Foreman - Is it telling that...

Larry is only 11 months younger than George, and started in 1973.

 

Wasn't Roy Williams ranked back in 1976? And also how did Larry get his shot at Olivar McCall for the WBC title in 1995 with out beating a ranked fighter?

 

I don't think Roy Williams was ranked very high, if even at all. Also, Holmes really didn't beat any ranked fighters after Mercer in 1992. Prior to the Mccall fight, he beat Ferguson and Ribalta, who had long fallen out of the rankings. Plus he had a few wins over Journeyman Ken Lakusta and Paul Poirier, but that's about it.

 

repeat post.

 

Holmes, Holyfield, Tyson and Witherspoon were among the best 80s heavyweights though Holmes had faded by the mid 80s.

 

On who was rated and who was not--I specifically stated that according to the Boxing Register, Foreman did not defeat any opponent rated when he fought him. That is true. The Boxing Register is the International Boxing Hall of Fame Official Record Book. It mentions if a fighters opponents were Hall of Famers, were ever champions, or were rated at the time the two men fought. How do they decide if someone was rated? Do they use the Ring Magazine ratings? considering them more objective? Do they use a consensus, a fighter must be rated by more than half of the rating bodies? I don't know.
I think the information I am putting is correct or I would not put it forward. Obviously, erroneous information would merely undercut my arguements, a point you are making right now. I do make mistakes, though.

The 16 fights Johnson had between 40 and 48 included Cowler, a top man who certainly would have been rated earlier if there had been ratings, but probably would not have been in 1919, Roper, probably not rated in 1919, but also probably would have been later, Jack Thompson, probably the best of all of these opponents, a man who had beaten Langford and Ko'd a young Godfrey, Homer Smith, a trial horse of the era who fought almost everyone, and Pat Lester who had a good record and had beaten Roper and Floyd Johnson. There was also Joe Boykin, who supposedly had not had a bout. Boykin went on to hand Angel Rodriguez his only defeat and draw with European champion Erminio Spalla. Boxrec is not complete, so it is difficult to say how complete any given obscure fighter's record is, but even granting your point, Johnson beat some fairly tough opponents, even if one might conclude that no one of them matches Ray Mercer or Michael Moorer.

It is true Willard only had a couple of fights at 41, but Floyd Johnson was considered a top man, that victory vaulted Willard into consideration for a title fight, and he went into an elimination with Firpo. Of all the opponents Foreman and Holmes defeated, only Moorer and Mercer rank above the Floyd Johnson of the Willard fight. A don't think it important that Willard didn't have a slew of fights against second-raters.

Foreman's achievements were phenomenal but I think personal and do not really reflect on the a comparision of the seventies to the nineties. The big problem is that the only close to top man he beat was Moorer. The others were fringe top ten men and I might add, he and Holmes made an impact because they were put in the ring with the champion, not once by twice. The shot at Moorer really wasn't earned. His last fight had been a loss to Morrison 17 months earlier. Johnson obviously got no such break and neither did Willard.

 

OLD FOGEY]On who was rated and who was not--I specifically stated that according to the Boxing Register, Foreman did not defeat any opponent rated when he fought him. That is true. The Boxing Register is the International Boxing Hall of Fame Official Record Book. It mentions if a fighters opponents were Hall of Famers, were ever champions, or were rated at the time the two men fought. How do they decide if someone was rated? Do they use the Ring Magazine ratings? considering them more objective? Do they use a consensus, a fighter must be rated by more than half of the rating bodies? I don't know.
I think the information I am putting is correct or I would not put it forward. Obviously, erroneous information would merely undercut my arguements, a point you are making right now. I do make mistakes, though.
[/quote]
Rodriguez, Savarese, stewart and Certainly Moorer, were rated by the governing bodies when they fought Foreman. This is not an unreasonbale claim.

With all due respect, there are way too many maybe's and probably's to consider this as a valid response. ( not being flipant, only honest )

The fact that Foreman's win over Moorer, and Holmes win over Mercer, rank above Willard's win over Johnson, is a big deal in my opinion. Foreman won the lineal heavyweight championship of the world over an undefeated Moorer, who just defeated an all time great in Evander Holyfield. Holmes beat Ray Mercer, who was an undefeated contender and projected future world champ. I don't know anything about Floyd Johnson, but it doesn't sound like you're making him out to be anything of the sort. What's more, I disagree with your claim that it was unimportant that willard didn't have a slew of wins against second raters. By fighting such profiles, Holmes and Foreman earned their rights to face the better opponents, rather than just sitting back and waiting for an offer. In the mean time, they were staying active, and proving that they at least still had some skills and abilties to get in there and fight. Not to start an entirely different subject, but frankly, I think Foreman's and Holme's title shot(s) were more justified than Jeffries' against Johnson.

Moorer was more than just a " close to top man " He was undefeated in 35 fights, and holding the lineal heavyweight title. And Foreman, won it more than convincingly. Also, I personally feel that Foreman's prescence was just one part of telling the story as to how the 70's were more impressive than the 90's.

A. You had two 40+ foremer champions who breached the top ten, despite extended layoffs, and one of whom managed to win a world title.

B. You had two fighters who began their careers as a lightheavyweight and cruiserweight. Both of became world champions, and one whom was deamed as the best fighter of the decade.

C. You had multiple match-ups that were never made, particularly Lewis vs Bowe which was a huge deficit in the mix of things, given that they were viewed as the best heavyweights in the divison in 1992. It would have been a lot like Ali and Frazier never meeting, or Tyson never fighting Spinks for that matter. Plus you had the would be fight of Holyfield-Tyson in 1990, only these guys didn't meet until 1996, by which time, both men had long lost their ora's of incvincibilty and were well past their primes. The list goes on and on, and in fact, I've given it to you before.

D. You had one of the divisions cheif participants, ( Mike Tyson ) who was abscent for a good chunk of the decade. This example does not compare to Ali's abscence during the turn of the decade between 1967 and 1970, as he was present for the entire decade of the 70's.

E. You had two good fighters, but not great, who managed to pull off monumental upsets over what many considered to be invincible champions. Oliver Mccall Ko'd Lennox Lewis in 1994, and Buster Douglas Ko'd Mike Tyson in 1990. The only comparable incident that happened in the 70's, was Ali losing to Spinks, and that was a result of age, which was not the case in the previously listed examples.

His last fight had been a loss to Morrison 17 months earlier. Johnson obviously got no such break and neither did Willard.
[/quote]

Most of this was addressed in one of the above paragraphs. Willard was not an active fighting former champion as you clearly stated yourself. While Holmes and Foreman fought men who could arguably categorized as club fighters/jourmeyman/trial hoarses and tomato cans, Johnson clearly fought worse. Name one fighter who Holmes or Foreman fought who came in with credentials of 0-0-0. I guarantee that you'll find none, whereas Johnson fought multiple.

 

Magoo,

I think your definition of an era is by the quality of fights as opposed to the quality of the fighters.

The 90s had a stellar cast more so than the 70s in terms of supporting characters but thier story wasnt as good.

70s did have the same talent pool but they made a far better story.

 

It sounds as though you're agreeing with me except, I disagree with your claim that the 90's had a more stellar cast than the 70's in terms of supporting characters. If Morrison, Ruddock, Donald, Witherspoon, Mccall, Ruiz, Stewart, Savarese, Golata, Mercer, Rahman and Seldon were the supporting cast of the 90's, then I can't concur with you.

The co-stars of the 70's were, Lyle, Shavers, Quarry, Patterson, Bonavena, M. Foster, Ellis, and young, with Norton being on the border between co-star and star, and Holmes being a future star. The only exception that I'll make was Mccall, who would have been competitive in both eras.

 

I agree. Norton is iffy IMO as of being a star, and a co-star. He wasn't very consistant, and yet, he was still a very good fighter. IMO he was the star of the co-stars. And the semi-star of the full time stars.

 

A good assesment.

Norton never became a lineal world champion like Ali, Frazier, or Foreman, but he still was a title holder late in his career. He also defeated Ali once, and beat Young, Quarry, Bobbick, Zannon, Cobb, and gave Holmes the best fight of his career.

Norton is a difficult fighter to give an accurate rating to.