Foreman 1973 vs. Foreman 1991

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 18 Aug 2006, 15:24

Some here seem to believe that the 42-year old Foreman could do things better than the 24-year old Foreman. Now, how do you believe they would have done face-to-face?

My take: ringsmarts and experience get the 42-year-old Foreman into the 5th round, when he'll finally be cornered and taken out.

meade95 · Post by **meade95** » 18 Aug 2006, 16:25

pundit wrote:Some here seem to believe that the 42-year old Foreman could do things better than the 24-year old Foreman. Now, how do you believe they would have done face-to-face?

My take: ringsmarts and experience get the 42-year-old Foreman into the 5th round, when he'll finally be cornered and taken out.

This is one of those questions that at first there seems to be a clear answer. Younger Foreman wins! Plain and simple.

But hell, even George himselfs believes his older version would have beat his younger self (I've heard him say this several times). The older Foreman had a better defense and was smarter in terms of setting up his shots and pacing himself. Plus I think the older Foreman might have had a sturdy chin to a degree.

But the younger Foreman had much more energy for those first 6-8 rounds. Probably hit slightly harder I would imagine.

With that said, I'd still go with the younger Foreman via either late rd TKO (off cuts / swelling) or by UD.

theone · Post by **theone** » 18 Aug 2006, 17:45

Old Foreman would be a sitting duck against the younger version who had a lot better stamina and skill than he is given credit for.

Mid rounds tko for the younger meaner version.

kingpawn · Post by **kingpawn** » 18 Aug 2006, 21:39

theone wrote:Old Foreman would be a sitting duck against the younger version ...

That, I believe, is probably enough said right there. I really like Old George and there's no doubt he would be a force to be reckoned with for anyone. But I think Young George would have been too much. Just watching Holyfield pepper Old George with shot after shot leads me to believe that Young George would have taken Old George out.

Young George was a seek and destroy fighter. No questions asked. He just went out there and started dropping the hammer. I just think with Young George's power and with just enough speed to have found his mark, chances are he would've just pounded the hell out of the older version of himself.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 19 Aug 2006, 20:29

theone · Post by **theone** » 20 Aug 2006, 01:44

The 257 pound 42 year old of the Holyfield fight is probably stronger in a pushing match than the 217 pound 24 year old of 1973. The young Foreman would have 3-5 rounds to use his slightly superior speed and land a big one. If he didn't, he would tire. He would lose confidence after not being able to land his big shots, in addition, Older George would be manhandling a smaller, tired Young George in the clinches causing Young George to lose more confidence. Young George would either get stopped by Old George or he would lose a clear decision.

208lb Holyfield stood in there with Old George and prevailed, but young George couldnt? Young Georege was stronger, punched much harder, and had at least as good a chin as Holyfield. Foreman also had very undderated stamina; against Ali he succumbed to exhaustion after 8 rounds of throwing nonstop bombs in intense heat. Then in Puerto Rico in similiar temperatures and after attempting to catch one of the slickest heavyweights fighters ever for 12 rounds.
Big Georges accomplishments, although inspiring, especially his victory over Moorer, gets a bit overrated at times. Can you imagine young Foreman being troubled by the likes of Tommy Morrison, Axel Shultz and Alex Stewart?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 20 Aug 2006, 07:51

theone.....here is something you did not factor....I might agree with you if they were different fighters.....but since old George knows EVERYTHING about young George he has the keys to the lock and would perservere.

He was still a good fighter and it would be his brain not his body that led him to victory with the younger fighter than he literally knows like the back of his hand.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 20 Aug 2006, 10:25

theone · Post by **theone** » 20 Aug 2006, 10:35

theone.....here is something you did not factor....I might agree with you if they were different fighters.....but since old George knows EVERYTHING about young George he has the keys to the lock and would perservere.
He was still a good fighter and it would be his brain not his body that led him to victory with the younger fighter than he literally knows like the back of his hand.

Everyone knew everything about young George. Everyone knew what he was gonna try to do and how he was going to try to do it. He wasnt exactly an enigma in the ring.
Big George would know him as well as young Georges other opponnets, and like most of them Big George wouldnt be able to do a thing about it.

theone · Post by **theone** » 20 Aug 2006, 10:47

have to disagree that Young George had good stamina. His stamina problems may have been caused by his inability to pace himself, but for whatever reason, he lost effectiveness as the rounds went on. In the first Peralta fight, he was stumbling like a man standing on a boat in a storm by the late rounds. He was lucky he wasn't floored or worse. Against Ali he fatigued badly, against Young, he tried to pace himself and got outboxed, and out worked, and was far behind in the fight, and still fatigued.

Again, fatigue only cost George in two fights, and I already went over those.
You bring up the Peralta fight, and yes George looked bad, but he was only in his second year as a pro, and those type of fights happen to every great.
For the most part Fatigue wouldnt be a factor in this fight because Holyfield wasnt the hardest fighter to find. Holyfield will go out in similiar fashion to Norton and Frazier.
Pre Zaire Young George TKO 2 Holyfield. After Zaire,Young George tko 9 Holyfield.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 20 Aug 2006, 11:04

theone · Post by **theone** » 20 Aug 2006, 11:08

We will have to disagree on this one.

Okay.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 20 Aug 2006, 11:45

The Foreman of 1991 when he faced Holyfield used a 'cross' defense like Ed Bearcat Wright. Which is very effective for defense, but not on offense, as it takes a little longer to be effective.

Foreman on RINGSIDE said that's why he couldn't do much of an effective attack on Holyfield, but when he faced Micheal Moorer he fought out of the standard orthodox stance, which helped him upload a better offensive attack.

I think the Foreman of 1991 would have failed against Foreman of 73', based really on that fact.

The Foreman of 1994 would have been better suited to have faced the Foreman of 1973.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 20 Aug 2006, 12:07

theone.....I'm thinking in many years you will come to know the advantages as well as you know the disadvantages of age. It will come in due time.

theone · Post by **theone** » 20 Aug 2006, 12:23

theone.....I'm thinking in many years you will come to know the advantages as well as you know the disadvantages of age. It will come in due time.

I know them already. I think you are mistaking me for a much younger person.

sockdolager · Post by **sockdolager** » 20 Aug 2006, 14:13

Young "Big George" KO 7 Old "Big George"

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 25 Aug 2006, 02:31

Great question.

I think the 1991 version may have actually had a good shout!

He was a much better, if slower than the 1973 model.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Aug 2006, 06:40

theone wrote:
theone.....I'm thinking in many years you will come to know the advantages as well as you know the disadvantages of age. It will come in due time.
I know them already. I think you are mistaking me for a much younger person.

Then I'll give you the e-mail address of a guy who builds turbo boosters for wheelchairs....you'll love the g forces that can be experienced when they are hooked up right.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Aug 2006, 12:41

honestly this is no comparison. the 1990s foreman was not a good fighter. glass jaw tommy morrison shut him out, B level fighters alex stewart and axel shulz were robbed. i mean foreman couldnt even beat these guys anymore.....hows he gonna beat a prime top 10 heavyweight of all time like the 1970s george foreman?

the 1990s foreman is very overated. he was HORRIBLY SLOW, was nowhere near the puncher or finisher he was in the 1970s, his reflexes were awful, he was easy to hit in the 1990s, he was easy to outbox in the 1990s....alex stewart, axel shulz, and glass jaw morrison did it. foreman was very lucky to beat michael moorer.... moorer was the much better fighter in 94. even teddy atlas said during the fight "our sparring partners are better". many of the contenders in the 1990s would have beat george foreman.

the 1970s foreman would tear him apart from limb to limb.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 25 Aug 2006, 12:45

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:honestly this is no comparison. the 1990s foreman was not a good fighter. glass jaw tommy morrison shut him out, B level fighters alex stewart and axel shulz were robbed. i mean foreman couldnt even beat these guys anymore.....hows he gonna beat a prime top 10 heavyweight of all time like the 1970s george foreman?

the 1990s foreman is very overated. he was HORRIBLY SLOW, was nowhere near the puncher or finisher he was in the 1970s, his reflexes were awful, he was easy to hit in the 1990s, he was easy to outbox in the 1990s....alex stewart, axel shulz, and glass jaw morrison did it. foreman was very lucky to beat michael moorer.... moorer was the much better fighter in 94. even teddy atlas said during the fight "our sparring partners are better". many of the contenders in the 1990s would have beat george foreman.

the 1970s foreman would tear him apart from limb to limb.

Yeah, but 90’s Foreman could have beaten that slow, clumsy Marciano.

Old fat Foreman KO1 over prime Marciano!!

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 25 Aug 2006, 13:30

1973 Foreman stops 1991 Foreman in less than 2 or 3 rounds. Remember the 1991 Foreman was shaken up a couple of times by Holyfield late in the round. The 1991 Foreman was easy to hit. This doesn't
last long.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 25 Aug 2006, 13:41

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Aug 2006, 13:45

The Great John L wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:honestly this is no comparison. the 1990s foreman was not a good fighter. glass jaw tommy morrison shut him out, B level fighters alex stewart and axel shulz were robbed. i mean foreman couldnt even beat these guys anymore.....hows he gonna beat a prime top 10 heavyweight of all time like the 1970s george foreman?

the 1990s foreman is very overated. he was HORRIBLY SLOW, was nowhere near the puncher or finisher he was in the 1970s, his reflexes were awful, he was easy to hit in the 1990s, he was easy to outbox in the 1990s....alex stewart, axel shulz, and glass jaw morrison did it. foreman was very lucky to beat michael moorer.... moorer was the much better fighter in 94. even teddy atlas said during the fight "our sparring partners are better". many of the contenders in the 1990s would have beat george foreman.

the 1970s foreman would tear him apart from limb to limb.
Yeah, but 90’s Foreman could have beaten that slow, clumsy Marciano.

Old fat Foreman KO1 over prime Marciano!!

yes sir.........marciano was very slow. max baer's speed was DAZZLING compared to marciano. the 1990s foreman piledrives through clubfighter marciano

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 25 Aug 2006, 14:43

DaveV17 wrote:The old Foreman was harder to hit than the young one and he seemed to take it better when he did get hit. The young Foreman's knees buckled in the 2nd against Ali who was not a big puncher. I had always thought that the knockout was because Foreman was exhausted, but Ali had stunned him a few times.

Does anyone else remember George’s knees buckling in the second round against Ali? I know he got hit while he was off balance a lot in that fight, but I don’t recall this incident.

Do you really think the older Foreman was harder to hit? Alex Stewart was about as quick as a glacier and he was able to pummel George throughout their fight. Holyfield seemed to connect at a pretty high rate as well, he just couldn’t keep up the punch rate.

And George’s chin has always been rock solid. Besides the Ali and Young KD’s where George was tired, the only other fighter to knock him down was Lyle, who was a very big hitter with good skills. And Frazier’s hooks didn’t even seem to make him blink.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 25 Aug 2006, 14:59

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
The Great John L wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:honestly this is no comparison. the 1990s foreman was not a good fighter. glass jaw tommy morrison shut him out, B level fighters alex stewart and axel shulz were robbed. i mean foreman couldnt even beat these guys anymore.....hows he gonna beat a prime top 10 heavyweight of all time like the 1970s george foreman?

the 1990s foreman is very overated. he was HORRIBLY SLOW, was nowhere near the puncher or finisher he was in the 1970s, his reflexes were awful, he was easy to hit in the 1990s, he was easy to outbox in the 1990s....alex stewart, axel shulz, and glass jaw morrison did it. foreman was very lucky to beat michael moorer.... moorer was the much better fighter in 94. even teddy atlas said during the fight "our sparring partners are better". many of the contenders in the 1990s would have beat george foreman.

the 1970s foreman would tear him apart from limb to limb.
Yeah, but 90’s Foreman could have beaten that slow, clumsy Marciano.

Old fat Foreman KO1 over prime Marciano!!

yes sir.........marciano was very slow. max baer's speed was DAZZLING compared to marciano. the 1990s foreman piledrives through clubfighter marciano

I'll go out on a limb and say 90's Foreman had faster handspeed than Marciano too.

Foreman 1973 vs. Foreman 1991

Foreman 1973 vs. Foreman 1991

Re: Foreman 1973 vs. Foreman 1991