Why is it assumed that Ali is much better than Foreman

I understand what you're saying. He probably shouldn't be.

Before Ali-Foreman, George was a 7 to 1 or 8 to 1 favorite. And that was everyone looking at Foreman and Ali up to 1974.

Ali didn't have a lot of great nights after that win over George.

Whereas George sometimes looked stellar even nights nearly 20 years later against much younger fighters.

The people who say "Ali fought everyone" ... well, he basically had fought everyone "before" he met George Foreman ... and Ali was still an 8 to 1 underdog to the people AT THAT TIME who were watching them both.

But the way people look at their careers now, you'd think Ali was levels better than Foreman ... maybe even 7 to 8 times better fighter than George.

Had they rematched in 76, I'd have favored George.

Someone in this thread said if Ali had fought Foreman in the 60s, Ali would've beaten him as easily as he beat others that decade. I found that ludicrous.

Ali needed every bit of "man strength" and guile to survive the onslaught Foreman unleashed on him in Africa. Ali in the 1960s was certainly faster, but he was in no way used to taking shots or fighting off the ropes.

Foreman's pressure and clubbing shots may have worn the younger Ali down.

Ali's win over George certainly could've been a win that Muhammad never would've been able to duplicate. There's no way of telling. They didn't fight again.

George was certainly better for a longer period. Can you imagine Ali at 42 trying to fight? Or Ali at 45 winning the "world" title?

So they probably should be rated much closer. They probably will in the decades to come as fewer people remember watching them fight live and just go by the old fight films they watch.

 

I fully agree with your post.

As far as the common opponent syndrome goes,it's all a matter of style match ups - George did better against Ken Norton and Joe Frazier whereas even a fading and woefully out of shape Muhammad did better with Jimmy Young.

 

Foreman did better than popular memory suggest. The whole crowd was rooting for Young.

Ali lost to Young as well, got gifted a decision. Both performances were quite poor.

 

It was more like Ali got the benefit of the doubt due to the judges not liking Young's overly cautious style and frequently sticking his head out the ropes. Honestly, it's hard to score that fight but Ali did not look great.

I do agree that it's a matter of styles when looking at common opponents. Ali always struggled with high stamina pressure fighters who could bring the heat to him throughout the fight. Foreman feasted on those guys.

 

In your opinion.

 

Hmm, all respect...I just can't see Foreman doing much besides being overwhelmed by 60s Ali. He might have lasted longer than Zaire...but I see him stumbling and missing just as bad. Ali in 10 at the latest.

 

Ali was more consistent all around and had a different set of gears than Foreman. He would regroup and change, and Foreman as great as his 4th gear was if that gear did not work he would struggle, whether it was career one or two.. That is my take on it. Ali was like Ray. he could adjust and use a fightplan the best out of his contemporaries, and that makes him the best of all of them, and is why Ray is the best of the fab 4.. in my estimation.

 

Agreed.

Post exile Ali traded in maintained leg speed/mobility for greater punishment absorption which was later aided and abetted by the express employment of the rope a dope.

60s Ali is going to be much less hittable and won’t necessarily need the man strength he either already had or the extra he might’ve gained later. Tbh, Ali showed off some pretty decent strength anyway in the 60s when he saw fit or when required.

For whatever it’s worth - someone recently provided an i/v with Ali shortly after Zaire in which he answered that Foreman would’ve been easier for the 60s version of himself.

 

I'm curious. Which factors created a perfect storm?

 

Ali was better.

1. Ali beat Foreman head to head
2. Ali was heavyweight champion three times and had 19 successful title defenses. Foreman was champion twice and had four successful defenses.
3, Ali was heavyweight champion for more than nine years. Foreman was champion for less than four years.
4. Career competition level, not even close. Ali had well over 30 fights versus opponents in Ring's heavyweight top ten when the year started. He lost five of them. Foreman who feasted on lesser fighters, was only 6-4 against such opponents.

To summarize, Ali won head to head, Ali was a better champion and Ali beat a much better level of fighter throughout his career.

There is no reason for debate. Ali was better.

 

Well, Ali was older, had the wear and tear of his war with Frazier on him, had no legs to speak of. Then he went to the ropes and laid there, which is exactly what Foreman was going to try and force him to do. So the old guy, with no legs, not much of a punch (or so it is said) let the big strong invincible "Young Foreman" fight the fight he dreamed of fighting...then beat the bejeezus out of the big dummy.
That is why he is considered better than Foreman. He let him have the fight on his terms and beat him at it.

 

You ever watch both of them eat a steak? Different men, different appetites. Different essences.

 

Exactly, and perfectly stated.

 

Good Post.

 

Nonsense. Watch Ali-Norton II. Watch Ali-Frazier II. And then tell me Ali had "no legs." That's lazy. Ali was gliding in the two fights leading up to the Foreman bout.

Ali went to the ropes against Foreman as early as the round one because Foreman was charging and Ali couldn't keep him off by running and admitted afterward he wouldn't have been able "dance" 15 rounds with George charging at him throwing bombs.

It wasn't any plan Ali's team had. Everyone knew Ali's plan was to move. Even the writer George Plimpton thought "the fix was in" when Ali went to the ropes, because Plimpton had spent the camp with them and knew the plan. Ali's corner went nuts when he went to the ropes. Foreman pummeled him. But Ali kept his head, fought off the ropes in spurts. And he pulled off a mammoth upset.

Great for him. But people who act like Ali had nothing left or no legs simply aren't telling the truth. Watch Norton II and Frazier II. Ali moved in those two fights more than he had in any fights in a while.

The hard-charging Foreman was a different beast than Frazier and Norton. And Ali knew he was sunk right away once Foreman came barreling after him. That's why Ali went to the ropes and "winged" it as his corner lost their minds. It shouldn't have worked, but it did ... that night.

There's nothing to say he ever could've duplicated that again.