Do you consider Old Foreman a "real" heavyweight champion

It's actually the opposite because it's only those insisting on recognising lineage who now look back and think he was a great champ in the 90's.

At the time, he was recognised after knocking out double m but very soon his claim dwindled when he ran from tucker, anyone in the top ten, then got battered by schulz and refused to face him again. By the time he fought briggs he certainly was not a champion.

Briggs was definitely no defending champion against lewis neither.

 

It's a funny way of looking at it though, don't you think?

I think partly what Cross-trainer is getting at is which top-rank heavyweight wouldn't have beaten Moorer? Certainly Lewis, Bowe and even guys like Ruddock would have been fair game.

 

Yes.......BUT....George was coming off a clear loss......I think his title shot wasn´t too deserved...that´s my only problem.....

 

Exactly. But, as Gil Clancy one said during an HBO broadcast, "This is boxing. What is fair about boxing!"

If Foreman had, at any time during his comeback, been forced to actually earn a title shot the old fashioned way, it's likely his comeback never would have taken off. But, luckily for George, popularity opens many doors!

 

For me and most at the time it went..

Foreman-after Moorer

Vacant-Foreman goes MIA..is stripped of belts and occassionally fights no hopers to create the illusion of being active, By 95- 96 Bowe and Tyson make stronger claims.

Holyfield-after Tyson II. Clearly the true #1 and #2 going at it.

 

Yeah exactly screw his lineal claim.

Bowe ruled 95. Tyson ruled 96. By 97 holy had stoppage victories over tyson and mm to take top spot whilst lewis wasn't far behind beating akinwande and golota.

I think both holy and lewis had a rubbish 98 but by year end 99 every claim had been rightfully unified when lewis beat holy.

 

Definitely yes.

Beating Moorer was pretty significant considering who he beat. Moorer was decent. Not great, but decent. Foreman didn't stick around long that much after his win to defend the title. You can't say this doesn't weaken the legacy of his second reign.

I don't think anyone really wanted to see him get hurt in another big payday fight by taking on the likes of a Bowe, Lewis, Tyson, Ruddock, or even Ray Mercer at that time. His fights with Axel Schulze who I believe he got a gift and Morrison were enough. Larry Holmes and Shavers were calling him out though. Those two would be fair opponents considering their closeness in age to George. Holmes wanted him bad, but never got the fight. Shavers tried to have a fight billed as a "Battle for the Ages."

 

Foreman always talked about how important it was for him to win the heavyweight championship again. He always said the reason he came back was to win back the title that he lost to Ali, a fight that George never dreamed of losing. Then, seven years into his reign, George wins the title then allows himself to be stripped of his "oh-so-important belt." That always struck me as odd. A true champion, in my mind, never willingly gives up or cedes his belt like that. Granted, Foreman was mega-rich and was older by then, but still, after living with the Ali loss for twenty years, Foreman just basically says, "screw the belt." Odd, very odd.

 

Foreman's win was great and a huge upset. But fighting a guy like Schultz when you had guys like Bowe, Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield, etc. around was unjust. Bowe and Lewis would have annihilated Foreman; Tyson and Holyfield would have trounced him as well.

 

By my way of looking at these things, if you knock the lineal champion out and put 36 stitches inside his mouth with one punch that travels about 12 inches, and you do so in a world title bout, that makes you the champion.

 

It's a remarkably underrated win, no doubt. It's Ali-Foreman for Foreman.

 

Foreman was the real deal when he KO'd Moorer in '94 for the IBF and WBA belts.... Foreman lost some luster when he struggled with Axel Schulz in 1995...
:good
I still favored Foreman by a hair over Schulz in 1995 by a point / round...:deal

SR.BILL:hat

 

I do agree with you to a certain extent. I think old George showed a toughness and chin that the young george didn't have. The left and right hooks that Holyfield landed against him as well as some of the shots Morrison landed were heavy blows. Make no mistake, Holyfield and Morrison aren't Frazier or Lyle, regardless of what version of Frazier who fought George.

I don't think all the above contenders of the 90s would have destroyed George like the way he did to Frazier. I could see Bowe getting cocky like Moorer, win all the rounds and get stopped with that quick one-two-jab-right. I could see Ruddock get dropped a bundle of times but still get up to hurt and stagger George in almost every round. I could see a fight with Tyson ending like the Douglas fight, except George would be a lot more flat footed. Slower Tyson would be on the outside for the most part but he'd land some big hurtin shots to George. Lennox Lewis is the one that mirrors the Ali vs Holmes fight. I could see him giving George a beating on the outside using his reach and skills more severely than Moorer did, except George would respectfully land a couple of big shots well before the final bell. Mercer would make it interesting probably going toe to toe with George before getting stopped.

 

All in all, if George ever defended against Tyson, Bowe, Lewis, Ruddock, and Mercer, he'd be in a lot worse shape and would have been seriously hurt against those guys. All were capable of putting him down with big shots like Lyle did.

 

Which is why Bob Arum dug up Axel Schultz and Foreman agreed to fight him. I still can't believe that fight was sanctioned.