A Creaky Louis Stopping A Game Freddie Beshore

Norton and Shavers were fighting over the right to fight Holmes again, so that was a first round knockout over a highly ranked contender. Roy Tiger Williams was a big man and a fringe dude. Other than that not much. But I don't think his power should be questioned. He nailed two of the most durable heavyweight champions of all time and left them both saying that he hit them the hardest.. BTW Jimmy Young was asked who had the most power of all his opponents and he ranked them as follows.

1. Earnie Shavers
2. George Foreman
3. Gerry ****ey.

 

Very good point.:good

 

I think Mercer and Moorer were good quality and they both lost to very old men.

 

This a great post.

 

Foreman dominated in the 90s? Thats news to me. From where I was sitting he had a pretty weak run in the 90s highlighted by careful matchmaking, some close calls, a few bad decisions, a loss to the best guy he faced and a title against the path of least resistence, all the while stating adamantly that he wouldnt fight Bowe or Lewis because they were too big and too good for him while paying lots of money in bribes in order to fight no hopers who he still couldnt beat.

 

He didn't say Foreman "dominated", he said past it Champions dominated as in they were a powerful presence and reached the summit. Joe Louis couldn't get past Charles and Marciano, while Foreman beat some good young contenders like Rodrigues and won the lineal title from Moorer.

 

:goodThought Provoking Post!!! Truth

 

Foreman did not dominate but he was relevent. By rights he should not have been relevant in a strong heavyweight era past 40 years old.

That he was relevant can only be one of two things. Either old man George had adapted his unique attributes to become a successful veteran fighter (to overcome "having no legs" etc) or the era was much weaker than people now think it was.

Perhaps it was a combination of the two? Possibly this combination of the two factors plus the experimental period in training and artificial size h ad rendered age as less of the disadvantage it always had been?

 

Dominant is indeed a strong word for Foreman's performance, but he was relevant enough to become champion, something Louis couldn't do in the fifties despite being almost a decade younger.

As for the second level of contenders--Layne, Henry, LaStarza, Bucceroni, Brion, Don C, etc.,

My judgment off what I've been able to see of films of these men is that they stack up well with most of the contenders who were fighting for the title or were the top gatekeepers of earlier eras. They are at the level of of Ruhlin, Flynn, Squires, Moran, Carpentier, Brennan, Maloney, Uzcudun, the bums of the month, etc.

The heavyweight division has never exactly been spilling over with great contenders.

 

Maxim, savold, Layne, Baker, Henry and Valdes would be pretty good value in most era's.