Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by JC Boxing, Apr 1, 2019.
Gans vs McGovern looks strange to me. I don't like talking about fixes though.
Said it once and I'll say it again... Max threw the fight again Braddock on purpose, either being paid to do so or simply didn't feel like trying that night. Take your pick.
Foreman carried Morrison?? Get real! Morrison completely outboxed Foreman. He fought exactly like Crawford Grimsley, the only difference was that he actually threw punches and had power to keep Foreman honest. Exactly how did Foreman fight any differently than he ever did at this point in his career? He trudged forward in slow motion hoping to land one big bomb. Had he beaten Morrison it would have been the best fighter he had beaten in almost two decades. Nothing in Foreman's performances indicates he threw that fight.
Hate to break it to you but Foreman's show went into production before the Morrison fight. It started airing after the Morrison fight and was cancelled a few months later BEFORE he fought Moorer. His opportunities and career were drying up particularly in light of the fact that he got outboxed by a glass jawed fighter known for having bad stamina and modest skills amid calls for him to retire for his own safety. Not to mention he was nearly fired from HBO for on air comments that Dan Duva had fixed the Moorer-Holyfield fight. Almost everyone thought his days in the ring were over and it was his days in the ring as the fat ageless wonder that got him those ads.
In 1994 Foreman's endorsement deals, TOTAL, brought him 5mil for the year and prior to Moorer those numbers were falling fast. It was later revealed that in 1995 he was bringing in about 5mil a month and that number was climbing rapidly as the year progressed. The numbers dont lie. After he won the title he was one of the highest paid athletes and THE highest paid boxer in terms of endorsements for several years running. The only boxer who came close was Tyson in terms of total income but Tyson had ZERO endorsement deals and was the only fighter at that time who could generate that kind of revenue solely from fighting. Whereas Foreman had ZERO fights for over a year after his fixed bout with Axel Schulz. Foreman then got stripped for refusing to give him a rematch. What kind of **** is that. He refused to rematch the guy he had bribed to get rated so he could defend against him and then bribed the judges so he could actually beat. Because THAT guy, the guy who was so bad he had to bribe EVERYONE just to be able to fight him and win, was too threatening an opponent... His next fight, over a year later was against Crawford Grimsley who nobody had ever heard of. The whole point was to match Foreman easy in order to keep him winning and in the spotlight. Foreman made $1mil for fighting Moorer. He paid $250,000 out of his own pocket (in addition to $100,000 paid by Arum) to get Schulz ranked to fight (and who knows how much they paid the judges who voted for Foreman after he was outboxed in that fight) for a purse of $10mil. And people think this was a one time thing but Arum and Ron Weathers were bribing people throughout Foreman's comeback as testified in the IBF case back in 2000. Nobody ever mentions the $10,000 bribe that was paid in 1992 to get Botha ranked for a proposed Foreman fight that fell through. Even the way Foreman got his title shot was shady. It had been almost two years since he won a fight, a year and a half since he had fought and lost, unranked by the WBA and initially it was unsanctioned only to be sanctioned after a lawsuit a payoff similar to the size of the Scholz payoff. They were desperate to get this fight and make Foreman champion. Because they all stood to make a massive fortune off the endorsements and because in a few short months Tyson was being released from prison and Arum made no secret that he wanted to match Foreman and Tyson in a huge cashout fight for one of them. The only problem was Foreman made it clear he wouldnt fight Tyson if King was involved thereby creating an arbitrary roadblock to the fight so plan B was to get as much money as they could from other avenues because nobody was bringing the kind of Tyson money to the sport outside of Tyson but endorsements were.
After the Moorer fight George, whose earning potential would have been hurt had he lost yet again, suddenly finds himself on the talk show circuit, hosting SNL, an action figure of him was released and the New York Times published an article a few days after the Moorer fight about how lucrative Foreman's name now was for endorsement deals. It wasnt the only newspaper to make note of this. Another quoted Lloyd Kolmer who ran a New York PR firm that got celebrities endorsement deals and appearance fees talking about how Foreman's stock just went way up. Not because he was some great boxer or threat to the division but because he was now endorsement gold. Immediately after Foreman beat Moorer Ron Borges published an article in the Boston Globe detailing the over 200 endorsement offers that flooded into Foreman's publicists office immediately after the fight, including one for $100,000 just to sit in the audience at a fight. In the immediate aftermath of the Moorer fight Foreman made $10mil on appearances alone. Bob Arum said it was the biggest interest/reception in a boxer since Ali beat Foreman 2 decades earlier.
Finally, and most importantly, Foreman did not have the endorsement deal for the George Foreman Grill before he fought Moorer. The company which owned the grill was originally in talks with Hulk Hogan for the endorsement deal. When Foreman won the Moorer fight he got offered the deal. He signed the deal and while nobody could have predicted it would have taken off like it did given its infomercial roots that proved one of the most lucrative endorsement deals in history, netting him over $200mil after they stopped paying him a monthly royalty and simply bought his name for a lump sum of over $130mil.
So yeah, where there is smoke there is fire. A guy who has a history of shady dealings behind the scenes and Im not supposed to look sideways at his improbably and suspicious looking career defining win?
Lol...The GF fanclub will be on your tail man !!
All good ...... Except for the fact that the film shows a direct hit with ample power on a chinny fighter's chin in the 10th round of a fight which chinny fighter was apparently fighting well enough up to that point that it sure looked like he was trying to win.
And the KO punch actually came just 2 seconds after a good (but not as accurate right hand) had already stunned Moorer.
In previous fights, Moorer had been knocked down by blown-up journeyman Everett Martin. Down twice against Bert Cooper.
A poor version of Holyfield had him down with an average right to the head and a glancing left.
It was an improbable win, an upset. But there have been lots of them in boxing history. A weak champion like Moorer, a blown up light-heavy with a weak chin, managed to lose to an old man who was a very strong heavyweight and could punch. It's really not hard to believe. Moorer was rated as better than Foreman but these things happen. Some fighters just aren't durable.
The next time Moorer fought Holyfield, he was down five times. He really didn't have a good chin at all.
But, like you say, "people will believe what they want to believe".
You want to believe the fight was fixed.
Also, Tommy Morrison was not good.
The right hand that “knocked out” Moorer looked like it was thrown in slow motion and Moorer stood right in front of him to let it land. Nevermind that Moorer had eaten several better shots that night without blinking.
Morrison may not have been good but, again, he would have been the best fighter at that point in time that Foreman had beaten in nearly two decades. Nevermind that it wasnt just that Morrison beat him but how he beat him. He beat him in a way that exposed old Foreman as what he was, a plodding, one dimensional, huffing and puffing fighter easily confused by even a little movement and content to wait and wait and wait for one punch. That was fine and dandy for tomato cans and guys that outboxed him before judges paid to render a verdict in Foremans favor but it showed that when Foreman went into a fight against a glass jawed fighter with bad stamina and didnt pay anyone off he couldnt win. And just saying that Moorer had a week chin does nothing to refute all of the other garbage Foreman was taking part in behind the scenes to extend his career and bilk rubes into believing he was thos aging but still towering destroyer. This crap is 25 years old. I lived through it in real time and studied it after the fact. Nothing now, 2019, is going to change my mind that the fight and circumstances around it were shady. Theres a hell of a lot more evidence that Moorer was fixed than that Foreman threw Morrison. The only argument in favor of that is “I have a hard on for Foreman and think he was unbeatable so I cant admit he lost to Morrison.” What would the motivation have been for Foreman to throw that fight? It hurt his earning potential and the odds opened and closed so narrow that there was no reason to assume a major betting coup would or did take place. The amount of money you would have had to bet on that fight to earn enough to make a fix worth it would have been prohibitive. Foreman was the house fighter. There was literally no reason to fix the fight. In fact Morrison was specifically chosen because he was the least risk/highest reward opponent. It was felt that his glass jaw and poor stamina would play right into Foremans hands. They knew Cayton wasnt going to let that fight be fixed and likely didnt think they needed to. Morrison would likely tire after a few rounds and get stopped. They never figured on him moving and boxing like he did or being able to do it for 12 rounds. As a result Foreman barely won a round. No fix just exposing the circus that got Foreman to that point.
I never believed in fixes. I feel it goes against the sport. If we think fixes are possible, then, if we don't get our way or a decision goes to the other fighter (than we thought) then we say it was a fix. Not too practical
I've mentioned this before but, tho not a fix, it, IMO, was a gimme.
Ali, clearly past prime? Skills and experience still there however. Fighting a 7-0-1 fighter with little pro experience.
Prior to this could Ali not have let another of the 'bums' on his late 70's resume pull off the same result?
IMO let the his mantle (temporarily) fall to a young, yet with some talent, man who, (difficult to say), was not ready for the limelight. Ali, knowing this and knowing that this kid would give him an immediate rematch for $$$ 'phoned in' his effort that night only to cop the HW championship for a 3rd time.
IMO Ali was the greatest HW of all time but, in retrospect, he orchestrated his second career and this fight solidifies my opinion on this.
Sidebar: Patterson's effort against Ellis in Stockholm in 68 is a far more impressive effort to regain the title for the 3rd time, tho he shouldn't have been passive in many rounds after turning Jimmy's face into a 'bloody pulpy mess' by the end.
Floyd would have never 'milked' his career like Ali did.
The stoppage in Benitez v Leonard was definitely dodgy
My impression of this fight is that Ali underestimated Spinks. He thought if he roped-a-doped him for awhile Spinks would lose steam and then be easy pickings. But Spinks was extremely well trained and conditioned. His team gave him the plan of pounding Ali arms and it was effective. Ali's "strategy" wasn't working and at the end of the fight he became aggressive and let his hands go. The last round in particular was very exciting. It didn't seem to me that Ali was purposely letting Spinks win - he was basically using the same strategy he used with Lyle and this time it didn't work.
You clearly did not see Moorer's somewhat china chin smashed by Foreman's finale. And as you rightly point out Foreman was the one covering a battering post fight, that he had taken from Moorer for ten rounds.
If this fight was fixed, it was the Laurel and Hardy of fixed fights, as neither had a clue how to go about doing it!
They fooled you didnt they?
I've had a few misgivings over Bruno-McCall. Pains me to say that, as Bruno was my first sporting hero as a child and one of the reasons I became a fan of the sport. But McCall's performance was very odd - he looked totally uninterested for about eight rounds. He huffed and puffed a little late on, and tried to save a bit of face, but even then he never really found any real quality or rhythm. Yet even that was enough to give Bruno a few hairy moments and have him hanging on a little near the end.
McCall was a temperamental performer at the best of times anyway, and as we all know he wasn't the most sound minded of people. But even allowing for that, the way he seemed willing to just let the WBC belt slip away with such an abject performance is puzzling. It's not as if Bruno had to produce anything particularly special to pile up the points; jab, grab, jab, grab with the occasional right over the top (but never any punches in bunches) was pretty much the sum of it. The obvious reason which has been suggested already is that McCall was being lined up as Tyson's opponent for his proposed title bid in early '96, but King knew that a still-rusty Tyson might not look a million dollars against an iron-chinned, unhinged guy like McCall who wouldn't be intimidated and might put a spanner in the works by making Tyson look meek, laboured or, shock horror, maybe even beat him.
Lo and behold, Bruno's shot at McCall (which he didn't really deserve at that point) came with the stipulation that, if he won, he had to face Tyson as his first defence. I've long since wondered if McCall was maybe, erm, shall we say 'instructed' to clown that one away and was paid handsomely for his troubles. Bruno was the perfect guy for Tyson to face in his big world title comeback and, much as I love him, I have some doubts about whether the Bruno of 1996 could really have beaten a focussed, motivated McCall. Hopefully it was just a case of McCall's demons getting the better of him, and there's never been any serious evidence that McCall tanked....But for whatever reason, I can just never get that niggling doubt out of my mind.
McCall desperately tried to stop Bruno late though and sadly that was the story of McCalls career. He often fell far behind on points by doing too little only to wake up late and try to come on. I think part of your thesis is correct though, just not for this fight. The Seldon-Tucker fight was absolutely put together to give Tyson an easy route to a belt. Bruno-McCall was probably partly Kings machinations and partly just fortuitous. Had McCall won he would have lost to Tyson but he would have provided more rounds which would have been a good thing. But the best McCall was always unreliable.
It was a short textbook right hand landed on the chin with considerably follow-through.
People who know boxing know that's a good punch. Not the spectacular cartoon punch from a mile out that casual fans might be looking for. But people who understand punching can see how hard that punch was.
Moorer's chin couldn't take that punch at that point in the fight. You think he took better shots earlier in the fight, maybe, maybe not. But each punch taken takes something out of a fighter, and when the fighter is a blown-up light-heavy with a mediocre chin to start with he's going to get very depleted and knocked out.
I lived through the era too and I knew Foreman was up for the fight and stood a decent chance when he weighed in at 250, lighter than he'd been for several years.
It wasn't a huge surprise when he knocked Moorer out.