Was Foreman a better fighter in the 70s or 90s?

Of course prime Foreman was the greater hwt. It's not a debatable subject.

 

Would 90's foreman get dropped by Jimmy young? Funny no one wants to answer this? i guess bc if you say yes you are either dumb or a liar...maybe a dumb liar???who knows in forums?? In any case that question i ask gives you the SIMPLE answer of the thread though ive already COMPLETELY answered it on the other one!.....lol

 

You can't lie about a hypothetical event.

This guy is dragging Classic down. I'm all for different opinions, but what the **** is this ****.

 

He is the clown from that heavyweight blog website.
Tommo, Glover, Merchants Ghost were his previous booted id's.
Tbh, i wouldn't believe anything he posts, he is a dreamer.

 

Old Foreman was a wiser man, but his second career was a novelty act. Bald George was still strong enough to get by and gate crash a vulnerable champion destined to lose his next fight...but in truth that time around George was NEVER the best HW in the world. Not by a long chalk. Any matchmaker could have got him beat when ever he wanted. You just can't say that about George when he had hair.

 

Foreman in the 70 s was a different fighter, I'll put it that way. He was dangerous, as he was in both decades. In the 70 s no one apart from ali and young could beat him , and they beat him because of the flaws he had back then. He had a great chin but allowed him self to fatigued and gassed by the middle rounds due to the way he tried to ko his opponents early. He basically invited defeated on those occasions. When he came back he had learnt to alter his fight mode. He had to adapt, he was no longer a young man. He'd lost certain things from been inactive so long as well so he had to change. The 80 s /90 s version had learnt the value of patience, but still carried that raw power. And foreman s opponents in the 90 s were aware of his strength s and adjusted there fight plan to accord. That s why holyfield, morrison and Brigg beat him. Some, not all, of the men that young George beat would still lose to old g because of his raw power alone. I don't necessarily believe that the old version was better than the prime one, but the older George still had a chance against those opponents because of his power and great chin. The other question to ask is, how far younger George goes if he'd have come along in the 90 s?

 

If ingemar johansson came back in 1969 and knocked out Jimmy Ellis nobody would think that version was better than the 1959 ingo.

 

I'd say the 70's version was better. His sheer physicality and energy made him extremely dangerous. What old Foreman had going for him was that step back he'd taken in his retirement. He was much more mature mentally and a clever fighter. Even though he was as slow as molasses, he developed an effective style that allowed him to compete at the highest levels without gassing and his jab was a hurtful weapon indeed.

 

But you'd still have to give ingo credit for coming back and beating a younger man not of his generation, who had actually won a version of the heavyweight title.

 

Only because Ellis was much better than Moorer

 

Ellis whilst a decent fighter never held the lineal title. Moorer took that from holyfield which is a fair accomplishment. What ever you say about old George, he beat moorer square and fair.

 

This is true up to a level. For one fight against Holyfield (who he had a size advantage over) george did ok, but so far as that being the "highest level", well, back then people were not sold on Holyfield as being the best heavyweight in the world. That came much later. That particular version of Holyfield laboured with Holmes and Cooper then lost to the first good young heavyweight he defended against. Moorer was a kind of stop gap. The best heavyweights of that period were Lennox Lewis Riddick Bowe, Oliver McCall and Frank Bruno. and Foreman never wanted to fight that kind of fighter.

 

Moorer beat Holyfield, yes, After that win what else did Moorer do? The rematch put things into perspective.

I can't take the Moorer win from George. He earns that. But I don't think Moorer was any harder to beat than the guys Foreman was beating on that comeback. It just so happened a guy he could beat (and everyone else) wound up with the title. George got there first because he sold tickets.

 

Agreed with all your points there. I'm not going to say George was the best heavyweight at that point in time in the world, not by a long shot. But he grabbed the title shot and took it at the age of 45. Despite moorer s weakness, namely his chin, at the end of the day he could call him self the true champion. You put most 45 years old heavy s against moorer that night and they would lose.