Foreman/Holmes' Generation

Agreed.

We had a similar thread like this about two weeks ago which I believe was entitled " Is it telling that Froeman's come back in the 90's " or something to that effect. Some people tried to argue that Holmes and Foreman's success in the 90's were isolated incidents of personal acheivements as opposed to being any indication of the 70's being a better era.

Naturally, I begged to differ.

 

Correction; the heavyweight division has declined since the glory days. I do agree that the results of Foreman go directly against the notion that champions of yesteryear would be B-level nowadays. Especially since Foreman was not only old, but very overweight.

 

Disagree for two reasons:

1)

Foreman and Holmes were fighting in the 90's and you make a nice notion of their positive records, but it's what's behind the numbers. In this case, a truckload of tomato cans.
Fact:
Neither Foreman or Holmes beat any of the best 4 of the 90's, i.e. Lewis, Tyson, Bowe and Holyfield. Both of them tried against what they viewed as the weakest of those (Holyfield), and got dominated in pretty one-sided fashion.

To make an analogy: Patterson, a 50's/60's fighter was able to beat some of the guys in the 70's, but no one would say the 70's is weak because Patterson had some wins in the 70's. Why not? He didn't beat any of the best 4 of the 70's (Ali/Foreman/Frazier/Holmes). He faced Ali and got stopped twice. He probably should've gotten the verdict against Quarry and beat Bonevena, in my opinion that is just as good or better than beating Moorer and Mercer. He could've beat up the 70's tomato cans as well to have a nice 21-3 record, so would you say the 50's are stronger than the 70's?

Fact: Foreman's official record against ranked contenders in the 90's is 2-2.
He lost by a landslide to Holyfield and Morrison (yes, the same glass chinned Morrison that got layed out in 1 by Michael Bennt), he beat Moorer after being outclassed for 9 rounds and he got overconfident (no suprise he didn't want to know about a rematch) and he lost to Briggs although i thought he won that one.

On top of that, he got a horrific beating from Alex Stewart (unranked), he should not have gotten the decision against Axel Schulz (unranked, he had to pay 250.000 not to face a live contender) and had yet another questionable decision Savarese. Good thing he got robbed against Briggs after that travesty hijacking and splitting of the titles.

So to conclude, Foreman lost, struggled or got gift decisions when he stepped up with the only exception being Moorer after losing every round and Briggs.
That's a 2nd tier heavy of the 90's and a third tier heavy of the 90's, when not even looking at his other struggles against mediocreties, how in God's name does this prove anything about the 90's ??

Fact:
Larry Holmes' official record against ranked contenders in the 90's is 1-1. Mercer being the win, an impressive one (although Jesse Fergusson also beat him) and he lost, like Foreman, in a very one-sided fight to Holyfield.


Besides that, he beat up some 90's tomato cans. Impressive considering his age, but by no means does it prove anything about the 90's.

Note that he was knocked out by Mike Tyson in '88, who is also one of the top4 heavies of the 90's. Basically he got dominated by both of the top4 90's heavies just like Foreman.


To put it short, they weren't fighting the best fighters of the 90's and struggled and lost a lot when stepping up to even fringe contenders.
Again, i refer to the example of Patterson having succes against some of the 70's contenders and the tomato cans, but losing while facing the better heavies of that period. What if he beat Leon Spinks. He would be linear but would certainly not be the best, just like Foreman was after he beat Moorer. No one makes a fuss about that because everyone loves the 70's and no one considers Patterson to be THAT good.


2)

The classic A beat B and C beat B, so C beats A does not hold in boxing.
Shavers effortlessly beat Norton who just gave Holmes hell, so Shavers should easily be able to handle Holmes. Which of course he didn't.

Experience is a big factor and sometimes fighters can still be quite good despite having faded reflexes, mantits and what not.

Reggie Johnson, a middleweight and not a huge puncher, knocked Toney down in their fight in 1991. Samuel Peter, a big punching heavyweight only managed to do it once in two fights with a jab, which may have been due to Toney being off-balance. Does that mean Johnson punches harder than Peter? I don't think so. Experience, body chance, style, composure are all big factors in boxing and they change as a fighter gets older.

Foreman was very calm and had a tide stance and guard as well as being well-balanced in his comeback. This saved him from a lot of knockdowns, if he fought the way he did in the 70's he would've probably been knocked down a lot. His larger mass also helped absorbing shots.

 

Larry fought and beat Ferguson, who was a pretty good fighter. He beat Mercer in a much more dominating fashion than Lewis. He won about about 3-4 rounds against Holyfield. He even made Holyfield look silly when he slipped a punch and Holyfield fell. He only lost by 1 point on 2 score cards against Olivar McCall, who was the linear champ in his prime. Larry through up after that fight. In 1997 Larry fought, and arguably beat Brian Neilson for the IBO title, but Neilson got the decision strictly because it was in Denmark. Larry was pushing like his life depended on it to fight Foreman, but Foreman wasn't interested, regardless that he would pick up around 10 mill with it. Larry still wants to fight Foreman.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with all of your analysis here, Magoo.

 

Consensus will tell you that Tyson/Lewis/Holyfield/Bowe are the top4 heavies of the 90's. Make a poll if you like. Foreman only had brief succes against a weak champion and too many dodgy fights besides that to be rated higher than those 4.

It was just an example. Fact is that he was older and past his best yet he got some "good" wins just like Foreman and Holmes got.

2-2 against contenders is not a narrow view, it is a plain true fact.
Another fact: Rodriguez, Savarese, Stewart, Cooper and Grimsley weren't ranked contenders. Fringe contenders at best, and i think we can agree that it's the contenders and champions that make the era. Not the fringe contenders. Fringe contenders are nothing unique hence his wins over them prove nothing relative to the era. The fact that he struggled badly with some (Savarese, Schulz, Stewart) doesn't speak well for him, though.

This is where your emotions are getting the better of you. Yes, it was a great showing of heart by Foreman (a department in which he is rarely praised) but when looking objectively, he struggled with a non-ranked fighter and may well have not gotten the decision had he been less popular.

Again you let emotions get the better off you. I already said it's damn impressive for Foreman to do these kind of things at that age, but that does not mean he has to be judged by a different standard !
By the way, he had three dodgy fights (Savarese, Schulz and Stewart) going his way opposed to only one the other way around (Briggs).

Going the distance means very little. Dutch pride Rudi Lubbers went the distance with Ali, but that doesn't mean it's a great accomplishment. He had his shot against one of the top4 best heavies of the 90's and lost a pretty one-sided fight. Unless you want to believe that it was a close fight?

I stand corrected.

So he's 1-3. 2-1 if you will, but then again, Nielsen never fought anyone with a pulse either and made no significant contribution to the strength of the era and therefore the win has no relevance in showing that Holmes was beaten the 90's contenders.

All i see is excuses. Fact is that he got layed out by one of the top4 of the 90's. Seeing how he also lost badly to the other top4 of the 90's he faced, it's not really a coincidence. I don't really blame him because he was old, but make no mistake about it, he was not superior to those 90's top fighters as the fights demonstrated.

I agree that Moorer was a bit better than Leon. All i'm saying is that it's not unimaginable for an older fighter to beat a weak champion like that, AND that a win like that over one weak champion does not mean the entire era is weak.

 

Heavyweight "boxing has declined since the glory days" because any activity suffers when the basics are neglected.

Heavies today avoid each other, fight about once a year and now prize bulk via steroids and weight training instead of seeking endurance, boxing skills and keeping busy by fighting often; this is not disassociated from the fact that the 15-round championship distance is no longer.

Old Larry Holmes admits today's heavies are bigger and stronger but, in his words, "they can't fight!" And he proved the point by schooling Mercer and pushing McCall and Holyfield in the 90's, after his 42nd birthday and without a powerful punch. He survived fighting well into the 21st century primarily because he was a boxer who had mastered the fundamentals. He came up in a time when the top fighters, like of course his mentor Ali, appreciated possessing those basics.

 

Foreman and Holmes did have success in their old age but there would be a better case for 70s fighters being great if guys like Young, Lyle and Norton had showed similar longevity. Most of the 70s fighters did not carry on succesfully like these two.