Tim Witherspoon (2nd Smith fight) vs Michael Moorer (Foreman fight)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say if Joe had put Marvis in with George, Marvis isn't AVENGING the family name.

 

Thats no fair post of you calling a bias.
Me, you and everybody here on that board knows your love for the older version of George Foreman.

For me it was pretty generous with Giampa and Roth giving Foreman two rounds in a fight that he was not winning. Its black on white that Moorer would often go down if he didn´t get out of the heat, aka fighting extremely dump when under pressure (sometimes, I think he had the feet to do much better). I mean that guy srsly could move & box too!

Talking about his power, he was better than Holyfield but not that raw heavy handed banger. But I give him sharpness.

The problem with you guys is not distinguishing between the credit for an aging fighter and his avarage H2H level over the course. Or is someone telling Foreman is making 50/50 when he fights Moorer ten times? I just don´t see that.

 

Very good point Noneck

 

Comparing prime years of Smith with comeback Foreman. They're about even.

 

This one's easy: You're cherry picking fights from when Witherspoon was in his forties because you haven't learned how to create persuasive arguments. Moorer was a chandelier throughout his prime years, which is excusable given that he wasn't a true heavyweight like Tim, who was far more durable.

 

Their careers didn't overlap.

 

No, the problem is people thinking Bonecrusher Smith was as good if not better than George Foreman.

And apparently the rationalization for this is we can ONLY look at George's fights in his later later career (after the Rodrigues fight apparently), but we can only focus on a few fights in part of one year in Smith's career.

Smith wasn't better than George. He wasn't better than young George. He wasn't better than old George. He wasn't better than George in his totality.

George was a two-time world champ. Smith held a WBA belt once for three months. George beat all their common opponents. You say George couldn't beat Moorer five out of 10 times. Smith couldn't beat Moorer at all.

George was better when he was young, in his prime and as an old man.

George got knocked out by Ali. Smith got knocked out by Lionel Butler. George knocked out Joe Frazier twice. Smith lost to Marvis.

This is comical.

 

In no respect are they "about" even. They are about as "even" as their performances against Adilson Rodriques are even. This thread is a train wreck.

 

Let's focus on the results against their six best opponents:
Foreman:
1. Loss to Holyfield
2. Win against Moorer
3. Loss to Morrison
4. Disputed win against Schultz
5. Disputed loss against Briggs
6. Disputed win against Stewart

3-3

Smith:
1. Loss to Tyson
2. Split with Witherspoom
3. Loss to Ruddock
4. Win against Bruno
5. Loss against Tubbs
6. Win against Weaver

3-4

I prefer Smith's results because he was doing it against better fighters overall.

Sue me.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I think it's telling that a shell of Rodrigues is the only common opponent Smith seems to share with comeback Foreman. You'd think that at least one of Tyson, Ruddock, Spoon, Tubbs, and Bruno would've wanted a fight with Foreman. Weird how that didn't happen.

 

As I said, a little 90s George bias.
Same age 90s Larry did better than Foreman against Holyfield and everybody saw that. He beat B level (?) Mercer too, but too bad for him he didn´t have a title.

Talking about C and D level some more?
What about a 94-93, 94-94, 94-93 and a swollen face against C level Stewart ?
What did he let D level Crawford Grimsley know?
Boxing him 12 rounds, where Jimmy Thunder stopped him in 1 next fight and the aging dane stopped him again in 5 after that??
Another "letting know pounding" for Savarese, who got kod by a fighter most don´t even know here the bout after Foreman?
Maybe the younger version doing some KO-artist moves against the blown up shot to **** 5'7" CW, or was it 7 rounds again with Qawis ghost? I guess we have to rehabilitate Cooney out of the asylum for more arguments.

As I see your very emotional about this.
Foreman learnt to box, jab and use his size. The problem here is mixing a raw heavy hand and functional power.

Not sure what this got to do with Smith catching Witherspoon, but yes he had a solid whiskers and therefore was longer in bouts to take his chance to land a solid punch, which he sometimes did. Thats called: "Odds are cumulative". Wait, there is some resemblance: Foreman landing on Moorer in 80 rounds of boxing against: Stewart, Moorer, Morrison, Schulz, Grimsley, Savarese and Briggs. And I can add something else to close the circle: How many stoppages might we see if we line up Stewart, Moorer, Morrison, Schulz, Grimsley, Savarese and Briggs against the 86 version of James Smith? Like with Foreman, but Smith beeing a worse boxer, problem here is a mixing a raw heavy hand and functional power. But thats the thread you wanted. For raw power, Moorer isn´t Smith lvl.

 

Well, I'm not going 2 intentionally **** off a respectful disagree-er. I do think u have a good point about Spoon being very tough, despite his weight often times, and it makes it a very difficult subject 4 me that I cannot decide on conclusively. And I'll admit idk about all the deal w/ king. However, there was one flaw w/ your presentation. While he may have looked it (I actually don't think he did), Witherspoon was 222 in the first fight and 233 in the second fight. For most fighters, I don't think a fighter in the awful 233 Spoon was in could stand up 2 Smith's power very long. But your having brought up Spoon's durability makes it a tough one 4 me 2 decide.

I agree w/ u entirely on Moorer.