Most shameless title defences of all time

I was scoffing at Witherspoon mentally unravelling Foreman. Physically & given the timeline he’d be one of the harder guys to beat but I don’t think I’d give Foreman less than a 50% chance. Would you? I had Witherspoon beating Holmes, for what it’s worth.

 

It's not a fight. It's math. And I only have Holmes at 6 all time. Foreman would be 11 to 15.

 

11-15

I guess I under-estimated you. I could never be so delusional as to place Holmes that low.

 

Oh, Ok, I didn't realise. I thought you were saying, he'd do exactly what Holmes would do (i.e. frequency of fights in similar timescales) when I don't think he would.

Hard to say but you seem to want to believe that Foreman would be at his absolute best every time out and the 73 version would just turn up fight-after-fight for a period of 7 years. As DP, said Witherspoon would have been tough, as by that time, George would be on, what, his 14th defence or thereabouts and Tim would be the surprise package that he was that night. So that's his 15th fight in five years. The only time he was ever active at the very top level (i.e. fighting top 10 fighters regularly) was 76/77 and, I hate to bring his name up again, so I won't, but that didn't end too well did it.

 

So basically the position he was typically in after his first career. That punch vs Moorer basically got him a top 10 berth.

 

Thread is moving fast so you probably missed it but I specified we’d have to take into account Foreman wouldn’t be in his prime the whole way through. That’s why I think his chances are north of 50% but not the 85% odds I’d give him against each of Holmes’ victims if he fought them on his best night.

 

So what do you think the writers of Boxing News were saying before Zaire?

 

Some would say so, but I wouldn’t personally. He impressed me a helluva lot besides knocking out Moorer. Just to come back at that age & weight & perform as he did was always going to bump him forward.

 

Missed that. Fair enough.

 

They were in a distinct minority for a reason, but credit it to them I suppose.

 

But he wasn't generally in these lists at the time. For example, there isn't many all-time top 10s in the late 70s or 80s that has George in it (i.e. after career 1). I have one from around 1992, and he's definitely outside the top 10, and this was after the Evander fight.

 

I think 11-15 is probably reasonable pre-second career. But post, which is what NoNeck is talking about? C’mon.

 

They were a minority because people in the trade tend to pick the champion when push comes to shove...just like only two of about 14 picked Liston to beat Patterson in Boxing Illustrated's preview issue (fight one).

 

He's in my top 10. I don't think 11 is laughable at all, personally.

 

You’d be the only two here then I think. Who are then ten in front & by what measurement?