Andy Ruiz Jnr vs Ken Norton (12)

True. Bobick wasn't a puncher whose victory tells us much about whether Norton could beat Ruiz, since Ruiz is much more durable. He was just technically a puncher that Norton proved he could beat.

 

Who's the second Norton win that you think beats Joshua?

70s Ali is debatable either way. Usyk cut it close against Joshua, and the best version of Ali that Norton beat was no longer the 60s version.

 

You think AJ would have won titles and defend 'em have he fought in the same era Norton fought?

 

By the logic that often prevails in fantasy fights, this would make Shavers and Norton unquestionably ATG heavyweights, and give them both the "champion" stat, making them even harder to beat.

Which does hammer home the thin line between some "great" fighter and contenders in terms of head to head results. The appeal to "levels" seems excessively used.

 

Ali has faster feet. He schooled aj, the second fight Usyk was about 36 and likes to pop angles around you and counter punch rather than punch while constantly moving around the perimeter of the ring. Ali did this in the 70s, just not to the extent of the 60s. aj doesn't win even win 5 over 15. Watch aj vs savon.

A prime Jimmy Young from mid 70s can beat joshua and the Foreman who wrecked Norton would brutalize joshua was the point, Resume is the whole thing. I wouldn't rule out past it 90s Foreman taking joshua out, aj can't recover

 

90s Foreman has a better chance than 70s, judging from the Lyle fight. Usyk is different than Ali -- and also has the advantage of being a southpaw -- but he's generously the closest comparison we have, and the Usyk who beat AJ is better than the 70s Ali Norton beat. Usyk's feet also look plenty fast to me.

For whatever it's worth, Norton also benefit from the broken jaw in fight 1, which he couldn't replicate in the other two fights. Nor did Usyk have Parkinsons in either of his fights with Joshua.

Don't see Jimmy Young beating AJ. Interesting pick, though.

 

He doesn't. The myth of 90s foreman continues. It's clearly a nonsense agenda at this point to suggest someone who needed physical therapy, was in his 40s, had a decade layoff before hitting middle age, got hit even more compared to his prime and slowed down compared to his younger self is a better fighter. He took several rounds to stop Qawi who is way smaller than Frazier. He went life and death with fringe contenders and got dominated by Morrison. Better chance my rear, a peak Lyle could beat Ruiz if a geatric Ortiz and slow ass Miller with no head movement practically did it. Ruiz got dropped by a 40 year old Arreola and couldn't KO him but still beat the crap out of aj. It's boxing. It was a temple shot anyway. Interesting you mention Parkinsons when Norton beat the better version of Ali before speculation even began on his condition.

Usyk doesn't fight like Ali, he doesn't move around the ring and make you chase him all night, doesn't have a speedy jab, quick feet, but not quite as quick, better angles, less agility, doesn't take a good body punch, a southpaw, but mainly a pressure fighter. Joshua got his face boxed off by Savon and he's actually the closest thing to Ali, nevermind Usyk. aj hasn't been exposed to any mobile cruiserweights since bar Usyk

 

Thanks captain obvious, it's still nonesense. We've been through this, and please address the arguments on Foreman being physically declined and getting beat around by fringe contenders. An old ass Foreman doesn't have a better chance, suggesting so is becoming an agenda to diminish perception of the 1970s and I'm calling anyone out on it. I didn't even reply to you but clearly the shoe fits

 

Every boxer in history is diminished in their 40s, except for Foreman. Nah the version of Foreman who beat Moorer clears the 70s and destroys Ali right ? Is that a thread your about to make ? I'd be pretty funny tbh

 

Foreman was old fat and had a decade layoff, he lifted weights to get back in condition

 

Foreman had four years and 24 fights to get back into condition before he faced Holyfield. That's one fight shy of Holyfield's own pro record when they fought. People act as if this is James Jeffries desperately trying to lose weight right before jumping right into the ring with Jack Johnson. No. It's like the way Ali is considered out of condition after 2 fights and 6-8 months of training for FOTC...but vastly more extreme.

It's true that Foreman believed that he needed to train harder because he was older. But that translated into training longer and harder than his younger self, which helps explain why he didn't gas out in career 2.

Rehab aside, he believed weight training improved his performance as well:

This is all consistent with older fighters competing into their 40s successfully. Once upon a time, people believed that you couldn't compete at 40+. This was true with the outdated training methods from Young Foreman's day. It wasn't true in the modern period. Vitali, Wlad, Thompson, Chisora, Zhang, etc. have fought at 40+ successfully, often at close to the level they'd reached as young men. If we wanted to dig into the lighter weights for people like Bernard Hopkins, we could probably find more examples there, too.

Foreman was special, but he wasn't unique. As someone recently pointed out, Holmes beat Mercer in the 90s, and unlike Foreman, he didn't need to rest so much of his career on it. Or on his losing fight with Holyfield. You could delete both from his career with little loss.

Since you mentioned "agenda": A much better case could be made that it's Foreman's defenders who have one. This forum attracts nostalgic people who particularly seem to like the 1960s-1970s. Foreman being much better in the 70s than the 90s is absolutely vital for them. Without him, most of their case for 70s head to head superiority collapses. That could be why he's defended so tenaciously.

But you know something? I'm not going to make that argument. Because it's intellectually lazy. It's easy to accuse people of bias. And when people don't have a good argument, that's generally what they do. It's an admission that they can't deal with the information in front of them, and so they need to attack the person's motives...as if that changes anything. It doesn't. The argument remains the same even if the person making the argument resents Foreman for having an affair with his mom, or kicking his dog, or stealing his bicycle.

Conversely, your arguments in favor of Foreman wouldn't be weakened in any way if you had a Foreman pillow at home. Though I may suspect you were a little odd.

Savon was more or less a professional fighting amateurs. If we're really needing to use amateur fights as a parallel for why Joshua loses to 70s Ali, you really have no complaint if people want to bring up Norton getting stopped by a lightheavyweight. At least that was a pro fight!