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

70s Foreman wouldn't have lost to Morrison or Briggs. Not even close.

 

and I am correct in saying the jury was still out on Holyfield the heavyweight all the way until the Bowe fight. His first two challengers were old men and a late substitute. We were still looking to see how he would get on with a young, big, heavyweight. He beat Douglas and still needed to build on this in light of the effort Douglas showed.

what is this obsession with squirming? There is nothing to squirm about on a boxing forum. Foreman was a novelty act who did quite reasonably against a champion fans were not yet convinced of. So I am not squirming because I was around during the time. Bowe split the title then lost his half of it back to Holyfield who passed it to moorer. Lewis then Mcall had the WBC half of the title between the time Foreman losing to Holyfield, losing to Morrison then landing a shot at Moorer. The best heavyweight at the time Holyfield fought Foreman could easily have been between Tyson and Ruddock rather than Holyfield. By the time Holyfield lost to Bowe, Lewis had scored the big result over Ruddock making him the most outstanding contender at that time. By the time Foreman beat Moorer McCall having knocked out Lewis had the beter win. Knocking out Lewis being a bigger deal than knocking out Moorer. Bruno beat Mcall. And then there is Bowe who knocks out Holyfield. So in saying Bowe, Lewis, McCall and Bruno were at times during this period in with a chance of being higher regarded or being the top man over Foreman or Holyfield (in light of it not being resolved properly until even later on when Tyson and Holyfield then Lewis -Holyfield cleared things up) is correct. I was there.

I think you have confused yourself looking to trip me up.

beating Douglas was good but somewhat tainted by the shape and effort of Douglas. Technically Holyfield is the top man but there was a very real sense that he still had much to prove. Hence the jury being out on him whilst Tyson tore through the ranks.

it was actually a fight on paper that could have went either way. Ruddock showed up to win and was knocked out.

Again, I have explained myself. Holyfield was not unanimously regarded as the best in the world after beating Douglas because Tyson still looked a more serious threat to the title.

McCall knocking out Lennox Lewis was a bigger deal than Foreman losing to Morrison. I don't know why you thing it could be?

in 1992 yes. But around the time Foreman was champ Bruno was challenging McCall and beating him.

 

Another way to look at foreman winning the title choc.. Was buster Douglas any less the champ for beating tyson? I'm sure there were better fighter s than him at the time of his win, but does that take away how valid his win was? Yes tyson wasn't moorer but the fact is they both held the lineal title at the time of there loss. And the fact that foreman beat the man who beat the man and so on at his age, I believe makes any criticism of him doing so a bit unjust. He didn't buy the belt, he won it fairly.

 

The question is absolutely ridiculous!

Of course he was better in the 70s.

The 90s contenders should be embarrassed that he was able to win the lineal title in their era at that age!

 

Douglas beat the best fighter in the world to make himself champion. Foreman, like Leon Spinks, merely beat the guy he needed to beat in order to become champion. I don't take that away from either man, I just think it is worth noting.

Douglas was a deserving challenger because he went into his title winning effort beating McCall, Berbick and Mike Williams. No other challenger to Tyson was coming into a title fight with recent winning form of quite this level, and for someone to be available who was better at that time they would need a current string of recent wins like this to be better than Douglas at that time.

no. It cannot take it away from Douglas because I don't believe another contender had as many recent wins at that kind of level, perhaps former champ Witherspoon. But nobody else.

they did indeed. Can't take that away.

Foreman won the belt fair and square. Just like other champions did.

 

Square and Fair? What's with that, Ferg? You been having a few tonic and gins?

 

Lol u always bring a smile to my face edd. Yep I think I d been on the juice when I posted that. Well spotted.

 

Happy bank holiday, matey.

Have you even heard of gin n tonic in Yorkshire? It's what those soft southern shites drink.

 

Same to u edd, lol oh yer I've heard of the stuff, it's something I'd give to me whippet in me flat cap to drink. Like drinking shandy man! No gud for us hard lads oop in Yorkshire lol.

 

He was certainly smarter in the 90s but then again he had to be. In his prime Big George was a terror in the ring. He was a force of nature and he was hard to stay away from he even cut the ring exceptionally as Ali found out in Zaire. Old George had to set traps and use his experience. He was still strong but he often couldn't pull the trigger when he was in with A level comp.

 

Exactly. Old Foreman would beat myraids more people and most all easier.