Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I mean, honestly, why would anyone use arbitrary statistics in a debate like that? I guess it looks good for you. Top 10 opponents? You're obviously digging. Was Don Cockell one of them? I wouldn't know, but he couldn't hit top 20 in either of Foreman's eras. You list HOF, but don't mention Joe Louis by name. Why? If those numbers matter you should be saying that Marciano decimated one of the two best Heavyweights of all time. Silly shit, I would hope anyone could admit that both of Foreman's eras were far superior to Rocky's. Could you imagine Old George versus Old Archie? Ugly

[punchoutsb]

I mean, honestly, why would anyone use arbitrary statistics in a debate like that? I guess it looks good for you. Top 10 opponents? You're obviously digging. Was Don Cockell one of them? I wouldn't know, but he couldn't hit top 20 in either of Foreman's eras. You list HOF, but don't mention Joe Louis by name. Why? If those numbers matter you should be saying that Marciano decimated one of the two best Heavyweights of all time. Silly poo, I would hope anyone could admit that both of Foreman's eras were far superior to Rocky's. Could you imagine Old George versus Old Archie? Ugly

Arbitrary statistics? Like rating "good" losses instead of "bad" ones? How about mentioning Norton, Frazier, and Moorer and forgetting to mention Jimmy Young, Shannon, or Tommy? How about close wins (if you can call them that) over Schulz and Stewart. I'm talking achievements and at the end of the day the ultimate achievement is to dominate. You can only dominate when you exist. Both Foreman's eras were superior to Rocky's yes. And Foreman did not come close to dominating either.

[Cojimar 1946]

The evidence doesn't really point to Foreman's era being stronger though. Floyd Patterson was able to beat a prime Oscar Bonavena and many people felt he was robbed against Jimmy Ellis and Floyd was a 50s heavyweight

[Kalan]

These arguments go on forever.

GF looked Fantastic against Frazier 1 & 2 and against Norton.

Last night, due to this thread, I watched the Lyle fight and he looked horrendous against Lyle and Young. I mean really bad.

That's right. Foreman tried to box Young and lacked the skills for it.. He had nobody to teach him at the time.. Lyle and Foreman tried to smash each other because neither had skills.. If they could box a little bit it would have been more like Ibeabuchi-Tua instead of looking like two 4-round fighters... The 2nd edition of Foreman learned how to box and pace himself well which was really amazing -- but he lost 10 years and was too slow by that time.. He could have been a good boxer if he kept going after the Young fight... and he also lost 2 years after the Ali fight.. Losing was devastating to him.. It takes many young guys a long time to realize that losing a fight isn't the end of the world.

But anytime you take a great puncher and put him against a great boxer you usually get Dempsey-Tunney.. Some guys can box AND punch.. There weren't any great Heavyweights from that era who could do both. Anthony Joshua has great power, plus a real good jab he pinks you with and the best right hand counter of any Heavyweight I've seen so far. He showed good patience against Dominic Breazeale who's a big, tall, strong, hard punching swinger who pushes his jab and is very unskilled.. He's 17-1 and in his 5th year as a professional boxer. He still can't box a lick. He needs to get a clue and switch trainers.

Now they're matching Breazeale with another guy who can jab when he still can't box.. Breazeale has tons of athletic talent, but if you've got stupid managers and matchmakers on your team you'll never climb the hill.. You'll never do it by yourself.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I mean, honestly, why would anyone use arbitrary statistics in a debate like that? I guess it looks good for you. Top 10 opponents? You're obviously digging. Was Don Cockell one of them? I wouldn't know, but he couldn't hit top 20 in either of Foreman's eras. You list HOF, but don't mention Joe Louis by name. Why? If those numbers matter you should be saying that Marciano decimated one of the two best Heavyweights of all time. Silly poo, I would hope anyone could admit that both of Foreman's eras were far superior to Rocky's. Could you imagine Old George versus Old Archie? Ugly

Arbitrary statistics? Like rating "good" losses instead of "bad" ones? How about mentioning Norton, Frazier, and Moorer and forgetting to mention Jimmy Young, Shannon, or Tommy? How about close wins (if you can call them that) over Schulz and Stewart. I'm talking achievements and at the end of the day the ultimate achievement is to dominate. You can only dominate when you exist. Both Foreman's eras were superior to Rocky's yes. And Foreman did not come close to dominating either.

I don't consider young or Morrison to be good losses. He was robbed again at Briggs and clearly lost to Stewart & Schulz. Did you want me to go down every fight one by one? As for rocky, yes, he dominated one of the worst heavyweight eras in history. Though he did get dominated by Walcott for 12 rounds. Didn't he?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

The evidence doesn't really point to Foreman's era being stronger though. Floyd Patterson was able to beat a prime Oscar Bonavena and many people felt he was robbed against Jimmy Ellis and Floyd was a 50s heavyweight

[punchoutsb]

I mean, honestly, why would anyone use arbitrary statistics in a debate like that? I guess it looks good for you. Top 10 opponents? You're obviously digging. Was Don Cockell one of them? I wouldn't know, but he couldn't hit top 20 in either of Foreman's eras. You list HOF, but don't mention Joe Louis by name. Why? If those numbers matter you should be saying that Marciano decimated one of the two best Heavyweights of all time. Silly poo, I would hope anyone could admit that both of Foreman's eras were far superior to Rocky's. Could you imagine Old George versus Old Archie? Ugly

Arbitrary statistics? Like rating "good" losses instead of "bad" ones? How about mentioning Norton, Frazier, and Moorer and forgetting to mention Jimmy Young, Shannon, or Tommy? How about close wins (if you can call them that) over Schulz and Stewart. I'm talking achievements and at the end of the day the ultimate achievement is to dominate. You can only dominate when you exist. Both Foreman's eras were superior to Rocky's yes. And Foreman did not come close to dominating either.

I don't consider young or Morrison to be good losses. He was robbed again at Briggs and clearly lost to Stewart & Schulz. Did you want me to go down every fight one by one? As for rocky, yes, he dominated one of the worst heavyweight eras in history. Though he did get dominated by Walcott for 12 rounds. Didn't he?

No, you don't need to go down every fight one by one, but just try not to skip the ones that kick the crutches out of your argument.

And no, Walcott didn't dominate Rocky for 12 rounds. He was winning the fight but as both the cards show and the fight itself if you watch it, Rocky was still very much in it...then the 13th came and the previous 12 were a moot point.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I've seen it, rocky was way behind. Doesn't matter, he pulled it out but it certainly doesn't coincide with your statement that he dominated everyone. George was considered the most dominant force in history. Then he ran into Ali. Marciano never faced anything remotely close to that level. I didn't skip over George's losses, young can be held against him. His second career was just icing on the cake. I wouldn't hold losses against any 40 year old fighter.

[punchoutsb]

I've seen it, rocky was way behind. Doesn't matter, he pulled it out but it certainly doesn't coincide with your statement that he dominated everyone. George was considered the most dominant force in history. Then he ran into Ali. Marciano never faced anything remotely close to that level. I didn't skip over George's losses, young can be held against him. His second career was just icing on the cake. I wouldn't hold losses against any 40 year old fighter.

He was behind by three to four rounds and won the fight, which perfectly coincides with my statement that he dominated his era...which is what I actually said.

Being "considered" a dominant force is one thing, actually being one is another. I still remember sports writers telling me how Duncan Dokiwari was going to be a great longtime champion.

[Tony1244]

These arguments go on forever.

GF looked Fantastic against Frazier 1 & 2 and against Norton.

Last night, due to this thread, I watched the Lyle fight and he looked horrendous against Lyle and Young. I mean really bad.

That's right. Foreman tried to box Young and lacked the skills for it.. He had nobody to teach him at the time.. Lyle and Foreman tried to smash each other because neither had skills.. If they could box a little bit it would have been more like Ibeabuchi-Tua instead of looking like two 4-round fighters... The 2nd edition of Foreman learned how to box and pace himself well which was really amazing -- but he lost 10 years and was too slow by that time.. He could have been a good boxer if he kept going after the Young fight... and he also lost 2 years after the Ali fight.. Losing was devastating to him.. It takes many young guys a long time to realize that losing a fight isn't the end of the world.

But anytime you take a great puncher and put him against a great boxer you usually get Dempsey-Tunney.. Some guys can box AND punch.. There weren't any great Heavyweights from that era who could do both. Anthony Joshua has great power, plus a real good jab he pinks you with and the best right hand counter of any Heavyweight I've seen so far. He showed good patience against Dominic Breazeale who's a big, tall, strong, hard punching swinger who pushes his jab and is very unskilled.. He's 17-1 and in his 5th year as a professional boxer. He still can't box a lick. He needs to get a clue and switch trainers.



Now they're matching Breazeale with another guy who can jab when he still can't box.. Breazeale has tons of athletic talent, but if you've got stupid managers and matchmakers on your team you'll never climb the hill.. You'll never do it by yourself.

You do make an interesting point with "who can jab when he still can't box". Reading your post I kept thinking wait a minute Foreman had one hell of a jab, but that is a bit different than being a good boxer. GF forgot to jab in the Young fight after the first few rounds. You didn't think Gil Clancy was a good trainer? He had a good reputation.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I've seen it, rocky was way behind. Doesn't matter, he pulled it out but it certainly doesn't coincide with your statement that he dominated everyone. George was considered the most dominant force in history. Then he ran into Ali. Marciano never faced anything remotely close to that level. I didn't skip over George's losses, young can be held against him. His second career was just icing on the cake. I wouldn't hold losses against any 40 year old fighter.

He was behind by three to four rounds and won the fight, which perfectly coincides with my statement that he dominated his era...which is what I actually said.

Being "considered" a dominant force is one thing, actually being one is another. I still remember sports writers telling me how Duncan Dokiwari was going to be a great longtime champion.

Hindsight is required in evaluating a career. Again, I don't find Rocky over George particularly egregious. I have George 5 and Rocky 9. Just the whole more HOF and top 10 wins is extremely silly when you factor in where the HOF fighters were in their career and whom the top 10 fighters were.

Everyone has their own methodology in rating fighters, teams, players, etc.. It just needs to be consistent. I don't rate titles in the vicinity of opposition, not just with Rocky, but with anyone. I might rate Froch over Calzaghe at super middle. I wouldn't pick him to beat him, but that would only factor in for me if it's a coin flip.

If being the best of your era is what is most important to you, that's fine. You're just going to have a hard time being consistent unless you rate Wlad over Tyson, Lewis or Holyfield, Foreman & frazier.

[punchoutsb]

I've seen it, rocky was way behind. Doesn't matter, he pulled it out but it certainly doesn't coincide with your statement that he dominated everyone. George was considered the most dominant force in history. Then he ran into Ali. Marciano never faced anything remotely close to that level. I didn't skip over George's losses, young can be held against him. His second career was just icing on the cake. I wouldn't hold losses against any 40 year old fighter.

He was behind by three to four rounds and won the fight, which perfectly coincides with my statement that he dominated his era...which is what I actually said.

Being "considered" a dominant force is one thing, actually being one is another. I still remember sports writers telling me how Duncan Dokiwari was going to be a great longtime champion.

Hindsight is required in evaluating a career. Again, I don't find Rocky over George particularly egregious. I have George 5 and Rocky 9. Just the whole more HOF and top 10 wins is extremely silly when you factor in where the HOF fighters were in their career and whom the top 10 fighters were.

Everyone has their own methodology in rating fighters, teams, players, etc.. It just needs to be consistent. I don't rate titles in the vicinity of opposition, not just with Rocky, but with anyone. I might rate Froch over Calzaghe at super middle. I wouldn't pick him to beat him, but that would only factor in for me if it's a coin flip.

If being the best of your era is what is most important to you, that's fine. You're just going to have a hard time being consistent unless you rate Wlad over Tyson, Lewis or Holyfield, Foreman & frazier.

The only reason I even brought up HOF is because most fans crap all over GOOD fighters like Roland La Starza, Rex Layne, and even guys like Savold and Beeshore. Some people live and die by how many HOF'ers are on your resume. Despite being in a "weak" era, Rocky still had four. I rate both wins over La Starza as better than his win over Louis...though Louis being on deaths door only came up years later when downplaying Rocky became the in-thing to do. He was on a good win streak against pretty good opposition.

[Cojimar 1946]

I think Floyd still being highly ranked into the 70s is a pretty strong indication the era was not as strong as people think. If people have arguments to the contrary I would love to hear them. I mean, if you have evidence that Ellis, Quarry, and Bonavena were sick, injured, or paid to lose I am happy to hear it.

[Cojimar 1946]

Moreover Bob Satterfield was from Marciano's era and he knocked out Cleveland Williams

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I think Floyd still being highly ranked into the 70s is a pretty strong indication the era was not as strong as people think. If people have arguments to the contrary I would love to hear them. I mean, if you have evidence that Ellis, Quarry, and Bonavena were sick, injured, or paid to lose I am happy to hear it.

Pretty simple argument, if Floyd is Rocky's era how did he clean out the division without fighting him?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

He was behind by three to four rounds and won the fight, which perfectly coincides with my statement that he dominated his era...which is what I actually said.

Being "considered" a dominant force is one thing, actually being one is another. I still remember sports writers telling me how Duncan Dokiwari was going to be a great longtime champion.

Hindsight is required in evaluating a career. Again, I don't find Rocky over George particularly egregious. I have George 5 and Rocky 9. Just the whole more HOF and top 10 wins is extremely silly when you factor in where the HOF fighters were in their career and whom the top 10 fighters were.

Everyone has their own methodology in rating fighters, teams, players, etc.. It just needs to be consistent. I don't rate titles in the vicinity of opposition, not just with Rocky, but with anyone. I might rate Froch over Calzaghe at super middle. I wouldn't pick him to beat him, but that would only factor in for me if it's a coin flip.

If being the best of your era is what is most important to you, that's fine. You're just going to have a hard time being consistent unless you rate Wlad over Tyson, Lewis or Holyfield, Foreman & frazier.

The only reason I even brought up HOF is because most fans crap all over GOOD fighters like Roland La Starza, Rex Layne, and even guys like Savold and Beeshore. Some people live and die by how many HOF'ers are on your resume. Despite being in a "weak" era, Rocky still had four. I rate both wins over La Starza as better than his win over Louis...though Louis being on deaths door only came up years later when downplaying Rocky became the in-thing to do. He was on a good win streak against pretty good opposition.

Fair enough, that's not me and I figured you'd know that with how quickly I mentioned lastarza. I'd rate his pretitle win over Roland as his second best.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Moreover Bob Satterfield was from Marciano's era and he knocked out Cleveland Williams

[Cojimar 1946]

Cleveland Williams beat Terrell who beat Chuvalo. Do we not count Foreman's win over Chuvalo?

[Cojimar 1946]

No heavyweight has ever managed to fight absolutely everyone worth fighting-even Ali missed out on Henry Clark, Larry Middleton and a few others. But Marciano seems to have done a better job than many.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Cleveland Williams beat Terrell who beat Chuvalo. Do we not count Foreman's win over Chuvalo?

We don't count Cleveland Williams as part of the 70's heavyweights. He was literally shot when he fought Ali. Leave this to people that actually watch fights. Lmao at citing Floyd's fights in the 70's as a reason he rates in Marciano's era. Are you 5 yrs old?

[Cojimar 1946]

Floyd was ranked in the 50s and held the title. He is an example of a 50s heavyweight who remained relevant into the 70s.

[Cojimar 1946]

If the 50s were such a bad heavyweight era than I simply don't see why he would be so successful against guys like Bonavena and Quarry. It seems to undermine your argument.

[Cojimar 1946]

I would really appreciate a breakdown as to why people feel the 50s were a bad era as far as heavyweights go. These things are of course subjective but maybe someone can shed some light as to why they feel it was not a strong era.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I would really appreciate a breakdown as to why people feel the 50s were a bad era as far as heavyweights go. These things are of course subjective but maybe someone can shed some light as to why they feel it was not a strong era.

[Cojimar 1946]

Are the fighters lacking in skills? If so, what flaws do you see?