Foreman - Is it telling that...

a) The Seventies were a golden age because it saw four top-ten all-time greats: Ali, Foreman, Frazier and Holmes. The Nineties, by comparison, saw Lewis and Holyfield, to me at best marginal all-time top-ten candidates, but still two. Besides neither was a dominating, unified champ for any reasonable time, like Ali and Holmes were.

b) A “golden era” implies many tangibles and intangibles. A few of the former include the presence of four all-time great fighters who could dominate in any era: Ali had 10 successful defenses of the unified title; Holmes went on to defend 20 times. Foreman proved his vaunted power was crushing in any era. He was 45(!) for Pete’s sake when he unquestionably flattened the man who had beaten the man. These facts must carry weight. A couple of intangibles include fights and fighters that transcended the sport and forever became thrilling, persuasive boxing icons for all time.

c) Finally, how can seeing a 45-year-old George Foreman not blown away by a prime Holyfield, but fighting tooth and nail as allowed by his age over 12 rounds, not mean anything? The fact that Holyfield felt and respected Foreman’s slow-mo blows should tell us that a prime Foreman’s blows would give him the upper hand against Evander. Sonny’s Jab insists the fight was one-sided. On paper, yes. In the ring, grandpa Foreman held his own with very few of his prime tools. It is easy to see, based on this factual evidence, how a prime Foreman could rampage over Evander Holyfield. Sonny’s Jab even admits seeing old Holmes against Holyfield persuades him to back Holmes in a dream match “quite strongly”. That’s exactly my point.

 

Moorer is not #4 no matter what one thinks of Tyson. David Tua and Ike Ibeabuchi rank ahead of Moorer.

 

But he got beat by Jimmy Young and Ali got beat by Leon Spinks back in the seventies and neither is as good as McCall or Douglas.

Young 34 wins 19 defeats 2 draws 11 KO's
Besides Foreman, best wins, Lyle x 2, Dunn, Garcia, Gardner

Spinks 26 wins 17 defeats 1 draw 14 Ko's
Besides Ali, bests wins Evangelista, Mercado

McCall 51 wins 8 losses 1 draw 36 KO's
Besides Lewis, best wins Holmes, Seldon, Damiani, Maskaev, Akinwande, Sam

Douglas 38 wins 6 loses 1 draw 25 Ko's
Besides Tyson, best wins Cobb, Page, Berbick, McCall

1970's hype aside, McCall and Douglas are clearly better than Young and Spinks, and, as a matter of fact, I would consider McCall, at least, also better than Ken Norton.

 

I suppose Evander Holyfield had to knock out Foreman in 1 round or go the whole 12 rounds without getting hit once (surely an impossibility when you consider the styles and size differences) to convince some of you that he proved significant superiority against Foreman.

The fact that Foreman managed to land a few hard shots and maybe even win a round while taking a thorough beating is "PROOF" that in his prime he's eat Holyfield for breakfast, run him over, and also proof that all the top fighters in his era were "better" than all the top fighters in the 90s. No further styles analysis or comparison is necessary, apparently.

There's no denying Foreman was a genuine contender in his 40s, and was indeed champion of the world briefly.

Personally, at the time of writing I'd rate Foreman above any fighter who fought in the 1990s, but based on styles and their respective quality of greatness I'd say Holyfield at his best would stand a great chance of beating the best Foreman, and nothing that happened in 1991 fight says otherwise, however much some like to dress up, twist and exaggerate Foreman's galiant performance.

I'd pick a peak Holmes to beat a peak Holyfield based on the way their styles mesh, their known strengths and weakness. Arguably Holyfield could still be rated above Holmes on an all-time list, despite Holmes' "dominant reign" that incidently did NOT occur in the 70s "golden age" or as a unified champion or against remarkably good opposition (some were actually remarkably poor).
None of this is hard science, it's OPINION and SPECULATION.

 

Head to head maybe, in fact Tua Ko'd Moorer in one round, but this came in 2002, after the 90's were over. Tua's only big wins in the 90's were over Rahman and Ruiz. Ike's only noteable wins were over Tua and Byrd. Moorer had wins over Holyfield, Botha, Stewart, Cooper, Shultz and Bean. Plus he was a world champ at lightheavyweight and a two time champ at heavyweight. Neither Tua nor Ike, were champions. I disagree that Ike or Tua could be ranked higher than Moorer, at least not in the 90's.

 

Tua also Ko'd Maskaev, Izon, and Dorrall Wilson in the 1990's, certainly on par with the list of victims you gave for Moorer.

Tua and Bryd are a step up from anyone Moorer defeated other than Holyfield, and Ibeabuchi was not beaten, while Moorer lost badly to
Foreman and then to Holyfield in a return match.

 

No they weren't. Not by a long shot. Maskaev was 10-1, when he fought Tua. Izon was a nobody, who had never beaten a decent opponent, and who in fact had just been beaten in his previous fight by Maurice Harris who was 5-6-2. Daroll Wilson was okay, but not on par with most of Moorer's top opponents.

Exactly!!! Holyfield was better than both of them and Moorer beat Holyfield. What more is there to debate?

Moorer was unbeaten in his first 35 fights. Ibeabuchi's career ended after compiling a mere 20 bouts, while Tua lost to Ike in his 28th fight. Also, as I said before, neither were world champions, whereas Moorer was a 3 time champ, and neither man ever fought Holyfield or Foreman, the men whom you discredit Moorer for losing to.

I really don't think that there's much left to debate here. Moorer ranks above Tua and Ibeabucci in the 90's, and additionally should be remembered as one of the decades top 5 heavyweights.

If you place all personal bias asside, as well as the natural tendency of human ego to want to win arguments, then it's a no brainer.

 

I have never stated that 45-year-old Foreman’s competitive performance against a prime Evander Holyfield is proof that all 70’s fighters were better than their 90’s counterparts. I have stated that the 70’s were a golden age because they saw four all-time greats plus iconic, one-of-a-kind fights such as “Fight of the Century” and “Rumble”.

I have stated that a very deteriorated, 45-year-old Foreman obliterated the man who beat the man. Moorer beat Evander Holyfield, who had beaten Douglas, who had beaten Mike Tyson. Grandpa Foreman kayoed Moorer. Prior to this amazing feat, Jersey Joe Walcott had been the oldest man to win the title at 38.

As a sports analogy, Babe Ruth’s 60 homers in a season mark lasted 34 years, from 1927 to 1961, before Roger Maris hit 61, in 8 more games. When McGwire and Sosa hit 70 and 66 in 1998, this astonishing anomaly was eventually found to be aided by performance-enhancing substances.

Foreman shattered the oldest-champ mark by seven years, a quantum leap that, to me, finds a partial explanation, not in steroids of course, but in the emergence of four all-time greats who interacted and pushed each other. Yes, greatness rubs off. In fact, Foreman was inspired by his ’74 loss to Muhammad Ali, even wearing the same old trunks to face Moorer. In his mind, he had fought the best. Holyfield and Moorer quite simply didn’t faze him.

What would a prime Foreman do to the likes of Moorer and Holyfield? Yes, all our rambling is speculation, but, until technology allows for better options, it is the best we can do. Yet we saw a time-machine episode of sorts when George Foreman came back to shock the world. Have even a sampling of nonfans watch Holyfield-Foreman and see if the sentiment isn’t that a young, in-shape Foreman would beat Holyfield.

Forget comparing the contenders and pretenders of the 70’s and 90’s. The fantastic four from the 70’s (Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes) were, by sheer number, stats, charisma and factual evidence of cross-era competition, better than anything seen over any other decade.

 

I actually agree with most of this.
My own position though is that NONE of the GREAT heavyweights can be written off in fantasy match-ups prime for prime on account of being of inferior quality, because all the great ones at their absolute bests were, by definition, capable of astounding and great feats.

I can speculate and offer opinions, strong or weak, about particularly match-ups based on styles matching up, but sometimes I think people over-stress the point about who's greater than who.

For example, if you rate Holyfield in the top 15 heavyweights of ALL TIME then it should stand to reason that he'd have enough quality to perhaps beat someone you rate in the top 5 or top 10, and enough quality to throw some doubt on almost all of them beating him, based on details or styles and the ability of any of these great ones to surpass themselves at their best.

 

This post says it all in my opinion. :good

 

Agreed! :good

 

It doesn't matter much to me. Foreman still caught him with a couple of nice right hands and stopped him.

Duane Ford is an idiot by the way.

 

Look, Moorer is being puffed up to the stars. So he won 35 in a row. Most of them were at lightheavy, two divisions down. He caught a good champion on the worst off night of his career and ecked out a close decision, but was crushed by that champion in a rematch. Except for Holyfield, none of his heavyweight wins is particularly impressive--Shultz might be the second best heavy he defeated. He could never take a top heavyweight's punch, as Foreman proved and as was later proven when Tua blew him out in one round. The best he could do is fight tomato-cans for over a decade.
Now all the spin in the world won't change that Moorer couldn't get past one round against Tua and did not defeat anyone who beat Tua or Ibeabuchi. I think Ibeabuchi would have flattened him early also.

Izon-I don't think he's a world beater, but he knocked out Savarese right after Savarese went to a split decision with Foreman.

Maskaev-might be weak as far as champions go, but in the fight after his loss to Tua, he knocked out Alex Stewart, another guy who gave Foreman a tough fight. A decade later, Maskaev is still a top heavyweight, which is certainly more than one can say for Moorer.

 

Do you steadfastly stand by this criticism, or is this just your personal bias at work again? In multiple posts over the past year, you have defended fighters like Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles as being legitimately good fighters at heavyweight, despite their previous careers at middle weight and light heavyweight. Now, are you willing to give moorer the same dues, or are you going to do what I suspect you will, which is to start a whole other debate on why it was ok for Moore and Charles to make the jump without loosing credibility, yet the same doesn't hold true for Moorer, on the basis of what YOU consider to be valid career accomplishments?

Why am I not surprised at this response? Hmmmm. Maybe it's because I figured that you were incapable of leaving a long lost debate alone, and likewise couldn't refute my claim that Holyfield was a better win for Moorer than anyone Tua or Ike ever beat, so your only answer is that it was the worst night of Holyfield's career. Interesting, given that Evander was still only 31 years old, coming off the best win of his career against Riddick Bowe, and managed to floor Moorer. I don't know how many of Evander's fights you've actually seen, but for the record, it was not his worst performance nor even close. Sure Moorer lost in the rematch , but frankly I don't see the shame in having one of only a small handful of losses to an all time great do you?

Oh really? and how many quality wins did Tua or Ibeabucci have in the 90's? I think I counted maybe 2 a piece. Big deal. Besides which, your statement " except for Holyfield " isn't the reality. That was a big fight and a huge corner stone on Moorer's resume.

Botha, Cooper, Stewart and Bean weren't bums either. You want to talk to me about how good Daroll Wilson and Derek Izon were?

Since when is getting knocked out by Foreman ( a man commonly listed as one of the 3 hardest hitters of all time ) an indication of a weak chin?

Boy, just when I think that you can't come up with something even more irrelevant.

Tua Knocked out Moorer in 2002, when Moorer was on the comeback trail at 35, and what does this fight have to do with Tua's accomplishments in the 90's? Jeeez....

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. It never happened, and therefore the mere assumption can't be used to rate Ike higher.

Yeah but, that's not when Tua fought him was it? No. He fought Izon, when he was a nobody who had just lost to a 5-6-2 tomato can, and with not a single quality win to his credit. Saying that he beat Savarese in hind site doesn't mean anything. Tua's people thought they were fighting a safe opponent, and they were absolutely right. Izon was a bum.

Stewart fought Foreman in 1992. By the time he fought Maskaev in 1997, he was shot to pieces. Doesn't any of this **** matter to you, or are you still hoping that I'll let you get away with incomplete explanations and half truths?

Who cares? At the age of 39, Moorer's record is 49-4. At age 38, Makaev's record is 34-5. How does that equate to Maskaev being better? Plus, do you really think Maskaev has beaten a longer list of better opponents?