Who Are Your #1 and #2 Heavyweights Of All Time?

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't see Foreman having any case for top 10 let alone top 5. Dominance and resume depth are important criteria for greatness and he fails in both.

He never dominated an era and never solidified himself as the best. There was always someone around who could beat him. In his first reign he managed two title defenses before losing his belt. He only beat like 5 guys ranked in the top 10 which isn't a deep resume for someone proclaimed to be top 10 and a lot of these guys seemed like very favorable stylistc matches.

[Ambling Alp II]

He beat Frazier, Norton and Lyle. That is a strong case for being in the top 5.

A key factor when looking at "dominance" is who else is in the picture. It doesn't take a great fighter to dominate a weak era. Obviously, Foreman was not in a weak era.

You can't just look at the number of title defenses. The sheer number is often deceiving.

You have to look at who he had to beat to win the title. That was Joe Frazier, who himself is arguably in the top 5, certainly top 10. Foreman should get a lot of credit for that. Then you have to look at who the title defenses were against.
One was a stiff; Foreman shouldn't get credit for defending the title against him. However, the other was a title defense against Ken Norton; Foreman should get a lot of credit for that one.

You have to look at who Foreman lost the title to. If that fighter wasn't particularly good, then Foreman should get ripped for it. However, the fighter was Ali, the greatest heavyweight of all time.

And of course, you have to look at fights where neither he nor the opponent was the champion as well.

[p4p1]

He beat Frazier, Norton and Lyle. That is a strong case for being in the top 5.

A key factor when looking at "dominance" is who else is in the picture. It doesn't take a great fighter to dominate a weak era. Obviously, Foreman was not in a weak era.

You can't just look at the number of title defenses. The sheer number is often deceiving.

You have to look at who he had to beat to win the title. That was Joe Frazier, who himself is arguably in the top 5, certainly top 10. Foreman should get a lot of credit for that. Then you have to look at who the title defenses were against.
One was a stiff; Foreman shouldn't get credit for defending the title against him. However, the other was a title defense against Ken Norton; Foreman should get a lot of credit for that one.

You have to look at who Foreman lost the title to. If that fighter wasn't particularly good, then Foreman should get ripped for it. However, the fighter was Ali, the greatest heavyweight of all time.

And of course, you have to look at fights where neither he nor the opponent was the champion as well.

I've always thought that Foreman's success and competitiveness in the 90s highlighted just how strong the 70s era was for HWs. I don't see a world where any of the top fighters from the 90s would be remotely competitive against the top guys in the 70s when in their 40s.

[Ezzard]

In the 1970s it was a common perception that the era was weak for HWs and the evidence was that prime Foreman lost his title to an old Ali.

[tiny_acres]

In the 1970s it was a common perception that the era was weak for HWs and the evidence was that prime Foreman lost his title to an old Ali.

And in the 70's they said Foreman going into the Frazier fight had a weak resume and fought nothing but bums.
Interesting how our perception changes after years later

[Ezzard]

In the 1970s it was a common perception that the era was weak for HWs and the evidence was that prime Foreman lost his title to an old Ali.

And in the 70's they said Foreman going into the Frazier fight had a weak resume and fought nothing but bums.
Interesting how our perception changes after years later

But they were right.

[gilgamesh]

In the 1970s it was a common perception that the era was weak for HWs and the evidence was that prime Foreman lost his title to an old Ali.

And in the 70's they said Foreman going into the Frazier fight had a weak resume and fought nothing but bums.
Interesting how our perception changes after years later

That's true of Foreman though. Up until Frazier his competition was fairly weak.

His 6 opponents immediately prior to facing Frazier were

Terry Sorrell (4-15)
Miguel Angel Paez (48-15-13)
Ted Gullick (15-5-1)
Clarence Boone (3-25-2)
Joe Murphy Gordwin (1-14-1)
Luis Pires (18-7-1)


He did beat Chuvalo on the way to Frazier, and Gregorio Peralta at least on paper had a good record.

But yeah his competition was definitely soft.

[AngryGoon38]

Lennox Lewis and Joe Louis.

[Cojimar 1946]

He beat Frazier, Norton and Lyle. That is a strong case for being in the top 5.

A key factor when looking at "dominance" is who else is in the picture. It doesn't take a great fighter to dominate a weak era. Obviously, Foreman was not in a weak era.

You can't just look at the number of title defenses. The sheer number is often deceiving.

You have to look at who he had to beat to win the title. That was Joe Frazier, who himself is arguably in the top 5, certainly top 10. Foreman should get a lot of credit for that. Then you have to look at who the title defenses were against.
One was a stiff; Foreman shouldn't get credit for defending the title against him. However, the other was a title defense against Ken Norton; Foreman should get a lot of credit for that one.

You have to look at who Foreman lost the title to. If that fighter wasn't particularly good, then Foreman should get ripped for it. However, the fighter was Ali, the greatest heavyweight of all time.

And of course, you have to look at fights where neither he nor the opponent was the champion as well.

Frazier is a good win though I wouldn't put him in my top 10 but Norton lost to every puncher he faced. So that's not really a great win given how he fared against Cooney and Shavers. I wouldn't rate Lyle a great win. Who did Lyle beat?

[p4p1]

In the 1970s it was a common perception that the era was weak for HWs and the evidence was that prime Foreman lost his title to an old Ali.

That’s very surprising to me, I thought the 50s and 60s were always looked at as a weaker era, especially compared to the 70s.

[p4p1]

He beat Frazier, Norton and Lyle. That is a strong case for being in the top 5.

A key factor when looking at "dominance" is who else is in the picture. It doesn't take a great fighter to dominate a weak era. Obviously, Foreman was not in a weak era.

You can't just look at the number of title defenses. The sheer number is often deceiving.

You have to look at who he had to beat to win the title. That was Joe Frazier, who himself is arguably in the top 5, certainly top 10. Foreman should get a lot of credit for that. Then you have to look at who the title defenses were against.
One was a stiff; Foreman shouldn't get credit for defending the title against him. However, the other was a title defense against Ken Norton; Foreman should get a lot of credit for that one.

You have to look at who Foreman lost the title to. If that fighter wasn't particularly good, then Foreman should get ripped for it. However, the fighter was Ali, the greatest heavyweight of all time.

And of course, you have to look at fights where neither he nor the opponent was the champion as well.

Frazier is a good win though I wouldn't put him in my top 10 but Norton lost to every puncher he faced. So that's not really a great win given how he fared against Cooney and Shavers. I wouldn't rate Lyle a great win. Who did Lyle beat?

Shavers, Ellis, Bonavena, Bugner all pretty good fighters themselves.

[Ezzard]

In the 1970s it was a common perception that the era was weak for HWs and the evidence was that prime Foreman lost his title to an old Ali.

That’s very surprising to me, I thought the 50s and 60s were always looked at as a weaker era, especially compared to the 70s.

Everyone ranks the fighters and the era from when they were young as better than it really was. Those writers back then likely held the 50s boxers in high esteem. Same for every era.

All I am saying is that we should not just ignore older ratings because it doesn't fit with what has been written in the last 20 years. They are usually all valuable in some way or other.

[Tony1244]

1. Ali
2. Louis

[Tony1244]

In the 1970s it was a common perception that the era was weak for HWs and the evidence was that prime Foreman lost his title to an old Ali.

I had forgotten all about that but you're right. After Zaire, Ring Magazine and Sports Illustrated wrote about Foreman as though he was an amateurish clown. Anyone who thought Foreman was top 10 all time would have been laughed at.

Ali and Frazier were considered passed their prime by 1974 which was partially true. Shavers and Lyle weren't very respected at the time. Cosell called Norton a club fighter.

[Ezzard]

In the 1970s it was a common perception that the era was weak for HWs and the evidence was that prime Foreman lost his title to an old Ali.

I had forgotten all about that but you're right. After Zaire, Ring Magazine and Sports Illustrated wrote about Foreman as though he was an amateurish clown. Anyone who thought Foreman was top 10 all time would have been laughed at.

Ali and Frazier were considered passed their prime by 1974 which was partially true. Shavers and Lyle weren't very respected at the time. Cosell called Norton a club fighter.

It's the same every era. Yes, some are better than others but the broadcast media over-hype the current fighters (usually because they're under contract) and the more serious analysts tend to over-criticise.

[Ambling Alp II]

In general, that is often the case. The broadcast people have fights to broadcast and they don't want to rip the guys they are covering. Naturally, they are going to tend overhype everything that is current.

If an era is truly great, some boxing historians sometime underrate the fighters at the time, for multiple reasons.

Don'trecall the comment Cosell made about Norton. I have heard him ne very complimentary about Norton many times.

I do think one thing that we all have to consider is that any one era is really a small snapshot in time. Some people (who aren't really into boxing history) really think of boxing in two main eras. From when they became a fan to now is one or two eras. And everything before it is all lumped in together. i.e. if Joe Frazier was before their time, he gets lumped in with say Dempsey.
Even a 20-year period of time is just a small fraction of the sports history.