BoxRec

It's an Over-35's Titleists' Cup.

Heavyweight:

George Foreman (45 - 1994)
Joe Walcott (37 - 1951)
Muhammad Ali (35 - 1977)
Joe Louis (35 - 1949)

What are your match ups ?
I see Holmes winning over all :)

Robinson wrote:What are your match ups ?
I see Holmes winning over all :)

Damn, you're quick. I'm taking Holmes out, & replacing him with Louis. They were both aged, but one could at least pull out the knockout punch.

You can format it any way you like.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:It's an Over-35's Titleists' Cup.

Heavyweight:

George Foreman (45 - 1994)
Joe Walcott (37 - 1951)
Muhammad Ali (35 - 1977)
Joe Louis (35 - 1949)

35 yo Ali beats them all. The drop off between the Shavers fight and Spinks fight is huge.

BTW. I watched Ali-Norton lll again. You can say I'm drunk or biased but I think Ali did enough to win. I also read that Mercante went back and looked at the film frame by frame.

From Shavers to Spinks is one fight, & five months. Pretty far-fetched to call any drop-off (if there was one), "huge." Equally-convenient, too.

I think it's a whole lot more likely he took Spinks lightly.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:From Shavers to Spinks is one fight, & five months. Pretty far-fetched to call any drop-off (if there was one), "huge." Equally-convenient, too.

I think it's a whole lot more likely he took Spinks lightly.

Mark Kram made an observation and it makes sense to me; that an older fighter can lose it instantaneously.

I know RJJ was much older than Ali but to get KOED in the first round. Thst's wild

Yes, they can. I don't see any such, "instantaneous loss" in the first fight with Spinks. I see a guy who didn't train & didn't show up.

Please articulate some of the areas Ali so rapidly disintegrated in the fight with Spinks which produced a, "huge" drop-off.

What could Ali not do against Spinks (theoretically, not what Spinks prevented him from doing) he could five months earlier, against Shavers?

I'm having trouble choosing a favourite in the poll, to be honest.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Yes, they can. I don't see any such, "instantaneous loss" in the first fight with Spinks. I see a guy who didn't train & didn't show up.

Please articulate some of the areas Ali so rapidly disintegrated in the fight with Spinks which produced a, "huge" drop-off.

What could Ali not do against Spinks (theoretically, not what Spinks prevented him from doing) he could five months earlier, against Shavers?

If the Ali that fought Spinks in the first fight had fought Shavers he would have got killed.

He was throwing nice combinations against Shavers. He was able to pull the trigger in the fifteenth round and almost knock him out. In the fifteenth round of Spinks 1 he was totally gassed.

Well, I don't buy it, but I think his chances to win this Tournament, nevertheless, ain't bad.

Then again, I can see a case for all of them

my head says Foreman, because of his proven strength, punch and longevity, however he was beat well by Ali in his prime and Walcott truely was evergreen at 37... so who knows!

I have to favour Foreman.

jimglen wrote:my head says Foreman, because of his proven strength, punch and longevity, however he was beat well by Ali in his prime and Walcott truely was evergreen at 37... so who knows!

The Ali that beat Earnie Shavers has enough left to beat the Foreman who beat Michael Moorer.

Maybe. Maybe not...

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Maybe. Maybe not...

Old George was a very patient fighter that let the fight come to him.Ali would have been smart enough to fight him from a distance. After all Tommy Gunn beat Old George by doing just that.

Went Foreman by a narrow margin. I seem to say that a lot in these polls where he's involved.

ThatOne wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Maybe. Maybe not...

Old George was a very patient fighter that let the fight come to him.Ali would have been smart enough to fight him from a distance. After all Tommy Gunn beat Old George by doing just that.

Yes, well, Foreman did lose to Morrison...& Ali, to Spinks. He also out-pointed Shavers (on my card) by no more than a whisker, & even a peak Shavers ain't as good as old Foreman across the board.

I think Ali can beat Louis, & maybe Foreman, too --- but Walcott (closer to his actual peak than the other three combatants here) is a nightmare at this stage of Ali's career. If Ali's to win this, he needs one of the other two to take out Walcott.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Maybe. Maybe not...

Old George was a very patient fighter that let the fight come to him.Ali would have been smart enough to fight him from a distance. After all Tommy Gunn beat Old George by doing just that.

Yes, well, Foreman did lose to Morrison...& Ali, to Spinks. He also out-pointed Shavers (on my card) by no more than a whisker, & even a peak Shavers ain't as good as old Foreman across the board.

A prime Foreman would have waxed Tommy Gunn but fighters who were smart enough to avoid Old George acquitted themselves well . Even a tomato can like Axel Schulz was smart enough to avoid Big George andon his way to losing a hotly contested decision.

Oh-Old George murders Spinks. His style is all wrong for Big George but 33 year old Shavers beats 45 year old George with any kind of a game plan.

I like young George in any mythical matchup against any fighrer except Muhammad Ali and if not for Ali I could see him retiring undefeated and being the consensus #1 heavyweight of all time. He was that good. Oh, and the debacle against the (overrated on this boar) Jimmy Young never happens.

No way on the last point, IMO...Shavers is one of the most over-rated contenders of his generation. He hadn't the chin, durability, or endurance to hang with old Foreman.

Shavers hurts Foreman, Foreman kills Shavers. That's the way it went against Cooney --- might've been the case with Shavers, too. In any case, I can't see Shavers beating the Foreman of the early-90's. I also think the old Foreman's jab presents old Ali with some real problems.

This Ali against this Foreman wouldn't be exciting, but it probably would be interesting, on a certain level.

ThatOne wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

ThatOne wrote:
Old George was a very patient fighter that let the fight come to him.Ali would have been smart enough to fight him from a distance. After all Tommy Gunn beat Old George by doing just that.

Yes, well, Foreman did lose to Morrison...& Ali, to Spinks. He also out-pointed Shavers (on my card) by no more than a whisker, & even a peak Shavers ain't as good as old Foreman across the board.

A prime Foreman would have waxed Tommy Gunn but fighters who were smart enough to avoid Old George acquitted themselves well . Even a tomato can like Axel Schulz was smart enough to avoid Big George andon his way to losing a hotly contested decision.

Oh-Old George murders Spinks. His style is all wrong for Big George but 33 year old Shavers beats 45 year old George with any kind of a game plan.

I like young George in any mythical matchup against any fighrer except Muhammad Ali and if not for Ali I could see him retiring undefeated and being the consensus #1 heavyweight of all time. He was that good. Oh, and the debacle against the (overrated on this boar) Jimmy Young never happens.

I don't think Foreman was quite as good as that (much as I'd like to, as he's my, "Ali," if you will), but he certainly has a long reign in front of him, had he lived upto expectations in Zaire. I don't think Ali returns if Foreman beats him that night, given it would likely have been a devastating KO loss, & a Foreman without the scars of Zaire does away with Young. He has an easier time with Lyle, too, & probably blows out the Frazier of their 1976 rematch in one. Ali really did a number on him, psychologically.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:No way on the last point, IMO...Shavers is one of the most over-rated contenders of his generation. He hadn't the chin, durability, or endurance to hang with old Foreman.

Shavers hurts Foreman, Foreman kills Shavers. That's the way it went against Cooney --- might've been the case with Shavers, too. In any case, I can't see Shavers beating the Foreman of the early-90's. I also think the old Foreman's jab presents old Ali with some real problems.

This Ali against this Foreman wouldn't be exciting, but it probably would be interesting, on a certain level.

Old George's jab was so slow, even a diminished Ali could avoid it. I think the 77 Ali against Old George would like Holy v Old George. It would be a slow fight.

It would be slow, but I don't think that favours Ali, & that's where we depart, IMO. It's a gruelling, draining fight...lots of clinching, leaning, pulling, but one man is a lot heavier, hits much harder, & is probably more out-right determined at this stage of his career than his opponent. Ali was so good in the clinch, & always seemed to find a way to survive, so I don't know if Foreman can really get him out of there, but I think Ali gets tired in this fight before Foreman does, &, who knows, maybe one of the ancients just falls over from exhaustion

I like Foreman against any hw that ever lived except for Ali.

I will never, ever, get past his destruction of Frazier and Norton.

ThatOne wrote:I like Foreman against any hw that ever lived except for Ali.

I will never, ever, get past his destruction of Frazier and Norton.

Head-to-head, we view him similarly, I think. I would class him as the underdog against prime incarnations of Louis & Liston --- as well as Ali --- but that's it. He's odds-on against all the rest (though a fight with Holmes is potentially touch-&-go, & Tunney would be a darkhorse against him on the betting charts).

The only fighter even approaching wide favouritism against him at his best would be the 1965-67 Ali, IMO. Even where I suspect Foreman may lose, fighting Louis & Liston, he's got every chance in those fights, & I wouldn't put any money against him in those matches. As I've tried to explain to some of his critics on this board, Foreman was much, much more difficult to beat than he appeared at times.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

ThatOne wrote:I like Foreman against any hw that ever lived except for Ali.

I will never, ever, get past his destruction of Frazier and Norton.

Head-to-head, we view him similarly, I think. I would class him as the underdog against prime incarnations of Louis & Liston --- as well as Ali --- but that's it. He's odds-on against all the rest (though a fight with Holmes is potentially touch-&-go, & Tunney would be a darkhorse against him on the betting charts).

The only fighter even approaching wide favouritism against him at his best would be the 1965-67 Ali, IMO. Even where I suspect Foreman may lose, fighting Louis & Liston, he's got every chance in those fights, & I wouldn't put any money against him in those matches. As I've tried to explain to some of his critics on this board, Foreman was much, much more difficult to beat than he appeared at times.

Liston had a front runner personality like Mike Tyson who coincidentally idolized him. When he gets hit by Big George's bombs he's going to want to pack it in. His big wins were Folley, Williams, Machen, and Patterson. That ain't preparation for Big George

He beats the Bronx Bomber also; better chin and stronger.