Is there any case for Foreman>Ali?

[StarshipTrooper]

Prime Foreman fought a past-prime Ali and lost. The rope-a-dope is over-blown as an excuse for George losing as one could just have well make the case that the ring was essentially a phone-booth without the room needed for a boxing strategy and that the matting underneath the canvas was waterlogged which will automatically slow down the faster-footed fighter. Against a prime Ali in a regulation sized ring that hasn't been rained on Foreman doesn't come close to winning.

Poet

[LondonRingRules]

Tell your friend that Big George didn't want the return, he'd had quite enough of that, thank you very much! He then took 15 months out to consider his options & came back to defeat Ron Lyle in what many purists believe, to be 1 of the most exciting fights of all time.. George was very very good, but he wern't great like Ali..

** Now, why would anyone come on making up nonsense unless there is some other agenda? Last I checked, George is in the IBHOF just like Ali, and an highly rated IBRO all time heavy, just like Ali.

[IMG]http://i214.***********.com/albums/cc70/LondonPrizeRingRules/1215_mid.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i214.***********.com/albums/cc70/LondonPrizeRingRules/1215_mid.jpg[/IMG]

Ring also did a 30th anniversary edition for this fight including post fight interviews. Foreman is ready for the immediate rematch. Ali won't commit and threatens retirement. Every interview of every fight after the Rumble George is front and center for the rematch. Every interview with Ali shows him non committal, except for an outburst when for strange reasons only known to him, he attends George's 5 man exhibition in Canada and can be seen throwing a tantrum and screaming George is never gonna get a rematch. Very unseemly moment.

I could go on, but hopefully you will get the point and drop this rematch nonsense, but of course tomorrow a new suspect will be spouting off, so it's endless.

As far as ratings, much easier for me to make the case Joe Louis being #1. I find Ali difficult to rate because of all his controversial decisions and gifts without ever on the wrong side of any gift or controversy in the official results. He became as stale of week old toast near the end of his championship run and his loss to Leon may be the single most shameful moment in heavy title history.

Ali does hold the win over George, but keep in mind that few were bigging Ali up as a top ten heavy until then. Ali was only 32 and still fresh by heavy standards by career standards albeit past tradition peak physical years. Tremendous accomplishment, but everyone chooses to forget George was not at his best training for that fight through no fault of his own, so while few picked the upset, there have been much greater upsets. The fight ferociously contested by George enough that maybe one more punch at key moments might have put Ali out, so is it fair to put so much legacy and ranking on a single fight with no rematch to sort them out truly?

If I were to make the case for George over Ali, what did he do that Ali didn't?

Many more wins, tied in losses, many more KOs than Ali has wins, fought in more decades and was a ranked contender if not champ during most that period, set a record not likely to be broken by legit means as the oldest heavy champ, the longest retirement between belts, and had better overall performances against common opponents with no controversial wins.

Of course Ali has his own list of achievements better than George, but Ibro has them very close in rankings, an indication that who's really better is definitely debatable in something so subjective.

[Kinetic Linking]

"Of course Ali has his own list of achievements better than George, but Ibro has them very close in rankings, an indication that who's really better is definitely debatable in something so subjective."

That sums it up pretty well. Until you start to compare the best fighters with the worst fighters, there's always room for debate. And George and Ali are both legends.

[billionaire]

no i just watched the ron lyle fight yesterday, foreman lost his aura of invincibility and his belief in himself after the ali fight......he also got dropped by jimmy young which wouldve never happened to the foreman that beat frazier.....

[Miburo]

No, although Foreman might have been able to take a rematch with Ali as I doubt the same strategy would have worked twice.

[0Rooster4Life0]

This is a closer call then some people beleave.

Yes Ali Beat Foreman
Yes Ali deserves credit


No the Rope-a-dope is Not overated for the way it beat George, it did beat George and it was obvious. The Problem with Prime Foreman is that he didnt have a Plan B, and his Corner was USELESS, all they said during the break was "Kill him George!!". If you Matched up Foreman (With decent trainers) vs Ali ( Prime or No Prime either one) I think George may Beat Ali.



But Moving on People bring up the Lyle fight etc.... But we need to remember George was Not the same after lossing, and its clear when you watch the first round of Foreman vs Lyle that Foreman was trying to Box on his toes......Enough said.


Then Foreman makes a Comeback and at 40yrs old + He is going 12 rounds with a Prime Evander Holyfield and Giving Evander all he could handle ( somthing Tyson couldnt do when Evander was older) Going 12 rounds with a running Prime Morrison, Taking masive left hooks and then winning the title back by Knocking out Moorer....

Does Foreman have a case with Ali ... Hell yes he does Ali beat a clumsy Foreman that had crap trainers. Whether George is Better or not Its close but George Beat Men Ali beat then came back and done somthing no other HW has done before.


On a side note your friend said Ali had bad defense, Well that is true, Ali never had great defense, He was great at rolling with punches, But still he took FAR to many shots, He admitted himself he didnt have good defense.


ROOSTER

[RightCross94]

There is a very easy case for Foreman > Ali.

Obviously Ali won the fight. No one would deny that. But just as obviously, rope-a-dope was the deciding factor in the fight. Without rope-a-dope, Ali is toast. You can say Ali outboxed Foreman, took the snap out of his punches, but Foreman's punches didn't need snap. Without rope-a-dope ali was going to get overpowered and run over.

Now you can say come on, Ali won rope-a-dope or not, and he deserves credit for outsmarting foreman anyway. And that's fair. But is there ANY case for Foreman > Ali? Duh. Of course there is.

That'd be the first and most important argument in my opinion.

Second would be time, which has a habit of revealing quality to some extent. Time seemed to improve George Foreman, and turned him into the oldest heavyweight champ ever, while it turned Ali into a complete wreck.

Third would be statistics. George Foreman's record at retirement - 76-5 with 68 KOs. One of if not the best record in heavyweight history. Muhammad Ali's record at retirement - 56-5 with 37 KOs. Certainly less impressive superficially.

Last I guess would be finances. Certainly not a deciding factor, but Foreman deserves some credit for earning massive sums of money after retirement. It doesn't necessarily say much about him as a fighter, but he gets descreditted for being dumb which seems less likely in light of his hundreds of millions of dollars earned out of the ring. You don't get paid like that for being dumb. If you do, I want to be dumb.

what...so rope a dope was the deciding factor was it? really i never would have thought

how is there a case for foreman>ali because rope a dope was the deciding tactic in that fight?? thats idiotic, thats like saying because mayweathers speed and accurate punching was the deciding factor vs hatton there is a case for hatton>mayweather...

what an idiotic argument

[Southpaw16BF]

what...so rope a dope was the deciding factor was it? really i never would have thought

how is there a case for foreman>ali because rope a dope was the deciding tactic in that fight?? thats idiotic, thats like saying because mayweathers speed and accurate punching was the deciding factor vs hatton there is a case for hatton>mayweather...

what an idiotic argument

This coming from a poster that think due to a fighter winning in a dominating fashion that it isnt real boxing. You are a troll. You no virtually nothing about past boxing.

You are just a ****** immature fool..........

[RightCross94]

god damn, what kind of fucking logic are you people using?? a past prime ali beat prime george, ali has a better list of wins....its obvious ali is the better fighter

but LRR lists reasons such as "george has more wins than ali, more knockouts" what kind of an argument is that? ali beat him when all the odds were against him, ali has a better list of wins...its a question with a clear cut fucking answer

[RightCross94]

This coming from a poster that think due to a fighter winning in a dominating fashion that it isnt real boxing. You are a troll. You no virtually nothing about past boxing.

And is just a ****** immature fool..........

when did i say that? about klitschko? i said because it was boring and chagaev was crap it wasnt real boxing, and that germans should see a real fight with two willing opponents

i know plenty about past boxing, just because im not an idiot who thinks people like John L Sullivan would be great fighters in the 70's doesnt mean i know nothing about past boxing, many of my favourite fighters are from the 30's through to the 50's, i know much about that era and even previous eras, im just smart enough to realise that pre 20's guys like battling nelson and others who used primitive training methods and techniques would get smoked by guys like floyd

i dont even think boxing gets better with time, it just has good eras and bad eras for various weight divs