BoxRec

Syntax Error wrote:
Apart from a farcical exhibition in Canada, Big George disappeared in 1975 & when he returned in '76, he didn't look that great.

Yes, he beat Frazier again in '76, but Joe was more washed up than Riddick Bowe's favourite knife, fork & plate.

Jimmy Young finally exposed Foreman again in '77, then he retired seeing Angels for a decade.

If he wanted a rematch with Ali, he should have got back out there in '75.

- Earlier you gave George props, but then turn around to expound in typical mangled boxese syntax found on these forums, so lets take a look.

George KOed 3 of 5 fighters in consecutive 10 rounders, a couple of them formerly ranked/contender types while calling for the Ali rematch. Cosell was there in his ABC yeller suit doing commentary. The farce was Ali being restrained from entering the ring while screaming he was never giving George a rematch. Now compare to Ali's Japan ex against Anoki where he might have landed 3 punches over 15 rounds as Anoki was repeatedly pulled off him after take downs. Ali was rushed off to critical condition to the hospital for a possible amputation to save his life before he was stabilized. He then got the tar beat out of him by Alzado in a forum thread that included video where we discussed how hapless Alzado made him look. Big advantage George

Joe wanted the rematch and was coming off what would've been a KO of Ali who wanted to quit and collapsed as if dead after Futch mistakenly pull the plug on Joe who was bouncing in his toes eagerly awaiting the 15th round. A ridiculous claim, but Joe was certainly felt shot after George beat him up again and retired. Advantage George

Young was blatantly robbed by King against Ali, so King arranged this worthless match against a stinker who got beat up pretty badly, but credit Young as having learned survival tricks and managed to walk George into a right hand in the last round to drop him. But of course stinker lovers are always gonna score for stinkers which is why boxing is circling the drain as a less than manly sport these days. Ali was the walk in the park for Young, and in fact George always had better results against common opponents than Ali starting with beating up Wepner as a novice fighter. After George brutalized Ali was shot against Wepner, he was never the same. Advantage George when he retired the first time rather than continue to be shafted by DKing. He's got his money and marbles and love of the people, Win/Win/Win.

Boxing 101: After the Ali loss, George was philosophical, happy to be looking at leaving the nightmare of Zaire where he was literally held hostage 6 extra weeks while Ali was feted in the presidential mansion of one of histories brutal dictators. George was ready for the rematch, where Ali wouldn't answer the question and was morbidly subdued like he hadn't yet recovered from the bout. While George beat the 10 count, Ali had collapsed hard for at least 30 seconds moments later and had to be helped up. Months later, Ali a few months later in his Playboy interview said he had an rematch offer for $5million apiece by a black Indonesian oilman, but still wouldn't commit to the bout. Doc Ferdie had advised his team that Ali took too much punishment against George and shouldn't ever fight him again. See the farcical Canadian exhibition above. George was still #1 in 75, and fought his way back to #1 with 5 straight KOs after being featured on the front cover of SI demanding the Ali rematch. Ali and his team said no just like they said to the 4th Norton mandatory rematch and fought Spinks where finally even his most delusional fans could see just how shot he was.

Few if any fighters had less ama credentials than did 19 year old George going into the Mexico City Olympics at 7400' altitude where he knocked out a slew of Soviet and Cuban professionals with nary a hiccup while displaying supernatural strength and innate fighting abilities. His biggest mistake was picking up that dinky US flag and waving it around that made him an instant target of hate by left wingers even if George is politically apolitical as far as I see.

I don't mind folks dishing honest criticism of George, but on this forum it's like listening that George Washington was never the first US president or that Mickey was never a Yankee, Willie never a Giant, and Duke never a Dodger and all in NY. Yeah, I agree with your previous statements about George being ATG, just not your follow up which was.....well, it needs revision.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:
Apart from a farcical exhibition in Canada, Big George disappeared in 1975 & when he returned in '76, he didn't look that great.

Yes, he beat Frazier again in '76, but Joe was more washed up than Riddick Bowe's favourite knife, fork & plate.

Jimmy Young finally exposed Foreman again in '77, then he retired seeing Angels for a decade.

If he wanted a rematch with Ali, he should have got back out there in '75.

- Earlier you gave George props, but then turn around to expound in typical mangled boxese syntax found on these forums, so lets take a look.

George KOed 3 of 5 fighters in consecutive 10 rounders, a couple of them formerly ranked/contender types while calling for the Ali rematch. Cosell was there in his ABC yeller suit doing commentary. The farce was Ali being restrained from entering the ring while screaming he was never giving George a rematch. Now compare to Ali's Japan ex against Anoki where he might have landed 3 punches over 15 rounds as Anoki was repeatedly pulled off him after take downs. Ali was rushed off to critical condition to the hospital for a possible amputation to save his life before he was stabilized. He then got the tar beat out of him by Alzado in a forum thread that included video where we discussed how hapless Alzado made him look. Big advantage George

Joe wanted the rematch and was coming off what would've been a KO of Ali who wanted to quit and collapsed as if dead after Futch mistakenly pull the plug on Joe who was bouncing in his toes eagerly awaiting the 15th round. A ridiculous claim, but Joe was certainly felt shot after George beat him up again and retired. Advantage George

Young was blatantly robbed by King against Ali, so King arranged this worthless match against a stinker who got beat up pretty badly, but credit Young as having learned survival tricks and managed to walk George into a right hand in the last round to drop him. But of course stinker lovers are always gonna score for stinkers which is why boxing is circling the drain as a less than manly sport these days. Ali was the walk in the park for Young, and in fact George always had better results against common opponents than Ali starting with beating up Wepner as a novice fighter. After George brutalized Ali was shot against Wepner, he was never the same. Advantage George when he retired the first time rather than continue to be shafted by DKing. He's got his money and marbles and love of the people, Win/Win/Win.

Boxing 101: After the Ali loss, George was philosophical, happy to be looking at leaving the nightmare of Zaire where he was literally held hostage 6 extra weeks while Ali was feted in the presidential mansion of one of histories brutal dictators. George was ready for the rematch, where Ali wouldn't answer the question and was morbidly subdued like he hadn't yet recovered from the bout. While George beat the 10 count, Ali had collapsed hard for at least 30 seconds moments later and had to be helped up. Months later, Ali a few months later in his Playboy interview said he had an rematch offer for $5million apiece by a black Indonesian oilman, but still wouldn't commit to the bout. Doc Ferdie had advised his team that Ali took too much punishment against George and shouldn't ever fight him again. See the farcical Canadian exhibition above. George was still #1 in 75, and fought his way back to #1 with 5 straight KOs after being featured on the front cover of SI demanding the Ali rematch. Ali and his team said no just like they said to the 4th Norton mandatory rematch and fought Spinks where finally even his most delusional fans could see just how shot he was.

Few if any fighters had less ama credentials than did 19 year old George going into the Mexico City Olympics at 7400' altitude where he knocked out a slew of Soviet and Cuban professionals with nary a hiccup while displaying supernatural strength and innate fighting abilities. His biggest mistake was picking up that dinky US flag and waving it around that made him an instant target of hate by left wingers even if George is politically apolitical as far as I see.

I don't mind folks dishing honest criticism of George, but on this forum it's like listening that George Washington was never the first US president or that Mickey was never a Yankee, Willie never a Giant, and Duke never a Dodger and all in NY. Yeah, I agree with your previous statements about George being ATG, just not your follow up which was.....well, it needs revision.

I agree with a lot of this, but I'll point out where I don't. The Lyle Alzado exhibition was just that, an exhibition. Not to be taken seriously.

You wrote: "Joe wanted the rematch and was coming off what would've been a KO of Ali who wanted to quit and collapsed as if dead after Futch mistakenly pull the plug on Joe who was bouncing in his toes eagerly awaiting the 15th round. A ridiculous claim,..." Not sure if you meant Frazier was about to win was the ridiculous claim. Joe got beat up quite badly in the 13 and 14th round of that fight. Granted, Ali was almost out on his feet as well. No one knows what would have happened if Joe had come out, but Ali looked in slightly better shape.

I was a Foreman fan at the time and wanted the Ali rematch. But if Ali had fought GF in Sept 1976 in lieu of Norton, in retrospect I think Ali would have won again. I base that on Foreman's performance in the Young fight and that Ali-Norton 3 was the last fight where Ali looked at least decent.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Norton's prime was circa 1971-1977. During this time period guys like Shavers, Lyle, Bonavena, Jeff Merritt, Frazier, Bugner, etc. were active who Norton failed to face. Norton's chin would be more proven had he faced more of these guys.

Out of Norton's foes I would say the following guys he beat were clearly top 10-(Ali, Quarry, Bobick, Young, and Tex Cobb). Henry Clark is arguable I suppose.

It took Norton a long time to reach his prime. He got a late start in boxing. It was at least 1972 before he reached his prime.

Of course Norton would have been more proven if he had faced the fighters mentioned. Bugner was not a big puncher, Merritt was not that good. He was scheduled to fight Bonavena but Bonavena pulled out and he fought Quarry instead. Bonavena wasn't that much of a harder puncher than Quarry. Frazier was never going to fight him because they had the same trainer.
Bobick was supposed to be a big puncher and Norton took him on.

Frazier never fought Shavers or Lyle and nobody questions his chin.

Norton was fighting better fighters than Shavers, Lyle, Bonavena, Jeff Merritt, Frazier, Bugner. He fought Ali three times, Quarry, Holmes, and Young during a period of six years. You can't fight everybody. Imagine if he had beat Shavers, Lyle, Bonavena, Jeff Merritt, Frazier, Bugner. and never fought Ali or Holmes. Everyone would say he didn't fight the best.

Tuan_Jim wrote:It's threads like this that caused me to lose interest in boxing forums. Day after day they come, the same autistics with the same complaints. "He only made two successful defences." Yes, that's because his third defence was against Muhammad Ali. Someone might be champion 7 years, 10 years even, and never meet one all-time elite level fighter, never mind three, as Foreman did vs Frazier, Norton and Ali.

'This guy was 200lbs so he can't be good, good heavyweights can only be XXXlbs, X feet high, their records must be X wins and X losses, KO ratio X%' etc etc. . . . There's got be something wrong cognitively with a man who cannot judge a fighter at work and instead needs to look to Boxrec numbers to form his conclusion. Who can be bothered grabbling with such pondlife?

You can tell someone doesn't really know the sport when they constantly quote the misleading statistics.

Marciano cleaned out his era, beat the best of his time, and retired undefeated. Featwise this puts him above guys like Foreman regardless of what you think of his skills.

Marciano is not as accomplished as foreman.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Marciano cleaned out his era, beat the best of his time, and retired undefeated. Featwise this puts him above guys like Foreman regardless of what you think of his skills.

If they fought on their best day, I would highly favor Foreman. I am not going to say I know Foreman would win. I am not going to say someone is stupid if they think Marciano would win.

All these self proclaimed geniuses who say they laugh at fans who pick the other guy in these never to be fantasy fights must never have gotten a prediction wrong. They must have all picked Douglas over Tyson, Bentt over Morrison, etc. How did these folks get so prescient? They must all be multi millionaire gamblers who are undefeated regarding fight predictions.

Tony1244 wrote:

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Marciano cleaned out his era, beat the best of his time, and retired undefeated. Featwise this puts him above guys like Foreman regardless of what you think of his skills.

If they fought on their best day, I would highly favor Foreman. I am not going to say I know Foreman would win. I am not going to say someone is stupid if they think Marciano would win.

All these self proclaimed geniuses who say they laugh at fans who pick the other guy in these never to be fantasy fights must never have gotten a prediction wrong. They must have all picked Douglas over Tyson, Bentt over Morrison, etc. How did these folks get so prescient? They must all be multi millionaire gamblers who are undefeated regarding fight predictions.

I'm wrong every week. Surely I could be wrong that wlad isn't too big for jack Dempsey. That being said, I've won more than I've lost.

Foreman is much less accomplished than Marciano and I don't see how it is even arguable
Marciano beat more guys ranked in the top 10
Marciano made more title defenses
Marciano cleaned out his era
Marciano was more consistent
Marciano retired undefeated

Moreover, athletes from later eras benefit from advances in nutrition and training methods as well as performance-enhancing drugs that were not available in earlier eras.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Foreman is much less accomplished than Marciano and I don't see how it is even arguable
Marciano beat more guys ranked in the top 10
Marciano made more title defenses
Marciano cleaned out his era
Marciano was more consistent
Marciano retired undefeated

I believe he beat more Hall of Famers (4 to 3) and had more wins against Hall of Famers as well (6 to 4).

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Foreman is much less accomplished than Marciano and I don't see how it is even arguable
Marciano beat more guys ranked in the top 10
Marciano made more title defenses
Marciano cleaned out his era
Marciano was more consistent
Marciano retired undefeated

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Moreover, athletes from later eras benefit from advances in nutrition and training methods as well as performance-enhancing drugs that were not available in earlier eras.

What specific points do you disagree with?

If Foreman wanted to rank as highly as Marciano he should have made sure to match Marciano's accomplishments

Cojimar 1946 wrote:What specific points do you disagree with?

Everything but Marciano retired undefeated. The biggest laugh is that modern nutrition and training is better.

What about title defenses? Didn't Marciano manage six while Foreman only had two?

As far as top contenders go, as best I can tell Foreman beat the following guys ranked in the top 10-(Chuvalo, Frazier, Norton, Lyle, and Moorer). If there are any guys I missed I would love to know.

George had more than two, but yes rocky would have more. Not that I find that an important part of rating fighters. Titles mean very little to me. I disagree with all your opinions. Better?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:George had more than two, but yes rocky would have more. Not that I find that an important part of rating fighters. Titles mean very little to me. I disagree with all your opinions. Better?

But aside from the "more consistent" bit, none of what he posted was opinion.

Rocky DID beat more top ten ranked opponents.
Rocky DID have more title defenses.
Rocky DID clean out his era...and if this is debatable to you then let's say he cleaned out his era more so than Foreman did.
Rocky DID retire undefeated.
Rocky DID beat more HOF'ers.

Another side of the Rock that doesn't get enough credit is his boxing head and his ability to learn and improve: he fought four guys twice, and in each fight the rematch was a clear (and often quick) victory for Rocky compared to the first bout.

Whether or not you think he can beat Foreman is up to you and I don't care as everyone is entitled to an opinion. Aside from George being old when he won a title again it's nigh on impossible to make a case that he accomplished more than Rocky.

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:George had more than two, but yes rocky would have more. Not that I find that an important part of rating fighters. Titles mean very little to me. I disagree with all your opinions. Better?

But aside from the "more consistent" bit, none of what he posted was opinion.

Rocky DID beat more top ten ranked opponents.
Rocky DID have more title defenses.
Rocky DID clean out his era...and if this is debatable to you then let's say he cleaned out his era more so than Foreman did.
Rocky DID retire undefeated.
Rocky DID beat more HOF'ers.

Another side of the Rock that doesn't get enough credit is his boxing head and his ability to learn and improve: he fought four guys twice, and in each fight the rematch was a clear (and often quick) victory for Rocky compared to the first bout.

Whether or not you think he can beat Foreman is up to you and I don't care as everyone is entitled to an opinion. Aside from George being old when he won a title again it's nigh on impossible to make a case that he accomplished more than Rocky.

Foreman had a much tougher era to try and clean out. Basically lastarza, past it ezzard & Walcott cleaned out his era. Big deal. I don't rate fighters on whom I think would win. I think foreman beat the greater heavyweights and has a better resume. Charles is a top 5 Atg, but the version rocky fought wasn't any better than Moorer IMO, much less Norton or Frazier. I also rate good losses, the holyfield defeat would rate over all but Walcott & Charles for me. I have Rocky top 10, so it's not insulting to me, but I rate George confidently higher based on their bodies of work.Rock would have helped his cause fighting Floyd, but everyone has the right to retire.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:George had more than two, but yes rocky would have more. Not that I find that an important part of rating fighters. Titles mean very little to me. I disagree with all your opinions. Better?

But aside from the "more consistent" bit, none of what he posted was opinion.

Rocky DID beat more top ten ranked opponents.
Rocky DID have more title defenses.
Rocky DID clean out his era...and if this is debatable to you then let's say he cleaned out his era more so than Foreman did.
Rocky DID retire undefeated.
Rocky DID beat more HOF'ers.

Another side of the Rock that doesn't get enough credit is his boxing head and his ability to learn and improve: he fought four guys twice, and in each fight the rematch was a clear (and often quick) victory for Rocky compared to the first bout.

Whether or not you think he can beat Foreman is up to you and I don't care as everyone is entitled to an opinion. Aside from George being old when he won a title again it's nigh on impossible to make a case that he accomplished more than Rocky.

Foreman had a much tougher era to try and clean out. Basically lastarza, past it ezzard & Walcott cleaned out his era. Big deal. I don't rate fighters on whom I think would win. I think foreman beat the greater heavyweights and has a better resume. Charles is a top 5 Atg, but the version rocky fought wasn't any better than Moorer IMO, much less Norton or Frazier. I also rate good losses, the holyfield defeat would rate over all but Walcott & Charles for me. I have Rocky top 10, so it's not insulting to me, but I rate George confidently higher based on their bodies of work.Rock would have helped his cause fighting Floyd, but everyone has the right to retire.

Fair enough. We disagree but I appreciate you sharing your reasoning

Both highly accomplished and both get into my top ten, can't decide who is higher but then again I don't really care but theres not much between them

That hof argument is pathetic.

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:
But aside from the "more consistent" bit, none of what he posted was opinion.

Rocky DID beat more top ten ranked opponents.
Rocky DID have more title defenses.
Rocky DID clean out his era...and if this is debatable to you then let's say he cleaned out his era more so than Foreman did.
Rocky DID retire undefeated.
Rocky DID beat more HOF'ers.

Another side of the Rock that doesn't get enough credit is his boxing head and his ability to learn and improve: he fought four guys twice, and in each fight the rematch was a clear (and often quick) victory for Rocky compared to the first bout.

Whether or not you think he can beat Foreman is up to you and I don't care as everyone is entitled to an opinion. Aside from George being old when he won a title again it's nigh on impossible to make a case that he accomplished more than Rocky.

Foreman had a much tougher era to try and clean out. Basically lastarza, past it ezzard & Walcott cleaned out his era. Big deal. I don't rate fighters on whom I think would win. I think foreman beat the greater heavyweights and has a better resume. Charles is a top 5 Atg, but the version rocky fought wasn't any better than Moorer IMO, much less Norton or Frazier. I also rate good losses, the holyfield defeat would rate over all but Walcott & Charles for me. I have Rocky top 10, so it's not insulting to me, but I rate George confidently higher based on their bodies of work.Rock would have helped his cause fighting Floyd, but everyone has the right to retire.

Fair enough. We disagree but I appreciate you sharing your reasoning

drop that hof drivel though.