Who do you have as you No3 HW and why?

[StarshipTrooper]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[studentofthegam]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.