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

@Man_Machine I agree with you on Smith, he was no superhero by any means. But
"Any number of Heavyweights, who came to win and could dig a bit, would have beaten Spoon in the same manner."

by saying in the same manner, you see Moorer coming out like Smith did and bomb him out like that or what? Or need to dig longer? If that becomes more boxing, Moorer has big solid HW in front of him who could punch a little. As I said earlier, Moorer could very well win here. Witherspoon did prepare for a fight with Tubbs, it was clear the winner was going to face Tyson in a super bout. Thats background too I guess. The problem starts with the Moorer - Foreman comparison, pretty sure you saw that. No need to care, but I don´t like that deceitful manner of the thread. Particularly when it comes down to calling other poster biased, when the obvious is black as the night. For the poll: If the odds were poll like, would you still bet on Moorer to beat Spoon here?

 

The point is, Witherspoon was likely to fall over, regardless. Of course there's no guarantee it would have happened in the first round and no two bouts can ever be that much alike, but it's not unreasonable to think it could have happened that way.

Witherspoon was going to lose to any world class heavyweight that night and losing in the first round got it over and done with for him. He didn't give a **** that he lost that fight. Even the papers were reporting how relieved Tim must be, after being finally rid of the Kings.

I contributed to the thread you mention and posted clear examples of the bias (against Foreman) in question.

Sorry to say, but it's there and it's blatant.

Spin-off threads can be occasionally tricky. However, if they relate to a central theme of another thread, which is large enough or peculiar enough to warrant separate treatment then it can be useful to look at the matter from another angle.

The core issue in this case, arising from the previous thread (as far as I see it), is the merit of Smith's win over Witherspoon compared with Foreman's win over Moorer.

This thread examines that comparison by pitting the two losing fighters together as perceived on the nights in question.

I think this is a valid approach - especially, since a claim has been made that Smith was as good as Comeback Foreman (which is, I find, frankly a ridiculous idea).

As I have previously mentioned, I think countless heavyweights would have beaten Witherspoon that night. Moorer is more than capable of doing a number on THAT Witherspoon.

He was there to lose.

 

Smith did it not once, but twice.

This content is protected

Moorers quickest wins against names is 4 rounds with Stewart and 5 rounds with Cooper.
"Of course there's no guarantee it would have happened in the first round and no two bouts can ever be that much alike, but it's not unreasonable to think it could have happened that way."

Not unreasonable to think he´d repeat what Smith did two times, but Moorer himself quickest results are KO 4 and 5?? You guys are talking like Witherspoon had a broken leg that day. It took another 13 years to stop him at the age of 41. Yeah sure, a bias against George Foreman It srsly starts going on my nerves. I´ve never discredited Foreman numerous of times, nor am I any sort of nuthugger, but appeared to discuss with that GordonGarner65 like Foreman was pure trash....

For the hundredth time, whats so hard to get about Smith losing unexpected bouts, but beeing able to seriously whack? It could and did happen if punches found the target.

Do you see 90s George stopping both these guys, 29 years old Spoon and 33 years old Weaver in the first round, yes or no?

This content is protected

For me, this looks more like mixing it up all together with Smith as a fighter more than checking what really did happen.

 

Where is @GordonGarner65 anyway? He should be the next one to take the reigns in these two threads.

 

You do know that was the 8TH TIME Mike Weaver had been stopped, right? His 8TH TKO loss. And his 12th Loss overall.

Duane Bobick knocked out Mike Weaver. Howard Smith knocked out Mike Weaver. Larry Frazier knocked out Mike Weaver. Not JOE Frazier. Larry Frazier stopped him in two.

Hell, Tony Anthony knocked Weaver out after the bell sounded ending round one. That's why he was DQed.

Honestly, if a top heavyweight today handed a guy his EIGHTH KO Loss, would you consider that a sign of what a MONSTER PUNCHER he is? Give me a break. Hell, if a guy gets stopped a couple times today he's consider to be "packing glass" by most of the people here. EIGHT times? (Weaver finished with a dozen KO losses.)

I can't even think of a heavyweight today who has eight KO losses.

How many times was Cooney stopped again? Rodrigues wasn't knocked out eight times in 85 fights.

George Foreman was miles better than freaking Bonecrusher (50% ko rate) Smith as a puncher.

Good Lord.

STOP!

 

You´d like to bring up 40up versions of a fighter again, or maybe the first two years of Weavers career containing 4 stoppages until he was 23 and 198 pounds? Correct is that Dokes did it too.
Thats exactly that exaggerated dishonesty I´m talking about. 90s Foreman the monster who stopped two durable prime fighters in Cooney and Rod, but Smith by no means could punch a little *yawn*.

"George Foreman was miles better than freaking Bonecrusher (50% ko rate) Smith as a puncher."

90s Foreman stopped 4 fighters out of ten with a name (

This content is protected

,

This content is protected

, Stewart,

This content is protected

, Morrison,

This content is protected

, Schulz, Grimsley, Savarese and Briggs, I´´ll exclude unwinning Holyfield). His quickest results were Cooney, Rod and Coetzer.
Again, Smith started late (age 27), lost unexpected fights and had like 5 years of "youth" to fight better opposition until the 90s. His best knockouts are over Weaver, Witherspoon and Bruno, which in fact is not miles away from Cooney, Rod, Coetzer and Moorer. Thats the names both of them stopped. Cooney, Rod, Coetzer and Moorer vs Witherspoon, Weaver and Bruno. Thats a gulf, isn´t it?

But that wasn´t what this thread is about. Its about Moorer repeating a quick stoppage. I´m here waiting for two quick knockout blows of Michael Moorer to proove he´d repeat Smiths stoppages.

 

Got some problem with women because of double standards of that bibles of text you´re typing? I´ll bet most of the women I know are pretty much more capable of any logic or shady moves you might bring up
Like posting a short video of someone getting stopped, adding a poll to it and pointing to @NoNeck to build up the own hero of another thread. Plus calling that poster biased at the same time.
You want me to adress the thread?

This content is protected

Or you´d rather like to talk about 90s Foreman beeing B level, while all the fellows he lost to or literally drew with are C and D level? Cobra, its so obvious....

 

Its you posting the bibles, not me. First bible answered (like half the text ), you´ll call switching goal posts. I´m not getting personal, but don´t like the bias call at a double standard. I´ve also stated you as a reasonal poster. But too much of that 90s Forman stuff is simply exaggerated. Like Moorer KO1 Witherspoon is pretty exaggerated also. He did nothing to back that up. Thats all I´m saying.

 

Am I supposed to be impressed? Weaver was miles gone by the time Smith fought him.

What exactly does your game of who has quickest KO actually prove?

The factor you can't seem to acknowledge is that Witherspoon was beaten before he entered the ring. He might as well have had a broken leg.

Again, you interpret this anomaly in Witherspoon's results, as being everything to do with Smith, whereas I see it as much if not more to do with Witherspoon being ****ed, before the first bell even rang.

I wasn't referring to your biases, in my previous post.

Eh? No one is claiming Smith couldn't "whack"? But, if your opponent isn't up for a fight and you can whack, the chances of achieving a technical knockout increase - wouldn't you agree?

Smith didn't spark Witherspoon clean out. Witherspoon lost on a 3KD Rule. The guy was more jaded than groggy.

Loaded "yes" or "no" questions achieve very little. Especially, if they're the wrong questions.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

For me, it looks like you and one or two others can't take a specific fight in context and see it for what it was. That is, one guy being presented with an unexpected opportunity and grabbing it, while the other guy was looking for a way out. Perfect timing for Smith and he made the most of it - fair play to him.

But I'm sure others in Smith's situation would have done the same - one way or another. In any event, using this bout as a benchmark for comparisons between Smith and Foreman is, at best, misguided. Though, to be frank, I find it a little ridiculous.

 

Too much of what you adressed in fact is from the Foreman - Ruddock stuff, which I see you´re not that into. I´ve quickly read that Foreman - Rudduck debacle (second thread that year...). This thread was made to downplay Smith who was able to hurt Ruddock, with some mixing up of Foreman dropping Moorer. Thats why I came up with many comparisons. No need adress that any further.

No fighter who was in camp is "beaten before the fight". Thats a hyperbole. Like Moorer KO1 when he never did that against anybody, is just that.
I agree that it wasn´t a dumb move for Smith to do. To precise this: The reason why Smith went on Witherspoon from what he told in the interview was in fact something else. But you´d also have to see that its no easy feat jumping on a fresh fighter in round 1 achieving that. Witherspoon wasn´t proven to be made of glass also. Watch the fight again, he rattled him up very well on pupose. I´ve answered Cobra with comparisons of Moorer beeing able to do the same. Theres nothing to back that power up on his resume. A fight going further is more likely I believe. Not forget at this point the bout was scheduled for 15.

 

Moorer replicating Smiths stoppage came up in the first posts of this thread, pointing to where that thread might go. @Man_Machine brought it up also, "not unreasonable to repliacte it". I´m sure you read it too. But it looked like he put that straight and I´m fine. One of that hyperboles fixed, thats good.

"It's like comparing Ali of the Holmes fight to Ali of the Williams fight."

Sure lol, 29 years old Witherspoon. Again, you guys are rolling over that like Witherspoon fought with one arm and one leg. And one more time, totally exaggerated.
Witherspoon wasn´t untrained in short notice. He knew Tyson was on the line. Moorer didn´t stop better fighters he met too quickly. He did not much to prove a stoppage in the first place, more of a decision win to be honest. And yes again, I´d told before Moorer could very well win. But I don´t see a reasonable stoppage the way Moorer fought.

Smith knew he could bang and went all in. I´ve also wrote that part numerous of times now. He wanted to hurt Witherspoon quickly like Spoon did to him the fight before. It worked this time. It worked so well that he hurt him enough to even drop him. Which is exactly the point: Smith has the unique feature of stopping Spoon until he was 41 years of age. He showed his heavy hands in that fight on tape, its there to see. Watch the fight, he went all in, rattled him good and won. You´re point of discrediting Smith as a fellow who couldn´t bang and fought a pushover is just that: Discrediting.