Tweet
Who here agrees that George Foreman could arguably be the greatest heavyweight of all time?
Let's look at the stats and compare some common opponents with Ali:
1. Foreman annihilated Chuvalo in 3 rounds. Ali UD'd him (Chuvalo was only stopped twice in his career, once by Foreman, once by Frazier)
2. Foreman annihilated Ali's arch nemesis Joe Frazier in 2 rounds. Joe Frazier beat Ali and had 2 other just about even wars with him.
3. Ken Norton beat Ali and then had another very close war rematch with him. George Foreman annihilated Ken Norton in 2 rounds.
4. Foreman KO'd Jimmy Ellis in 3, Ali took 12 rounds.
5. Ali KO'd Ron Lyle in 11, Foreman in 5
6. both Ali and Foreman only lost twice in their PRIME. Ali to Norton and Frazier and Foreman to Ali and Jimmy Young. Ali beat Jimmy Young and Foreman had a fight of the year with him and lost. However, Foreman annihilated both guys that Ali lost to, Frazier and Norton.
7. The biggest argument for Ali's greatness over Foreman is obviously that Ali beat Foreman. However obviously many things can be argued against this. For one, Foreman fought very poorly and was simply outsmarted by Ali, and not truly "beaten" or beaten up. In fact he had Ali scared laying on the ropes inventing the infamous rope a dope in this fight and basically tired himself out from winging brutal hail mary shots at an elusive Ali.
Obviously Foreman would learn and not fight this same way if they had a rematch and I truly believe that if they ever had a rematch Foreman would have annihilated Ali and would have went down in history as possibly the greatest heavyweight of all time but instead the loss affected him greatly and he lost all his self confidence and self esteem.
Secondly, the reason why that loss can't be figured too heavily is this example:
Ali lost to Frazier in their first fight too. What would have happened if they never rematched and had a trilogy? Likely Frazier would go down as the greatest ever but Ali had a chance to redeem himself. Foreman never got that chance. If he did, as I said many people believe that Foreman would have annihilated Ali as he now would have known about Ali's cheap exploit of the then loose ropes allowing him to sag far back into the ropes to do the rope a dope.
Foreman at that point already had an indomitable legacy arguably equal to that of Ali. But then he comes back and in his 40's wins the heavyweight championship again, this time securing his legacy and doing something nobody has ever done before including Ali.
In this comeback he destroys guys like Jerry Cooney, Jimmy Ellis, Bert Cooper, and Michael Moorer.
So with that said, it can be argued that achievement wise Foreman ranks above Ali since he beat most of all the same guys Ali beat and did it far more impressively AND recaptured the heavyweight title and beat some of the best of the next generation/era while Ali was already retired.
But even head to head wise, it can be argued that Foreman is greater even though prime for prime he lost once to Ali to an exploitive tactic. Like I said in a rematch I and many others believe Foreman could have annihilated Ali.
Does anyone agree with this or have a cogent argument for why Ali is in fact greater than Foreman or an argument for why Foreman does not deserve at LEAST the #2 spot of all time behind Ali if not the #1 spot itself?
Let's look at the stats and compare some common opponents with Ali:
1. Foreman annihilated Chuvalo in 3 rounds. Ali UD'd him (Chuvalo was only stopped twice in his career, once by Foreman, once by Frazier)
2. Foreman annihilated Ali's arch nemesis Joe Frazier in 2 rounds. Joe Frazier beat Ali and had 2 other just about even wars with him.
3. Ken Norton beat Ali and then had another very close war rematch with him. George Foreman annihilated Ken Norton in 2 rounds.
4. Foreman KO'd Jimmy Ellis in 3, Ali took 12 rounds.
5. Ali KO'd Ron Lyle in 11, Foreman in 5
6. both Ali and Foreman only lost twice in their PRIME. Ali to Norton and Frazier and Foreman to Ali and Jimmy Young. Ali beat Jimmy Young and Foreman had a fight of the year with him and lost. However, Foreman annihilated both guys that Ali lost to, Frazier and Norton.
7. The biggest argument for Ali's greatness over Foreman is obviously that Ali beat Foreman. However obviously many things can be argued against this. For one, Foreman fought very poorly and was simply outsmarted by Ali, and not truly "beaten" or beaten up. In fact he had Ali scared laying on the ropes inventing the infamous rope a dope in this fight and basically tired himself out from winging brutal hail mary shots at an elusive Ali.
Obviously Foreman would learn and not fight this same way if they had a rematch and I truly believe that if they ever had a rematch Foreman would have annihilated Ali and would have went down in history as possibly the greatest heavyweight of all time but instead the loss affected him greatly and he lost all his self confidence and self esteem.
Secondly, the reason why that loss can't be figured too heavily is this example:
Ali lost to Frazier in their first fight too. What would have happened if they never rematched and had a trilogy? Likely Frazier would go down as the greatest ever but Ali had a chance to redeem himself. Foreman never got that chance. If he did, as I said many people believe that Foreman would have annihilated Ali as he now would have known about Ali's cheap exploit of the then loose ropes allowing him to sag far back into the ropes to do the rope a dope.
Foreman at that point already had an indomitable legacy arguably equal to that of Ali. But then he comes back and in his 40's wins the heavyweight championship again, this time securing his legacy and doing something nobody has ever done before including Ali.
In this comeback he destroys guys like Jerry Cooney, Jimmy Ellis, Bert Cooper, and Michael Moorer.
So with that said, it can be argued that achievement wise Foreman ranks above Ali since he beat most of all the same guys Ali beat and did it far more impressively AND recaptured the heavyweight title and beat some of the best of the next generation/era while Ali was already retired.
But even head to head wise, it can be argued that Foreman is greater even though prime for prime he lost once to Ali to an exploitive tactic. Like I said in a rematch I and many others believe Foreman could have annihilated Ali.
Does anyone agree with this or have a cogent argument for why Ali is in fact greater than Foreman or an argument for why Foreman does not deserve at LEAST the #2 spot of all time behind Ali if not the #1 spot itself?
Comment