Hopkins - Foreman: more difficult for a MW or for a HW becoming world champion after a certain age?

I don't know, seeing AJ being battered by Ruiz, Is it impossible to imagine even an old GF dropping him??

 

Foreman beat Frazier in his prime and did next to nothing v Morrison, Wilder`s reach enabled him to catch Fury and his hands are far quicker than George`s were in his 40`s, Wilder landed about 75 punches on Fury and floored him twice, Fury landed 85 on Wilder but would have landed far more on the plodding Foreman who was not as wary as Wilder is.

 

A 40 year old puncher wouldn`t stand a chance against Canelo though.

 

To answer the question I believe it would be much harder to do at MW

 

Ruiz has far quicker hands than Foreman had at 40.

 

AJ`s jab is quicker and longer than Foreman`s was, Holy was caught often by George I really feel Ruiz`s tight guard would be too much for George, Wilder would just be too long and quick.

 

most people when they age move up in weight and gain muscle - the muscle helps with losing speed and agility that you lose with age - both men moved up well, middleweights alway had success in the light-heavyweight division - Heavyweights that put on extra weight in the form of muscle have been successful - not everyone can do this- Foreman put on a lot of muscle and did very well against some young big men - Hopkins had less muscle but balanced weight but moving up reduced the stress of making 160lbs but staying fit

 

But Foreman's jab is stronger and better as far as delivery.
Ruiz would walk into Foreman's power punches. Foreman was physically stronger and bigger than Ruiz, how would Ruiz fare against him? Foreman is not Joshua, he had granite chin.
How would Wilder fare against Foreman's body punches and pressure? He wouldn't be able to hide, Foreman was great at cutting off the ring.

 

No doubt, he was the much younger man, but AJ could be nailed and that's all George needed, a good shot.

 

I agree, Bert, but caveat it with the point that giving a prime Evander Holyfield a really tough fight may trump anything Bernard did.

Changed my mind. To be the smaller and much older guy and compete as well as he did through conditioning, discipline and ringcraft is more impressive than what George did for me. Physically, George had every advantage except youth. 'Nard was smaller, less powerful, slower, not as strong as most of his LHW opposition. His only advantages were cerebral but he still more than held his own.

B-Hop's run as a LHW is a really underrated achievement whereas Foreman's 'greatest achievement in sport' gets overhyped for me. Given Moorer's chin, lack of natural size, poor conditioning and unispiring form in winning the title, I felt George had a chance whereas I kept expecting (and half-hoping. I didn't like Hopkins at the time) Bernard to get a right whupping. but he was too good.

 

Hopkins > Foreman in that regard. Hopkins was a career long MW who moved up to LHW at the age of 41. Hopkins beat natural LHWs like Tarver, Pascal, and Cloud. On the other hand, Foreman was a natural HW who beat a blown up LHW.

 

Foreman put on too much fat that slowed him down though.

 

Foreman couldn`t cut the ring off on Morrison he did a far better job v Norton, Wilder`s legs are really quick.

 

I think what Hopkins did was much more impressive. A fighter at heavyweight can be older and still fight well. The pace is slower and age is not as big of a factor, and then take into consideration how strong George was he could walk down most guys and save his energy, and he had that good jab.