In George Foreman's comeback, did he ever fight a boxer who hit harder than he did?

1-So you're just going to ignore the fact Maskaev had SIX fights?

2-Yes I'm counting losses. That tells the story of a boxer's overall ability. You can't simply focus on wins and ignore losses because it's inconvenient. By this logic any 1 hit wonder fighter can look like they have an amazing resume.

3-You are not impartial when it comes to anything involving Foreman, but thanks for the laugh.

4-Well Foreman did in fact knock out multiple world champions. That's why he's an ATG and McCall is known as the guy who had 1 elite win then had a break down and cried in the rematch. Funny how you act like Moorer fight was a lucky punch but give McCall all kinds of praise for the win over Lewis when Rahman pulled off more or less the exact same knockout.

 

Don’t play stupid and start mixing in 70s Foreman results. Oliver McCall fought guys of a caliber Old Foreman wasn’t interested in fighting and got pretty good results. He knocked out a top 5 ATG heavyweight. Now sit your ass down.

 

Oliver McCall is better than George Foreman now

Well I think it's time to leave the thread... Even McCall himself doesn't believe that lol

 

Oliver McCall in then 90s was better than Formean in the 90s. Results don't lie.

 

Yeah actually I agree with that ... Foreman was old, fat, and slow

 

George was one of the most natural punchers i've ever seen, I can't think of anyone, Maybe Shavers but he never fought Shavers, earlier career. Another thing Big George had going for em, was also his ability to take and absorb a punch! 76-5 68 KO AND 2 TITLES!

 

And prime Briggs still lost, gift of the decade lol.

 

Just checked. Turns out Briggs won a decision and landed significantly more NJ power punches.

 

The version of Lewis McCall KOd was top 5 ATG worthy?

By this logic Ross Purity has a better resume than Foreman since he stopped a young Wlad. Is this the hill you're choosing to die on?

Funny how you dodged the point about losses. You can't ignore them. You will tear Foreman's resume apart for close/controversial wins but you'll ignore flat out clear cut losses for the other guy.

 

That Lewis had already beaten Ruddock and Bruno and was head and shoulders better than anyone Foreman beat in his comeback....He was better than anyone Foreman beat in his entire career.

Regarding loses, Old Foreman went the soft route. Put him in McCall's shoes and he'd lose to Douglas, Tucker, Lewis, Holmes, Akinwande and possibly Norris, Seldon, Bruno, Damiani, and Maskaev.

 

Foreman landed about a hundred more jabs, scored more punches total, at a higher connect percentage, broke Briggs’s nose and forced the action for almost the entire fight. You know the things that usually wins a fighter a decision with competent judging?

 

Ruddock and Bruno we're not better than prime Moorer.

Put McCall in there with prime Holyfield and he loses.

Foreman losing to Bruce Seldon and Akinwande?!

 

Ruddock was better than Moorer, including the “Lewis” version.

Foreman made Alex Stewart, Morrison, and Schultz look like master boxers. Of course, Seldon and Akinwande would have a nice shot at winning. So deluded.

Foreman lost to Holyfield. Not sure what point you think you’re making.

 

Akinwande beating comeback George seems reasonable. He easily handled jorneyman/gatekeeper types like Schulz while Foreman struggled and sometimes lost.

Oliver McCall seemed to improve following his early losses, not sure those are relevant to how good he was at his best. I would say his prime was 1992/93 to 2001. He had not yet reached his prime vs Norris, Hunter, Douglas, etc