BoxRec

Please discuss...

Yes. Deserved a close but clear decision against Briggs.

It just seemed like one of the more ill timed bad decisions. It's a pretty sad black eye on boxing judges. It was close...but I have read responses from very few who feel that Briggs won. Outside of Briggs himself. And of course the judges that called the fight.

BoxBuzz wrote:It just seemed like one of the more ill timed bad decisions. It's a pretty sad black eye on boxing judges. It was close...but I have read responses from very few who feel that Briggs won. Outside of Briggs himself. And of course the judges that called the fight.

When would there be a good time for a bad decision?

Yes, big George was 'jobbed' out of the decision in my opinion. I haven't come across anyone who thought Briggs deserved the win (yet).
Briggs was booed from the arena. Ring Magazine had Foreman winning by 8 rounds to 4.
Foreman was disgusted and retired from boxing.

Wasnt hazzard implicated in this matter? George won this!

Perseus wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:It just seemed like one of the more ill timed bad decisions. It's a pretty sad black eye on boxing judges. It was close...but I have read responses from very few who feel that Briggs won. Outside of Briggs himself. And of course the judges that called the fight.

When would there be a good time for a bad decision?

Perseus.....son of Zeus.......you miss the point by overly focusing on the purely literal and most narrow.

But allow me to give greater and more revealing context. Context that will allow you to longer think of me as shallow and without substance. And to remember that language can be quite flexible in nature.

In my humble opinion...(and that makes it very much so) Boxing needed some credibility about that time. It seemed that a string of good work accomplished by fair and competent judges would likely go far to reinvigorating the core enthusiasts of boxing. There had been a few other bad decisions that had caught my attention during that period of time. I won't bore you with details.

So this "ill timed" decision was most unfortunate. And I think it was the timing that made it even more so....than if it would have appeared as an island in a sea of good and competent body of work by the gestalt pool of judges.

In a narrow and literal sense here is of course never a "good time" for a bad decision. (Though I'm sure Briggs entourage probably HAD a very good time as a result of that bad decision, but let's not let this cause further confusion.

There are however, when placed in context with other bad decisions, times where the momentum of enthusiasm for the sport can be dampened, when the string of bad decisions appears chronic. Or when one high profile event is marred by such an occurrence.


I hope this answers your question.

I remember a poster here writing that the powers that be were tired of Big George's "act" and the decision was their way of getting him off the stage.

Who knows?

ThatOne wrote:I remember a poster here writing that the powers that be were tired of Big George's "act" and the decision was their way of getting him off the stage.

Who knows?

I wouldn't be surprised, his run of Schulz-Grimsley-Savarese wasn't exacly Murderers' Row.

I'm not sure Briggs getting the decision here was worse than Foreman getting the nod over Schulz tbf.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Perseus wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:It just seemed like one of the more ill timed bad decisions. It's a pretty sad black eye on boxing judges. It was close...but I have read responses from very few who feel that Briggs won. Outside of Briggs himself. And of course the judges that called the fight.

When would there be a good time for a bad decision?

Perseus.....son of Zeus.......you miss the point by overly focusing on the purely literal and most narrow.

But allow me to give greater and more revealing context. Context that will allow you to longer think of me as shallow and without substance. And to remember that language can be quite flexible in nature.

In my humble opinion...(and that makes it very much so) Boxing needed some credibility about that time. It seemed that a string of good work accomplished by fair and competent judges would likely go far to reinvigorating the core enthusiasts of boxing. There had been a few other bad decisions that had caught my attention during that period of time. I won't bore you with details.

So this "ill timed" decision was most unfortunate. And I think it was the timing that made it even more so....than if it would have appeared as an island in a sea of good and competent body of work by the gestalt pool of judges.

In a narrow and literal sense here is of course never a "good time" for a bad decision. (Though I'm sure Briggs entourage probably HAD a very good time as a result of that bad decision, but let's not let this cause further confusion.

There are however, when placed in context with other bad decisions, times where the momentum of enthusiasm for the sport can be dampened, when the string of bad decisions appears chronic. Or when one high profile event is marred by such an occurrence.


I hope this answers your question.

RadioElRadar wrote:

ThatOne wrote:I remember a poster here writing that the powers that be were tired of Big George's "act" and the decision was their way of getting him off the stage.

Who knows?

I wouldn't be surprised, his run of Schulz-Grimsley-Savarese wasn't exacly Murderers' Row.

I'm not sure Briggs getting the decision here was worse than Foreman getting the nod over Schulz tbf.

Yes the Schulz fight is the one to hold up as criminal. Bob Arum bribed the IBF $100,000 just to get Schulz rated so Foreman could defend against a soft touch and then Foreman lost in lopsided fashion only to get the decision. Just goes to show you Arum was willing to spend a lot of money to keep the show going on.

Perseus wrote:
When would there be a good time for a bad decision?

Well... when Oscar was jobbed against Tito I felt kind of happy he got punished for the performance in the latter rounds And for the record I was rather rooting for Oscar.

Foreman in that fight looked surprisingly nimble and while not much action took place, it seemed to me that Foreman did everything better and more than what Briggs done in the fight. However, I think it was something that had to be done in a way--- after he defeated Moorer, he wanted no part of Tony Tucker. Instead he gets a gift decision over Axel Schulz and the title gets fractured. Rather than face his next mandatory, he faces an odd assortment of challengers (Lou Savarese and Crawford Grimsley) until all he held was a 'linear' title (which imho means more than any alphabet, but still regardless) and fought yet another man who wasn't in line for anything in Briggs. So what did they do? They gave it to the immobile, scary looking black dude with dread locks because that would force Briggs into a unifier (of sorts) with Lennox Lewis--- someone Big George wanted no part of.

Yes he was, but I thought he lost the previous fight with Savarese.