You clearly did not see Moorer's somewhat china chin smashed by Foreman's finale. And as you rightly point out Foreman was the one covering a battering post fight, that he had taken from Moorer for ten rounds. If this fight was fixed, it was the Laurel and Hardy of fixed fights, as neither had a clue how to go about doing it!
I've had a few misgivings over Bruno-McCall. Pains me to say that, as Bruno was my first sporting hero as a child and one of the reasons I became a fan of the sport. But McCall's performance was very odd - he looked totally uninterested for about eight rounds. He huffed and puffed a little late on, and tried to save a bit of face, but even then he never really found any real quality or rhythm. Yet even that was enough to give Bruno a few hairy moments and have him hanging on a little near the end. McCall was a temperamental performer at the best of times anyway, and as we all know he wasn't the most sound minded of people. But even allowing for that, the way he seemed willing to just let the WBC belt slip away with such an abject performance is puzzling. It's not as if Bruno had to produce anything particularly special to pile up the points; jab, grab, jab, grab with the occasional right over the top (but never any punches in bunches) was pretty much the sum of it. The obvious reason which has been suggested already is that McCall was being lined up as Tyson's opponent for his proposed title bid in early '96, but King knew that a still-rusty Tyson might not look a million dollars against an iron-chinned, unhinged guy like McCall who wouldn't be intimidated and might put a spanner in the works by making Tyson look meek, laboured or, shock horror, maybe even beat him. Lo and behold, Bruno's shot at McCall (which he didn't really deserve at that point) came with the stipulation that, if he won, he had to face Tyson as his first defence. I've long since wondered if McCall was maybe, erm, shall we say 'instructed' to clown that one away and was paid handsomely for his troubles. Bruno was the perfect guy for Tyson to face in his big world title comeback and, much as I love him, I have some doubts about whether the Bruno of 1996 could really have beaten a focussed, motivated McCall. Hopefully it was just a case of McCall's demons getting the better of him, and there's never been any serious evidence that McCall tanked....But for whatever reason, I can just never get that niggling doubt out of my mind.
McCall desperately tried to stop Bruno late though and sadly that was the story of McCalls career. He often fell far behind on points by doing too little only to wake up late and try to come on. I think part of your thesis is correct though, just not for this fight. The Seldon-Tucker fight was absolutely put together to give Tyson an easy route to a belt. Bruno-McCall was probably partly Kings machinations and partly just fortuitous. Had McCall won he would have lost to Tyson but he would have provided more rounds which would have been a good thing. But the best McCall was always unreliable.
Lol. “People who know boxing.” Thats hipster speak “anyone who doesnt agree with me doesnt know boxing.” Thats where good arguments go to die. Yeah it wasnt a huge surprise, except to the odds makers and the vast majority of the public and experts. It wasnt a shock at all if you “knew” what you were looking at... you sound like Frank Lotierzos deluded ass, a Foreman worshipping moron who thinks he has some secret arcane knowledge of boxing that gives a higher guru like understanding of a sport that entails two guys punching each other in the face. Good luck with that.
Unfortunately for your argument I wasnt the first one to bring up the subject in this thread. The people who know about the bribes Foreman was paying just to stay relevant wouldnt agree with you. Your opinion is based on hero worship not on facts. If that limp wristed slow motion punch had been thrown by anyone else youd be question its authenticity too. But peopke refuse to believe that Foreman was as human as the rest of us. Congrats, you bought into the narrative you were spoonfed in the 90s hook line and sinker. Its good to see Foremans hard earned bribes paid off for at least one suckers undying admiration. Let me guess, you also think the Young and Ali fights were flukes...
Its fight fixing. There are no two ways around it. Your defense of such behavior is sickening. If you pay a bribe to get a shitty opponent ranked so you can get an easy, winnable defense thats fight fixing. And thats besides the fact that Scholz kicked Foremans ass and still lost the decision. Dont sit here and tell me that if they were so scared of Foreman defending a live body that theyd pay $350,000 to get some bum ranked that they didnt stack the deck in his favor with judges when most everybody thought Foreman lost that fight despite getting the decision. Who knows what they paid him. Im sure it was better than what he expected to get in losing the title to any number of better HWs on the horizon. Thats how sweetheart deals are done and we rarely ever know the details of them. Braddock got a percentage of Louis for a decade after that. For all you or I know Moorer got a percentage of Foreman's earnings afterwards. Going into the Foreman fight Moorer got the lions share of the purse (and whatever they paid him to lay down). It was by far the largest purse of his career and the only "name" fighter he could have gotten that kind of a deal against. Against any of the other elites, including Holyfield who he had beaten, he would have been the B-side fighter and wouldnt have been able to negotiate a better and likely would have lost. Bowe, Golota, Holyfield, Tyson, and Lewis would have all beaten him and would have all been able to demand the larger purse regardless of Moorers title. So short of fighting stiff after stiff for peanuts Moorer's options were limited. And frankly how much does a win over Foreman get him? Foreman hadnt fought in over a year, was ancient, coming off a loss, and had yet to beat a legitimate contender in recent memory. He was unranked by the WBA when the fight was signed and was being callled on to quit for his own safety. So yeah, the best outcome, the most storybook and lucrative outcome for boxing in that perceived mismatch is Foreman pulling off a huge upset. I know I know, youre really smart and it was no surprise to you but regardless the vast vast majority of people expected Foreman to lose that fight. It was a latter day Cinderella story and like the orginal boxing Cinderella story it was a little too good to be true. I dont think its an elaborate conspiracy theory at all. I think given the fact that Foreman was bribing people to fix fights for him its perfectly in line with what he was doing. The KO looked suspicious and was conducted by a guy whose entire career at this point was smoke and mirrors. Thats enough for me to question it. It was a slow motion arm punch lobbed like he was tossing a piece of paper into a trash can. If you cant see that its your problem. I hope if you ever get punched in the face its by a punch that looks like Foreman's KO of Moorer. Youll come out just fine. Get over the fact that I think the fight was fixed. You seem awfully invested for someone who has no hero worship here...
If a fighter stands still to eat a punch and find a soft spot to lay down its not out of the real of possibility that the punch he gets hit with is going to do some damage. You understand that concept right? Sorry to **** off all you Foreman fanboys. LOL.
You likened it to tossing a wadded up sheet of paper into a trash can. 36 stitches is not a paper cut. Which is it? Lollipop punch or he allowed himself to be clobbered by a seriously damaging blow? Try to be consistent.
You make some good points and I wouldn't dismiss the possibility but McCall to be frank was an absolute nutcase both outside the ring and in it, you never knew what was going on in his head.
I bumped my head on a cabinet once just getting a can of peaches. It required stitches but didnt knock me out. I knocked a kids teeth through his bottom lip once in grade school when I accidentally hit him in the mouth while pointing at something. Dont be ridiculous and pretend that a cut mouth just had to be caused by a dynamite punch. That arguments reeks of desperation, grabbing onto anything to show the fight just had to be on the level. Like I said, believe what you want but to me that fight was a joke just like the rest of Foreman's comeback.
You should be more careful. You’re very accident prone. Give it up. You contradicted yourself and now you’re scrambling.
