Tim Witherspoon (2nd Smith fight) vs Michael Moorer (Foreman fight)

You may just read the text from top to bottom. Less than half the amount of bible you tend to post all the time.
90s Foremans offensive abilities are overrated. A punchers chance made him beat the fellow of this thread, like Smith did with Witherspoon also, after both got soundly outboxed prior.

Maybe some more ABC stuff of Moorer, Foreman, Ruddock, Witherspoon and Smith?

Who has a higher chance of losing by stoppage when blitzed by 86 Smith, Ruddock or Moorer? Answer: Moorer, since Ruddock had better chin.
Who has a higher chance of blitzing the avarage < 30 years old avr. Witherspoon or dropping good durable Smith with power, Ruddock or Moorer? Answer: Ruddock had heavier hands and more odds.
Who would look better boxing the avarage Witherspoon, Ruddock or Moorer? Answer: Moorer looked like a better boxer compared to Ruddock.

If that brings some more insight to this "bait thread" and the comparison of Foreman vs. a) Moorer b) Ruddock.

 

Wait. What?

You mean the 86 Smith who LOST to Marvis Frazier?

Who has a better chance of getting blitzed by 86 Smith - Marvis Frazier, Razor Ruddock or Michael Moorer?

Answer: Marvis Frazier.

Guess who didn't get blitzed by Smith in 86? Marvis Frazier.

Guess who NEVER got blitzed by Smith? Marvis, Moorer and Razor.

Who BEAT Smith? Marvis, Moorer and Razor.

What is it with you guys and Bonecrusher Smith? In the BEST year of Bonecrusher's career, he lost to freaking Marvis Frazier.

Stop this. Honestly.

 

Enjoy your cookie. We both know Nelson was nothing in the mid nineties and never even came close to being a top ten heavyweight.

 

In fairness to Marvis, he never got knocked out by any limited fighters like Moorer did.

 

You didn´t get it. The question was who got higher chance of loosing by stoppage if 86 Smith blitzed them, so a question of chin. Not what would happen written in stone, its about the chance of getting stopped in the process.
I didn´t saw the Frazier fight, is on YT? Frazier got dropped in round 5 but won a close decision (some say he didn´t).
We saw Ruddock get up and win against the older version of Smith, while Frazier fought the younger version.
IF 86 blitzed some of them, what is the chance their chin folds and they loose? Thats the question. And Moorer does not have a better chin than Ruddock, nor did he fight a 32-35 years old version.

 

You are creating make believe stats about the 1986 Bonecrusher Smith and who was more likely to get "blitzed" by him and you never saw Bonecrusher Smith lose to Marvis Frazier in 1986?

That perfectly sums up this misguided argument.

Watch the fights before telling others who have seen them they are wrong.

 

1) I write less text than your bibles and backed most to straighten that GF capabilities of yours.
2) and 3)

Oh sure, that thread has nothing to do with 90s GF vs Ruddock, right ?
Next to comparing a fellow who generously ascribed 2/9 rounds until his punchers chance took place in round 10 - with a heavy handed hot and cold fighter who jumped on a more proven chin in a rematch from the beginning of the fight to stop it in 1. Then we see another Preacher of the GF church to believe Moorer would replicate that performance in the single round, a good solid boxer who threw absolutely all of his leather on Bert Cooper for 5 rounds, forget about 20 rounds of 17-12-1 Everett Martin and Mike Evans. What a picture perfect round out of two different boxers. I guess I don´t need to illustrate against what fighters these guys licked the floor.
But sure, Moorer is quickly stopping a young sucessful HW, even stopping him in 1, like he always did. Anything else? Ruddock and Foreman? You´re free to open a thread and make a poll of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 % chance to vote for a KO1 of both of those fellows jumping on Witherspoon. Maybe that will add some more logical rational thinking about odds. So much for not backing up posts with arguments.

4) As yourself @Glass City Cobra ,@NoNeck is a good thoughtful poster of this board. With the difference that he doesn´t stick in 90s Georges rectum up to his chest. Its simply way too far to not smell shitty unreasonable.

@Dubblechin Wouldn´t say "create", more than putting their abilities into different perspective. Whatever way we turn this, I dosn´t look like Moorer has the chin of Ruddock nor the heavy hands of Smith to pull a trigger quickly and pushing Witherspoon away, stopping him before he got into the fight. Its as simple as that.

 

I'll take the guy who didn't get outboxed by Jimmy Thunder.

Did you see that one?

 

In contrast to some others on here, I´m not that hot on Senior Boxing. That said, I thought Moorer not getting up was absolutely epic. But we might wait another two years to see 40up-Spoon earn his first stoppage loss since 13 years of pro boxing.

For 29 years of age, I´m not confident in picking the fellow who examined the ground with Everett Martin.

 

Good Lord. Moorer was standing with his feet together and was literally knocked back and fell down because his feet were out of position. Did you miss that one, too? (Rolls eyes)

Moorer was stopped by Foreman and Tua. Not Lou Savarese and Brian Nielsen.

Probably the funniest thing in this whole thread is you thinking Bonecrusher Smith was heavy handed. "Bonecrusher" was a nickname. He could've changed his name to "Sugar" for God's sake, that wouldn't have made him a great boxer any more than it would've made "Sugar" Valuev a great boxer.

Smith had a 50 percent KO percentage - literally an average heavyweight puncher by any measure.

I never saw a guy (Smith) get so much mileage out of a three-month WBA reign when his opponent has stated repeatedly he took a dive.

You guys need to stop posting and actually go watch the fights you are talking about. It's gone past embarrassing to just not knowing what you're talking about.

I think I'm done. If you haven't seen the fights you're discussing, what's the point.

 

Yeah I know these. I also know 6 knockdowns of Moorer with Holyfield und god knows how many with the star of the devision, Bert Cooper.
And no, I´m not interested in talking about 40up Smith, Witherspoon etc. when this thread is about 86. And I´m also not interested into repeating how open glassy Moorer got when he went "all in", and how well he dominated Geogre Foreman until the "Miracle" happened aka "IT HAPPENED!! IT HAPPENED!!!!!!". Jeez
Yep we might finish here.
Looks like the bait got to flashy for some more hookups

 

If the thread is about 1986, then watch their fights from 1986. You already said you never saw Smith lose to Frazier. Did you see him eake out a split win over Jesse Ferguson?

God damn.

George Foreman was one of the biggest punchers of all time. Smith WAS NOT.

"On the Hall of Fame Ballot" Michael Moorer was good enough that year to beat Hall of Famer Evander Holyfield for the World Title and essentially shut out Hall of Famer George Foreman for nine rounds before he got caught by one of the biggest punchers ever.

"Not even on the ballot" Tim Witherspoon was so bad in '86 he got knocked out in one round by "not even on the ballot" Smith. Smith was SO BAD in '86 he FREAKING LOST to "not even on the ballot" Marvis Frazier.

This argument is dumb. That's why you two - who apparently haven't seen the fights - are the only ones arguing about it.

You are comparing all-time greats and guys who lost to all-time greats with guys who lost to Levi Billups and Marvis Frazier.

Watch the fights. Then talk.

 

You´re back already?
Smith was extremely up and down, had a chin to hang in and could hurt if he landed. Could lose unexpected, but stop Weaver/Spoon early or Bruno late. We´ve gone threw this dozens of times. But he legitimately beat Witherspoon by extreme pressure in round 1. If Witherspoon survived that, his tank would be empty by a good amount facing a bout scheduled for 15, which might happen in an attempt like that.
The problem is you guys making this win non-legitimate, but for some "magic" reason, George gets trice the credit after getting his face popped in 10 rounds of boxing. Isn´t that what this thread was made for? Back Foreman to stop Razor Ruddock, when he couldn´t dent Moorers glass in ten rounds? Stop taking posters of this thread for idiots No cool.
I don´t want to repeat myself on "(90s) George Foreman was one of the biggest punchers of all time.", because its BULL ****. He was another big jabbing fighter in the 90s. Get tired on this....

 

I don't so much care about the personal banter involved here, but Smith, at best, was a heavy-handed, wild-swinging, C-Level boxer and Witherspoon capitulated against him, helped by the 3-KD Rule. Any number of Heavyweights, who came to win and could dig a bit, would have beaten Spoon in the same manner.

There's no mystery, magical thinking or conspiracy theory here. Anyone around at the time knew there was more talk about the troubles between Witherspoon and the Kings than there was about the fight itself. So much so that these 'troubles' consumed most of the post-fight discussion, as well.

The poll you suggest would actually be asking whether one wants to ignore or accept the background and known factors leading up to the fight (acknowledged by Smith, after his win - himself a King fighter), which led to a disenfranchised Witherspoon essentially giving up.

I don't know anyone who views Smith as anything but a Journeyman chancer with a bit of a dig, who got lucky. That Moorer's ability to replicate what Smith did against Witherspoon, on the night of their rematch, is being argued against to this extent, is just staggering.