Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Kalan
Super Middleweight
Posts: 10083
Joined: 23 Sep 2012, 23:22

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Kalan »

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Well, the 70s top 3 are probably Ali, Frazier, and Holmes while the 50s top 3 are Ezzard Charles, Marciano, and Sonny Liston. I think its probable that Marciano beats Frazier and Liston beats Holmes though Ali would probably be favored to beat Charles.
Those are extremely weird conclusions...given Liston had only one (1) successful title defense and Holmes had 20 successful title Defenses -- and they had very different results against Ali... And given the fact Liston lost to 180-pound Marty Marshall before he fought Ali and Holmes won 48 straight.

Remember this -- Frazier destroyed ATG Light Heavyweight Bob Foster in only 2 rounds...while Marciano struggled against old Light Heavyweight Archie Moore for 9 rounds -- even getting knocked down... Marciano was Moore's 20th loss and the 5th time he was knocked out... Foster lost 4 times prior to fighting Frazier twice by KO... Both Moore and Marciano weighed 188, as did Bob Foster... But Foster was a rock hard 188 and 6'4"... Frazier weighed 209. You'll also notice that Frazier and Foster wore noticeably bigger gloves than Moore and Marciano.

The tell is this -- Bob Foster looked badly over-matched against the much bigger Joe Frazier -- and in Imminent peril the entire fight. But both Foster and Frazier looked fast, sharp, and athletic, and showed fairly good form in their fight.. By contrast, Moore and Marciano appeared evenly matched -- but both looked slow and a little rough around the edges.. So given the difference in athletic form and speed the 4 boxers displayed in the 2 fights -- one has to wonder what would have happened were Marciano marched with the Bob Foster who fought Frazier...since old Arch dumped Rocky to the canvas, my guess is that Rocky would have been beaten up, cut up, and possibly knocked out by Mr. Foster -- who was much taller, longer, and faster, but enjoyed the same poundage.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15143
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

You think Bob Foster would have beaten Marciano? Wow. I mean, wow.
Jaywheel
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2696
Joined: 19 Mar 2008, 12:14

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Jaywheel »

Well of course, the guy without a single good win at HW. Why wouldn't he?
Kalan
Super Middleweight
Posts: 10083
Joined: 23 Sep 2012, 23:22

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Kalan »

That's a lying statement from a person who doesn't check facts...

Bob Foster had a 20-fight winning streak going before meeting Frazier. That 20-fight winning streak included 19 KO wins---including knocks out wins over real heavyweights who weighed well over 200 pounds -- but who were badly mismatched in speed and finesse against Bob Foster -- just like smaller men such as Moore and Michael Spinks routinely knocked out much bigger men who lacked ability, skill, speed, and toughness (and there were many 2nd rate Heavyweights in the 50's to choose from) -- but they were all in deep with any skilled and speedy Heavyweight and got wiped out quickly.

So it's true the great, prime Heavyweights who Bob Foster fought, beat him or knocked him out -- because of the physical mismatches -- but there wouldn't have been any physical mismatch in terms of size (weight) if the Bob Foster who traded punches for 2 rounds with a peak Joe Frazier met Marciano... I think you'll agree, there would have been a mismatch in terms of height, reach, speed, athleticism, and boxing skills ... in favor of Bob Foster.
Kalan
Super Middleweight
Posts: 10083
Joined: 23 Sep 2012, 23:22

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Kalan »

BTW, I wouldn't bet the house on Foster to beat Marciano.. But I think such a fight would have been even more interesting than Rocky's fights with washed up Moore and Charles. Charles had been outboxed by Harold Johnson and beaten by Nino Valdes the previous year -- so Charles was far from his best form... And being that the Foster who fought a prime Frazier was exactly the same physical size as Rocky ... a much more interesting fight than his mismatch with Frazier.

My statement was "One has to wonder what would have happened were Marciano marched with the Bob Foster who fought Frazier...since old Arch dumped Rocky to the canvas, my guess is that Rocky would have been beaten up, cut up, and possibly knocked out by Mr. Foster -- who was much taller, longer, and faster, but enjoyed the same poundage" ... It would have been a fun fight to watch, and possibly a major upset that would shock many people.

People are too easily shocked in my opinion... "A SHOCKING UPSET!!!" ... Yeah tell me about it -- possibly not so shocking if you did a pre-fight analysis.
Cojimar 1946
Super Welterweight
Posts: 1691
Joined: 01 Mar 2015, 05:00

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Cojimar 1946 »

Marciano's era had plenty of big heavyweights. Valdes was bigger than Folley and Frazier yet lil Archie Moore kicked his ass twice only to subsequently lose to Marciano.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15143
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Walcott weighed about 200 and was much stronger than Foster. Walcott had a lot of of skill as well.

Foster didn't adapt to heavyweight s well as Moore. Foster was naturally a skinny guy who was at best when he weighed around 175. Moore was naturally a bigger man who had no problem fighting at well above the light heavy limit.

As Cojimar pointed out, Moore beat Valdes. He also beat Clarence Henry. He actually did something at heavyweight.

If one actually watches the Moore-Marciano fight, you will see that outside of the knockdown it was fairly one-sided in Marciano's favor.
There a lot of guys we can rip if we make a big deal of one knockdown in a fight that they won.

Marciano would have less trouble with Foster than Moore. Foster couldn't hurt Folley, who didn't have nearly as good of a chin as Marciano.
Kalan
Super Middleweight
Posts: 10083
Joined: 23 Sep 2012, 23:22

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Kalan »

Ambling Alp II wrote:Walcott weighed about 200 and was much stronger than Foster. Walcott had a lot of of skill as well.

Foster didn't adapt to heavyweight s well as Moore. Foster was naturally a skinny guy who was at best when he weighed around 175. Moore was naturally a bigger man who had no problem fighting at well above the light heavy limit.

As Cojimar pointed out, Moore beat Valdes. He also beat Clarence Henry. He actually did something at heavyweight.

If one actually watches the Moore-Marciano fight, you will see that outside of the knockdown it was fairly one-sided in Marciano's favor.
There a lot of guys we can rip if we make a big deal of one knockdown in a fight that they won.

Marciano would have less trouble with Foster than Moore. Foster couldn't hurt Folley, who didn't have nearly as good of a chin as Marciano.
Moore had PLENTY of trouble fighting above Light Heavyweight---i.e. whenever he fought Patterson---who hit real good and defended himself well.. Archie looked like an amateur it was so easy for Patterson.. In the Clay fight Archie looked ridiculous -- like a bloated old man taking a non-stop beating.

Foster looked extremely skinny against Frazier at 188.. That's because he was 6'4" and a boxer that tall is generally much bigger.. Foster was badly managed and matched early in his career.. His first 3 losses were to guys with more than twice as much experience when he had 9, 12, and 16 fights.. There was NO need to be matched like that -- especially against Doug Jones and Ernie Terrell who were top fighters when Foster was nowhere.

Even the Folley match-up was questionable and Foster lost a decision. Foster had 24 fights to Folley's 80---and was outweighed by over 30 pounds... From there Foster went on a 20 fight winning streak with 19 KO's and took the ill advised Frazier and Ali fights. Those 2 guys were too big for him -- but they were his only legitimate losses in his career where he was matched fairly -- because you can't give up 21 to 40 pounds to a great prime fighter and expect to win. Foster last 2 losses came when he was 40 and couldn't overcome an injured left hand -- his best power shot.

Against Marciano he'd be facing a guy the same weight -- who had vastly inferior height, reach, speed, athleticism, and skills.
Hannah Faulkner
Super Lightweight
Posts: 28
Joined: 17 Feb 2017, 08:20

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Hannah Faulkner »

No comparison of Marciano's accomplishments with Foreman or others :bag:
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15143
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Jaywheel wrote:Well of course, the guy without a single good win at HW. Why wouldn't he?
It is amazing isn't it?
Kalan
Super Middleweight
Posts: 10083
Joined: 23 Sep 2012, 23:22

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Kalan »

How many good wins at Heavyweight did Michael Spinks have before he beat Larry Holmes??? The matchup won for Spinks, not previous wins at Heavyweight.. I never saw a single big Heavyweight (210 plus) who was an outstanding boxer or puncher, who Marciano was ever matched with in his life.

Bob Foster beat Willie Besmanoff, Bert Whitehurst, and Don Quinn -- all bigger Heavyweights than Marciano who had winning records.. Whitehurst went the distance with a prime Sonny Liston who was 23 pounds heavier.. Whitehurst also beat Bob Satterfield.. Satterfield was a very famous big punching small Heavyweight with wins over Cleveland Williams, Harold Johnson, Bob Baker, and Nino Valdes.. Foster was matched with Whitehurst when he had 8 fights, in a period were he was thrown to the wolves a few times.. In contrast, Marciano was the most cleverly managed and matched boxer in fistic history.

Besmanoff had his nights. He beat Marty Marshall who beat Sonny Liston - and got upset wins over Pat McMurty 26-1-1, Mike DeJohn, and Bob Baker.
Jaywheel
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2696
Joined: 19 Mar 2008, 12:14

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Jaywheel »

Irrelevant as usual. Foster had his chances just like Spinks. At the end of it, Spinks holds a W against an ATG HW and Foster doesn't. But he freakin beat Willie Besmanoff Whoa!!!
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15143
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Don't forget Bert Whitehurst and Dan Quinn! :D Just ignore that Foster lost badly all four times when he fought a heavyweight worth mentioning.
Kalan
Super Middleweight
Posts: 10083
Joined: 23 Sep 2012, 23:22

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Kalan »

Yeah??? ... Well Mike Quarry was a lot closer in weight to Marciano than Marciano was to Joe Frazier... Foster knocked the 35-0 Quarry out for 10 minutes... a freakin' ice job... You didn't see Rocky doing an ice job on old Light Heavyweight Archie Moore... Archie kept bouncing up every time he got hit by the so-called power punching Marciano.. Quarry stayed planted for the duration. Foster weighed 188 for Frazier so he wouldn't be giving up an ounce to Marciano -- with huge advantages in height, reach, skills, and smarts.
aajayunlimited
Middleweight
Posts: 22
Joined: 25 Oct 2013, 01:55

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by aajayunlimited »

George deserves to be highly rated: 76 - 5 and not dodging anybody. Who did he lose to? Ali(everyone Ali had fought up until then he had beaten--whether through fight or rematch; not to mention, he was the greatest fighter of all time) and Young(counterpunchers and boxers are similiar, except counterpunchers either look to make snapshots of what little they do or land huge shots when a fighter is out of position: the latter is what happened to George both versus Lyle and Young) were the only 2 to beat him in his prime. And he only lost 3 as an old man. One was to Holyfield--rumored to sign for peds under the name Evan Fields. It even seemed that he had Tyson scared to death and he was an old man! He may have been
wild, not having much stamina, but he was a great puncher, cut off the ring as well as any, and--if you had defensive flaws upstairs or downstairs and were not Ali or a counterpuncher who could hurt him--you were going to lose! George is not overrated: I believe that he could beat anyone in boxing history that wasn't Ali or a counterpuncher(Lyle and Louis are prototypes, but Young proved to be able to do it, too) or Cerdan was--as far as I know--the orchestrator of the rope-a-dope(too smart for George). Other than that, I feel like George COULD beat any fighter in history! I don't think just any counterpuncher could beat GF--only the ones that could time you with huge shots typically or as he was out-of-position. For instance, I don't see Mayweather, Marquez, or Benitez beating George. If you say that he COULD AND PROBABLY beats every other fighter in history other than Ali, Cerdan, and a few counterpunchers, then that constitutes a great fighter!
Kalan
Super Middleweight
Posts: 10083
Joined: 23 Sep 2012, 23:22

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Kalan »

c
Kalan
Super Middleweight
Posts: 10083
Joined: 23 Sep 2012, 23:22

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Kalan »

aajayunlimited wrote:George deserves to be highly rated: 76 - 5 and not dodging anybody. Who did he lose to? Ali(everyone Ali had fought up until then he had beaten--whether through fight or rematch; not to mention, he was the greatest fighter of all time) and Young(counterpunchers and boxers are similiar, except counterpunchers either look to make snapshots of what little they do or land huge shots when a fighter is out of position: the latter is what happened to George both versus Lyle and Young) were the only 2 to beat him in his prime. And he only lost 3 as an old man. One was to Holyfield--rumored to sign for peds under the name Evan Fields. It even seemed that he had Tyson scared to death and he was an old man! He may have been
wild, not having much stamina, but he was a great puncher, cut off the ring as well as any, and--if you had defensive flaws upstairs or downstairs and were not Ali or a counterpuncher who could hurt him--you were going to lose! George is not overrated: I believe that he could beat anyone in boxing history that wasn't Ali or a counterpuncher(Lyle and Louis are prototypes, but Young proved to be able to do it, too) or Cerdan was--as far as I know--the orchestrator of the rope-a-dope(too smart for George). Other than that, I feel like George COULD beat any fighter in history! I don't think just any counterpuncher could beat GF--only the ones that could time you with huge shots typically or as he was out-of-position. For instance, I don't see Mayweather, Marquez, or Benitez beating George. If you say that he COULD AND PROBABLY beats every other fighter in history other than Ali, Cerdan, and a few counterpunchers, then that constitutes a great fighter!
So Cerdan beats Foreman eh? ... You're in Zu Zu Land with BuzzBox with that dumb comment.

Good boxers like Jack Johnson, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis, Larry Holmes, Lennox Lewis, the K Bros, maybe Chris Byrd, and Anthony Joshua all out-box Foreman and the big hitters who could box would stop him.. Is Foreman in the Top-10??? I don't think so because the 1950's version of Sonny Liston could also jab pretty good -- so I think there were enough really good boxers in History so he wouldn't make it.
IKSRTFO
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4757
Joined: 09 Dec 2007, 17:14

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by IKSRTFO »

Kalan wrote:
aajayunlimited wrote:George deserves to be highly rated: 76 - 5 and not dodging anybody. Who did he lose to? Ali(everyone Ali had fought up until then he had beaten--whether through fight or rematch; not to mention, he was the greatest fighter of all time) and Young(counterpunchers and boxers are similiar, except counterpunchers either look to make snapshots of what little they do or land huge shots when a fighter is out of position: the latter is what happened to George both versus Lyle and Young) were the only 2 to beat him in his prime. And he only lost 3 as an old man. One was to Holyfield--rumored to sign for peds under the name Evan Fields. It even seemed that he had Tyson scared to death and he was an old man! He may have been
wild, not having much stamina, but he was a great puncher, cut off the ring as well as any, and--if you had defensive flaws upstairs or downstairs and were not Ali or a counterpuncher who could hurt him--you were going to lose! George is not overrated: I believe that he could beat anyone in boxing history that wasn't Ali or a counterpuncher(Lyle and Louis are prototypes, but Young proved to be able to do it, too) or Cerdan was--as far as I know--the orchestrator of the rope-a-dope(too smart for George). Other than that, I feel like George COULD beat any fighter in history! I don't think just any counterpuncher could beat GF--only the ones that could time you with huge shots typically or as he was out-of-position. For instance, I don't see Mayweather, Marquez, or Benitez beating George. If you say that he COULD AND PROBABLY beats every other fighter in history other than Ali, Cerdan, and a few counterpunchers, then that constitutes a great fighter!
So Cerdan beats Foreman eh? ... You're in Zu Zu Land with BuzzBox with that dumb comment.

Good boxers like Jack Johnson, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis, Larry Holmes, Lennox Lewis, the K Bros, maybe Chris Byrd, and Anthony Joshua all out-box Foreman and the big hitters who could box would stop him.. Is Foreman in the Top-10??? I don't think so because the 1950's version of Sonny Liston could also jab pretty good -- so I think there were enough really good boxers in History so he wouldn't make it.

i dont' get your fixation with Anthony Joshua. Joshua hasn't done much of anything that Foreman hasn't. Maybe you and others forgot that Foreman was a gold medalist also. Even if Joshua beats Wladmir in what is his 4th year as a pro, guess what, Foreman beat Fraizer in his 4th year as a pro.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15143
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Joshua is big and is current; that is why he is fixated. Who knows how he will turn out. He has not fought anyone worth mentioning yet. In some people's warped mind beating glassjaw Klitschko would be more impressive than beating Frazier. (After all, Klitschko weighs more! which so important! )

Anyway, Foreman deserves to be highly rated. Should not be any question about it.
Kalan
Super Middleweight
Posts: 10083
Joined: 23 Sep 2012, 23:22

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Kalan »

IKSRTFO wrote:i dont' get your fixation with Anthony Joshua. Joshua hasn't done much of anything that Foreman hasn't. Maybe you and others forgot that Foreman was a gold medalist also. Even if Joshua beats Wladmir in what is his 4th year as a pro, guess what, Foreman beat Fraizer in his 4th year as a pro.
I'm not fixated on Joshua. He's the best Heavyweight and that's obvious. Foreman beat Frazier? No SH!T!! Frazier wasn't 6'6" X 245 - or a guy who went undefeated for 11 years, utilizing a great jab, footwork, right lead, right counter, and devastating left hook. Frazier was a fat little walk in left hooker who the 6'3" X 217 perfectly conditioned and trained and much taller and bigger Foreman was obviously going to smash the living daylights out of very quickly

Wladimir won't be short... He won't be slow... He won't be fat... He won't be a wide open target... and he won't be a little guy.
aajayunlimited
Middleweight
Posts: 22
Joined: 25 Oct 2013, 01:55

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by aajayunlimited »

You guys missed what Cerdan actually did that would be problematic for Foreman in a lb4lb bout between the 2: Cerdan was using the rope-a-dope decades before Ali coined the invention of it. I watched highlights of a fight where Cerdan rope-a-doped a fighter and then KO'ed him! I don't think Cerdan is as great as George(as GF could beat most any fighter except Ali, Cerdan, and counterpunchers that could hurt him), but--unless he used that jab as he did as a younger fighter--Cerdan would probably beat George more times than not. You have to remember that the prime Foreman was like Clubber Lang--forgot about his jab that won him a lot of fights and swang punches from the fences once he could close the gap(which he might be the best of any slugger at doing). Ali, on WWoS after the Rumble in the Jungle, gave him credit for being great at cutting off the ring! Ali knew that he couldn't dance on him, but he had to do something different and--with George's thinking at the time: close the gap and swing away--Ali, after the 1st round, probably figured that weakness out. Because, in the 2nd round, he immediately went to the ropes. Cerdan and possibly LaMotta might be the only sluggers that could exploit this. Just because they could beat GF, it doesn't take away from GF's whole body of opponents. Fewer fighters could beat George than those 2. I say George COULD BEAT all comers except Ali, Cerdan(and possibly LaMotta), and certain counterpunchers that could hurt George in between his swings(like Louis, Lyle, and Young proved he could, too). Since George could cut off the ring so well and swung away to body or head with punches that could get anybody who takes 2 or 3 in a row and he takes a better punch than most, he COULD beat anyone not smart enough to weather the storm OR counter him with HUGE punches in the EYE of the storm. That's the formula to beat George and not all counterpunchers or boxers could do it--only those who could gain his respect or tire him out! SO, YES, ALI, CERDAN(AND MAYBE LAMOTTA), AND COUNTERPUNCHERS LIKE LOUIS, LYLE, AND YOUNG WOULD WIN MORE TIMES THAN NOT. I DON'T THINK FLOYD, MARQUEZ, OR BENITEZ WOULD BEAT GEORGE--AS HE'D GO TO THE BODY AND THEY COULDN'T GAIN GF'S RESPECT. IF YOU HAVE DEFENSIVE FLAWS, GEORGE WINS!
IKSRTFO
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4757
Joined: 09 Dec 2007, 17:14

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by IKSRTFO »

Kalan wrote:
IKSRTFO wrote:i dont' get your fixation with Anthony Joshua. Joshua hasn't done much of anything that Foreman hasn't. Maybe you and others forgot that Foreman was a gold medalist also. Even if Joshua beats Wladmir in what is his 4th year as a pro, guess what, Foreman beat Fraizer in his 4th year as a pro.
I'm not fixated on Joshua. He's the best Heavyweight and that's obvious. Foreman beat Frazier? No SH!T!! Frazier wasn't 6'6" X 245 - or a guy who went undefeated for 11 years, utilizing a great jab, footwork, right lead, right counter, and devastating left hook. Frazier was a fat little walk in left hooker who the 6'3" X 217 perfectly conditioned and trained and much taller and bigger Foreman was obviously going to smash the living daylights out of very quickly

Wladimir won't be short... He won't be slow... He won't be fat... He won't be a wide open target... and he won't be a little guy.

Fraizer was UNDEFEATED period. And didn't get knocked out by nobodies making them stars.
Kalan
Super Middleweight
Posts: 10083
Joined: 23 Sep 2012, 23:22

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by Kalan »

" Just because they could beat GF, it doesn't take away from GF's whole body of opponents."

Oh BROTHER!!! Now your matching Foreman with LaMotta and Cerdan P4P ...Just inane... What size Heavyweight are you gonna make them?? Klitschko size?? Marciano size??? You're going off the deep end by taking a punching bag like LaMotta and saying he could absorb punches from a hitter like Foreman were he a Heavyweight... Frazier had a great chin and was just as punchable as Jake LaMotta -- so there's your answer.
aajayunlimited
Middleweight
Posts: 22
Joined: 25 Oct 2013, 01:55

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by aajayunlimited »

Comment 2: I don't think any boxer with a punch beats George. As a rebuttal to that, I think any boxer that had very good defense upstairs and downstairs would beat George, because they'd outbox him. I don't think Larry Holmes beats him, because Holmes would be hit to the head or body often and Holmes did not move his head. George loved targets. George did not have the chin flaws that Shavers had either! Think of how Holmes struggled with Cooney. Well, George is only an inch or 2 shorter than Cooney(and still taller than Holmes), faster, and a flood of punches! With Lewis, Lewis could win or Foreman could win. I make Foreman the favorite, because of Lewis' chin, George's style, Lewis' defenseless trainer(Stewart), and George had 4 rounds to put him away. Lewis could win by cuts or KO(but he used 1 or 2 shots/was not nearly as active and GF used many). Yes, Lewis could win by cuts or KO, but--since George would close the gap immediately--he had 4 rounds to do it. Again, a jab or few punches hitting a great chin versus many punches hitting a weak chin!
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

Holmes didn't struggle with Cooney. He beat the crap out of him.
Post Reply