Would this be as important as Foreman's victory over Moorer?

Moore hits much harder then Tarver and Glen Johnson

It would take one good punch and Jones would be looking at the

ceiling for a 10 count.

 

Yes, we know this version of Holyfield is only fighting the best of the best on his way to a title shot.

 

Senya also likes to bring up Ali fight against Holmes. If you mention Tarver

and Glen Johnson against Jones he will use the age and weight draining

excuse. You rip on Foreman for picking his opponents but not on Jones

for picking his

 

Link please? And if I like it, it must be I did it more than once, so two links, please.

 

Stop making up things. Everyone here has seen my P4P and heavyweight ratings and knows I think highly of a lot of old timers.

 

He (Michael Moore) is far, far too fat, my friend... Maybe Michael Moorer might stand a better chance

 

I wouldn't bother conversing with that Senya bloke, I think i've read about four of his posts during my tenure here. I then printed all four off and wiped my arse on them. I think he gets lost on his way to the General Forum.

 

Thank you for taking time to read four of my posts and spending a whole half a minute to type your opinion about them. I feel so honored.

 

To answer the thread,

Moorer was considered THE Heavyweight Champ, not a just titlist which is essentially what everyone is now (Chageav, Ibgramigov, Maskeav, Klitschko).

It would be a remarkable win but would fall short of Big George's accomplishment.

 

If Maskev beats Peter, I think he will have won a big match. But keep in mind Maskaev is 38 right now and might be 39 if he fights Holfyfield next. Foreman was old enough to be Morrer's father when he pulled off the upset. Maskaev and Holfyfield aren't that far apart in age.

But the general awnswer is if Holfyield comes back at his age and wins a belt, it will add to his legacy.

 

So by fighting Moorer, old man Foreman took the easy route did he? Moorer was the linear champ the man that beat the man. Does anyone remember who the other champs were back in 1994?

I have to ask a simple question who was avoiding who back in 1994? The following fighters all managed to bypass George: Lennox Lewis, Oliver McCall, Frank Bruno, Bruce Seldon, Riddick Bowe and good old Iron Mike Tyson. Foreman was a mega bucks night for any of these guys but somehow they all managed to miss out. Instead George chose to fight Holyfield the linear champ and then Moorer the linear champ, both of whom were well known tomato cans who wouldn't last two minutes with the bunch of he-men listed above. Yup George liked to take the easy route by fighting unbeaten champs.

 

I'll drink to that, although it's no worse than any of the other paper titlists we have now...announcing him as HW "champ" however, is truly laughable.

 

No, not at all. Michael Moorer was actually a respected fighter who beat a great fighter in Evander Holyfield himself to get the title.

Let me start from the beginning though: I think George Foreman's run in the 1990s is more of a personal achievement, GENERAL phenomenon, a brave quest to demonstrate that 70s heavyweights are just as good if not better than the "modern hws with better nutrition and training etc". However, in terms of real boxing achievements or reflection on Foreman's greatness - it has little bearing for me. 1980's Foreman is hardly relevant to the 1973 Foreman. Did anyone really doubt that 1973 Foreman would not destroy Moorer under 2 rounds? Of course not. Besides, when Old Foreman fought the best of the era - he was handily defeated.

In terms of pure boxing, it has little reflection - that is my opinion. Btw, I don't think Holyfield should fight Maskaev. He should do what Foreman did. Let someone else unify the titles (if that'll ever happen). It is much less likely for Holy to win 3 times against champions than against 1 champion (and in today's state of the hw division - that 1 champion is NOT Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson to be afraid of). Have some contender whose weakness lie with Holy's strengths (maybe the guys is easy to outbox or is green) take the titles from the unifier and then face him. That is exactly what Foreman did. Do you think Foreman would have pulled a lucky 1 punch KO against 1993 Holyfield? No way.

 

I've read more than four of your posts.

Occasionally, (no, often) they make sense.

However, you have certain blindspots that are so far off the wall that when you give voice to them, it utterly destroys the credibility you would otherwise have.

Case in point. Foereman's first capture of the title being a 'disgrace.'

 

People tend to mis-read (and thus mis-quote) what I say.
His way to the top was a disgrace, not him capturing the title against Frazier.
According to Boxing Register, from 1969 to 1972 he only faced 2 ranked opponents, George Chuvalo and Gregorio Peralta. Same as in his second career, he only faced two ranked opponents to get a title shot against Moorer, and he lost both fights (Holyfield and Morrison).