George Foreman would not make it undefeated from 1937 to 1949

I would consider Young's run from 74-78 where he officially beat Lyle twice, Foreman, and in my opinion should have got the nod over Ali, Shavers, and maybe Norton to be just as strong.

Again, this isn't about missing information. You just rate 70s Ali higher than I do. The issue is you are trying very hard to prove my argument as flawed or dishonest, when it just boils down to a difference of opinion.

I gave my basis on post #39. You even replied to it.

 

Here is one way to look at it.

Suppose that Mike Tyson had been hit by a 1988 Mustang, shortly after the Spinks fight.

The question would have turned to how long he would have reigned, and who would have beaten him?

Outlandish predictions would be made left right and center.

One name that would never even feature in the argument, is James Buster Douglas!

That would have been roughly on a par with predicting that Nathan Mann, would be the man to end Foreman's reign, if he had fought in Louis's era!

What happens in practice, is that a James Douglas figure emerges, and their credentials then get justified retrospectively!

 

Well, I'm going to stand by my comment that Ali adapted the "rope a dope" to compensate for his declining speed.

Your reply to that statement read as an accusation that I was refusing to credit Foreman for cutting off the ring. If that wasn't your intention, then I simply misunderstood..though I must admit, if that wasn't your attention, then I have no idea what the purpose of your post was or why it was done with mocking sarcasm.


Me: "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."

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

...ok."

Call it a strawman, call it silly, I'm not going to waste another post on this.

 

Absolutely correct.

 

It clearly isn't and I spelt out why.

No. I explained your case as flawed because you were comparing Young with Ali's form, after Zaire.
Dishonesty has nothing to do with this component of your case.

It's just a crap argument.

So, Walcott has heavy hands... ... ... ...and?

Walcott would be fighting someone considerably bigger than him with a significant reach advantage, a great jab and defensive skills.

I doubt Walcott would be the hardest puncher Norton ever faced and I'd suggest it is a toss-up as to which of the two hit harder.

 

Exactly the same thing happened with Joshua and Ruiz. Some of my friends are very casual fans, I have one friend who is very clued up thought Joshua would reign for a long time unless he fought Wilder (Fury wasn’t in the equation at this point)

I made the point to him after the Klitschko fight that someone within the next 4 years, someone no one would expect will beat Joshua out of the blue on the basis of the logic of your post.

 

The natural response to my comment would have been to address Foreman's cutting off the ring against Ali and offsetting this against your claim that Ali's legs were gone.

The fact is Foreman was closing Ali down too easily and this happened early. It's not like Foreman hadn't been able to do the same against previous opponents, either. Foreman lived to manipulate his quarry into his kill zone.

No posts needed to have been wasted on this, at all. Making a needless claim of a logical fallacy, where there isn't none, against points which add to the discussion, is just silly.

 

Well, you can't win them all. I'll take the likes and positive responses my post got from the other members.

 

I know, I know. You like to ask leading questions and use strawmen to control people's answers. Sorry I didn't follow your script.

 

Every cloud....

 

Look who came closest to beating Louis ffs!

Arturo who?

Billy Conn!

The only difference between Louis, and Tyson and Joshua, is that he was better at crisis management!

 

If Godoy or Conn had stolen the win against Louis, then they would have been Douglasised!

Schmelingised if you prefer!

People would have gone back through their records, and found the merit that is overlooked in most past contenders.

In Godoy's case, we would have talked about how South America had a thriving heavyweight scene, and he would have become like another Max Schmeling.

Conn would have been made into another Gene Tunney.

My point is that when somebody beat Forman, it would have been easy enough to make them into a Jimmy Young, or something better!

 

Funny how your memory seems to have failed in a few page's worth of posts.

The question I asked at the very beginning of our exchange offered you an opportunity to support your statements about Ali being "

This content is protected

" and that, "

This content is protected

"

I simply asked: "How many Heavyweights from '37 to '49 were as good as '74 Ali?"

If you think that question is leading or too challenging to answer, in support of your initial thoughts on Foreman/Ali, then perhaps you should have thought things through a bit longer, before posting what you did.

It's not my fault you made big statements, which in relation to the thread topic, fell apart with one simple question put to you.

Rather than accepting that you might have overstated your case, you have instead avoided and obfuscated, whilst doubling-down on your position; later claiming that Zaire Ali was not much better than Jimmy Young.

You wrote the script. I simply challenged it, with a simple question and by subsequently dismantling what you obviously thought passed for a rationale.

Whine about that all you like. It won't change the facts of this dialogue.

 

This becomes more common once we venture into post WW 2. Fighters fight less frequently so the upsets become more meaningful, so the fighters who pulled them off become more glamorized and saw as unique.

Had Foreman fought Louis' schedule from 37 to 49..I see him maybe needing a few series of bouts to clear things up. What if Max Baer caught the Foreman who looked lost and surprised against Lyle's reach?

How often would Foreman be able to dig like he did against Lyle if he's fighting sluggers monthly?

 

That's the nub of it. The accumulation of the fights over time presents one unanticipated variable or another, acting against the protagonist. The flipside of that coin, however, is that the biggest confounding variable to impact upon Foreman in his actual career was Muhammad Ali.

Without Ali or his equivalent around to stop him in his tracks, I think a prime Foreman is capable of ripping a hole through almost any era and one can only wonder what Foreman would have achieved, had he not met his nemesis in '74.

There was no such thing, save perhaps a Joe Louis, between '37 to '49. So, I can't see Foreman being outmatched by any of, say, the following:

Max Schmeling
Joe Walcott
Max Baer
Tommy Farr
Buddy Baer
Billy Conn
Bob Pastor
Jim Braddock
Arturo Godoy
Lou Nova
Jimmy Bivins
Primo Carnera


On the assumption I have covered most of the top names Louis fought, it only leaves the possibility of an accident, some kind of corruption or human error occurring to put paid to an unbeaten run - any of which, over that period of time, would not be a surprise.