George Foreman would not make it undefeated from 1937 to 1949

His skill and ability would ensure the opposite. Same with Abe Simon

 

While I would favor George Foreman to beat any man on that list in individual isolated contests, I don’t think he goes unbeaten for 12 years. He didn’t have that kind of focus. Someone would upset him and it would probably be somebody who we’d least expect to do it

 

Fair point but Ali didnt concede every physical advantage. Ali held the most important one and that is quickness. Ali still had the fastest hands in the division. He was also equal height and close enough in strength

 

I unironically think JJW might notch a victory over what would be an aged Foreman (yes I know the irony of that sentence but without the humbling losses to Ali and Young Foreman wouldn't have reinvented himself and his style would've aged poorly) in 2 tries.

Call me a Walcott fanboy, I know what I am

 

What kinda crack you smokin? Joe Frazier was getting ragdolled by Foreman and he was clearly stronger than Ali

 

Somebody would outbox him, yeah.

 

I'm just gonna say that I haven't overlooked anything. I have the same data as you, watched the same matches, just came to a different conclusion.

Straying off topic but I agree that a prime Frazier beats Walcott. I don't feel the one from Ali 2 and 3 does. Norton vs Walcott depends if Ken can stay on his game and take Walcott's heavy hands...I'm not convinced he can.

 

Ali did have quicker hands but his legs were gone, which is why he fought like he did against Foreman, couldn't get away from him. I disagree on the rest.

 

When I see you concluding that '74 "

This content is protected

", I feel much more confident about my interpretation of the data than yours.

I find it highly unlikely that any heavyweight from '37 to '49, other than perhaps Louis himself, beats Zaire Ali and so using Foreman's loss to Ali seems moot.

I see no reason to think '74 and '75 Frazier can't beat Walcott.

Norton was highly skilled and considerably bigger than Walcott. He'd be the betting favorite, based on both this and his overall form.

 

And, this didn't have anything to do with Foreman cutting off the the ring...

...ok.

 

Whatever strawman argument you want.

 

You might want to learn what a strawman argument is before claiming others are making one.

 

Ali was only part of my argument. Isolating this single aspect refutes nothing as it was the collective that drew me to my conclusion. But again, I state Foreman getting knocked out in what should have been the time honored new Champion cements his legacy against the declined former Champion bout doesn't thrill me about his chances of replicating the greatest HW title run of all time. I don't believe 74 Ali was a demigod, Foreman had the tools but fought a stupid overconfident fight.

Had he came back strong from Ali and restablished himself you'd have a point. Instead, he barely edged Lyle and lost to Young..then quit. Could he make it through 12 years undefeated without a meltdown? We are not disputing Foreman's greatness but his ability to replicate a 12 year run of victories. And based off his own struggles as the young lion in the era he was supposed to dominate...hell no.

Frazier was too hittable at this stage to beat a hard puncher like Walcott. He was matched against Quarry and Ellis for this reason.

If Norton was a clear favorite against Walcott I wouldn't take that bet.