Young Foreman underrated/old Foreman overrated

[Clegg]

I get the impression that a lot of people don't see much of a gap between the young Foreman and the old Foreman in terms of overall effectiveness, and see them almost evenly balanced in that the older version was mentally and technically superior which made up for the fact that he was 15/20 years older.

I disagree with that. I feel that the older Foreman gets overrated to an extent. Of course he was great for a man of his age, but if you ignore his age and judge his performances as you would any other boxer then I don't think he should be rated that highly (relatively speaking, obviously). IMO the Foreman who beat Frazier and Norton would do better against the likes of Morrison, Holyfield, Briggs, Stewart etc. Moorer wouldn't have lasted until the second half of the fight, much less be leading on points.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those who wants to bestow upon the young George qualities that he didn't possess. It true that he was wild and flawed in certain ways. But despite those shortcomings he still managed two destroy two great heavyweights and beat several very good ones.

I think there's quite a big different in the standard of performance between the two versions of Big George and in how I see them doing in fantasy fights (not that fantasy fights prove anything, but they're an indication of how highly a boxer is rated). Maybe I'm wrong and 90+% of people would actually with me, but the impression I get is that's not the case?

[Barn]

Foreman was exceptional for his age but, when you look at his comeback resume it really doesn't amount to much and I feel his comeback gets over-rated slightly but, there's no denying the great achievment involved.

Sometimes since they have different styles some people fell the older patient Foreman would do better against some fighters rather than having his more clubbing and barbaric style in which he employed in his prime.

[Sugarj]

To be honest, we never saw the true prime of Foreman.

I personally think that he would have been incredible around 1980-1981 at around the age of 30. Just imagine the perfect middle ground between the 1973 Foreman and the 1990 Foreman.

[Wild Blue Yonda]

I get the impression that a lot of people don't see much of a gap between the young Foreman and the old Foreman in terms of overall effectiveness, and see them almost evenly balanced in that the older version was mentally and technically superior which made up for the fact that he was 15/20 years older.

I disagree with that. I feel that the older Foreman gets overrated to an extent. Of course he was great for a man of his age, but if you ignore his age and judge his performances as you would any other boxer then I don't think he should be rated that highly (relatively speaking, obviously). IMO the Foreman who beat Frazier and Norton would do better against the likes of Morrison, Holyfield, Briggs, Stewart etc. Moorer wouldn't have lasted until the second half of the fight, much less be leading on points.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those who wants to bestow upon the young George qualities that he didn't possess. It true that he was wild and flawed in certain ways. But despite those shortcomings he still managed two destroy two great heavyweights and beat several very good ones.

I think there's quite a big different in the standard of performance between the two versions of Big George and in how I see them doing in fantasy fights (not that fantasy fights prove anything, but they're an indication of how highly a boxer is rated). Maybe I'm wrong and 90+% of people would actually with me, but the impression I get is that's not the case?

Surely there is no one who would truly disagree with you if you said the young Foreman would do better against Holyfield, Moorer, Briggs, Stewart, etc than the old one?

The young Foreman is plainly the better fighter & true all-time great, & he would dish out a beating to his older self as I see it, but it's hard not to respect the hell outta old Foreman. There were actually a few ways he did improve on his younger form, though in no way is it in-balance. Young Foreman was plainly better.

Essentially, if you took the young Foreman & had him turn pro in 1989, instead of '69 (as was the case), I have little doubt he steamrolls through the competiton --- ala what he did in the early-70's --- en route to a title fight with Holyfield or Bowe. As with Frazier in '73, I think Foreman would beat either of those to claim the belt as well.