BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: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

Tony1244 wrote: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.

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: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 wrote: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

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: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 wrote: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.

Kalan wrote:

Tony1244 wrote: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.

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: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.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: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.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: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.

punchoutsb wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

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

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Cleveland Williams beat Terrell who beat Chuvalo. Do we not count Foreman's win over Chuvalo?

Cojimar 1946 wrote: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.