Why is it assumed that Ali is much better than Foreman

70s is good, 60s was a poor era. Only relevant win is Liston who wasn't a spring chicken himself.

 

Based on the results of the first fight?

 

Ali is just better, assuming any differently no offence to Foreman is a hard task that would require a lot of back bending.

 

Who did Marciano miss?

 

Bruh.... no one comes close Ali in terms of resume and title defenses..

 

Marciano could have faced Satterfield, Baker, Nino, Johnson. He did not avoid these men but would have been nice if he got to them…but that’s how good Ali was he missed no one of note.

 

2 great wins? He beat Frazier 2X, a peak Norton, Moorer, etc. I agree Foreman is nowhere near Ali, but you're definitely selling him short here.

 

Valdez for 1.

 

I thought Archie Moore beat Valdez.

 

Didn't Moore beat Valdez and Charles KO'd Satterfield.

 

It’s not my intention to make you think he avoided these men…he didn’t. He just didn’t fight them. I think the only guy Ali missed was Machen. That’s my point with how good Ali was. How many top guys completely cleaned out the best of their division? Not just beat the ones but beat the 2,3,4,5 too? Ali was just that deep resume wise that no one can compare at heavyweight. Louis is the only one that comes close but his competition i fee wasn’t as good.

 

Frazier 1 and Norton are his two great wins. It does sound like I am selling him short and perhaps I am, but I was trying to put it into context with comparing his resume to Ali. The second Frazier bout came after the thriller in Manila and was the final fight of Frazier’s career (discounting the ill advised 1 fight comeback 5 years later). I wouldn’t classify the second fight as a great win. Good or decent yes. But Frazier’s prime was over. Moorer was a great accomplishment given Foreman’s age and he was the lineal champ but Moorer was not Tyson, Bowe or Lewis 3 guys Foreman missed in his comeback. Add in the fact Foreman got the fight coming off a loss to Tommy Morrison - it’s likely Moorer was trying to cherry pick and his team knew he would lose to the above mentioned guys.
I may be in the minority but I do feel Foremans resume is a tad overrated. He stuffed a lot of ham and eager types into both his first and second career.

 

Very good.

You hear/read often that Foreman would’ve won a rematch - based primarily on his not falling for the one trick pony effect of the rope a dope. Fair enough as to Foreman being better informed re the rope a dope.

BUT, you then read/hear very little as to HOW exactly Foreman pulls off a win in the rematch.

You nailed the action/reaction shift. If Foreman paces better, then IMO, he gets outboxed and later stopped or KO’d anyway.

Ali “buys” back a ton of energy and dodges high concentration punishment over a shorter period IF Foreman doesn’t come out to knock his head with each and every shot.

If Ali gets more of a “boxing” match from George, then Ali is simply beating Foreman by way of a superior skills in a more conventional boxing contest. IMO, as you’ve basically said, Ali had George covered every which way stylistically.

As to punchers having more resounding victories over common opponents - that’s nothing new.

However, when fighting amongst the most elite, the boxer will always prove generally more superior over the whole field given the greater application of their superior skills over a much wider range of styles and accents.

 

I've never heard this argument, its pretty much common sense Ali is classes above Foreman, More versatile, speedy, and proven.

 

Muhammad Ali won, plain and simple, weather had nothing to do with the outcome. If you know that the weather is hot and humid, you prepare in an environment that is similar to in which you will be exposed to. George Foreman had two quality handlers, Archie Moore and D. Sadler, Ali exposed Foreman's weakness, a lack of stamina, he usually destroyed his opponents in 3 rounds at the most. Ali no longer had the stamina of 1967, but Ali had the experience to pace himself.