Foremans title in the 90's greatness, or laughing stock.????

[Rory McCloskey]

is the fact that george foreman,who primarily fought during the 70's, could come back in the 90's and win a heavyweight title in 1994 at the age of 45 and hold it for 3 years..... the man fought when he was 48!!... is this a testiment to his greatness? or is this a prime example of how the heavyweight division has become a joke, the fact that a boxer from 2 decades could come in and win a title... your thoughts please.

[stujones]

I would argue testiment to the mans greatness (although he was a little lucky). He beat the man who beat an all time great to win the belt and went on after the Foreman loss to pick up a geniune version of the title for the second time (thats not forgetting his earlier WBO reign). Although, Moorer certainly won't go down as the greatest Heavyweight of all time - he certainly wasn't the worse and was a damn decent fighter.

No doubt Foreman was lucky, I mean nine times out of 10 Moorer would have won on points with one arm behind his back but Foreman kept plugging and kept plugging and got there in the end - he was lucky that he caught Moorer on that one night because Moorer would normally have won. The punch itself didn't look the greatest, but no doubt it was geniune - you can fake that glass eyed look the double M had.

Foreman showed great heart to comeback from painfull to watch fights like vs Holyfield, vs Morrison and vs Stewart to win the title. That iron determination was the one ingredient that critics said he lacked in his first career - so yes, I think it was testiment to his greatness.

Who cares what he did after that fight. He was 44 and took his chance brilliantly.

However, I think the late career of Holmes in many ways was better than Foreman, I mean he geniunally outboxed a decent heavyweight like Mercer and came within a whisker of upsetting Oliver McCall. Not some one in ten punch, but actually winning the fight on points. That would have been something else.

[dws]

I'd compare it to Duran's success like when he beat Barkley,if he could be that good then(and Duran was 37 compared to Foreman's 45,although Duran was fighting 25 pounds above his best weight)just think what he was capable of back in the 70's.Sure he lost to Ali and Young but anyone but really slick boxers were gonna be in a world of hurt against him.His fight against Holyfield when he was 42 showed he was one tough mother.

[klompton]

One of the most obvious fixes Ive ever seen, only to be reinforced by Bob Arum admitting to having bribed sanctioning bodies to get bums ranked for Foreman to fight, then having Foreman lose only to win gift decisions, then having Foreman refuse to face robbed bum in a rematch. WWF boxing at its worst.

[dws]

I hope you're not saying Foreman-Moorer was a fix.Let's see,Big George gets beat on for 8 rounds then belts Moorer with a punch that stuns him then hits him with a right that finishes him.Look at Moorer's face,the guy was done,if you followed boxing you'd know that.

[dempseyfire]

Why would Moorer take a dive? He's bitter as hell about that loss to this day, whatever money Arum offered would've paled to a few big $ fights Moorer could have had down the road if he'd beaten George.

[Tantum]

Moorer is not only bitter about that loss, he hates himself, in general, to this day. It is very easy to see, watch any interview with him.

[BoxBuzz]

So Foreman's record has been padded by conspiracy? The truth is out there again I see.

[Ambling Alp]

Foreman's victory was more evidence that the heavyweights of the 70's were better than the 90's, if anyone had any doubt. the sad thing is that the heavyweights now are much worse than the 90's.
It certainly wasn't fixed. It's annoying that people have to bring up a fix after every big upset in boxing.