Biggest "forums darlings"

You completely discount how hard it is to win fights in succession. Here’s a hint: it’s mathematically much more probable to win one fight as a 5:1 underdog than it is to win twenty fights as a 10:1 favorite.

 

You scored Briggs over Foreman, don't be a commenter on respected boxing forums.

 

This isn’t a respected forum.

 

It's not so much the competition which I don't think is overly strong kind of like Holmes's opposition It's the consistency more than anything.

For example a prime Tyson would be the favourite over all of Wladimir's title challengers but I can't see in a realistic scenario where Tyson can keep his head on straight for 10 years consistently.

There's not alot of Heavyweights that I know of who could keep consistently winning world title fights for a decade long period.

Again it wasn't the strongest opposition but the consistency and dedication had to be admired.

 

Agreed Ali was in very good shape for Foreman but as I said Foreman had a chance to comeback after that loss and didn't successfully do so.

Logically Foreman still should've been in his physical prime during the late 70s but had a major upset loss to Young. Which on paper prior to the fight he shouldn't of lost although I'm a firm believer Young is a tough stylistic challenge for any version of Foreman.

Regardless Foreman’s reign at the top was great but very short lived in the 70s and whilst his achievement at age 45 is remarkable he doesn't quite have enough filler to his overall resume for me.

 

I didn't "completely discount" anything. (Brush up on your reading comprehension, please.)

Moreover, Foreman went 40-0 before losing to Ali. I think he's aware of the odds and inherent difficulties.

Wlad never put a win-streak like that together.

 

Wlad's championship win streak puts to shame Foreman's win streak. It's a fool's errand to prove otherwise. Look at the records of the men Foreman faced. Not all win streaks are equal. You should know better. Wlad ran off a quality win streak against the top fighters in the world. Not the Clarence Boone's of the world.

 

Adios NN!!!!

 

How many of them were top twenty guys who weighed more than 200 pounds?

Brian Nelson probably had a better first 30 or so wins than Foreman.

 

There have been countless guys that lost their marbles/never performed as well again (despite being young) when beaten for the first time. Donald Curry is another prime example. It may be due to losing their aura of invincibility, it may be other. The fact is so many have never remotely fulfilled their potential post first loss. Foreman's denial is much documented, from being poisoned to anything else he could think of. The difference between Foreman and all others is that he rebounded, albeit a ridiculous amount of time alter and pulled off crazy stuff.

I'm in the bracket of those that take Foreman over young prior to his invincibility being shattered by Ali. I'm in great stead.

 

George did bounce a consensus top ten heavyweight off the canvas.

 

Is that what I was trying to prove?

I would have thought it was pretty clear what NoNeck and I were discussing.

But, I guess, even a hint of an opportunity to wax on about the 'quality' of Wlad's run was too much for you to resist

NoNeck and I were not discussing records.

I do. But, clearly, I wasn't discussing what you think I was discussing.

Well, the matter of 'quality' is a different discussion altogether.

Nonetheless, I'm glad you were able to get that off your chest... ... ... ...

 

Intervention to get it on-topic:

Duran.