How Would A Young Foreman Have Done In The 1990s?

Tyson, Bowe, Holyfield and Lewis are NO less then 60-40 even if you're a diehard fan so he's far from dominating and I suspect the only one on that list he gets is Bowe if GF isn't a wreck from fighting Holyfield and Tyson back to back (Ferg said he starts fighting Holyfield in 91 and also fights Tyson) Bowe actually could just outlast GF even if he is losing... Lewis 0 doubt would destroy him he knew what to do with a threat like Foreman, unless GF Rahamn's LL it's much more likely he get's smashed over 5, bigger, better boxer with the perfect uppercut for that square stance... especially one who punches like that is a terrible match up for GF...

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

1min28 & 1min38

 

I had no idea Bonavena did that to him.

 

Hard to believe honestly.

 

I know how powerful Ruddock was. I also know how much trouble Ruddock had utilizing that power at world class level. If he wasn't, maybe he'd have more than all of one win against top ten opponents.

 

If I were you, I would seriously start questioning my knowledge if you genuinely didn't know Bonavena knocked Frazier down twice in his 12th pro fight.

 

I already question your knowledge.

 

I agree, as prime Foreman was equipped, he dominates with only a few presenting as the more stern challenges but guys he still beats.

As you say, his most serious challenges will only be time, complacency, losing his edge etc.

I’d like to think that when the downturn begins George will know to call it day and compartmentalise himself into flogging his holy grill (nice! ).

 

Pretty rich coming from the guy who:

Didn't know Frazier was knocked down by Bonavena in his 12th fight (tbh I'm quite surprised you didn't use this to downplay the significance of Foreman's win given your long-time efforts to disparage the man whenever and wherever possible)

Didn't know Louis was dropped in the first round in the fight that he won the title.

Thinks Ruddock could beat the undefeated heavyweight champion of the world, because he knocked out a washed up Dokes who had to pay the WBA for his laughable number 3 spot. The little it takes to impress you is quite embarrassing. If you liked Ruddock's KO, this one will blow your mind.

This content is protected

What odds are we giving Bentt against Frazier, based on this? 50-50?

 

The 1970’s George Foreman moved over to the 1990s would make a huge impact on the division. But I still think he loses some fights.

 

I've already forgotten more about boxing than you've ever known, kid.

Before the Ruddock fight, Dokes finished 89 with a ranking of 3 in the Ring, behind Tyson and Holyfield.

Ruddock probably would've beaten Morrison if the fight weren’t nonsensically waved off, even though he was washed up.

Perhaps you should focus on your grades instead of things I wrote on a message board a long time ago.

 

You didn't "forget" anything. Forgetting would imply you had knowledge in the first place which as your comment shows, you clearly did not.

You simply dksab.

He was ranked 3 in the annual ratings were retroactively attributed. What was his ranking at the time of the fight?

"w÷rent nonsensical" Are you having a stroke mate?

In any event, there's no basis for saying Ruddock "probably would've won". It was perhaps a premature stoppage, But he'd taken multiple unanswered combos, was down once and taken two stounding eight counts all in the same round....He was on his way out regardless.

Thanks for the concern but I've just graduated college with honors.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I feel the people saying 90s Foreman was better are trying to rehabilitate the 90s HW divisions reputation and have an agenda. All the things Foreman did in the 90s and didn't in the 70s is because he didn't need to. Why would prime Foreman let a fighter last 12 rounds to show the world he had a gas tank and a bag of tricks? Why would any fighter choose to show more in a fight they could end right away?