Top 90's heavyweight boxers vs top 70's heavyweight boxers?

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

Fair enough, but that also is off to me. Holyfield was not a massive man, nor a stronger man than Frazier. As strong, but no raw physical strength advantage from my viewing. Like I said, it's a Foreman/Bowe type fighter that are all bad for Joe.

Evander could outpoint him over 12. I think over 15 Joe's engine will take this on a close points win. Joe's body attack will be key here. Holy doesn't have the one punch power to turn this fight, or really bother Frazier. He will catch him, hurt him, wobble him, but won't seal the deal, and will take a hell of a lot in return.

What really separates these two is workrate. Joe's is more, and more consistent too. Plus, he was always always pressing. Even Marciano wasn't as aggressive and relentless.

Only person who really bullied Frazier was Foreman and his size and style was all wrong for him. I think its only the real big boys who could bully him and it would take more than just being big. I agree someone like Bowe with his strong inside game could bully him.

Anyone agree that Norton is the real weak link of the 8? He was a very good boxer and prob the next best after the big 3 in the golden generation but those match ups look all wrong for him. Could see him maybe beating Holyfield over 15 but would still make The Real Deal favourite. The other 3 look like horrible matches for him..

cowzerp

Holyfield is stronger than Frazier, taller too and a better in fighter than him aswell-Frazier is better in the middle area between toe to toe and the jab range, Holyfield is better at jab range and head to head, this is largely to do with his strength in the clinch etc.

Frazier will eat more than Holyfield here and this is the key.

cowzerp

The other thing lads is over 15 should not come into it, today's game is 12 rounds so it should be based on that.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Only person who really bullied Frazier was Foreman and his size and style was all wrong for him. I think its only the real big boys who could bully him and it would take more than just being big. I agree someone like Bowe with his strong inside game could bully him.

Anyone agree that Norton is the real weak link of the 8? He was a very good boxer and prob the next best after the big 3 in the golden generation but those match ups look all wrong for him. Could see him maybe beating Holyfield over 15 but would still make The Real Deal favourite. The other 3 look like horrible matches for him..

I agree with this entirely. Norton is a match for Holyfield, but the other three are too heavy handed Bowe and Lewis's size would be a problem for Norton. Norton is a risk against them. He's 50-50 with Holyfield. 70-30 against the others, in their favour.

Paul, Frazier was a really strong pressure fighter. I don't see how you can say Holyfield is stronger. Maybe equal, but no way is it at all obvious who is physically stronger. I would argue that it will be Joe who won't be taking too many steps back. I would say the real key is Joe's frenetic pace. It will be the real deal breaker.

BTW, of all the fights, which one is your dream pick?

I am going with the big men: Foreman vs. Lewis.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

BTW, of all the fights, which one is your dream pick?

I am going with the big men: Foreman vs. Lewis.

I think Holyfield v Ali could be intriguing, similar heights and the 2 most successful heavies ever with totally different styles, both strong but neither a massive hitter.

RiseToTheTop

walshb wrote: »

I think it does change the fact. Clay/Ali to me was the best HW ever, and would beat all others in a one off fight.

I also don't see how he can be in any way overrated. He proved his greatness.

BTW, I think RiseToTheTop may have been messing with his post about Ali being overrated.

How dare you make such a proprosterous claim! TREASON I SAY!!!!! Treeeeassssoooooon!!!!!!!!!1!!!

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

I think Holyfield v Ali could be intriguing, similar heights and the 2 most successful heavies ever with totally different styles, both strong but neither a massive hitter.

Yeah, not a gimme at all for Ali. You have Holyfield. It would be a hell of a tough match for Ali. Holyfield won't be content to stay outside and try to out box or out fox or out jab Ali. He will be boxing-punching. I will shade it for Ali by decision. Ali's physical strength could be a factor here. Tysing up and disrupting Holyfield's inside game.

RiseToTheTop

Ali-Tyson: Ali
Ali-Bowe: Ali
Ali-Lewis: Ali
Ali-Holyfield: Ali

Foreman-Tyson: Foreman
Foreman-Lewis: Lewis
Foreman-Bowe: Foreman
Foreman-Holyfield: Foreman

Frazier-Tyson: Draw (if that's allowed)
Frazier-Bowe: Frazier
Frazier-Lewis: Lewis
Frazier-Holyfield: Draw

Norton-Tyson: Tyson
Norton-Lewis: Norton
Norton-Bowe: Norton
Norton-Holyfield: Holyfield

With Norton-Lewis, I just feel that Lewis wasn't ever very aggressive, he wouldn't look to KO Norton. The fight would go 12/15 rounds IMO and I can see Norton getting the decision ahead of Lewis.

RiseToTheTop

I doubt Holyfield is stronger than Frazier. I say Frazier could be slightly more stronger as he is the natural heavy, Holyfield had to put on muscle in the gym to become a heavy.

cowzerp

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

I doubt Holyfield is stronger than Frazier. I say Frazier could be slightly more stronger as he is the natural heavy, Holyfield had to put on muscle in the gym to become a heavy.

Yes and that muscle was functional muscle, punch wise I'd say Frazier had single 1 punch more power, but in the clinch I'd definetly give it to Holyfield, it's worth noting Holyfield used this range often where as Frazier didn't so either way advantage would go to the real deal their anyway.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

BTW, of all the fights, which one is your dream pick?

I am going with the big men: Foreman vs. Lewis.

I think Foreman Vs Tyson would be fun while it lasted. I think Foreman wins it all day long but Tyson had the speed and power to be dangerous early on. I don't think anyone beats a prime Foreman by going to him. Foreman was bigger, stronger hit harder and had the style to beat any relatively small swarmer. Tyson didnt have the game to stand off him and box and move and would have to go for him. From what I've read Tyson was also genuinely fearful of an old George so he'd be full of doubt facing a prime George Foreman. Tyson had a decent chin so can see him getting up from a few knockdowns but not making it past the 6th.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I think Foreman Vs Tyson would be fun while it lasted. I think Foreman wins it all day long but Tyson had the speed and power to be dangerous early on. I don't think anyone beats a prime Foreman by going to him. Foreman was bigger, stronger hit harder and had the style to beat any relatively small swarmer. Tyson didnt have the game to stand off him and box and move and would have to go for him. From what I've read Tyson was also genuinely fearful of an old George so he'd be full of doubt facing a prime George Foreman. Tyson had a decent chin so can see him getting up from a few knockdowns but not making it past the 6th.

I would back Forman to beat Tyson, but the 80s Tyson is a different ball game. I would back the Rooney trained 80s version to beat any Foreman.

BTW, I don't believe you can say Foreman hit harder. They had different techniques. Speed and delivery favours Tyson. Raw weight and force favours Foreman.

Stamina is probably equal, if not slightly to Tyson. George had good stamina, it was his pacing and tactics that were an issue for him. Both had concrete chins too. You say Mike had a "decent" chin? No, very solid when close to peak. Grade A.

Again, the 90s is ten years. So, the mid to late 90s Tyson was not great. The early 90s Tyson was very very capable.

I will shade it to George from 1974 against Mike from 1991. Shade!

Maye the thread needs a specific year, or set of years from both. I mean, Ali, in 1978 beats nobody.

I'll start:

Frazier 1971/1972
Foreman 1973/1974
Norton 1975
Ali 1971-1974

Tyson 1990/1991
Bowe: 1992/1993
Lewis: 1994/1995
Holyfield: 1991/1992

These are the timeframes I have been picking on.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

I would back Forman to beat Tyson, but the 80s Tyson is a different ball game. I would back the Rooney trained 80s version to beat any Foreman.

BTW, I don't believe you can say Foreman hit harder. They had different techniques. Speed and delivery favours Tyson. Raw weight and force favours Foreman.

Stamina is probably equal, if not slightly to Tyson. George had good stamina, it was his pacing and tactics that were an issue for him. Both had concrete chins too. You say Mike had a "decent" chin? No, very solid when close to peak. Grade A.

Again, the 90s is ten years. So, the mid to late 90s Tyson was not great. The early 90s Tyson was very very capable.

I will shade it to George from 1974 against Mike from 1991. Shade!

Maye the thread needs a specific year, or set of years from both. I mean, Ali, in 1978 beats nobody.

George would knock the heart out of Tyson at any stage-it's all well and good been great when you have fights going your own way but Tyson would wilt when his big shots done nothing to George and George keeps coming

Tyson never fought and beat anyone near Foreman's size and ability.

Tyson has a grade A chin but George had the power to take him out, i think he'd win 7-8 rounds in as Tyson starts to lose heart.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

I would back Forman to beat Tyosn, but the 80s Tyosn is a different ball game. I would back the Rooney trained 80s version to beat any Foreman.

BTW, I don't believe you can say Foreman hit harder. They had different techniques. Speed and delivery favours Tyson. Raw weight and force favours Foreman.

Have to disagree. Prime for prime I'd back Foreman every day of the week. Foreman's prime I'm taking to be before the Rumble because I really think that fight took so much out of him mentally. Versus your 80's Tyson.

Firstly there's the size difference. Foremans 5 inches bigger and has a massive 11 inch reach advantage as well as being physically stronger. Tyson has lightening fast combos but its not going to be a simple case of bobbing into range and firing. Because of his size he generally always fought taller opponents but the bigger they got the more I think he struggled. Tony Tucker and Bonecrusher Smith had similar size advantages and both took Tyson the distance.

Tysons really going to have to work to get into range. I can see him being leaned on, held, pushed back and generally outmuscled. Thats not to mention the uppercuts. For the times he does get into range I think George's chin could withstand some heavy shots but I wouldnt want him taking too many. While I think Tyson was more mobile, hit harder and had more diversity to his attacks than Frazier I think that blueprint is there for Foreman to beat Tyson. Cus D'amato apparently told Tyson that a small swarming fighter could never beat Foreman

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Have to disagree. Prime for prime I'd back Foreman every day of the week. Foreman's prime I'm taking to be before the Rumble because I really think that fight took so much out of him mentally. Versus your 80's Tyson.

Firstly there's the size difference. Foremans 5 inches bigger and has a massive 11 inch reach advantage as well as being physically stronger. Tyson has lightening fast combos but its not going to be a simple case of bobbing into range and firing. Because of his size he generally always fought taller opponents but the bigger they got the more I think he struggled. Tony Tucker and Bonecrusher Smith had similar size advantages and both took Tyson the distance.

Tysons really going to have to work to get into range. I can see him being leaned on, held, pushed back and generally outmuscled. Thats not to mention the uppercuts. For the times he does get into range I think George's chin could withstand some heavy shots but I wouldnt want him taking too many. While I think Tyson was more mobile, hit harder and had more diversity to his attacks than Frazier I think that blueprint is there for Foreman to beat Tyson. Cus D'amato apparently told Tyson that a small swarming fighter could never beat Foreman

I can get behind your analysis. I can see this outcome too. Formean was big, so strong, and heavy handed. But, Mike will be LIVE for 12 rds. He will not be stopped at peak. The guy had a wicked chin, very fit, and never at peak was he close to being stopped when with Rooney. Not close. Many of Foreman's shots may miss, too. He is capable of really hurting George, and if the pace is fast, then will George survive? Watch Foreman vs. Peralta, a far inferior fighter to Mike, and he did very well. George could be hurt, and I do believe Mike at some point will whack that chin clean. That I would love to see, and love to see how Foreman reacts.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

I can get behind your analysis. I can see this outcome too. Formean was big, so strong, and heavy handed. But, Mike will be LIVE for 12 rds. He will not be stopped at peak. The guy had a wicked chin, very fit, and never at peak was he close to being stopped when with Rooney. Not close. Many of Foreman's shots may miss, too. He is capable of really hurting George, and if the pace is fast, then will George survive? Watch Foreman vs. Peralta, a far inferior fighter to Mike, and he did very well. George could be hurt, and I do believe Mike at some point will whack that chin clean. That I would love to see, and love to see how Foreman reacts.

Can see your side of things too that's what makes it a great match up. I disagree that Tyson would be live for 12 rounds though. I don't think either are proper 12 round fighters. While Many of Foreman's shots may miss I don't think it'll take too many to earn Tyson's respect and slow him down.

Can never get it out of my head that Tyson was supposedly afraid of fighting Old George Foreman though.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

George would knock the heart out of Tyson at any stage-it's all well and good been great when you have fights going your own way but Tyson would wilt when his big shots done nothing to George and George keeps coming
.

Well, TNT fight and Smith fight and Ruddock fights certainly weren't going all Mike's way, and he stuck in there, composed and committed and won fairly convincingly.

Like a previous thread, the cracks in Mike only ever appeared after prison. That has to be looked at.

In this thread, the mid to late 90s Mike loses to the best Foreman. I agree here; not ready to say George dominates the 1991 version or the 1986 version.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Can see your side of things too that's what makes it a great match up. I disagree that Tyson would be live for 12 rounds though. I don't think either are proper 12 round fighters. While Many of Foreman's shots may miss I don't think it'll take too many to earn Tyson's respect and slow him down.

Can never get it out of my head that Tyson was supposedly afraid of fighting Old George Foreman though.

Well, I don't buy that Tyson was afraid. Anyway, peak to peak I would slightly favor Tyson's stamin and chin. And, that to me is quite important in this match.

Show me Mike ever gassing or looking real tired at peak (1986-1989). It's just not there. With Ronney he never showed that he had a stamina issue, not in the fights that I saw. Even past peak, vs. Ruddock, in a very tough and pacey fight, Mike was banging and working till the 12th rd bell.

Now, George's stamina is more suspect I feel. His stamina wasn't bad, but a notch below Mike.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

Well, I don't buy that Tyson was afraid. Anyway, peak to peak I would slightly favor Tyson's stamin and chin. And, that to me is quite important in this match.

Show me Mike ever gassing or looking real tired at peak (1986-1989). It's just not there. With Ronney he never showed that he had a stamina issue, not in the fights that I saw. Even past peak, vs. Ruddock, in a very tough and pacey fight, Mike was banging and working till the 12th rd bell.

Now, George's stamina is more suspect I feel. His stamina wasn't bad, but a notch below Mike.

I don't think he was as effective the longer the fight went on. Not that he died after half way but he was less likely to blow someone away. Just had a look, Tyson fought 13 times in 1986. I knew he was active but that's amazing..

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I don't think he was as effective the longer the fight went on. Not that he died after half way but he was less likely to blow someone away. Just had a look, Tyson fought 13 times in 1986. I knew he was active but that's amazing..

Really is amazing.

And, many, if not all men fade as the fight goes on, and particluarly the bigger men. That to me is a given. Everything wanes. But, Mike still had that power, just that some men either cannot be KOd, or spoil their way to survival. Even George had to go the route several times. I could easily say the same about many men who went the distance and had to earn a points win, "they weren't as brutal/dominant as the fight progressed." Makes no real sense. Mike still won those distance fights comfortably. That should be seen as a positive, not a negative. The fact that he can win both ways, and that when plan A may not work, plan B can work.

Mike's KO record is superb, just as George's is. Sometimes both men had to go the distance. Same for both is this point!

I just don't see anything from Mike's peak Rooney years to sway me into believing that George breaks him and stops him over 12 rds. His chin, defense and stamina allow the best Tyson to go 12 with ANY man.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

Really is amazing.

I just don't see anything from Mike's peak Rooney years to sway me into believing that George breaks him and stops him over 12 rds.

Nah more like 6............ I see your point about his stamina but just think he came out of the blocks so quick and basically tried to decapitate you with every punch that he was bound to slow down in the 2nd half. Because he was so intense at the start the longer it went on the less dangerous he became. He was still good enough or had done enough damage early to see out most fights against average or good heavys but dont think he could do it against a great one. I'm looking at this purely from a him vs Foreman perspective. I dont think he stops George early and if he survives himself we're left with a small heavyweight who isn't built for out boxing someone trying to out box a monster. If Tyson slows down at all hes going to get hammered by some big punches.

Ha in saying all that I dont think stamina plays that big a role as it doesnt go past 6 either way IMO.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Ha in saying all that I dont think stamina plays that big a role as it doesnt go past 6 either way IMO.

Past 6? Like I said, who doesn't slow down in the later rds at HW? Tyson is only human. But can you point out at peak with Rooney where Mike looked wrecked, out on his feet and fit to be knocked out? It never ever occurred. And the excuse that he didn't meet anyone great is just clutching. Fact is he never ever looked really tired in a fight when he was with Rooney at peak.

Ok, so stamina not being the issue, we then must look at two things, defense and chin?

At peak Tyson was known for having both a solid beard, and also, quite a good defense.

George really gonna' do the trick with one shot? I really doubt that. His career is KOs made up mostly of heavy and forceful accumulation.

So, he must do it with accumulation, while also surviving return fire. And, return fire from a fighter that hits as hard as him, but with a deal more speed too.

No matter what way I look at it I cannot at all get behind a KO win inside 6 rds. Tysons' combination of speed, defense, chin (and stamina) won't allow this. Mike will not get tagged consistently enough to allow a stoppage win. Rooney and Mike at peak were quite good at devising plans on the defense side of fighting.

Maravilla33

Its not just slowing down I'm talking about. Tyson's style was so explosive that it was hard to keep up that kind of intensity for a whole fight. But his style was so based on that explosiveness that he became far less effective once he slowed down. Im rambling here but for me he became far less effective than others who didnt rely on that kind of intensity. He didnt say have the stamina of a Marciano who could maintain that swarming style for a full 15 rounds. So its not he looks overly tired just becomes less effective. Before the Buster Douglas fight he only stopped 2/6 opponents that made it past the 6th round.

I spent far too long on that after saying it wouldn't go past 6. So defence and chin? I think they both have very good chins and wouldn't give either a noticeable advantage. Foreman's defence in this fight is his size and massive reach advantage. Tysons going to have to expend a lot of energy getting into range. Foreman wont stop him with one shot but he'll stop him in his tracks and his hooks and uppercuts are going to force Tyson to think when coming in. Its just the clash of styles that's the deal breaker for me.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

But his style was so based on that explosiveness that he became far less effective once he slowed down. Im rambling here but for me he became far less effective than others who didnt rely on that kind of intensity. .

This is just it? What is far less effective? A shutout win on points is now far less effective?

Yes, less effective than a crushing KO win, but it's still very effective. Like I said, even when at peak his opponensts took the shots, Mike still dominated and won the fights. That to me should be a POSITIVE, not a negative.

Mike goes in, goes off fast, his foe is still there come rd 8,9.10..., yet is losing most of every rd. That is still a very effective Tyson.

If Mike somehow gassed, tired and lost by KO in these fights I could see your point. But, at peak with Rooney he did not. He dominated the points fights.

walshb

BTW, I see your point completely as regards clash of styles. And it's why I believe George too can win. But, here is one. You mention Mike needing to get in range. Yes, he does. But, what if Mike can land a blockbuster right crosss from distance, like he did vs. Larry Holmes in rd 4. That was landed without the need to get in. And, that shot drops any version of Holmes, whose chin was very decent. This shows that Mike can land power shots from "outside" as well as close in AGAINST big men.

cowzerp

Tyson fought nobody good while in peak-his opposition where poor and it's no coincidence that mike looked poorer as his opposition was better, prison can be blamed but as he never fought anyone good at his peak it's hard to tell how good he really was.

Foreman was bigger and stronger and could match all Tysons other attributes so I'd give it to him.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Tyson fought nobody good while in peak-his opposition where poor and it's no coincidence that mike looked poorer as his opposition was better, prison can be blamed but as he never fought anyone good at his peak it's hard to tell how good he really was.

Foreman was bigger and stronger and could match all Tysons other attributes so I'd give it to him.

Well, if prison time etc is of no real consequence, I am changing my pick on Ali-Tyson. I take Tyson by KO over the 1978 Ali.

But, sticking with the 70s years I selected and the 90s years I selected, yes, Ali on points.

Mike in the mid 90s was not great. Ali in the late 70s was not great.

We have to aplpy the same fairness to both sets of men, the 70s and the 90s, if this is to work.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Tyson fought nobody good while in peak-his opposition where poor and it's no coincidence that mike looked poorer as his opposition was better, prison can be blamed but as he never fought anyone good at his peak it's hard to tell how good he really was.

Foreman was bigger and stronger and could match all Tysons other attributes so I'd give it to him.

Who did Foreman fight? Norton, who you do not rate. Ali? Knocked him out. Who else?

See, we have to be fair to both. You criticise Mikes' peak opposition, yet what about George? Apart from Frazier, who else did he beat that was so much better than Mike's victims?

Ron Lyle, who almost knocked him out. Jimmy Young? Beat him....

Maravilla33

"He was still good enough or had done enough damage early to see out most fights against average or good heavys but dont think he could do it against a great one." COPIED FROM ABOVE.

What about the Buster Douglas fight? Why did he lose that? I've heard so many excuses down through the years but you seem to be fair in balanced in your view of things so interested in your opinion.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

"He was still good enough or had done enough damage early to see out most fights against average or good heavys but dont think he could do it against a great one." COPIED FROM ABOVE.

What about the Buster Douglas fight? Why did he lose that? I've heard so many excuses down through the years but you seem to be fair in balanced in your view of things so interested in your opinion.

My view on the Douglas fight has changed. From giving Mike a real pass, it has changed to feeling that Mike was beatable.

Still believe that he wasn't as prepared physically or mentally in 1990 without Rooney. This looks clear, but in 1990 he was still very good. I am always fair in assessing these matches.

In this thread, I am being fair to ALL men. Picking their primes. I wouldn't even use the 1973 Frazier, as many suggest this man was not the same after the 71 "beating" at the hands of Ali.