Nelson Gateau wrote:You mean the 24 year old Briggs who gassed and got KO'd in 3 by Darrol Wilson? Or maybe you mean the 27 year old Briggs who struggled to a draw against Botha? Or maybe you mean the 28 year old Briggs who lost to then 9-9 Sedreck Fields? Or maybe you're talking about the 31 year old Briggs who lost to Jameel McCline?
No I meant the Briggs that stood up against Foreman and took the decision. So Cobbs KO loss to Dee Collier and him getting dropped by the weak hitting Eddie Gregg aren't relevant, but your selective examples from Briggs career are relevant. Briggs beat one of the best HWs of all time while Cobb feasted on the over the hill and damaged crowd. The Cannon can't be dismissed.
Now the Foreman of his comeback (at the very end of it & pushing fifty, no less) is, "one of the greatest HW's of all-time?"
Funny...I seem to recall your persistent theme of calling out both iterations of Foreman, but in particular, the 87-97 version, massively over-rated & completely beatable. Didn't you just accuse Nelson of being selective?
Goodnight, Irene wrote:Briggs never beat Foreman. Sorry, didn't happen. Point to all the record books you want. Educated observers know better (Fvck, my six-year-old nephew could score it more accurately than those at ringside).
Sorry, but just another example. Even Morrison and the powerful but slow Briggs made Foreman look slow and oafish.
Did you ever look at Foreman's competition after the second Peralta fight? George did better, but was still noticeably vulnerable, so they stepped the competition down until they could nab the big one. George's competition leading up to the brass ring made Wlad's early opponents look world class.
Personally, I thought Foreman beat Briggs like a drum.
Who would you have had Foreman fight after Peralta II? That fight cemented his claim as one of the two top contenders for Frazier's title (the other being Ali). Two of those guys he fought in 1972 - Pires and Paez - were pretty good fighters, too. Who do you think he needed to fight to earn himself a title shot?
You think George Chuvalo, Peralta, Boone Kirkman, Scrapiron Johnson, James J. Woody, Jack O'Halloran. etc. were pushovers? How did those guys make " Wlad's early opponents look world class?"
^^^Exactly like I said --- it's not that I simply disagree, I just don't understand his approach at all on this one. I'm sure he'll retract the comment about Foreman's opposition making Klitschko's look so grand, though. Said in haste, perhaps.
Foreman definitely beat worthy opposition before the title. No one in Frazier's class or even close, mind, but that's more than understandable.
Wow, you guys really are romantics. There was a reason why George was a significant underdog going in to the Frazier fight, and I thought at least a few of you would remember those times a little better rather than merely romanticizing his career. And guess what? George was actually one of my favorites, and still is. That doesn’t mean I’m oblivious to his shortcomings.
However, to recap his career, he was actually brought along pretty quickly early on and the win over Chuvalo was a very significant win and got him a well deserved ranking. However, his earlier struggle with Peralta definitely concerned most experts and clearly changed the strategy of his match making. Why you guys can’t seem to acknowledge that is really pretty shocking, because it was widely recognized at the time.
I won’t denigrate any of Foreman’s opponents because he did fight a number of solid guys, as noted, and some of them were actually favorites of mine. Kirkman, Scrap Iron, and Woody in particular. But come on guys, this was the era of almost limitless world class HWs and you don’t seem to be able to name any of them? Chuvalo was a top HW when George knocked him off, but Peralta was a fringe contender, maybe top 15.
Ray, who was he supposed to fight? Are you kidding? Yes Pires and Paez were maybe, at best top 50 guys -- maybe. Do I have to list all the guys who were actually ranked then? I think you know who they were, but since George has become an American icon, everybody seems to give him a pass where others would have been brutally criticized. And guess what? He was criticized back then.
When he beat Frazier, he had about 3 dozen fights, and the best guys he fought in the previous ten or so fights leading up to his title fight were Pires and Paez? Please try being just a little objective here.
We criticize the current lame HWs, and rightfully so, but just be a little objective and maybe refresh your memories. Look at Foreman’s post Peralta II opponents and try to convince yourself that he was fighting anyone even remotely a challenge. And in all of those 3 dozen or so fights, where was anyone who actually could move a little? He fought a lot of tough journeymen, but besides Chuvalo where were all of the names that we all know so well and speak so reverently of on this forum? And if you had a raw power puncher, don’t you think the stationary Chuvalo is the guy you’d want? Where were all the other names? Why does everyone forget them when it comes to discussing Foreman? He’s a perfect example of a modern manufactured HW contender. Beat one name guy whose style is made for you, and then go into a holding pattern until the champ comes calling. George just happened to have a few more skills than most of the other guys brought along like that.
In his 25th fight Mac Foster fought Jerry Quarry after building a great record against competition similar to Froeman’s. George would have never stepped in the ring with Quarry during that time. And you can add about 8-10 other names as well. You know the names.
And yes George is an ATG, but that doesn’t mean we can’t be critical of him. All those fights prior to Frazier, and besides the stationary Chuvalo all we have are tough, solid journeymen. It hardly seems anything like The Bombers march to the title. Of course he actually lost one. So, was Louis damaged goods after the Schmeling fight?
I'll ask you again John: Who would you have had him fight in 1972 if you had been his manager? He was already ranked either the No. 1 or No. 2 contender along with Ali. Who did he need to fight at the point to solidify his claim to a title shot? Why would his manager have put him in with somebody like Jerry Quarry at that point?
raylawpc wrote:I'll ask you again John: Who would you have had him fight in 1972 if you had been his manager? He was already ranked either the No. 1 or No. 2 contender along with Ali. Who did he need to fight at the point to solidify his claim to a title shot? Why would his manager have put him in with somebody like Jerry Quarry at that point?
As I said, I don't need to list them. His career peaked early and he went into a coasting mode, much like many of todays HW "contenders". Very few, if any, of the ATG HWs would have been fighting the guys he did in his 30th - 37th fights after attaining a world ranking. Most wanted to be challenged, and their records show that. Of course, if I had been managing him I would have avoided Quarry as well, but that's not the point. The fact his management avoided those types of matchups shows that they knew he was very beatable, and they planned accordingly. If they had more confidence in him they would have started tackling the real contenders after the Chuvalo fight.
Again, I'm not arguing that George wasn't great, just that he was flawed, and most boxing people during that time recognized how carefully he was managed and knew he was dangerous but somewhat limited. Now everybody seems to have been clouded by his even more carefully managed 2nd career and thinks that the somewhat protected Geoorge who blitzed Frazier and Norton was somehow this invinceable God like fighter who would have been able to catch up with just about any HW in history and blitz them in the same manner. And that may have been possible if he would have been challenged more in his career so that he could learn. Or maybe he would have been nothing more than another notch on Quarry's belt.
Anyway, this thread is about the true greatest of all time, Shannon Briggs.
raylawpc wrote:I'll ask you again John: Who would you have had him fight in 1972 if you had been his manager? He was already ranked either the No. 1 or No. 2 contender along with Ali. Who did he need to fight at the point to solidify his claim to a title shot? Why would his manager have put him in with somebody like Jerry Quarry at that point?
As I said, I don't need to list them. His career peaked early and he went into a coasting mode, much like many of todays HW "contenders". Very few, if any, of the ATG HWs would have been fighting the guys he did in his 30th - 37th fights after attaining a world ranking. Most wanted to be challenged, and their records show that. Of course, if I had been managing him I would have avoided Quarry as well, but that's not the point. The fact his management avoided those types of matchups shows that they knew he was very beatable, and they planned accordingly. If they had more confidence in him they would have started tackling the real contenders after the Chuvalo fight.
Again, I'm not arguing that George wasn't great, just that he was flawed, and most boxing people during that time recognized how carefully he was managed and knew he was dangerous but somewhat limited. Now everybody seems to have been clouded by his even more carefully managed 2nd career and thinks that the somewhat protected Geoorge who blitzed Frazier and Norton was somehow this invinceable God like fighter who would have been able to catch up with just about any HW in history and blitz them in the same manner. And that may have been possible if he would have been challenged more in his career so that he could learn. Or maybe he would have been nothing more than another notch on Quarry's belt.
Anyway, this thread is about the true greatest of all time, Shannon Briggs.
That's okay. Go ahead and list them. List the guys in the top ten in 1973 that you would have matched Foreman against had you been his manager, and tell us how that would have solidified his right to fight for the title.
raylawpc wrote:That's okay. Go ahead and list them. List the guys in the top ten in 1973 that you would have matched Foreman against had you been his manager, and tell us how that would have solidified his right to fight for the title.
Obviously you didn't read my post, or even understand the point. I guess it's easier to just keep the rose tinted glasses on while partaking of the appropriate kool aide and fixing dinner on your Lean Mean Grilling Machine than it is to read an entire post.
Thanks for confirming that there aren't many here who can get past their emotions and be objective.
raylawpc wrote:That's okay. Go ahead and list them. List the guys in the top ten in 1973 that you would have matched Foreman against had you been his manager, and tell us how that would have solidified his right to fight for the title.
Obviously you didn't read my post, or even understand the point. I guess it's easier to just keep the rose tinted glasses on while partaking of the appropriate kool aide and fixing dinner on your Lean Mean Grilling Machine than it is to read an entire post.
Thanks for confirming that there aren't many here who can get past their emotions and be objective.
Am I the only person who thinks George Foreman would have beat Jerry Quarry into oblivion and all this talk about George being scared of him is nonsense?
Please don't read anything more into that statement than what I wrote.
If he could have pushed Frazier and Norton around the ring he certainly could have pushed the Bellflower Belter around the ring.
"Obviously you didn't read my post, or even understand the point..." - John L.
Aren't you getting it, Ray? It isn't difficult. He doesn't need to verify his speculation. Never mind such trivial nonsense! He has baseless interpretations of what went on to determine reality
John, you don't need me, or anyone, to tell you what a quality member of the forum you are, & how you're a cut above most. You've embarrassed yourself in this outing, though.
ThatOne wrote:Am I the only person who thinks George Foreman would have beat Jerry Quarry into oblivion and all this talk about George being scared of him is nonsense?
Please don't read anything more into that statement than what I wrote.
If he could have pushed Frazier and Norton around the ring he certainly could have pushed the Bellflower Belter around the ring.
Quarry would have provided some difficulty around 1971-72, but the notion he would actually win, to me, is fairly far-fetched. I don't think Foreman steamrolls him immediately, but when he started to land with regularity, given Quarry's courage, it would've been ugly. Chuvalo-ugly.
Here's a great fight while it lasts --- Foreman vs. Bonavena, circa-71. I'd have loved to see Bonavena take the fight whole-heartedly to a young Foreman. Boom!
