How Would A Young Foreman Have Done In The 1990s?

If I were you, I would seriously start questioning my knowledge if you genuinely didn't know Bonavena knocked Frazier down twice in his 12th pro fight.

 

I already question your knowledge.

 

I agree, as prime Foreman was equipped, he dominates with only a few presenting as the more stern challenges but guys he still beats.

As you say, his most serious challenges will only be time, complacency, losing his edge etc.

I’d like to think that when the downturn begins George will know to call it day and compartmentalise himself into flogging his holy grill (nice! ).

 

Pretty rich coming from the guy who:

Didn't know Frazier was knocked down by Bonavena in his 12th fight (tbh I'm quite surprised you didn't use this to downplay the significance of Foreman's win given your long-time efforts to disparage the man whenever and wherever possible)

Didn't know Louis was dropped in the first round in the fight that he won the title.

Thinks Ruddock could beat the undefeated heavyweight champion of the world, because he knocked out a washed up Dokes who had to pay the WBA for his laughable number 3 spot. The little it takes to impress you is quite embarrassing. If you liked Ruddock's KO, this one will blow your mind.

This content is protected

What odds are we giving Bentt against Frazier, based on this? 50-50?

 

The 1970’s George Foreman moved over to the 1990s would make a huge impact on the division. But I still think he loses some fights.

 

I've already forgotten more about boxing than you've ever known, kid.

Before the Ruddock fight, Dokes finished 89 with a ranking of 3 in the Ring, behind Tyson and Holyfield.

Ruddock probably would've beaten Morrison if the fight weren’t nonsensically waved off, even though he was washed up.

Perhaps you should focus on your grades instead of things I wrote on a message board a long time ago.

 

You didn't "forget" anything. Forgetting would imply you had knowledge in the first place which as your comment shows, you clearly did not.

You simply dksab.

He was ranked 3 in the annual ratings were retroactively attributed. What was his ranking at the time of the fight?

"w÷rent nonsensical" Are you having a stroke mate?

In any event, there's no basis for saying Ruddock "probably would've won". It was perhaps a premature stoppage, But he'd taken multiple unanswered combos, was down once and taken two stounding eight counts all in the same round....He was on his way out regardless.

Thanks for the concern but I've just graduated college with honors.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I feel the people saying 90s Foreman was better are trying to rehabilitate the 90s HW divisions reputation and have an agenda. All the things Foreman did in the 90s and didn't in the 70s is because he didn't need to. Why would prime Foreman let a fighter last 12 rounds to show the world he had a gas tank and a bag of tricks? Why would any fighter choose to show more in a fight they could end right away?

 

Mate keep that agenda rubbish in your back pocket, seriously half the forum has an obsession with labelling any differing opinion on sports debates… FICTIONAL FIGHTS as an Agenda tf is up with that? What’s the “Agenda” at work here?

 

What’s a “stounding” eight count?

You got a bachelor’s from SUNY? If you want the big bucks, you should go for the doctorate like I did.

 

What I mean is an argument designed to advance a seperate argument from the subject matter they would not otherwise agree with. If not for the implications of what Foreman being a shell of himself in 1991 would mean none of these posters would dispute that 70s Foreman was better.

Maybe agenda sounds too dramatic but I don't have a better word.

 

Don't know about all that. Probably going to complete my master's and call it a day. My sister got her bachelor's from Harvard then completed her PHD at Temple Medical School and is a doctor at the University of Chicago. All she has to show for it, is a $60K a year salary and half a million in student debt.

 

I think that's a symptom of people interpreting the same broad set of facts in different ways.

For people who start from the assumption that the 70s are better (which they decided through film study, or reading, or living through it, etc.), Foreman is exhibit A for them. He did well because he was better than the 90s guys, because he came from the "Golden Era." Simple as. And from a pro-70s vantage point, he seems a huge, anomalous problem that the modern folks have to explain away.

From the modern perspective, they've got their own evidence to believe newer heavyweights are an improvement, on average, from their predecessors. So Foreman is an outlier for them, but the 70s guys have their own bits of data that don't fit the "Golden Era" narrative, either. Like the fact that Foreman didn't train very sensibly in the 70s. Like the fact that 90s Foreman can tank punches that he couldn't in his 70s incarnation. Or his observably better boxing skills and pacing. Or all of the other old guys who continued to fight at a top level into their 40s. If Foreman is the special son of a special era, should we conclude from all of the 40-and-over guys we've seen that boxing has been in a continual process of degeneration? If you're not looking to interpret Foreman as an incredible outlier, he fits pretty well with what we've learned about heavyweight boxing since the 90s.

The 70s people will respond to these problems with their view with their own explanations. How Tommy Morrison, Shannon Briggs, etc. really didn't punch all that hard -- the 70s were an era with the best punchers ever -- or that all of the successful 40 and over guys don't count for whatever reason. They'll weight winning the lineal title really highly, even though Moorer wasn't the best guy in the world when Foreman beat him, and Foreman's 90s career otherwise just looks like a well managed contender.

Thing is, IMO, some people just look at the broad sweep of issues in fantasy fights and draw different conclusions. Because fantasy fights aren't science. We don't get to see Ali fight Joe Louis fight Wladimir Klitschko. And yes, if they're consistent in their own arguments, they will probably explain outlier facts differently.

 

Harvard undergrad is for suckers unless it’s a free ride or you’re going straight into banking. 60k sounds like resident money. She’ll be fine as long she isn’t becoming a pediatrician or PCP.