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

Savarese took everything George threw and kept coming back. Foreman used to say nobody ever stood up to him. Well, Savarese sure did. And then Savarese gets ko'd in his next fight. I still think George edged Savarese in a close fight though.

 

foreman/shultz

 

The foreman-briggs fight was pretty irrelevant in the actual division at the time it occured... Shannon nor foreman were in the top ten, I didn't even create a top contender for the likes of holyfield or lewis (i still maintain holy was above lewis during this time)

 

Both were bad but the Shultz fight was really bad. The Briggs fight was closer. The fact that Foreman refused to give him a rematch says it all. George thought he lost too and knew he wouldnt win if they fought again.

 

Yeah so? Doesnt really matter he still did what he had to do to beat a guy who wasnt the quickest. Shultz couldnt crack an egg he would have had no chance standing and slugging with George. That only got fighters in trouble.

 

But how hard was it too look good against a slow, plodding puncher like Foreman? I mean, looking good against an older, slower fighter is not that hard. Had Schultz performed like that against Lewis or Bowe or some other legitimate contender then that would be saying something.

 

The difference being Tommy landed some heavy shots. It's just George has a tremendous beard. The only way he can get stopped is through exhaustion, and old George was too calm and calculated for that.

 

George should have fought Andrew Golota instead of Schultz. That would have been a fun fight!

 

I agree. :good

 

Bill, did you used to post on the Myspace US Politics forums a few years back?