Top 10 HW of the 70s

simple, Foreman had devastating victories over Frazier and Norton who turned out to be as good as Ali. He also won against Lyle in the legendary war. He lost to Young and Ali who were extremely uncomfortable for him in terms of style. Ali was beating Frazier and Nirton, but overall he didn't seem better than them and they weren't even close to Georg. He has at least two very controversial wins. He also lost to Norton, Frazier and Spinks, in my opinion he actually lost 5 times in the 70's plus he gave the championship belt to Norton which seems like an escape.

Tell me if, for you, Ali beating Frazier and Norton was exactly the same as Ali beating them. Foreman? you really don't see the difference? Do you think Ali definitely beat Norton, Young, Shavers? Which fighter defeated by Ali was on the same level as George Foreman?
You forgot at Foreman: Frazier. *2 which doesn't matter to me anyway.

 

I'm not playing your silly mental gymnastics I don't care what you think in all honesty it's irrelevant.

Facts are...

Ali 12 title wins to Foremans 3.

Ali beat Foreman convincingly in their actual fight.

Ali has triple the amount of notable wins in the 70s.

Hence Ali is ranked above Foreman by pretty much every boxing fan and my argument is backed up by factual evidence not baseless opinions.

 

I actually have no idea why we are exchanging views, why are you creating classifications? Boxrec has already counted the points a long time ago, the existence of this forum makes no sense.
Statistics are for the fan from the bar who doesn't see any depth. They are important, but they cannot be everything.

 

You need to check the facts before you post your nonsense, as it was Spinks who vacated the WBC belt, not Ali.

Hmm... I don't know maybe... George Foreman xD?

 

I think you need to be biased against Ali to put Foreman ahead of him. There's no argument for that by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Why Lyle and, especially, Shavers over Quarry when he beat both?

 

This is where HistoryZero should bow out to save some dignity, but I'll go out on a limb and guess that he keeps digging where he stands.

 

1. Holmes was clearly on the decline which he showed in his previous performances.

2. Holmes by that point in his reign, had started cherry picking his opponents and flat out stated he was done fighting his most deserving contenders. Those are not the actions of an ATG.

More pertinent to the point, what does Lyle have in the absence of ranked wins, like Foreman, Frazier, etc do?

 

So your answer is another man's video?

 

It's pretty simple I don't know what's so hard to understand about it ?

Ali has quadruple the amount of title wins in the 70s.

Ali has triple the amount of notable wins in the 70s

Ali actually beat Foreman convincingly in their fight which further enhances that Ali is clearly above Foreman.

So basically you want me to ignore all the facts that clearly favour Ali and instead you want me to engage you in your silly mental gymnastics because you have a minority opinion which is biased ?

No thanks I have better things to do with my time if you can't accept that the facts presented heavily favour Ali and logically there is no real argument for having Foreman above Ali well then simply that's a "you" issue.

 

You said your opinion, I said mine. I don't rely blindly on statistics, according to them Valuyev is a two-time world champion and Holyfield's defeater. Almost always, if someone justifies his opinion by saying - he won twice as many fights, has a better record, etc., I know that his knowledge is purely statistical. If so, I prefer boxrec, simple as that. Foreman dominated guys who were better than Ali. Jimmy Young should have gotten decisions against Ali, Norton and he won convincingly against Foreman, but I haven't seen anyone put him in the top 5. It's all from me to you on this topic.

 

No offence Swag but its quite apparent the only two posters having an issue with this is @HistoryZero26 who has some bizarre opinions and has been called out many times for it. Nothing against the guy personally as he's always respectful but I can never understand his logic like not having Holmes in the top 10 for the 70s for example ? Utterly bizarre.

@Jakub79 just likes to keep replying and drag out conversations i think hes a borderline troll especially with his unhealthy Lewis hate obsession. And no matter how many strong points are put forward that clearly destroy his argument he wants to just keep waffling on.

Hence its pretty much a waste of time you've got a guy here completely ignoring that Ali has quadruple the amount of title wins, triple the amount of notable wins, and the fact Ali actually beat Foreman. But yet that still isn’t good enough for him and I have to lower myself and be biased to see his point of view because he has a baseless opinion that is a minority.

What is even the point of carrying on ? The answer is there is no point.

 

Now you're just being disingenuous. London was ranked for only one win of Patterson's I believe. Mathis had just come out of retirement, and after his fight with Ali, engaged in a circus bout which showed his level at the time.

The Ellis win was not very impressive given that Ellis was on a five fight losing streak, fallen out of the rankings, close to retirement, and a fresher version had been sparked out by Shavers in the first while Lyle had to settle for a decision.

I've explained all of this to you multiple times, but don't let this get in the way of pretending Lyle beat them at their best.

Quarry took this fight on a 3 day notice, on a coke binge, coming off a shaky performance against a Scrap Iron Johnson, when he'd beaten a prime version handily on two occasions, in the bout before that, was beaten quicker by a more deteriorated Frazier than he was by a prime one when both were young and had looked so bad, the announcers were screaming to the referee (Louis) to stop the fight, and in the fight before that was dropped hard by the obscure Joe Alexander. He was also ten pounds over his best weight.

It's well documented that Quarry suffered more brain damage than his contemporaries, due to his infamous sparring wars with no head gear, and relative lack of defense, especially at that time in his career.

Except in the case of Ellis right? Despite being on a losing streak when he fought Lyle, he was still at his best according to you.

So he won 13 in a row..... without winning 13 in a row.

It's not impressive because Ali was in terrible shape. He came in at one of the worst shapes of his career (third highest he'd been up to that point), and was content to do nothing. Lyle was winning on the cards because he was marginally busier. Not because he was outboxing Ali, or had him baffled.

You can say that again. Won a single round in two of their fights.

Guess who else hit "super hard", Joe Frazier. He had such resounded success against Lyle didn't he? It's clear as day Foreman was a difference fighter upon his return. He'd lost his confidence and tried to change his style with a new trainer.

What the **** are you on about now? Show me once where I said it was embarrassing for Foreman to be floored twice.

Rankings are by definition used to rank fighters relative to the rest of the division. Sure they're not perfect but generally when a fighter isn't in the top ten any longer there's a reason for that, such as in the cases of guys like Mathis, and Ellis,

 

No Holmes in top 10? Foreman top 1? Lyle over Quarry? Norton over Frazier?
Everyone should have their own opinion, and yours really intrigued me, ha
hah