Comments Thread For: George Foreman: Klischko Was Afraid To Engage Haye

[ChopperRead]

again, Moorer had just beaten Holyfield. and Holyfield went on to deserve a decision over Valuev at 46(?) years old. Holyfield beat Valuev more convincingly than Haye did, and Haye is considered by most if not all as the 3rd best heavyweight in the world.

not to mention that an old version of Holyfield gave Lewis a lot of trouble in their rematch, although I thought Lewis legitimately won it.

so unless youre saying todays era(#3 HW Haye) or Lewis are ****, then that era of HW boxing wasnt bad at all.

Holyfield didn't convincingly beat Valuev -- Chagaev did far better than either Haye or Holyfield vs Valuev.

[edgarg]

How was Ruiz losing when he had just legitimately dropped and hurt Kirk Johnson the previous round with a straight right hand?

and this wasnt a fluke one time nut shot. In fact, in that situation the fighter is given 5 minutes to recover, and if he doesnt he loses by tko. Johnson landed a very large amount of low blows throughout the fight, so many that Ruiz flipped the **** out and tried headbutting Johnson. Johnson got DQed for excessive low blows, not because Ruiz conned his way out of it. Johnson had already been deducted points and everything.

did you even watch the fight? or are you just using a selective memory to ignore the multiple low blows and the knockdown?

I both watched the fight and also have the video, taken at the time of the fight. And what impressed me most, was Ruiz' histrionics. At that stage of his career, he should have been a wrestler not a boxer. And not just because of his acting ability.

Let me tell you, I admired Ruiz and rarely if ever missed a fight. When younger he was a real tearaway fighter great to watch, with real skills. I think he only became what he later showed after the almost immdiate 1st rd KO from Tua.

[edgarg]

How was Ruiz losing when he had just legitimately dropped and hurt Kirk Johnson the previous round with a straight right hand?

and this wasnt a fluke one time nut shot. In fact, in that situation the fighter is given 5 minutes to recover, and if he doesnt he loses by tko. Johnson landed a very large amount of low blows throughout the fight, so many that Ruiz flipped the **** out and tried headbutting Johnson. Johnson got DQed for excessive low blows, not because Ruiz conned his way out of it. Johnson had already been deducted points and everything.

did you even watch the fight? or are you just using a selective memory to ignore the multiple low blows and the knockdown?

Next time you watch the fight, listen to the commentators as well.........

[edgarg]

Technically Foreman was still 'lineal' champ when he fought Briggs, since you cant really 'strip' someone of their lineal title. Its the one major failing with the whole lineal thing.

either way its irrelevant to me. I dont give a damn about Foreman's championship status at that point, and never made a deal about it. espeically considering he really should have lost to Schultz.

All I care about is the fact that Foreman beat Moorer and Briggs. those are huge accomplishments at his age, and shows that his era, the 70s, were at the very least as good as the 90s. I never had an issue or cared about his championship standing in the Briggs fight, just that he very clearly deserved to get the decision.

Stop double quoting my posts. it makes the conversation clunky.

I don't understand "double-quoting" nor "clunky". Remember, I'm an old fashioned guy from a long past era, from before your father was born.

I'd bet real money that I am the only one amongst the presumably many thousands of posters on Boxing Scene, that has certain attainments I won't talk about now on a public board, although I mentioned one, a good few years ago.

[The Hammer]

Next time you watch the fight, listen to the commentators as well.........

Steak is always trying to change history to discredit one Klitschko or the other. He's one of the worst Klitschko haters we've ever had on this site.

He thinks no one has a video of Johnson-Ruiz, but I found a download about a year ago. Kirk Johnson did not get knocked down in that fight, and the commentators had him ahead at the time of the stoppage (although Kirk had been warned and deducted a point for low blows before the disqualification).

Steak called me a "moron" several months ago for saying Sam Peter was ranked as a top ten heavyweight when he fought Wlad the first time in 2005. I provided links to prove he was ranked in the top 10 by all four sanctioning organizations, but then Steak called me an idiot and said the only rankings he respects are The Ring's rankings. He said Sam Peter was not in the Ring top 10 when he fought Wlad in 2005, but in fact he was, and even ranked ahead of Wladimir, as we can see here:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...=www.google.ca

Steak actually KNEW Peter was Ring Top Ten at that time - but he believed there was no way I could prove it on line.

The man is a mentally sick, obsessive Klitschko-hater.

[edgarg]

Technically Foreman was still 'lineal' champ when he fought Briggs, since you cant really 'strip' someone of their lineal title. Its the one major failing with the whole lineal thing.

either way its irrelevant to me. I dont give a damn about Foreman's championship status at that point, and never made a deal about it. espeically considering he really should have lost to Schultz.

All I care about is the fact that Foreman beat Moorer and Briggs. those are huge accomplishments at his age, and shows that his era, the 70s, were at the very least as good as the 90s. I never had an issue or cared about his championship standing in the Briggs fight, just that he very clearly deserved to get the decision.

Stop double quoting my posts. it makes the conversation clunky.

Why do you keep saying that Foreman beat Briggs when it was Briggs when got the decision.

The concept of losing a lineal title only by defeat in the ring is not only flawed, but limited, and subject to many different valid objections. The concept stems from the time that John L. Sullivan handed over his belt , the ONLY REAL ONE, to Corbett when Corbett KO'd him in the 23rd (?) rd. He really collapsed from exhaustion and bad livng. However, he lost, and made his historic ring speech.

You cannot regard a guy who has carefully and deliberately not fought anyone with a pulse for many years, as the continued, genuine lineal champion, when there are clearly many better fighters around. This bad habit was common in the old days, and was instrumental in bringing boxing into bad disrepute. Some of the old champions held the titles for years with practicallty no title fights. look at Dempsey keeping the title for the 3-4 years he was living it up in Hollywood, without a fight, before the Tunney fight. Of course that is a late example, and there are better ones earlier in the lighter weights.

Lineality had basically been forgotten for years, and understood to have been abandoned, until comparatively lately (in my terms) someone brought the concept to life again, and now we have all this puzzling and grizzling over it. Useless waste of time actually.

I know for a fact that for at least 30-40 years in my own experience the word "lineal" was never mentioned, at least I never saw it and I saw or heard almost everything to do with boxing.

I'll say good night, and thank you for the interesting, lively discussions.

[edgarg]

Steak is always trying to change history to discredit one Klitschko or the other. He's one of the worst Klitschko haters we've ever had on this site.

He thinks no one has a video of Johnson-Ruiz, but I found a download about a year ago. Kirk Johnson did not get knocked down in that fight, and the commentators had him ahead at the time of the stoppage (although Kirk had been warned and deducted a point for low blows before the disqualification).

Steak called me a "moron" several months ago for saying Sam Peter was ranked as a top ten heavyweight when he fought Wlad the first time in 2005. I provided links to prove he was ranked in the top 10 by all four sanctioning organizations, but then Steak called me an idiot and said the only rankings he respects are The Ring's rankings. He said Sam Peter was not in the Ring top 10 when he fought Wlad in 2005, but in fact he was, and even ranked ahead of Wladimir, as we can see here:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...=www.google.ca

Steak actually KNEW Peter was Ring Top Ten at that time - but he believed there was no way I could prove it on line.

The man is a mentally sick, obsessive Klitschko-hater.

And here I've been, treating him like a normal human being. I just don't understand any fight fan "HATING" any boxer, regardless of whom his own favourite is. I just can't get that idea into my head. I was brought up to refuse praise for doing something well, and be modest in success. and that THE SPORTING NATURE OF THE GAME IS THE REAL ACHIEVEMENT ... WIN OR LOSE.

I suppose I'm badly out of date.

[ChopperRead]

Steak is always trying to change history to discredit one Klitschko or the other. He's one of the worst Klitschko haters we've ever had on this site.

He thinks no one has a video of Johnson-Ruiz, but I found a download about a year ago. Kirk Johnson did not get knocked down in that fight, and the commentators had him ahead at the time of the stoppage (although Kirk had been warned and deducted a point for low blows before the disqualification).

Steak called me a "moron" several months ago for saying Sam Peter was ranked as a top ten heavyweight when he fought Wlad the first time in 2005. I provided links to prove he was ranked in the top 10 by all four sanctioning organizations, but then Steak called me an idiot and said the only rankings he respects are The Ring's rankings. He said Sam Peter was not in the Ring top 10 when he fought Wlad in 2005, but in fact he was, and even ranked ahead of Wladimir, as we can see here:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...=www.google.ca

Steak actually KNEW Peter was Ring Top Ten at that time - but he believed there was no way I could prove it on line.

The man is a mentally sick, obsessive Klitschko-hater.

I wonder if he's related to our friend JABS, who is a K-Bro hater and a cyberstalker? The Wlad victory over Haye really seems to have driven some people off the deep end, the Klitschko hating is at a fever pitch these days.

[edgarg]

Steak is always trying to change history to discredit one Klitschko or the other. He's one of the worst Klitschko haters we've ever had on this site.

He thinks no one has a video of Johnson-Ruiz, but I found a download about a year ago. Kirk Johnson did not get knocked down in that fight, and the commentators had him ahead at the time of the stoppage (although Kirk had been warned and deducted a point for low blows before the disqualification).

Steak called me a "moron" several months ago for saying Sam Peter was ranked as a top ten heavyweight when he fought Wlad the first time in 2005. I provided links to prove he was ranked in the top 10 by all four sanctioning organizations, but then Steak called me an idiot and said the only rankings he respects are The Ring's rankings. He said Sam Peter was not in the Ring top 10 when he fought Wlad in 2005, but in fact he was, and even ranked ahead of Wladimir, as we can see here:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...=www.google.ca

Steak actually KNEW Peter was Ring Top Ten at that time - but he believed there was no way I could prove it on line.

The man is a mentally sick, obsessive Klitschko-hater.

Yes, I have that video myself, and also saw the fight as it haoppened. I made the video at the time. And you are absolutely right, as I was trying to argue my point with STEAK. The commentators were very critical of Ruiz, especially his trying to get Johnson DQ, which was obvious, and he finally succeeded. I think Johnson had around an unbeaten 30-0 record at the time.

[joseph5620]

When Foreman came back he was 37 years old, not 45. And had had previously comparatively few fights so it was NOT such a tough job to get in fighting shape. Of course he was about 20-40 lbs heavier, which he made no attempt to reduce, so I have never really been sure how SERIOUS his "comeback" actually was.

I believe that it was NOT an attempt to win the title again, but just to earn money to fund a church, as he actually said at that time. {Getting the fight with Moorer was more accident than purpose, I believe}. And he fought a HUGE string of nonen******....HUGE. Well he DID fight a young Dwight Muhammed Quawi, who was outweighed by abour 20 lbs and nearly a foot in height. Quawi was abnormally small, about 5'5"...so do we actually count THAT....??

During his comeback, Foreman fought basically a horde of "tin-cans" the vast majority of whom I had never heard. And THAT'S saying something............

The FACTS are there to be seen by anyone who cares to look, and understand.

He was 38, not 37. And he had not fought in 10 years. And you think it was not tough for him to get back in shape? Just stupid on your part.I'm not even going to waste time on your other garbage which is typical of you. You're a terrible poster and a liar as well.