Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

[Kalan]

Same with Povetkin and Haye. Haye got embarrassed by an ancient Carl Thompson.

Uzcudun fought a ton of good fighters. Sometimes he won and sometimes he lost.
Loughran still had a lot left. There was no reason at all to think he was over the hill going into the Carnera fight.

GTFO Alp... You're the idiot around here. Tommy Loughran was a Light Heavyweight who had no strength or power.. It was a terrible match-up for Loughran.. Carnera had massive height, weight and reach advantages.. You can't overcome that with superior skill and finesse alone.. Louis, Baer, and even Sharkey were strong enough to load and throw at Carnera---who was the worst defender of any heavy champ other than Willard.. Loughran was fuhked because he was so light and weak that he couldn't throw hard.. He got pushed and peppered with super long jabs, which guys with amateur skills can do to a real little pro.

Haye had 10 fights when he fought Thompson, who was a crafty veteran. He lost to Bellew when he suffered a ruptured Achilles tendon. Wladimir is the only fighter who beat a prime Haye... Povetkin is an Olympic Gold Medal winning Heavyweight Champion who is getting old. His only loss was to Wladimir.. Sultan Ibragimov easily beat Briggs and Holyfield.. His only loss was to Wladimir.. Klitschko also beat outstanding prime boxers Eddie Chambers and Chris Byrd... Everybody knows Wladimir Klitschko was an ATG Heavyweight Champion and Primo Carnera was one of the worst Heavyweight Champions ever.

[Kalan]

By the way... Carl Thompson was still a very good fighter at 40... He won his last 6 fights -- the last 3 against guys with very respectable records.

[Cojimar 1946]

Look Povetkin is no legend at heavyweight but I would think he would have a good chance of beating guys Carnera beat such as Uzcuden and Loughran. Can you explain why you wouldn't favor him to win these fights?

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't think Povetkin was very good. Uzcudun was a tough as nails and better. Loughran was a very slick and smart fighter. On a given day could they lose to Povetkin? Sure. Usually not.


It's easy to say that Povetkin (or Haye or McCline for that matter) would have beaten someone good. Carnera actually did.

[Kalan]

Uzcudun didn't beat anyone the caliber of Carlos Takam, Mike Perez, Mariusz Wach, and Chris Byrd... Uzcudun lost to little Mickey Walker who weighed 170 and lost 4 of his next 7 fights. Louis hit Uzcudun very easily and flattened him early. Johnny Risko was another guy who lost a ton of fights but beat Uzcudun

You dismiss tons of losses that Uzcudun had. He was a little guy who stood 5'10". Olympic Gold Medal Winner Alexander Povetkin had 1 lonely loss and was never knocked out... When you watch actual footage of their fights Uzcudun had terrible skills and Povekin has excellent skills.. Povetkin is older than Uzcudun was when he retired with 17 losses.

Loughran was a Light Heavyweight who was a weaker hitter than Chris Byrd... Loughran had an absurd 8% KO ratio versus Byrd's 47%.. Loughran was knocked out by Steve Hamas and Jack Sharkey who both weighed under 200 pounds... so he didn't have a ton of resistance either.

[montrealsuper]

It's possible Foreman is overrated. Beat a decent Norton then handpicked a patsy. Shattered by Ali loss and then Young loss. Did not respond to adversity well unlike Wlad Klitschko. Like I said earlier the Ali era is overrated and has been lionized because Ali's electric personality made it appear greater than it really was. Take Ali out of the era - if his bike was never stolen - it would have looked like a weak dull era with no great personalities. Who would have dominated? It's hard to tell.

[Controversial]

Foreman gave us a good insight to how a "great" fighter from the 70s compared to the best of the 90s. Its arguable that the Foreman that fought Holyfield in 1991 was a better fighter than the 1970s version. Foreman carried the extra 30lbs-40lbs well, it allowed him to push guys around easier than before and his power was just as good, if not better, as he had more weight behind his punches. He was calmer and had learnt how to pace himself better. Even then Holyfield still beat him by a wide UD and two years later Morrison done the same. If they managed to beat Foreman so easily does that show that maybe Foreman wasn't as great as people think he was in the 70s as they beat a better version of him?

[Ambling Alp II]

Foreman of the 1990s was not anywhere near as good as he was in the 1970s. The extra weight (along with age) made him much, much slower. He had to pace himself to fight at a very slow pace. He usually could not pull the trigger and followup when he had an opponent introuble. That he gave Holyfield as much trouble as he did is an indication that he would have beaten Holyfield had they both been in their prime.

The 1970s was the best decade in heavyweight history. Just watch the films. You had an incredible amount of talent. You have fighters of different styles. The 1990s was very good and probably second.

[Controversial]

Foreman of the 1990s was not anywhere near as good as he was in the 1970s. The extra weight (along with age) made him much, much slower. He had to pace himself to fight at a very slow pace. He usually could not pull the trigger and followup when he had an opponent introuble. That he gave Holyfield as much trouble as he did is an indication that he would have beaten Holyfield had they both been in their prime.

The 1970s was the best decade in heavyweight history. Just watch the films. You had an incredible amount of talent. You have fighters of different styles. The 1990s was very good and probably second.

I thought the weight made him more dangerous. He was never a fast fighter and not that big in comparison to later generations, 6'3" and 215-230lbs. If he came in around that weight in the 90s he would've struggled more I think. His calmer and more relaxed style of fighting, plus previous years of experience gave him an edge that he didn't have in the 70s.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't think he was anywhere near as dangerous in his 40s. His punchout was much lower; He was "relaxed" simply because he lacked the energy to be be as aggressive as he was in his 20s. If he hurt a guy he couldn't followup. In his 20s he would be all over an opponent that he hurt.

In his 40s he had Alex Stewart in trouble early but let Stewart survive and almost lost. He couldn't followup when he had Holyfield hurt. Was too slow to get to Tommy Morrsion who wasn't hard to hit.

He wasn't fast in his 20s, but he wasn't nearly as slow as he was in his 40s.

Watch his fights with Frazier and Norton. No heavyweight champion ever dominated a great heavyweight champion like Foreman dominated Frazier. He has no fights in 40s (and understandably so) that compares to this.

[Kalan]

Watch his fights with Frazier and Norton. No heavyweight champion ever dominated a great heavyweight champion like Foreman dominated Frazier. He has no fights in 40s (and understandably so) that compares to this.

Frazier was super easy to hit -- and also a very small Heavyweight who was also very fat... Foreman was going to kill him.. Norton was knocked stiff by 188-pound Jose Luis Garcia who had 12 wins at the time... Norton was easy to hit.. He was supposed to run the skinny Garcia over, but when Garcia was a real skinny kid he could throw.. He was a 6'4" skinny bean pole who threw over hand rights that could rip.. Norton had that cross-armed defense and it was like Tommy Hearns firing away at Roberto Duran -- only a big hulking Duran because Norton was so much bigger than Garcia. Garcia knocked Norton on his ear.

Garcia was getting knocked out by guys like Ernie Terrell when they rematched.. There was absolutely no reason for that fight except to visit revenge on Garcia.. I wish they had the original Garcia-Norton fight on youtube because it was funny as Hell to watch. You'd laugh your asses off.

[Cojimar 1946]

The Holyfield-Foreman fight wasn't that competitive from what I saw. Foreman stayed on his feet but lost virtually every round and was hugely outlanded.

One problem with trying to dismiss an era is that there is generally enough overlap between eras to give us a good sense of how they compare. Hasim Rahman was from the same era as Wladimir Klitschko and had a number of contemporaries with better careers. Yet he was able to kayo a prime Lennox Lewis from the supposedly golden Holyfield/Tyson/Lewis 90s era.

If the 90s were so great why did the 1st/2nd best heavyweight of that era (Lewis) lose to the 6th/7th best fighter of the Klitschko era? Lewis won the rematch but the fact that even a out of shape/overconfident Lewis could lose to Rahman seems like evidence that the gap is not as great as you seem to think. The Moorer-Tua blowout is another good example. The fact that Tua beat him so quickly and decisively doesn't really support your idea that the 90s are a far better era.

[Ambling Alp II]

Maybe you should watch the Foreman-Holyfield fight again. foreman won at least three rounds. He had Holyfield in serious trouble a couple of times. There were a couple of other close ones. Holyfield deserved the decision, but the fight was much more competitive than it should have been.

Moorer-Tua? Come on. Moorer was way past it by then and was there for the payday. He barely got hit and went down like he got shot.
Yes Lewis got Ko'd by Rahman. That is called an upset. Rahman nailed him with the best punch of his career. This boxing, things like that happen once in a while. And od course, Lewis crushed him in the rematch.

You constantly cherry pick fighters in their prime against fighters well past theirs and use it as "evidence" that the new generation is better. (Except of course when it comes to your beloved 1950s)
That is faulty reasoning.
You are cherry picking again. Look at all the younger fighters that Lewis beat that were supposedly from the next generation.
You need to look at much more evidence than you do.

[Mr.DW]

I suspect because he was big, hit hard, and had a decent chin when he wasn't gassed. Then again, he gassed by the 4th or 5th rd so that doesn't mean much.

Any elite heavyweight who can last to the 4th or 5th rd against Foreman can probably beat him.

Me personally, I'm not too high on Foreman. I think he is overrated and has low boxing skills. He benefited from fighting weak competition and Frazier/Norton who were made to order stylistically.

[Ambling Alp II]

Foreman had no problem at all going the distance against Peralta. How many people were Frazier and Norton for made? You can do that with anyone; just say their biggest wins were against opponents that were made for them.
He was highly rated because he great. He was probably the hardest hitting champion ever. He had a high workrate, and was tough.
It's easy to say that Frazier was made to order for him, but Foreman actually proved in the ring that he could blowout a out a great heavyweight in who was in his prime. There isn't any similar situation in the history of the heavyweight division.

[Kalan]

It's easy to say that Frazier was made to order for him, but Foreman actually proved in the ring that he could blowout a out a great heavyweight in who was in his prime. There isn't any similar situation in the history of the heavyweight division.

Nonsense -- Frazier was prime Smokin' Joe when he fought Chuvalo, Zyglewitz, Doyle, and Bonavena. He was way too fat when he fought Foreman.

That unconditioned, tubby little Frazier didn't have a chance with ANY big, tall, brutal, power-punching, rock hard, well conditioned Heavyweight.

And there have been MANY similar situations ... BoneCrusher Smith was another big, tall, slow, and unskilled Heavyweight Champion like Foreman... Smith knocked out Heavyweight Champions Mike Weaver and Tim Witherspoon---each in the 1st round... Witherspoon and Weaver were both hard punching Heavyweight Champions who were much bigger, taller, stronger -- and in far better physical condition than tubby little Frazier was for Foreman.

Michael Spinks was an undefeated Heavyweight Champion who was 6'2" X 212... Mike Tyson blew him away in 90 seconds for Spinks' ONLY career loss.

[Cojimar 1946]

If the Klitschkos were at Carnera level I would have expected them to lose more fights. I also don't see where people are getting this idea that the 1930s were a good era
The Lewis Rahman fight is significant because Lewis was arguably the best of the 90s heavyweights so for him to lose at his peak to someone from a supposedly inferior era is significant. If it was someone like Ruddock or Sanders it would be less of an issue.
The Bowe Golota fights are another example of a top heavyweight from the golden 90s not looking so impressive against someone from Wladimirs era

[Controversial]

Nonsense -- Frazier was prime Smokin' Joe when he fought Chuvalo, Zyglewitz, Doyle, and Bonavena. He was way too fat when he fought Foreman.

That unconditioned, tubby little Frazier didn't have a chance with ANY big, tall, brutal, power-punching, rock hard, well conditioned Heavyweight.

Some newspapers reported at the time that Frazier was looking poor in training and not preparing properly. Norton was his sparring partner in Jamaica and by all accounts was getting the better of things too. Saying that Foreman was a bad match up for Frazier and even in tip top condition and in his prime I don't see him beating Foreman that night.

[Ambling Alp II]

If the Klitschkos were at Carnera level I would have expected them to lose more fights. I also don't see where people are getting this idea that the 1930s were a good era
The Lewis Rahman fight is significant because Lewis was arguably the best of the 90s heavyweights so for him to lose at his peak to someone from a supposedly inferior era is significant. If it was someone like Ruddock or Sanders it would be less of an issue.
The Bowe Golota fights are another example of a top heavyweight from the golden 90s not looking so impressive against someone from Wladimirs era

Because the 1930s had a lot of good fighters; unlike the last 15 years. Carnera fought a lot of good fighters; winning some and losing some. V. Klitschko fought two worth mentioning (one way past his best) and lost both times. Wladimir beat one worth mentioning. Had the Klitschos fought Carnera's competition they would have lost a lot more fights than they did.

As for the The Bowe Golota fights are another example of a top heavyweight from the golden 90s not looking so impressive against someone from Wladimirs era:
That makes no sense. Golota wasn't from the Klitschkos era. His career overlapped with theirs but he was past his best by the time they were serious players.

A past it Golota got hosed against Byrd and Ruiz, who are supposed to be in Klitschkos era. Lewis at his worst beat Klitschko. An ancient Holyfield outfought Valuev. You don't ever seem to notice these things.


The 1970s was the best era for heavyweights. The 1990s was very good. The 1930 was decent. The 2000s suck. Watch the fights and stop making silly comments.

[Kalan]

Because the 1930s had a lot of good fighters; unlike the last 15 years. A past it Golota got hosed against Byrd and Ruiz, who are supposed to be in Klitschkos era. Lewis at his worst beat Klitschko. An ancient Holyfield outfought Valuev. You don't ever seem to notice ... The 1970s was the best era for heavyweights. The 1990s was very good. The 1930 was decent. The 2000s suck. Watch the fights and stop making silly comments.

Some World Heavyweight Title Challengers from the "Golden" 1970's as follows: Jean Pierre Coopman... Richard Dung... Leon Stinks... Alfredo Evangelista... Chuck Wepner... Ron Stander... Joe Roman... Terry Daniels... Joe Bugner... Marvis Frazier, who had only 9 pro fights and a short amateur career---easily beat the uncoordinated punching bag Bugner to "earn" a title shot at Larry Holmes. Holmes blew Marvis away in 1 round, and he was older than Bugner -- but that was the 1980's when there were a lot of much better Heavyweights than in the 70's.

I'm sure you'll agree the top guys today are much better than the majority of these runty little out-of-shape 70's challengers...

THE TOP 35 HEAVYWEIGHTS TODAY... Many of whom will never get title shots... There's a lot of Heavyweight Champions... Only one Lineal Champ

1. Anthony Joshua... 2. Luis Ortiz... 3. Deontay Wilder... 4. Tyson Fury...5. Wladimir Klitschko... 6. Alexander Povetkin... 7. Joseph Parker... 8. Andy Ruiz... 9. Hughie Fury... 10. David Haye... 11. Carlos Takam... 12. Dillian Whyte... 13. Kubrat Pulev... 14. Dominic Breazeale... 15. Johann Duhaupas... 16. Bryant Jennings... 17. Andrzej Wawrzyk... 18. Lucas Browne... 19. Gerald Washington 20. Charles Martin... 21. Christian Hammer... 22. Malik Scott... 23. Amir Mansour… 24. Alexander Ustinov... 25. Dereck Chisora... 26. Ruslan Chagaev... 27. Otto Wallin... 28. Artur Szpilka... 29. Erkan Tepper... 30. Bermane Stiverne... 31. Czar Glazkov... 32. Mike Perez... 33. Izuagbe Ugonoh... 34. Robert Helenius... 35. Eric Molina

And Lewis was losing to Vitali Klitschko on ALL SCORECARDS when the fight was stopped... Even blinded by blood gushing into his left eye, Klitschko was easily out boxing Lewis, who had been preparing for a Heavyweight Championship Fight for months... Vitali had been preparing for a Heavyweight Championship Fight for 2 weeks... They sprung the fight on Vitali without notice and he had less than 2 weeks to prepare... Then Lewis promised Vitali a rematch for many months -- until Vitali Klitschko was made his mandatory challenger -- then he retired rather than fight.

Golota never got hosed... The bum couldn't fight so Byrd and Ruiz outscored him... Byrd got robbed... Holyfield lost to the inept Valuev... You never take note

[Tomasino]

Hughie Fury

[Sagaroth]

Because the 1930s had a lot of good fighters; unlike the last 15 years. A past it Golota got hosed against Byrd and Ruiz, who are supposed to be in Klitschkos era. Lewis at his worst beat Klitschko. An ancient Holyfield outfought Valuev. You don't ever seem to notice ... The 1970s was the best era for heavyweights. The 1990s was very good. The 1930 was decent. The 2000s suck. Watch the fights and stop making silly comments.

Some World Heavyweight Title Challengers from the "Golden" 1970's as follows: Jean Pierre Coopman... Richard Dung... Leon Stinks... Alfredo Evangelista... Chuck Wepner... Ron Stander... Joe Roman... Terry Daniels... Joe Bugner... Marvis Frazier, who had only 9 pro fights and a short amateur career---easily beat the uncoordinated punching bag Bugner to "earn" a title shot at Larry Holmes. Holmes blew Marvis away in 1 round, and he was older than Bugner -- but that was the 1980's when there were a lot of much better Heavyweights than in the 70's.

I'm sure you'll agree the top guys today are much better than the majority of these runty little out-of-shape 70's challengers...

THE TOP 35 HEAVYWEIGHTS TODAY... Many of whom will never get title shots... There's a lot of Heavyweight Champions... Only one Lineal Champ

1. Anthony Joshua... 2. Luis Ortiz... 3. Deontay Wilder... 4. Tyson Fury...5. Wladimir Klitschko... 6. Alexander Povetkin... 7. Joseph Parker... 8. Andy Ruiz... 9. Hughie Fury... 10. David Haye... 11. Carlos Takam... 12. Dillian Whyte... 13. Kubrat Pulev... 14. Dominic Breazeale... 15. Johann Duhaupas... 16. Bryant Jennings... 17. Andrzej Wawrzyk... 18. Lucas Browne... 19. Gerald Washington 20. Charles Martin... 21. Christian Hammer... 22. Malik Scott... 23. Amir Mansour… 24. Alexander Ustinov... 25. Dereck Chisora... 26. Ruslan Chagaev... 27. Otto Wallin... 28. Artur Szpilka... 29. Erkan Tepper... 30. Bermane Stiverne... 31. Czar Glazkov... 32. Mike Perez... 33. Izuagbe Ugonoh... 34. Robert Helenius... 35. Eric Molina

And Lewis was losing to Vitali Klitschko on ALL SCORECARDS when the fight was stopped... Even blinded by blood gushing into his left eye, Klitschko was easily out boxing Lewis, who had been preparing for a Heavyweight Championship Fight for months... Vitali had been preparing for a Heavyweight Championship Fight for 2 weeks... They sprung the fight on Vitali without notice and he had less than 2 weeks to prepare... Then Lewis promised Vitali a rematch for many months -- until Vitali Klitschko was made his mandatory challenger -- then he retired rather than fight.

Golota never got hosed... The bum couldn't fight so Byrd and Ruiz outscored him... Byrd got robbed... Holyfield lost to the inept Valuev... You never take note

Ruiz JR. 8Th?
Pulev 13th?


Dude you need to drink something strong just to clear your mind :)

[SteveO]

THE TOP 35 HEAVYWEIGHTS TODAY... Many of whom will never get title shots... There's a lot of Heavyweight Champions... Only one Lineal Champ

1. Anthony Joshua... 2. Luis Ortiz... 3. Deontay Wilder... 4. Tyson Fury...5. Wladimir Klitschko... 6. Alexander Povetkin... 7. Joseph Parker... 8. Andy Ruiz... 9. Hughie Fury... 10. David Haye... 11. Carlos Takam... 12. Dillian Whyte... 13. Kubrat Pulev... 14. Dominic Breazeale... 15. Johann Duhaupas... 16. Bryant Jennings... 17. Andrzej Wawrzyk... 18. Lucas Browne... 19. Gerald Washington 20. Charles Martin... 21. Christian Hammer... 22. Malik Scott... 23. Amir Mansour… 24. Alexander Ustinov... 25. Dereck Chisora... 26. Ruslan Chagaev... 27. Otto Wallin... 28. Artur Szpilka... 29. Erkan Tepper... 30. Bermane Stiverne... 31. Czar Glazkov... 32. Mike Perez... 33. Izuagbe Ugonoh... 34. Robert Helenius... 35. Eric Molina

You surely know that 21 of those guys have either won versions of the world heavyweight title or have challenged for it (and lost).
Chagaev has retired by the way.
Mike Perez has moved down to the cruiserweight division.

[Tuan_Jim]

I can't believe intelligent posters like Steve and Alp allow themselves to be baited into arguing with troll inventions like Cojimar and Kalan. Gentlemen, you are wasting your time. These idiots came to ruin the forum, and you are helping them do it. There's literally no point in reading them, never mind responding to them.

[Counter-puncher]

I can't believe intelligent posters like Steve and Alp allow themselves to be baited into arguing with troll inventions like Cojimar and Kalan. Gentlemen, you are wasting your time. These idiots came to ruin the forum, and you are helping them do it. There's literally no point in reading them, never mind responding to them.