Was Foreman a better fighter in the 70s or 90s?

As for the question regarding young George or older been better, in some ways older had improved. But a lot of fighters do as they age. Jersey Joe was a improved fighter as he aged. He did better in his late thirty s as he did in his twenty s. Pac improved, he was getting ko'd in his early title challengers. Lewis did as well, that's a stated fact, that he was a lot better fighter as he aged. So in some ways George had improved. Was he a better fighter than his 70 s days,? In some ways he was. The younger version of George couldn't have carried on with the way he was so he came back and changed.

 

Let me get this straight.

You are seriously trying to tell us that Lewis, Bowe, McCall and Bruno were all consider above Holyfield? The Holyfield that went 28 zip before losing to a rather respectable Riddick Bowe before pumping Alex Stewart then beating Bowe in a rematch?

You are talking 88-92, Holyfields time as a heavy up until the Bowe defeat.

April 88 Ring had him 3.
May 89 Ring had him 2.
April 90 Ring had him 2.
April 91 Ring had him 1.
May 92 they had him 1 and P4P number 4!!!!!!

The lengths you go to discrediting Foreman are getting absurd. Particularly when paired with the attempts to over credit Carnera and his opponents.

Lewis? He didn't even enter the ratings until 91, at the tail!!!
McCall? He didn't beat Lewis until 94! He'd done next to nothing in the period you label him better than Holyfield and wasn't even Ring rated.
Bruno? Needs not even be talked about.

 

Don't agree with all of them Fergy. Moorer was absolutely harder to beat than the "guys Foreman was beating on that comeback". There's a reason he was way ahead on two cards. Moorer had never been stopped in his life at this point.

 

That's true John regarding moorer never been ko'd. What people forget is that older George was just that : older :he was facing men young enough to be his son. And apart from holyfield, morrison and briggs, in his last ever fight, was beating them. I say to them, which other 40 odd years old heavyweight could either defeat or lose on points only to a much younger generation of fighters. Only Archie Moore and Hopkins had that type of success at such a age. Hopkins gets praise as does Moore but for some reason George gets panned.

 

He doesn't get panned by many Fergy. He did something no-one else has ever done. I am slightly mixed on his second career (if it was a young gun mirroring what he did where would they stand) but factor in his age and it gets rather amazing.

 

It is amazing and the fact is it's never been done before and I doubt it will again is over looked. As I've said before Jersey Joe was 37 when he won the belt and George was near enough 8 years older than that so you have to give him credit. He was fighting against younger guys and never once hit the canvas. Ali's second career was amazing but he wouldn't have pulled that off.

 

Good thread

 

It is, isn't it

 

He was a different fighter in the 90s. Overall better, harder to beat h2h? No. But better in some aspects. He had a different style and different vulnerabilities however. I dont think 70s foreman ever found his own style and settled into it as a fighter, he was always trying to be someone or something and in that way was still a pretender even if he was a very strong hard hitting tough pretender just like Mike Tyson was trying to be someone else for large parts of his career. Some people might not understand this but Foremans growth as a person probably helped him find what he was good at and stick with it in his second career.
Yes Foreman had the whole cuddly Teddy Bear act in the second career but that was a Marketing ploy, a con. In the 70s he wasnt just pretending to the outside, he was lying to himself as well. We might never know who the real George is or what he was like, but i highly suspect he found himself in his layoff because even the best constructed Image and Lie you tell yourself would have been shattered by the things Foreman went through in the ring in his second career to capture the title again, just like his " Delusion" shattered in and after the loss to Ali.

Not sure if people understand what i mean but thats how i feel

 

Great post. If you could transplant 90's Foreman's mental fortitude and calmness into his 70's body I think you'd have a dreadnought of a boxer.

 

Yes Contro, very good post. And I get what your saying. Foreman came back and it was kind of a perfect second career for him. The first part was a bad learning experience for him, the terrific high s, crushing frazier and Norton, then the terrible lows, losing to ali and young. But the second part he had nothing to lose. He fought his best against holyfield and lost, no big deal and move on. He lost to morrison but it wasn't a crushing defeat so moved on. Then one more crack at moorer.. And bingo. But even when he lost to briggs it was disputed, so foreman could walk with his head high. That second career ended well for George, there was no beating , no terrible ko. So foreman walked off in to the sunset, job done and a record that will stand for many years.

 

Oh man, can you imagine? That foreman would take some beating..

 

I am saying in 1991 the jury was still out on Evander Holyfield as a real heavyweight. Tyson was fighting Ruddock in 1991 and back then it looked like those two were the best two heavyweights. Not Evander. Evander may have been the champion at that point but he was still seen as a kind of "cheese champion". He beat Buster but because Buster was in such woeful shape and Tyson was taking out Stewart, Tillman and Ruddock nobody was that confident Evander was the best in the world. At the same time there was Mercer coming along, Bowe coming along and Lewis too. Foreman was seen as a gimick. Seen purely as a stay busy fight for Evander. Before a Tyson showdown.

yes that guy who beat buster, laboured with Holmes and Foreman was eclipsed by Lewis blasting out Ruddock. That was a huge splash at the time, the guy went life and death with Tyson before he was incarcerated. Where as Holyfield was struggling with Bert Cooper. Meanwhile Bowe presents Evander with a real test as a challenger and look what happens?

obviously by 1991 Evander should be rated higher because he had the belts, but what the ratings don't tell you is what people were thinking at the time. That Tyson could quite possibly win the title back. Ruddock was a leading contender. In 1992 Lewis and Bowe were already looking like the future of the division.

this is simply the chronology of the time. Foreman surprised everyone beating Moorer in 1994. He had not fought since 1993. His one fight at elite level was losing to Holyfield in 1991 at a time where Evander had yet to establish himself as a convincing champion. I'm sorry if you think that discredits Foreman but that is how it was.

no matter, by the time Holyfield got into the ring with Bowe, Lewis had already destroyed Ruddock a better win than Holyfield had recorded by then.

McCall represents the current WBC champion when Foreman gate crashed his way into a championship winning fight with Moorer. I was talking of the 1991-94 period.

McCall did nothing in the period when Foreman was taken most seriously? To be taken seriously Foreman needed a belt. He already lost a WBO fight with Morrison after losing to Holyfield. McCall had knocked out Lennox Lewis. It kind of trumps losing to Holyfield and Morrison.

Actually Bruno beat Pierre Coetzer around the time Foreman did. Off the back of their wins over him Bruno challenged Lewis and Foreman challenged Morrison. Both lost.

 

Bingo. And the reason is plain and simple: he did beat a lineal champion (Michael Moore), but didn't fight the best fighters of the 90's ....

 

What you said was this -

"For one fight against Holyfield (who he had a size advantage over) george did ok, but so far as that being the "highest level", well, back then people were not sold on Holyfield as being the best heavyweight in the world. That came much later. That particular version of Holyfield laboured with Holmes and Cooper then lost to the first good young heavyweight he defended against."

The version you speak of is the version up to and including the Bowe fight, no if's or but's. That version lost to Bowe in November 92.

Keep squirming.

What you said was

"This is true up to a level. For one fight against Holyfield (who he had a size advantage over) george did ok, but so far as that being the "highest level", well, back then people were not sold on Holyfield as being the best heavyweight in the world. That came much later. That particular version of Holyfield laboured with Holmes and Cooper then lost to the first good young heavyweight he defended against. Moorer was a kind of stop gap. The best heavyweights of that period were Lennox Lewis Riddick Bowe, Oliver McCall and Frank Bruno. and Foreman never wanted to fight that kind of fighter."

I have clearly showed the period you spoke of. I also showed you up badly timeline wise on the Lewis and McCall front and Bruno wasn't even in the hunt. It's far too late to try and change your story and murky the waters.

You have clearly shown that you either have no idea of the chronology of the time (as dictated by yourself) or are purposely trying to deceive those not in the know or unwilling to do the research.

Lewis beat Ruddock what, 3 weeks before Holyfield fought Bowe? One good win puts Lewis above Holyfield? Rubbish.

Ruddock (recently beaten twice by Tyson) was a better win than Holyfields over Douglas? LOL

Keep squirming. Again, the period you were talking has been clearly outlined. You are being dishonest again, which has long become habit.

Changing your dates again. This paragraph has nothing to do with anything per your original post. Zero.

The topic was Holyfield up until late 92, as clearly outlined by yourself. Bruno beating Coetzer in 92 sure don't put him ahead of Holyfield, and Foreman is irrelevant except for losing to Holyfield in the outlined period.