Who is the best fighter throughout history you pick Marciano to beat?

Sure, an argument can be made for him becoming wilier, and more thoughtful.

I think Foreman was a 'one trick pony' in the 70's'cos the one trick was him being a fu¢king juggernaut, force-of-nature beast.

The flip side is that maybe Norton and Frazier could out-hustle the older Foreman but the 70's version simply plowed through them like a BOSS.

I rate the young Foreman. Fair play for not being patronising though Uncletermite.:good

 

Thomas wasn't doing any heroin before the Tyson fight. He did when he was younger and immediately after the fight.

 

The foreman of 91 ate 20 unanswered shots from Holyfield who hit harder than either Norton or Frazier I dont think those guys are going to be out hussling anything,holyfield had a chin of granite,both Frazier and Norton were not proved to take good HW shots,and he never quit,he slowed obviously from the severe amount of punches from round 1 to the last with Holyfield , but think the 90's foreman would have everyone in the 70's barring Ali running for their lives,not only do you get a harder hitting one but a nearly impossible one to knockout with stamina.

 

I'd pick prime Marciano to beat 60's era Ali for that reason. 70's era was much more durable, smarter, and would wear Rocky down and outlast him to a decision or late ko.

 

Fair enough but eating shots well ain't winning on any scorecards soon...
I think 60/70's Frazier beats 90's Foreman for sure. Not sure where you get the idea from that "both Frazier and Norton were not proved to take good HW shots".:huh

 

both were k.od by the only HW punchers of their time...frazier was dropped by 210 Bonevena and almost dropped by 240 Mathis who didn't hit hard for a HW.Norton was blasted by both foreman and ****ey. Forema at 250 plus would laugh at 205 pound Frazier,it would be physically impossible to beat him,he wouldn't have the power or defensive elusiveness that was necessary ,Dwight Quawi had much better defense than frazier and lasted 7,Fraizer would maybe last a bit longer than he did with 220 foreman but hurting him would be near impossible,he had a left hook shot at 70's foreman this one ate Morrison and ****ey hooks like candy,they BOTH hit much harder than Frazier.

 

I'm afraid you're clutching at straws here and basically being really bias.
So what if George ate hooks like candy. Why does that make him so great? He lost to Morrison. Can George claim to 'not be hurt' and take the victroy now...? Is a prime Joe Frazier incapable of lasting as long as Morrison did? Is there no chance of him busting up Foreman's right eye? Remember Frazier could fight at a 'smokin' pace for 15, not gas like Tommy.
Foreman in the 90's for sure was more savvy, I've said so. But it's a step too far IMO to add that to a great chin and convince me, as an overall package, that later George was the superior fighter.

 

yes as stated he Frazier could only fight coming forward had little foot speed and his chin didn't stand up to 220 foreman,it will not stand up to 260 foreman.you also have to take into account he developed a ramrod jab in the 90's and was accurate with it.In the end fraziers face over his gloves defensive style is the end of it.Morrison was 6'2 and hwas very athletic,hw had the size to keep foreman off him and dangerous speed and power with good arm length to worry him,frazier did not have those attributes.

 

My list is too long to post

 

DEMPSEY destroys Marciano I laugh at your love affair with Marciano.
A couple yrs ago weren't u on a Sonny Liston was indistructable kick. Pretty sure u were. Then u used to give me **** about Holmes then a little time went by and u suddenly had him top 3.
Who's gonna b your greatest in 2016?? LoL

 

Fair enough. I know this though, I've never said otherwise. You give Frazier absolutely no chance though (against the latter verison of George) as some sort of yard stick to 90's Foreman's greatness.
For sure he becomes more favourable in some match-ups but the 70's Foreman did things I think the 90's version incapable of doing. I think those things make 70's version a better fighter. Let's not break this down any further, it's all hypothetical anyway....:dead

 

good point and we all know Qawi was not a elite puncher at 175lbs and he was past his best and overweight so I think Foreman would be at risk if the the 5'5 Qawi could punch. I dont rate Lyle an elite puncher but he could punch and he had Foreman staggered and down several times with right hands

 

Your opinion on Holmes changed after I was saying for yrs he was top 3 and u kept giving me a hard time about it.
Then u started studying him and came around to my way of thinking.
That's the truth.
BTW u had Liston higher than that at one point. He's all u talked about a few yrs ago.
I've always had Liston top 8