1974 Ali vs 1997 Foreman

Right but George Foreman was still considered lineal champion from 1994 until 1997.

Again, you say he was cherry picking, but you never responded to my question? Why would he fight briggs if he was a highly rated contender? Why didn't Foreman just fight another bum? Also we both know that Foreman won that fight, effectively meaning he was at least in the top 6 of rated boxers at the time. (Contradicting your opinion that he slipped from the top 10 later in his career)

You are contradicting yourself. You keep saying that Foreman could not cut his opponents off anymore, yet you admit that he did an excellent job in cutting cooney off? Please clarify.

Did I mention Foreman broke Briggs nose?

You also have nothing to say about 58% accuracy in his last fight?
ps. He threw just as many punches as the guy half his age. But you still think he was "faded" LOL

 

I can't believe some think George would have any chance, Ali would crucify an old George

 

How about this. Rumble in the Jungle, only we transplant '74 Foreman's brain with the brain of '97 Foreman, and we give the young/old Foreman hybrid a couple months to get reacquainted to his younger body before the fight?

I think this one turns out differently.

 

Something like a fight Holmes Vs Ali.

 

No. This Ali of that fight was incapable of actually fighting. Foreman never stopped being capable of fighting -- watch his last fight. He looked great in it.

'74 Ali would run circles around '97 Foreman, but it would be nothing like the Holmes v. Ali travesty.

 

You effectively conceded most of my points by ironically cherry-picking what to debate further.
Such as that having Foreman winning by more points than the most extreme outlier we can find-& knowing that he not Briggs is so well loved & some of the more unbalanced assessments will be tainted with bias-effectively shows a lot of bias.
No way did Briggs not win rounds at all!

Your question was about why Foreman would cherry-pick & fight Briggs-the one point I admitted is that Briggs WAS rated within the top 10.
But everything else I wrote I though implied the obvious-saying that a major characteristic George looked for was someone without much mobility, & obviously Shannon the Cannon fit the bill.

We agree Foreman deserved the win.
However whether that means a guy is necessarily one place above him-rankings do not work that way, in any sport.
You can check-there is an often complex algorithm which gives credit to recent wins, weighting them by who you beat & when.
That is why Foreman was not in any top 10 lists at the END of his career.
EDIT: but in the May 1998 issue of ring magazine, I saw that the retired Foreman WAS listed as #6-for 1997, right ahead of Briggs!
Whether they both deserved to be ahead of Ikebuchi & Tua & Izon-I do not know.
Sometimes boxing ratings are not that scientific, they can be subjective, show favoritism...
But I really do not know; we would have to dig deep & make arguments to see what we feel was deserved then....

There was no cause to contest something that did not support what we are arguing about.
Anyone can break any nose, that like what percentage someone landed does not change what we are discussing.
The landing percentages often are debated, compubox is frequently disputed-but I did not research if I felt it was precise here, because we both think Foreman deserved the decision, just you by an extreme, untenable, one-sided decision.

Throwing as many punches, or about the same, as someone not much over half his age goes no distance whatsoever in showing a fighter is not faded!
Because it is basic logic that one must consider how good the opponent is.
What kind of volume he threw.
What Foreman could do when younger.

Even against Holyfield, who was much better, I'll bet the still older BUT significantly younger Foreman through more punches.
And still more during his first career, when almost exponentially faster.
Ali was surprised by Foreman's speed & ability to close down the ring---> even though it was yes small, but soft-bad for movers & fast maneuvering.

I thought it was very clear when I said that he was just shy of 8 full years younger against Cooney-& around his comeback peak-that Foreman could cut off the ring BETTER when just over 40 than nearly 49.
There was zero contradiction: I was speaking of how good Foreman was at cutting off the ring at the time we discussed & is in dispute, in his very last fight!

Against a truly shot, alcoholic Cooney-who was not even as good as Briggs was in 1997.

Saying Foreman was not faded compared to what he was when in his prime is a really radical, unsupportable position.
However much I like George AND credit him for his efforts & success against Briggs!

 

Leslie Nielson would have been proud of you for the Surely (Shirley) comment. Ha Ha.

 

Ha Ha, A great line. Good Post.

 

It might seem trivial but not to the tenor & good will of the debate: my "Shirley" comment was meant to be joking with you, not belittling.
I just cannot resist puns, & was referencing this comedy classic.

You are ahead of the game admitting bias, that is impressive.
Hopefully you can see your extreme scoring of his last fight involves some bias.

Oh & some differences we have seem merely definitional.
When you say Foreman was "better" you are citing his increased efficiency & intelligence which I readily agree with-but the word better means how good you are against the same or hypothetical opponents.
This just cannot compensate for his drastically reduced physical capacities, largely involving speed & reflexes.

Also "faded" does not just mean physical fitness-that is merely a single way anyone can decline.
And I hasten to stress I keep saying he was still very good-just as you admit less so than when younger.

Maybe you are RIGHT Cooney was sober in training for the fight-if so, he was still clearly not the fighter he once was.
I do not agree he seemed well conditioned. He looked soft, so much less muscle mass than Foreman, although the latter credited him among the 3 hardest punchers he faced (likely forgetting about sparring Liston when asked...)
But he was way reduced by then & against Spinks.
But Foreman did not need to do much ring-cutting when Cooney was right there to be hit.

Your previous posts all seemed to suggest that you thought Foreman was as good overall in his last fight-as anytime.
Now you say of course he was better in his prime-but I am also saying he was better early in his second career-after sufficiently warmed up-but no need to sell how good he was against Briggs as a stand alone, I agree.
Again, he was far more dominant against better opposition earlier, but very good at approaching 49 (let's be exact).

You are baffled because you do not understand what I have been saying.
Again, having about the work rate-& landing significantly better-than Briggs does not show that his normal workrate had slowed.
As I suggested compared to even facing Holyfield, who was much better...
Also Foreman's very real greater improvements mean nothing about whether he can cut of the ring well.
Any more than not backing Foreman up or hum trundling forward shows anything about his ability to cut off the ring.

When he punched Holyfield out of range, or against Stewart, like with Morrison (although we both would need to watch more than highlights to see if it is true that he did not turn his back, maybe others are wrong & you are right about that...)
But he manifestly could not execute the strategies of his younger self since he was so dramatically slower.
He would have finished off all of those guys if they fought the same...Although he could have gassed against Evander, but likely George gets him first, especially how the former loved to go to war...

Against Moorer he DID have a great strategy.
But I am saying two things: one that it necessitated Moorer being as dumb as Foreman vs. Ali.
And Moorer did not need to be brilliant such as surprise superb lead right hands, absorbing huge punishment & deflecting & rolling with much of it (which he did not have either ability to), great rope-a-dope...
He just needed to NOT do what his corner must have told him many times & any savvy boxer would-& Teddy Atlas screamed at him soon before the KO...
Most would & should know that old George was playing possum, & he would not have suddenly lost his great power-& that was the one way he might well win, by standing in front of him.

I will give you this:looking it up, it seems Foreman threw a few more punches even against Briggs than Holyfield.
This must be in part because Briggs was easier to hit-but Foreman although slowly getting slower for years...Still had a decent workrate. For a HW slugger of course...

I think MOST HWs would be off their feet with how they were assaulted by Holyfield-not all, but the vast majority.

But besides Briggs not being as good as the obvious, Frazier & Norton + Holyfield...
The results of 58% connect rate do NOT equal knocking guys out early in one-sided fights.
Not that I was denigrating his very impressive performance!

Going the distance against Holyfield does not show he likely could against bigger more devastating punchers-especially when getting even older.
But he might-although a mercy stoppage/TKO seems most likely by then...

It seemed until now that you were saying Foreman lost nothing by his final fight.
Now it seems you agree that he was easily better in his prime.
But I am also saying he was not as good by the time he fought Briggs as earlier in his comeback-after some tune up fights-that is natural also.

Fading does NOT just mean losing steam or endurance.
I meant what my other language & comments showed: he was not as good later due to physical limitations.
I kept saying that he was still very good, just his ability ha faded-even as he got more efficient in the ways we both describe.

Sure Foreman's endurance was improved-partly due to expending less energy, throwing less, moving much slower, & better nerves.
But then you like this to being able to cut off the ring-degree of stamina does not show if anyone can cut off the ring well or not, they are two distinct things.

Holyfield not backing Foreman up-although he clinched to stay upright-is uncontested, & unrelated to the points we are disputing.
You are baffled in some cases because you do not understand what I am saying.
Again, lower work rate never referred to work rate relative to Briggs.
I related it to his own activity, even comparing it to when he fought Holyfield.

You know Foreman declined later, but your words showed me otherwise until now.
I AGREE he was impressive against Moorer.
Held back his overhand right? OK, good point.
But also Foreman was too slow to win without that savvy path to victory.
Although clever, it also depended on a fighter being foolish-when all the *evidence* of his previous fights showed his savvy, & any smart fighter should have known better/known George would be playing possum & was still a danger anytime.

In fact Atlas just had warned him before the KO-doubtless told him many times in the corner that he just needed to avoid a flush bolb from Foreman, box...Two things can be true: like Ali was brilliant in Zaire, but needed either Foreman fighting a stupid, exhausting manner, &/or frequent clinching & pulling George down.
But in the case of Moorer he did not need a brilliant lead right/taunt/deflect & roll with punishment/rope-a-dope performance.
As almost everyone notes, he needed not to be complacent or stupid in how he exchanged.

Backing up fighters is NOT cutting off the ring.
When you cannot get to someone because you are too slow to catch up after they move, you punch them out of range or something else, that is an inability to cut off the ring. Not due to lack of knowledge then, but lack of physical ability.
But I can check the Morisson example, since you seem to be saying the observation that Tommy Gunn turned his back is mistaken.
However just highlights might not cover what folks talk about...

The Alex Stewart fight is a great example of Foreman doing well, & his performance also faded later in the fight.
In this Eye on the Ring analyses, almost half of the raters said the decision was wrong.
They gave Stewart all of the second half of the fight, except of course round 8.
Now I do not know who deserved the decision, but given Foreman's popularity & the gate attraction he provided, he may well have gotten some favoritism. Just the repeated low blows that lost him a point in the last round could have mae it a draw or loss for him...

But I neither ever watched the whole fight, nor consider myself a very good scorer.
However I & most everyone am pretty sure that a younger Foreman would have been able to finish off Stewart when he was in trouble, or at least later cut the ring on him & do so.

Look please understand that I was not mocking you with this Shirley joke & reference. I include the whole scene for fun.
Much can be lost in translation, no vocal intonations...
Likewise I cannot tell if you are being mean or mocking when you disagree by using "lol" repeatedly-perhaps because you felt belittled. No I just love puns & was not taking a shot at you!

If Cooney was sober in training, I accept the correction.
However, he was not sharp, & looked soft & like he lost muscle.
Look at him next to Foreman: both could hit like the devil, but Foreman although heavy was muscular, much bigger, Cooney relatively weak & unhoned.
However Foreman named him among the top 3 punchers he faced (although if he thought of it likely would have named Liston...)

Foreman was not nearly as good in his second career, I think you meant that he was fighting smarter & closer to his potential.
However that could not compensate for his physical decline.
This is likely just a semantic difference, not in intent-but "better" if unqualified, that means that he would do better in absolute terms under neutral conditions...

I do not know why you say his (excellent!) performance against Briggs means he was better.
Again, he beat almost indisputably better fighters in brief & devastating fashion, & had 37 KOs in 40 fights before facing Ali.

I do not agree that ANY fighter would go down against Holyfield's assault-but I agree that MOST even modern HWs would!

 

George would lose an embarassing UD and look even worse then he did against Stewart.

His post-fight face would be used to scare terrorists during interrogations.