Gavilan was ranked 37th in a list of the greatest 50 P4P fighters in the last 50 years in the ring mag in 1996, Foreman was ranked 38th in the same list, but which of these two was really the better fighter? Gavilan info: Quality of competition: 10 Bouts v top 50 fighters: 3 Why he was on this list: Style, stamina, chin and quality of competition. What he could have done to better his ranking: Avoided Sugar Ray Robinson. Foreman info: Quality of competition; 9 Why he`s here: Because he`s history. And he could punch a bit, too. What he could have done to better his ranking: Lost his plane ticket to Zaire.
Yes ...but not by much ....they’re both among the top ten in their respective divisions.....they were both beaten in their primes ...by superior fighters
Bit bizarre that Ring's idea of "improving" these fighters in history's eyes is a pair of ducks. I know they're probably tongue in cheek, but surely "pace himself in Zaire" would have been much better for Foreman, some **** like that.
No, I feel Ali on that form had his number, his counters were too quick and he took Foreman`s shots well.
It is worth noting, you cannot even find one writer, even on Gavilan's single worst night, who was saying Foreman could even beat him, despite the fact that Foreman is now considered FAR bigger than Gavilan. It just goes to show you, size isn't everything.
So what exactly is Boxed Ears? A person? Or just some advanced trolling algorithm? The latter seems more likely, actually.
