1991 George Foreman vs. 2003 Roy Jones Jr.

Jones wiiiiiiiiiiiide decision, possibly a shutout or 119-109. I respect what 90's Foreman did but it was a fluke occurance, in truth he wasn't all that.

 

This is exactly how I see it as well. Jones was still a smart fighter in 2003, and would explore every conceivable way to win the fight (and avoid getting tagged enough times for Foreman to score a KO) WELL BEFORE even agreeing to it.

I mean in theory, any heavy-handed heavyweight would be able to knock out Roy if that's the way we want to tell the story.

But Roy in 2003 proved that he was smart enough to outbox a Top 10 heavyweight without getting tagged very much in return (and for what it's worth, Ruiz caught him flush early, which Roy took relatively well). To my knowledge, Foreman never in his second career proved he knew what to do with a fighter that didn't stand directly in front of him.

 

Right. It was a gimmick fight. I'll take the real deal here over a dog-&-pony show. Foreman never faced anyone this small & fragile, & Jones in '03 wasn't as elusive as he had been even three or four years earlier. What I struggle to envision is Jones mounting an offense effectively enough to win rounds over & over, without being tagged, given the huge size disparity. At some point (maybe early, maybe late) Foreman clocks him, & he isn't going to absorb that power anywhere near as well as Moorer did.

 

Gimmick fight? Foreman's whole comeback was a gimmick.

 

Fucking John Ruiz himself, would beat this Foreman.

Yeah, I said it, and it's true.

 

Foreman would crush him. Ruiz barely squeaked by an ancient Holyfield, & lost at least one of those fights to boot. Foreman's jab would fold Ruiz's will like an accordian --- not a word of hyperbole to it.

 

That same Holyfield would still beat this Foreman, just a lot closer. Which isn't saying my considering Holyfield won about 9 maybe 10 one sides rounds.

 

nope.

 

Hate all you want, but Foreman was a complete fraud at this stage, other than a single shot against a chinny LHW that he was losing every second of, what the hell did Foreman ever accomplish at this point other than losing wide decisions in undeserved title shots? A past prime, undersized fighter like Qawi, years earlier doesn't count either.

Ruiz UD Foreman.

 

How many other HW's in history could return at thirty-eight, remain effectively obese for ten years, take on many of the ranked contenders of a decade-long era, never be KO'd, never be TKO'd, never even be knocked off their feet, & re-claim the championship?

Not a-one, in all of history. That's some gimmick. If Jones had beaten anyone at this weight with any substance to them, with any combination of size, power, & advanced ring-intelligence, it would be one thing, but he didn't...& he wouldn't...& he knew it.

 

And if Foreman would have done the same it would be one thing either.

A fluke punch does not constitute some great achievement in my eyes. Especially when you lost damn near 30 minutes of the fight.

Funny, you talk about being KO'd like it's a huge accomplishment.

He took on about 3 dangerous opponents. A natural CW in Holyfield who never was a big puncher, and got completely embarrassed. Was again embarrassed by Morrison, who wasn't exactly a world-beater.

Then ducked his way to a fight with a terrible fighter in Briggs and still lost a pretty uncontroversial decision in my view.

Foreman has become so embarrassingly overrated on this forum that the fraud that was his "second career" is being glorified to the point where he can somehow land that miracle fluke, slow ass right hand(likely a fix) on an ATG who won a title off a legitimate titlist.

 

The only reason Foreman was shamming his way into title shots was by fighting fighters nearly as old and washed up as he was...and many went to a decision...but yet Jones couldnt....:laughing:

 

We will have to let this one lie. I honestly disagree with just about your every word, as I'm sure you do with mine.

 

What exactly do you disagree with out of curiosity?

 

Your central-perception of the Foreman-Moorer bout.

Your central-perception of Foreman-Holyfield bout.

Your implication Foreman wasn't entitled to face a fighter of Briggs' calibre.

Your view Briggs beat Foreman uncontroversially.

Your view it is not significant a fighter can compete at Foreman's advanced age & weight without being KO'd, TKO'd, or even knocked down against fit, ranked men in the vicinity of fifteen-to-twenty years his junior.

Your view that Foreman's respect is built on the back of a momentary, "fluke" punch. There is just so much more --- so much more no other man could duplicate --- which went into Foreman even being in that ring.

Your baseless slander that the fight with Moorer was, "likely a fix."

That Roy Jones won his belt from, "a legitimate titleist."

It is probably more worthwhile to just agree to disagree, given the gulf in viewpoints.

 

well said

 

The majority of those feats having absolutely ZERO bearing on a MM.