George Foreman would not make it undefeated from 1937 to 1949

I never said Foreman didn't cut off the ring or suggested otherwise. I'm not gonna debate someone that is just going to throw strawmen at me for the sake of argument. Waste of time.

 

You make some good points but I disagree with you re Muhammad Ali's upset against George as being one of the greatest in history. It was definitely an upset but not a huge one a la Douglas-Tyson or Honeyghan-Curry. The odds were 3-1,I think which are clear odds but not enormous ones. Mind you,it was certainly a great VICTORY - Muhammad's greatest in my opinion.

As for the subject matter - Foreman would find it hard going through those twelve years without at least one fighter beating him. He would have been pretty old in boxers terms by the end of that spell. Murderous puncher though he was.

 

Thank you and absolutely. It wasn't as shocking as Tyson vs Douglas. Nothing was in my lifetime.

 

That's irrelevant to the point I just made and have been making from the outset.

Your basing Foreman's chances against opposition from '37-'49, on his loss to Ali, stating the version of Ali that Foreman lost to was "

This content is protected

" is, as I have already implied, an unreliable and weak position.

This idyllic passing of the torch is a vision of your own creation and yet the basis for diminishing Foreman for losing to someone widely accepted as the Greatest Heavyweight of All Time - who, at 32, obviously wasn't done yet.

What would be Walcott's manner of victory, in your opinion?

Fortunately, you're not my Tipster.

 

George only knocked six teeth out of Frazier's head with one blow, he would have beaten all of them including Louis goodness. He broke people's arms when he hit them. maybe some of them would maybe win a round or two, Frazier would have had a field day, its a differant era folks, Louis never beat a Joe Frazier

 

And you're not confirming one way or the other now, are you?

Introducing additional information/ideas/reasoning, which do not take your original statements and distort them, is NOT a strawman.

Claiming otherwise is both lazy, ignorant and looks like an attempt to evade alternative ideas.

Are you going to address the alternative idea or just hide behind your bogus claim of having been 'strawmanned'?

 

George will never get credit for "smart strategies" one big one , was not taking punch out fights in the gym, like some of the best did "daily" thats how you get punchy! my friend worked on the set of Sanford and Son, And in came World Champion George Foreman for a walk through on the set, my friend went down to meet him , and George said non chaulantly walking by "get your hands up" so my friend made a boxing pose, thats one great story there. ESPCIALLY since he never knew who was going to guest star on the show.

 

I wouldn’t favor those men no, although Godoy was extremely durable and could go many rounds while taking a beating as proven against Louis. That could potentially pose problems for a 1970s Foreman who had the tendency to gas out late

 

If you want to debate my point about Ali not being much better than Young at this stage. Okay.

They have similiar performances and results against the same fighters in a similar period. Ali got the nod against Norton and Shavers despite not doing much better and in some cases worse. When they faced each other Ali won a controversial decision in which he was outlanded by something like 100 punches. I'm talking performance, not official results.

Walcott probably decisions past prime Frazier.

I'm heart broken I'm not your tipster on the imaginary odds you proposed for a fantasy fight.

 

What alternative idea are you trying to present? That Foreman cut off the ring against Ali? No kidding. We've all seen the fight. Pointing out Ali's loss in speed and change in style in no way denies Foreman didn't cut off the ring and I feel it's bizarre I even have to explain that.

Do I feel a prime Ali would be cut off so frequently by Foreman? Probably not.

Am I denying that Foreman cut off the ring against Ali? Never. Hence I have no choice but to call a strawman a strawman.

 

To pick any heavyweight to go undefeated for a 12 year period in any era is a massive stretch. Correct me if I’m wrong but has that ever even happened before

In fact unless you sent them way way way back in time (50+ years) with all the benefits they have had in their own era I don’t think it’s justifiable claim, even for Ali & Louis.

 

Louis was undefeated from 37 to 49. That's why he is a legend.

 

Your argument is flawed. You have already referred to Ali as old in 1974, yet you are using Ali's form after Zaire and, more questionably, his fights following the Thrilla in Manilla - even mentioning Ali/Shavers to justify your initial comment. How is this a fair basis for assessment of Ali's 1974 form?

Ali's form, post FOTC and leading up to Zaire was excellent.

Wins over:
Ellis (Ring Top-3)
Foster (Ring Top-10)
Quarry (Ring Top-3)
Patterson (Ring Top-3)
Bugner (Ring Top-10)
Norton (Ring Top-10) with whom he splits a pair (both SDs).
Frazier (Ring Top-3)

And there were other solid wins against competition not rated by The Ring, e.g. Mathis, Blin, Chuvalo. His one loss to Norton is not indicative of a guy who was done; especially, since he evened the score the same year ('73).

In all, Ali had 14 bouts in the two and half years between FOTC and Zaire, going 13-1, including wins over seven Ring-Rated opponents.

Young couldn't have replicated that run at any point in his career.

Fair enough - But, I see no basis for favoring Walcott over Frazier. Walcott was a solid puncher, but plenty of lesser men than Frazier survived him.

You provided no basis for picking Walcott over Norton, other than you'd bet on Walcott, even if Norton was the clear favorite.

There's wasn't a lot to be said in reply to that.

 

What utterly fatuous remarks.^^

So, the comments you posted on Foreman/Ali needed to be made, but my highlighting what you didn't mention, covered a point so implicit to your analysis that you find it bizarre that it would even need to be explained?

And, I suppose it is you, who gets to decide what does and does not count as implicit information? Do you realize how ridiculous your position is?

Look. You clearly do not know what a strawman argument is. You've just strongly implied that Foreman's ability to cut off the ring was a point you didn't think needed explaining. So, how was me raising it as one, in any way misrepresenting your points?

Did I state you had denied Foreman cut off the ring against Ali? No.

Don't worry, the irony of you having to use a strawman to uphold your accusation against me of using a strawman, has not been lost on me, and I find it quite priceless.

Not right now, but shortly, you're going to realize that you throwing up a seemingly clever term, which you probably learned last week and have been waiting eagerly to [mis-]apply, was a bad idea, when all you had to do was acknowledge the point I made, as and when I raised it; not take three replies to finally suggest that you didn't think it was important enough to explain.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to make the discussion so difficult. But, I shouldn't be surprised, though.

You are, after all, the guy of whom I asked a very simple question, to which you spent an entire post not answering and, when called out on that, you then inform me that you had "

This content is protected

"

As previously alluded... ...priceless!

 

Somebody would have beaten him.

There is a reason why so few fighters achieve that kind of longevity and sustained dominance.

When people ask who would beat him, they are asking the wrong question.

The schedule would beat him.

However good a champion is, and however weak the era is, any weakness in the champion gets exploited.