Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

[davie]

"50's"
"70's"

Doesn't take into account that the best eras overlap or don't happen to inhabit the entire 10 years that the decade lasts.

The prime of Ali, Frazier and Foreman didn't align like the stars but there was a 6 or 7 year period when we had 3 ATGs in there primes converge to make an incredible era with incredible rivalries.

Look at the heavyweight lists we made for Creases game.
There's no decade with 3 fighters that rank higher. The 70's had some great fighters and great fights
It also had strength in depth that no other era can claim and thats without us mentioning the likes of Norton or the early days of Holmes


No other era comes close

[elmersalsa]

"50's"
"70's"

Doesn't take into account that the best eras overlap or don't happen to inhabit the entire 10 years that the decade lasts.

The prime of Ali, Frazier and Foreman didn't align like the stars but there was a 6 or 7 year period when we had 3 ATGs in there primes converge to make an incredible era with incredible rivalries.

Look at the heavyweight lists we made for Creases game.
There's no decade with 3 fighters that rank higher. The 70's had some great fighters and great fights
It also had strength in depth that no other era can claim and thats without us mentioning the likes of Norton or the early days of Holmes


No other era comes close

You're right, davie. I think it's gonna be hard to top the 70s era of heavyweight champions and contenders. I just can't see it in the near future. Maybe that would happen when we are in our graves or 100 years old. I don't think I will see that era again.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

90's is clearly second.

[Kalan]

"50's"
"70's"

Doesn't take into account that the best eras overlap or don't happen to inhabit the entire 10 years that the decade lasts.

The prime of Ali, Frazier and Foreman didn't align like the stars but there was a 6 or 7 year period when we had 3 ATGs in there primes converge to make an incredible era with incredible rivalries.

Look at the heavyweight lists we made for Creases game.
There's no decade with 3 fighters that rank higher. The 70's had some great fighters and great fights
It also had strength in depth that no other era can claim and thats without us mentioning the likes of Norton or the early days of Holmes


No other era comes close

I don't see these as the greatest rivalries.. Foreman crushed Frazier in non-competitive fights.. Ali had 1 fight with Foreman an that was it.. The first Ali-Frazier fight was indeed a high-water mark for Boxing.. Although it doesn't get high marks for technical brilliance, the drama captured the world. The passion with which those 2 guys fought matched the buildup. It's was Boxing DAY as March 8th and March 9th all you heard on the news was about the fight.. The rematch was a letdown and a hug fest.. Ali was in supreme shape at 212 and took little punishment.

I knew Frazier was completely shot in the 3rd fight and was certain Ali was going to go for the kill. Both Ali and Frazier weighed in well over their fighting weight. Ali play acted and pretended he was hurt and tiring -- to goad Frazier into throwing more and completely exhausting himself.. Sure enough, in the 14th Ali lit into Frazier like a savage.. Before the fight I was sure Ali would win in the 11th through 15th...

[Kalan]

Holmes was the best Heavyweight of the period -- but Ali ducked him to fight unranked Leon Spinks... Norton only fought Holmes because Norton was named Heavyweight Champion -- he was directed to fight Holmes to defend the WBC Heavyweight Title, stripped from the neophyte Spinks..

Outside of Norton, Ali, and Shavers, none of the top 70's Heavyweights wanted a Holmes Fight.

[Cojimar 1946]

The last time I checked 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, and 1979 are considered part of the 1970s and thus events in those years are relevant when assessing the decade. If you want to make the argument that the early 70s were better that's fine but events in later years are still relevant if we are assessing the entire decade.

[Cojimar 1946]

The 1910s had Sam Langford, Jack Johnson, Sam McVea, Joe Jeannette, Harry Wills, and Jack Dempsey. I would think that would measure up to the 70s pretty well

[davie]

The 1910s had Sam Langford, Jack Johnson, Sam McVea, Joe Jeannette, Harry Wills, and Jack Dempsey. I would think that would measure up to the 70s pretty well

It makes a pretty solid case and it's a decade that I don't think we've mentioned.
Does it top the 70's?
Not for me but it's up there

[Kalan]

But the 1910's was also a stinky era for political reasons -- and the lack of activity from the 2 Heavyweight Champions... Johnson was forced to flee overseas where he defended the title infrequently in not very meaningful fights... After Jess Willard won the title in 1915, he sat on the title for 4 years fighting just 1 exhibition -- before finally defending it at 37 in 1919 -- looking in deplorable physical condition against a youthful Jack Dempsey.

Sometimes there was very little movement at the top of a division and the politics make things much worse.. Fighters underneath are trapped.. It was difficult for the top black Heavyweights of that era to get title fights... Like it's difficult for Eastern European boxers today to get meaningful fights.

[Cojimar 1946]

It depends what criteria we are using, based on accomplishments the 1910s, 1930s and 1950s seem like fairly strong eras but on a head to head basis it seems doubtful they could compete with heavyweights from the 1990s onwards. Someone like David Tua for example would be favored to beat Corbett, Fitzsimmons and Jeffries even if his accomplishments do not measure up.

On a head to head basis I would be doubtful the 50s heavyweights could handle those from the 1990s or later partially due to there being more talented big heavyweights.

[Ambling Alp II]

David Tua might be favored, but he would probably go 0-3. Can't believe after all this you buy into the big heavweighets are better crap. You were one of the last people who I thought would buy into that nonsense.

[Ambling Alp II]

The last time I checked 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, and 1979 are considered part of the 1970s and thus events in those years are relevant when assessing the decade. If you want to make the argument that the early 70s were better that's fine but events in later years are still relevant if we are assessing the entire decade.

Yes that was part of the decade. In that period you had Ali-Frazier III, as well as Holmes-Norton, and Norton-Young. It was still better than the 1950s. All togeather it's not even close. We have explained that you after all of your "fail to understand comments"

[Cojimar 1946]

I guess the superiority of the 70s is just not evident based on how they look on video or in their actual fights with heavyweights from other eras (Patterson, Machen, Cooney, etc).

Also, as I have pointed out some of them seem to be getting held to a different standard than fighters from other eras, Foreman has very few wins over highly ranked opponents and only a 2-1 win ratio against top ten foes in his prime which is not very impressive. I don't see how an impressive win over Frazier is enough to compensate for the overall lack of quality foes unless we are going to give ATG status to other guys with great wins but who have a lack of depth.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

How many accounts are you going to let enlightened one create?

[Kalan]

Foreman had a certain lack of depth and skills... But the wins over Frazier and Norton were so dominant -- coming at a time when Foreman was undefeated in 40 fights with 37 KO's -- even though he hadn't faced a good boxer he seemed invincible to many people.. His ring record was so amazing.

Young, Ali, and Holmes were the best boxers through 1977 when Foreman had his first 47 fights.. When they were going good it was hard to get ready for them unless you have 1 of the other 2 for a sparring partner.. When you're preparing for an outstanding boxer great sparring is the hardest to get.

And when you work mitts with a young kid who has a lot of KO's he often throws too hard. You have to spend a lot of time bringing him down. The idea is not make tremendous crackling pops that reverberate through the gym impressing everybody and hurting your trainer's hands.. The idea is not to throw hard -- but to slip, duck, roll, counter, and work combinations very quickly, smoothly, and continuously without missing a beat..

Once a kid is working mitts without a miss and doing the slips, ducks, rolls and combos smoothly and sharply it shows up in his sparring -- even his shadow boxing. He's doing the same moves you taught him. He's not concerned about anyone watching because he's concentrating and trying to get better. He's mentally transitioning from a puncher to a boxer. That's a concept Foreman started grasping in his 2nd career. The Young fight taught him that. Young COULDN'T punch hard if he tried.

You don't need to be a talented puncher to win at the world level - but just because you have dynamite in both hands doesn't mean you can't be a great boxer.

[Ambling Alp II]

I guess the superiority of the 70s is just not evident based on how they look on video or in their actual fights with heavyweights from other eras (Patterson, Machen, Cooney, etc).

Also, as I have pointed out some of them seem to be getting held to a different standard than fighters from other eras, Foreman has very few wins over highly ranked opponents and only a 2-1 win ratio against top ten foes in his prime which is not very impressive. I don't see how an impressive win over Frazier is enough to compensate for the overall lack of quality foes unless we are going to give ATG status to other guys with great wins but who have a lack of depth.

The standard is how good they are.
Are we back to Patterson beating Bonavena? Yes that happened. Patterson was also much higher ranked fighter from the 1950s/1960s than Bonavena was in the 1970s.

Foreman and Holmes were a lot older than Patterson when they beat top 1990s heavyweights.
Machen last fight was in 1967. Not sure what he has to do with the 1970s.
Yes, Cooney beat some Lyle, Norton, and Young. They were all well past it.

As pointed out earlier, your little ratio thing with Foreman is deceiving. Beating a highly rankled opponent form the 1970s was hard to do because the fighters were better.

Foreman bear Frazier, twice actually. (Which makes his all important ration at 5-2, not 4-2). He also beat Norton, Lyle, and Chuvalo. How many 1950s heavyweights have 5 wins anywhere remotely close to that?

[Kalan]

Foreman bear Frazier, twice actually. (Which makes his all important ration at 5-2, not 4-2). He also beat Norton, Lyle, and Chuvalo. How many 1950s heavyweights have 5 wins anywhere remotely close to that?

Sonny Liston KO'd a prime Cleveland Williams quickly TWICE... He also knocked Patterson out twice...He also beat Machen, Folley, DeJohn, Harris, Valdes, and Johnny Summerlin... That's 10 wins vs 1 avenged loss to Marty Marshall...

The things that killed Liston's legacy were the 3 rounds of actual ring action in the 3 years prior to his Ali fights... The torn left biceps in his 1st Ali fight---the score was tied when Liston was forced to quit.. Liston never got a count from the referee in his rematch with Ali.. Walcott was too busy chasing an "off the reservation" Ali around the ring. Ali refused to comply with Walcott's direct order to go to a neutral corner following his knockdown of Liston.. The count should have been suspended.. Liston got the short end of the stick for the umpteenth time as his Boxing license was revoked in all 50 states for "faking a knockdown" which he insists he didn't do.

"Clay hit me coming in with a sharp right counter and I dropped. How could anyone who saw that on tape say I was faking??? ... It was the first time I was ever dropped, but Clay was a 206-pound Heavyweight and caught me clean. I didn't get up right away cuz Clay didn't go to a neutral corner. I can't have him standing over me because I have to put one glove on the canvas to get up. That's why they have the neutral corner rule. I didn't get a count from the referee, so how is that fair? ... Now I'm running around the country begging these bastards for a license and they all say they hear me, but their hands are tied. They're afraid they're going to lose their jobs and I'm fkd."

[Cojimar 1946]

In addition to officially beating Bonavena, Patterson is also thought by many to have deserved the decisions in his fights with Jimmy Ellis and Quarry and managed an official draw in his first fight with Quarry.

Holmes sole win over a 90s heavyweight was the erratic Ray Mercer. I'm not sure how big of a win this is because Mercer was so inconsistent. He managed to lose to Jesse Ferguson and has a draw with Marion Wilson. Also Mercer tended to come up short against good opponents whereas Quarry, Bonavena, and Ellis have quality wins like Lyle, Shavers, Leotis Martin, etc.

[Cojimar 1946]

As far as ratio goes I see the more important factor in terms of how many top-level opponents you beat rather than how many times you beat them. Otherwise you could just beat the same guy over and over again.

[Kalan]

In addition to officially beating Bonavena, Patterson is also thought by many to have deserved the decisions in his fights with Jimmy Ellis and Quarry and managed an official draw in his first fight with Quarry.

Holmes sole win over a 90s heavyweight was the erratic Ray Mercer. I'm not sure how big of a win this is because Mercer was so inconsistent. He managed to lose to Jesse Ferguson and has a draw with Marion Wilson. Also Mercer tended to come up short against good opponents whereas Quarry, Bonavena, and Ellis have quality wins like Lyle, Shavers, Leotis Martin, etc.

Ray Mercer had ultra bad fights and so did Quarry.. Mercer beat Heavyweight Champions: Tim Witherspoon, Tommy Morrison, and Francesco Damiani.. He lost close fights to Lewis and Holyfield.. He lost by a wide margin to Holmes -- but one judge had it only a 2-point margin, while the other 2 judges had Holmes by 5 and 6 points.. 3 of Mercer's 7 losses came when he was past 40.

Quarry has no wins over Heavyweight Champions except a dubious win over the very small and chinny Patterson,.. Quarry was easily outfought or out-boxed by Frazier, Ellis, Ali, and Norton, and also beaten by Chuvalo and Machen.. He lost to Ali and Frazier twice each and lost to a nobody when he was kaput.. Mercer had fewer losses and better wins although he fought until he was 50. Since Quarry lost to the tough Chuvalo, I don't see him beating the bigger and stronger Mercer, who was just as tough as Chuvalo, but was much bigger, faster, and had a much better jab, power punches, and defense.

Mercer weighed between 220 and 238 for his major fights... Quarry weighed between 187 and 207---when he was woefully fat versus Norton... I actually do not see Quarry having a chance in this particular match-up, because he didn't do well with the jab -- or versus size, strength, skill, and physical ruggedness.. The Lyle win was Quarry's most impressive, but Lyle had only 19 fights at the time and was a bit of a neophyte with a short amateur career.. Mercer was a solid amateur -- and a Gold Medal winner in the 1988 Olympic Games.

[Ambling Alp II]

In addition to officially beating Bonavena, Patterson is also thought by many to have deserved the decisions in his fights with Jimmy Ellis and Quarry and managed an official draw in his first fight with Quarry.

Holmes sole win over a 90s heavyweight was the erratic Ray Mercer. I'm not sure how big of a win this is because Mercer was so inconsistent. He managed to lose to Jesse Ferguson and has a draw with Marion Wilson. Also Mercer tended to come up short against good opponents whereas Quarry, Bonavena, and Ellis have quality wins like Lyle, Shavers, Leotis Martin, etc.

I agree that Patterson's fights with Quarry and Ellis were close. That is not that surprising. Patterson was not that far past his prime and Ellis and Quarry were not the very best heavyweights of the 1970s.
Patterson ranks higher in the 1950s and 1960s than Quarry and Ellis do in the 1970s.

Quarry got dominated by Ali, Frazier, and Norton. Ellis did not do much better against Ali and Frazier.

Holmes was 42 when he beat Mercer. At the age of 42, he gave Holyfield a tough fight. At 45, he almost beat McCall.

Mercer did beat Damiani and Morrison. He should have got the decision against Lennox Lewis. He also gave Holyfield a lot of trouble.

[Ambling Alp II]

As far as ratio goes I see the more important factor in terms of how many top-level opponents you beat rather than how many times you beat them. Otherwise you could just beat the same guy over and over again.

The biggest problem with the ratio is that you are counting a win over the #9 or #10 contender as the same as fighting the #1 contender or the champion.
Doing that, you equate Charles beat Pat Valentino with Foreman beating Joe Frazier. That is ludicrous.

You are also disregarding the quality of the era. Beating the third best fighter of era is often not nearly the same thing as beating the # 3 fighter of another era.

btw-Foreman has more than 4 wins over top 10 opponents. Besides Frazier, Chuvalo, Norton, and Lyle, Jose Roman and Peralta were ranked when Foreman beat them. That makes him 6-2 against the Top 10 from the 1970s. (Not including the 2nd win over Frazier.) That's pretty damn good.

[Kalan]

Joe Roman certainly didn't have Top-10 talent... Peralta was a Light Heavyweight for most of his career and certainly didn't belong... I don't recall them beating a single Heavyweight of note... When there's a lot of trash Heavyweights sometimes guys can be ranked by default... But as you notice with rankings, it's up to the quality of the rankers as much as it is the quality of the boxers they choose from... Some guys you see ranked in Top-10's don't belong in the Top-30.

[Ambling Alp II]

Agreed. Rankings can be deceiving. Often what happens is that a fighter coming up with a pretty record against weak competition isn't that good. However, he often gets ranked 9th or 10th until he fights someone decent and is found out. That is pretty much happened with Roman.
Peralta reputation as a light heavyweight gave him a little more respect than he probably deserved as a heavyweight.
For what it's worth, that is still a pretty good win for a fighter of Foreman's experience. He had not been a pro for even a year when he beat Peralta the first time.

This is just more evidence why records against Top 10 opponents can be deceiving. Records in general can be very deceiving in boxing.

[Kalan]

What happens is everyone new is matched to get them wins.. That's why there's always so many undefeated guys.. They like to fight opponents with impressive records but no ability.. Just pile up the wins, get ranked, and get the big money fights.. Steer clear of the dangerous and talented fighters unless you make a crap load of money you can retire on.

Champions are also looking to get wins and stay away from dangerous opponents.. The Parker team looks at a guy like Hughie Fury and says "Look how big and tall this guy is -- and he's undefeated. He's 20-0 but he's fought fluff. He's got no jab. I think we can look really good against this guy. Let's get him ranked and get him an offer. We can pump this fight up" Most of these champion's teams aren't scanning the opposition thinking "Who's the toughest guy out there?"