1974 Ali vs 1997 Foreman

32 year old Muhammad Ali Vs 48 year old George Foreman.
The odds of George Foreman winning this fight are virtually nil. If you wanted to choose a version of George Foreman from his "second career", it's certainly not the version from 1997.

 

Well, for one thing, old Foreman would not be falling for any tricks, and seemingly could not be knocked down. Especially not by less than a top tier puncher. So it goes to the cards.

'74 Ali was still quite good. I don't see any version of Foreman being able to win on points. Too slow, and his only advantage (power) would be largely nullified by Ali's own durability.

... this said, Foreman's performance in his fight against Briggs was great and he was robbed. I've at times watched it and tried to imagine a young George who fought more like this, utilized that stellar jab more often. Man does Foreman have a great jab when he actually uses it.

 

Ali by Decision

 

While the 1974 version of Muhammad Ali is laying on the ropes on Oct 30 1974, the 1997 version of George Foreman tries to use the shiny beam of light from his shaved head to blind Ali who is using Rope A Dope, but Ali whips out his Rayban dark glasses, then covers up. Foreman then has his corner throw in one of the Grills that he advertises on late night television, George grabs the grill, then swings it at Ali as referee Zack Clayton has his back turned, Foreman misses with the grill as his last gasp fails. Heavyweight contender Jimmy Young pokes his head and body through the loose ropes, Young tells George, Stick You Body And Head Out When Ali Uses The Ropes, George nods in agreement. When round 8 commences, George follows Jimmy's instructions. As he is halfway out of the ring, the boxing ring collapses, running for dear cover from underneath the ring is Jawbreaker Ken Norton, Smoking Joe Frazier, Joe King Roman wearing a crown and Oscar Ringo Bonavena chirping, Chicken Clay, Why You No Go In Army? Peep, Peep, Peep. Ernie Terrell emerges also from underneath the ring and tells Bonavena, Don't Make Ali Ask You What's My Name. All five fighters pick up Foreman, then all 6 march to McDonalds for Happy Meals. Ha Ha Ha.

 

I think in this scenario Ali wins a decision. We’d be looking at a slower moving and more defensive minded Foreman

 

That was a good one, but Two Ton Tony Galento might stink up the joint (McDonalds). Patrons might mistake Galento's cologne for the hamburger laden onions. Ha Ha.

 

This is simply not true.

Foreman's last fight against Briggs is all you need to look at to see this is wrong. He easily outboxed Briggs.
It was quintessential Foreman in action, arguably his best fight.

LOGIC ----> If his last fight was his best against someone half his age, then there was no "fade"

I like how you like to deny George his due respect and credit his heavyweight title win to "Moorers foolishness"

If that's your perception you need to watch the fight a couple more times.

Foreman was one of the best at cutting off the ring, I am sure he would have no problems doing the same with Ali.

 

Sorry you are completely wrong here.
I am happy to start a thread about it to prove each point via the rationality & expertise of so many well-versed in the fight game.
But let's see if you can see the light first:

1) Virtually nobody would say it was Foreman's best fight.
According to most he deserved the win-not by a huge margin, but was clearly better in a competitive fight, according to most.

2) Foreman beat many better fighters, & both devastated/knocked them out/down, & looked much better doing it.

3) I wont nitpick & point out that Briggs was not literally 1/2 his age-but age is irrelevant to the issue of how good Briggs was & how good the victory was. A paraplegic could be less than half his age.

4) There is absolutely no indication of not respecting Foreman or his victory by stating what is commonly acknowledged by everyone: Moorer was dominating the fight, certainly more so than Foreman vs. Briggs.
Within 10 seconds of the KO blow, Teddy Atlas was screaming for Moorer not to stand in front of Foreman.
There is no sensible way to debate that he did not have to & should not have squared up against Foreman.
Foreman tried to move him into the right hand-successfully-but it would have been easy to avoid standing in the line of fire, foolish even if he had a better chin.

5) Foreman WAS one of the best at cutting off the ring-in his first career.
He was a completely different animal in his second career.
Even at his PEAK with many tune up fights & not too old, in his early 40's, he could not remotely catch up to Evander, who tended to trade too much.
In fact his hard jabs pushed Holyfield out of range, so he could not follow up.

Vs. Morrison was another example where because Tommy limited his exchanges & time in the line of fire, he won.
NOBODY sane would say that the Morrison who would turn his back on George, but who even then moved very slowly, had the ring "cut off"-if so, like when George was prime, he woul have won.

Foreman was BAD at cutting off the ring against near elite competition before he faced Briggs-& by then he was slower still.
He still was very savvy, hit hard (not as much as a few years before), had various skill,s a great chin...

But let me put it with Good Humour to accentuate how dramatic the difference became:
Nobody outside of a Sanitarium for Clinically Insane would say that Foreman near 49-long cherry-picking opponents due to their vulnerabilities, willingness to trade or uncertain chin, refusing to fight many elites besides the likes of Bowe who he said as an ANNOUNCER on video he would not face-& even giving up belts for NOT facing mandatory challenges, check the record...

Was near as good overall as prime George Foreman.
AND everyone this side of the Funny Farm would admit he long lost his great ring cutting skills due to dramatically slowing & conserving energy.

Oh & he also was given a gift decision against at least Shultz a few years back, who then went on to show he was good but could not beat the best-guys like Foreman was refusing to face.

I LOVE Foreman.
But unlike so many fanatical, over-identifying fans who make their Ego dependent upon her-worshipping...
And like the proverbial Blind Man, I can see he both was not as good in absolute terms in his comeback...
And clearly deteriorated further, including work rate, as he got older.

As you would expect.
Now the man who helped TRAIN Foreman in both careers, Archie Moore, THERE is a fighter who when you judge his record, who he fought, how he stepped up more often to HW...
HE seems virtually unique in NOT having a visible decline-& fought to 49!
Also the longest running LHW champion, although denied a shot for a long time.

Gave upon the Ageless Wonder that is The Old Mongoose: [url]https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/8995[/url]

 

I can't find the thread now but I did see at least one other person here agreed that it was likely Foremans best fight (earlier today, in fact).

I am happy to go point by point with you.

I understand that everyone but Moorer saw that punch coming. You have to ask yourself why.

Oh I think his ring generalship was superior in his 2nd career, hands down. Just watch Big George fight Cooney, you can see a perfect demonstration of how he cut corners and manipulated Cooney (who was at least 240lb IIRC) around the ring and put him in position for a KO. That was talent, it wasn't a lucky punch.

You do realize that Foreman broke Briggs nose in that fight, right? This should be an indication that George still had the power!
Can you demonstrate some fights where Foreman was bad at cutting off the ring? Because as far as I am concerned, Foreman never took a backwards step. He was also never knocked down in his second career.

Briggs was a top contender. Why did Foreman fight him, if he was on a mission to cherry pick opponents?

(Post fight clarification)
"The HBO split screen showed Briggs jumping up and down with elation as George simply smiled. Enthusiastic booing rang out from the crowd and the normally verbose Jim Lampley could only utter, “Well, wow. [url]One of those nights, huh?”[/url] Shortly after, a chant of Bull****! Bull****! Bull****! rose from the audience."

So yeah, a pretty resounding NO from the audience speaks volumes. Through the course of the fight, Foreman landed more punches and had a higher percentage of his punches land than Briggs. Foreman landed 284 of his 488 punches for an incredible 58% success rate while Briggs only landed 45% of his punches, going 223 for 494. Foreman was also the aggressor for the entire fight. This is how I have it scored:

Shannon Briggs vs George Foreman 1997
(Heavyweight Championship fight)

Round 1: 10-10 Even
Round 2: 10-9 Foreman
Round 3: 10-9 Foreman
Round 4: 10-8 Foreman
Round 5: 10-8 Foreman
Round 6: 10-10 Even
Round 7: 10-9 Foreman
Round 8: 10-8 Foreman
Round 9: 10-9 Foreman
Round 10: 10-10 Even
Round 11: 10-9 Foreman
Round 12: 10-9 Foreman

Total Points:
120 Foreman vs 108 Briggs

Punches through Round 7
Foreman accuracy: 59%
Briggs accuracy: 43%

 

Alright thanks for the equanimity & trying to debate each point!
I will tell you where I disagree, why, & what I concede.
Although note that some of what you introduce I never contested nor implied differently-but it does not establish the highly improbable argument that a man who was calm, efficient, more judicious...When so dramatically slowed, lower work rate, unable to cut the ring effectively was nearly as good

This content is protected

terms as in his prime.
Just not doing as well against clearly greater opposition-Frazier & Norton before facing Ali-will pretty much prove he was significantly declined-as anyone would expect.

I ACKNOWLEDGE Briggs was a top ranked fighter-#7 by Ring magazine for the year they fought & Foreman retired, 1997.
Although the unjust victory likely elevated what he should have received, as you will admit.

However of course a man may choose to cherry-pick-as you can rea about him doing many places, on this forum, see him say it on camera, note how he would never face a top guy unless a title fight-based on how mobile or stationary they are. Defense. Whether their chin might be suspect...Read his Wikipedia page to see when he was STRIPPED of titles, including for refusing a rematch

Foreman got some suspect decisions too, but note that when EVERYONE of dozens of reviews on a respected website scoring fights makes it closer than you-the averaged rater giving Briggs 4 rounds clearly, over 20% agreeing with the verdict...
And you give him ZERO rounds...
And old Foreman being so popular you know there will be some indefensible outlier opinions...

You should admit that although you honestly do not see it, logically you almost certainly have some bias.
[url]https://eyeonthering.com/boxing/george-foreman-vs-shannon-briggs[/url]

By the way, of course Foreman still ha significant power, even for a modern HW, towards the end.
But as several years of somewhat lesser KOs show-even against guys he often landed squarely against like Briggs-it was reduced from its really high level of earlier in his comeback.

Surely (if I may call you Shirleyyou can see what almost everyone will admit...
He could not cut the ring against many.
Holyfield-who chose to trade against many, often to his detriment, & his massive jab when not deployed as a deceptive range finder often moved Evander OUT of range.
Stewart, who so badly damaged his face & could not be finished off.
Morrison, who fought very smart & even turned his back on Foreman & walked away...

Are some examples where clearly as savvy as Foreman was, he was a totally different beast compared to his early career mobility & related attributes.

Oh & i said Foreman did lure Moorer towards his right.
But nobody thinks Michael needed to be so clueless to stand there-especially with his suspect chin.
It was a smart move by George, but like how he fought in Africa, the good strategy *far more complex & skilled by Ali...
Depended on the other man's stupidity.

An example of agreeing is that Foreman deserved the win against Briggs.
Also that Foreman WAS decent at cutting Cooney off.
BUT "God is in the details".
Foreman was about at his comeback peak, young & more mobile compared to a bit shy of eight (8) years later vs. Briggs!

Also Cooney was a raging alcoholic who had not fought in near 2 & a 1/2 years.
Look how a comparatively tiny Spinks abused him-he also never learned how to clinch to buy time & try to save himself.

An memory does not serve-when they fought Cooney weighed 231.
At his height & just looking at him near Foreman, there was a significant difference in muscle-Cooney was inactive, dissipated & soft-like say Jess Willard in 1919.
But also with a drinking problem.

I love Old George.
But we must be realistic-he squeezed a lot out of his remaining potential.
But if he was really better or even as good as ever, his results would be markedly better.
As it was-unlike in the opinion of many re: fantasy prime for prime fights...

He would have had little chance against the likes of Lewis, Bowe who he ran from...
And even Tyson, despite the stylistic & size advantage.

 

Of course, but that's a given because people age lol. PRIME means BEST, so it's obviously first career wins out but Foreman had far superior nerves and ring IQ in his second career. He easily went the distance with Holyfield. Endurance was not a factor in his second career. This contradicts your theory that Foreman was unable to cut the ring effectively. Holyfield could not back George up, despite all the steroids. Lower work rate? He threw just as many punches as briggs, and they were more accurate. I'm slightly baffled as to why your perception is skewed when the facts are right in front of your face?

Obviously, as people age their performance goes down, but George beat someone half his age in his last fight.

Well he did beat Michael Moorer and he did predict the exact scenario that played out BEFORE the fight (that he would KO him in the later roumds). You do realize that Moorer beat Holyfield and was undefeated, right? The reason I asked you the question earlier is because Foremans win over Moorer was a very impressive showing. It was a tactical fight that George put a lot of thought into. He was not going to be the dope again! He easily could have put up more of a fight, but he lulled Moorer into the false belief that his overhand right was weak and inaccurate and that his strength had left him. Moorer truly believed that Foreman had nothing left in terms of punching power, because he never threw the overhand right until round 9. He absorbed all the punches that George dished out, easily, which is exactly how Foreman wanted the fight to go. If you watch the last round you will see Foreman turned his power game back on, and basically thrashed Moorer from the start. He was holding back the entire fight until the last round. Foreman trained extensively to execute this game plan, he didn't just "get lucky" (i was just explaining the details here, I understand you know George had this gameplan)

Okay but whats your point here?
LOL he backed up every single fighter you mentioned.... that contradicts your idea that he could not cut off the ring?
LOL you think Morrison intentionally turned his back on foreman? Watch the highlights and you will see he just gets turned around, it wasn't intentional. Foreman knocked Stewart down twice in the first or second round. He was very close a third knockout and if he could, he would have won the fight. And he did eventually win, but it was a brutal fight.

Of course I do.

Obviously, when people age their performance goes with it. However, you are trying to say that Foreman was "fading" in the final years of his second career, which is dead wrong as I already mentioned he schooled an opponent basically half his age in his last fight.

No

Obviously when people age they slow down. You are trying to tell us that Foreman faded, which is wrong. He maintained potent fitness up until his last fight.

No doubt, he was a completely different fighter in his second career.

But Cooney was off the bottle in his training for this fight. All of his training, he was sober the entire time. He was in excellent shape and very much ready for the fight.

I think he was better in his second career. He was never off his feet. Any other heavyweight would have gone down from those punches from Holyfield.

lol his results were markedly better. What do you think of a 58% accuracy from a guy that's almost 50 years old? Do you think that might take some fitness and talent to pull off, or did George just get "lucky"?

No, wrong again. anyone that can go the distance with Holyfield can go the distance with all those fighters you mentioned.

 

After they all order their meals George complains that his food is too hot so he refuses to eat it. All the others,who are eating the same as what George is,say "Hey,ours is n't too hot. Ours did n't have a cooler in the oven either"