ChrisPontius]Disagree for two reasons:

1)

Quote:
Foreman and Holmes were fighting in the 90's and you make a nice notion of their positive records, but it's what's behind the numbers. In this case, a truckload of tomato cans.
When a fighter returns from an extended layoff like Foreman ( 10 years ) or Holmes ( 6 years, not including his brief meetin with Tyson ), they aren't going to pick up where they left off fighting top challengers. They have to start off like prospects fighting Journeyman and yes even a few cans. And not everyone they fought in their comebacks surmounted to a truckload of tomatoes.


Quote:
Fact:
Neither Foreman or Holmes beat any of the best 4 of the 90's, i.e. Lewis, Tyson, Bowe and Holyfield. Both of them tried against what they viewed as the weakest of those (Holyfield), and got dominated in pretty one-sided fashion.
Did those guys beat all of the best heavyweights of the 90's?
Besides, Tyson was not one of the 4 best heavys of the decade. I'd rate Foreman higher.


Quote:
To make an analogy: Patterson, a 50's/60's fighter was able to beat some of the guys in the 70's, but no one would say the 70's is weak because Patterson had some wins in the 70's. Why not? He didn't beat any of the best 4 of the 70's (Ali/Foreman/Frazier/Holmes). He faced Ali and got stopped twice. He probably should've gotten the verdict against Quarry and beat Bonevena, in my opinion that is just as good or better than beating Moorer and Mercer. He could've beat up the 70's tomato cans as well to have a nice 21-3 record, so would you say the 50's are stronger than the 70's?
Was patterson in his mid forties during the 70's? I don't think so. Did Patterson become a world champion in the 70's? Uhhhh, I don't think so. Did Patterson manage to go the distance with the reigning champ?
I rest my case, as this is a poor comparison on your part.


Quote:
Fact: Foreman's official record against ranked contenders in the 90's is 2-2.
He lost by a landslide to Holyfield and Morrison (yes, the same glass chinned Morrison that got layed out in 1 by Michael Bennt), he beat Moorer after being outclassed for 9 rounds and he got overconfident (no suprise he didn't want to know about a rematch) and he lost to Briggs although i thought he won that one.
Landslide my ass. He rocked Holyfield on more than a few occasions, and Morrison ran from him, rather than trading as he did against Mercer and Bent. And by the way, Foreman going 2-2 against ranked contenders is a rather narrow view. Beating the undefeated lineal champion is a huge feat for anyone, plus Savarese, Rodriguez, Grimsley, Stewart, Cooper and a few others, weren't exactly tomato cans either.

Quote:
On top of that, he got a horrific beating from Alex Stewart (unranked), he should not have gotten the decision against Axel Schulz (unranked, he had to pay 250.000 not to face a live contender) and had yet another questionable decision Savarese. Good thing he got robbed against Briggs after that travesty hijacking and splitting of the titles.
Rather than just looking at the stewart fight as Foreman getting a horrific beating, why don't you look at the ass kicking he gave stewart, and while you're at it give George some credit for showing the kind of heart that he did at such an advanced age......Jeez the lengths people will go through when they're opinions are so biased....

Quote:
So to conclude, Foreman lost, struggled or got gift decisions when he stepped up with the only exception being Moorer after losing every round and Briggs.
Why don't you get your facts straight for a change, Pointius ? The only gift decision that Foreman received was against Shultz, and when you consider that he was robbed against Briggs at the near age of 50, I'd say things even out just a bit wouldn't you? Plus, you're making an aweful lot of allowences for the fact that Moorer got careless, yet you make no concession for Foreman being at such an advanced age and still managing to KO his ass.


Quote:
That's a 2nd tier heavy of the 90's and a third tier heavy of the 90's, when not even looking at his other struggles against mediocreties, how in God's name does this prove anything about the 90's ??
Winning the lineal title from what was possibly the fifth or sixth best heavyweight of the decade, while going the distance with the #1 heavy of the decade, and beating a few decent fighters along the way, doesn't make for a 2nd or 3rd tier rating.
Fact:
Quote:
Larry Holmes' official record against ranked contenders in the 90's is 1-1. Mercer being the win, an impressive one (although Jesse Fergusson also beat him) and he lost, like Foreman, in a very one-sided fight to Holyfield.
Actually, it's 1-3 beacuse he lost two decisions to two champions, and a acquired a 3rd loss in highly controversial fashion against a 31-0 prospect who hosted Holmes in his home town of Denmark, which explains the robbery.

Again, Let's stick to the facts here Chris, you need some touching up in that area.


Quote:
Note that he was knocked out by Mike Tyson in '88, who is also one of the top4 heavies of the 90's. Basically he got dominated by both of the top4 90's heavies just like Foreman.
Theres a lot of shit here Chris. Holmes was coming off a two year layoff against Tyson, rather than training properly for a comeback like he did in the 90's, plus Tyson was not one of the best fighters of the 90's. His record was 9-3 between 1990 and 1999, and was abscent for half the decade.

Quote:
What if he beat Leon Spinks. He would be linear but would certainly not be the best, just like Foreman was after he beat Moorer. No one makes a fuss about that because everyone loves the 70's and no one considers Patterson to be THAT good.
Even if Patterson came around in 1978 and beat Leon Spinks, it would not be comparable to Foreman beating Moorer. Moorer was a much better fighter than Leon Spinks. Plus, Patterson would have had to put together a pretty impressive comeback to match Foreman's pre title shot resume. You can say that he fought tomato cans, but it was still impressive.

Last edited by mr. magoo; 08-23-2007 at 03:36 PM.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 05:39 PM   #6
Bill1234
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,005
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman/Holmes' Generation

Larry fought and beat Ferguson, who was a pretty good fighter. He beat Mercer in a much more dominating fashion than Lewis. He won about about 3-4 rounds against Holyfield. He even made Holyfield look silly when he slipped a punch and Holyfield fell. He only lost by 1 point on 2 score cards against Olivar McCall, who was the linear champ in his prime. Larry through up after that fight. In 1997 Larry fought, and arguably beat Brian Neilson for the IBO title, but Neilson got the decision strictly because it was in Denmark. Larry was pushing like his life depended on it to fight Foreman, but Foreman wasn't interested, regardless that he would pick up around 10 mill with it. Larry still wants to fight Foreman.
Bill1234 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 06:30 PM   #7
NickHudson
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 447
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman/Holmes' Generation

I agree wholeheartedly with all of your analysis here, Magoo.

[quote=mr. magoo]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPontius
Disagree for two reasons:

1)



When a fighter returns from an extended layoff like Foreman ( 10 years ) or Holmes ( 6 years, not including his brief meetin with Tyson ), they aren't going to pick up where they left off fighting top challengers. They have to start off like prospects fighting Journeyman and yes even a few cans. And not everyone they fought in their comebacks surmounted to a truckload of tomatoes.




Did those guys beat all of the best heavyweights of the 90's?
Besides, Tyson was not one of the 4 best heavys of the decade. I'd rate Foreman higher.




Was patterson in his mid forties during the 70's? I don't think so. Did Patterson become a world champion in the 70's? Uhhhh, I don't think so. Did Patterson manage to go the distance with the reigning champ?
I rest my case, as this is a poor comparison on your part.




Landslide my ass. He rocked Holyfield on more than a few occasions, and Morrison ran from him, rather than trading as he did against Mercer and Bent. And by the way, Foreman going 2-2 against ranked contenders is a rather narrow view. Beating the undefeated lineal champion is a huge feat for anyone, plus Savarese, Rodriguez, Grimsley, Stewart, Cooper and a few others, weren't exactly tomato cans either.



Rather than just looking at the stewart fight as Foreman getting a horrific beating, why don't you look at the ass kicking he gave stewart, and while you're at it give George some credit for showing the kind of heart that he did at such an advanced age......Jeez the lengths people will go through when they're opinions are so biased....



Why don't you get your facts straight for a change, Pointius ? The only gift decision that Foreman received was against Shultz, and when you consider that he was robbed against Briggs at the near age of 50, I'd say things even out just a bit wouldn't you? Plus, you're making an aweful lot of allowences for the fact that Moorer got careless, yet you make no concession for Foreman being at such an advanced age and still managing to KO his ass.




Winning the lineal title from what was possibly the fifth or sixth best heavyweight of the decade, while going the distance with the #1 heavy of the decade, and beating a few decent fighters along the way, doesn't make for a 2nd or 3rd tier rating.
Fact:


Actually, it's 1-3 beacuse he lost two decisions to two champions, and a acquired a 3rd loss in highly controversial fashion against a 31-0 prospect who hosted Holmes in his home town of Denmark, which explains the robbery.

Again, Let's stick to the facts here Chris, you need some touching up in that area.




Theres a lot of shit here Chris. Holmes was coming off a two year layoff against Tyson, rather than training properly for a comeback like he did in the 90's, plus Tyson was not one of the best fighters of the 90's. His record was 9-3 between 1990 and 1999, and was abscent for half the decade.



Even if Patterson came around in 1978 and beat Leon Spinks, it would not be comparable to Foreman beating Moorer. Moorer was a much better fighter than Leon Spinks. Plus, Patterson would have had to put together a pretty impressive comeback to match Foreman's pre title shot resume. You can say that he fought tomato cans, but it was still impressive.
NickHudson is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 06:59 PM   #8
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,643
vCash: 238
Default Re: Foreman/Holmes' Generation

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo


Did those guys beat all of the best heavyweights of the 90's?
Besides, Tyson was not one of the 4 best heavys of the decade. I'd rate Foreman higher.
Consensus will tell you that Tyson/Lewis/Holyfield/Bowe are the top4 heavies of the 90's. Make a poll if you like. Foreman only had brief succes against a weak champion and too many dodgy fights besides that to be rated higher than those 4.


Quote:
Was patterson in his mid forties during the 70's? I don't think so. Did Patterson become a world champion in the 70's? Uhhhh, I don't think so. Did Patterson manage to go the distance with the reigning champ?
I rest my case, as this is a poor comparison on your part.
It was just an example. Fact is that he was older and past his best yet he got some "good" wins just like Foreman and Holmes got.



Quote:
Landslide my ass. He rocked Holyfield on more than a few occasions, and Morrison ran from him, rather than trading as he did against Mercer and Bent. And by the way, Foreman going 2-2 against ranked contenders is a rather narrow view. Beating the undefeated lineal champion is a huge feat for anyone, plus Savarese, Rodriguez, Grimsley, Stewart, Cooper and a few others, weren't exactly tomato cans either.
2-2 against contenders is not a narrow view, it is a plain true fact.
Another fact: Rodriguez, Savarese, Stewart, Cooper and Grimsley weren't ranked contenders. Fringe contenders at best, and i think we can agree that it's the contenders and champions that make the era. Not the fringe contenders. Fringe contenders are nothing unique hence his wins over them prove nothing relative to the era. The fact that he struggled badly with some (Savarese, Schulz, Stewart) doesn't speak well for him, though.


Quote:
Rather than just looking at the stewart fight as Foreman getting a horrific beating, why don't you look at the ass kicking he gave stewart, and while you're at it give George some credit for showing the kind of heart that he did at such an advanced age......Jeez the lengths people will go through when they're opinions are so biased....
This is where your emotions are getting the better of you. Yes, it was a great showing of heart by Foreman (a department in which he is rarely praised) but when looking objectively, he struggled with a non-ranked fighter and may well have not gotten the decision had he been less popular.


Quote:
Why don't you get your facts straight for a change, Pointius ? The only gift decision that Foreman received was against Shultz, and when you consider that he was robbed against Briggs at the near age of 50, I'd say things even out just a bit wouldn't you? Plus, you're making an aweful lot of allowences for the fact that Moorer got careless, yet you make no concession for Foreman being at such an advanced age and still managing to KO his ass.
Again you let emotions get the better off you. I already said it's damn impressive for Foreman to do these kind of things at that age, but that does not mean he has to be judged by a different standard !
By the way, he had three dodgy fights (Savarese, Schulz and Stewart) going his way opposed to only one the other way around (Briggs).



Quote:
Winning the lineal title from what was possibly the fifth or sixth best heavyweight of the decade, while going the distance with the #1 heavy of the decade, and beating a few decent fighters along the way, doesn't make for a 2nd or 3rd tier rating.
Going the distance means very little. Dutch pride Rudi Lubbers went the distance with Ali, but that doesn't mean it's a great accomplishment. He had his shot against one of the top4 best heavies of the 90's and lost a pretty one-sided fight. Unless you want to believe that it was a close fight?


Quote:
Actually, it's 1-3 beacuse he lost two decisions to two champions, and a acquired a 3rd loss in highly controversial fashion against a 31-0 prospect who hosted Holmes in his home town of Denmark, which explains the robbery.


Again, Let's stick to the facts here Chris, you need some touching up in that area.

I stand corrected.

So he's 1-3. 2-1 if you will, but then again, Nielsen never fought anyone with a pulse either and made no significant contribution to the strength of the era and therefore the win has no relevance in showing that Holmes was beaten the 90's contenders.




Quote:
Theres a lot of shit here Chris. Holmes was coming off a two year layoff against Tyson, rather than training properly for a comeback like he did in the 90's, plus Tyson was not one of the best fighters of the 90's. His record was 9-3 between 1990 and 1999, and was abscent for half the decade.
All i see is excuses. Fact is that he got layed out by one of the top4 of the 90's. Seeing how he also lost badly to the other top4 of the 90's he faced, it's not really a coincidence. I don't really blame him because he was old, but make no mistake about it, he was not superior to those 90's top fighters as the fights demonstrated.

Quote:
Even if Patterson came around in 1978 and beat Leon Spinks, it would not be comparable to Foreman beating Moorer. Moorer was a much better fighter than Leon Spinks. Plus, Patterson would have had to put together a pretty impressive comeback to match Foreman's pre title shot resume. You can say that he fought tomato cans, but it was still impressive.
I agree that Moorer was a bit better than Leon. All i'm saying is that it's not unimaginable for an older fighter to beat a weak champion like that, AND that a win like that over one weak champion does not mean the entire era is weak.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 11:45 PM   #9
prime
BOX! Writing Champion
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Guadalajara, Jal., Mexico
Posts: 1,229
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman/Holmes' Generation

Heavyweight "boxing has declined since the glory days" because any activity suffers when the basics are neglected.

Heavies today avoid each other, fight about once a year and now prize bulk via steroids and weight training instead of seeking endurance, boxing skills and keeping busy by fighting often; this is not disassociated from the fact that the 15-round championship distance is no longer.

Old Larry Holmes admits today's heavies are bigger and stronger but, in his words, "they can't fight!" And he proved the point by schooling Mercer and pushing McCall and Holyfield in the 90's, after his 42nd birthday and without a powerful punch. He survived fighting well into the 21st century primarily because he was a boxer who had mastered the fundamentals. He came up in a time when the top fighters, like of course his mentor Ali, appreciated possessing those basics.
prime is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2007, 03:38 AM   #10
Cojimar 1945
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 185
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Foreman/Holmes' Generation

Foreman and Holmes did have success in their old age but there would be a better case for 70s fighters being great if guys like Young, Lyle and Norton had showed similar longevity. Most of the 70s fighters did not carry on succesfully like these two.
Cojimar 1945 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 07:46 AM.


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