Biggest "forums darlings"

Yeah, I did answer it, and it's dishonest to say otherwise. You said that Foreman had three good wins, so how could he possibly close to Wlad? I told you that he didn't have three good wins and that it was silly to say that. That's a direct answer to your question. What you said was wrong. One of the premises you supplied was faulty. So your conclusion is incorrect. But i'm not going to type all that, although I might as well as I have now.

If I was to rank them, I'd probably have Foreman ahead of Wlad becuase of the special feat associated with the comeback. But it's close between them and I could see it changing a little bit, the sun hasn't quite set on the vinegar stroke of Wlad's career.

But if I saw 1) Ali 2) Louis 3) Wladimir 4) Foreman that's fine by me. I don't feel that needs serious peer review because both proved to me that they were very elite heavyweights well outside the scope of Ali and Louis's accomplishments. I dont' think there is a reasoned, powerful argument for any other heavyweight being indesputably above Wladimir, or indisputably above Foreman. I could defend either position comfortably if I chose to do so.

I don't say heavyweight is unique, but almost, it's definitely the spongiest of the divisions, the most malleable in terms of the true ATG rankings in a way that featherweight and lightweight aren't.

 

No it isn't. It's built on those wins, and some other wins. His win over Joe Frazier is a shocking win over a past-prime great, a guy who belongs in or around the top 10.

These weird choices you make to pepper your posts with an anlaysis of your "opponent's" grasp of logic is bizarre. You made an unsupported assertion when you said I he had three good wins. But I didn't immediately lecture you about unsupported etc. in your statements and how it's not a proper position.

You post like this all the time. That's fine - but you absolutely can't post like this then receive an identical return then complain about "unsupported assertions" and expect to be taking them seriously.

You absolutely did not do that. So how can I possibly avoid be avoiding it in a rebuttal? You said, literally, "He has three good wins." I said, literally, "he doesn't have three good wins" and you know that. But now I'm posting unsupported assertions and avoiding a resume comparison.

Make a resume comparison if you want. I definitely do not want.

I'm an idealist for thinking that Foreman is ranked somewhere around Wladimir? Where tf do you get this gibberish from.

Most people rank Foreman above Wladimir, as we've agreed. Maybe, if you were being a bit arsey, you might paint that as idealism, though it's still a waste of everyone's time. CERTAINLY claiming that Wladimir by "every objective" metric or whatever you said is idealism to the point of ridiculousness, but deciding i'm an idealist is just strange. The position i'm taking is slightly unusual by the average; the position you are taking is absolutely bizarre compared to the average.

I'm acknowledging this, because you seem to get upset when I don't address every "factual" point that you make, but it should go without saying that I've obviously not said anything remotely like this.

This is a reasonable statement I think, but what a win. It think i'm right in saying that there was a thread recently that asked for the greatest every HW win and this one figured in it, and it did strike a chord with me thinking about how many HW fights that would qualify as great are tainted in some way. I think this might be the source of the difference for you, and the difference is fair enough. But you seem low on great wins, wins that have a big impact on fight fans. Foreman has two of these in Frazier and Moorer and Wlad has 0 of them, and the Povetkin win, maybe the closest thing to it, was a bit of a cluster****.

I think feeling that way is totally fair, but this bafflement it's left you with is almost autistic in its power.

I'd challenge you to answer why, for example, someone like Teddy Atlas ranks Foreman above Wladimir? What are the real reasons for that happening, look past supposed racism (or whatever it ended up being), and try to think of the real reasons why people feel this way.

We've been through this. Many people feel Wlad's title reign wasn't dominant, and you're counting strapholder as Champion. Lots of people feel differently about this, and i'm one of them. I don't care when a guy holds a strap, i'm interested in lineage, and i'm interested in top the top contenders for legacy fighters. So Wlad gets loads of credit from me for the fights he wins but I don't see him as having an enormous list of defences. He had three successful "real" title defences and one of them was against Alex Leapai

Wlad sure has a longer list of ranked contenders defeated, but as we know, he doesn't have that legacy fight victory (lost to Fury, lost to Joshua, didn't fight a true legacy fight before this). Foreman does. That's how Foreman's lesser resume can "make up" for Wladimir's longer list resume.

Yeah, but this is what i'm trying to explain to you - the guys you see as racist against, and hating Wlad, and over-ranking fighters because they fought in the seventies, you're that guy to George Foreman. You're no different. Of course you can't see it - you're as weird about Foreman as you think those guys are about Wlad. Something has happened, there's been some strange break and now you're just doomed to spend your time on the forum complaining about Foreman. Liston has had a guy like that. Wlad and Vitali have a guy like that (he posted in this thread recently). Even Ali has had a guy like that - Louis has a couple of guys like that. Tyson has guys like that. You're that guy, but for Foreman.

You're just not a serious poster when you're talking about this stuff.

I know.