Is there any case for Foreman>Ali?

[StarshipTrooper]

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

LRR is the village idiot.....what do expect? He's lost the thread and his train of thought is wrecked. His pots are all cracked and his belfry has bats. Senility has set in: "Depends" and all that.

Poet

[RightCross94]

LRR is the village idiot.....what do expect? He's lost the thread and his train of thought is wrecked. His pots are all cracked and his belfry has bats. Senility has set in: "Depends" and all that.

Poet

he is indeed an idiot, but an incredibly frustrating one

[Southpaw16BF]

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

Well I remember you saying on your past account a few months ago that you had only just started watching Jersey Joe Walcott.

There you go again why wasnt it really boxing? Due to Wlad being dominating. Not every fight is going to be excting or a slugfest. You need to learn this fool. Or are you one of them fans who just want to see blood.

Both were willing opponets but Chagev was just outclassed, that dosent mean he wasnt willing and due to Wlad using his boxing brain that dosent mean he wasnt willing either.

And once again you carry on to disrepect past fighters. Troll, you probaly dont even know nothing about Nelson.

And how do you know the great Battling Nelson would be smoked by Maywether? Nelson was a rough-and-tumble fighter who lacked science but hit hard; He was rugged, durable and aggressive - and won many bouts due to his remarkable stamina; Batt was a true "Iron Man" who could endure unbelievable punishment and come back for more. Mayweather may have broke his extremely fragile hands on the skull of Nelson.

During his career, Nelson defeated such men as Joe Gans, Jimmy Britt, Young Corbett II, Aurelio Herrera, Eddie Hanlon, Artie Simms, Willie Beecher, Jack Redmond and Jack O'Neil.

[TheGreatA]

I still don't get what people are seeing in the Ali-Foreman fight. I see Ali quite easily outboxing Foreman and then knocking him out once he gets tired. Sure Ali used the "rope-a-dope", but he was also countering Foreman with right hands at every possible opportunity (and there were many of them).

I think if there had been a rematch, Ali would have won again had he been in the same condition that he was for the Rumble in the Jungle. He was starting to age though and Foreman could have caught him at the right time had the rematch happened.

It's not like Foreman suddenly improved after losing to Ali, I'd say he actually declined. His myth of invincibility was shattered and he changed pretty much nothing in his ring tactics. Jimmy Young did the same thing that Ali did to him in Zaire.

[Kinetic Linking]

Okay, I think I see what's going on. GreatA, you're mostly paying attention to skill. You watch the fight, and you see Ali demonstrating vastly superior skill to Foreman.

I watch the fight, and I see Ali demonstrate vastly superior skill to the vastly more powerful foreman, who doesn't take too long to run Ali over and force him to the ropes, once knocking him out on his feet according to Ali himself.

Basically, Ali is a way more skilled fighter, but Foreman was much bigger and stronger, mainly stronger. I hope this is obvious to you, as it was to everyone before during and after the fight. Just as you can't blame ali for being smarter in the ring, you can't blame George for being stronger. He was certainly gifted genetically, but he also had a superior diet to Ali's. And I'm going to make a big point about this. When Ali fought Holmes, he showed up having drained himself with laxatives to "look" fit. That's something big George would never do. Ali was a more skilled fighter and demonstrated more greatness during his career, but George lasted longer because when it came to REAL fundamentals, meaning nutrition, he had a big edge.

I'll concede that Ali was vastly more skilled, but George ate better and you can't hold that against him. It almost won him the fight in Zaire and he may very well have won if it had been fought in a cage or something.

[TheGreatA]

Okay, I think I see what's going on. GreatA, you're mostly paying attention to skill. You watch the fight, and you see Ali demonstrating vastly superior skill to Foreman.

I watch the fight, and I see Ali demonstrate vastly superior skill to the vastly more powerful foreman, who doesn't take too long to run Ali over and force him to the ropes, once knocking him out on his feet according to Ali himself.

Basically, Ali is a way more skilled fighter, but Foreman was much bigger and stronger, mainly stronger. I hope this is obvious to you, as it was to everyone before during and after the fight. Just as you can't blame ali for being smarter in the ring, you can't blame George for being stronger. He was certainly gifted genetically, but he also had a superior diet to Ali's. And I'm going to make a big point about this. When Ali fought Holmes, he showed up having drained himself with laxatives to "look" fit. That's something big George would never do. Ali was a more skilled fighter and demonstrated more greatness during his career, but George lasted longer because when it came to REAL fundamentals, meaning nutrition, he had a big edge.

I'll concede that Ali was vastly more skilled, but George ate better and you can't hold that against him. It almost won him the fight in Zaire and he may very well have won if it had been fought in a cage or something.

He didn't seem to have any trouble handling Foreman in the clinches. I agree that Foreman was more powerful though, of course.

I don't think Ali's decline had as much to do with what he ate as it did with all the damage he had absorbed in the ring. Foreman was out of the ring for a decade and never took much punishment throughout his career, thus he was able to fight longer.

Foreman ate pretty much whatever he wanted especially during his second career. He was simply a very physically gifted fighter, a force of nature according to himself.

[mickey malone]

** 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.

Interesting... So Foreman spent 15 months calling for a rematch, to no avail.. He then spent the next 30 years explaining how he would never have beaten him.. Credit to George, he knew the score.. If Ali had been the responsible party for scuppering a rematch, people would still be calling him yellow today.. It was George himself, who wanted to take a break..
For the record, I rate Louis no1 with Ali at no2.. Foreman is an ATG, & maybe 'very very good' were the wrong words.. I was just trying to make a basic comparison between the two, which is answering the thread posters question..
Agreed, Ali had controversial fights: Liston 2, Cooper 1, as well as the first 2 of his fights with Norton, but eventually proved himself superior to all of them.. So as you can see Ali wasn't in the game of ducking rematches.. An older Foreman was beaten by Axel Schultz & Alex Stewert (in my opinion) & neither were given rematches.. This is also rather controversial don't you think? Overall, Ali was the more complete boxer.. He had far too many moves for the awe inspiring, but one dimensional Foreman.. The bottom line is, that he got KO'd, only the once, but that was enough..

[Kinetic Linking]

Ali was very talented at wrestling in clinches, so you're right that he had no trouble. Of course George was more powerful, though. As for George simply being a "force of nature" I'm going to have to disagree and stick with my point about nutrition. Sure, George didn't take too much punishment. Sure, he was gifted genetically. But he was heavyweight champ at 45. You don't do that by being a force of nature. Once you get that old, you need to do everything right. Ali got by on skill for a long time, but Foreman overtook him by doing everything right.

Ironically, Ali was known to have a burger from time to time as well, so I was reluctant to make that point at first. I do give him credit for being a better fighter, however, and the Holmes incident tipped the scale. Eating made a big difference between the fates of Ali and Foreman.

As a Foreman fan, I'm also feeling a little bit like I should backtread. I'll repeat this and see what you have to say. If Foreman and Ali fight in a cage, Foreman wins by KO every time.

[Kid McCoy]

Interesting... So Foreman spent 15 months calling for a rematch, to no avail.. He then spent the next 30 years explaining how he would never have beaten him.. Credit to George, he knew the score.. If Ali had been the responsible party for scuppering a rematch, people would still be calling him yellow today.. It was George himself, who wanted to take a break..

Whatever Foreman says today, he and Ali didn't care for each other back then and he always made it abundantly clear he wanted a second go with Ali, mentioning it after all his comeback fights and at one point even gatecrashing an Ali press conference and calling him out to his face. Ali on the other hand would never commit to fighting Foreman again. I think he was worthy of a second shot at Ali, certainly more so than the Dunns, Coopmans and Evangelistas of this world.

As to who would have won a rematch, I don't know. Before Manila it's hard to pick, after Manila Ali seemed to diminish fairly quickly and I'd have to favour Foreman. Maybe Ali really did have his number. But I'd rather see fighters in the ring several times before drawing that conclusion. Had Frazier retired after the Fight of the Century would we all be claiming now that he always had Ali's number?

Agreed, Ali had controversial fights: Liston 2, Cooper 1, as well as the first 2 of his fights with Norton, but eventually proved himself superior to all of them.. So as you can see Ali wasn't in the game of ducking rematches.. An older Foreman was beaten by Axel Schultz & Alex Stewert (in my opinion) & neither were given rematches.. This is also rather controversial don't you think? Overall, Ali was the more complete boxer.. He had far too many moves for the awe inspiring, but one dimensional Foreman.. The bottom line is, that he got KO'd, only the once, but that was enough..

That's not strictly true...

Judging by his actions and his refusal to commit, I don't think Ali was ever that keen to get back in the ring with Norton after their third fight. He seemed to prefer talking about retirement or potential fights with the likes of Alfio Righetti. Given the controversy of the result, Norton's #1 contender status and the demand for the fight after Foreman's retirement, I'd say Norton deserved a fairly rapid rematch, not to be told to go and earn his shot again. Remember Norton also won a "title eliminator" against Jimmy Young, but Ali instead signed to fight the unranked Spinks. Compare with Louis giving Walcott and Godoy immediate rematches after contentious results.

As for the original question, the only real case I see for ranking Foreman over Ali would be results against common opponents. Foreman well dominated Frazier and Norton, the two fighters who caused Ali the most problems. Foreman also dispatched Wepner, Chuvalo and Lyle quicker and in more devastating fashion than Ali. Neither man covered himself in glory against Young though (I thought both lost). But that being said, Ali's overall career puts him ahead of George. The IBRO rankings of Ali #2 and Foreman #8 seem reasonable to me.

[mickey malone]

Whatever Foreman says today, he and Ali didn't care for each other back then and he always made it abundantly clear he wanted a second go with Ali, mentioning it after all his comeback fights and at one point even gatecrashing an Ali press conference and calling him out to his face. Ali on the other hand would never commit to fighting Foreman again. I think he was worthy of a second shot at Ali, certainly more so than the Dunns, Coopmans and Evangelistas of this world.

As to who would have won a rematch, I don't know. Before Manila it's hard to pick, after Manila Ali seemed to diminish fairly quickly and I'd have to favour Foreman. Maybe Ali really did have his number. But I'd rather see fighters in the ring several times before drawing that conclusion. Had Frazier retired after the Fight of the Century would we all be claiming now that he always had Ali's number?



That's not strictly true...

Judging by his actions and his refusal to commit, I don't think Ali was ever that keen to get back in the ring with Norton after their third fight. He seemed to prefer talking about retirement or potential fights with the likes of Alfio Righetti. Given the controversy of the result, Norton's #1 contender status and the demand for the fight after Foreman's retirement, I'd say Norton deserved a fairly rapid rematch, not to be told to go and earn his shot again. Remember Norton also won a "title eliminator" against Jimmy Young, but Ali instead signed to fight the unranked Spinks. Compare with Louis giving Walcott and Godoy immediate rematches after contentious results.

As for the original question, the only real case I see for ranking Foreman over Ali would be results against common opponents. Foreman well dominated Frazier and Norton, the two fighters who caused Ali the most problems. Foreman also dispatched Wepner, Chuvalo and Lyle quicker and in more devastating fashion than Ali. Neither man covered himself in glory against Young though (I thought both lost). But that being said, Ali's overall career puts him ahead of George. The IBRO rankings of Ali #2 and Foreman #8 seem reasonable to me.

1 Louis
2 Ali
3 Holmes
4 Lewis
5 Tyson
6 Holyfield
7 Foreman
8 Frazier
9 Marciano
10 Tunney

That's how I have it.. Well coming from you Kid, I'd have to take notice..
The thought of Ali being the cause of this is quite upsetting.. I for 1 would loved to have seen a rematch between the 2, & I find it unacceptable, unbelievable almost, that he had rematches with Frazier, Norton, Cooper, Liston, Bugner & Spinks, but NOT Foreman.. It's too astounding to comprehend when you consider the fights with Bugner. (both snore bores)... Well, thanks for confirming my worst fears, maybe I've looked too much into what Foreman (the latter) has said, as opposed to the Foreman of 30 years previous.. To be honest, I'm really dissapointed & if Don King couldn't use his influence, I'm completely dumbfounded!

NB: Apologies to LRR... It appears you're right with regard to the rematch.. MM