Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Marble,
Here's an example -
Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.
During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.
So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?
Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.
I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Marble,
Here's an example -
Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.
During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.
So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?
Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.
I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?
Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Marble,
Here's an example -
Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.
During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.
So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?
Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.
I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?
Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?
Not really.
The best fight the best is the ultimate goal. It seems as though you're happy for mediocre to fight mediocre if the lineal title is on the line and ignore they're not the best.
You didn't really think Foreman/Savarese were better fighters than Holyfield/Bowe, right?
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Marble,
Here's an example -
Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.
During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.
So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?
Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.
I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?
Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?
Not really.
The best fight the best is the ultimate goal. It seems as though you're happy for mediocre to fight mediocre if the lineal title is on the line and ignore they're not the best.
You didn't really think Foreman/Savarese were better fighters than Holyfield/Bowe, right?
The value of the title is the ONLY thing that, over time, drives the best fighting the best. Otherwise guys will just take money fights (see Boxing since about 1995). I mean the reason Bowe-Holyfield III matterred at all was because of their prior title fights.
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Marble,
Here's an example -
Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.
During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.
So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?
Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.
I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?
Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?
Not really.
The best fight the best is the ultimate goal. It seems as though you're happy for mediocre to fight mediocre if the lineal title is on the line and ignore they're not the best.
You didn't really think Foreman/Savarese were better fighters than Holyfield/Bowe, right?
The value of the title is the ONLY thing that, over time, drives the best fighting the best.
Otherwise guys will just take money fights (see Boxing since about 1995). I mean the reason Bowe-Holyfield III matterred at all was because of their prior title fights.
Foreman-Savarese wasn't the best fighting the best. Take the linage away and you would never even mention it, because you know it's a veteran vs a borderline journeyman fight. Holyfield-Bowe, among many others, were far, far superior heavyweights at this time.
When has Pro boxing NOT been about money? Has there ever been guys that didn't pursue their most lucrative money option?
Re: Putting BHOP in Perspective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Marble,
Here's an example -
Foreman reigns as lineal (THE MAN) heavyweight champion between 1994-97 after stopping Moorer. He defends the LINEAL title against Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese before losing to Briggs.
During this time - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis and Tyson are active. As well as Mercer, Morrison, McCall, Ruddock, Bruno, etc.
So, Foreman was without doubt THE man, but was he the no.1 heavyweight in the world? And were his lineal title defences more important than these other top guys facing off?
Yup and they were at least as important. If Foreman (and BHOP last night) had NOT ascended to the top of the mountain? Why all the hoopla?
Again, if the heavyweight champ is NOT the #1 heavy in the world? Then neither term has any useful meaning and I haven't the vaguest idea how the sport is actually organized. Do you?
I fully agree Foreman was THE man. His "title" was the only thing worthwhile.
I'm asking you, as a fan, did you really regard Foreman-Savarese a better match-up than Holyfield-Bowe because it had linage attached?
Foreman-Savarese was more important that Bowe-Holyfield III if that's what you are asking. Was it as much fun? Nope. But that's hindsight isn't it?
Not really.
The best fight the best is the ultimate goal. It seems as though you're happy for mediocre to fight mediocre if the lineal title is on the line and ignore they're not the best.
You didn't really think Foreman/Savarese were better fighters than Holyfield/Bowe, right?
The value of the title is the ONLY thing that, over time, drives the best fighting the best.
Otherwise guys will just take money fights (see Boxing since about 1995). I mean the reason Bowe-Holyfield III matterred at all was because of their prior title fights.
Foreman-Savarese wasn't the best fighting the best. Take the linage away and you would never even mention it, because you know it's a veteran vs a borderline journeyman fight. Holyfield-Bowe, among many others, were far, far superior heavyweights at this time.
When has Pro boxing NOT been about money? Has there ever been guys that didn't pursue their most lucrative money option?
In answer to your first, the phrase "over time" is critical. Single fights don't tell you much.
In regards your second? Sure. MANY fighters fought for other things than simply maximizing money at the expense of everything else. Read Ray Robinson's autobio and the way he thought about himself. Floyd hasn't pursued his most lucrative option ;) Joe Gans didn't. Aaron Pryor didn't (of course he may have been nuts by then), Arguello clearly fought for other things as well. He told his manager "Bring me the best and I will knock them out." (Sorry, I loved Alexis)
Money mattered to everyone. But to many greats it wasn't remotely everything. Being the very best had enormous value as well.
I'm out for a while. I'll check back later, thanks for your thoughts!
