Foremans win over moorer

Yep, you're right. It's one of those myths which has constantly been perpetuated by people who don't watch boxing matches. The Chavez/Taylor fight is another one. If you listened to some people, you'd think Chavez just took punches until the 12th round when he landed a single good shot. Froch/Taylor is another. How many people argue that it was a shut out in favour of Taylor?

Foreman was always in the fight because Moorer wasn't hard to hit. The difference was activity.

 

Nope, I have a lot of respect for you and how you look at fighters and styles. Just a general response to things like:

Because apparently, none of the other punches Foreman landed all through that fight, or even in that same round meant anything.

The way some people talk about it, you'd think Foreman didn't land a single significant punch until the KO blow.

 

Blame Legendary Nights.

 

I'll gladly take that mis-conception over the 'Taylor won every round apart from the last one' against JCC Sr. :verysad

(And thankyou.)

 

There are big wins in boxing. Clay over Liston being one of them. Duran over Leonard, another.

Then there are titanic triumphs, like Foreman over Moorer, like Leonard over Hagler, and like Ali over Foreman. An incredible night for the underdogs, not just in boxing, but in sporting history it was :happy

 

I am not sure what planet you are from, worst string of weird conclusions I've read.

* 1. Loses to Holyfield

He went life and death at 43 with Ring Magazines 3rd rated heavyweight of all times.

* 2. Loses to Morrison

The loss to Morrison was more like this. One of the toughest heavyweights of his era (Tommy) understood he could not trade with Foreman and put his running shoes on. Tommy morrison has never boxed like this before or after that. You need to realize why Tommy did this.

3. After being outboxed by former LHW Michael Moorer, Foreman lands a lucky shot in the 10th and KO's Moorer.

Foreman because of his size and speed issues at this age, would always have problems with movable opponents. If you look through the fight again, it is quite clear Foreman was working on getting Moorer to move to his right the whole fight. To set him up for the right. It might have failed, but you have to realize why it didn't. He never gave up on his plan.

4. A badly faded Foreman needs a SD robbery against Eurobum Axel Schulz. Most observers had this at least 116-114 for Schulz.

I saw the fight, it was pretty even, Foreman slightly ahead. I guess you have heard the term style makes fights? Well, bad matchup for Foreman. Axel Schulz was a typical german boxer, movable with a good guard and did never get into slugfests.

5. The IBF installs Schulz as mandatory challenger after the scandalous fight. Foreman drops his IBF belt and fights some bum for the WBU belt.

Don't know the reasons for this...

6. Foreman loses a SD to Shannon Briggs.

This was disputable loss the way I see it. And come on, he pushed Briggs to brink at 47??? And you don't give him credit for that? Are you nuts?
Briggs some 10 years later did put up a good effort with Klitchko when he himself was washed up?

I think your ideas are just weird.

 

LOL, no he was not inactive. He had been on a long comeback. DERP DERP! :rofl

 

Second best HW comeback in history imo.

 

:happy

 

i never said he was inactive for 10 years prior to the moorer fight, its evident to anyone with a brain that he wasnt

BUT

he was inactive for 10 years, i think you need to brush up on your boxing, boxrec will help you do this, your lucky it was me you said that to, im one of the nicer and better boxing historians.

 

LOLOLOLOLOL

You said he was inactive 10 years before the Moorer fight. If you read that statement through my eyes and other eyes, it would come off like he went into that fight with a 10 year layoff. That's how I read it because that's how it sounded.

The correct thing to say would have been, "it's impressive because he was inactive for 10 years and mounted a comeback later".

Me brush up on boxing? LOL. I called your post out because it seemed like you were the one misinformed. I've known about the whole Moorer-Foreman story since I was in high school. Which was nearly a decade ago.

 

if you know the foreman moorer story how come you would jump to such a ridiculous point in thinking that foreman was 10 years inactive then got a title shot, its plain to see what i wrote and what you have, im not going off at you some people know boxing less than others and make mistakes, thats why if you brush up on your facts you wont make the same mistake, its either that or you are not a native speaker of english and are getting confused by the way i wrote that. dont use a google translator they always change words/grammar/structure of paragraphs

 

I never thought it was that great considering that Moorer was a former light heavyweight who did not have a great chin, and Foreman had 2 other chances to win a title against Holyfield and Morrison and lost. I figured given all these chances, he could land a clean punch against Moorer, who did not give angles.

 

The acomplishment was very impresive. The proformance by Foreman was not the best though.

 

Moorer lost because he is a dummy who wouldnt follow Teddy's instructions.