I hope this is a troll. Foreman is better in every way. Power included. Foreman beat a guy widely regrded as an all time top 15 heavyweight in Frazier and a top 50 all time heavyweight in Moorer. And a top 30 all time in Norton. Wardley does not have one win of that caliber.
If this forum was around in 1973 and Foreman stopped Joe Frazier and someone made a "Dempsey vs Foreman" thread, people would say "oh my god" implying that Foreman had no chance against Dempsey. They may even accuse Dempsey of being able to stop Foreman in 2.
I don't think so. I remember reading that both Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey himself said they had never seen a puncher as powerful as Foreman. People on this forum have no problem picking modern fighters to win when those fighters are good enough. I pick Usyk to probably beat a prime Joe Louis due to styles. Many on this forum have picked Usyk to beat many of the past greats. But Usyk is a master boxer while Wardley isn't.
That reminds me of the Married With Children episode when Al had long hair and was calling himself Axl Bundy. Wardley had a good win last night, but I don't think that beating Parker is necessarily the ticket to get you into conversations with the top guys. Parker is big, quite big, but he isn't all that good at boxing. Which is a shame because that is how he has chosen to make a living. But he isn't very good.
There is no basis for what you're saying. He would've scored a stoppage or won on the cards if it continued.
Fixed it for you, Boxed, seeing how that's what Peterson probably needs on the carnivore diet, the silly c*nt.
Wardley was down on two cards and tied on the other. Parker was staggered but still using head movement and it was near the end of the round when it was stopped early…… so yeah, basis..