Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

8-2 70's, I'd favor only Walcott & Moore.

[Kalan]

How do people see the following matchups going?
(1)Marciano vs Ali
(2)Liston vs Holmes
(3)Charles vs Frazier
(4)Patterson vs Foreman
(5)Walcott vs Young
(6)Williams vs Norton
(7)Moore vs Ellis
(8)Johnson vs Quarry
(9)Johannson vs Patterson (70s version)
(10)Machen vs Lyle

I adjusted my list for the 70s a bit based on people's suggestions. Obviously we have to favor Foreman to blast out Patterson but many of these matchups look winnable for the 50s heavyweights.

Ali was too big, strong, and fast for Marciano... Holmes would outbox Liston... Frazier would easily overpower Charles... Foreman would crush Patterson... Young would easily out-box Walcott... Norton would punch Williams out almost as easily as Liston did. Just plow the easily punched swinger who was knocked out many more times than Norton was... Ellis would beat Moore down like Patterson did... Johnson would out-box Quarry... Patterson would knock Ingo out any time he had faced him before. Ingo had a sneaky right you had to be aware of... Machen could possibly beat Lyle like Quarry beat him if he didn't get bossed around by Lyle's superior height, reach, size and strength. Machen was faster and a better boxer so it's 50/50. He'd have to make it a Young-Foreman affair.

[Cojimar 1946]

I would think Machen would have a good shot at beating Lyle.

[elmersalsa]

8-2 70's, I'd favor only Walcott & Moore.

I got it 9-1 the 70s. Jimmy Young at his very best, could beat anybody.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Aww, such a cute little thing.

[Tomasino]

The funniest part of these forums is when retards make comments on your posts, only to claim they have blocked you.

They can see that you have posted but cannot see content...

Don't be so naive!! Of course the idiots see the content, their sense of self importance makes them try to convince other folks they can't.

They are beyond pathetic. If I were to claim I ( blocked,) or put someone on ignore, I would neither know, or care whether or not they were alive, or dead.

You have noble values, oldie. We are all better off for having your flawless presence amoung us. I only wish I had the strength of character you do. I'd be so unhappy, just like you.

[Cojimar 1946]

Norton seems to have had issues with punchers so Williams might have had a good shot at beating him. Although Williams was regarded as a big puncher he was not very effective at knocking out top level opposition and the only opponent he stopped ranked in the top 10 was Ernie Terrell. However, the same is true of Earnie Shavers. The only top-rated guys he kayoed were Ellis and Norton and he generally came up short against good opponents.

[Ambling Alp II]

Norton probably had atl east as good of chin as Williams. He was better defensively and was a better all around fighter.
at the time that Williams beat Terrell, Terrell was not a ranked contender.
If we are going to count that as a big win for Williams, then you have count Shavers wins over Young, Howard Smith, and Henry Clark. They were all ranked at one time or another in their careers.

Shavers is a perfect example. He is borderline top 10 for the 1970s. In the 1950s or any other decade, he would be in the top 10 easily.

[Ambling Alp II]

Norton probably had at least as good of chin as Williams. He was better defensively and was a better all around fighter.
At the time that Williams beat Terrell, Terrell was not a ranked contender.
If we are going to count that as a big win for Williams, then you have count Shavers wins over Young, Howard Smith, and Henry Clark. They were all ranked at one time or another in their careers.

Shavers is a perfect example. He is borderline top 10 for the 1970s. In the 1950s or any other decade, he would be in the top 10 easily.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Norton wouldn't have much trouble with Williams imo.

[Cojimar 1946]

When was Henry Clark ranked? I'm not sure he was ever top 10. As best I can tell he was at around the same level as Al Jones, Jeff Merritt and Boone Kirkman.

[Cojimar 1946]

Bob Satterfield seems like the 50s version of Shavers.

[Ambling Alp II]

Not in the slightest.

[Ambling Alp II]

When was Henry Clark ranked? I'm not sure he was ever top 10. As best I can tell he was at around the same level as Al Jones, Jeff Merritt and Boone Kirkman.

Clark was in the top for a short period in 1974. Not a legend by any means, but he did beat Roy Williams, Mac Foster and Leotis Martin.

[sweetsci]

When was Henry Clark ranked? I'm not sure he was ever top 10. As best I can tell he was at around the same level as Al Jones, Jeff Merritt and Boone Kirkman.

He was ranked around 8-9-10 by Ring for several months in 1968 before running into Liston. He hit Ring's top 10 again in Summer-Fall of 1972, and again (as Ambling Alp II posted) during 1974 and early 1975. World Boxing had him as high as #4 in 1975, but the other sources I have place Clark at the bottom end of the top 10.

[Cojimar 1946]

Guys like Nino Valdez, Bob Baker, and Clarence Henry did not even crack the top 10 of my list of top 50s fighters. I don't really see anything to suggest Shavers was better than these guys. Shavers seems to have a losing record against top 10 opponents (2-4).

[Ambling Alp II]

Going 2-4 against the top 10 of the best decade in heavyweight boxing history is pretty good. Think about it. A guy who is #10 or 11 (like Shavers) probably isn't going to have a winning record against the top 10. If he does, he probably should be rated higher.

Valdes, Baker, Henry, would not have done well against Holmes, Ali, Quarry, Lyle, Ellis, and Norton. 0-6 would be a strong possiblity for them.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Look at today's top 10. Surely they're just as good as any eras top 10. It's all in the numbers. Quality means nothing.

[Cojimar 1946]

I think they would have a good shot at beating Lyle and the version of Ali that faced Shavers. Shavers fought Ali in 1977 and that version of Ali seems pretty beatable (he lost to a 7 fight Leon Spinks in his next pro fight). Shavers also lost to Bob Stallings. Is he also better than Valdez, Baker, etc?

[Cojimar 1946]

The 70s heavyweights are closer in size to today's cruiserweights than today's heavyweights

[Ambling Alp II]

So what? The heavyweight division has sucked for a long time. It has been shown over and over throughout history that quality heavyweights in the low 200s (or even smaller) can beat bigger heavyweights. They are too big nowadays.

[Ambling Alp II]

I think they would have a good shot at beating Lyle and the version of Ali that faced Shavers. Shavers fought Ali in 1977 and that version of Ali seems pretty beatable (he lost to a 7 fight Leon Spinks in his next pro fight). Shavers also lost to Bob Stallings. Is he also better than Valdez, Baker, etc?

Lyle never would lost to Baker and Valdes. Never understood why people are always praising Valdes. he wasn't that good at all. Henry may have been tricky, but Lyle should have beat him.

Watch the Ali-Shavers fight. Ali is clearly past his best, however he was also clearly better than Valdes, and Baker ever were. Shavers hit Ali with punches that would have sent Valdes and Baker to sleep.
Yes you can cherry pick Shavers record. However, you have to look at the entire record. You also have to look at Valdes and Baker records.

Valdes constantly lost fights throughout his career. And not all to top fighters. He lost to Archie McBride and Billy Gilliam. He also had draws with Jimmy Freeman and Joe McFadden.

Baker lost to Roy Harris, Mike DeJohn, Willie Besmanoff, and Dick Richardson.

[Tuan_Jim]

Silly trolls like cojimar will forever bring up the Stallings fight. You need only look at his record to see the man wasn't a slob and knew how to handle himself in a boxing ring. Shavers hadn't been extended beyond 1 round in how long when Stallings fiddled his way to a distance win? The Acorn has so many performances that eclipse one bad night the reasonable observer would dismiss it.

[Cojimar 1946]

Getting stopped in a single round by Jerry Quarry is also not terribly impressive. In Valdes's prime nobody ever handled him that easily.

[Cojimar 1946]

I simply don't see the 70s heavyweights as being as spectacular as some people. If the 4th/5th best heavyweight of the 1950s can fight evenly with the 7th/8th best heavyweight of the 70s that seems like pretty strong evidence that the gap between the eras if it exists is a lot less than some people think.

Valdez, Baker, and Henry were world-class fighters with decent wins. I don't see any reason to dismiss their chances against Shavers.