Is Foreman a better boxer than Ali since he destroyed fighters Ali had wars with (and lost to)

Foremans jab was not just great because he had power, and Ali had bigger fists than Foreman anyway
You're saying Ali's jab was great only cause he had reach, that's completely false. However, Foreman had a good jab technically but it's mostly its power.

I honestly don't know how you don't see your bias yet, and repeated the same thing twice.

Did he destroy or completely outbox Jimmy the way Foreman did with Norton and Frazier??
So some wins count and some don't? that's a new one.


Ali is a better boxer than Foreman cause he put him to sleep as the weaker man... And he beat another boxer who used the same strategy to beat Foreman too.

Knock outs are not everything in boxing although I love me a good slugfest.
 
Because Spinks gave him another chance to get beat. Foreman was never given another chance
You're comparing being knocked out cold to sleep to an SD?
A moment ago the way someone won a fight mattered to you, and now this.

You started this thread for the sake of arguing and bias, and this is coming from someone who(me) who started this thread asking if ali ducked the foreman rematch.
 
Interesting video from yesterday that I'll post right here:



I think overall he did a good job with the two tournaments.

Though he's off with his Wlad - Liston pick. Yes Wlad got smashed by Sanders & Brewster, but he improved. And he had a pretty heavy puncher like David Haye in front of him. Joshua is also a pretty hard puncher, and a 41 year old Wlad almost knocked him out, almost went the distance. Why would I believe that the smaller Liston knocks out Prime Wlad within two rounds? It's unrealistic as far as I'm concerned, and a touch of black & white footage magic probably involved.

But I agree with what he said about Larry Holmes in the end ... While not the greatest heavyweight of all time, he would most likely end up with the best record head to head.
 
Last edited:
I'd pick Liston over Wlad.
 
I would argue that was peak Ali. He sunk into his punches better than ever before. He could stand and trade, his hand speed was as good as it ever gonna get etc.

Cassius Clay danced better but was an inferior puncher.

Laughable. He didn't need to really on chin and great as Clay, but he had those in his arsenal.
 
If that was the case, Ali probaby wouldn't have called him the most talented opponent he had.
Liston had a easier time with Patterson, no matter how you spin it.

Ali carried Patterson to inflict punishment because of an op-ed Patterson wrote criticizing Ali's faith. He was playing with his food in that fight, and was heavily vilified for it.
 
I'd pick Liston over Wlad.

I'd possibly too. It would have to come down to it, in order for me to get a feel for it.

But 2nd round is laughable ... Wlad was an incredible athlete, a giant, extensive amateur pedigree + gold medal, experienced all ups & downs as a pro by the time he was in his early 30s. Had good feet and knew how to tie up his men, which Joshua for instance doesn't know, and was consistent with his lead hand unlike Wilder.

That's very different than Listons usual 5'11 - 6'1 cruiserweight sized victims... An opponent of his in 1961 was 5'7.
 
You're saying Ali's jab was great only cause he had reach, that's completely false. However, Foreman had a good jab technically but it's mostly its power.

I honestly don't know how you don't see your bias yet, and repeated the same thing twice.


So some wins count and some don't? that's a new one.


.

No, I wrote: Foreman destroyed fighters Muhammed had wars with. Point being destroyed/completely outboxed. If he beaten them in competitive fights, my point wouldn't be as strong. You can replay Foreman-Norton and Foreman-Frazier 100 times and Foreman wins 100 times. You can not replay Ali-Norton and Ali-Frazier 100 times with the same outcome
 
Last edited:
Boxing math is garbage, doesn't work. If you don't know that much, you don't know much about boxing.

Is it though? Douglas beat Tyson. Tyson lost to Holyfield. Holyfield beat Douglas....
 
Is it though? Douglas beat Tyson. Tyson lost to Holyfield. Holyfield beat Douglas....

You gave me 1 example. There are dozens more that disprove boxing math. It's why "styles make fights" is a motto that's widely accepted as the truth in the boxing community. You're wrong about this one, time to move on honestly.
 
You gave me 1 example. There are dozens more that disprove boxing math. It's why "styles make fights" is a motto that's widely accepted as the truth in the boxing community. You're wrong about this one, time to move on honestly.

So you think someone who demolishes Norton and Frazier within 1-3 rounds is doing it out of stylistic match-up, not because he's a superior fighter???
 
So you think someone who demolishes Norton and Frazier within 1-3 rounds is doing it pure out of style, not because he's a superior fighter???

Yes. Thats the point. Some styles are all wrong for others. Same dynamic exists in other sports, some teams just have other teams numbers, even when they're not technically better. Its what makes sports interesting man.
 
I'd possibly too. It would have to come down to it, in order for me to get a feel for it.

But 2nd round is laughable ... Wlad was an incredible athlete, a giant, extensive amateur pedigree + gold medal, experienced all ups & downs as a pro by the time he was in his early 30s. Had good feet and knew how to tie up his men, which Joshua for instance doesn't know, and was consistent with his lead hand unlike Wilder.

That's very different than Listons usual 5'11 - 6'1 cruiserweight sized victims... An opponent of his in 1961 was 5'7.

Dwight Qawi was a tough little bastard.
 
So you think someone who demolishes Norton and Frazier within 1-3 rounds is doing it out of stylistic match-up, not because he's a superior fighter???

Norton always had a susceptibility to being overwhelmed by sheer power.
 
Dwight Qawi was a tough little bastard.

And a light heavyweight / cruiserweight.

Not familiar with Listons opponent, but probably not as tough and not as good as Qawi. It was over in round 1.
 
Yes. Thats the point. Some styles are all wrong for others. Same dynamic exists in other sports, some teams just have other teams numbers, even when they're not technically better. Its what makes sports interesting man.

No. A bad stylistic match-up would be someone who simply get's stuck. Not trashed endlessly.
 
That's one. And Frazier....? Who almost killed Ali?

Frazier was not susceptible to being overwhelmed, but Foreman is simply a bad style matchup. There wasn’t much he could do because his weaknesses played right into Foreman’s strengths.

The fact that Ali was not able to dispatch Frazier in the same fashion doesn’t make him the lesser fighter, despite your flair for the dramatic.

Basing your argument on Ali and Foreman’s performance against a similar opponent, is like comparing their performances to Jimmy Young.
 
Back
Top