The Louis that fought Rocky was not shot.

That's your take, which is seldom credible of course.

 

I'd forgotten how controversial the Briggs fight was. Unreal effort by Foreman.

 

Yes, Foreman did Beat Briggs. He might have lost to Schulz, Saverese, Stewart, Morrison and Holyfield but he did beat Briggs.

Of course by my scorecard Botha beat Briggs too..

 

of course Joe Louis was never regarded the best in the world in his comeback. That’s what Joe has in common with comeback George.

yes Louis lost his title shot like George did with Holyfield. Louis then fought world rated guys, current ones, until he got beaten. George fought unranked selected guys to maintain the stature he created as a capable, losing, challenger to Holyfield until the title fell into the hands of a former light heavyweight he was willing to fight.

everyone referred to Foremans comeback as a circus all the way to the Holyfeild fight. It is very well documented. After that he became a novelty sideline who was paid 5 million per fight against opponents of his own selection.

it is inarguable that Foreman did not climb the ranks beating current Ring Magazine rated contenders. He successfully challenged the champion though and won in an upset.

Afraid not.

yes Foremans comeback was absolutely more successful than Louis’ comeback because George made an absolute fortune. All without being a great fighter anymore. Fortunately one of the guys George was able to beat was linear champion at the time even if he was no better than the guys Louis beat on his comeback.

Whilst also no longer being great, or the best in the world, Unfortunately for Joe Louis the EU and the British boxing board of control (which later supported the NBC that became the WBC) ceased to recognise Joe Louis as their World champion after Louis beat their “world champion”. Otherwise comeback Louis could claim a championship too.

Something similar happened to Larry Holmes too. He beat the WBO champion just as the WBO ceased to recognise Mercer.

yes he did. It was a remarkable achievement. And a remarkably, favourable, unique set of events that allowed it to happen too.

 

Yes considering George was about 47 when they fought. He originally fought Holyfield for the title at about 42. He had some wars in between. Briggs had a lot of potential and in reality should have beaten Foreman clearly. He even gave Lewis a pretty decent fight.

 

Don't forget he beat Moorer too, you know, for the lineal title!!!

 

On a scale of 1-10 what would you rate your hatred toward Foreman at? Every post has to contain something geared toward discrediting him.

An example would be Wass who is a 10 toward Tyson. He doesn't try to gloss it over tho. I'm thinking 8 or 9. There's large scale attempts to hide it but it's there daily and is devoted a great deal of time and text.

 

Insane really.

 

If I hated George I would credit Briggs with a genuine win over Foreman. I scored for George so I believe George was robbed that one time. But it does not make up for the times others were robbed against him. Chiefly Saverese, Schulz and Stewart. It was ironic that the one time I felt he deserved a verdict it went the wrong way.

George was a niche in the market. He was good. He did a great job going along with hype because crucially He was still good enough and strong enough to beat smaller men of a certain calibre who were half half his age. We all gave him a huge pass because of his age and it was an all time feat to beat a current world champion. It really was.

But to document the period clearly we must not forget A lot of boxing people were sceptical of George’s Comeback.

As for Manny Stewart , right after comeback George put in one of his best performances against Bert Cooper he still called Foremans comeback...


"a traveling roadshow. It just proves you keep something out there long enough and the people will start to believe. Never in the history of boxing have there been so many handpicked bums" - Manny Steward


-the July 17 1989 issue of sports illustrated.

 

Speaking of Manny talking about George -

Q: How would you rate a young George Foreman versus an older George Foreman, and when you take those two chapters of his career and put them together, how does that reflect on Foreman’s overall legacy?

A: George Foreman may be the most amazing, definitely heavyweight, that I ever saw in my lifetime. He had a whole career as one fighter with a personality and a style, and then ten years after a rest period so to say, a different fighter he had a different mindset and a different style to some degree—but the one thing that was really prevalent in both was a strong, strong will-minded person, and his unbelievable determination and mental strength as well as physical strength was just amazing. I think that what a lot of people don’t realize is George Foreman was an extremely smart fighter in the ring, too. The first George Foreman right after the Olympics was very aggressive, threw punches relentlessly, had tremendous knockout power in both hands, but still was such a smart fighter that he gradually burnt guys out. All of a sudden he decided to come back and not be such a mean guy, to be a pleasant jollier type of guy, but still, that meanness was still there in the ring and he changed his style a little bit to be adjusted to his age and not burn up too much energy. He developed the old Archie Moore type of crossbow defense type, but the one thing that was very consistent with him still was that he always had a thunderous jab and his jab was more like a ramrod. He would always throw a very good jab—not so technically beautiful, but it was very stiff and very hard.

He also would throw wide punches and then he would change up and throw a short punch. He analyzed his opponents very well. If you look at the knockout of Joe Frazier, you’ll see him like swishing a wide shot and Joe Frazier bobs under it and he swishes another wide shot and then he changes and throws a short right uppercut. I looked at him years later when he was fighting with, I think Michael Moorer—I saw him purposefully throw a couple of wide left hooks and he threw it again and Michael Moorer was getting into a mode of looking for wide punches, and then he stepped in and threw a short one two, then he did it again and—Bingo! You look at his fight with Gerry Cooney, same way—short left uppercut. He was very smart. He would throw wide punches, figure out where you were going to put your head in your defense, and then he would change up with a short punch, but I think he was very underappreciated. He would have been a big threat to any heavyweight of any era because of his size and his unbelievable tough mental attitude. - Manny Steward

 

Manny has an enormous opinion of George. He rated him his #7 ATG all weights!!!!!

 

Yes in a filmed interview he has him in his top 10 at heavy .He doesn't have Marciano in there though, saying he was too small, fought old men, and had poor balance.You can't cherry pick to suit your arguments.

 

You did.

Youre a biased weasel and a liar.

 

it’s not a lie.

For the record Briggs did beat George but I don’t actually credit him that win. That’s why I said “when we look at the record Briggs beat George” I didn’t say I believe he lost.

So actually it’s inarguably true to say George didn’t beat rated guys before his title win. Because officially it was a loss.

And by the way, weasels don’t make offensive remarks about elderly parents.

 

I have George in my top ten too! I rate George foreman as a great fighter. He was a wise man using his experience in his comeback.. but no longer great enough to be best in the world.

Stewart rated George. But he still did call his comeback a traveling road show. He differentiated between young and old as we all must.

Stewart did rate Rocky but not in regards to the very bigger guys that’s all. And that’s ok. That’s just his opinion. He rated him as an inspiration.

Don Turner rated Marciano very highly in a taped interview too.