Hopkins - Foreman: more difficult for a MW or for a HW becoming world champion after a certain age?

Discuss.

 

Que?

 

Meanwhile, is it father from Cleveland or from here or by bus?

 

I changed the title of the thread. Lol

 

Middleweight, although Hopkins wasn't a middleweight at 45 years old. Movement and stamina importance generally decrease as weight divisions go up.

 

I am not a big fan of Hopkins. Think he was pretty overrated at Middleweight. But, what he achieved at Light Heavyweight at such an advanced age was more impressive than what George achieved. Almost all heavyweights have at least a small chance of winning any fight by knockout. Especially if the opposition has a less than reliable chin (like Moorer)

 

Hopkins fought far better opposition than Foreman did at an advanced age, a middleweight slower than his opponents will not win a middleweight crown.

 

Foreman faced harder punchers.

 

How about Hopkins vs Fitzsimmons? Which accomplishement is more impressive, given over 100 years gap between them?

 

Those punchers weren`t as accurate as the guys Hopkins faced in his world title fights.

 

Based on Hopkins life style & eating habits, I think he would be a 40 year old winning in any era up to present.
Based on Foreman's natural power, no supplements little weight lifting...just a hard puncher, so he IMO would be able to win in his 40s if he were that old today.


IMO the Difficulty is based on individuals, not divisions. My example is Archie Moore born in 1916, yet was able to hold & defend LHW title in his mid 40s. Had he been 40 today, I would expect him to be just as smart, cunning & strong.

 

Foreman wouldn`t stand a chance of winning a world title now if he was in his 40`s, Ruiz is too quick and could probably take Foreman`s power the way Holy did byut get hit less because of his high guard, AJ is too quick and would hjave jabbed Foreman`s head off, Wilder is far too quick, Foreman even said Fury and Wilder would have beaten him, Fury is a far better boxer than Morrison , far harder to hit better footwork and longer jab which he throws more than Morrisison did v Foreman, Fury would be the hardest for Foreman to beat stylewise.

 

A few wise men have said, all it takes in the HW's is one shot. None of the fighters mentioned are 100% alert for 3 minutes 12 rounds.
But, not saying for sure, rather I wouldn't count him out. Fury'style still allowed him to get hit by Wilder-who couldnt land 100, yet within 100, one special shot landed, so, too can Foreman catch him. Morrison beat Foreman from a output perspective, but Foreman beat Frazier.

Not saying Foreman or Moore or Hop would rule, rather all these guys proved difficult to beat in their 40s. Cant see how today would make it seem improbable.

 

All depends on the level of competition around at the time. And if in recent times with a total of 4 world title bouts to select from. It certainly is easier to do today & hold onto the title than it would have been 70 years ago. Can you imagine Hopkins at that old age having to fight that level of competition? Or an old Foreman fighting in the early 70's?

 

Ruiz would be able to take Foreman's power? Based on what? Holyfield fought defensively and the few times he got caught, he was visibly hurt. Ruiz would go right at Foreman.

Joshua has worse jab than Foreman, so I don't get your argument.

Foreman from mid-90s would likely lose against Wilder, but the one who fought against Holyfield would beat him. How would Wilder cope with Foreman's physical strength and body shots? Old George could take punches better than anyone, he would take a few rights from Wilder that wouldn't drop him.