By Modern Standards, George Foreman was a Caveman

You haven't got a clue.

I just hope for your sake that you're trolling us for a laugh.

Foreman wouldn't be top 20 today?

Ha!

Why don't you list today's top 20 HW's and give us all a laugh.

You could also list the best fighters of the 80's and then compare them to today's guys.

Also, this era of HW's is the weakest era of the last 40 years.

 

Most of the current HW's are like cavemen too so I think Foreman would do just fine in the modern era.

 

Great post!

It's sometimes hard to tell if these guys are just having a joke, but if not, they should be embarrassed.

 

But... he wouldn't.

Tell me, son, what was Foreman's biggest advantage over his opponents. In fact, the only thing he had going for him in his prime?

In fact, I will answer it for you. His size, reach and weight advantage over his much smaller opponents.

How can you possibly claim that Foreman will be a success today when his main strength is gone since today he'd be below average height for a heavyweight.

Steve Cunningham is considered a very small heavyweight today. He's 6'3, half an inch shorter than Foreman who was considered a giant of his day.

That alone is proof that Foreman's main advantage over his opposition in the 80s is gone in todays era.

What about that is so hard for you idiotic, rose-tinted glasses wearing Americans to grasp?

 

They're clueless.

But you can stop them in their tracks with one simple question.

These type of guys often like to compare sprinters and swimmers etc with boxing.

They like to point out that a sprinter from 30 years ago, couldn't beat a sprinter from today.

That's their evidence.

But all you have to do, is ask this question:

'If boxing has evolved in the same way as some other sports have, are you claiming that today's best fighters, across all weight classes, are the best fighters of all time?'

That's it.

They can't answer with a yes.

Because anyone who follows boxing, knows that today's guys aren't the best fighters of all time.

They should be banned for a month, on the grounds of being a simpleton.

 

This threadatsch

Old Foreman won a title in the 90's when the division was much stronger than it is now. I think prime Foreman would do alright against todays top heavyweights.

 

1. I'm from Sheffield, England.

2. Before we go any further, just list today's top 20 guys.

 

Don't be silly Barry, Foreman couldn't beat Leapai and Pulev etc.

:rofl

 

Why aren't they?

What exactly is the criteria of "best of all time"?

Most successful record, most defences, most title belts, most mainstream success?

For me it's if put in the ring in a 12 rounder against anyone from the past in their division would they win and the fact is, despite their successes in the past, many of the boxers from by-gone years wouldn't cope in todays era because like it or not, athletes get better with every generation.

Take Haggler. Great boxer... in his generation. Today he would be top 10 but nothing more.

Or Rocky Mariciano. You honestly can't say he'd be an undefeated world heavyweight champion in todays era. He'd barely crack the top 20. He wouldn't even reach the top 10 in the 80s because, like I said, athletes get better with every generation.

Fact. It's fact which you Americans don't like to hear but it is true.

 

:rofl:rofl

Andy Lee and shot Jermain Taylor are currently middleweight World champions, do you really either of these guys would beat Hagler?

 

Wlad
Povetkin
Pulev
Fury
Ustinov
Takem
Stiverne
Ruiz Jr
Cunningham
Joshua
Brown
Wilder
Arreola
Teper
Jennings
Chisora
Thompson
Helenius
Chagaev
Parker


A solid division. For anyone who says the current heavyweight division is weak, they are obviously a moron since Eddie Chambers, a world class boxer in his own right doesn't even crack the top ten. Neither does Pianata whose only loss is against ATG Wlad.

It's a very strong division. It's only Americans who seem in denial about that. Replace each of those boxers with a black kid from Brooklyn and the same dumb, racist Americans who call it weak would be calling it a strong division.

 

some of them in your list are black americans.

clearly you talk ****, and are now on ignore for such self contradictory crup.

 

You're talking complete boll*cks!


Again, I'm not American.


Boxing doesn't evolve in the same way.

So what if athletes get better?

A fighter has got to master many skills.


A fighter today can have a nutritionist, a strength and conditioning coach, and top class training equipment and facilities.

But it doesn't automatically mean that he's got better footwork, better timing, and he can throw a better hook, than a guy from yesteryear.


Hagler would only be top ten today at MW?

Are you for real?


Are you going to tell me that today's WW's are the best of all time?


That today's HW's are the best of all time?


That today's LW's are the best of all time?


You're completely clueless.


The best fighters of the 80's, would have a birthday against most of today's top guys.


You need to watch more boxing.

 

He'd beat Taylor, but then Taylor won his belt from a bum who beat another bum who beat a man with a glass body who beat a bum. That trinket has been on a bum carousel for years.

As for Lee, he has an excellent right hand. One of the best in boxing. I wouldn't count him out against anyone.

Cotto, Martinez, GGG, Murray and Lemiux all beat Hagler quite handily and Lee stands a damn good chance.