Page 1 of 1
Posted: 09 Mar 2002, 18:17
by 6 Pack
Is there any one who would give Foreman the decision? I think it was a shame Schulz was robbed twice for the greatest prize in all of sports. Once against Foreman and then again against Botha. Axel's place in history is practically none existant because of these robberies. It was no cheese title either, Foreman was the true champion (the linear champion) and so would Axel have been. Axel would have lost his title to Moorer, as he did in his third straight title try (Atleast the guy keep getting title tries after he got ripped off.) Axel retired only having lost to Henry Akinwande by decision (he also drew with Akinwande), Micheal Moorer by decision, and Wladimir Klitchko (His fight with Botha was ruled a no-contest). No shame to loose to those guys really. He managed a few mediocre wins against guys like Irish champion Kevin McBride, Jorge Valdez, Richard Mason, BoneCrusher Smith, guys with decent records but on his two biggest nights in what should have been his two biggest wins he was robbed!
Posted: 10 Mar 2002, 08:59
by overhand_right
schulzs loss to foreman wasnt that bad. he did alot of running for the first 6 rounds and although he boxed clever he wasnt able to hurt foreman. its not as bad as perople make it out to be. it could have gone either way so obviouisly george would get the nod.
as for the botha fight i think botha just edged schulz. schulz didnt look so good that night.
Posted: 03 Apr 2002, 21:02
by DAN C.
When I saw AXEL SCHULTZ fight MICHAEL MOORER the thing I noticed most about SCHULTZ is that he could hit MOORER with one or two punches just about any time he wanted to but he would never press his advantage. He wouldnt go to war with MOORER. He wouldnt take it up a notch. He would land one or two good shots and then back off and wait until the next time he landed one or two good shots. Than he would back off and wait some more. Thats no way to win a title. SCHULTZ was a good boxer with a good chin but he just would not commit. Dan Coli
Posted: 04 Apr 2002, 08:36
by overhand_right
he also couldnt punch.
Posted: 04 Apr 2002, 16:47
by 6 Pack
Schulz didn't have a lot of power but he did hurt Foreman. In the later rounds Foreman was on shaky legs a few times from flurries. Schulz was a good heavyweight.
Posted: 04 Apr 2002, 22:11
by Justin
I don't think he necassarily HURT Foreman, I just think his flurries were being real effective, and making Foreman more cautious not to get too outpunched and outboxed.
Posted: 08 Apr 2002, 06:28
by overhand_right
schulz never hurt george. no way. george had a big swelling but it was from an elbow which schulz himself admitted.
Posted: 08 Apr 2002, 08:24
by SteveO
It was a close contest but Schulz didn't do enough to win the title IMO.
Posted: 03 Aug 2002, 10:25
by Guest
SteveO wrote:It was a close contest but Schulz didn't do enough to win the title IMO.
that's ridicoulous....schulz was the better man that night and deserved the title.
Posted: 05 Aug 2002, 07:34
by wouter
I didn't think Schultz won the fight.... he looked impressive because NOTHING was expected of him. Schultz ran around the ring and flurried every now and then, Foreman, however unpretty, controlled and won most of the rounds.
Posted: 05 Aug 2002, 14:57
by Friedie
wouter wrote:I didn't think Schultz won the fight.... he looked impressive because NOTHING was expected of him. Schultz ran around the ring and flurried every now and then, Foreman, however unpretty, controlled and won most of the rounds.
86 % of the americans saw schulz winning.....
Posted: 05 Aug 2002, 15:08
by delisa
Foreman deserved the decision.
Posted: 05 Aug 2002, 15:11
by Guest
delisa wrote:Foreman deserved the decision.
foreman new exactly why refusing the rematch.....he would have lost AGAIN
:P
Posted: 06 Aug 2002, 07:36
by wouter
Wow..... 86% of the American's watched the fight? That must have been a record
