View Full Version : Who do you have as you No3 HW and why?


Barn
05-20-2011, 08:31 AM
It seems Ali and Louis are just leagues above everyone else and from then on, a mad scramble ensues for the remaining places in the Top 10 with almost any order being regarded as acceptable.

I'm hoping to stir up an insightful debate here, so people can have references when compling their own Top 10 Heavyweight lists.

The_Demon
05-20-2011, 08:55 AM
My no.3 changes from day too day to be honest,you can make a case for any of the guys in the poll too have that spot,some cases stronger than others,as of right now i have Foreman at number 3,the guy was a monster in his prime and made a comeback when he was 40+ and he was competitive with and beat some top level guys around at the time

Left Hook Tua
05-20-2011, 08:57 AM
i use to put larry.

but i've been put off by all his talk and bs.

plus the more i think about it 40+ yr. old foreman going toe to toe with holyfield and koing moorer was pretty special.


i'll go with big george.

IMDAZED
05-20-2011, 11:14 AM
I still have Larry #3.

kadyo
05-20-2011, 11:15 AM
Rocky Marciano. Holmes tred to equal that record but he failed against a lightheavyweight. LOLZ

GF of Boxing
05-20-2011, 11:25 AM
I would have to say Larry Holmes. 20 title defenses in a 7 year time span. Granted his competition at the time wasn't the worse but he did have some signature fights in his career with Norton, Shavers, and Cooney.

RubenSonny
05-20-2011, 12:03 PM
Rocky Marciano. Holmes tred to equal that record but he failed against a lightheavyweight. LOLZ

He was past prime and he clearly beat him in the rematch.

IronDanHamza
05-20-2011, 12:14 PM
I did have Jack Johnson #3 last time I did a list which was a while ago but I'm not quite so sure.

Once upon a time it was Larry Holmes.

I don't know to be honest.

Ziggy Stardust
05-20-2011, 12:49 PM
I have Jack Johnson. Ahead of his time in terms of technique, great defense, loads of pure physical talent.

Poet

IronDanHamza
05-20-2011, 12:53 PM
I have Jack Johnson. Ahead of his time in terms of technique, great defense, loads of pure physical talent.

Poet

Resume not too shabby either in my book.

Strangely, It doesn't seem to be the consensus in here, though.

Barn
05-20-2011, 01:00 PM
Resume not too shabby either in my book.

Strangely, It doesn't seem to be the consensus in here, though.


:firedevil

IronDanHamza
05-20-2011, 01:04 PM
:firedevil

:lol1: :lol1:

I'm still enraged you suggested Johnson is argubally not a Top 10 Heavyweight even after you admitted you were exaggerating :lol1:

Barn
05-20-2011, 01:11 PM
:lol1: :lol1:

I'm still enraged you suggested Johnson is argubally not a Top 10 Heavyweight even after you admitted you were exaggerating :lol1:
Yeah, that was ludacris. Exaggerations always help draw people who are opininated on a subject into a debate. :lol1:

Ziggy Stardust
05-20-2011, 01:13 PM
Resume not too shabby either in my book.

Strangely, It doesn't seem to be the consensus in here, though.

Mostly because his resume is viewed primarily through the prism of his title reign rather than his career as a whole. Title reins hold a whole lot more weight now than it did then and people don't adjust their thinking when looking at the era.

Poet

IronDanHamza
05-20-2011, 01:21 PM
Mostly because his resume is viewed primarily through the prism of his title reign rather than his career as a whole. Title reins hold a whole lot more weight now than it did then and people don't adjust their thinking when looking at the era.

Poet

Absolutely.

I did highlight that in the thread about Jack Johnson recently. His resume outside his Title reign is excellent IMO and add his reign ontop of that which is atleast decent aswell IMO.

Steak
05-20-2011, 02:16 PM
how is Johnson's resume excellent when his 3 best wins were pre prime?

even if Jeannete McVea and Langford were prime, do you actually think they are better wins than beating say Ken Norton or Evander Holyfield?

$BloodyNate$
05-20-2011, 03:14 PM
Mostly because his resume is viewed primarily through the prism of his title reign rather than his career as a whole. Title reins hold a whole lot more weight now than it did then and people don't adjust their thinking when looking at the era.

Poet

I thought it was mostly because he ducked Sam Langford that everybody wants to ***** on him so much.

BigStereotype
05-20-2011, 03:26 PM
Honestly, I like to rate in tiers. Individual rankings are too hard and fluctuate too much. But for me, there's the Ali/Louis tier, then there's the next three (Holmes, Johnson, Foreman), then the next tier (Dempsey, Lewis, Liston, Frazier, Marciano), etc. etc. They still switch around some (Dempsey jumps back and forth from 2 to 3, for example) but I think it's easier and less artificial.

joseph5620
05-20-2011, 04:35 PM
It seems Ali and Louis are just leagues above everyone else and from then on, a mad scramble ensues for the remaining places in the Top 10 with almost any order being regarded as acceptable.

I'm hoping to stir up an insightful debate here, so people can have references when compling their own Top 10 Heavyweight lists.






After 1 and 2 it becomes a lot more difficult and subjective.

Boxing Bob
05-20-2011, 08:20 PM
Larry Holmes, I can't believe anyone would have Foreman as high as #3!

fight_professor
05-20-2011, 09:12 PM
In overall achievement?

Larry Holmes.

For skill/h2h/, I say Tyson.

Ziggy Stardust
05-20-2011, 09:29 PM
I thought it was mostly because he ducked Sam Langford that everybody wants to ***** on him so much.

He fought and beat Langford before he won the title. The issue comes in because he wouldn't give him a shot AFTER he won the title.

Poet

Wild Blue Yonda
05-20-2011, 09:37 PM
I have Foreman at 3rd, because his ability to decimate almost any fighter head-to-head, coupled with his unique & perennial career achievements, warrant it.

Holmes is at least debatable for 3rd, but personally I do not feel he gets nearly enough scrutiny for the level of competition (& it wasn't all about being in a weak era, either) during his title tenure. I think Foreman would've reigned for a hundred years fighting the guys Holmes was (especially at the stage of their careers several were), & even in his mid-30's would've done a number on Spinks.

Foreman at #3, for me.

Ziggy Stardust
05-20-2011, 09:44 PM
I think Foreman would've reigned for a hundred years fighting the guys Holmes was

Except that he would have dropped the title to Jimmy Young in '77 if that were the case.

Poet

TBear
05-20-2011, 09:53 PM
Holmes: accomplished more than the rest but not as much as Louis and Ali.

Wild Blue Yonda
05-20-2011, 10:06 PM
Except that he would have dropped the title to Jimmy Young in '77 if that were the case.

Poet

In the first instance, I don't believe Foreman, at his best, doesn't beat Young (& their fight was a good deal closer than history often remembers), & had Foreman not lost in Zaire, I think he would've gotten to Young at some stage.

In the second instance, Holmes never met Young, in or out of his title reign.

Ziggy Stardust
05-20-2011, 10:20 PM
In the first instance, I don't believe Foreman, at his best, doesn't beat Young (& their fight was a good deal closer than history often remembers), & had Foreman not lost in Zaire, I think he would've gotten to Young at some stage.

In the second instance, Holmes never met Young, in or out of his title reign.

Except that Zaire happend and can't be made to disappear. Foreman wasn't going to beat Ali at any point prior to Ali really slipping badly, say circa the Spinks fights.

I would also point out that the Young fight was close on only 1 card: 115-114. The other two cards were 116-112 and 118-111 respectively.....that's a pretty clear loss.

Regardless, Foreman had two big weaknesses: He gassed after 6 rounds and he had difficulties with movers. If nothing else Young was a mover. It's not too difficult to imagine Young being a dicey opponent for any version of Foreman given his ability to move and keep away until Foreman runs out of steam.

Poet

Wild Blue Yonda
05-20-2011, 10:30 PM
I do agree Young is a dangerous fight for Foreman at any time, but their actual fight was much, much closer than those cards suggest. Young landed absolutely nothing of note prior to the 8th stanza.

In any event, this is all a moot point --- I said Foreman would probably reign for a century over the men Holmes defended against, and Young wasnt one of them.

Ziggy Stardust
05-20-2011, 10:43 PM
I do agree Young is a dangerous fight for Foreman at any time, but their actual fight was much, much closer than those cards suggest. Young landed absolutely nothing of note prior to the 8th stanza.

Neither did Foreman.


In any event, this is all a moot point --- I said Foreman would probably reign for a century over the men Holmes defended against, and Young wasnt one of them.

Norton, Shavers, Weaver, Cooney.....I'd put those guys over Jimmy Young (Young lost to three of the four, two by KO). And I don't see Holmes having much issue with a mover like Young the way Foreman did. Holmes could be outworked, but he wasn't going to be outslicked.

PS. For the record, Young lost his shot at Holmes by losing twice to Ossie Ocasio who got the shot instead.

Poet

Steak
05-21-2011, 12:15 AM
I dont think I would rate Shavers and Cooney above Young. Young lost to Cooney when he was pretty darn past prime, and although Shavers did blast out Young in their first fight most people thought Young deserved the win in their rematch. the fact that Young also beat Lyle twice and Foreman once suggests to me he overall had a better career than not only Shavers and Cooney, but arguably Weaver as well(but thats up for debate and I wont waste my time arguing against it).

Foreman under some context could be rated above Holmes. after all...

Norton>Norton(Foreman beat him younger and more dominantly)
Frazier>Weaver
Lyle>or=Cooney
Moorer>Shavers(considering his age)

however, I personally I have Holmes above Foreman. Despite Foreman's huge wins over Frazier, Norton, and Moorer, he actually didnt beat nearly as much high level competition as Holmes. You could add in Peralta, Chuvalo, Roman and Briggs, but thats about it.

Holmes apart from his best wins has a host of other notable secondary wins that are often forgotten, such as Evangilista, Ocasio, Zanon, Jones, Berbick, Spinks, Cobb, Tim Witherspoon, Bonecrusher Smith, David Bey, Carl Williams and Ray Mercer. Yes, a few of the listed wins are a bit...underwhelming. but they were still relevant fighters in the division, and certain fighters like Mercer and Witherspoon are very solid wins in my opinion.

overall I feel that Holmes beat more high level competition than Foreman and was a bit more consistant, and even partially mirrored Foreman's old man success when he schooled Mercer.

the big negative against Holmes was that he didnt fight the best the division had to offer all the time...Coetzee, Dokes, and a Weaver rematch would have really helped out his legacy.

Wild Blue Yonda
05-22-2011, 03:31 AM
Neither did Foreman.

Norton, Shavers, Weaver, Cooney.....I'd put those guys over Jimmy Young (Young lost to three of the four, two by KO). And I don't see Holmes having much issue with a mover like Young the way Foreman did. Holmes could be outworked, but he wasn't going to be outslicked.

PS. For the record, Young lost his shot at Holmes by losing twice to Ossie Ocasio who got the shot instead.

Poet

You must be joking about the Young-Foreman fight. Foreman won his share of rounds & to say he landed nothing prior to the 8th is flat wrong --- not even debatable. He bounced Young around like a basketball in the 7th. Have you even seen this fight!?

Again, your criticisms of Young are unreasonable. He lost to Shavers in, what, his 10th or 12th fight? When they fought again on more even terms, Young school him easily. Shavers received a horrid gift in getting, "the draw." Cooney is even more ridiculous to bring up. Are you gleaning this entirely from BoxRec's database? Everybody knows the state Young was in when he fought Cooney --- people knew it then, & people know it now. It's meaningless. Young lost an either-way decision against Norton, there's zero shame.

I'm not saying Young deserved a shot at Holmes. I don't even want to argue, for that matter, about Foreman & Young. What I'm saying is open Holmes' record on BoxRec, take a look at the list of fighters he beat between 1979-85 (& note how amazingly green some of them were, a point never discussed). Foreman would annihilate everyone on that list & Spinks would've been just another victim.

Holmes has an over-rated title reign.

Devroy Jones
05-22-2011, 06:20 AM
I too voted for Jack Johnson, cause he was one of the few men who knew the rudiments of boxing. And he could outbox, brawl and dodge any opponent anyday. The guy was a master at glove parrying, clinching and other defensive tactics in general.

Wild Blue Yonda
05-22-2011, 08:13 AM
I too voted for Jack Johnson, cause he was one of the few men who knew the rudiments of boxing. And he could outbox, brawl and dodge any opponent anyday. The guy was a master at glove parrying, clinching and other defensive tactics in general.

He almost never faced quality combination punchers and it wouldve told against the likes of a Dempsey or a Louis.

Southpaw Stinger
05-22-2011, 10:44 AM
I'm happy with either Holmes, Johnson or Foreman.

A definitive list is impossible though.

Ziggy Stardust
05-22-2011, 06:28 PM
You must be joking about the Young-Foreman fight. Foreman won his share of rounds & to say he landed nothing prior to the 8th is flat wrong --- not even debatable. He bounced Young around like a basketball in the 7th. Have you even seen this fight!?

I've seen the fight a number of times (including when it actually happened as it was carried by ABC's Wide World Of Sports). Young was never in any real danger in that fight hence one of the judges scoring it by a lopsided margin in his favor.


Again, your criticisms of Young are unreasonable. He lost to Shavers in, what, his 10th or 12th fight? When they fought again on more even terms, Young school him easily. Shavers received a horrid gift in getting, "the draw." Cooney is even more ridiculous to bring up. Are you gleaning this entirely from BoxRec's database? Everybody knows the state Young was in when he fought Cooney --- people knew it then, & people know it now. It's meaningless. Young lost an either-way decision against Norton, there's zero shame.

When was a I criticising Young? I simply pointed out that he was a second tier contender who was not as good as the guys Holmes fought who were considered top tier contenders at the time. I also pointed out that Young lost to three out of the four you're criticising Holmes for fighting instead of Young.


I'm not saying Young deserved a shot at Holmes. I don't even want to argue, for that matter, about Foreman & Young. What I'm saying is open Holmes' record on BoxRec, take a look at the list of fighters he beat between 1979-85 (& note how amazingly green some of them were, a point never discussed). Foreman would annihilate everyone on that list & Spinks would've been just another victim.

And Holmes would breeze through the vast majority of the tomato cans on Foreman's record. Seriously, take out Ali and Frazier and who did Foreman fight really? And what's the issue with Spinks anyway? Holmes was past-it when he fought Spinks and people hd been noticing it since the Bey fight. Come on man.....my formative years in boxing coincided with Holmes' title reign. Not only am I familiar with his opponents I didn't miss a single one of his title fights in that period.

Holmes has an over-rated title reign.

And so does:
Tyson
Marciano
Dempsey
Lennox
And practically any Heavyweight not named Ali or Louis.

I'm starting to think you have some sort of personal issue with Holmes. Maybe not a Sonnyboy "Lennox is Satan" extreme, but enough that you have a trigger flipped when he comes up :)

Poet

Wild Blue Yonda
05-22-2011, 08:56 PM
You havent seen Young-Foreman if youre contending Foreman landed nothing serious before the 8th, or that Young was never in danger. Those arent even close to being debatable.

Ziggy Stardust
05-22-2011, 10:55 PM
You havent seen Young-Foreman if youre contending Foreman landed nothing serious before the 8th, or that Young was never in danger. Those arent even close to being debatable.

And yet I've seen the fight a number of times and I am debating it. At no time did I see Young seriously hurt. Foreman lost the fight by 4 points on 1 card and 7 points on another. That's about as clear a loss as you can get. Prehaps you should watch that fight again, this time WITHOUT a rooting interest. I'm sure if you're pulling for Foreman you can find a way to shade every remotely close round to him.....but that's not how we score fights now is it? :)

Poet

Steak
05-22-2011, 11:01 PM
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cKVYOZOJLqo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

7th round is at 20:00 in.

Young is pretty ****ed up.


regardless, I have Holmes at 3, because while Foreman's resume has quality, it just doesnt have enough quantity.

Ziggy Stardust
05-22-2011, 11:20 PM
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cKVYOZOJLqo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

7th round is at 20:00 in.

Young is pretty ****ed up.


regardless, I have Holmes at 3, because while Foreman's resume has quality, it just doesnt have enough quantity.

Now shut off the volume and rewatch it without Cosell's overdramatized commentary. Young got pushed back by a left, few of the followup punches landed cleanly. At one point Young stumbles over Foreman's foot rights himself and starts punching back. By the end of the round Young had landed as many clean shots as Foreman had.

Poet

Steak
05-22-2011, 11:25 PM
Now shut off the volume and rewatch it without Cosell's overdramatized commentary. Young got pushed back by a left, few of the followup punches landed cleanly. At one point Young stumbles over Foreman's foot rights himself and starts punching back. By the end of the round Young had landed as many clean shots as Foreman had.

Poet

I dont care about commentary, and after watching it muted, my opinion hasnt really changed. look at Young's body language and demeanor after getting clocked with the left hook. his legs stiffen up, his eyes become vacant, hes stumbling about...

hey, personally, thats 'hurt' to me, even though Young did make a pretty damn impressive recovery.

Ziggy Stardust
05-22-2011, 11:37 PM
I dont care about commentary, and after watching it muted, my opinion hasnt really changed. look at Young's body language and demeanor after getting clocked with the left hook. his legs stiffen up, his eyes become vacant, hes stumbling about...

hey, personally, thats 'hurt' to me, even though Young did make a pretty damn impressive recovery.

We'll have to agree to disagree then my friend. Rather than stumbling about it looked to me like he was trying to dodge Foreman's followup. Young was an awkward fighter to begin with. When a fighter is seriously hurt, in my book at least, I expect them to be visibly staggered (Lennox in the first round against Briggs for example) rather than shoved backwards.

Poet

cja07007
05-22-2011, 11:48 PM
I'm all Holmes on this one. If you have consistency as an important attribute of an ATG then he definitely fits the bill.

studentofthegam
05-23-2011, 11:35 AM
Larry Holmes, I can't believe anyone would have Foreman as high as #3!Foreman had the greatest come back in boxing history. Im pissed that A Georgia boy cant get any votes around here. Holy beat them both. Larry was past it but no push over. Foreman was actually a better fighter at 40+. Evander popped punches off him like firecrackers. Add in Moorer, Bowe, Tyson and Mercer and that res is hard to compete with. He never ducked anyone, always came to fight (except the Lewis 1 fight) and got jobbed against Valuev preventing him from getting his parting title shot. Not that he would have won but he earned the right. Thats my no.3 and its no waivering.

Barn
05-23-2011, 11:36 AM
Foreman had the greatest come back in boxing history. Im pissed that A Georgia boy cant get any votes around here. Holy beat them both. Larry was past it but no push over. Foreman was actually a better fighter at 40+. Evander popped punches off him like firecrackers. Add in Moorer, Bowe, Tyson and Mercer and that res is hard to compete with. He never ducked anyone, always came to fight (except the Lewis 1 fight) and got jobbed against Valuev preventing him from getting his parting title shot. Not that he would have won but he earned the right. Thats my no.3 and its no waivering.

:thinking:

studentofthegam
05-23-2011, 11:44 AM
:thinking:He was more controlled and understood how to preserve his energy. That fight with Holyfield showed that he had staying power and a granite chin. I have a hard time thinking he would have survived those shots he took as a young man. Not to mention, he was a freak of nature in the 70's. By the time he made his comeback (not saying he was a small HW) but his power and size wasnt as dramatically superior by the 90's. If he had the ring smarts back then I say (with a hard swallow) he beats Ali. Kinda like BHop. No he's not as athletic but he's a hell of a lot smarter in the ring than he was as a younger man.

IronDanHamza
05-23-2011, 12:11 PM
He was more controlled and understood how to preserve his energy. That fight with Holyfield showed that he had staying power and a granite chin. I have a hard time thinking he would have survived those shots he took as a young man. Not to mention, he was a freak of nature in the 70's. By the time he made his comeback (not saying he was a small HW) but his power and size wasnt as dramatically superior by the 90's. If he had the ring smarts back then I say (with a hard swallow) he beats Ali. Kinda like BHop. No he's not as athletic but he's a hell of a lot smarter in the ring than he was as a younger man.

Nonsense.

He would have survived those shots just as well as a young man as he did at 40+, obviously.

How would he have beaten Ali with added ring smarts? George Foreman trying to box Muhammad Ali? That wouldn't be a pretty sight.

It's nothing like Bernard Hopkins. Hopkins has always been an incredibly smart, skilled and crafty fighter, always. It's really nothing alike.

George Foreman was quite clearly a better fighter in his prime compared to when he was 40+.

Different? Yes. Smarter? Yes. Better? Absolutely not.

Joeyzagz
05-23-2011, 12:16 PM
When a fighter is seriously hurt, in my book at least, I expect them to be visibly staggered (Lennox in the first round against Briggs for example) rather than shoved backwards.

Poet
Bad example. Briggs tripped up Lennox with his legs. Thats why those subsequent punches didnt do anything, because the first punch never was!.

Watch the first round again with the volume down and a close eye on Lennox. He is never really hurt even after the cheap shots to the back of the head.

studentofthegam
05-23-2011, 12:33 PM
Nonsense.

He would have survived those shots just as well as a young man as he did at 40+, obviously.

How would he have beaten Ali with added ring smarts? George Foreman trying to box Muhammad Ali? That wouldn't be a pretty sight.

It's nothing like Bernard Hopkins. Hopkins has always been an incredibly smart, skilled and crafty fighter, always. It's really nothing alike.

George Foreman was quite clearly a better fighter in his prime compared to when he was 40+.

Different? Yes. Smarter? Yes. Better? Absolutely not.To me Smarter is always better. I think you are confusing dominance with him being a better fighter. Sure he was more dominant but its certain guys( and Holyfields on of them) that would give the 70's version a thumping. He was something new then. He paived the way for the new big man boxing. Times change people adjust. The rumble in the jungle George would get eaten alive by Holyfield on the inside. Also I compared BHop because I'd take 40 yr old Hopkins over 30 yr old Bernard any day of the week. Point being, yes he's always been crafty but something about learning self preservation smartens a man up. Oh yeah almost forgot.

I think Foreman had the right idea against Ali and to a certain degree it worked. Saving some gas in the tank would have made it a toss up. He threw too many meaningless punches and reacted to Ali's ribbing. I dont think a more mature Foreman buys into it. The shots he did land on Ali hurt and if he'd takin a breather or two and pin pointed them better it would have been trouble for the pretty one.(who's also my favorite fighter)

IronDanHamza
05-23-2011, 12:49 PM
To me Smarter is always better.

Why?

So naturally you rank Floyd Mayweather Jr over Henry Armstrong, I assume?


I think you are confusing dominance with him being a better fighter.

No, not really. I'm basing the fact he is a better fighter in his prime as opposed to being 40+ years old because;

1. He's physically at his peak
2. He proved it by polaxing much better fighters than he did when he was 40+


Sure he was more dominant but its certain guys( and Holyfields on of them) that would give the 70's version a thumping.

Name those certain guys that woulf give a prime Foreman a 'thumping', please.

Holyfield isn't one of them in my opinion.

He was something new then. He paived the way for the new big man boxing.

Elaborate.


Times change people adjust. The rumble in the jungle George would get eaten alive by Holyfield on the inside.

No, he wouldn't. Not in my opinion. You're clearly undermining the incredible strength of George Foreman.


Also I compared BHop because I'd take 40 yr old Hopkins over 30 yr old Bernard any day of the week.

You're in a very very small minority.


I think Foreman had the right idea against Ali and to a certain degree it worked. Saving some gas in the tank would have made it a toss up. He threw too many meaningless punches and reacted to Ali's ribbing. I dont think a more mature Foreman buys into it. The shots he did land on Ali hurt and if he'd takin a breather or two and pin pointed them better it would have been trouble for the pretty one.(who's also my favorite fighter)

I whole heartedly disagree.

Any version of George Foreman will struggle with Muhammad Ali.

Especially one that's 40+ years old.

studentofthegam
05-23-2011, 01:05 PM
Why?

So naturally you rank Floyd Mayweather Jr over Henry Armstrong, I assume?




No, not really. I'm basing the fact he is a better fighter in his prime as opposed to being 40+ years old because;

1. He's physically at his peak
2. He proved it by polaxing much better fighters than he did when he was 40+




Name those certain guys that woulf give a prime Foreman a 'thumping', please.

Holyfield isn't one of them in my opinion.



Elaborate.




No, he wouldn't. Not in my opinion. You're clearly undermining the incredible strength of George Foreman.




You're in a very very small minority.




I whole heartedly disagree.

Any version of George Foreman will struggle with Muhammad Ali.

Especially one that's 40+ years old.Naturally I think Floyd is the best I've ever seen just to nip that in the bud.

IMO is key. IMO Holy thumps him. Lenox thumps him. Klitschko thumps him. Bowe (in shape) thumps him. He was just extremely slow and out of controll. It was easy to see he was a bully in the ring like no one had seen before. By the late 80's HW were getting a little bigger and stronger. By 1990 the giants were coming along with great jabs.

You give me BHop at 40 and 4/5 times he spanks BHop 30 "IMO". I stay in the minority, not a problem as you know.

Yes any version of anybody has a problem with the greatest, no doubt. I just think a smarter George in '74 could get Ali. I didnt say he mops the flooor with him. But he was in good position and let it go with wasted energy.

Steak
05-23-2011, 01:06 PM
I dislike this whole "Foreman was smarter and better post 40" thing I hear often. its simply not true whatsoever.

Foreman DID know how to pace himself in his 20s. go watch his fight with George Chuvalo, for example. He starts picking away at him with his jab, keeps the distance, waits for a big punch to land, and then digs to the body. If thats not 'controlled' for Foreman I dont know what is.

I think a big problem people have is that they look at Foreman post or during Ali to judge him. imo, he got overconfident and fired up leading up to the Ali bout, and wasnt quite the same fighter that had beaten Norton and Frazier. No, Im not suggesting he would have beaten Ali, dont bite my head off. But he certainly was more wild and his punches werent as crisp.

post Ali he was too angry to be more focused. Thats why they had that silly 'Foreman KOs 5 guys in one night' charade, to boost his confidence and get him back in shape. even then, if you watch it then hes very pissed off and ****ing around in a bunch of the matches, totally unlike what youd expect from him.

basically what Im saying is...you can make some sort of argument for post 40 Foreman being a better fighter than post Ali pre retirement Foreman(from Lyle or Young). but pre Ali Foreman(from Fraizer and Chuvalo)? not a chance.
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/d2KRcH1N-xY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

studentofthegam
05-23-2011, 01:25 PM
I dislike this whole "Foreman was smarter and better post 40" thing I hear often. its simply not true whatsoever.

Foreman DID know how to pace himself in his 20s. go watch his fight with George Chuvalo, for example. He starts picking away at him with his jab, keeps the distance, waits for a big punch to land, and then digs to the body. If thats not 'controlled' for Foreman I dont know what is.

I think a big problem people have is that they look at Foreman post or during Ali to judge him. imo, he got overconfident and fired up leading up to the Ali bout, and wasnt quite the same fighter that had beaten Norton and Frazier. No, Im not suggesting he would have beaten Ali, dont bite my head off. But he certainly was more wild and his punches werent as crisp.

post Ali he was too angry to be more focused. Thats why they had that silly 'Foreman KOs 5 guys in one night' charade, to boost his confidence and get him back in shape. even then, if you watch it then hes very pissed off and ****ing around in a bunch of the matches, totally unlike what youd expect from him.

basically what Im saying is...you can make some sort of argument for post 40 Foreman being a better fighter than post Ali pre retirement Foreman(from Lyle or Young). but pre Ali Foreman(from Fraizer and Chuvalo)? not a chance.
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/d2KRcH1N-xY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Yes the argument can be made. He had no choice but to be smarter because he only had power to go on. You subtract the little speed he had, youth and lumber jack physique what do you have left? Ring smarts, and power. To win a championship at 45 I think smarter had plenty to do with it. And dont tell me to watch him fight that "ring technician" Chuvalo to show how great a boxer George could be. That is a terrible measuring stick. He was a punching bag and the fight lasted 10 minutes.

IronDanHamza
05-23-2011, 01:26 PM
Naturally I think Floyd is the best I've ever seen just to nip that in the bud.

IMO is key. IMO Holy thumps him. Lenox thumps him. Klitschko thumps him. Bowe (in shape) thumps him. He was just extremely slow and out of controll.

Based of what? Based of what do all of these fighters 'thump' him?

It was easy to see he was a bully in the ring like no one had seen before.

Cue Sonny Liston.

By the late 80's HW were getting a little bigger and stronger. By 1990 the giants were coming along with great jabs.

Again, cue Sonny Liston.

You give me BHop at 40 and 4/5 times he spanks BHop 30 "IMO". I stay in the minority, not a problem as you know.

Ridiculous. Hopkins at 30 is clearly a better fighter than Hopkins at 40.

Yes any version of anybody has a problem with the greatest, no doubt. I just think a smarter George in '74 could get Ali. I didnt say he mops the flooor with him. But he was in good position and let it go with wasted energy.

I don't see how any version of George Foreman beats Muhammad Ali.

IronDanHamza
05-23-2011, 01:29 PM
Yes the argument can be made. He had no choice but to be smarter because he only had power to go on. You subtract the little speed he had, youth and lumber jack physique what do you have left? Ring smarts, and power. To win a championship at 45 I think smarter had plenty to do with it. And dont tell me to watch him fight that "ring technician" Chuvalo to show how great a boxer George could be. That is a terrible measuring stick. He was a punching bag and the fight lasted 10 minutes.

As opposed to the great and prestigous Heavyweight Champion Micheal Moorer? In which he was dominating oh so much right up to the KO punch?

Steak
05-23-2011, 01:32 PM
Yes the argument can be made. He had no choice but to be smarter because he only had power to go on. You subtract the little speed he had, youth and lumber jack physique what do you have left? Ring smarts, and power. To win a championship at 45 I think smarter had plenty to do with it. And dont tell me to watch him fight that "ring technician" Chuvalo to show how great a boxer George could be. That is a terrible measuring stick. He was a punching bag and the fight lasted 10 minutes.
watch his fights against Chuvalo or Frazier. now watch his fights against say Lyle or Holyfield. You honestly dont think Foreman's punches look sharper pre Ali?

I think older Foreman was calmer and more emotionally in control. but skill wise not much more different. and physically(and Foreman was no doubt a physical fighter) I dont think it can be debated that 20 year old Foreman is better than 40+ year old.

studentofthegam
05-23-2011, 01:45 PM
Based of what? Based of what do all of these fighters 'thump' him?



Cue Sonny Liston.



Again, cue Sonny Liston.



Ridiculous. Hopkins at 30 is clearly a better fighter than Hopkins at 40.



I don't see how any version of George Foreman beats Muhammad Ali.Based on length minus Holyfield because he's inside. Good jabs and footwork combined with power. George had balance trouble and was a wild swing. Guys his size could control distance much better than the smaller guys he fought. I just dont think Evander gets overwhelmed to the point of not throwing and Foreman was much more wide open as a young man than as a man almost half a century.

Sonny Liston was not near the physical specimen Foreman was. He was feared like Foreman(pre-Ali for both) but thats where it stops. I said the "new" style of big man. And Liston in hindsight wasnt a huge guy.


Bhop fought better guys over all at a later age. Sure theres Roy but outside that I think DLH and Trinidad were done before they started. Good resume padding though. I say the fights with JT were more dangerous than both. Throw in Tarver and Winky then 40 yr old BHop smothers 30 yr old Bhop. Cheers to the minority.

studentofthegam
05-23-2011, 01:56 PM
As opposed to the great and prestigous Heavyweight Champion Micheal Moorer? In which he was dominating oh so much right up to the KO punch?The Moorer fight is an excellent example of the change since you mentioned it. It boiled down to I saved enough to get you. Foreman even during the comeback never planned to win a bunch of decisions. Way to "own" yourself. The Chuvalo fight wasnt smart. He was winging punches everywhere. I wont say everywhere because he landed a lot but who didnt against Chuvalo. Off balance a lot of the time.

watch his fights against Chuvalo or Frazier. now watch his fights against say Lyle or Holyfield. You honestly dont think Foreman's punches look sharper pre Ali?

I think older Foreman was calmer and more emotionally in control. but skill wise not much more different. and physically(and Foreman was no doubt a physical fighter) I dont think it can be debated that 20 year old Foreman is better than 40+ year old.Yes he was calmer and more emotionally under control. Is it possible that it makes you a better fighter? Yall are reaching so bad and proving my point. I'll take a HW thats less erratic and hits a ton over a wild swinging, off balance young lion that cant take a ribbing.

IronDanHamza
05-23-2011, 02:01 PM
Based on length minus Holyfield because he's inside. Good jabs and footwork combined with power. George had balance trouble and was a wild swing. Guys his size could control distance much better than the smaller guys he fought. I just dont think Evander gets overwhelmed to the point of not throwing and Foreman was much more wide open as a young man than as a man almost half a century.

Kind of a brash thing to base it off.



Sonny Liston was not near the physical specimen Foreman was. He was feared like Foreman(pre-Ali for both) but thats where it stops. I said the "new" style of big man. And Liston in hindsight wasnt a huge guy.

Well, that is where you are completely and utterly wrong.

Sonny Liston was absolutely the physical specimen that George Foreman was.

Liston in hindsight was absolutely a big guy. Foreman is not that much bigger than him.

Foreman says himself that Sonny Liston is the only man that ever backed him up.


Bhop fought better guys over all at a later age. Sure theres Roy but outside that I think DLH and Trinidad were done before they started. Good resume padding though. I say the fights with JT were more dangerous than both. Throw in Tarver and Winky then 40 yr old BHop smothers 30 yr old Bhop. Cheers to the minority.

You talk about Trinidad been over before it started yet praise the Winky Wright fight? Why?

Jermain Taylor more dangerous than Felix Trinidad?

:thinking:

IronDanHamza
05-23-2011, 02:07 PM
The Moorer fight is an excellent example of the change since you mentioned it. It boiled down to I saved enough to get you. Foreman even during the comeback never planned to win a bunch of decisions. Way to "own" yourself. The Chuvalo fight wasnt smart. He was winging punches everywhere. I wont say everywhere because he landed a lot but who didnt against Chuvalo. Off balance a lot of the time.

Example of change? Who talked about 'change'? Of course he changed his style.....

You said Chuvalo isn't a good measuring stick.

My response was "As opposed to Micheal Moorer?"

:lol1: @ Way to own myself. Ooooook.



Yes he was calmer and more emotionally under control. Is it possible that it makes you a better fighter? Yall are reaching so bad and proving my point. I'll take a HW thats less erratic and hits a ton over a wild swinging, off balance young lion that cant take a ribbing.

It's possible.

But In this situation? No, it's wrong.

You might take that. That being said you think Julio Cesar Chavez fights like Carlos Baldomir and Thomas Hearns fights like Paul Williams.

It's completely inaccurate, but to each it's own.

studentofthegam
05-23-2011, 02:27 PM
Kind of a brash thing to base it off.





Well, that is where you are completely and utterly wrong.

Sonny Liston was absolutely the physical specimen that George Foreman was.

Liston in hignsight was absolutely a big guy. Foreman is not that much bigger than him.

Foreman says himself that Sonny Liston is the only man that ever backed him up.




You talk about Trinidad been over before it started yet praise the Winky Wright fight? Why?

Jermain Taylor more dangerous than Felix Trinidad?

:thinking:Yeah if "brash" means it makes sense and you have no reply.

LOok at the difference in build between the two. Foreman is much more imposing. He hit harder. He could cover way more distance with his height and reach. No, not the same. Just say you made a bad comparison and move on. Yeah and Floyd said Augustus was his toughest fight with those two fights with Castillo lingering. Its just respect. No doubt Liston was stong but not the "new" HW build and strength by a long shot.

When it comes to Trinidad the match up was all in favor of BHop. He was defensive and considerably the naturally bigger guy. Tinidad is a free swinger that followed. Atleast I knew he had no chance. You see Winky was defensive also so it made for a tighter fight and a way better match up than Trinidad. Trinidad has always been overrated. He added some good names to his res and road it out. And you're damn right JT is more dangerous. He's faster, bigger and rangier. If he could manage to stay awake we'd be talking where he ranks P4P. Cant teach chin. If you dont think Jt's more dangerous then there is video proof of how a defensive wiz and crafty veteran Hopkins attacked them differently. He opened up against Felix because he felt extremely comfortable.

studentofthegam
05-23-2011, 02:36 PM
Example of change? Who talked about 'change'? Of course he changed his style.....

You said Chuvalo isn't a good measuring stick.

My response was "As opposed to Micheal Moorer?"

:lol1: @ Way to own myself. Ooooook.





It's possible.

But In this situation? No, it's wrong.

You might take that. That being said you think Julio Cesar Chavez fights like Carlos Baldomir and Thomas Hearns fights like Paul Williams.

It's completely inaccurate, but to each it's own.Moorer is a much better measuring stick dum dum. He was losing, went rounds and never got wild. He stayed controlled and waited on his shot which was his gameplan throughout the 90's. Smart fighting is being able to adjust to your skill set and stick to your gameplan. I want you to find one person that agrees that "a smarter fighter doesnt make a better fighter". You dont feel stupid just saying that. Talk about the subject instead of bending the truth on old sh*t.

No I didnt say that exactly. Now we're gonna tell lies because you got your ass handed to you on this topic.

Steak
05-23-2011, 02:38 PM
didnt Liston have a longer reach than Foreman?

and personally, Ill take the stronger, younger, better conditioned Foreman over the one who simply had his emotions in control, since skills wise old Foreman didnt have much improvement.

also, pre Ali Foreman was a fighter that was very much in control, so that doesnt go for much.

studentofthegam
05-23-2011, 02:42 PM
didnt Liston have a longer reach than Foreman?

and personally, Ill take the stronger, younger, better conditioned Foreman over the one who simply had his emotions in control, since skills wise old Foreman didnt have much improvement.

also, pre Ali Foreman was a fighter that was very much in control, so that doesnt go for much.No he wasnt controlled. Watch the clip you put up. He was swinging like a wild man and losing his footing when the fight was stopped. Just so happened he had a willing target. And my old, chubby, smart Foreman would break him down.

IronDanHamza
05-23-2011, 02:47 PM
Yeah if "brash" means it makes sense and you have no reply.

No no, It just simply means brash.

You're making complete judgements from nothing;

"Length will beat him" , "A good jab and footwork beat him" , "Except Holfield because of his inside game"

And you're completely dismissing how unhumanly strong George Foreman is.

Not to mention that Joe Fraizer has a pretty decent inside game.

A handful of those mentioned have done nothing to suggest they could beat a prime George Foreman. Especially the likes of the Klitschko brothers.

So, to put it simplym "brash" seemed appropriate. But there you go since you needed a breakdown.

LOok at the difference in build between the two. Foreman is much more imposing.

Again, completely wrong.

He hit harder.

That's arguable.

Ali for one, who fought both, feels that Liston hits harder.

He could cover way more distance with his height and reach.

:lol1: :lol1:

Sonny Liston has a longer reach than George Foreman so that example is dismissed.

Sonny Liston also has a much much better jab than Foreman.

What a whole 3 inchs of height that Foreman has on Liston?! Oh my god!!! :thinking:



No, not the same. Just say you made a bad comparison and move on.

What? You mean like Foremans controlling distance better than Liston with his longer reach? :lol1:

Or how about your all time great comparison of Chavez fighting like Baldomir?

Or Hearns and P.Williams?

Like those?

Yeah and Floyd said Augustus was his toughest fight with those two fights with Castillo lingering. Its just respect.

Just respect? Yeah I bet Floyd felt such a need to 'just show respect' to Emmanuel Burton. Get a clue.

Burton gave him a tough fight, that's why he said that.

Foreman said it because it's true. Liston was the only man who ever backed up George Foreman. He admits that.

No doubt Liston was stong but not the "new" HW build and strength by a long shot.

When did the 'new' heavyweight build emerge then?


When it comes to Trinidad the match up was all in favor of BHop. He was defensive and considerably the naturally bigger guy. Tinidad is a free swinger that followed. Atleast I knew he had no chance. You see Winky was defensive also so it made for a tighter fight and a way better match up than Trinidad. Trinidad has always been overrated. He added some good names to his res and road it out. And you're damn right JT is more dangerous. He's faster, bigger and rangier. If he could manage to stay awake we'd be talking where he ranks P4P. Cant teach chin. If you dont think Jt's more dangerous then there is video proof of how a defensive wiz and crafty veteran Hopkins attacked them differently. He opened up against Felix because he felt extremely comfortable.

Tito Trinidad is overrated and Winky Wright is just amazing isn't he?

Taylor is more dangerous than Trinidad? Good lord.

Hopkins-Trinidad and Hopkins-Taylor might be different because he was like 5 years older possibly? Ever think of that?

Get a clue, man.

Steak
05-23-2011, 02:49 PM
No he wasnt controlled. Watch the clip you put up. He was swinging like a wild man and losing his footing when the fight was stopped. Just so happened he had a willing target. And my old, chubby, smart Foreman would break him down.
I frankly dont know how youre seeing that. He fought a very controlled for 3 rounds, and when he had his man hurt he finished him after going to the body.

are you suggesting old Foreman would have done better in that situation? I find that very hard to believe.

Pastrano
05-23-2011, 02:52 PM
Marciano, no doubt. Holmes' level of competition wasn't as good as Rocky's, all due respect to Larry. People tend to be too down on Rocky's opponents, but Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles were still game and proved that by giving him tough fights. Moore even dropped him. Louis I agree was faded. Holmes didn't beat many HOFers, if any...Norton comes to mind only and Ali, but that fight was a farce. That was not Ali, just a shell of him. Witherspoon was robbed imo in that fight with Holmes and Holmes never fought Tubbs, Page, Pinklon or Coetzee for some reason. Rocky fought everyone while he was active. That goes on my nerves, when they say "Oh, Larry fought EVERYONE, he didnt duck anyone!"

I actually rate Rocky nr.2, behind Joe.

IronDanHamza
05-23-2011, 02:54 PM
Moorer is a much better measuring stick dum dum. He was losing, went rounds and never got wild. He stayed controlled and waited on his shot which was his gameplan throughout the 90's. Smart fighting is being able to adjust to your skill set and stick to your gameplan. I want you to find one person that agrees that "a smarter fighter doesnt make a better fighter". You dont feel stupid just saying that. Talk about the subject instead of bending the truth on old sh*t.

And why is that? Because Moorer is so proven at HW unlike Chuvalo?

A smart fighter doesn't always make a better fighter. Do you rank Joan Guzman over Jake Lamotta?

Bending the truth?!?! You outright compared those fighters and said "they fight alike"

Where is Walt Liquor when you need him? He witnessed the entire fiasco.

No I didnt say that exactly. Now we're gonna tell lies because you got your ass handed to you on this topic.

You didn't compare those fighters and say they fight alike?

:rofl: Yeah, my ass is getting handed to me.

Yeah, the guy who talks about how George Foreman controlled distance better than Liston with his longer reach is absolutely owning me right now.

:rofl:

IronDanHamza
05-23-2011, 02:59 PM
I frankly dont know how youre seeing that. He fought a very controlled for 3 rounds, and when he had his man hurt he finished him after going to the body.

are you suggesting old Foreman would have done better in that situation? I find that very hard to believe.

I find what he says increasingly hard to believe.

Mainly, because most of what he says is utterly absurd and inaccurate.

studentofthegam
05-23-2011, 03:19 PM
And why is that? Because Moorer is so proven at HW unlike Chuvalo?

A smart fighter doesn't always make a better fighter. Do you rank Joan Guzman over Jake Lamotta?

Bending the truth?!?! You outright compared those fighters and said "they fight alike"

Where is Walt Liquor when you need him? He witnessed the entire fiasco.



You didn't compare those fighters and say they fight alike?

:rofl: Yeah, my ass is getting handed to me.

Yeah, the guy who talks about how George Foreman controlled distance better than Liston with his longer reach is absolutely owning me right now.

:rofl:Where's Walt? I dont need any help because you bs is all in this thread. First of all I said Baldomir and Chavez have similarities which is true and that Floyd would make Chavez look like Baldo. I also said PWill and Hearns have similar builds and never said they fight alike outside of both being lengthy. I was starting to think you were ok with but you are back to being a sidekick I see.

Like the bold: I didnt say that and its just a few posts back. George was terrible at controlling distance which is why he threw himself off balance. Read it again. I said he could cover more distance with his height and reach. 3 inches in height makes a difference in the ground you can cover unless the inches are extra bone in your head. The wonders of language are a MF aint they? Ass Handed. You are like my ex wife. You argue when we agree and get goofy when youre wrong. Maybe another time. Gotta get some sleep.

IronDanHamza
05-23-2011, 03:31 PM
Where's Walt? I dont need any help because you bs is all in this thread. First of all I said Baldomir and Chavez have similarities which is true and that Floyd would make Chavez look like Baldo. I also said PWill and Hearns have similar builds and never said they fight alike outside of both being lengthy. I was starting to think you were ok with but you are back to being a sidekick I see.

That's not what you said. But whatever. I won't go out my way to quote you.

Like the bold: I didnt say that and its just a few posts back. George was terrible at controlling distance which is why he threw himself off balance. Read it again. I said he could cover more distance with his height and reach. 3 inches in height makes a difference in the ground you can cover unless the inches are extra bone in your head. The wonders of language are a MF aint they? Ass Handed. You are like my ex wife. You argue when we agree and get goofy when youre wrong. Maybe another time. Gotta get some sleep.

How can he cover more distance with his reach when he has a short reach than Sonny Liston?

I would love to know that.

"Ass handed" :lol1: Ahhh, the beauty of delusion.

In that case I can only assume you broke up with her for the verbal destruction you suffered to which you believed you "ass handed" them at the end by saying statments that no one agrees with.

:lol1: @ sidekick. :thinking:

Yeah get some sleep, NSB is more for you, to be honest.

Good bye.

Ziggy Stardust
05-23-2011, 06:06 PM
Naturally I think Floyd is the best I've ever seen just to nip that in the bud.

IMO is key. IMO Holy thumps him. Lenox thumps him. Klitschko thumps him. Bowe (in shape) thumps him. He was just extremely slow and out of controll. It was easy to see he was a bully in the ring like no one had seen before. By the late 80's HW were getting a little bigger and stronger. By 1990 the giants were coming along with great jabs.

You give me BHop at 40 and 4/5 times he spanks BHop 30 "IMO". I stay in the minority, not a problem as you know.

Yes any version of anybody has a problem with the greatest, no doubt. I just think a smarter George in '74 could get Ali. I didnt say he mops the flooor with him. But he was in good position and let it go with wasted energy.

^^^^^ Proof positive that opinions are like azzholes: The wrong people have them and they're all full of sh1t.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
05-23-2011, 06:11 PM
That's not what you said. But whatever. I won't go out my way to quote you.

How can he cover more distance with his reach when he has a short reach than Sonny Liston?

I would love to know that.

"Ass handed" :lol1: Ahhh, the beauty of delusion.

In that case I can only assume you broke up with her for the verbal destruction you suffered to which you believed you "ass handed" them at the end by saying statments that no one agrees with.

:lol1: @ sidekick. :thinking:

Yeah get some sleep, NSB is more for you, to be honest.

Good bye.

Yeah, he's the douche that seems to be hereditarily cursed with the "retard" gene. I once took precious time out my life to try and have a rational discussion with him.....only to discover it was a colossal waste of time and energy that could have been better and more profitibly spent slamming my head into a brick wall repeatedly.

Poet

IronDanHamza
05-23-2011, 06:31 PM
Yeah, he's douche that seems to be hereditarily cursed with the "retard" gene. I once took precious time out my life to try and have a rational discussion with him.....only to discover it was a colossal waste of time and energy that could have been better and more profitibly spent slamming my head into a brick wall repeatedly.

Poet

:rofl: :rofl:

I have been there, brother.

Ziggy Stardust
05-23-2011, 06:55 PM
:rofl: :rofl:

I have been there, brother.

And did I read right that he thinks Holmes is a better fighter than Louis? You know, I rank Larry higher than most and I have enormous respect for his abilities.....but the idea that someone could, with a straight face, claim he's better than Louis makes my bile ducts churn :puke:

Poet

IronDanHamza
05-23-2011, 07:36 PM
And did I read right that he thinks Holmes is a better fighter than Louis? You know, I rank Larry higher than most and I have enormous respect for his abilities.....but the idea that someone could, with a straight face, claim he's better than Louis makes my bile ducts churn :puke:

Poet

Yep. Sadly, that's exactly what you read.

Bit of background info;

*He compared Tommy Hearns' fighting style with Paul Williams'
*He compared Chavez fighting style to Baldomir's
*He believes the Klitschko brothers would beat George Foreman
*Theres apparently a 'new build of HW'
*George Foreman controls distance better than Liston with his reach
*40+ year old Foreman is better than a prime Foreman
*40+ year old Hopkins is better than prime Hopkins

Just a quickfire set of examples.

Keep reading, it's hilarious.

Barn
05-23-2011, 07:38 PM
Yep. Sadly, that's exactly what you read.

Bit of background info;

*He compared Tommy Hearns' fighting style with Paul Williams'
*He compared Chavez fighting style to Baldomir's
*He believes the Klitschko brothers would beat George Foreman
*Theres apparently a 'new build of HW'
*George Foreman controls distance better than Liston with his reach
*40+ year old Foreman is better than a prime Foreman
*40+ year old Hopkins is better than prime Hopkins

Just a quickfire set of examples.

Keep reading, it's hilarious.
What about.

"Louis doesn't have the skills to be the GOAT."
"I have Holyfied at 3."
"Holmes was a Michael Spinks away from being the undisputed GOAT."

:lol1:

IronDanHamza
05-23-2011, 08:27 PM
What about.

"Louis doesn't have the skills to be the GOAT."
"I have Holyfied at 3."
"Holmes was a Michael Spinks away from being the undisputed GOAT."

:lol1:

Once upon a time I had Holyfield at #4 :lol1: But that was because I was overrating his great period over the 90's.

I don't have him in the top 10 anymore, or atleast the latter half.

As for the other 2 they are just utterly preposterous statments.

Ziggy Stardust
05-23-2011, 09:59 PM
Yep. Sadly, that's exactly what you read.

Bit of background info;

*He compared Tommy Hearns' fighting style with Paul Williams'
*He compared Chavez fighting style to Baldomir's
*He believes the Klitschko brothers would beat George Foreman
*Theres apparently a 'new build of HW'
*George Foreman controls distance better than Liston with his reach
*40+ year old Foreman is better than a prime Foreman
*40+ year old Hopkins is better than prime Hopkins

Just a quickfire set of examples.

Keep reading, it's hilarious.

I personally feel Chavez gets overrated in general but cripes.....comparing him to Baldomir is downright insulting. All of those are doozies for sure. Student seems to have some kind of competition going with Trojanman as to who can make the most retarded posts in here. Either way the two of them are getting pwned left and right :chuckle9:

Poet

studentofthegam
05-24-2011, 10:41 AM
That's not what you said. But whatever. I won't go out my way to quote you.



How can he cover more distance with his reach when he has a short reach than Sonny Liston?

I would love to know that.

"Ass handed" :lol1: Ahhh, the beauty of delusion.

In that case I can only assume you broke up with her for the verbal destruction you suffered to which you believed you "ass handed" them at the end by saying statments that no one agrees with.

:lol1: @ sidekick. :thinking:

Yeah get some sleep, NSB is more for you, to be honest.

Good bye.for the record that heffa still wants me. LOL. Who is no one? Poet's chump ass. Try this one: "A smarter fighter is not a better fighter" Prove that dumb ass response.

^^^^^ Proof positive that opinions are like azzholes: The wrong people have them and they're all full of sh1t.

PoetStop saying the same sh*t over and over. It hasnt been a cool saying in 30 years. You'd know if you get out of Mama's house once and a while. Please keep me ignored like you been doin. Real b*tch move.

studentofthegam
05-24-2011, 10:44 AM
What about.

"Louis doesn't have the skills to be the GOAT."
"I have Holyfied at 3."
"Holmes was a Michael Spinks away from being the undisputed GOAT."

:lol1:I have no problem as long as you keep it fact. Tell your lil buddy to keep it honest and quit fabricating to rally the "Mama's Basement Boys".

Ziggy Stardust
05-24-2011, 10:58 AM
It hasnt been a cool saying in 30 years.

I'll leave the worrying about what's "cool" and what isn't to the low-esteem lemmings with the grade school mentality like yourself :)

Poet

studentofthegam
05-24-2011, 11:14 AM
I'll leave the worrying about what's "cool" and what isn't to the low-esteem lemmings with the grade school mentality like yourself :)

PoetCool people dont worry. Its natural. Come on, everytime you say it you chuckle a lil bit. Mid-life crisis. I hope you didnt reproduce

I think this is the part where your moderator buddy in boxes me some BS about trolling becaue you are dropping serious knowledge Right? Run along and tell it baby boy. F8kin chump ass. I bet you never put on a pair of gloves.

IronDanHamza
05-24-2011, 12:46 PM
for the record that heffa still wants me. LOL. Who is no one? Poet's chump ass. Try this one: "A smarter fighter is not a better fighter" Prove that dumb ass response.

"Who is no one?" I haven't the nearest clue what on earth you are talking about, but carry on.

A smarter fighter is not always a better fighter, man. Believe it or not, sometimes, brute strength and physical attributes take over, ask Willie Pep. This is Boxing, after all.

Barn
05-24-2011, 01:38 PM
If smarter meant better Jersey Joe would be the GOAT :D

Ziggy Stardust
05-24-2011, 11:36 PM
Cool people dont worry. Its natural. Come on, everytime you say it you chuckle a lil bit. Mid-life crisis. I hope you didnt reproduce

I think this is the part where your moderator buddy in boxes me some BS about trolling becaue you are dropping serious knowledge Right? Run along and tell it baby boy. F8kin chump ass. I bet you never put on a pair of gloves.

Real men don't care if peeps think they're "cool" or not.....I bet your balls haven't dropped yet.

PS. I did my serious fighting bare knuckles.....just sayin'

Poet

JAB5239
05-25-2011, 12:00 AM
Cool people dont worry. Its natural. Come on, everytime you say it you chuckle a lil bit. Mid-life crisis. I hope you didnt reproduce

I think this is the part where your moderator buddy in boxes me some BS about trolling becaue you are dropping serious knowledge Right? Run along and tell it baby boy. F8kin chump ass. I bet you never put on a pair of gloves.

No, Im gonna tell you both to cut the **** right here and right now. Feel free to test me, but you won't like where we go with it.

Spartacus Sully
05-25-2011, 03:17 AM
Ive got John L at #3.

H2H prime john L has a damn good chance of beating anyone....though his resume lacks what louis and ali have so i put him at #3.

Barn
05-25-2011, 05:23 AM
Ive got John L at #3.

H2H prime john L has a damn good chance of beating anyone....though his resume lacks what louis and ali have so i put him at #3.
There is no footage, how do you know?

Spartacus Sully
05-25-2011, 05:59 AM
There is no footage, how do you know?

a good understanding of his fighting style, his ease of knocking people out in 4 rounds or less, knowing that he had good technical knowledge of the sport of boxing, wrightings from his contempories, knowledge containied in his biography, and a knowledge of his build (mainly that he actually weighed what a heavy weight should weigh).

and theres that one video wheres hes old and joking around with corbett, as well as one where hes swingging at a speed bag, with an understanding of his fighting style theres a bit that one can grasp from those short clips such as his fainting style/ability to faint and the speed of his punches, well swings his punches would have been straighter and faster.

Ive been praticing emulateing his style for quite some time, if you want i could make a short vid of how i think he fought and pm you the link.