Who has the best record, Wlad Klitschko or George Foreman?

Of course Sam was less skilled.

Guess what?

It wouldn't matter in this case. Ken fought 3 sluggers in his career, got knocked out 3 times, and lasted 4 combined rounds.

But I do agree that Norton would be looking damn good in the opening minute, far superior to Sam.

 

Sluggers fought: 3
Record: 0-3, 3 KO losses
Combined rounds lasted: 4

 

Examples?

 

Foreman, Shavers, Cooney.

Norton's more skilled than all 3. Didn't matter.Shavers even had the drawback of having a dodgy chin himself.

Sam's crude, but he also hits hard, is aggressive, and at his best, could take a punch. He's not as skilled as Norton, but he's skilled enough to land- and I don't have faith in Norton to weather it.

If I had faith in Norton's ability to go the distance, I'd favor him.

 

Would you say George Foreman was a very skilled fighter? Have a good think about that before answering.

 

:rofl
All 3 would bomb Sam Peter out.

Against the greatest HWs of all time Shavers didn't look the best but he was levels above Sam Peter in every department.

Peter at 25 was slower than a near 40 year old middleweight fighting at Heavyweight.atsch

Norton would make a fool out of Sam Peter.

 

Michael Moorer sucked

Dwight Quawi was not even a heavy weight

Ken Norton, if he was an active fighter at the moment people would dismiss him as glass-jawed ****

Frazier was a bad combination of small, slowed and old.

Shannon Briggs was considered crap, some of you might actually remember that.

Foreman lost a decision to Jimmy Young, no? Am I right? Wouldn't he be dismissed as utter rubbish if he were fighting today?

People build up retired fighters without the memory that they were considered **** when they were active.

 

Irrelevant. Peter could go 0-3 against them, and it still wouldn't help Ken Norton match up any better with him. :good

 

Call it the "Ali halo". Being competitive or beating any version of Muhammad raises your stock so much that it transfers to whoever is competitive or beats you, and before you know it, you've got people today acting like losing to Jimmy Young was better than shutting out Chris Byrd.

Stylistic mismatch? Apparently those don't exist when matching 70's fighters against the modern guys, even if they existed for the 70's fighters themselves lol.

 

You still havent answered how you think he has a better overall resume and just noted 2 wins

 

He had much better opposition, and didn't lose to nobodies.

2nd time of telling - learn to listen/read first time would save us all a lot of bother.

 

George Foreman is a top 10 ATG heavyweight who destroyed fellow top 10 ATG Joe Frazier, also beat Norton and made a come back where he pushed prime Holyfield all the way and made history by beating Michael Moorer to become heavyweight champion at the age of 45.

Sam Peter on the other hand was a slow, unskilled plodder who got pushed very close by Charles Shufford, needed a gift decision to get a win over a morbidly obese, washed up, 5ft 9", 40 year-old former middleweight and other than that his other best wins are a close UD over Jameel McCline and a KO win over a glass jawed 40 year-old Maskaev.

 

That doesn't answer my question. You didn't even remotely attempt too.