I saw the fight live at Atlantic City and had no doubt whatsoever that Foreman won. It was an OK fight at best and I never watched it again. I'll have to revisit it . Foreman sure didn't beat Schultz, but two wrongs don't make a right.
I watched this fight two years ago and there is no way that Briggs won this fight (or was even close).
Well, detective, people wanted to know how rounds could be scored for Briggs. WTF is the point of explaining why Foreman won certain rounds?
No, watch the last minute. Briggs landed hard punches in that the last minute and punctuated the end of the round strongly. You could hear his punches pounding on Foreman's head and then he drilled Foreman with a nice straight right before the bell. Foreman did win the first two minutes, but his power shots throughout the fight were basically being pushed/arm punches and I preferred Briggs' work in the last minute.
What relevance does a losing fighter saying they deserved the decision (common place in boxing) have with a supposedly “winning” fighter (Briggs) saying they’d have to rewatch the fight to see if they deserved the decision? One sounds like denial the other sounds like realism to me.
Round 1 Briggs close. Slightly more active as both fighters attempt to establish their jab. Foreman's shots appear more effective but Briggs a little busier Round 2. Foreman. Briggs continues to circle but some of his blows fall short, George continues to plod forward and his jab is landing consistently Round 3. Foreman. George begins to mix in the right behind the jab and a few solid hooks off the jab. Briggs appears to be visibly tired and throws his hardest punches while in the clinch Round 4. Foreman. Briggs begins the round throwing his best jab since round 1, but after a quick exchange with George he abandons the jab and continues to circle and retreat. Foreman relaxed and poised lands consistently throughout the round punctuating the round with a hook just before the bell that Briggs shakes his head to indicate it didn't bother him or he was displeased that it landed after the bell. Round 5. Foreman. Briggs begins the round well with his jab and after a brief break due to lose tape on Foreman's glove Briggs seizes the opportunity and lands a solid right. Foreman then begins to land the jab again and Briggs goes into full retreat for the last minute of the round trying to run and pot shot with little effect. Round 6. Briggs. Brigg's best round since the first round. Much more active and throwing some punches with some venom. George opens the round with the cross guard over his face in anticipation of Brigg's jab which he had led off the previous few rounds with, Briggs turns George for much of the round and lands some effective blows. George only continues with the jab. Round 7 Briggs again. He seems rejuvinated the last two rounds. More Active than George. Nothing significant landed by either man but Briggs is more active. (My card disagrees with Ledermans in this round) Round 8 Foreman. Foreman's best round. He pummels Briggs for most of the round after appearing to slow down the previous two rounds. Briggs showcases a good chin and digs in one solid body blow in the round. Big round for Foreman. Round 9 Briggs close. Swing round. I thought George landed best punch of the round vicious inside hook but Briggs bounced back nicely from previous round with energetic round and outlanded George. Swing round (Lederman also gave this round to Foreman Round 10 Foreman. That Jab. Foreman's Jab controls the action and the round. Briggs has an impressive flurry in final 20 seconds but it's not enough to overturn a round Foreman's jab landed heavy and often. (Lederman gives this round to Briggs) Round 11 Briggs close. Another swing round. both men held their own and exchange jabs and inside fighting almost evenly Round 12 Foreman. Big Round for Big George. Comes out as Alpha dog to much younger and muscled up opponent and totally imposes his will on Briggs landed numerous heavy accurate shots. Briggs retaliates late in final minute but punches are sloppy and do not land cleanly. A more entertaining fight than I remembered. My final card 7-5 George Foreman. Rounds (2,3,4,5,8,10,12) Briggs (1,6,7,9,11) I gave Briggs 9 and 11 which could of gone either way imo. No way does Briggs win this fight. But perhaps not as wide as I thought.
WTF is the point of being sarcastic or using a hostile "WTF" when someone asks you a simple honest question? Clearly to show that you are able to be unbiased-giving all descriptions of why seemingly your fighter won, especially when you believe by a good margin, shows you will apply positive analyses or praise in only one direction. Also people do not only want to know how rounds could be score for Briggs. We seek descriptions of the rounds, why & how much someone is purported to have won the rounds & the fight. Not even saying which rounds you scored for Briggs or Foreman down the stretch is a very sketchy analyses. If you wanna justify a scorecard, make a case, show you are fair or persuade... Give us details. Do not leave out basic analyses, nor only explain what one guy did to win rounds!
