Absolutely, Some how Marciano's victory over Don Cockell will become more meaningful than Foreman's wins over Norton, Frazier and Moorer combined... When that happens, I'll let you do the honors of arguing with him for pages and pages..... I certainly won't....
Sometimes, I think some of these guys are more interested in impressing themselves that they can create an argument where one shouldn't exist, rather than getting down to the ACTUAL TRUTH of the matter.. There is one poster on here in particular who's name I won't mention, that will argue until he's blue in the face, that some unknown fighter with an unverified record from 1900, would beat the **** out of say, Larry Holmes... I have learned to detect these arguments within the first few sentences, and stear clear of them...
Yeah, that's a good way to not wear yourself out. It's ultimately as fulfilling as arguing with One Punch about evolution many times.
McGrain, you seem to be placing an unusual amount (for you) of emphasis on Foreman's ability compared to his achievements as a criterion of evaluation.
Of course you are free to form and hold your own opinions and If I didn't value a great many of them I wouldn't bother with this reply - but I believe that you, sir, are the revisionist here. In the 1950 AP poll Dempsey was voted as the greatest fighter in ring history. Now it is true Ali hadn't come along yet but Dempsey was placed ahead of Louis by the experts of the time (and by a substantial margin) who were active professional boxing writers with access to the fighters and their trainers and covered most of their fights. That is, sir, not 'craziness' but established fact. You can Google it if you like :yep
I'll take your word for it! Of course, it's also possible to find lists made by historians and fighters themselvs that see Fitz above Louis, and made a favourite to beat him. I can't really care about those either. Revisionism is only a dirty word to those stuck hopelessly in the past. Dempsy's title run is the worst of any of the great champions aside from Johnson. In Wills and Greb he omitted to fight the two men most likely to seperate him from his title, in my estimation. Unlike Johnson, he didn't have a stretch fighting some of the best available in his run to the title. Comparing and contrasting this with the title-runs and wider win-resumes of Ali and Louis with Dempsey's bridles only one conclusion, regardless of the affect Demspey's consdeable fame workd upon the commentators of the 1950's.
I said i used to, but now I rank him inside the top 10 on the basis of his comeback, about as different from ranking him based upon ability as it is possible to get.