Hypothetically lets say McCall decides to unify w/ Big George to create one undisputed HW champion. Who do you fancy in this matchup
Techincally, I don't think McCall would have been able to outbox George as decisively as Michael Moorer was doing before getting stopped. McCall was obviously much more durable than Moorer and would not have been hurt by George in my opinion, but George's jab and own durability would have probably made this fight pretty interesting. I wouldn't rule out a George victory, but it would be tough, close fight either way. McCall wasn't a real speedy, quick fighter - the kind of fighter that really bothered George - so George would have had a chance.....
Foreman by clear decision. Possibly by stoppage if McCall starts crying ! Truth is, McCall was one of the worst heavyweight alphabet titlists. I dunno if it's because he beat Lewis or simply out of 90s nostalgia or maybe because he's still a tough guy now at 44, but he gets overrated a bit in discussions. In his prime I thought he often fought with the mentality of a sparring partner. And I dont think his display in the Lewis rematch was particularly out of character for him. Look at him against Holmes, the same signs of frustration and on the verge of crying - in a fight that he's winning ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj7NXWYZzEI George Foreman wasn't so hard to beat in 1995 as the Schulz fight shows, but not by the likes of McCall. Styles wise the fight would be a flat-footed punching contest, and Foreman was by far the better boxer and used his jab very accurately, and effectively when he knew he could land it. And the rest is a question of character. Foreman had patience and was incredibly relaxed and took his punishment without complaining. McCall may have had a granite jaw but his mental toughness was lacking, and his boxing skills totally mediocre. McCall just wasn't very good at all.
I'd pick old Foreman here without much doubt -- not that he couldn't lose this fight, but I think he has to be the favorite. Mental strength advantage, focus, determination, and besides, there's a breaking point to every man's jaw -- McCall can take flush, sharp punches, but Foreman's paws are some of the heaviest in heavyweight history, a wrecking ball, it doesn't cut, it dents, and I'd have to see him taking the pain.
If Schultz could take Foreman's bombs, I don't think McCall would be bothred by them much. Heck, Foreman hit Morrison solidly a few times and Morrison didn't crumble. McCall's chin is/was light years better than Morrison's.
Morrison was a better boxer than McCall and Morrison chin was better than people here act like it is. Foreman beat Briggs who is also better than McCall and could punch harder. Foreman struggled with Schultz because he probably didnt respect or knew who the guy was. Against a fighter he knew was good i am sure Foreman would of got in better shape. Foreman is way better than McCall and would beat Oliver Mccall today.
I enjoy the one sidedness of your entire little rant there. George Foreman had a breakdown that lasted for well over a decade. Don't shrug your shoulders or let that one not sink in. He slid from heavyweight champion to going life and death with Ron Lyle in no time flat. McCall was a drug addict and had a breakdown ONCE in a 23 year career when he was pulled out of rehab by the powers that be. Having a childish, confidence smashing fight that puts you out of the game for over a decade, even 30 years after the fact claiming "my water was drugged." Boy, McCall's the only guy that ever let his emotions get the better of him in or out of the ring! McCall's been in plenty of wars and has found his emotional footing late in life, just liek George. THAT'S what your one sided nonsensical rant missed. If you need proof of that, feel free to pop in McCall/Sam where McCall wages a war in the mans backyard in Europe.
And decided to reciprocate. He had a near death experience and became a minister. It's stretching the meaning of "breakdown" to call it a breakdown. I would say it was more along the lines of "a major life-changing experience for someone who was pretty messed up already". I wish I could delay paying my rent for about 18 months and say I'd paid it in "no time flat". He had a breakdown once IN THE RING. He had plenty of breakdowns outside of the ring; it was a rare thing to see a young McCall make it to the ring without bursting into tears. Except the Rumble in the Jungle didn't put Foreman out of the ring, since he went on to survive a war with Ron Lyle, string together a series of good wins and become the clear top contender by early 1977. Strawman argument. But the thread wasn't about McCall late in life, but about him in 1995, when he was an extremely unbalanced individual and lost to Bruno as well as (some argue) a nearly mummified Holmes. Oddly enough, I agree in a way: the McCall who beat SSS would beat Foreman at any stage of Foreman's second career. The older McCall's combination of skill and durability could only really be beaten by a much faster fighter, and Foreman wasn't that.
Well, obviously we're not going to agree here. But let's forget about 2007 or 1977, and try to figure out 1995. To me, McCall looked frustrated as hell against Holmes, who frankly is horribly old and out of shape and doing very little, and McCall was totally at a loss trying to fight Frank Bruno. Foreman got a gift in the Schulz fight, was outboxed, but as you put it we assume he had "found his emotional footing" by this time of his career, something you ascribe to McCall in recent years. So really, you're not explicitly disagreeing with that point about mental toughness at that time despite the fact that you're attacking me for making it. Whatever,we all know Foreman was rock solid under any sort of adversity at the time and we know he was at least pressing the fight when in the ring with Schulz. Okay, let's say I'm out of order even mentioning "mental toughness" etc. I'll put aside the fact that I think Foreman's character, relaxed ring presence and heart was a huge factor in making him competitive in the 90s, and I'll put aside the fact that I think McCall fought in a manner vs. Holmes and Bruno that suggested he was easily frustrated which shut him down for long spells in both fights. I'll just say Foreman was the better boxer, better strategically, better at imposing himself, controlling the fight, controlling the pace, cleverer, ring generalship. I think McCall was mediocre. Then again, maybe McCall would have utilized the Tommy Morrison/Axel Schulz strategy and outpointed Foreman. I dont think so, but I wont say it's impossible.
Old Foreman simply wasn't nearly as good as Old Holmes who would have beaten George if they fought. Holmes was significantly the better older man in the 90s. Holyfield, Moorer and even Morrison and Schulz all outboxed him and thats the only ranked guys he faced. The fact George would need a gift against the averageness of Schulz in his next fight makes me think McCall would have outworked him to win a decision and possibly hurt George too given he would have been the biggest puncher Foreman met on his comeback
