gilgamesh wrote:Muhammad Ali is not recognized as the knockout puncher that Foreman is. He was a very good fighter who could hurt guys and did hurt guys on a regular basis, but he was never considered a monstrous puncher that would "destroy" guys...in most cases anyhow.Il Duce wrote:Question
How do you 'equate', that Rudi Lubbers goes 12-Rounds with Muhammad Ali, yet Muhammad Ali stops
George Foreman.
Now be honest,,,,,,,,,,,That's OK, you can say it.
Ali's stopping Foreman had just as much to do with mental and physical exhaustion as it had to do with the power of his punches. Ali exhausted Foreman by being able to take everything he could dish out and continue to counter back with snapping, jarring shots of his own that eventually broke down Foreman's resistance.
Rudi Lubbers achievement of having gone the distance with Muhammad Ali is certainly nothing to scoff at and dismiss. I'm sure it was a legitimately game and brave effort from Lubbers and I'm sure he fought to the best of his ability that night.
But a fighter's career is not based on his performance against one man.
Foreman could not beat Ali this is true, Lubbers couldn't beat Ali either.
But Foreman and Lubbers records aside from Muhammad Ali speak for themselves. I mean Joe Frazier went the distance with Ali twice beating him once...it sure didn't help him against Foreman.
Ken Norton went the distance with Ali 3 times, beating him once and arguably deserving at least 1 more of the decisions in their other 2 fights. Didn't help him against Foreman.
George Chuvalo went the distance with Ali....guess what happened when he fought Foreman?
The scoring system for Ali vs Lubbers was I assume scored under the 5 point must system. and the scores were 60-40, 60-45, and 59-52.
So basically that means 1 of 3 judges felt Lubbers won 1 round, and the other 2 felt he won none.
At the time of the KO in Ali vs Foreman. The judges had it 4-2-1, 3-0-4, and 4-1-2 in Ali's favor.
So officially Foreman had won 2 more rounds against Ali than Lubbers did despite having been KO'ed.
Foreman was 76-5 with 68 KO's...a devastating KO puncher who very few men ever survived the distance against. Lubbers was 28-8 with 13 KO's nowhere near the puncher that Foreman was, and his best wins pale in comparison to Foreman's best wins.
I don't know how I could explain it to you any more thoroughly. If you genuinely believe Lubbers could defeat the George Foreman of Zaire then you are either hopelessly ignorant, or just f*cking with me.
At any rate. I've thoroughly explained my case.
If you want to come up with as many reasons as I did here of why Lubbers defeats Foreman I'd read it. Though you might want to wash your hands after pulling all of the reasons you do out of your ass.
Il Duce is a boxing novice. He doesn't realize that styles make fights.