How many heavyweights could have beat Caracas Foreman?

You never specified you were referring to 70s Foreman and their was no way it could be reasonably inferred. You're just trying to change the goal posts to cover your tracks, something you're notorious for.

In any case, even 1st career Foreman fought guys bigger than him.

Wepner. Stopped in the third.
Vernon Clay Stopped in the second.
O'holloran Stopped in the fifth.
George Johnson. Stopped in the 7th.
Mel Turnbow. Stopped in the first.
Frazier (second bout). Stopped in the 5th.

So your statement that Foreman didn't fight guys bigger than him is incorrect, even allowing for your retroactive condition specifically referring to 70s Foreman.

 

@cross_trainer Did I just read that Joe Frazier was bigger than George Foreman?

 

Is that the only part of my post you're able to dispute? You fail to address the overall point of my post that your made a false statement that Foreman didn't face any fighters bigger than him (which you retroactively changed to only using his first career which is still untrue).

And yes, Frazier was technically bigger. Go look at their weights.

 

Trees for the forest, bro.

 

Funny. I was going to say the same thing to you. Perfectly describes your prior post. Focusing on a miniscule part of the post, while failing to address my main point. THAT is an example of "Trees for the forest, "bro" "

 

No. They were fighting mediocre to less than mediocre opponents - and, even then, making a meal of it at times.

Who were the skilled fighters in the Klitschko era, demonstrating the kind of skills that would have made them champions in other eras?

Louis, Holmes, Marciano, Tyson could all be considered dominant champions, which does beg the question about the level of opposition of the times - but the reasoning only starts there - it doesn't end there. If you've ever been involved in other discussions which have covered this kind of question before - and I can only assume that you have - then you really should know this.

The perspective you've given here is, at best, lazy labeling and doesn't even attempt to join the dots.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

I suspect most people would agree that Bowe's struggles to remain consistent were, in the main, down to himself and his attitude; not due to the strong era in which he competed.

This neither takes away from the fact that Bowe did, however briefly, demonstrate massive talent nor from the strength of the era, as a whole.

 

I agree it's meaningless in the discussion, but it's technically true Frazier was bigger in that fight. What do you think about my overall point? Is noneck's claim that Foreman never fought anyone bigger than him (retroactively attributed to his first career) true?

 

He had some sort of issue with his knee, but he got treatment for it so that it wouldn't affect him in the fight. The camp didn't even agree with each other.

"The argument went on until the day of the match, when Sadler decided the issue by staging his version of the Battle of Wounded Knee. In the morning Foreman limped out of the hotel, supported under his left shoulder by one of his trainers, bound for the hospital and an X ray of his right knee, which had suddenly been taken sore. An hour later he limped back, this time supported under his right shoulder.

For the rest of the day rumors flew that Foreman could or could not fight. Explanations for the knee injury were numerous and imaginative. Someone said that it was an old football injury. Foreman's physician, Dr. Peter Hacker, who came with him to the fight from Hay-ward, Calif., was a bit vague about what was wrong. By that time the rumor had shifted to a pinched nerve, but the physician said it was a strained muscle. Whatever it was, it cleared up dramatically when the Venezuelans finally capitulated on the referee issue: it would be Jimmy Rondeau, the boxing commissioner of the state of Washington.

After the fight, Dr. Hacker explained the miraculous recovery by saying that he had given the champion a shot of cortisone and novocaine at five o'clock. He was very explicit. Asked about the shot, Foreman said, just as explicitly, "I didn't get no shot. I hate needles.".

Source:

https://vault.si.com/.amp/vault/1974/04/08/buenas-noches-senor

 

I think Wilder and Povetkin could have been champions in the 1990s or 2000s as I would favor both over Moorer old Foreman and Rahman

 

And, which of Ali's opponents do you think this speaks poorly of at Ali's deteriorated end?

 

Your assumption here is a little off the mark.

If someone claims to believe that the heavyweight competitors of the Klitschko era "

This content is protected

" and simply leaves it at that, then I want to know who they are and recall or watch their performances. Otherwise, it is a rather empty claim that leads nowhere, wouldn't you agree?

And, when it comes down to actual fights involving these boxers and the action contained therein, then I wouldn't be surprised if the "standards" (should they even be referred to as such) start to look somewhat divergent. Which is also why it is a far cry from NoNeck's hasty little exercise.

 

So, to be clear - When it comes to Norton, is it only his third fight with Ali that you believe speaks poorly of him and, if so, does this poor reflection downgrade him as a boxer overall - or does your view isolate that performance and that point in Norton's career?

Do you factor in the likelihood of there being as many people who believe Norton deserved the nod, as there are those who think the right verdict was given?

Similarly for Shavers, I have seen and heard almost as many people believing Shavers did enough, so does the seeming favoritism in the scoring for Ali factor into the poor light you view Shavers in, as a result of his performance against Ali?

Finally - At what stage in Ali's career do you think he had deteriorated to such an extent that, by rights, he should have from that point on been beaten routinely?

 

On this particular matter, your feelings serve you well.

I understood the broader point. Just not sure why you felt the need to make it. The thread itself is asking for such trading, which will invariably deal in hypotheticals, but this doesn't mean all lines of inquiry lead to the same destination or are of equal value.

 

Good list, but do you really think Ibragimov, Pulev, Haye and Byrd would be 50/50 against him? Not to mention the 2 FSU fighters with a handful of fight between them?

 

Ibragimov was tough as nails, good at winning rounds, and a southpaw. Not a good mix for 70s Foreman.

Pulev got beaten up and stopped by Wlad, but otherwise rarely lost a round in the entirety of the the 2010s and won all of his other fights. The chance of him not getting stopped early and hanging around to outbox/outlast 70s Foreman is pretty good.

Haye was so much faster than Foreman that he might have an easy time finding paydirt and also could potentially edge him by running around pot shotting.

Byrd-->same reasons as Jimmy Young