Bigger robbery, "Foreman-Schulz" of '95 or "Foreman-Briggs" of '97?

Folks,

Take a few seconds and think back. Who was more shocked after the cards were totalized in 1995 and in 1997 when George Foreman faced both "Schulz and Briggs" on regular HBO?

I admit the '95 fight between Foreman and Axel Schulz was close and could've gone either way, but I was happy when Foreman got the call after 12 rds. However, on the flip side, I was pissed like the devil when the judges handed the lineal title over to Shannon Briggs in 1997 after 12 rds in which most people felt Foreman won without doubt.

SO! What was your biggest pisser offer: "Foreman-Schulz" or "Foreman-Briggs?"

MR.BILL:huhtwisted:

 

Foreman/Schultz. Foreman got totally outboxed in that fight. It was bad that Schultz was given a title shot, but it was worse that he was denied the win after outscoring and outpunching George. In the Briggs fight, I, too thought Foreman won, but Briggs I think did more against Foreman than Foreman did against Schultz. Briggs landed some decent punches along the way and even managed to mark up George's eyes a bit. Foreman should have won, but it wasn't an absolute robbery of the Lewis/Holyfield I variety.

 

I was more so pissed when Briggs got the nod over George in 1997..:twisted:

MR.BILL:yikes

 

I thought Schulz had a better go at Foreman than Briggs did, but George defeated Briggs outright, and actually had an argument for winning the Schultz fight.

You score a fight by rounds, not punches landed, and that fight was contentious. I had Axel up by 2 points, but there were rounds Foreman was carrying on just heavier connects alone.

Briggs never got much done, and the only rounds he won in his handful were the ones where George didn't punch.

 

Briggs looked stunned when the scores were announced and he was given the fight.... He himself could hardly believe it, but he took the gift.....

MR.BILL

 

Foreman-Briggs was a worse robbery.

I always feel more sorry for a robbed fighter if they showed aggression.

Whereas Schulz was negative.

Besides, George clearly beat Briggs, whereas the Schulz fight was close shite.

 

Agree. Foreman - Shulz was very close and my recollection watching it live was that I did not have a problem with the decision. Maybe it could have been a draw. Personally, I have no sympathy for fighters who run around against a 45+ year old man. Foreman always came forward and his punches were quite thudding. He didn't do a lot of flashy work, but he was consistent with single hard shots. That's my vague recollection. IDK, maybe I'd think differently if I watched it again.

I just remember when I watched the Briggs fight live that I was very upset afterwards and felt that Foreman had been robbed. Pretty upset that night. But again, if I watched it again, maybe I'd change my mind. Perhaps my like for Foreman biased me. I just got a kick out of seeing a guy close to 50 hitting young guys so hard that they felt the need to run from him and cover and grab.

 

Savarese got jobbed, too.

 

It's not a handicap race. They don't check ID's on the way in. Many seem to have no problem when a fit, 25 yr. old boxer runs around in the manner Schulz did. In fact, some go on to lengths about how that is "boxing".

 

Oh, he's entitled to run if he wants, but when it comes to the decision, he shouldn't be surprised when the judges give the edge to the aggressor who lands the thudding shots as opposed to the quick grazing shots of a guy more concerned with survival. When a round is close, many judges factor in who is trying to make the fight, who throws harder, who clinches and smothers more, who holds and hits, who runs away after being hit. Just listening to the commentary, they failed to see all those body shots, uppercuts, and solid inside blows Foreman was landing, as opposed to those quick flashy blows of Shulz. Fight was a lot closer than the commentators had it. And 7-5 from two judges and 6-6 from a third was about right.

 

:huh I haven't heard someone say that before.

Yeah Savarese landed more punches, but they were very light compared to the heavy-handed wallops of Foreman.

 

Crazy scoring,indeed.

 

yeah foreman-briggs was a pretty bad robbery

 

I think Foreman's gift against Schultz is probably more flagrant than his being robbed against Briggs.. Sure both fights were bull**** decisions, but the Schultz fight was a much wider margin.

 

Fighters tend to fight the fights and use the styles that work best for them. It's silly to expect a fighter to fight Foreman's fight simply because George is 45 or 48 years old. When two guys get into a boxing ring, they each try to impose their strengths. IF a guy is fast and quick, he uses those advantages. IF a guy is powerful and strong, he tries to impose those strengths. Should Schultz have stood still and banged with Foreman as a way of leveling up the age gap between both guys? Foreman took a lot of leather against Schultz; you don't finish a fight with half your head looking like an eggplant unless you've been tagged often. How Foreman could call himself heavyweight champion after his mugging by Schultz is despicable!