The reason they fought, was to see who was the better fighter.
Ali knocked Foreman out.
Therefore, Ali is a better fighter.
I don’t give a fuck about anything else you’re saying. They weren’t in different eras, and we’re not comparing two fighters who never faced each other - in which case it would be speculation.
They fought. Ali won - and an older Ali, not even a young and prime Ali - by knockout.
That’s THE END OF THE STORY.
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
I guess it’s a matter of opinion, I’d like to hear anyone else pipe in based on the fights stats what they think… I’ll be interestted
[/quote]
Yea. Especially people who WATCHED THE TWO FIGHTERS FIGHT EACH OTHER AND SAW ALI KNOCK HIM OUT.
This is quite possibly the stupidest argument that’s ever been on this board.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
I guess it’s a matter of opinion, I’d like to hear anyone else pipe in based on the fights stats what they think… I’ll be interestted
[/quote]
Yea. Especially people who WATCHED THE TWO FIGHTERS FIGHT EACH OTHER AND SAW ALI KNOCK HIM OUT.
This is quite possibly the stupidest argument that’s ever been on this board. [/quote]
The stupidest argument is the fact that if you believe that, then you believe Buster Douglas is a better fighter than Mike Tyson by that logic. Sucks to be you…
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
I guess it’s a matter of opinion, I’d like to hear anyone else pipe in based on the fights stats what they think… I’ll be interestted
[/quote]
Yea. Especially people who WATCHED THE TWO FIGHTERS FIGHT EACH OTHER AND SAW ALI KNOCK HIM OUT.
This is quite possibly the stupidest argument that’s ever been on this board. [/quote]
The stupidest argument is the fact that if you believe that, then you believe Buster Douglas is a better fighter than Mike Tyson by that logic. Sucks to be you…
[/quote]
You’re using the single greatest upset in the history of the sport to prove that when fighters fight, it does not measure their ability?
Asinine.
Again, why bother fighting if the results don’t mean anything?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
I guess it’s a matter of opinion, I’d like to hear anyone else pipe in based on the fights stats what they think… I’ll be interestted
[/quote]
Yea. Especially people who WATCHED THE TWO FIGHTERS FIGHT EACH OTHER AND SAW ALI KNOCK HIM OUT.
This is quite possibly the stupidest argument that’s ever been on this board. [/quote]
The stupidest argument is the fact that if you believe that, then you believe Buster Douglas is a better fighter than Mike Tyson by that logic. Sucks to be you…
[/quote]
You’re using the single greatest upset in the history of the sport to prove that when fighters fight, it does not measure their ability?
Asinine.
Again, why bother fighting if the results don’t mean anything?
[/quote]
the point, with a rather extreme example I used for effect, is that one fight, head to head, does not prove that a fighter is a better boxer or had a more impactful career. It’s like saying Larry Holmes is a better fighter than Ali cuz he beat him. Just ludicrous to me that anyone that actually knows alot about boxing (which it seems like you do) can think that way. Or you just an Ali die hard that’ll defend this to the end??
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
I guess it’s a matter of opinion, I’d like to hear anyone else pipe in based on the fights stats what they think… I’ll be interestted
[/quote]
Yea. Especially people who WATCHED THE TWO FIGHTERS FIGHT EACH OTHER AND SAW ALI KNOCK HIM OUT.
This is quite possibly the stupidest argument that’s ever been on this board. [/quote]
The stupidest argument is the fact that if you believe that, then you believe Buster Douglas is a better fighter than Mike Tyson by that logic. Sucks to be you…
[/quote]
You’re using the single greatest upset in the history of the sport to prove that when fighters fight, it does not measure their ability?
Asinine.
Again, why bother fighting if the results don’t mean anything?
[/quote]
the point, with a rather extreme example I used for effect, is that one fight, head to head, does not prove that a fighter is a better boxer or had a more impactful career. It’s like saying Larry Holmes is a better fighter than Ali cuz he beat him. Just ludicrous to me that anyone that actually knows alot about boxing (which it seems like you do) can think that way. Or you just an Ali die hard that’ll defend this to the end??[/quote]
Ali was 145 when they fought. So yes, in that case I would agree.
But when Ali and Foreman fought both fighters were in their prime. Just because it was hot in the arena does not mean the fight doesn’t count.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
I guess it’s a matter of opinion, I’d like to hear anyone else pipe in based on the fights stats what they think… I’ll be interestted
[/quote]
Yea. Especially people who WATCHED THE TWO FIGHTERS FIGHT EACH OTHER AND SAW ALI KNOCK HIM OUT.
This is quite possibly the stupidest argument that’s ever been on this board. [/quote]
The stupidest argument is the fact that if you believe that, then you believe Buster Douglas is a better fighter than Mike Tyson by that logic. Sucks to be you…
[/quote]
You’re using the single greatest upset in the history of the sport to prove that when fighters fight, it does not measure their ability?
Asinine.
Again, why bother fighting if the results don’t mean anything?
[/quote]
the point, with a rather extreme example I used for effect, is that one fight, head to head, does not prove that a fighter is a better boxer or had a more impactful career. It’s like saying Larry Holmes is a better fighter than Ali cuz he beat him. Just ludicrous to me that anyone that actually knows alot about boxing (which it seems like you do) can think that way. Or you just an Ali die hard that’ll defend this to the end??[/quote]
Ali was 145 when they fought. So yes, in that case I would agree.
But when Ali and Foreman fought both fighters were in their prime. Just because it was hot in the arena does not mean the fight doesn’t count.[/quote]
gotta be with irish on this one. im fearing joker is one of the horseman of the apocalypse to this boards legitimacy
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
I guess it’s a matter of opinion, I’d like to hear anyone else pipe in based on the fights stats what they think… I’ll be interestted
[/quote]
Yea. Especially people who WATCHED THE TWO FIGHTERS FIGHT EACH OTHER AND SAW ALI KNOCK HIM OUT.
This is quite possibly the stupidest argument that’s ever been on this board. [/quote]
The stupidest argument is the fact that if you believe that, then you believe Buster Douglas is a better fighter than Mike Tyson by that logic. Sucks to be you…
[/quote]
You’re using the single greatest upset in the history of the sport to prove that when fighters fight, it does not measure their ability?
Asinine.
Again, why bother fighting if the results don’t mean anything?
[/quote]
the point, with a rather extreme example I used for effect, is that one fight, head to head, does not prove that a fighter is a better boxer or had a more impactful career. It’s like saying Larry Holmes is a better fighter than Ali cuz he beat him. Just ludicrous to me that anyone that actually knows alot about boxing (which it seems like you do) can think that way. Or you just an Ali die hard that’ll defend this to the end??[/quote]
Ali was 145 when they fought. So yes, in that case I would agree.
But when Ali and Foreman fought both fighters were in their prime. Just because it was hot in the arena does not mean the fight doesn’t count.[/quote]
145?
He was still considered heavyweight champion when Holmes throttled him. Was it Ali in his prime? Hardly. Point being a loss doesn’t make a career or diminish a career.
I never said it didn’t count, I said that I’d put more emphasis on Ali’s lack of being able to outright beat/struggle with common opponents, rather than a fight fought in conditions that obviously weren’t favorable to George. Let alone the eye witness accounts of what Ali’s team did to the ring/ropes prior to the fight.
[quote]westdale warrior wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
I guess it’s a matter of opinion, I’d like to hear anyone else pipe in based on the fights stats what they think… I’ll be interestted
[/quote]
Yea. Especially people who WATCHED THE TWO FIGHTERS FIGHT EACH OTHER AND SAW ALI KNOCK HIM OUT.
This is quite possibly the stupidest argument that’s ever been on this board. [/quote]
The stupidest argument is the fact that if you believe that, then you believe Buster Douglas is a better fighter than Mike Tyson by that logic. Sucks to be you…
[/quote]
You’re using the single greatest upset in the history of the sport to prove that when fighters fight, it does not measure their ability?
Asinine.
Again, why bother fighting if the results don’t mean anything?
[/quote]
the point, with a rather extreme example I used for effect, is that one fight, head to head, does not prove that a fighter is a better boxer or had a more impactful career. It’s like saying Larry Holmes is a better fighter than Ali cuz he beat him. Just ludicrous to me that anyone that actually knows alot about boxing (which it seems like you do) can think that way. Or you just an Ali die hard that’ll defend this to the end??[/quote]
Ali was 145 when they fought. So yes, in that case I would agree.
But when Ali and Foreman fought both fighters were in their prime. Just because it was hot in the arena does not mean the fight doesn’t count.[/quote]
gotta be with irish on this one. im fearing joker is one of the horseman of the apocalypse to this boards legitimacy [/quote]
lulz, i don’t feed trolls anymore…
I may not agree with it, but at least Irish has some opinion and backing to add to the discussion
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
145?
He was still considered heavyweight champion when Holmes throttled him. Was it Ali in his prime? Hardly. Point being a loss doesn’t make a career or diminish a career.
[/quote]
Yes, a loss when you’re 38 years old and it’s the second to last fight of your career and EVERYBODY knows you shouldn’t be in the ring anymore.
There is no comparison.
[quote]
I never said it didn’t count, I said that I’d put more emphasis on Ali’s lack of being able to outright beat/struggle with common opponents, rather than a fight fought in conditions that obviously weren’t favorable to George. Let alone the eye witness accounts of what Ali’s team did to the ring/ropes prior to the fight. [/quote]
WHO CARES ABOUT COMMON OPPONENTS WHEN THEY FOUGHT AND ALI KNOCKED HIM OUT!
There was no clamor for a rematch, there was no controversy about anything side from made up garbage about Dundee loosening the ropes. Even if it happened, shit like that goes on all the time in that sport.
Style make fights. Foreman NEVER would have beat Ali because he NEVER had the style or the endurance to keep up with him. Ali was a terrible style matchup, and would have been whether they fought in the heat or in the tundra. Boxers give brawlers problems because they’ve got poor footwork and rely too much on early one punch knockouts. This is just traditional boxing wisdom.
In the same way Frazier could never beat Foreman, Foreman could never beat Ali.
Of all of Ali’s fights, the knockout of Foreman was the LEAST controversial and most definite. I don’t even know how you’re still arguing this.
not trolling,(though you may be the master troll) for a while we had posts that didnt end in “LULZ” or that were not laden with the word “bro” and were generally more of a discussion. it deeply saddens me
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
145?
He was still considered heavyweight champion when Holmes throttled him. Was it Ali in his prime? Hardly. Point being a loss doesn’t make a career or diminish a career.
[/quote]
Yes, a loss when you’re 38 years old and it’s the second to last fight of your career and EVERYBODY knows you shouldn’t be in the ring anymore.
There is no comparison.
[quote]
I never said it didn’t count, I said that I’d put more emphasis on Ali’s lack of being able to outright beat/struggle with common opponents, rather than a fight fought in conditions that obviously weren’t favorable to George. Let alone the eye witness accounts of what Ali’s team did to the ring/ropes prior to the fight. [/quote]
WHO CARES ABOUT COMMON OPPONENTS WHEN THEY FOUGHT AND ALI KNOCKED HIM OUT!
There was no clamor for a rematch, there was no controversy about anything side from made up garbage about Dundee loosening the ropes. Even if it happened, shit like that goes on all the time in that sport.
Style make fights. Foreman NEVER would have beat Ali because he NEVER had the style or the endurance to keep up with him. Ali was a terrible style matchup, and would have been whether they fought in the heat or in the tundra. Boxers give brawlers problems because they’ve got poor footwork and rely too much on early one punch knockouts. This is just traditional boxing wisdom.
In the same way Frazier could never beat Foreman, Foreman could never beat Ali.
Of all of Ali’s fights, the knockout of Foreman was the LEAST controversial and most definite. I don’t even know how you’re still arguing this. [/quote]
this logic equates to Buster Douglas career > Tyson. Meh thats all i can say about that
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
145?
He was still considered heavyweight champion when Holmes throttled him. Was it Ali in his prime? Hardly. Point being a loss doesn’t make a career or diminish a career.
[/quote]
Yes, a loss when you’re 38 years old and it’s the second to last fight of your career and EVERYBODY knows you shouldn’t be in the ring anymore.
There is no comparison.
[quote]
I never said it didn’t count, I said that I’d put more emphasis on Ali’s lack of being able to outright beat/struggle with common opponents, rather than a fight fought in conditions that obviously weren’t favorable to George. Let alone the eye witness accounts of what Ali’s team did to the ring/ropes prior to the fight. [/quote]
WHO CARES ABOUT COMMON OPPONENTS WHEN THEY FOUGHT AND ALI KNOCKED HIM OUT!
There was no clamor for a rematch, there was no controversy about anything side from made up garbage about Dundee loosening the ropes. Even if it happened, shit like that goes on all the time in that sport.
Style make fights. Foreman NEVER would have beat Ali because he NEVER had the style or the endurance to keep up with him. Ali was a terrible style matchup, and would have been whether they fought in the heat or in the tundra. Boxers give brawlers problems because they’ve got poor footwork and rely too much on early one punch knockouts. This is just traditional boxing wisdom.
In the same way Frazier could never beat Foreman, Foreman could never beat Ali.
Of all of Ali’s fights, the knockout of Foreman was the LEAST controversial and most definite. I don’t even know how you’re still arguing this. [/quote]
this logic equates to Buster Douglas career > Tyson. Meh thats all i can say about that [/quote]
You have no conception of what “logic” is.
LulZzzz.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
145?
He was still considered heavyweight champion when Holmes throttled him. Was it Ali in his prime? Hardly. Point being a loss doesn’t make a career or diminish a career.
[/quote]
Yes, a loss when you’re 38 years old and it’s the second to last fight of your career and EVERYBODY knows you shouldn’t be in the ring anymore.
There is no comparison.
[quote]
I never said it didn’t count, I said that I’d put more emphasis on Ali’s lack of being able to outright beat/struggle with common opponents, rather than a fight fought in conditions that obviously weren’t favorable to George. Let alone the eye witness accounts of what Ali’s team did to the ring/ropes prior to the fight. [/quote]
WHO CARES ABOUT COMMON OPPONENTS WHEN THEY FOUGHT AND ALI KNOCKED HIM OUT!
There was no clamor for a rematch, there was no controversy about anything side from made up garbage about Dundee loosening the ropes. Even if it happened, shit like that goes on all the time in that sport.
Style make fights. Foreman NEVER would have beat Ali because he NEVER had the style or the endurance to keep up with him. Ali was a terrible style matchup, and would have been whether they fought in the heat or in the tundra. Boxers give brawlers problems because they’ve got poor footwork and rely too much on early one punch knockouts. This is just traditional boxing wisdom.
In the same way Frazier could never beat Foreman, Foreman could never beat Ali.
Of all of Ali’s fights, the knockout of Foreman was the LEAST controversial and most definite. I don’t even know how you’re still arguing this. [/quote]
this logic equates to Buster Douglas career > Tyson. Meh thats all i can say about that [/quote]
You have no conception of what “logic” is.
LulZzzz.[/quote]
I do, both examples are of fighters that were dominant and in their primes. How you can apply this concept to one pair, and not another defies logic. You either say
Ali > Foreman and Douglas > Tyson
or nothing, according to your logic. Applying this logic of yours to one set of fighters and not the other situation reeks of hypocrisy
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
I do, both examples are of fighters that were dominant and in their primes. How you can apply this concept to one pair, and not another defies logic. You either say
Ali > Foreman and Douglas > Tyson
or nothing, according to your logic. Applying this logic of yours to one set of fighters and not the other situation reeks of hypocrisy [/quote]
Two great fighters in their primes fight, and the winner is declared the better fighter.
One supposed pushover defeats a young but already legendary champ in one of the biggest upsets in the history of sports and that’s equal to the aforementioned situation?
You’re fucking nuts.
That’s like saying that the 1980 American hockey team game against the Soviets is equal to the Stanley Cup final in terms of fairness and circumstance.
I’m not arguing this anymore. You do not understand boxing and you don’t understand logic. If you want to keep this bullshit up, at least start another thread so we don’t fuck up this one any further.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
I do, both examples are of fighters that were dominant and in their primes. How you can apply this concept to one pair, and not another defies logic. You either say
Ali > Foreman and Douglas > Tyson
or nothing, according to your logic. Applying this logic of yours to one set of fighters and not the other situation reeks of hypocrisy [/quote]
Two great fighters in their primes fight, and the winner is declared the better fighter.
One supposed pushover defeats a young but already legendary champ in one of the biggest upsets in the history of sports and that’s equal to the aforementioned situation?
You’re fucking nuts.
That’s like saying that the 1980 American hockey team game against the Soviets is equal to the Stanley Cup final in terms of fairness and circumstance.
I’m not arguing this anymore. You do not understand boxing and you don’t understand logic. If you want to keep this bullshit up, at least start another thread so we don’t fuck up this one any further. [/quote]
Well see this is where I question your knowledge of the facts here, and boxing in general. Foreman WAS heavily favored by all the boxing experts, no different than Tyson was. Douglas ‘the pushover’ as you call him actually got a title shot, so how much of a pushover could he be? Sure the division was relatively weak. Seems like your backtracking a little, seeing as the two situations are identical in situations, but you are refusing to admit it. How you can apply one set of standards to Foreman, and not to Tyson is beyond me, unless you are a diehard Ali and Tyson supporter, which would explain your reasoning here 100%.
I could care less about the miracle on ice, the Americans may have scored an upset, and the Soviets were the better team is what I"m thinking you are saying?? Which totally proves my point from the start lulz. anyway
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
Well see this is where I question your knowledge of the facts here, and boxing in general. Foreman WAS heavily favored by all the boxing experts, no different than Tyson was. Douglas ‘the pushover’ as you call him actually got a title shot, so how much of a pushover could he be? Sure the division was relatively weak. Seems like your backtracking a little, seeing as the two situations are identical in situations, but you are refusing to admit it. How you can apply one set of standards to Foreman, and not to Tyson is beyond me, unless you are a diehard Ali and Tyson supporter, which would explain your reasoning here 100%.
[/quote]
Douglas was a 42-1 underdog.
Ali was a 3-1 underdog.
Seriously dude? You’re comparing Muhammad fucking Ali to Buster Douglas?
Hey you know what might settle this argument? If Ali and Foreman actually fought. Man, that would have been an awesome fight, and there would be no need to argue over who was a better fighter. Damn, I wish they had fought back then.
What a shame.
Oh…wait…
LuLzzzzz@!@!11111
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
Well see this is where I question your knowledge of the facts here, and boxing in general. Foreman WAS heavily favored by all the boxing experts, no different than Tyson was. Douglas ‘the pushover’ as you call him actually got a title shot, so how much of a pushover could he be? Sure the division was relatively weak. Seems like your backtracking a little, seeing as the two situations are identical in situations, but you are refusing to admit it. How you can apply one set of standards to Foreman, and not to Tyson is beyond me, unless you are a diehard Ali and Tyson supporter, which would explain your reasoning here 100%.
[/quote]
Douglas was a 42-1 underdog.
Ali was a 3-1 underdog.
Seriously dude? You’re comparing Muhammad fucking Ali to Buster Douglas?
Hey you know what might settle this argument? If Ali and Foreman actually fought. Man, that would have been an awesome fight, and there would be no need to argue over who was a better fighter. Damn, I wish they had fought back then.
What a shame.
Oh…wait…
LuLzzzzz@!@!11111[/quote]
What would be even funnier, is if Mike Tyson and Buster Douglas fought lol
you obviously don’t get the point at all, and you’re logic is so backwards that I find it hard to believe that a boxing fan like yourself can’t see it. Which is why I can only assume that you are an Ali/Tyson fan unwilling to face facts.
Both Ali and Douglas were underdogs in the fight and won. Both Foreman and Tyson were going through their own drama whether it be the conditions in Africa, or Tyson’s personal life. That’s beside the point now.
Yet you still put more weight on the fact that Foreman lost to Ali who was only a 3-1 underdog as you yourself said, then that when Tyson lost to a 42-1 underdog???
so now by your logic, Ali > Foreman, and Douglas >>> Tyson. Or you think that Douglas was somehow lucky, and there is no possibility that Ali was lucky or something like that. I don’t get the theory behind your argument anymore…
Surely if Tyson lost to a way bigger underdog, his loss would have more impact than Foreman’s loss no???