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

[rekcutnevets]

What if???

What if Evander Holyfield got the chance to challenge for Maskaev's title, and won? It is not a crazy thought. Oleg fights like a big, less talented, Kostya Tszyu. That style seems in the realm of concurring for the old man. Would any of you give him the same credit Foreman got over Moorer?

I wouldn't. I believe that when Moorer beat Holyfield, which was debatable, that Moorer was recognized as the top fighter in the division. Much like Klitschko is now. Holyfield would have to face Wlad, in order to find a similarity status wise. If Holyfield were able to beat Wladimir, then I think that would top big George's Moorer victory. That would be highly unlikely, and it is just too dangerous a fight for Evander to take.

[Bad_Intentions]

maskaev would win an UD.

[rekcutnevets]

Thanks for replying, Bad_Intentions. Maskaev might win, that is not what I am asking.

I want to know if an Evander win would be considered a major accomplishment, much like Foreman's was.

[Bad_Intentions]

Thanks for replying, Bad_Intentions. Maskaev might win, that is not what I am asking.

I want to know if an Evander win would be considered a major accomplishment, much like Foreman's was.maskaev is one of the best boxers in this era, so i would say it will be considered it a major accomplishment if holyfield beats him. especially at his age (44)

ps - im sorry i didnt read your post complete, i thought it was a fantasy fight lol

[Marciano Frazier]

No. Moorer was the legitimate, linear world heavyweight champion and a better fighter than Maskaev. Maskaev is only a paper titlist. Foreman's accomplishment was easily better than Holyfield merely beating Maskaev would be.

But if you're asking whether it would be important in general, then absolutely. Beating one of the best fighters in the division while you yourself are over a decade past your peak is a huge accomplishment.

[Senya13]

Foreman carefully picked the weakest possible opponents for himself. Moorer was the top of this way of climbing up to get a title. If Holyfields wins the title again, it will be as important.

[hopkinsfan07]

wlads chin leaves window open for anyone

[TBooze]

Foreman carefully picked the weakest possible opponents for himself. Moorer was the top of this way of climbing up to get a title. If Holyfields wins the title again, it will be as important.

Foreman's punch was arguably the last great moment in boxing, Holyfield/Masakev pales in comparison, unless Masakev walks into the ring as Heavyweight Champion of the World.

[Senya13]

Foreman's way to the top was a disgrace, not a great moment in boxing. And I mean both times, the first and the second careers.

[TBooze]

Foreman's way to the top was a disgrace, not a great moment in boxing. And I mean both times, the first and the second careers.

Does not matter how you got there (personally I would call it smart), but there is no doubting the Frazier championship win was awesome and the Moorer punch was simply amazing and the last time I saw a non British boxing story on the front page of a paper.

[Holmes' Jab]

No. Moorer was the legitimate, linear world heavyweight champion and a better fighter than Maskaev. Maskaev is only a paper titlist. Foreman's accomplishment was easily better than Holyfield merely beating Maskaev would be.

But if you're asking whether it would be important in general, then absolutely. Beating one of the best fighters in the division while you yourself are over a decade past your peak is a huge accomplishment.

I agree with much of this ...:good

[thunder06]

no it wouldnt.

[quintonjacksonfan]

Moorer was undefeated and got the linear title from beating a young Holyfield

Masquev has a bunch of losses and won the title against a scrub.

There would be no comparison. If Holyfield beats Wlad that's another story

[quintonjacksonfan]

Senya is a complete joke. He will do anything to diminish anyone whose career

did not start before 1988. It's funny how you rip on Foreman for winning the title against two

undefeated linear champions but you hold Ruiz in high regard because your lover Roy Jones

beat him. Roy Jones would not make it past 3 rounds with either Fraizer or Moorer

Roy Jones heavyweight claim is the biggest disgrace in the history of the sport

[TBooze]

Michael Moore would knockout Jones within three rounds if they fought prime vs prime at

Heavyweight

Michael Moore eh? I reckon his conditioning would cost him against Jones... but you just know he will have a demon left!

[quintonjacksonfan]

Moore hits much harder then Tarver and Glen Johnson

It would take one good punch and Jones would be looking at the

ceiling for a 10 count.

[Icemmann]

Foreman's way to the top was a disgrace, not a great moment in boxing. And I mean both times, the first and the second careers.

Yes, we know this version of Holyfield is only fighting the best of the best on his way to a title shot.

[quintonjacksonfan]

Senya also likes to bring up Ali fight against Holmes. If you mention Tarver

and Glen Johnson against Jones he will use the age and weight draining

excuse. You rip on Foreman for picking his opponents but not on Jones

for picking his

[Senya13]

Senya also likes to bring up Ali fight against Holmes.
Link please? And if I like it, it must be I did it more than once, so two links, please.

[Senya13]

He will do anything to diminish anyone whose career did not start before 1988.
Stop making up things. Everyone here has seen my P4P and heavyweight ratings and knows I think highly of a lot of old timers.

[TBooze]

Moore hits much harder then Tarver and Glen Johnson

It would take one good punch and Jones would be looking at the

ceiling for a 10 count.

He (Michael Moore) is far, far too fat, my friend... Maybe Michael Moorer might stand a better chance;)

[My dinner with Conteh]

Senya is a complete joke. He will do anything to diminish anyone whose career

did not start before 1988. It's funny how you rip on Foreman for winning the title against two

undefeated linear champions but you hold Ruiz in high regard because your lover Roy Jones

beat him. Roy Jones would not make it past 3 rounds with either Fraizer or Moorer

Roy Jones heavyweight claim is the biggest disgrace in the history of the sport


I wouldn't bother conversing with that Senya bloke, I think i've read about four of his posts during my tenure here. I then printed all four off and wiped my arse on them. I think he gets lost on his way to the General Forum.

[Senya13]

Thank you for taking time to read four of my posts and spending a whole half a minute to type your opinion about them. I feel so honored.

[ironchamp]

To answer the thread,

Moorer was considered THE Heavyweight Champ, not a just titlist which is essentially what everyone is now (Chageav, Ibgramigov, Maskeav, Klitschko).

It would be a remarkable win but would fall short of Big George's accomplishment.

[Mendoza]

What if???

What if Evander Holyfield got the chance to challenge for Maskaev's title, and won? It is not a crazy thought. Oleg fights like a big, less talented, Kostya Tszyu. That style seems in the realm of concurring for the old man. Would any of you give him the same credit Foreman got over Moorer?

I wouldn't. I believe that when Moorer beat Holyfield, which was debatable, that Moorer was recognized as the top fighter in the division. Much like Klitschko is now. Holyfield would have to face Wlad, in order to find a similarity status wise. If Holyfield were able to beat Wladimir, then I think that would top big George's Moorer victory. That would be highly unlikely, and it is just too dangerous a fight for Evander to take.


If Maskev beats Peter, I think he will have won a big match. But keep in mind Maskaev is 38 right now and might be 39 if he fights Holfyfield next. Foreman was old enough to be Morrer's father when he pulled off the upset. Maskaev and Holfyfield aren't that far apart in age.

But the general awnswer is if Holfyield comes back at his age and wins a belt, it will add to his legacy.

[JohnBKelly]

So by fighting Moorer, old man Foreman took the easy route did he? Moorer was the linear champ the man that beat the man. Does anyone remember who the other champs were back in 1994?

I have to ask a simple question who was avoiding who back in 1994? The following fighters all managed to bypass George: Lennox Lewis, Oliver McCall, Frank Bruno, Bruce Seldon, Riddick Bowe and good old Iron Mike Tyson. Foreman was a mega bucks night for any of these guys but somehow they all managed to miss out. Instead George chose to fight Holyfield the linear champ and then Moorer the linear champ, both of whom were well known tomato cans who wouldn't last two minutes with the bunch of he-men listed above. Yup George liked to take the easy route by fighting unbeaten champs.

[Axe]

Roy Jones heavyweight claim is the biggest disgrace in the history of the sport

I'll drink to that, although it's no worse than any of the other paper titlists we have now...announcing him as HW "champ" however, is truly laughable.

[hobgoblin]

No, not at all. Michael Moorer was actually a respected fighter who beat a great fighter in Evander Holyfield himself to get the title.

Let me start from the beginning though: I think George Foreman's run in the 1990s is more of a personal achievement, GENERAL phenomenon, a brave quest to demonstrate that 70s heavyweights are just as good if not better than the "modern hws with better nutrition and training etc". However, in terms of real boxing achievements or reflection on Foreman's greatness - it has little bearing for me. 1980's Foreman is hardly relevant to the 1973 Foreman. Did anyone really doubt that 1973 Foreman would not destroy Moorer under 2 rounds? Of course not. Besides, when Old Foreman fought the best of the era - he was handily defeated.

In terms of pure boxing, it has little reflection - that is my opinion. Btw, I don't think Holyfield should fight Maskaev. He should do what Foreman did. Let someone else unify the titles (if that'll ever happen). It is much less likely for Holy to win 3 times against champions than against 1 champion (and in today's state of the hw division - that 1 champion is NOT Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson to be afraid of). Have some contender whose weakness lie with Holy's strengths (maybe the guys is easy to outbox or is green) take the titles from the unifier and then face him. That is exactly what Foreman did. Do you think Foreman would have pulled a lucky 1 punch KO against 1993 Holyfield? No way.

[cuchulain]

Thank you for taking time to read four of my posts and spending a whole half a minute to type your opinion about them. I feel so honored.

I've read more than four of your posts.

Occasionally, (no, often) they make sense.

However, you have certain blindspots that are so far off the wall that when you give voice to them, it utterly destroys the credibility you would otherwise have.

Case in point. Foereman's first capture of the title being a 'disgrace.'

[Senya13]

People tend to mis-read (and thus mis-quote) what I say.
His way to the top was a disgrace, not him capturing the title against Frazier.
According to Boxing Register, from 1969 to 1972 he only faced 2 ranked opponents, George Chuvalo and Gregorio Peralta. Same as in his second career, he only faced two ranked opponents to get a title shot against Moorer, and he lost both fights (Holyfield and Morrison).

[cuchulain]

People tend to mis-read (and thus mis-quote) what I say.
His way to the top was a disgrace, not him capturing the title against Frazier.
According to Boxing Register, from 1969 to 1972 he only faced 2 ranked opponents, George Chuvalo and Gregorio Peralta. Same as in his second career, he only faced two ranked opponents to get a title shot against Moorer, and he lost both fights (Holyfield and Morrison).

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,.

[Senya13]

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.

[cuchulain]

Does every undefeated fighter with padded record deserve a title shot at the champion (not even an eliminator)?

Only the result counts in determining rankings and shots at a title. Besides a TKO is not usually considered struggling.

Besides, an olympic Gold and his defeats of two ranked opponents more than merit a shot. ( Most guys who have fought for the title in the last five years have had far less.)

His claim to a shot was as good as Cassius Clay's at Liston.

Regardless that he won the title, he simply didn't deserve a title fight, not a single victory over ranked opponent. ???

The proof of the pudding here was that he easily disposed of Frazier and hence proved, post facto if nothing else, that he was a worthy contender.


..

[Senya13]

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.

[Mendoza]

People tend to mis-read (and thus mis-quote) what I say.
His way to the top was a disgrace, not him capturing the title against Frazier. According to Boxing Register, from 1969 to 1972 he only faced 2 ranked opponents, George Chuvalo and Gregorio Peralta. Same as in his second career, he only faced two ranked opponents to get a title shot against Moorer, and he lost both fights (Holyfield and Morrison).

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.

[achillesthegreat]

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.

[My dinner with Conteh]

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.



...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

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[AnthonyJ74]

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.

[AnthonyJ74]

To answer the thread,

Moorer was considered THE Heavyweight Champ, not a just titlist which is essentially what everyone is now (Chageav, Ibgramigov, Maskeav, Klitschko).

It would be a remarkable win but would fall short of Big George's accomplishment.

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.

[My dinner with Conteh]

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.


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

[My dinner with Conteh]

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.


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.

[MachineGunMitch]

The difference between Forman and Holy is that Holy
has been champ many times,he never lost in Africa and
his story isnt that interesting as Formans...Forman had
history with the 1970s,he was a wrecking machine who lost his way
and quit for 10+ years....
Bottom line NO,Holyfield is a great fighter and I commend him
on his journey back to the top but the story he tells is not as
intreguing as Formans ride...Plus he doesnt have the Red shorts
that Forman used when he lost to Ali...
Forman is a fairytale.....Holy is just a tale

[mcvey]

What if???

What if Evander Holyfield got the chance to challenge for Maskaev's title, and won? It is not a crazy thought. Oleg fights like a big, less talented, Kostya Tszyu. That style seems in the realm of concurring for the old man. Would any of you give him the same credit Foreman got over Moorer?

I wouldn't. I believe that when Moorer beat Holyfield, which was debatable, that Moorer was recognized as the top fighter in the division. Much like Klitschko is now. Holyfield would have to face Wlad, in order to find a similarity status wise. If Holyfield were able to beat Wladimir, then I think that would top big George's Moorer victory. That would be highly unlikely, and it is just too dangerous a fight for Evander to take.
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.

[mcvey]

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.
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,

[TBooze]

Foreman definately did not deserve a crack at the heavyweight championship in 1994.

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