George Foreman (1991) -vs- David Tua (1998)…

Which would put it around the vicinity 8-4 or 9-3 Foreman. EOTR has it 8-4 i think.

 

Tua is very overrated. This is a straightforward, wide decision win for Foreman.

Let's not forget that Tua had, in early '98, been fighting on competitive terms with Jeff Wooden to eke out an MD win. Other than that, he was tallying up early knock outs over C/D class opposition.

Tua did beat Rahman by the end of '98, but he'd been comprehensively outboxed up to the point at which he caught Rahman late in round 9 (with the Ref making a somewhat cautious decision to stop the bout in round 10).

Tua relying on his power to dig him out of a hole is something he had to do a few times during his career, if I recall. If he was fighting someone with something about them and couldn't bowl them over, then Tua was as apt to lose a decision as win one - and, at the higher levels, he lost comfortably.

Against Foreman of '91, he'd not only be outboxed, but his equalizer would also be neutralized.

This is an easy bet to take and weigh-in heavy on.

 

Calling someone a hater because they state what they believe to be fact is juvenile .. George doesn't trigger me . I've always liked him, both incarnations actually .. it's the romanticized revisionism that I comment on .. and it's the folks that do the romanticizing that react. I deeply enjoyed George's comeback, applaud his gutsy showing vs Evander, was impressed with the shots he took from B level fighter but A level puncher Morrison and thrilled to his win over Moorer ... most of all I'm glad he never mismatched himself because seeing him go out like Ngannau vs AJ by any of the big time top level punchers he avoided would have really hurt his legacy and brand.

George managed and promoted himself for the most part, carefully selected who he would fight, managed risk / reward brilliantly , went from oddity to commodity by flattening a brilliantly selected inactive, china chinned Cooney, became a feel good star when losing the fight but winning the night vs Evander and for the years that followed had his pick to fight anyone but George was never there to prove he was the best fighter, he was there to manage risk and make the most money .. before Holyfield his biggest name opponent was a non-fighter in Cooney or alphabet challenge Rodrigues who had no significant victories.. After Holyfield he fought a complete non-entity in Ellis, a brides maid in Stewart (and almost lost), the plodding Coetzer and the soft chinned Morrison, by far the best fighter he fought in his entire comeback aside from Holyfield and lost.

The George Foreman comeback was a brilliant glorified exhibition show .. to his credit he did decent most of the time against the opposition he faced but no matter who he fought on air you could feel and hear whatever contender was doing commentary salvage at the thought of fighting him be it Bowe, Lewis, anyone ... as far as his highly competitive performance against Holyfield, please show me where the demand for a rematch was cause I remember most people sighing with relief he left the ring standing . I'd say without question Holmes gave Evander a more competitive fight.

 

To the point.

I always and still like Foreman, a true American dream come thru but his comeback is all smoke and mirrors, he even struggled with glass chinned hand picked opponents until he finally lucked out vs Moorer and then getting stripped fighting while refusing to meet the Ghost of Tony Tucker or re matching C level Schulz.

 

Yeah, did not fight Tua.....Mercer.......Ruddock.......Bonecrusher.......Tucker........Bruno.........Golata......McCall.......Holmes...Williams...did fight Tommy Chin and lost..........Comeback Foreman wins every Fantasy match on Classic but only fought three fighters with a pulse in his comeback and lost twice out of three.

 

He does trigger you. Every single Foreman thread you post in you go out of your way to remind people you think he's "incredibly overrated". You've done this more than 20x over several years in numerous threads. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are clearly triggered by the boxer and I've never seen you behave this way for any other boxer. You're biased.

Even in this reply all you've posted are backhanded compliments. People aren't stupid and they will notice when you have a track record of talking a certain way for a given subject.

The juvenile thing is to pretend that any observations made about you is someone just imagining things. The last time I pointed this out to you, you got angry, called me a "turd" and wrote a bunch of expletives. What a mature and level-headed way to prove you're not biased.

At the end of the day, as I said, you are entitled to your opinion and I am free to think that you're biased. I really don't care if you think Foreman was carefully managed or if you think Tua would beat him. That's not even my issue. It's honestly funny how many people get triggered by Foreman, are unable to give him an honest compliment, and then pretend they're not biased when they have an extensive 3-4-5+ year post history of picking against him in numerous threads.

 

He actually performed solidly along the way .. he beat what was left of a much smaller blown up light heavy gone cruiser then faded Qwai at heavyweight and despite getting teed off on for the first few rounds stopped him on sheer size with Qwai quitting .. same w Cooper .. the point is is you look at who he fought he fought no one but cherry picked guys... Holyfield , a terrific fighter was a small heavyweight , very tough and good but not a huge puncher and at the time 208 pounds ... before Holyfield pretty much no one .. after Holyfield, practically no one ... then in a historic fight after losing every minute of every round he catches Moorer, always a weak chin at heavy, and the world celebrated a great, feel good win ... all to his credit but that's what the second carer was about, how an older fighter whose first career ended on a sour note found redemption .. all the other nonsense about how terrific he was is half baked. George showed grit, strength, a morphed persona that captured the imagination of many which is why he went on to make a zillion dollars as a pitchman , none of which he wold have made had he been laid out and embarrassed which he thankfully didn't ..

 

No, nonfactual responses like yours which surgically and intentionally ignore the content of a post and chose to cherry pick fragments to spin a debate rather than defend your own point is the issue. Here is my response to you:

George fought about thirty three times in his comeback .. now read slowly as reading comprehension is clearly a challenge for you ..

In his comeback career, who were his signature wins prior to Holyfield ? Just name the opponents

Who were his signature wins between Holyfield and Moorer ?

Based on the quality of opposition , how do you rate him, not as a old guy doing well but straight up ?

Just the facts .. again, read slowly and answer directly so we can see factual basis for your opinion. No finger point or deflections. Good luck.

 

Holmes scored more points than Foreman against Holyfield cause Foreman was trying to KO Holyfield whereas Holmes was actually trying to win the decision. Foreman came closer to acheiving his goal than Holmes did of acheiving his.

Foremans title opponents were all undefeated or 1 loss as were Ellis and Morrison in between the Holyfield and Moorer fights. Champs have fought worse competition without losing their belt. When you dogwalk Frazier and Norton before fighting Ali you are beyond being criticized for fighting weak opponents IMHO even if you were right. Foreman fought the 3rd and 4th best HWs of that era at a time Lennox Lewis was not yet viewed as the best. I don't see a problem here.

 

I didn't ignore or cherry pick anything. You literally say Foreman is overrated dozens of times in dozens of threads and have picked against him multiple times lol.

Or this wonderful thread where you decided to ask people who they thought were "the most overrated". The very first boxer you mention?

So you CLEARLY have a pattern of getting triggered by Foreman. Literally nobody is pointing a gun at your head telling you to type this. Like I said, I really do not care if you don't like the boxer or pick against him, but you are apparently incapable of being honest with the fact you're biased. This goes all the way back to 2011 by the way and I didn't even need to dig deep. Denial won't change what is apparent and obvious to everyone looking at your posts.

His signature win in the 90's was Moorer, the fight where he won the title. This is a stupid question. It's like asking what was Tyson's signature win before he fought Berbick, or Ali before he fought Liston. Your "signature win" is the biggest win of your career.

How do I rate 90's Foreman assuming I ignore what he did in the 70's? Probably top 35-40 or so in terms of career. Were you expecting me to say he was some legendary ATG or something?

This is hilarious because all you're doing is showing how biased you are again. You need to narrowly move the timeline around ignoring the 70's, ignoring the Moorer fight, and then asking what his signature win was as he's shaking off the ring rust from a 10 year layoff. It doesn't make any sense.

Now that I'm done dismantling this ridiculous post, do you want to get back to Foreman vs Tua...? Please explain to me how Tua wins this one.

 

Maybe you should read the thread before commingling some many variables that are irrelevant to the debate.

 

What's interesting is you're actually kinda proud of yourself for putting together such gibberish without answering a direct question. You're clearly not very bright but I'm sure deep down you know that too . Enjoy.

 

Just in case you think you've formed anything like an argument with this^... ...you haven't.