Could anyone out slug young Foreman?

That awkward moment when the actual trainer, you've been running to for validation, disagrees with you.

 

I’d rate Chuvalo much closer to a James J Jeffries than a Marvin Hart.

Reasonably described as an iron chinned, rough, tough, never KD’d slugger who didn’t always defer to the MOQ rules - putting it lightly, lol.

He came to slug with a very young, 21 yo Foreman but even before the first round was out, Foreman has already taken a good measure of the play away from him.

Never seen Chuvalo so quickly dissuaded or smarting so much from virtually each and every punch landed by his opponent.

Best copy of the fight I’ve come across to date.

One of my favourite rewatches: -

This content is protected

 

Brutal mate, I'd never watched that version - cheers. Chuvalo had fought his share of contenders (including Floyd Patterson and a tilt at peak Ali's title on 17 days notice) and his only previous stoppage was to Joe Frazier. He'd never been down i believe either. He'd actually stopped a top 5 contender in Jerry Quarry less than a year prior to George whooping him. Despite fighting the likes of Ali again post Foreman only Foreman and Frazier ever ended up stopping him. That uppercut in round 1 was HORRIFIC!

 

I literally just got done explaining why Frazier was a slugger with credible punching power. Do Ali and Bugner have glass jaws? Frazier dropped them, yet he couldn't put a dent in Foreman across 2 fights. Chuvalo was able to stop the tough iron jawed Quarry, but couldn't put a dent in Foreman. It wasn't a lack of power that led to them losing to Foreman. The more you reply, the more it's apparent that you're not really able to understand the break down of these fights.

Except I didn't move any goal posts. I said from the beginning that Foreman dealing with: ring rust, coming off a loss, getting off the floor to win, etc were all pretty crazy unique conditions that convince me he's the most powerful overall slugger. Those weren't added conditions, you even literally replied to me bringing all these conditions up and responded to them. Are you okay...?

As for your FOURTH strawman, no, I am not saying it would be better if Ike let Tua get a free hook so he can go down and prove he can get off the floor to win. I never said that nor implied that. Since you seem to be sorely lacking in reading comprehension, let me spell it out: Getting off the floor to win gives me more confidence a fighter might be able to win when he's inevitably hurt in a slugfest than a fighter whose never had to get off the floor or fight through adversity to win.

Here's a post YOU replied to where I stated ALL the conditions I'm saying NOW. Nothing has changed!

And here's my ORIGINAL post where I challenged you to find a similar set for conditions which are IDENTICAL to what I am saying now. There is no goal post shifting.

What was that you were saying...? Oh yeah "Try reading my posts. No, seriously. Go back and read them before you start hopping up and down shrieking about how dishonest I am. I addressed this pages ago".

>Says "cruiserweight opponents" to denigrate the quality of Frazier's opponents while ignoring larger opponents such as Mathis/Bugner
>Fails to address the fact over 1/3 of Frazier's wins happened within the first 3 rounds.
>Fails to address his Frazier stopped multiple ranked opponents early, not needing to break them down over time.

You argued that Frazier was primarily just an attrition puncher who needs to break guys down over time, yet the numbers show that this a lie. By definition, someone whose primarily an attrition puncher wouldn't have so many early KOs, including

So in addition to poor reading comprehension and blatantly using strawmans, you also argue in bad faith and refuse to address things written in plain English because they destroyed the outdated narrative you were pushing ? What's next?

I don't lose sleep over these discussions. I don't care if you disagree. If you stated your opinion was that Foreman isn't even in the top 20 best sluggers of all time, I would not care. This is simply a hobby for fun, and it's fun to point out all the flagrant flaws in your argument.

What I will do is ask you to defend your viewpoint. So far, it's been incredibly underwhelming and downright terrible. You have been arguing in bad faith and deliberately attacking strawman arguments for about 4 pages now, then laughing as if you've done something.

You haven't. I'm not sure why you and Journeyman are under the delusion that all of us are slamming our hands on our keyboards furious someone has the nerve to disagree with us or that we think 70's fighters were perfect and no one can dare to try to take them down a notch. That isn't reality and if that's your perception of us, you're incredibly delusional and conceited. We disagree with each other all the time. For instance, Swag doesn't think all that highly of Holmes while I have tried hard to defend Holmes numerous times.

When I say you're downplaying Frazier or Foreman's resume, performance, etc, it's simply that: me calling you out for a poorly constructed argument. That's what you're supposed to do in a debate. Try to just stick to the facts and stop doing the very things you're accusing me of (like shifting the goal posts, something you've done TWICE), because right now at this point it's simply embarrassing how badly you and Journeyman are getting dunked on.