Who Wins: 1951 Louis or 1991 Foreman ?

Sure he would...Just like he did to Alex Stewart and Axel Shulz right? Two Vastly inferior fighters to any version of Louis that were more than likely robbed against foreman. If anything Foreman in the 199os proved how vulnerable he was against Fringe Contenders, while Louis showed it took a Prime ATG heavyweight to defeat him in his comeback.

 

A very good point. People act as though Foreman's comeback was one continuous entity that stetched from 1987 -1997 without any effects of decline. By 1994, Foreman was 45 years of age and only fighting around once per year. He had also made his money and was probably starting to lose hunger. If Foreman's comeback had a climax, it was probably sometime between 1989-1991, during a time when he was just a bit more than devastating. I mean, who the **** cares that he couldn't KO Savarese or Briggs when he was at the near age of 50? Besides, those two men were full sized heavyweights in their primes facing Foreman who was a half century old. Its better that Louis winning a decision over a 5'9, 180 lb Jimmy Bivens.

 

Savold was 36 years old, off for 12 months, had only fought once in 3 years, and in one of the last fights of his career. Do you think its possible that a man could lose a certain amount of durability under such circumstances. And my biggest issue here is that you are evaluating Foreman's power on the basis that he could not stop full-sized heavyweights in their primes, while appraising Louis for having the same sort of results against cruiserweight size fighters with a longer history of being stopped. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious contradiction here.

 

So now we're finally back to preaching RING ratings as though they are gosspel? That's a relief, because for a while you were starting to worry me a tad. Afterall, when we had our chat about who was better between Tony Tubbs and Tim Witherspoon, I clearly mentioned that Witherspoon was ranked by the ring for a combined 10 years whereas Tubbs never even came close. In another debate, you slammed Foreman for not fighting his mandatory in Tony Tucker, but Tucker was no where to be found in the RING ratings.

But, I guess the argument of ring ratings better suits your position here, so therefore we'll go with it...

 

1990 / 1991 Foreman was lethal............ Foreman sucked-it-up one last time in 1994 at 250 pounds against Moorer............. The Foreman who fought in 1995 to 1996 was just an attraction who was still tough as nails, but now slower than ice cold Molasses..... Foreman was lousy against "Schulz & Grimsley," but, he got his act semi-together at age 48 in 1997 for GOOD HBO fights against "Savarese and Briggs." Foreman was reamed by the judges against Shannon Briggs.........

MR.BILL

 

Good post,

As HeGrant has already mentioned, The REAL MATCHUP should be between a 1951 Louis and a 1990-1991 Foreman. That was what this thread was intended for, but some people have been scraping the bottom of the barrel to use performances that George had 5-6 years LATER in an effort to divert the issue..

 

Suzie Q is a great intellect, but also favorable to "Old School" fighters all the way........ In a way, I too, prefer the methods of many old school fighters...... Many of the old school fighters didn't have lotsa' padding on their records with overblown hype added to the mix........ They also were much more active, fighting two or three times in ONE WEEK!!! However, times have changed............

In the modern world, a fighter gets over-exposure by Cable TV and is offered or considered for a title shot after 18 to 25 pro fights against "Hand-Picked" opponents who were approved by the manager and network supporting the fighter...... I see through all that bull**** too........

BUT! While I will agree that BOTH "Louis & Foreman" had some padding on their records, due to careful managing tactics, I still consider BOTH guys old school fighters......... Cheers......

MR.BILL

 

Foreman's power was still there in the 90's. He was also smarter and wiser a fighter. If I think a prime Foreman vs prime Louis spells trouble for Louis than I'll take the older version of Foreman.

 

70 year old George Foreman could knock out a prime Joe Louis. No glass chin 205 pound overrated fighter like Louis could beat Foreman.

 

LoL Best Poster on ESB

 

I am the best poster. And i look cool too, Imagine a albino Mike Tyson and you have me.
Lol if you were sane which you are not you would know that no 70 year old fighter no matter how good there were could beat any prime fighter. But Joe Louis is overrated and had no chin, never fought fighters who were as good as Ali,Fraizer, Lyle, Norton, Holyfield ect ect ect.

Foreman's power would be too much for Louis

 

Jesus H. Christ........................ PLEASE!! Let's stay true to form here............

MR.BILL

 

MR Bill post something besides typing MR Bill. Nobody cares who you are.

Mr. Warren

What a moron