BoxRec

I have talked to people that hold the opinion that George Foreman was a better boxer in his second career.

My question is this:

Is there anyone that he beat in his second career that if the 1970's version of George Foreman had beaten them, it would have been a shocking upset?

In particular, how big of an upset would it have been to see a 1970's version of George Foreman beat the following individuals?

Micheal Moorer
Axel Schultz
Lou Savarese
Crawford Grimsley
Dwight Qawi
1990 - Gerry Cooney
Bert Cooper

Newbie_71 wrote:I have talked to people that hold the opinion that George Foreman was a better boxer in his second career.

My question is this:

Is there anyone that he beat in his second career that if the 1970's version of George Foreman had beaten them, it would have been a shocking upset?

In particular, how big of an upset would it have been to see a 1970's version of George Foreman beat the following individuals?

Micheal Moorer
Axel Schultz
Lou Savarese
Crawford Grimsley
Dwight Qawi
1990 - Gerry Cooney
Bert Cooper

In one night?

Are you being serious?

yancey wrote:

Newbie_71 wrote:I have talked to people that hold the opinion that George Foreman was a better boxer in his second career.

My question is this:

Is there anyone that he beat in his second career that if the 1970's version of George Foreman had beaten them, it would have been a shocking upset?

In particular, how big of an upset would it have been to see a 1970's version of George Foreman beat the following individuals?

Micheal Moorer
Axel Schultz
Lou Savarese
Crawford Grimsley
Dwight Qawi
1990 - Gerry Cooney
Bert Cooper

In one night?

You sometimes do hear the argument, & while I think there were real, tangible improvements from one iteration to the next, the original still bowls over his later self, & ploughs through anyone Foreman not only beat, but faced, during his comeback. Holyfield would get the ass-kicking of his life against the early-70's Foreman.

George Foreman, circa 1972-74, goes 34-0-0 against the 1987-97 opposition he faced.

I don't know anyone that thinks George was better in his second career. There is just a large faction of people that think Old George was no better than a punching bag and they wont hear from any of us that disagree.

He was much more relaxed in the ring and that helped his stamina, that isn't even debatable. His jab became more of his go to punch because a lot of his athletic gifts were gone. That would prove helpful in certain mythical fights.

Young George was great, old George was good. That doesn't mean Old George couldn't have faired better against certain fighters or even against his younger self.

I don't think old George has ANYTHING over his younger self. He fought more relaxed but also had a much lesser work-rate, and Foreman in his 40s still would get pretty gassed in the late rounds. Add in his far superior speed, power (with the speed), overall mobility etc.

Foreman in the 70s could keep up a blistering pace for 10 rounds (look at the Peralta fights). Hell look at his exhibition against the 5 fighters at 235 lbs . . .any way you slice it that's a hard thing to do and Foreman KO'd 3 of the 5 and put down 4 of the 5.

Sure he fatigued vs Ali but his stamina overall was much better than that fight demonstrated.

He was exhausted against Peralta. It's a myth that he could only fight for 4 or 5 rounds perpetuated from people that have probably watched that overrated fight in Zaire the 350 times it's been on ESPN.

But his stamina was certainly below average and the blistering pace you mention was littered with his speed decreasing and him getting wilder and wilder as the fight progressed.

Old George was clearly superior in stamina. Any disagreement there is just what I was talking about in my initial post.

It's difficult to gauge for mine. If the young Foreman had fought at old man's pace, could he not last twelve rounds in controlled fashion? If old Foreman went at young man's pace, would he not unravel swiftly?

I don't think it's necessarily a foregone conclusion.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:It's difficult to gauge for mine. If the young Foreman had fought at old man's pace, could he not last twelve rounds in controlled fashion? If old Foreman went at young man's pace, would he not unravel swiftly?

I don't think it's necessarily a foregone conclusion.

Young Foreman couldn't fight at a measured pace. Same goes for Old Foreman fighting at a frenetic one.

I don't get the question. The fights happened, it isn't hypothetical.

Yes, but it's a straight-forward equation. It's obvious old Foreman fought a much slower pace. Had the young version produced the punch output of his older self, who's to say he wouldn't have looked just as comfortable?

It's not as if they fought at the same clip, & old Foreman simply lasted out twelve, whereas young Foreman burned out. Since the pace each set was so drastically different, I don't see it as a foregone conclusion old Foreman had, "better stamina." If anything, I would lay my money down on the fit, athletic 20-something Foreman, over the borderline obese 40-something one.

It isn't much different than saying Tito Trinidad would have been a better defender if he had Pernell Whitaker's defensive skills.

Young george was too hyped up to fight measured. It was an impossibility, it could never happen.

As a result his stamina was better when he was older. Pacing yourself is part of it. You don't have to make it complex. It's a very simple thing. Getting to the late rounds against the vengeance that was Young Foreman was the tough part.

Totally disagree about Holyfield, he would have stopped George in 9 or 10.

You're saying it's physically impossible for the young Foreman to have fought throwing as few punches as old Foreman did? I don't understand that.

Look, you go fast, you burn out quick. You go slow, you last. That's all I'm saying.

I'm saying he didn't, so I don't feel the need to rate him as if he could. Again, the hypothetical nature you're taking in the discussion is puzzling to say the least. He had many, many fights and it never happened.

Learning to relax in the ring takes time. Older Foreman could do it, Ali could do it, Holmes could do it, most good ones can/could. The younger Foreman wasn't wired to be relaxed. The older Foreman was a guy who watched his opponent for mistakes, planned, and waited for an opportunity. The young Foreman was one of those fighters who if something didn't work, he didn't try a different approach, he would try to do the same thing but "harder."

The older Foreman has to pace himself b/c he's 30 lbs heavier and over 10 years older.

The younger Foreman by the later rounds would start punching wider and with less snap but he could still pull some bombs in there. I'd much rather face the older George than the younge guy who averaged 80 punches per round and never let you get set; from the outside the jab would break your nose and on the inside he'd break your ribs . .

Evander stopping a younger Foreman??? Fat chance . . .

I'd rather face the old man too. Like most opponents, I would be dead before Young George's suspect stamina showed up. On the other hand, Evander Holyfield would be right in his face.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: On the other hand, Evander Holyfield would be right in his face.

Exactly, and no man ever survived a peak George Foreman going toe to toe. Holyfield trades way too much and his defense is way to too porous to survive past round 6.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'd rather face the old man too. Like most opponents, I would be dead before Young George's suspect stamina showed up. On the other hand, Evander Holyfield would be right in his face.

...& eating punches which would make Bowe & Cooper's best handiwork feel like gentle caresses from an ocean siren.

Holyfield's a dead-man walking against that Foreman. Too much courage for his own good, & it's not like he had the power to put Foreman suddenly on queer street & finish him.

a very interesting thread title.what would the young foreman do to the heavyweight division of the late 80's early 90's.

so i was a little disapointed at the premise of how would the young foreman compare to a lou savarese or crawford grimsley!

perhaps the thread title is another dream for another time

i concur the stamina and strategy of the young george are underestimated due to the defeat in zaire.

foreman mk 1 had stamina beleive me.

mk2 still had tremendous power but less speed of hand and moreso foot.in fact old man foreman took longer to turn than the titanic. so he got by on the slick pivots of his earlier incarnation

i tend to agree defense apart young george was a far more devatating force who would never had allowed a holyfield or morrison to jump in and out and win a decision. both would have been crushed.and so would the rest of the hw division of the time.

George might have killed evander truth be told as evander always had too much courage for his own good.i would see a cooney-norton like ending.evander slumped on the ropes and pummelled into sleep

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'd rather face the old man too. Like most opponents, I would be dead before Young George's suspect stamina showed up. On the other hand, Evander Holyfield would be right in his face.

...& eating punches which would make Bowe & Cooper's best handiwork feel like gentle caresses from an ocean siren.

Holyfield's a dead-man walking against that Foreman. Too much courage for his own good, & it's not like he had the power to put Foreman suddenly on queer street & finish him.

Sounds a lot like his fight Tyson. George would have a punchers chance in there, so I can't rule him out like you anddempsey rule out Evander. But the style match up is real bad for Foreman and it's unlikely he lasts past 9 or 10.

dempseyfire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: On the other hand, Evander Holyfield would be right in his face.

Exactly, and no man ever survived a peak George Foreman going toe to toe. Holyfield trades way too much and his defense is way to too porous to survive past round 6.

George never fought Holyfield, if he did you would have a story to tell of someone who not only survived, but thrived. He would own George mentally by taking his best stuff and firing back.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'd rather face the old man too. Like most opponents, I would be dead before Young George's suspect stamina showed up. On the other hand, Evander Holyfield would be right in his face.

...& eating punches which would make Bowe & Cooper's best handiwork feel like gentle caresses from an ocean siren.

Holyfield's a dead-man walking against that Foreman. Too much courage for his own good, & it's not like he had the power to put Foreman suddenly on queer street & finish him.

Sounds a lot like his fight Tyson. George would have a punchers chance in there, so I can't rule him out like you anddempsey rule out Evander. But the style match up is real bad for Foreman and it's unlikely he lasts past 9 or 10.

Oh jeez, so a 70s Foreman is now a mid 90s Tyson?

Foreman's jab, one of the best ever, would be stunning Evander like it did in their 91 fight except they;d be coming more often. Holyfield if he wants to open up with those flashy combos will be meeting body hooks and uppercuts that would pale even to Bowe's punches which badly hurt Holyfield several times.

But in this strange world a 42 year old overweight George would somehow do better vs Evander than his much faster, fitter, active, younger counterpart.

"Sounds a lot like his fight Tyson. George would have a punchers chance in there, so I can't rule him out like you anddempsey rule out Evander. But the style match up is real bad for Foreman and it's unlikely he lasts past 9 or 10." - Saad

It ain't like Tyson. Different fighter, different dimensions, different approach. They both could punch & both were bruisers...that's the only comparison of note.

The style match-up is a bad one for Foreman? A guy who was over-powered by Bowe's better punches & virtually knocked senseless on a single Cooper right hand, who leads with his face & starts a fire-fight when hurt, who doesn't have big-time power, or greater physical strength is a, "real bad" style match-up for Foreman? To say the least, I disagree.

Holyfield is cannon-fodder for the Foreman who crippled Frazier. I don't even see it as a, "1 in 10" fight for Holyfield.

dempseyfire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: ...& eating punches which would make Bowe & Cooper's best handiwork feel like gentle caresses from an ocean siren.

Holyfield's a dead-man walking against that Foreman. Too much courage for his own good, & it's not like he had the power to put Foreman suddenly on queer street & finish him.

Sounds a lot like his fight Tyson. George would have a punchers chance in there, so I can't rule him out like you anddempsey rule out Evander. But the style match up is real bad for Foreman and it's unlikely he lasts past 9 or 10.

Oh jeez, so a 70s Foreman is now a mid 90s Tyson?

Foreman's jab, one of the best ever, would be stunning Evander like it did in their 91 fight except they;d be coming more often. Holyfield if he wants to open up with those flashy combos will be meeting body hooks and uppercuts that would pale even to Bowe's punches which badly hurt Holyfield several times.

But in this strange world a 42 year old overweight George would somehow do better vs Evander than his much faster, fitter, active, younger counterpart.

What? That's really what you got from that? I was simply comparing Irene's post to peoples description of Evander's chances heading into the Tyson fight. He was doubted his whole career and I'm pretty sure you know that.

Point being, I'm quite comfortable selecting Holyfield in a fight that he "can't" win.

I never said George would be dominated, I predicted him to lose. No need to get so irrational about it and try to change around my words. We disagree, I hope you don't lose sleep.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"Sounds a lot like his fight Tyson. George would have a punchers chance in there, so I can't rule him out like you anddempsey rule out Evander. But the style match up is real bad for Foreman and it's unlikely he lasts past 9 or 10." - Saad

It ain't like Tyson. Different fighter, different dimensions, different approach. They both could punch & both were bruisers...that's the only comparison of note.

The style match-up is a bad one for Foreman? A guy who was over-powered by Bowe's better punches & virtually knocked senseless on a single Cooper right hand, who leads with his face & starts a fire-fight when hurt, who doesn't have big-time power, or greater physical strength is a, "real bad" style match-up for Foreman? To say the least, I disagree.

Holyfield is cannon-fodder for the Foreman who crippled Frazier. I don't even see it as a, "1 in 10" fight for Holyfield.

And here is some more hyperbole. Knocked senseless by Cooper? He was beating the cxrap out of Cooper moments later. It's exactly like Tyson, waiting for an inevitable destruction of Holyfield that never comes to fruition.

Bowe was hell on Evander because he was a better in fighter with a tremendous jab. George had a great jab but he wasn't as good or skilled as Riddick inside. No doubt there would be rough moments. I've just seen Evander pull himself through enough of them to not be convinced he would be, LOL, "cannon fodder".

And you not seeing it as a 1 in 10 fight proves my point. Evander would beat Godzilla 1 out of 10.