Who wins? The wide punching powerhouse younger Foreman or the straighter punching patient older Foreman?
I pick 70's Foreman, but I think that 90's Foreman has a live chance at an upset. Many people would disagree. They'd (fairly) point out that 90's Foreman was carefully managed -- a smoke and mirrors job who took the belt from the weakest lineal champion since Michael Spinks. They'll point out how much Old Foreman's skills had eroded from the 1970's monster he'd once been. A lot of this is accurate, but I still think 90's Foreman has the tools to trouble the 70's version. 70's Foreman could be hurt. He also didn't exactly demonstrate great survival skills in the Lyle fight aside from "get up and try to club Lyle back to the canvas with superior power." It worked against Lyle, but here, 70's Foreman is up against a cannier puncher with similar(ish) punching power. 90's Foreman, by contrast, demonstrated survival skills and a much more patient, stamina-conscious approach. 70's Foreman also won by imposing his physicality. He was bigger, stronger, and rangier than most of his opponents. He'd shove you into punching range, and then keep you there with a longer jab than you could muster in reply. 90's Foreman takes these tools away from him: he's actually ~40 lbs. heavier than the 70's version, and probably as strong or stronger. 90's Foreman has the same range on his jab as the 70's version, and his jab is probably the only thing that remained close to what it was in the 70's. And then there's the mental game. 90's Foreman knows exactly what he's dealing with, and what his opponent's weaknesses are. Consequently, Old Foreman is probably harder for 70's Foreman to intimidate than any of 70's Foreman's foes, Ali included. By contrast, 70's Foreman is shooting in the dark against an unknown quantity who knows how he thinks. Mind you, 70's Foreman still likely blasts out his 90's incarnation. But Old Foreman stands a MUCH better chance than he should.
I really don't think that 90s Foreman would take the bout against 70s Foreman...that, I think is the answer.
I think old Foreman would know young Foreman to well to lose to him. Old Foreman would know exactly what young Foreman was thinking in all situations giving old Foreman to much of an advantage imo.
Old Foreman holds intangible and (just as importantly) stylistic advantages over 70's Foreman peculiar to this specific matchup. Young Foreman's vastly superior resume and abilities aren't the issue; we all know who the better fighter was, but this is a heads-up match with all the quirky dynamics that entails.
I am not taking anything away from Old Foreman. His accomplishment in winning the lineal title in his late 40s, might be the single greatest in boxing history. But he was performing a bit of a conjuring trick. He could barely beat anybody ranked in the top 10, and only beat the odds because he came up against the worst chin in the history of the lineal title. Pretty much any other lineal champion beats him.
All of which I conceded in my opening post. Old Foreman only has a chance here because of who he's matched against.
Old Foreman seems to brainwash people! He was losing to every guy who could get a top 10 ranking with the help of Don King, and people still speculate about him beating Tyson, Frazier, and even himself back when he was getting results!
Old Foreman is a tougher opponent for Young Foreman than Ron Lyle was, even though Lyle might arguably have been a better fighter in a global sense than Old Foreman. Old Foreman is basically a barely-contender-level fighter who's spent his whole life studying the champion, and whose style is perfect to give the guy trouble. Aside from anything else, Young Foreman will be haunted by the realization that in ten or twenty years, he'll get hit with every punch that he lands on Old Foreman.
Old Foreman tried his luck big time. If he had fought Lewis instead of Holyfield, he would have been another sad story like Louis in the Marciano fight!
That's true, but I don't think it invalidates anything I'm saying: that old Foreman was a lucky contender-level fighter with exactly the right approach to trouble his younger incarnation for reasons unrelated to their respective places on an objective all-time head to head list.
I've heard the argument many times that older Foreman was "better" than younger Foreman. He was more patient, technical (though in reality Foreman was as technical as I am a ****** haha), he mastered the jab and had better stamina. All valid points but would younger George Foreman have lost to Shannon Briggs? (though he was robbed) No way. Would he have lost to feather-chinned Tommy Morrison? No way. Foreman was more patient in his older days but in someways that hindered him further. Because now he was not only big...slow...awkward...but he was patient and reserved as hell! Younger George knew his strengths and rushed guys fast, against some all-time greats like Norton and Frazier - it worked well. Young Foreman would probably stop the older Foreman in under the first 6 rounds. Older George was slow, of hands and feet, and an easy to target to hit as Stewart, Moorer and Holyfield proved. Maybe he doesn't get knocked out, maybe he does. But young Foreman takes this one relatively easy, he's stronger, faster and more aggressive early.
