Did Foreman 22.XI 1997 deserve to retire as Lineal HW Champion?

A lineal champion who didn't defend against anyone ranked in the Top 10? I'm glad he didn't fight Tyson, Bowe, Lewis, Holyfield again, Mercer, Ruddock, and whoever else was dangerous to him at that time.

Should've fought Tucker though...

 

I personally think he should have retired after the Moorer fight. Go out in a blaze of glory and I don’t think anyone would have had a problem with that

 

If you look at the history after Schulz he was sitting waiting for the dust to clear which didn't happen. He tried making the Moorer rematch. The alphabet belts were all over the place until the last few months of Georges reign. Its easy to criticize Foreman now for fighting no one.

 

It’s not as simple as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ because while he certainly bested Briggs, he clearly lost to Schulz. Swings & roundabouts.

 

This. I’m not sure everyone critical of his reign is across all the facts TBH based on what I’ve read in past threads.

 

He fought a murderers row after Moorer, didn't he? I mean he didn't fight anyone worthy of a title shot. Nowhere near.

Can't really argue with that. Crawford Grimsley? Gimme a break!! Schulz? Savarese? Briggs? For real??

I rooted for the guy until this happened. He should've retired after Moorer.

 

He was 45-48, FFS.

 

No because Schultz got robbed in Foreman's 1st defense Foreman shouldn't of even had the belt after that fight.

So whilst I think Foreman deserved to win vs Briggs the Schultz was a far worse robbery so it evens itself out.

Foreman also had 2 other very close decisions vs Stewart, Savarese, so you can't keep getting the benefit of the doubt.

 

Foreman was overtaken by time and fought fighters that did not really belong to the top except for the fight with Moorer in which Moorer dominated until Foreman knocked him out

 

No, because while be clearly beat Briggs, he clearly got beaten by Axel Schulz 2 years before that in the fight that wasn't even close

 

The thing is he probably would have continued fofgting if he had got the nod vs Briggs.

 

Speaking of someone getting the benefit of the doubt Schulz failed to get a W in the 5 biggest fights of his life by close decision and got 3 title shots in a row. At some point its got to be on him.

 

Or just corruption pretty much anyone who's ever watched Foreman vs Schultz agrees it was a robbery. Schultz boxed well vs Foreman out fought him and won handily.

I can understand losing close decisions but Foreman vs Schultz was not close I had it 8-4 for Schultz.