George Foreman's comeback - fraud or for real?

As for the critiscisms, boxers are in boxing to make money, public relations play a part of this, so the 'nice guy' image may partly have been this who knows, maybe George found peace, he was a priest after all

 

He certainly wasn't the best in the 90s thats for sure, but he proved himself a solid top10, he grabbed the Heavyweight championship way past his prime, he was allot worse in 1995 than he was in 1991 against Holyfield.

He beat some solid opposition but not great opposition and for a the seniors tour thats impressive

Maybe we should start a thread - kings of the senior tour (35-40 PLUS crowd)

 

Considering he hung in there with Holyfield (as much as i think he never looked like he had a chance to win the fight, before or during the battle), you can't possibly call him a fraud, especially after knocking out Moorer.

What he did considering his age is a tremendous accomplishment that has never been achieved in 100 years of boxing.


However, if you don't look at age or his first reign, but just look at him as a fighter, then his career between 87 and 97 was good but nothing that special. He struggled badly and arguably lost to mediocre fighters like Schulz, Stewart and Savarese. Because he went the distance, a lot of people think he gave Holyfield a tough fight, but outside of a few moments, it was a one-sided battering.

Morrison beat him pretty one-sidedly which still surprises me to this day considering his glass chin and weak stamina, though at the same time i'm surprised George took his best shot again and again. Moorer beat him from pillar to post until he landed those 1-2's, though credit must be given here: Michael was undefeated, 20 years younger and although his durability was questionable even back then, Foreman pulled off the big upset.

He did nothing to earn his three title shots, but then neither did a lot of other champions. What bothers me more is how he disgraced the title by avoiding everyone with a pulse, even paying $250.000 to be allowed to face Grimsley (i still don't know who the **** that is). He took the easy road but at least he made it no secret that he wanted no part of Lewis, Bowe or Tyson. It also illustrates how weak Holyfield was perceived to be back then, as he unrightfully wasn't put in that same category.

I'm glad he didn't get the decision against Briggs even if he deserved it. I don't like the title being held hostage.


Foreman's physical dominance was truely imposing though. You're basically boxing against a brick wall that won't move back, take everything you have and while lacking in technique, he punched pretty hard. Not nearly as hard as he used to, but still heavy handed.

 

Nailed it. He was probably "undeserving" of his title shots, but most challengers are these days. He KO'd the champ, though, so that's about all you can ask for. He did what Holyfield couldn't do (the first time around).

I myself am always impressed by how George - from the age of 37ish to 47ish - always came to fight.

 

Were the offers pre-87 for Foreman to come out of retirement to face Holmes?

 

fraud

 

i think he beat alot of bumbozled opponets on the come back ..
with the holyfield fight people fail to realize holyfield had trouble agianst the bigger guys .. just look at his fights with bowe and lewis .. foreman fight was no different..he could sit and wack away for 30 rounds and it'd still be a decision ..

i also think the moorer right could have been fixed ..

 

Supposedly some early Foreman comeback opponents "laid down" in the sense that they knew of the George of decades past, the unstoppable monsterm and said "**** it" in there. I've seen quite a few articles on that. No one was ever paid off, but more than a few fighters simply folded.

Also, supposedly Foreman's people made sure hookers and drugs found their way to Bert Cooper before George's fight with him, resulting in Cooper going on a 48 hour drug and ***** binge.

 

foreman took the lawrence taylor rout eh? lmao

 

what's that mean

 

Well it's a pretty controversial comment given there is zero proof to support the theory.