Which win was better ? BHop's or Big George's ?

Pascal is one of the worst looking champions I can remember seeing for quite some time. Unimaginative, horrible footwork, bad pacing, doesn't know when to pull his punches tight or how to set up the big punches... Moorer was a young powerpuncher with excellent skills and pedigree.

 

Foreman's win clearly. Pascal was one of the worst champions in recent memory.

 

Foreman's KO over Moorer is tops...... Foreman came from behind to do it, too... I popped a woody when Moorer went down and out....
:tong:good:yep:deal

MR.BILL:hat

 

Hopkins at 46 is clearly better pound for pound than a 45 year old Foreman. But Foreman/Moorer is arguably the last mainstream (positive) historic event in the sport, so I will always have a soft spot for it.

 

Foreman-Moorer.. Say what you want about Moorer but he was an undefeated Heavyweight Champion who had beaten Evander Holyfield to win those titles.. So that win is clearly in my eyes the bigger and better win.

 

There are debates for both. Hopkins is older, outclassed and outfought his opponent, and pretty much made a fool of Pascal at times while winning a decision in Canada. Foreman was larger than his opponent and losing badly before scoring a come-from-behind KO but he did win by KO and Moorer was better than Pascal. It depends what you're looking for.

 

Mega Lamps said it well already. George was winning the lineal title that night, against a better opponent...it was far more dramatic.

At the same time, I'll say that Foreman's victory was somewhat of a fluke. Bernard can rightfully claim to be the best in his division, whereas George was champ but most people saw him as a distant runner-up to Lewis, Holyfield, and Bowe at the time. But I love George, so that's the only negative I'll say.

Here's an interesting question: who would've won Foreman-Moorer II, if it had happened?
As much as I love Foreman, I think after a tough camp of being yelled at by Teddy Atlas, Moorer would've been more cautious and would've probably won a dull decision. What do you guys think?

 

George was getting his ass kicked by a good fighter before landing one big shot. Hopkins beat a **** fighter. I dont know how to judge that?

Id say Hopkins looks physically better fighting than George did, but George beat a much better fighter.

 

I agree but George was getting a shellacking before landing that shot. Hopkins is at least competitive through the course, but there is no comparision to Pascal and Moorer. Pascal is simply horrible.

 

Since win his Pascal a **** fighter? Two wins over Diacnu and beating Dawson aren't something shitty fighters do often. It was Hopkins that made him look bad because he had Pavlik, Tarver, Calzaghe, Winky, and Tito all look like **** because that's what he does.

Moorer barely won a split decision against Holyfield having a heart attack in the ring and he was kicking Foreman's ass.

 

I assumed you'd stopped watching boxing way before 1994:think. Atleast its clear now you havent watched it since then.

 

:roflpachilles, you are the wind beneath my wings

as to the thread, big george's accomplishment was bigger for me. one punch, whole fight performance, either way what he did was more profound (and unexpected) than b-hop

 

Moorer was not a great win. He had a weak chin and was a former 175 pound fighter. Look what Tua did to him, and Bert Cooper almost had him out. Anything clean landing on Moorer by Foreman stops him, which shows that Foreman didn't land much clean for 10 rounds.

 

:-( This is the only appropriate response:

This content is protected