Is there any case for Foreman>Ali?

[bojangles1987]

Hello, new to the boards. Been a boxing fan for most my life but in the last couple years have started to really get into it after some time away. I'll start off by saying I go out of my way to not be a moron or insult people, or be an internet tough guy. I like actually debating, not dismissing people who don't agree with me. Just thought I'd say that because I know there are people on forums only to be jerks.

I thought for my first post I'd get an opinion on an argument I'm having right now. Someone is trying to convince me George Foreman is better than Muhammad Ali, and Ali is the most overrated heavyweight ever. The only argument he has used to support this is that he says the rope-a-dope was a cheap gimmick strategy and Ali never gave Foreman a rematch. He has made outlandish claims like Ali has no punching power or defense, and just ran from opponents until they got tired. He also said Ali has everyone "mentally" convinced that he is great but he has never proven he actually is.

I've pretty much dismantled all his arguments, but he is sticking to his guns. If there is a case to be made for Foreman being a better fighter than Ali, what is it?

[THE REED]

Does this person go by the alias "knn"?

[bojangles1987]

Does this person go by the alias "knn"?

No, why? Someone on here thinks Foreman is better than Ali? It might be the same person...

[TheGreatA]

Not in my view.

Many felt Foreman had the chance to become the greatest heavyweight ever but he dropped the ball in the Ali fight, and later struggled with the likes of Lyle and Young, eventually retiring. His vulnerabilities were exposed.

His comeback cemented him as a heavyweight all-time great but not as the greatest. As Foreman himself likes to say:

"The first time around, George Foreman was too mean and too crude.

The second time around, too sophisticated and too publicity conscious to exploit his power..."

Young Foreman's physical ability combined with old George's smarts and patience would have made him perhaps the greatest puncher of all time.

[MANGLER]

No, and I'm a big fan of Foreman. But Ali beat him at his peak and accomplished more overall.

[TheGreatA]

The only case that can be made is that Foreman dispatched Frazier and Norton much easier than Ali but that has more to do with style differences.

Head-to-head, a 32 year old Ali knocked out a prime George Foreman.

[mickey malone]

No, why? Someone on here thinks Foreman is better than Ali? It might be the same person...

Firstly.. Welcome to BS & secondly.. Good thread for starters..

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..
On many occasions, George himself, has openly confessed that Ali had his number.. During there fight, Ali used the ropes to negate the snap from Foremans punches & while doing so, showed exceptional lateral movement.. Very little dancing in this one.. Foreman couldn't cope with it, he couldn't connect cleanly.. He grew frustrated, got too hot, gassed & got tagged.. Ali knew exactly when to pounce..

Don't worry.. We've all got a mate like that.. Like my mate who swears Hagler bt Leonard.. Never!

[Jim Jeffries]

As it stands, no. Perhaps if he hadn't lost that decade containing most of his prime. But I think he would've always had trouble with slick, fast boxers, whereas Ali was able to adjust.

[Kinetic Linking]

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.

[fight_professor]

How is rope-a-dope a negative?

it was strategic genius. he didnt just stand there, he was winning rounds countering. r-o-d was a legal strategy, how can one discount it?