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

Re: His first title: two ranked opponents and what he did to them (TKOs), combined with his impressive devastating undefeated record (37-0-0) and his Olympic gold was on a par with Ali (19-0-0) when he got a shot at Liston.

Besides, when given the chance against Joe, he proved convincingly that he was a worthy contender.

And re: his second title: The fact that he was in there at all at his age was miraculous in itself,.

 

Does every undefeated fighter with padded record deserve a title shot at the champion (not even an eliminator)?
Two ranked opponents, and he struggled with Peralta. First opponent was 2.5 years and the other 1.5 years before he met Frazier. That was a disgrace.
Second title. Regardless that he won the title, he simply didn't deserve a title fight, not a single victory over ranked opponent. Similar to how Norton defeated Ali the 1st time, also without a single meaningful win on his record.

 

.

 

People always blame ABC organizations for putting unworthy fighters in their ranking, well George Foreman was exactly that kind of fighter. Either people have to stop complaining about it at all, and treat every ranked contender as a potential champion (who knows, if each of them got a shot at the title, maybe at least 1 out of 10 will still win it if he got a chance?). Or they should accept the fact that Foreman didn't deserve a title shot in either case, he didn't prove his worthiness enough.
Olympic gold doesn't mean much in the pro ranks. Pete Rademacher proved that once and for all. You need to prove your worthiness from the scratch in the pro ranks.

 

While what Senya is saying is true, the bald truth is most fighters don't clean out the division like Sonny Liston did to earn a title shot. Frazier gave title shots to lesser men as champion. Ali fought some real 2nd raters for title shots too. The champion picked his opponents in those days for the most part.

I think what matters most is what a champion does after he wins the title. Does he sit on it? Does he fight often? Does he fight the best? Foreman fought Norton and Ali when he was champion. Then after that he meet, Lyle, Young, and gave a re-match to Frazier. These guys were the cream of the crop in the 1970's. Only one of Foreman’s title opponents was an easy mark. Foreman was never a protected fighter once be became champion in the 1970's.

His comeback version was rather protected though.

 

Moorer can be argued about top40ish. He was a quality fighter. He was on his streak too. Maskaev is a contender who happens to have a title.

 

...and Tyson defeated great legends like Marvis Frazier and Mitch Green to secure a title shot. Wow! Well, Marv was Joe's son that must have been very special. Chuvalo and Peralta were ranked higher than anyone Tyson beat to secure his initial title shot- and he received another by beating lemons like McNeeley and Mathis. It seems Mike could really be:

'King of the

This content is protected

 

Foreman definately did not deserve a crack at the heavyweight championship in 1994. He did absolutely nothing to earn a shot at the title. George was given the opportunity to fight Moorer for the championship based on his popularity; George put butts in seats when he fought!

If you really look at George's latter career closely - at least his championship years - you will find that George was not above being a little seedy and unscrupulous. Not only did George receive an unwarranted title shot in 1994, but he was allowed to fight a "safe" opponent for his first title defense. And, when that safe opponent turned out to be a much harder fight than expected, George refused to fight a rematch. George allowed himself to be stripped of his "hard earned" title because he didn't have the good sportsmanship to grant a rematch to a fighter that not only beat him the first time, but never even should have been given a shot at the title in the first place. So, when George's plan backfired as Axel Schultz turned out to be tougher than expected, George decided he didn't want to play Champion anymore.....

That always struck me as odd. George came back in 1987 with the goal of becoming champion again. He makes regaining the title his mission in life. After he accomplishes his "impossible dream," George just gave up the belt like it was a ******* jack trinket.

 

But was Moorer the best in the division in 1994? I don't think that he was. Moorer was definately a good fighter, but there were other guys in the division who were better. Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis are two fighters that I would place above Moorer, even though they didn't have any belts at the time. There's no way George Foreman would have been able to duplicate his miracle KO of Moorer against either of these two guys.

 

Because, horrror of horrors, somehow that lummox Tucker was #1 AGAIN! Now there's a fighter who got far more than he ever deserved. Now wonder boxing's in such a state when lemons like him were No: 1 contender- for no apparent reason. He didn't beat anyone and he wasn't even popular. :huh

 

He was linear and that counts far far more. Was Leon Spinks better than Ken Norton this time in 1978? No way, but who gave a toss, Ali's rematch was for the title. Spinks was the only option- and he was a lot further behind Norton and Holmes as a fighter than Moorer was Lewis and Bowe.

 

The heavy title is devalued now,splintered,Id like to see Evander hang them up,but I suppose he has an outside shot at the likes of Maskaev,and co ,Wlad would hurt him significantly I think,his courage would gaurantee he took a bad beating,the crown s prestige has fallen to the level of the 1930s,its the smaller men carrying the game on their shoulders now.

 

Rademacher did at least have the satisfaction of putting the Champion down,justifying this defence Patterson said "I am asked to fight an amateur for$200,000,

 

Getting your ears boxed off by the Duke qualifies you for a WBA 'super champion status' now a days!