Re: Foreman & Hopkins in their 40s- whose run was more impressive?
Foremans time off after finding god at the end of Youngs fist can just as easily delete him from the question. Hopkins has fought non stop almost as long as Archie Moore and has accomplished much more in the process.
Hopkins and its not all that close.
Re: Foreman & Hopkins in their 40s- whose run was more impressive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
Master u r correct. Not even disputable. Moorer had a china chin, Axel Schulz, Alex Stewart and Tommy Mortison were club fighters at best. Briggs is a joke. Evander was good but George lost clearly in that one. Cooney was a dinosaur, and Bert Cooper was too small and high on drugs.
Compare that to Pascal, Cloud, Beibut, Pavilik, Joe C, Tarver, Dawson n soon Stevenson. How many P4P ranked (at the time of the fight) is in that list? Multiple, n I forgot to mention Winky on that list as well. Really, Hop was already old at 36 when he destroyed Tito, but I wanted to limit it to guys he fought while over 40.
The one guy Georfe fought who was ranked p4p at the time they fought was Evander n he lost that one. George is an ATG heavyweight n a great man, but not anywhere near Hop in terms of accomplishment. Hop is a master at his craft. Too bad boxing fans today don't know enough about the sport to appreciate it.
Hopkins run has lasted longer and is more impressive.
However, Tommy Morrison was NOT a club fighter. He was a top contender and WBO champ.
Morrison proved legit in the short aftermath but had Hell with guys a top contender should not have in Williams and Hipp just prior. Arum saw a money fiesta that could not lose, and a chance for Tommy to take his ranking. Seems some always forget about the Stewart fight that left Foreman a mashed up mess, that was razor thin. I think Morrison studied that one..he boxed with a nice jab v Foreman. Kept a level smart head.
Re: Foreman & Hopkins in their 40s- whose run was more impressive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hulk
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mikeeod
Master u r correct. Not even disputable. Moorer had a china chin, Axel Schulz, Alex Stewart and Tommy Mortison were club fighters at best. Briggs is a joke. Evander was good but George lost clearly in that one. Cooney was a dinosaur, and Bert Cooper was too small and high on drugs.
Compare that to Pascal, Cloud, Beibut, Pavilik, Joe C, Tarver, Dawson n soon Stevenson. How many P4P ranked (at the time of the fight) is in that list? Multiple, n I forgot to mention Winky on that list as well. Really, Hop was already old at 36 when he destroyed Tito, but I wanted to limit it to guys he fought while over 40.
The one guy Georfe fought who was ranked p4p at the time they fought was Evander n he lost that one. George is an ATG heavyweight n a great man, but not anywhere near Hop in terms of accomplishment. Hop is a master at his craft. Too bad boxing fans today don't know enough about the sport to appreciate it.
Hopkins run has lasted longer and is more impressive.
However, Tommy Morrison was NOT a club fighter. He was a top contender and WBO champ.
Morrison proved legit in the short aftermath but had Hell with guys a top contender should not have in Williams and Hipp just prior. Arum saw a money fiesta that could not lose, and a chance for Tommy to take his ranking. Seems some always forget about the Stewart fight that left Foreman a mashed up mess, that was razor thin. I think Morrison studied that one..he boxed with a nice jab v Foreman. Kept a level smart head.
Yes, Foreman picked Tommy because he thought he would come to him and had a weak chin. That fight did not plan out as Big George expected.
Re: Foreman & Hopkins in their 40s- whose run was more impressive?
I love Foreman, he's a good fella.
But come off the grass, Hopkins is a superb boxer.
George Foreman always was nothing more than a big guy with a big punch and a solid chin!
He did not even learn HOW to box UNTIL he was in his 40's!
:rolleyes:
Re: Foreman & Hopkins in their 40s- whose run was more impressive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DannyV297
Foreman was a better champion. Hop is a clown. Why else would you choose to wear an alien mask. He's a marvel because of his age. He's a sideshow. A guiness book of records freakshow.
How was Foreman a better champion? He was a poor champion.
Re: Foreman & Hopkins in their 40s- whose run was more impressive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DannyV297
Foreman was a better champion. Hop is a clown. Why else would you choose to wear an alien mask. He's a marvel because of his age. He's a sideshow. A guiness book of records freakshow.
How was Foreman a better champion? He was a poor champion.
Yes and some have called Foreman's return a sideshow also.
He only defended that title twice in the 70's against Ken Norton and Jose Roman (one of the saddest boxing matches I have ever seen!)
Then after he won the title via getting the shit punched out of him and scoring a lucky shot against a stupid opponent he declined to face his mandatories and trickled all his belts away.
Sorry but that's not a really great champion.
Re: Foreman & Hopkins in their 40s- whose run was more impressive?
I think Moored never fought a top 10 fighter to get his title shot. He beat Holyfield who was one punch away from a heart attack and had an injured shoulder. Even then Holyfield put Moorer down.
