Andy Ruiz Jnr vs Ken Norton (12)

I think Joshua might've had enough on Leon Spinks to actually get a successful defense in. The laughing emoji just shows your insecurity.

 

And as those years went by he aged more and more. Foreman didn't gas because he threw less in the 90s. He paced himself more strategically, didn't throw haymakers anymore which take more energy and he was slower on his feet, so he didn’t even have as many opportunities to set his feet and throw punches other than the jab and Foreman always had a good jab. He was smarter, less destructive and athletically inferior, we can see Foreman was faster and could bounce on his feet. He couldn't do that at ALL in the 1990s. Of course he's going to see progress working out for the first time in a while after fattening up and being middle aged.

"I had this big girth so the first thing [opponents] would want to do if they got me back in a ring after so many years off [was] go to my stomach and beat on it. So I would do mountains upon mountains of sit-ups. I would eat up a hundred, so we’re talking about 400 a day. I blocked them out real good and then my back started to hurt. I got ahold of one of those Nautilus machines. It took a lot of the pressure off my back and yet it helped develop the muscles again in my stomach."

Wladimir is retired and lost to aj. That wasn't his level. At least 2 levels below prime Wlad probably 3, but knowing you, you're just gonna contest this and act like aj would always gives Wlad issues lol. He was done at the elite level maybe by the time he fought Jennings. Vitali was lethargic and retired at 40. Zhang just got smoked by Kabayel, and we see he only has a 3 round gas tank. Chisora is shot to bits but Wallin and shot Joyce offer little resistance. A sluggish slow declined defesnse Chisora being in the top 10 makes me think prime Foreman would be top 5. No, if anything we still see a massive physical decline but they can fight on via Iq and/or power, so my point stands. Foreman fought at world/fringe level until 48 and he was a shadow of his former self. Most thought he beat a modern day fringe power punching heavyweight in Briggs. It's the exact same thing with Holmes, he was obviously a shell of himself and still made Holyfield and Mccall fights competitive along with beating Mercer.

Vital ? It's reality, Foreman was a better overall heavyweight in the 70s. He doesn't get schooled by Tommy Morrison that's for damn sure. Young Foreman beats everyone that old Foreman beat. Old Foreman struggled with tiny Qawi, so there's a chance old Foreman might not even beat Frazier.

"A professional fighting ametures" "it's not a pro fight" then go ahead and list the movers aj beat. Since you want to challenge the notion that Ali would beat him easily. That was the crux of my particular segment. Norton beats Ruiz btw. 50 year old ancient Ortiz almost did it, and he had no legs left, got dropped 3 times, still boxed Ruiz silly.

 

The latter. I'll put in comments from time to time, but I'm happy to hear responses of either "side" that make good points. I mean, we're here to learn about boxing history. We're not here to become experts on which anonymous people behind screen names are biased.

 

Right, so taking these things in order:

Foreman was at his (old) best during his second career in the Holyfield fight. He lost that fight. His age against Holyfield was close to the other guys I mentioned. Where Foreman is unusual is that he declined after his early 40s pretty slowly.

Wlad was not as good in the AJ fight as he was during his prime. AJ was inferior to prime Wlad. But AJ was still very, very good despite his drawbacks. It's a more open question how inferior old Wlad from the AJ fight was to the 25 year old version of Wlad, which is basically what most Foreman people are arguing about.

As to the other guys, their results aren't that different from when they were in their primes. Some of them were diminished, but not so much that they slipped from contention. They'd lost a step in terms of speed, reflexes, etc., but they compensated in other ways. And as you pointed out to me in another thread, good sir, Chisora got one of his career best results at an advanced age.

My view on how good old Foreman was? He wasn't as good overall as his younger version. I'd expect the young version might do better against a random field. Old Foreman, though, wasn't that far off, which is becoming more typical for fighters that last a while. Old Foreman actually has advantages over his younger self in terms of training, which guys like Vitali, Wlad, Thompson, etc. didn't have. All of the modern guys had the same training advantages during their younger years that they did as old men. Foreman, by contrast, came back after the 80s/90s revolution in strength and conditioning. His older self was better trained. As he himself stated.

The other thing is that most fighters don't change their styles as much (or become so much better technically) when they age. Old Foreman did, and so you have to account for that. He does differently in different matchups.

Finally, yes, this thread is about Ruiz and Norton, so I applaud your last part for getting it back on track.

 

The same Leon who ducked Norton. To me this debate speaks more volumes about yourself being a casual but keep it going

 

Remind me who Leon fought instead of Norton.

 

Foreman was fresher at 45 compared to any of these guys, Chisora is practically shot. It's heart mostly that keeps him going, rather than a change in style that contributes, Chisora fights off the ropes more, but he's done that before, the visual decline Chisora has went through is massive. Getting those results in my opinion is a sign the eras talent has actually diminished, which is why he can't get filtered out despite being inferior in every catagory to his younger self and unlike Foreman has been knocked out or taken a beating several times. Foreman i consider to be better than both in his prime. Povetkin was shot in the Whyte rematch, nowhere near the top 30, but he did well at 41 that's a good example. These athletes are able to fight at an older age, but the difference isn't stark compared to the 70s because many still end up done before 35

He mentioned developing his stomach muscles "again" because he lost a significant amount, the same probably goes everywhere around his body as he aged, despite working out. Overall 70s Foreman is better even in a h2h sense, Old Foreman paced himself better, thats the main difference beyond the physical decline and Foreman always had exceptional strength by witnesses, but those weights must've completely changed him...... The crux of this whole foreman stuff is that you claimed 90s foreman has a better chance against Anthony Joshua stylistically after I said the version of Foreman off Ken Nortons resume would wash aj, which i find to be bizzare, he got schooled by Tommy Morrison, his defense was actually worse and his feet were cement.

He struggled with guys like Steward, Axel, Savarese and couldn't even KO them in the end. He doesn't have any athletic advantages over 70s foreman and was just more conservative with his punches although he did have a better jab. Foreman was an Olympic gold medalist, it was his talent that allowed him to compete while so old. Steward claims 1973 Foreman was just about unbeatable and he KNOWS what he's talking about. I've seen Foreman box disciplined, he just didn't need it most of the time and boxing wouldn't have helped him against Ali. Foreman said and quote after beating Moorer: I always knew how to box, I just didn't bother much when I was young, I just overpowered everyone. As an old man, you get more cautious, and depend on skill more.”

Gil Clancy: “George knew what he was doing. He always had solid boxing skills and excellent fundamentals. He just didn't have to use them much at 25, with his power. At 40, and so much slower, he did need them.”

Fraizer also suggested 70s Foreman was faster and could cut the ring better in his era

“Foreman in the 70's was something really special. He cut the ring off better than anyone that size ever had or will, he hit like a bus, and he was fast. He could box too, don't think he couldn't. George when he came back was slow, and couldn't cut off a football field."

The fact that an old Foreman couldn't get tiny aggressive Qawi out of there early suggests he might not even beat Frazier if he went back in time.

 

Norton by wide decision.

 

In their day, Ali enjoyed most of the limelight and listening audience but boy Frazier came out with a number of very intelligent and quotable sentiments that should’ve made more popular copy.

 

Not convinced by Ruiz in all honestly he couldn't put away an almost 50 year old Luis Ortiz who's punch resistance was totally shot and despite having him down 3 times he almost lost the fight.

He also couldn't put away ancient versions of Arreola, Liakhovich, both fights he struggled alot in aswell.

Got a gift vs Miller recently.

Ruiz caught Joshua with a perfect equilibrium shot but outside of that I haven't really been impressed with Ruiz against notable opposition.

I'll go with Norton by decision much better conditioned and had better showings overall against notable opposition.

Ruiz is not a big puncher.

 

I agree that Foreman was fresher at 45 than Chisora. As I mentioned in the last post -- and I'm guessing you agree with, since it's a common opinion and you didn't object -- Foreman's peak ability during his second career was during the Holyfield fight. He was 42 then, which is around the same point the guys were still close to what they were before. Where Foreman is unusual is that he declined very slowly from that second career peak. Some guys fall off a cliff. (Or choose to retire on top, like Vitali.) Foreman clung on with a gradual but real degradation until the Briggs fight.

When you say he was fresher at 45, I think that's exactly what he was, because of the 10 year gap. He gave his brain a decade to heal from all of the concussive punches he took in career one. Most of these guys didn't do that. (Although Vitali did have a shorter gap, and was one of the longer lasting guys as it turned out.) It's so rare for a combat sport athlete to do that, that Foreman is the only example I know of where an elite guy tried the experiment.

Now, what Foreman's supporters want to say is: "Second career Foreman proves that the first one must have been amazing, because Foreman was getting robbed with Briggs at 48. If he was 48 and could still pull even with Briggs, the 25 year old version would've been out of this world, since we know how bad 48 year old boxers are, and he still was competitive at 48."

There's a grain of truth there, but it seriously overlooks some stuff. 48 year old Foreman was incredibly impressive for his age, but the 42 year old version was a lot less so relative to his age -- and the Holyfield fight version is the best Career 2 Foreman ever looked. 42 year old Foreman looked like the other boxers I mentioned in their 40s. (And Povetkin, to a degree, whom you mentioned, although his style doesn't seem like it would age as well.) Not as good as the young version would've been, but close enough that we don't assume the prime version was a superman. Where Foreman was exceptional was the late career decline was so slow -- not that he was so amazing in his prime that a shot fossilized version was still viable.

Where Foreman differs from all of the more modern guys is that he was also trained better in career 2. He drank water, for a start. He made use of the advances in training technology. He trained harder, as I already demonstrated from his own account. And he demonstrated more skill on film. So if I had to guess, the 42 year old version was probably closer to Foreman's first career best than, say, Vitali in his 40s was.

The quotes you provided are interesting. I guess in one sense, it's academic if you have skills you never use in the ring, but either way, do you have the sources for them? They seem like useful quotes to collect, especially if they're part of a longer interview. If you happen to have the original sources, I'd love to see them.

Depends if Joshua tries to box, or to blow Foreman out. Young Foreman seems like a more obvious threat, which means Joshua takes him more seriously, and I don't think Young Foreman wins a firefight (or boxing match) against a Joshua who's ready for him. Old Foreman would be easier to outbox (at least for the first four rounds), but I think he'd do better in a firefight if Joshua chose to go that route. More durable, trickier. And Joshua could make stupid choices, especially if he was against a guy who didn't seem like a threat, and Old Foreman managed to convince Moorer (for example) that he wasn't one.

 

You could also say Vitali and Chisoras extra fights mean more experince and stepping away for an entire decade, coming back much fatter, needing rehab, not being able to cut the ring anymore and him getting schooled by someone with a glass chin is also an indication of a more serious decline.

"Skills you never use" this is a false observation. He's used latteral movement, had a great jab, punch selection, and was a vicious body puncher in the early 70s, he just didn't need it at the highest level, coming forward and breaking down his opponents on crude fashion works enough even in the MODERN ERA. He beat a decently skilled mover in Dino Denis looking crude and stalking him down. Trying to approach Denis any other way wouldn't have made the fight any shorter for him, this is what the other side doesn't understand

Watch him methodically track down and catch Ramon with sickly timed shots. The accuracy of that uppercut is ridiculous.

This content is protected

This content is protected

That first quote is from Foremans By George book. He explained gaining muscle "again" which means he was gaining back lost muscle during his comeback. Gil Clancy quote is from a Q&A. I forgot about that Frazier quote was from but I've seen it cited by credible posters here.
Foreman himself didn't think he was better.

Here's more proof if you don't want to watch Foremans early fights.

In Foreman's first 25 or so fights in the 70's, he exhibited a pretty good jab. However, once he started clubbing fighters out, he just started going for the big shot from the onset. Foreman had some boxing skills, but he was allowed to abandon them because of his power. His trainer Dick Saddler fell in love with George's power, and he cut a lot of corners when teaching him basics. Saddler's attitude was, George, go run a few miles and then go pound the heavy bag. Because there ain't a man in the world who can stand up to your punch. This was something Saddler repeated often and was proud of."
This is from Frank Lotierzo article: A physical freak of nature.

He approaches taller fighters somewhat differently to other shorter opposition and this is regardless of their level which shows he can switch it up but also uses old fashioned techniques,

This content is protected

He boxes behind a jab, works the body in the clinch, keeps his hands up even higher than usual to block more punches, moved around more to avoid being a sitting duck to them punching down and he even uses more upper body movement than normal. Clearly he knew how to fight taller guys, and Foreman could still cut the ring, so aj is screwed either way, Ruiz has cement feet was was 20 pounds fatter. Aj does not navigate the ring better than foreman whether it be backfoot or front foot, George can moves more fluidly on his toes when he wants too, but he never needed too, it certainly wouldn't have helped him against someone like Ali.

Joshua is vulnerable to pressure fighters, let alone one with KO power, so i see no reason for the notion of aj winning to be viewed as substantiated, moreso just an easy intuition argument because aj is simply bigger than lyle with "better skills", even though they fight nothing alike. Ron Lyle was a power puncher but with more fighting instincts, heart, and inside fighting punch selection than joshua. He was taking Foremans shots in there and trading back. Aj isn't doing that, he's a boxer puncher with low confidence. Whens the last time aj won a slugfest against a top 20 opponent ? Dillian Whyte ? Once Foreman lands a shot capable of putting him down and he will, ajs not coming back into the fight, I am confident in that. Did you see how goofy he looked throwing a telegraphic uppercut, missing it, getting caught with a right hand counter, and then throwing the same uppercut again before getting knocked out with another counter right against someone who has less hand speed than him ? And whats funny is Joshua viewed Dubois as a massive thread because Dubois already beat him up in sparring.

Foreman will always look clumsy to many regardless of the fight and almost always still gets the KO against someone who looks more skilled than him. 90s Foreman beats Joshua albeit in a much harder fashion, too slow on his feet and his punches to dominate the rounds. I'm just not following the idea that a middle aged version of Foreman who got schooled by Tommy Morrison, struggled with Stewart, Axel, Savarese has a better chance than the guy who obliterated top guys like Frazier, Norton, and cornered Ramon like a Juggernaut. It's might be because you think Foreman had lucky circumstances by insisting the smaller guys are easier to deal with, despite Foreman looking like crap against a fat Qawi in his comeback ???

 

I like Andy. He has great handspeed, good combinations, and a degree of boxing intelligence. Parker mentioned him hitting hard with a proper timing (then again, who else would he mention—Joyce who stopped him, or Whyte who robbed him?) Then again, Ken is just better. Better stamina to take rounds through 12 or 15, much better jab, more varied shot selection at different ranges, better inside so won't be smothered or frightened up close like the lumbering, long-limbed giants like Joshua would. His chin being china is also a huge stretch. Took plenty from Ali (who hurt Bonavena, Frazier, and some other fighters with good whiskers), Holmes, Quarry, Garcia (granted, Jose hurt and stopped him years earlier), and before he was on the slippery slope down to the past-primeville, he actually took some clean bombs from Foreman, though naturally it did him no good. A middle of the pack pair of mandibles.

And yeah, record-wise, he troubled far more intelligent and polished boxers than cement-feet Andy. Fighters who are in league of their own. Old Ortiz was gave an (inactive) Andy too much trouble, and the lack of professionalism led to Ruiz being dropped by an equally past-it Arreola as well.