jerry quarry vs tommy morrison

[DaveV17]

edit

[Cojimar 1945]

Patterson was older than Ellis, Quarry and Bonavena, three heavyweights who were top contenders in the 1970s. He might not have been as old as Foreman but it is still an example of 3 heavyweights from the 70s failing to dominate an older, past his prime, heavyweight from the 1950s.

Holmes only beat one top contender in his 40s, Ray Mercer. To my knowledge he had no other wins in the 90s over heavyweights who were rated highly. Evander Holyfield was still rated in the top 10 at age 39 which is not much younger than Holmes was against Mercer.

[dempseyfire]

Patterson was older than Ellis, Quarry and Bonavena, three heavyweights who were top contenders in the 1970s. He might not have been as old as Foreman but it is still an example of 3 heavyweights from the 70s failing to dominate an older, past his prime, heavyweight from the 1950s.

Holmes only beat one top contender in his 40s, Ray Mercer. To my knowledge he had no other wins in the 90s over heavyweights who were rated highly. Evander Holyfield was still rated in the top 10 at age 39 which is not much younger than Holmes was against Mercer.

Ellis, Quarry, and Bonavena were in their prime in the late 1960s, not 1970s. And "he may not have been as old as Foreman" . . we are talking about 10 YEARS!! Can you not see the big difference between 33 years old and 43!!! Patterson was older than those 3 opponents . . .who gives a shit? Holyfield was older than almost everyone he beat at Heavyweight . . . .

Dave: When someone has a "puncher's chance" hint hint . . .that means they have a sizable punch. Sven Ottke, for example, would never have a "puncher's chance" . . .I'm glad you are learning so much in this thread though.

[Ambling Alp]

Dave isn't familiar with the term puncher's chance? Wow. The man is an expert.
It would also be nice if you wouldn't quote someone else and apply it to me.

Anyway, perhaps you didn't see the Foreman-Briggs fights. It is almost universally seen as a horrible decision that should have gone Foreman's way.
You forgot to mention that Foreman decked Stewart twice and almost knocked him out.

Are you guys really that clueless as to what age does to a fighter? Your metabolism slow. Your stamina, speed reflexes etc. decline.
At 45, Foreman is by far the oldest man to win the heavyweight championship. The old record was 37.
He was 40 when he hurt Cooper so bad that he quit. (he said his ears were ringing)
He was 42 when he gave Holyfield trouble.
He was 43 when beat Stewart.
He was 46 when fought Schulz.
He was 48 when he fought Briggs and Savarese.
And you guys are mocking him. Wow.

Larry Holmes was 42 when he gave Holyfield a tough fight and beat Mercer.
He was 45 when he came within one round of winning the heavyweight title against McCall.
Do you guys really see Tommy Morrison winning the title back in 7 years when he is 45?
When Evander Holyfield (who was a great fighter) was 42, he was getting slapped around by Larry donald.
Patterson (who was a great fighter) beat Bonavena, but never came close to winning the title back at that age. He was stopped in 7 rounds by Ali.

There were no heavyweights in their 40's that won or came remotely close to winning the heavyweight title in the 1970's.

As for Jones and Morrison (which I never talked about before even though Dave said I did) I could see it going either way.
Dave V17 of course used the same old bigger is better line and that Morrison couldn't possibly lose to a smaller man.
I love the question of who Jones beat that was Morrison size? No one of course. The top fighters (and Jones was much more willing to fight them than Morrison) were as good as Morrison so he never bothered fighting anyone that big.
I can just as easily ask, who did Morrison ever beat that was under 190 pounds? The answer is no one.
If you want another modern example of how Jones would have a chance:
Dominck Guinn vs Michael Grant. Grant was much bigger than Morrison and more athletic. He had a 36 pound weight advantage against Guinn. Guinn beat the crap out of him.

Dave never thought of Jones as particularly quick or fast. Well he was. His hand speed was certainly much faster than Morrison. What do you do when you watch Morrison, hit the fast forward button so that he looks faster?

As for the idea that to beat Norton all you have to do is move him backward.
Only once in his prime did anyone knockout him out and that was a prime George Foreman, who was light years better than Morrison. Norton was never even knocked down by anyone else in his prime.

Your entire theory of Morrison beating Norton rests on Morrison knocking Norton out early. which he means he has to land not only early but first.
1. Given that Norton had a much better defense, do you really think the odds of Morrison landing the big one first is as great as Norton landing the big one?
2. What if Norton lands first? Do you really think Morrison's chin is going to stand up to this?
3. Can you tell us the name of one fighter who was close to a prime Norton that Morrison ever stopped that inidcates that there is no chance that Norton couldn't survive even on the remote chance that Morrison landed his bomb first?
4. And of course if Morrison doesn't knock him out early, then what?

[Senya13]

"Prime" George Foreman (who beat Norton) was light years ahead of Morrison? Foreman looked like shit in his prime SEVERAL TIMES. A clueless no-stamina under-educated fighter with little skill, all power.

[Senya13]

It was fun to watch the best conditioned version of comebacking Foreman (weighing only 235lb) get thoroughly outboxed by far past his prime old 50 pounds above his best weight Qawi, before George was finally able to land something and make Qawi say no-mas.

[Senya13]

So he still hadn't learned anything at 39 years of age? Getting easily outboxed by a fighter who looked in as bad form as recent James Toney, missing 90% of his punches and even those that landed weren't very good, while getting clocked right on the face with one counter after another, it had been a very long time since Qawi looked so impressive.

[DaveV17]

edit

[Ambling Alp]

"Prime" George Foreman (who beat Norton) was light years ahead of Morrison? Foreman looked like shit in his prime SEVERAL TIMES. A clueless no-stamina under-educated fighter with little skill, all power.

Can you please list all the times in his prime that Foreman looked this way?
Can you not come up up with more times that Morrison looked more horrible?
What opponents did Morrison destroy that were remotely as good as Frazier and Norton?

Clueless no stamina, little skill, all power. That describes Morrison pretty well, except that vulnerable chin should be added.

[DaveV17]

edit

[Ambling Alp]

Alp and DF,
It is always enlightning to find that certain people are impressed by George Foreman's comeback. That says a lot about their knowledge of what is going on in boxing. How about answering this question since you won't answer any others I give you.

Do you think that George Foreman and his advisors got together and said, "we need a test, let's fight Bert Cooper. He hits hard, takes a good shot and that will let us know where we are in this comeback." Or do you think that Foreman and his advisors got on the phone with some people who know what is going on in boxing and said,"we need a name fighter to give some credibility to this comeback. Do you know someone with a name, who is a drug addict, who is not training, who would take this fight, for some drug money?" Talk to anyone who promoted or trained in the late 80s, early 90s to get the answer.

It might burst your bubbles, but at least you might start to understand how Foreman won many of his comeback fights. Ask around, talk to people who were promoting, find out how Foreman chose opponents. Ask if he would fight just anyone. Everything in boxing is not as it appears.

Alp wrote this too:"
If you want another modern example of how Jones would have a chance:
Dominck Guinn vs Michael Grant. Grant was much bigger than Morrison and more athletic. He had a 36 pound weight advantage against Guinn. Guinn beat the crap out of him.

Michael Grant may have been a great athlete, at least that is what Lampley always claimed, but he had no fighting instincts. The "small", Dominick Guinn is 6-3, and weighed 218 the night he beat Grant. That makes Guinn almost the exact same size as Foreman was when he beat Frazier the first time. He is not exactly a 185 pounder.

What possible resemblance to Morrison and Doug Jones do Grant and Guinn have? Grant does not punch like Morrison, he does not have Morrison's quickneess, Guinn (6-3, 218) is the size of young George Foreman not Doug Jones. I said that Jones was a great technical fighter, and if he could make it past the 4th or 5th round would have a good chance of winning. It would just be difficult for him to take the initial onslaught of a 40 pounds heavier, quicker man.

Styles make fights. Morrison hit hard, he was quick, and Norton could not fight going backward. That presents style problems for Norton. If you don't agree, I don't care.
I would bet on almost any fast starting, hard puncher vs. Norton. Norton fought 3 guys who were known for punching hard in his entire career, Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney. The three fights lasted a total of 4 rounds. Norton only lasted one full round in the three fights.
If you don't see the significance of that, well, it takes all kinds.

What question didn't I or someone else answer?

Of course Foreman fought several hand picked opponents in his comeback. He hadn't fought in 10 years and was old. What is Morrison's excuse for fighting almost entirely hand picked opponents during his entire career?
Look at who Morrison fought in his comeback fight. A guy with 6 total fights and who had been knocked out in the first round in his last fight against a guy in his 3rd fight.
And you guys rip Foreman for fighting Bert Cooper?
Lets see the quality of Morrison opponets in next few fights.
Your not impressed by Foreman comeback? sure he din't look great a lot, but but considering how old he was it was impressive. He won the heavyweight title when he was 45. Morrison couldn't even come close to that in his prime.

The relevance of Guinn/Grant and Jones/Morrison:
The difference in weight between Guinn and Grant is about the same as Jones and Morrison. Since Grant was more athletic than Morrison, by your strength/size/athletic ability means almost everything reasoning, Guinnn should have had no chance. Yet Guinn destroyed him, so Jones should have a chance against Speedy Morrison.
Grant didn't have good fighting instinct? Gee, I thought that size,strength and speed would take you far? It didn't even take Grant past Dominc Guinn.

As for Norton and the moving him back line. I have asked several times who besides Foreman was able to this? no one. Just Foreman was able to certainly doesn't mean Morrison would.

As for the significance of Shavers and Cooney fights with Norton-no they aren't that significant. Norton was 35 when he fought shavers. Shavers was probably the hardest puncher of all time, certainly he hit a lot harder than Morrison.
Norton was 37 when he fought Cooney.
Anyone that has much understanding of what age does to a fighter knows that these fights aren't significant.

Morrison wouldn't have lasted long against Foreman,Shavers and Cooney.
A prime Morrison couldn't even make it out of the first round against the legendary Michel Bentt.
Galss jaw/no defense Morrison certainly wouldn't last 15 rounds against Larry Holmes, let alone almost beat him like Norton almost did.

As for the styles make fights advantage that Morrison supposedly had against Norton, I have explained several times why there isn't much to it. Of course these points always get ignored. Maybe, just maybe, what Norton could do against Morrison should be considered.

[dempseyfire]

It was fun to watch the best conditioned version of comebacking Foreman (weighing only 235lb) get thoroughly outboxed by far past his prime old 50 pounds above his best weight Qawi, before George was finally able to land something and make Qawi say no-mas.

You do understand the concept pf being weight drained, don't you? Foreman was lighter but had dropped too much weight too fast and was in AWFUL condition. Thus, why he went back up to the 250s. In his early 40s he just couldn't drop down to that weight like he could before. Foreman looked awful from the opening seconds of that bout and it wasn't due to Qawi.

Again, Dave still can't seem to understand that matching someone via height and weight doesn't mean being as big as them. I can't guarantee you George Foreman at 6'3, 220 was much bigger than Guinn at 6'21/2, 220. Just like Morrison, despite weighing more than Liston and Ali at their best, was smaller than both men.

Do 10 lbs of steroid induced muscle make your chin better? Name me all of the instances in which two HWs, one who outweighed the other by 20-40 lbs and both in or near their prime, fought and the fighter with lesser conditoning and much inferior skills won. I can't wait to see what bullshit examples you bring up, if you can find any.

[DaveV17]

edit

[dempseyfire]

Alp wrote:"Of course Foreman fought several hand picked opponents in his comeback.

If you are aware of this, why do you always bring up the Bert Cooper fight? Fighting drug addicts who were not training is not impressive.

Alp wrote:"As for the significance of Shavers and Cooney fights with Norton-no they aren't that significant. Norton was 35 when he fought shavers. Shavers was probably the hardest puncher of all time, certainly he hit a lot harder than Morrison.
Norton was 37 when he fought Cooney.
Anyone that has much understanding of what age does to a fighter knows that these fights aren't significant.

Just what does "age" do to a fighter? Holmes was older than Norton when he fought the prime Mike Tyson and he didn't collapse with the first hard punch landed. Shouldn't Holmes at 38 have caved as fast as Norton if your theory is right? Shouldn't Holyfield have been stopped in the first by Jeremy Bates? If you knew much about training or boxing you would know that lifestyle is more important than chronological age in fighters.

George Foreman lived clean, he trained right for his boxing style and he picked his opponents. Foreman was bigger, stronger, more skilled, more relaxed, had better stamina, and better defense in his second career than he had in his first. He pulled off a lucky win over the better skilled Michael Moorer, but other than that, he couldn't compete near the top. He knew he had no chance with the big guys like Bowe and Lewis and had no desire to take a beating from either of them. Holy handled him easily, even the limited Morrison handled him easily. Foreman was better than he had been in the 70s, but the division was much better too.

Cooper was in great shape vs Foreman. If you are going to dismiss everything he did since he had issues with drugs, the fact that he knocked down Holyfield, arguably the best HW of the 90s, at his best is pretty embarassing.

Better stamina? Better defense?? Bigger and stronger? HAHAHA . . that is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!! As well as not backed up by the films we have. Stamina? If Foreman in 1993 had attempted to fight for 10 rounds the pace he kept up vs Peralta for 10 rounds he would have left the ring on a stretcher. Better defense? Show me any Foreman fight in the 1970s in which he gets tagged as much as against Stewart, Shultz, Holyfield, Saverese etc. . . .your one fight that would come close would be the Zaire fight and that is it. More power? He had LESS KNOCKOUTS Bigger? He clearly a MUCH HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF BODY FAT. But body fat to Dave equates to greater strength.

According to Dave, if you live clean (even though Foreman balooned up to over 300 lbs in his 10 year retirement . . not exactly the most healthy thing to do! haha) you can not only be as strong and have as much stamina in YOUR 40s you had when you were in your 20s . . .you can be even stronger and have more in the tank!!! Dave . . .you are really outdoing yourself here . . .

[Ambling Alp]

I previously mentioned Cooper among others was a good win for Foreman at his age to beat. Thats all. Drug use or not, Cooper was a fringe contender for several years.

Of course Foreman would have lost to Bowe and Lewis. They would have jumped all over him. They were great fighters in their prime and Foreman was way past his.
As for Foreman and Holyfield, Foreman did quite well for his age. Most people were shocked that holyfield couldn't stop him and that Foreman actually landed some good shots himself. Of course while Holyfield was a great fighter, he didn't have the firepower that Bowe and Lewis did. Still that was an impressive performance.
How did Morrison beat Foreman? Not by going toe to toe with him. He had to fight a cautious fight to beat an old man. He was unwilling to go toe to toe. If he did, sooner later Foreman would land a good shot and take out morrison who had no chin.


Just what does age do to a fighter? Dempseyfire has tried to explain it and I guess I will to. I will try to explain this to you again.
As a fighter ages, his relexes declines. He can't capitalize on opportunites like he used to. He gets an opponent in trouble and just can't go all out and finish him. He sees punches coming and can't get out of the way like he used to. He no longer has the recupaerative powers to survive when is hurt.He simply doesn't have the energy to throw as many punches as he used to. He doesn't have the energy in the later rounds unless the fight is at a very slow pace.
Of course lifestyle is important. However you can be drug free,drink free, eat well, train hard and you won't be as good as you were in your prime. (Assuming you were in reasonably good shape in your 20's.)

Go through the boxrec data base and look up all of the heavyweight champions throughout history. You will see that almost all declined substantially when they got older and started losing more fights.

Watch films.
Was Joe Louis as good when he was 27 as he was in his 20's? Of course not.
Was Ali anywhere near the fighter when he was old against Holmes and Berbick as he was in his 20's? Of course not.
Was Mike Tyson as good against Kevin McBride and Danny Williams as he did in his 20's? Do you seriously believe that Tyson would have any trouble beating those guys in his prime?

I or almost anyone on this forum can give you examples.

All the training and nutrition in the world can only do so much. Holyfield is a physical fitness fanatic. However, he hasn't been nearly the fighter that once was for many years. Watch his fights in the 1980's an early 1990's. Compare them to when he was fighting Ruiz,Donald,Toney. He is simply not nearly as good of a fighter any more.

Yes he can carefully pick scrubs like Jeremy Bates and beat them. that's not the same thing as fighting a world class fighter. If Holyfield had to fight the Mike Tyson that he beat in 1996 right now, he wouldn't last 3 rounds.
If people didn't decline when they got older, many would never retire. You would see guys in their 50's and 60's fighting for the title.

When a fighter is over the hill can very. A lot depends on how much punishment he has taken throughout his career. and yes, staying in shape can delay the inevitable for a little while. Eventually, though a fighter will decline. Usally it gradual, but not always.
Most heavyweights (again depending on how much punishment that have taken) will start to decline in their early 30's. By their mid 30's almost all are clearly past what they once were. By 40, there are only a handful examples of a heavyweight being any good at all.
Until Foreman won the title at 45, no heavyweight in history had won the title that was over 37. Think about that.
No Foreman wasn't stronger in his second career. He an extremely strong 220 in his prime. He punched much harder. when he got an opponet in trouble, he would jump all over him. He couldn't do that in when he was in his 40's.
He didn't have better stamina in his 40's. He fought at an extremely slow pace because he had to when he was old.
You underrate Foreman's skill. Of course he wasn't slick. However, you don't win an Olympic Gold Medal just by being a hard puncher.
When you are saying that foreman was better in his 40's than he was in his 20's you are just making yourself look silly.

As for Norton, he kept himself in very good physical condition for a man his age. The Holmes fight was his last hurrah. It was a war that took a lot out of him. when he fouight Shavers, he got nailed by probably the hardest hitting puncher in history. He didn't have the recuperative powers he once did and that was all she wrote. Would it had made a difference if Norton was in his prime against Shavers? Maybe a prime Norton's recuperative powers would have allowed him to survive Shavers early shot and he would come back to win. Maybe Norton would have nailed Shavers first and knocked Shavers out instead of the other way around. Maybe Norton would have avoided Shavers big shots and won a decison. Or maybe Shavers would have cleaned his clock anyway. Who knows.
As for Cooney, Norton was even farther past his best by then.

[DaveV17]

edit

[dempseyfire]

DF wrote:"Cooper was in great shape vs Foreman. If you are going to dismiss everything he did since he had issues with drugs, the fact that he knocked down Holyfield, arguably the best HW of the 90s, at his best is pretty embarassing."

Cooper was relatively clean when he fought Holyfield. Not so when he fought Foreman. Why don't you go back to my post and read the question about how Foreman arranged the fight with Cooper. Then answer my question about which way you think the fight came about. With your understanding of boxing, I expect you will pick the first scenario.

DF proves my point in this one:"Show me any Foreman fight in the 1970s in which he gets tagged as much as against Stewart, Shultz, Holyfield, Saverese etc."

Show me when he fought guys as big, skilled and athletic in the 70s as Stewart, Shultz, Holyfield, Saverese, etc. Hmmm, maybe Ali, and Lyle were the closest? Thank you, you proved my point.

DF wrote: "More power? He had LESS KNOCKOUTS Bigger? He clearly a MUCH HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF BODY FAT.

Less knockouts because he was fighting much bigger, stronger men. You obviously have little understanding of conditioning, strength, and power. Why don't you go on a stength and conditioning board and ask some of them which version of Foreman would be stronger? The early 20s , 217 pound version who was doing conventional boxing training, or the 40 year old 250 pound Foreman who was lifting weights, and pushing cars. You might learn something.

IF Foreman was a finesse fighter he would not be better in his second career. But, Foreman was a fighter who relied on pushing and strength as a young man and as an older man. The stronger he was, the more effective he would be. Foreman could have fought at 225 during his late 30s and 40s, he chose not to for a reason. He wanted the additional strength. You act like Foreman was a slob, Foreman looked like a football player or wrestler. He was not trying for a lean, cut look, he was trying to be strong.

Alp, to answer some of your post.

Mike Tyson is the poster boy for lifestyle problems. Lifestyle destroyed Tyson, not age.

Fighters are fighing much longer now, partly because of Foreman's example, partly because of PEs. If a fighter can maintain his desire, and live clean he can be successful for a long time. How long? Depends on the individual.

Norton would never have done well against Shavers. Shavers is just all wrong for Norton. I don't believe every rumor I hear, but I have read and heard about Norton being stopped in sparring with both Joe Frazier and Jerry Quarry. In fact, some claim that is why Quarry took the fight with Norton on short notice and in the condition he was in. If you look at Norton's record you won't find many punchers, just the three who stopped him quick.

So Foreman could have easily got back down to 225 after weighing over 300 lbs for 10 years? You clearly have no understanding of the human body or aging.

Shultz and Saverese skilled and athletic???

Tyson at 35 could have been as good as he was at 25 if he hadn't smoked and drank!!!

Your posts are getting more and more absurd.

[Senya13]

You do understand the concept pf being weight drained, don't you? Foreman was lighter but had dropped too much weight too fast and was in AWFUL condition. Thus, why he went back up to the 250s. In his early 40s he just couldn't drop down to that weight like he could before. Foreman looked awful from the opening seconds of that bout and it wasn't due to Qawi.

He weighed only 8 or 9 pounds heavier in the previous fights of his comeback and had 1.5 months to get down to 235 from 244. Weight-drained fighters usually show little activity, they do not try to throw as many punches as did Foreman, simply missing the target most of the time because of lack of timing or skill. It was all because of Qawi, who was several times more effective than Frazier, despite being in terrible form, almost 50 pounds above best weight. Dwight only weighed 190lb 3.5 months prior to Foreman fight and 193lb later same year.

[dempseyfire]

You do understand the concept pf being weight drained, don't you? Foreman was lighter but had dropped too much weight too fast and was in AWFUL condition. Thus, why he went back up to the 250s. In his early 40s he just couldn't drop down to that weight like he could before. Foreman looked awful from the opening seconds of that bout and it wasn't due to Qawi.

He weighed only 8 or 9 pounds heavier in the previous fights of his comeback and had 1.5 months to get down to 235 from 244. Weight-drained fighters usually show little activity, they do not try to throw as many punches as did Foreman, simply missing the target most of the time because of lack of timing or skill. It was all because of Qawi, who was several times more effective than Frazier, despite being in terrible form, almost 50 pounds above best weight. Dwight only weighed 190lb 3.5 months prior to Foreman fight and 193lb later same year.

Blah blah Senya . . . Qawi was better than Joe Frazier . . .Foreman looked sharp from the opening bell and missed/was not effective b/c Qawi was so awesome on defense and had a better chin than Frazier and Ron Lyle combined . . . .whatever you say you clown.

[Senya13]

When facts contradict somebody's points they start making things up or insulting the opponent.

[Ambling Alp]

They are getting more and more absurd.
He continues to ignore points to the contray of his stregnth/size/power line.
We have given example after example of why this reasoning doesn't hold up and he just ignores it.

Foreman trained better in his 40's when he was "pushing cars and lifting weights"?
I asked Dave if he actaully saw Foreman train on a daily basis when he was in his 40's and when he was in his 20's. Of course that was ignored.
Tommy Morrison-I have several times who he ever stopped that was good and it's always ignored.
Foreman in his prime never beat anyone big or strong? Norton was a ripped 220 and Lyle was a very strong 220 as well. And both could fight.

His lack of knowledge about what makes a boxer good is almost breathtaking. He does seem to fathom that a big man might not punch hard (as mentioned Whitaker,Austin,McCline) or that a big man may not have a good chin (as mentioned Morrison, Grant,Wladimir Klitschko).
It doesn't seem to occur to him that there is much more to punching power than size and strength such as technique,speed, and god given ability.
Or that there is so much more to boxing than power-defense,boxing skills, such as cominations, a variety of punches, punching accuracy, being a good finisher,cutting off the ring etc. Not to mention intangibles such as heart boxing knowledge.

His lack of knowledge of aging is mind boggling.
Diet,excerise can help, but there is no fountain of Youth.
If today's and recent heavyweights are in such great condition and age doesn't matter much why don't we see champions and top contenders in their 40's and 50's? Why aren't Morrison and fighters from his era still at the top?

Wladimir Klitschko is 31,Peter is 26,Chagaev is 28 etc. Maskaev is 38 and I would hope that we can all agree that he isn't very good.
Chris Byrd is 36. Is he nearly as elusive as he was in his prime?

Since Foreman won the title at 45, why hasn't anyone else come close to duplicating this? Do you really see Samuel Peter as the champion 19 years from now? Wladimir Klitscho the champion 14 years from now? Come on.
Age matters.

If Tyson kept better care of himself he could have been marginally better than he was when he got old. However it's pretty obvious that he would declined quite a big anyway.
What about Holyfield? Do you seriously think he is as good as he ever was?

Do you really think Roy Jones is better than ever?

Some people are lacking in these 3 areas:
1.Understanding aging.
2. Understanding that there is much, much more to boxing than size/strength.
3. Knowledge of boxing history.

Those people will make absurd comments about boxing.

[The Great John L]

Speaking of "big and strong.

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65692

Actually, the guy moves pretty good for someone that big as well so like Morrison is very "athletic". Probably shorter than Valuev, but heavier and much stronger, so he should be able to clean out the HW division.

[DaveV17]

edit

[dempseyfire]

Alp and DF,
it is always fun to make guys like you think about things that are outside the box for you. Things you have not read in the Hauser books or the Mailer book or heard Lampley, Pacheco, or Merchant or even the ultimate buffon, Cosell say.

In your opinion, is there a certain age when a man just can't be an athlete anymore? What is it? Suppose the man is using HGH, and other PEs, will that allow him to compete longer? If either of you answer, this should be interesting.

Anyone who has competed in a combat sport or a contact sport knows that size and athleticsm matter. That is why Foreman was not knocking fighters out in his second career like he did in his first. Hitting well conditioned, strength trained men who weigh 225 and more is not the same as hitting men much smaller. That is what keeps men like Julio C.Chavez, or Ray Leonard from challenging the heavyweight champion. It is not because they lack the skills to compete, they know they are too small.

Alp asked:"Since Foreman won the title at 45, why hasn't anyone else come close to duplicating this?

Holyfield is 44, almost 45, when he gets a title shot, it might happen again. It is just a matter of finding a champion with a flaw that can be exploited just like Foreman did with Moorer. Foreman was not a top contender (in fact he was probably retired), but he was a "name" so he got a shot against the champion of his choice. Moorer had a vulnerability that Foreman could exploit so George took the fight. If Lewis or Bowe had offered George a chance, he would have stayed on the sideline.

Geroge showed how to do it, pick the opponents, become a personality, then pick the champion you want to fight. Holyfield could do the same. Evander might be too brave and too much of a competitor to do what Foreman did, but if he is patient, he might well become the oldest champ in history.

Foreman "earned" his title shot by being inactive for 1.5 years, losing 2 of his previous 5 and getting butchered in one of his wins. Holyfield has beaten Fres Oquendo and three other decent fighters. The combined won-lost total of his opponents is 122-23-1.

Holyfield was a skilled, reflex fighter in his prime. He relied on speed and sharp punching when he was young. He was not a big guy for his era who relied on strength to over power opponents as Foreman had done. Holy has had to change his style and adapt. If he is patient, he can find a champ that he can beat, the only question is, will his warrior heart take over? Holyfield won't avoid anyone.

If this was 1978, Holyfield could easily become the oldest champ if he could get Leon Spinks into the ring. Someone almost as inept will come along if he is patient.

HGH?? You are completely delusional. I don't care if an athlete is ingeting magical chinese mushrooms, a 45 year old cannot be the athlete they were at 25, or even close.

I will bet you $500 right now Holyfield does not win one of the 4 major titles. Care to wager? He just beat another old shot fogey out of retirement. Ibraigmov, Chagaev, Klitschko, and/or Vitali/Peter all destroy him.

Foreman not a top contender? He beat Cooper, Stewart, Coatzer, Cooney, and Rodriguez. In 1992, that made you a top contender you buffoon. Check the rankings.

This Holyfield would lose to Spinks just like he lost to Toney . . being completely outworked . . . and eventually stopped. It would be embarassing. Evander would probably fall out of the ring from exhaustion. Spinks KO'd Bernard Mercado, a 6'5 big punching 225 lber . . but loses to the shot Holyfield we have now. Really smart deduction there.

I fought 4 times as an amateur and sparred numerous rounds with guys bigger and smaller than myself. Once a guy is 180 lbs or more they have the capability to hurt any man. And an extra 10-20 lbs of weight from lifting and creatine MEANS NOTHING in terms of someone's ability to take a punch. A simple concept you refuse to understand. And 220 to 200 is not the same as 160 to 140 . . .another simple concept people like yourself fail to grasp for some asinine reason.

[Ambling Alp]

I can't speak for dempseyfire, but no I really don't think Mailer,Lampley,Merchant etc are particualry knowledgable.

those i'm sure thye know some basic things that you apparently don't:
1.You aren't familar with the term punchers chance? how can anyone that has followed boxing for any lenght of time not have of heard of this term? Or do you just tune out almost everyhting that others have to say?

2.win loss records. you are impressed by the win loss records of Bates,Maddalone,and Savarese?
People that know boxing know that boxing win loss records can be very decieving . a lot depends on who you have fought and what stage of their career they were at when you fought them.
Look up on the data base the names of Lamar clark,Don Steele, and Dickie ryan. None were very good, but have excellent win loss records against weak competition. when they fought someone decent they got slaughtered.

The 3 opponents, Bates,Maddalone and Savarese are hand picked. Bates lost the last two fights before he fought Holyfield and the two after he fought Holyfield.
Saverese was never that great in his prime much less now. He was shot 4 years ago when Kirk Johnson crushed him.
Did you notice something though? All 3 were bigger than Holyfield and yet Holyfield beat them all. Holyfield last loss was to James Toney was 5'9 and a grossly out of shape 217. Yet he beat Holyfield. How is this possible? It's because Holyfield is way past his past. In his prime he would have slapped James Toney silly.
When Holyfield was in his prime he beat many fighters bigger than himself.

How you can belittle Foreman's win over Moorer is ridiculaus.
Of course he wasn't the best heavyweight champion of all time or anything like that. however, he had 2 of the major title belts. He nailed foreman time and time again and the old man wouldn't go down. He had one opportunity to nail Moorer and he did it.
Tommy Morrison was never even the champion during his prime.

As for performance inhancing drugs helping fighters fight until just as good in their 40's as their 20's , well where is the proof? Where are all of these middle aged top contenders and champions?
Name them.

Demseyfire is right. the current version of holyfield would never have won the title in the 1970's. He wouldn't have last 5 rounds with Foreman either.

Of course size and athleticism matter. If you were paying attention you would know that I never said it isn't a factor. All else being even, yes a bigger, more athletic guy wil probably win. However, you have to weigh how much of an advantage in size and athletic ability a fighter along and also consider all the many skills involved in boxing. We aren't talking about lightweights and welterweights, I would have thought you would have figured that out. We are simply saying that a heavyweight that weighs even under 200 pounds to a little over 200 can and has many times beaten much bigger men.

There is more to being a good basketball player than being big and jumping high. There is more to being a good football or baseball player than being big and fast. Sports require various skills.
Yet you seem to think that in boxing that skill doesn't count at all.

We have pointed out example after example showing the smaller man winning and you seem oblivious to it.

Will Holyfield win the title again. Probably not. Of course with the pathetic state of the current heavyweight division, I suppose anything is possible. However, answer the question that I have asked before.- Is Holyfield as good right now as he was in his 20's?

You severly overestimate size.
You severly under estimate the various boxing skills.
You don't undertand the effects of aging.


We have answered your questions.
You duck our questions more than Morrison ducked quality opponents.
Answer our questions for once.