Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

[Ambling Alp II]

You need to take into conisderation where in in the Top 10 a fighter is. Beating the #10 contender is not nearly the same thing as beating the champion or #1 contender.
Beating Joe Frazier is harder than impressive than beating having to beat Pat Valentino, Joe Baski, Rex Layne, etc. combined.

Think if Charles had to take on the fighters Foreman did. He isn't going to beat Ali or Frazier. Just match Foreman he would have to go 4-0 against Norton, Chuvalo, Lyle, and Young. That isn't going to happen.

He fought the three best fighters of his time and beat two. They were better than the guys you mentioned that he didn't fight.

What is Charles' "ratio"? He lost to Walcott twice, Marciano twice, Nino Valdes, Harold Johnson, Rex Layne. That's 7 losses right there.
No way in the world Foreman would have lost all of those fights.

Charles is simply not in Foreman's class at heavyweight. There is not a decent argument for it.

[Cojimar 1946]

Styles make fights--Frazier may have simply been a stylistically favorable matchup for Foreman. Moreover, I don't see how we can be sure that Charles loses to Frazier. Aside from Ali, I would think Charles was better than anyone Frazier beat. Are you suggesting that Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena, etc were better than Charles? We already have actual cases of 50s heavyweights beating top contenders from the 70s.

Primes are subjective but I think Charles prime ended in 1951, prior to that point he was very consistent and afterwards he became much more erratic. I don't think Johnson, Valdes, or Layne could have beaten him a few years earlier. The argument for Foreman seems to be based on him fighting in a supposedly superior era. The argument for Charles is that he beat more top contenders, was more consistent (until 1951 at least), and made more title defenses.

[Tony1244]

Styles make fights--Frazier may have simply been a stylistically favorable matchup for Foreman. Moreover, I don't see how we can be sure that Charles loses to Frazier. Aside from Ali, I would think Charles was better than anyone Frazier beat. Are you suggesting that Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena, etc were better than Charles? We already have actual cases of 50s heavyweights beating top contenders from the 70s.

Primes are subjective but I think Charles prime ended in 1951, prior to that point he was very consistent and afterwards he became much more erratic. I don't think Johnson, Valdes, or Layne could have beaten him a few years earlier. The argument for Foreman seems to be based on him fighting in a supposedly superior era. The argument for Charles is that he beat more top contenders, was more consistent (until 1951 at least), and made more title defenses.

Could you site some examples of 50s HWs beating 70s HWs.

[Ambling Alp II]

He can; however the bottom line is that most of the time the guy from the 1970s wins. Of course it's always interesting who he considers from the 1950s and who is from the 1970s.

Rank the top 10 1950s heavyweights. Then rank the 1970s heavyweights. Take the #1 from each era and match them against each other. (Ali vs Marciano) Then the #2s and then the #3s etc. The 1970s guy is better time after time.

[Ambling Alp II]

Styles make fights--Frazier may have simply been a stylistically favorable matchup for Foreman. Moreover, I don't see how we can be sure that Charles loses to Frazier. Aside from Ali, I would think Charles was better than anyone Frazier beat. Are you suggesting that Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena, etc were better than Charles? We already have actual cases of 50s heavyweights beating top contenders from the 70s.

Primes are subjective but I think Charles prime ended in 1951, prior to that point he was very consistent and afterwards he became much more erratic. I don't think Johnson, Valdes, or Layne could have beaten him a few years earlier. The argument for Foreman seems to be based on him fighting in a supposedly superior era. The argument for Charles is that he beat more top contenders, was more consistent (until 1951 at least), and made more title defenses.

No styles don't make fights.
Yeah just throw out the Ali win. Why should that be a factor when rating Frazier? Lets just throw a huge win and pretend it never happened. Sounds fair.
Do I think Charles was better than Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena? So now were going with who is better and not the "styles makes fight" line?
Yes, I think Charles was better than those three, but not but by that much. Frazier went 6-0 against those three. Do I think Charles would do that? That would be a big fat no. Vales and Layne were not as good as those three and he lsot to them.

I love the actual cases that you come up with of 1950s fighters beating 1970s fighters. Patterson who fought in the 1950s and 1960s beat Bonavena who fought in the 1960s and 1970s. That isn't some smoking gun. Why isn't either Paterson or Bonavena a 1960s fighter?

Charles ended in 1951? How convenient. So the embarrassing losses don't count. Well a few years earlier, Charles was not even a heavyweight. His entire heavyweight prime was what, from 1949 to 1950? Wow.

Charles beat more top contenders than Foreman? Well yes if you equate a win over Pat Valentino with a win over Joe Frazier.

[Cojimar 1946]

If Frazier and Norton can beat the 70s Ali I would certainly think Marciano has a good chance.

[Kalan]

I certainly don't think Marciano beats Norton... Marciano was too short, too slow, and too small to make a Heavyweight... and too unskilled... He just never fought anybody any good.. Bobick went 38-0 before he met Norton right??? ... Proving an undefeated record doesn't mean crap... I don't know who was slower and more unskilled -- Bobick or Marciano.

Actually I do know -- Rocky was better. But given Bobick's superior height, weight, reach, and size, Bobick wouldn't have been as easy an opponent for Marciano as he was for John Tate, Ken Norton, or Kallie Knoteze... They were big, strong dudes and Duane had that troubled look on his face before the bell that you see on intimidated fighters.. If you see somebody 5'11" X 184 in the opposing corner, and you're a big Heavyweight with an skill, you can relax.

[Ambling Alp II]

If Frazier and Norton can beat the 70s Ali I would certainly think Marciano has a good chance.

If Marciano had to t the benefit of the doubt in fights with LaStarza and the legendary Ted Lowrey, Ali might have a chance.
Ali did beat Frazier, and Norton, and Foreman, Liston, Patterson, and a few other guys who weren't bad.

[Kalan]

The reason that Foreman makes such a great pitchman is he has a great personality... People like him... He's humble. He's fat. He's not egotistic and he's not self aggrandizing... Actually he wasn't that likable as a young man, but he reinvented himself as a boxer and as a person.

Foreman was in his 10th year of retirement when one of his sons said something like this, "You keep saying you're going to make a comeback forever and ever but you never do a damned thing.. Look at you. You weigh 290.. This another crock of bull, because you can't fight! You're too old and fat."

That's when Foreman grabbed the phone and called a promoter.. "Get me a fight as soon as you can. Damned right I'm serious. No I'm not in shape. I'm real fat. Find me an opponent who's fat - somebody I can beat in my sleep. I'm starting out at the bottom and will work my way up like any young kid just turning pro. I know everything I did wrong and now I'm going to do those things right." Foreman knew people were going to laugh and make fun of him. He endured that before when he lost and quit the game. He knew he could take the ridicule and was emotionally much stronger.

[SteveO]

Bobick went 38-0 before he met Norton right??? ... Proving an undefeated record doesn't mean crap

Good point Kalan.
Some other heavyweight examples: Valuev was 46-0 before he lost to Chagaev and the great IBO champion, Brian Nielsen was 49-0 before he lost to Dickie Ryan.

[Cojimar 1946]

Ezzard Charles was fighting heavyweights as early as 1946/1947 including Jimmy Bivins. In the space of a few years he was able to rack up an impressive record against heavyweights and was very consistent. I don't really see any evidence to suggest the guys he was losing to in 1952/53 especially Valdes, and Layne were better than the guys he had previously beaten.

Frazier has a great win over Ali but I don't see anything to suggest any of the other guys he beat were better than Charles victims like Walcott, Baksi, Valentino, etc. I think it would be ridiculous to dismiss Charles chances so easily.

[Cojimar 1946]

Max Schmelling for example has a spectacular kayo win over Joe Louis. But that didn't stop him from losing to the inferior Max Baer.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't buy the Charles was suddenly past his prime when he lost to Layne, Valdes, and Johnson. Where is the real evidence? He wasn't that old. If he really was past it by then, he would have had to have been even further past it when he he went 15 round against Marciano.
The truth is that he simply was not consistent.

As for Frazier, and Schmeling - Yes Schmeling had a big win also. But look at the rest of their records. Frazier only lost to Ali and Foreman. That's it.

And yes, Quarry and Ellis, were better than Baski and Valentino. Come on.
Schmeling not only lost to Baer, he lost to Sharkey, to Steve Hamas, and even to Gypsy Daniels.

You keep saying Frazier (and I believe Foreman earlier) only beat one guy who was clearly better than Charles. There is no one that Charles beat that was at the level of Frazier and Foreman. And no, going 2-2 against Walcott doesn't cut it.

Consistency has to count. You can't just point out the big wins for your favorites and not count legitimate losses; and then discount the big wins for someone else who is not your favorite.

[elmersalsa]

I don't think the Cincinnati Cobra, Ezzard Charles, was a real heavyweight to begin with. Yes, he was the world champion at heavyweight. Yes, he made 9 successful defenses in 2 years. But, his best days were at light-heavyweight.

[Cojimar 1946]

Yes, but of those two Foreman faced so few top contenders that I don't find the consistency argument very compelling. Lyle had Foreman down twice and nearly knocked him out. If a guy like Young can actually beat Foreman and Lyle can nearly kayo him that does not make me confident of his chances if he faces more top guys.

[Cojimar 1946]

For example, it seems very odd than in Foreman's 37 fights prior to facing Frazier-he only beat one top contender (Chuvalo). Why were they being so careful about his opponents? Maybe they knew something about his limitations that casual boxing fans are unaware of.

[Ambling Alp II]

Despite winning the Gold Medal, he had a very brief amateur career. He needed experience.
Again, you like to ignore Foremans wins and Charles losses and pump up Charles wins.

So, OK lets do it this way. Ranking Foreman's biggest wins. Rank Charles biggest wins at heavyweights. compare them to each.

Foreman Charles
1. Frazier 1. Walcott
2. Norton 2. Ray
3. Lyle 3. Bivins
4. Chuvalo 4. Layne
5. Peralta 5. Comebacking Louis

We can quibble about the exact ratings; but it's pretty obvious that Foreman beat better fighters.

Losses:
Foreman Charles
1. Ali 1. Marciano (2x)
2. Young 2. Walcott (2x)
3. Johnson
4. Layne
5. Valdes

Again, we can quibble about the exact rankings, but clearly Charles lost more and to overall weaker opponents.

[Kalan]

Despite winning the Gold Medal, he had a very brief amateur career. He needed experience.
Again, you like to ignore Foremans wins and Charles losses and pump up Charles wins.

So, OK lets do it this way. Ranking Foreman's biggest wins. Rank Charles biggest wins at heavyweights. compare them to each.

Foreman Charles
1. Frazier 1. Walcott
2. Norton 2. Ray
3. Lyle 3. Bivins
4. Chuvalo 4. Layne
5. Peralta 5. Comebacking Louis

We can quibble about the exact ratings; but it's pretty obvious that Foreman beat better fighters.

Losses:
Foreman Charles
1. Ali 1. Marciano (2x)
2. Young 2. Walcott (2x)
3. Johnson
4. Layne
5. Valdes

Again, we can quibble about the exact rankings, but clearly Charles lost more and to overall weaker opponents.

Charles was a great Light Heavyweight.. Foreman was a better Heavyweight for certain.. Charles was a better Light Heavyweight then Foreman was a Heavyweight.. Although not a great Heavyweight, Charles was the best around in the late 40's.. His first 2 fights with Walcott, where he easily won he was even fading in those fights. Much earlier, his 3 fights with Archie Moore show him at his best...as did his fights with Burley, Maxim, Marshall, and Bivins.. It's a shame that Charles couldn't bottle that period but he was suffering from the early inroads of ALS, the slowly creeping nerve disease that eventually killed him.. It slowly takes all your strength and reflexes away, so gradually you think you're sick or something else is wrong -- because you have good days and bad days until finally they're all bad days.

[Cojimar 1946]

As far as Charles losses go I don't think it is at all implausible that he was past it by 1952. Most people seem to feel Sugar Ray Leonard was past his peak by 1989. Charles has had more fights by 1952 than Leonard by 1989 and had faced some good opponents including Burley and Moore.

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't think Peralta was even ranked in the top 10 when Foreman beat him, how is this fight even relevant?

[sweetsci]

I don't think Peralta was even ranked in the top 10 when Foreman beat him, how is this fight even relevant?

Peralta was ranked 10th by Ring while Foreman was unranked prior to their first fight. The WBA had Peralta ranked at #9, Foreman at #11.

[Ambling Alp II]

As far as Charles losses go I don't think it is at all implausible that he was past it by 1952. Most people seem to feel Sugar Ray Leonard was past his peak by 1989. Charles has had more fights by 1952 than Leonard by 1989 and had faced some good opponents including Burley and Moore.

Leonard had one fight in 5 years, fought Hagler, and then only fought on a part time basis. Of course he was past his peak in 1989. Charles was fighting regularly. Big difference.

[Kalan]

Leonard is 60.. Charles died at 53.. He died from the degenerative nerve disease ALS.. Since Charles looked great beating Walcott in their first 2 fights, and he looked lousy losing their last 2 fights, some doctors suspect he was suffering early manifestations of the disease even then.

In 1953 Charles didn't look the same losing to Light Heavyweight Harold Johnson and plodding Heavyweight Nino Valdes. He didn't look fast or sharp as in his Archie Moore fights for instance. He continued to fight worse and worse until he couldn't beat anybody. He wasn't that old. He just couldn't fight. One day he couldn't hold a fork in his hand to eat. He knew something serious was going on.

[Cojimar 1946]

Out of the fighters listed I would put wins over Louis and Bivins ahead of Foreman's wins over Lyle and Peralta. Bivins had a more impressive career than Lyle. Chuvalo vs Layne is debateable as is Norton vs Ray.

[Cojimar 1946]

I still don't see why people are resistant to the idea that Charles may have been in decline by 1952. He had been in many fights against many good fighters and this could take a toll on a man. Joe Frazier never beet anyone of note after age 30 (Jerry Quarry in 1974) and Charles had far more fights than Frazier did at that point.