George Foreman from the 90s vs. Zhang Zhilei.

Barely know is the same as being known by over a billion people, apparently.

 

Outside of China nobody would recognise him if he popped up in their soup.

Like I said, when he wins the lineal title be sure to come back and let me know.

 

Michael Moorer is the same thing as Tyson Fury, apparently.

 

That's an entirely different argument.

Your boy is 40 years old and hasn't even had a title shot. He beat Joe Joyce. So what? Joe Joyce is the biggest fraud in the division with a record padded by tomato cans and is dining out on one decent win against Jo Parker who is in decline.

But you stick to your guns old mate. We'll talk when Zhang wins a legitimate belt.

Over and out.

 

Fancy ass way of pretending Joyce on his worst day wouldn’t steam roll Moorer.

 

Stop embarrassing yourself with this nonsense. Joyce isn't fit to get in the same ring as Moorer. Moorer was a two division world champion. Joyce is a 37 year old almost nobody who was just stopped by a 40 year old almost nobody.

But Joyce will con the gullible with his padded record of beating up on bums.

 

The various arguments put forward are not very compelling. Foreman hadn't lost to Morrison at the time Bowe beat Holyfield and Lewis was awarded a belt so initially would not have factored in.

Also fighting and beating top contenders would have given Foreman a title shot earlier and made him more money. It doesn't make any sense for Foreman to have avoided guys like Ruddock Witherspoon etc who were highly ranked unless he didn't think he could beat them.

If Foreman had beaten say Ruddock and Witherspoon in 1989 it would have put enormous pressure on Mike Tyson to fight him. It wouldn't have been possible to dismiss him as a serious opponent.

 

Also while Moorer was technically a champion and deserves some respect for that he had an extremely padded record and avoided virtually every top heavyweight of his day aside from Holyfield who dropped him in both fights and knocked him out in the rematch. Ability wise I don't think its unreasonable to question whether he was better than Joyce despite having a better top win. He's basically a one hit wonder.

 

I really don't think you are capable of grasping the arguments or forming useful counterarguments.

Not only do you seem to think Foreman could have simply made any fight he wanted, but you also suggest that, a) Foreman avoided fighters just because matches with those fighters didn't happen and, b) the only sensible explanation for why he avoided these fighters is that Foreman did not think he could beat them.

I do hope you can appreciate the ironic mirth in you declaring "the various arguments put forward are not very compelling" only for you to go on and immediately create your completely fictional argument. I'd say with confidence that factual history is more compelling than the crass, sweeping statements derived from your imagination.

Moreover, it appears you are unable to stay on point. What does 1989, Witherspoon or Ruddock have to do with Foreman not fighting Bowe or Lewis?

 

Foreman was a former undisputed heavyweight champion with wins over Frazier and Ken Norton
He was an Olympic gold medalist
He was a black American in an era when many black Americans still followed boxing to some degree. These sort of things give him an ENORMOUS advantage in terms of making fights.

As far as fights not getting made sure its possible a fight could fail to come to fruition through no fault of Foreman but by and large Foreman seems to have shown little interest in facing formidable opposition. If he's not trying to make fights with certain guys I think we can make reasonable conclusions.

As far as factual history goes you are not putting together facts as to why various fights didn't happen. We know he didn't fight various guys the question is why.

 

Anyway supposing Foreman is somehow conned into taking the fight I pick Zhang by ud.

 

What you raise here is in places absurd but, in any case, somewhat irrelevant, given the fact that Foreman's return was largely met with ridicule. It took close to three years and twenty bouts during the late '80s for Foreman to even begin being taken seriously. His '70s exploits lent very little credence to the perception of his comeback and his prospects for success, after being 10 years absent from the sport.

Once again, you imagine something which contradicts the actual history.

Reasonable conclusions by what standard? You cannot evidence the claims you are making about Foreman and have not even provided a rationale, beyond certain fights you deem as important for some reason, having not taken place.

That is the beginning and the end of your case. Pitiful.

It has been demonstrated during this thread, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Foreman was looking for a bout with Tyson. Added to this is the historical fact that Foreman did fight Holyfield, that Lewis and Bowe only became relevant in late '92 and that Foreman did retire after his loss to Morrison in June '93.

Thus, related to these facts is the reasonable explanation and timeline provided to you as to why there was only a narrow window of opportunity for Foreman to fight either Bowe or Lewis and how the choices made by the respective camps of both of those fighters further reduced the chances of these bouts coming off.

So facts have been put together to explain why certain fights didn't happen. It is just that, as I mentioned pages back, you have a comprehension issue, which you seem to compensate for with unfounded claims - a practice you have clearly convinced yourself is sound and judicious, when it is anything but...