1951 Joe Louis vs 1993 George Foreman

Coz he did that to loads of number 1 contenders on a winning streak who held a ko win over the current world champ! yes I can see that eventuality......not!

 

Morrison employed a strategy louis never used: running, and trying to outbox foreman.

No matter how many times you morons bring morrison up, it has nothing to do with how an old joe louis would do against foreman. You cant teach an old dog new tricks, joe would have a punchers chance and thats it. The guy was beat up by skinny shopworn light heavyweight charles and 1 dimensional cruiserweight rocky. That tells me he isnt going to win a war with a guy 40 lbs heavier with an iron chin and very unlikely he wins a decision.

If this were a prime louis itd be a different discussion. Come forward aggressive fighters, especially small old & shopworn, dont beat Foreman--and theres nothing you could logically say to prove otherwise.

I dont give a rats ass about the rankings of those fossils and frauds louis beat, he was exposed when he stepped up as an old fighter desperate for a paycheck to keep the IRS off his back. You dont go from being "past his prime but still very good" to "washed up and shouldnt have been allowed to box" overnight. Truth is, he was clearly past it before he fought walcott and ESPECIALLY against rocky. The fact the guys he beat prior to that were ranked high tells you how weak that era was!

And thats why context is important. Without it, it almost seems logical to match up these two because, durr hurr, theyre both old guys who made a comeback but could still hit hard and herp a derp durr beat a few decent ranked opponents but struggled with the top dogs. Yes, in theory they sound similar but styles make fights, size matters, and louis was way more past it than foreman was...who actually won a belt from an undefeated fighter in his prime and went on to beat other ranked young strong contenders.

 

ETM the voice of reason as usual.

 

First of all michael bennt was a good boxer with blinding hand speed. Morrison didnt see the punches coming and was caught cold. His career was cut short due to brain swelling.

Second, john ruiz was koed in 1 by tua, but then he went on to have compeitive bouts with holyfield, toney, etc. Does that mean anyone who lost to ruiz prior to the tua loss was a bad boxer? Your logic is flawed.

Third, louis never uses a hit and run and clinch strategy morrison used to beat foreman so its irrelavant to what chances louis would have. Ive already explained this to you but you keep clinging to it.

Pure speculation.

And its not a 43 year old mans job to call out fighters half his age. Prove they were trying to make fights with him and he refused? Foreman tried to fight tyson and did fight holyfield. Foreman would fight someone for the right amount of money and for the belt. If anything those guys didnt want to fight him because it was a lose lose situation (fighting an old guy).

He had been in 72 fights across two weight classes. Thats twice as long as most guys careers nowadays. And he was a skinny guy with als and not a true natural heavy, talented as he was u cant ignore that when assessing how much joe had left in the tank.

R u an idiot? Holyfield was a shredded, prime, undefeated two weight class conquerer. Completely different assignment from taking on a gunshy, chubby, old man.

Go ask any reasonable historian or hardcore fan if they thought the post ww2 era was some amazing period for the heavyweights. I would place the guys in the 80's, 90's, and even the current era above them in athleticism and h2h ability.

Size always matters, especially when youre nearly 40, gunshy, your legs are gone, and the opponent is the strongest heavyweight of all time with an iron chin.

The "weakest champion of all time"? You keep proving my point youre biased. Moore would have ate braddock, carnera, patterson, sharkey, stiverne, etc for breakfast. There are over two dozen champions or belt holders moore was superior to.

Moore beat jirov, holyfield, schulz, botha, smith, stewart, cooper, etc. Hardly a list of names that the "weakest" champ could get through. Some of those guys had good records or were even undedeated and ranked at the time. They were the whose who of contenders in the 90's.

Why do you hate foreman and liston so much? Did u walk in on them spit roasting your mom when u were supposed to be in bed? Seriously, who wakes up every day to argue for hours about why some old boxers were frauds and people have been duped?

Thats not what the record books show, but keep hating, i could play that thing game too and ignore official verdicts. It doesnt require a lot of brain power, youtube comments sections are full of people like u.

 

An excellent post which let itself down badly with tasteless and unwarranted underlined.

 

That is a good point that those supporting Louis don't want to see. Standing in front of Foreman was bad for your health.

 

Louis beat Walcott in `48 before his layoff. Be serious please. How much of Louis`s #1 ranking had to do with the lack of viable contenders? and also his name recognition not necessarily what he had done to earn a shot at that time. How many times did Charles and Walcott fight each other for God`s sake? It was not the strongest era for the heavyweight divison.

 

You're simply regurgitating the same ignorance that other idiots who haven't seen the fight post. Like honestly go ahead and watch the fight and you'll notice right away that Morrison's version of running and boxing is using slower footwork than what many claim Louis had.

 

I have seen the fight idiot, i distinctly remember a rather disgusting moment when morrison literally turned his back on foreman and ran like a student chasing a bus. Pretty telling that a young prime heavyweight known for frightening power avoided staying in the pocket with an overweight old man.

 

You've banged on many times telling us what a puncher Joe Frazier was, didn't Foreman fight him right after Lyle?