How many heavyweights could have beat Caracas Foreman?

People found it boring because the top 2 heavyweights, for years, didn't face each other. One can't even say who was the best heavyweight in the world when they were both active at the high level.

 

Almost two years later, Norton, who was on the decline at 2 months short of 35, took a Larry Holmes, who had entered his prime, all the way down to the wire. 2 year post Ali, Shavers put Holmes down in thunderous fashion and he did well to get up and come back to win.

At the end of the day well past prime Ali wasn't doing too bad and Norton and Shavers went on to put on some fine showings.

 

That's true in plenty of other eras though. Holyfield and Lewis should have fought far earlier than they did. Tyson should have fought Holyfield pre prison preferably in 1989 and should have faced Witherspoon. Holmes should have rematched Witherspoon and fought Pinklon Thomas. Top guys not facing each other has been a problem for ages.

The early 2000s was not a great era but the later part of Wladimirs reign is being badly underrated.

 

It's not remotely the same. The only thing that stopped Tyson - Holyfield was Tyson losing to Buster and then going to prison. Holyfields fight with Buster was when Holyfield started to be viable. Holyfield, Lewis, Tyson,things were going up and down for all of them.

Wlad and Vitali were the stand out fighters for years unlike your other efforts.

 

Yeah - It's an interesting take, albeit I suspect a little exaggerated and embroidered between the lines, with it pretty much relying on this version of Ali you have in your mind's eye. Moreover, your viewpoint seems to be quite 'back or white', with no real appreciation for the grey.

I think most serious boxing people and a good number of fans acknowledged that Ali had been changed by Manila. However, the extent and rate of his decline is still something of a variable that is not easily measured against three quite divergent heavyweights, fought over the course of a year and a half.

I am interested to know when you think the ill, deteriorated, damaged Ali, with a degenerative disease, actually came into being.

To the best of my knowledge, the early signs of neurological damage were first observed in Ali and medically recorded in 1977, post-Shavers - the revelation of which led to Ali's Physician, Ferdie Pacheco, resigning that same year.

Do you have any hard evidence that Ali was, during '76 and early '77, manifestly suffering from the degenerative disorder that would years later become apparent?

In terms of age, Ali was 34 at the time of the third Norton fight. Norton was 33. Ali was aged 35 at the time of the Shavers fight and Shavers was 33. So, referring to Ali as "old" is, relatively speaking, a bit odd in my book. Only Young was in his prime, at this stage.

I don't think, with the above in mind, one can put too strong a case together for a downgraded perspective on Young, Norton, and Shavers. It doesn't make sense to do so by only focusing on their fights with Ali.


As an additional note... ...In relation to the '70s not throwing up someone who was capable of pushing an "ill, old champion off the throne"...

...Well - the '70s had done that. It's just that it took a little bit longer for that fighter to make his way to the top, which happened to coincide with Ali's retirement, after the Leon Spinks rematch. That fighter was Larry Holmes.

 

I trust I have clarified the perspective on lines of inquiry and that one might see variance in value between two or more of these.

While some picks can be ludicrous, I don't tend to treat them as such (unless, on that rare occasion, they patently are), even if they are counter to my own thinking.

That said - How deteriorated was Frazier from Foreman II? Frazier went from Manila into a Foreman rematch. How did anyone gauge his deterioration?

Ibragimov was so pedestrian that I would probably only pick him against the fringe contenders of other eras. I couldn't pick him to beat any version of Frazier.

I like Lyle over Byrd. Lyle wasn't an absolute world-beater but he was a solid Boxer-Puncher with fairly good footwork and who, on his best day, would just track Byrd down. Byrd really didn't do all that well, without either a favorable decision or his opponent quitting on him. His one clean win is against Tua and Lyle beats Tua, as well.

Why would Norton have problems with Haye? I'm trying to think of the most impressive performance Haye put in at Heavyweight and it might just be Chisora.

Chuvalo is the only wild card here for me but, then again, so is Pulev. It's 50/50, for mine.


ps. I just made all of the above up. It's a fantasy!

 

Flabby Joe and General Zod’s mate from Superman 2. A stellar list.

 

I asked you that thinking, you may say “I won’t say Frazier twice so I’ll have xxxx at 5th”, but expected you to avoid this, as I would have done given the options. I can’t blame you, that’s commonly known in these parts as the “LeDoux Conundrum”.

 

I agree most of Foreman's best opponents were his own size or smaller, but Noneck didn't mention the quality of his opponent, only size. And it's objectively wrong, to say Foreman never beat an opponent bigger than him. It's just flat out untrue, with zero room for dispute, even taking into account noneck's retroactively applied condition.

 

OK so I watched this fight. Quite entertaining actually! To be honest it hasn't clarified much for me. Spinks looked good, but Cooney was completely one dimensional, although I admit he seemed to have some speed left. I will give Mike credit as Cooney looked massive and Mike's hand speed was incredible. However I checked Wiki and it looks like Gerry fought only three times in last years before this fight for a total of 7 rounds so not really compatible to a peak Foreman as far as activity and career momentum.

I am not saying you are wrong as the fact Spinks handled himself well against big guys and was crazy awkward shows he could have been dangerous. I suppose we could also argue Mike was past his best when he fought Tyson and possible just doing it for the money (but that is another can of worms!).

However the evidence we have for Mike at HW are wins against either past their best (Holmes, Cooney) or average (Tangstad) fighters plus a totally decimation when he faced the first fighter who was comparable to Foreman in power (but a lot smaller). It can also be argued he lost at least one of the Holmes fights.

Final thought, we talking about Caracas Foreman, not Jimmy Young fight Foreman. Mike may have a chance against that Foreman but for the purposes of this thread I don't see Spinks beating Norton fight version of George.

 

Tyson and Foreman aren't at all comparable. Tyson was fast enough to step and throw at the same time as Spinks and get there first. Spinks would be able to pick spots against Foreman. Cooney had similar power to Foreman with his left handtoo. Spinks doesn't have a deep heavyweight resume, but Foreman looked pretty crappy against slick fighters.

 

I've said many times i don't believe the injury affected him much if anything and Pugs made a good post on it the other day. You only have to watch the fight to see that. It's become a bit of a narrative at this point. Even Holmes himself made no comment later and he wasn't backward in coming forward with that sort of stuff.

Shavers was possibly one more clean punch away from beating Holmes. Totally agree Holmes outboxed him pretty much every other round of their bouts but the truth is Shavers wasn't too far off the upset.

I totally agree Ali was a shell of himself too but the point is him getting by Norton and Shavers and Young for that matter doesn't drag down the era. No-one is saying those guys are ATG's. Norton at his best is better than anything the Holmes era threw forth. He was probably Holmes greatest challenge as it was.

 

I don't believe the injury effected Holmes much either, Holmes put on a jabbing clinic against Norton in the first 6 or 7 rounds. If Holmes was that effected by the injury hes not throwing ATG jabs like that.

As for Shavers I agree Holmes would've been stopped had he been caught with another solid shot, Holmes literally had no legs for entire duration of the round, it's just Shavers was too wild and couldn't quite pin Holmes down.

It actually reminds me of Wilder/Fury, I truly believe if Wilder wouldn't of been so wild excuse the pun, then he would of had Fury out of there also.

For example someone like Mike Tyson who's one of the best finishers of all time, once he hurt you that's it you were done no chance of recovering.

 

True comments DP. Shavers was already a bit tired and looked even more tired trying to follow up. I've noticed Wilder gasses quickly, at least for a while, when he lets loose and doesn't find the finish line. I believe his stamina to be a bit poor under the pump and it's probably why he fights so conservatively.

 

To be clear, I can accept an eye-test perspective of Ali's performances. They are as subject to critique as any anyone else's.

Ali was in decline. No doubt, in my opinion.

However, what I find more than just a little slanted is the alignment of Young's, Norton's and Shavers performances against an Ali who you refer to as an "ill", "damaged guy:, "in the early stages of a degenerative disease", without any evidence of this being directly relevant to Ali's 1976 to mid-1977 performances.

This may well be - in which case (and the main thrust of my point here), Ali, Norton and Shavers were all on the other side of their physical primes.

An out-fighting speedster who has become heavier and has slowed down, is going to look a more markedly changed fighter when those physical gifts begin to desert him. This is not exclusive to Ali and has been seen in other fighters who relied heavily on speed and reflexes.