Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

[Cojimar 1946]

Also, I am yet to hear a breakdown as to specific attributes where the 70s are superior. Do they have better footwork? more head movement? faster hands? better workrate? etc.

I have seen a number of fights from the 70s, what skills am I missing that are absent in the 50s?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I think the successes of Patterson and Eddie Machen are pretty strong evidence that the difference in quality between the eras is at the very least overstated. Like I said, Quarry was able to beat Shavers and Lyle. These are impressive wins, Shavers ko'd Norton not long after he gave Holmes a great fight. Ali of course was better than these guys-but the 50s also had guys better than Patterson like Liston and Marciano.

Lol, if Liston and Patterson were part of Rocky's era. How did he clean it out? You're epicly stupid.

[Cojimar 1946]

No heavyweight has ever fully cleaned out his era-not even Ali
Lennox Lewis failed to fight Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, Corrie Sanders, Chris Byrd, Ike Ibeabuchi, Jameel McCline, John Ruiz, Wladimir Klitschko, and Tim Witherspoon
Holyfield failed to face Tony Tubbs, Tony Tucker, Tim Witherspoon, Razor Ruddock, Frank Bruno, Oliver McCall, Corrie Sanders, Henry Akinwande, and David Tua
However, many heavyweights including Marciano did a MUCH better job of fighting their contemporaries than Foreman

Foreman failed to fight Jerry Quarry, Earnie Shavers, Larry Middleton, Oscar Bonavena, Joe Bugner, and Jimmy Ellis to name just a few. It's hardly comparable to Marciano who also retired undefeated despite ducking fewer of his contemporaries than Foreman.

[Cojimar 1946]

In boxing history nobody has ever managed to fight absolutely everyone but some guys come much closer than others

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Let's welcome Fergus, enlightened one, mistersaintlaurent, etc to botp.

[Cojimar 1946]

I would probably put Marciano behind Ali based on Ali's overall body of work. Ali had a great run prior to losing to Frazier.

[Kalan]

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.

1.You are talking about one guy, Patterson. He was a great fighter. One great fighter does not make an entire decade great.
2. The Quarry and Ellis fights were in the 1960s, not the 1970s.
3. He didn't beat either Quarry or Ellis, though the decisions could have gone his way.

So all you really have to criticize the 1970s is Oscar Bonavena losing. A guy who was not one of the best 10 heavyweights of the 1970s lost. That;s not exactly damming evidence. George Foreman actually won the heavyweight title in the 1990s. That is stronger evidence that the 1990s was weak (it wasn't) than Bonavena losing.

The 1950s was decent. Nowhere near the 1970s.

The 1950's. 1960's, and 1970's were very weak eras compared to the 1990's, 2000's, and 2010's

For instance -- today you have 1. Anthony Joshua... 2. Luis Ortiz... 3. Deontay Wilder... 4. Tyson Fury...5. Wladimir Klitschko... 6. Alexander Povetkin... 7. David Haye... 8. Andy Ruiz... 9. Joseph Parker... 10. Bryant Jennings... 11. Carlos Takam... 12. Hughie Fury... 13. Kubrat Pulev... 14. Johann Duhaupas... 15. Erkan Teper... 16. Bermane Stiverne... 17. Lucas Browne... 18. Malik Scott... 19. Charles Martin... 20. Mike Perez... 21. Christian Hammer... 22. Alexander Ustinov... 23. Dereck Chisora... 24. Ruslan Chagaev... 25. Robert Helenius... 26. Steve Cunningham... 27. Artur Szpilka... 28. Otto Wallin... 29. Czar Glazkov... 30. Dominic Breazeale... 31. Amir Mansour... Of course many of those guys aren't good enough to get World Title Shots.

In the 1950's.. 1960's, and 1970's you had such terrible Heavyweight Title challengers as: Don Cockell... Tom McNeely... Pete Rademacher... Roy Harris... Brian London... Henry Cooper... Karl Mildenbugger... Alfredo Evangelista... Chuck Wepner... Jean Pierre Coopman... Leon Stinks... Terry Daniels... Dave Zyglewitz... Manuel Ramos... Ron Stander... and Richard Dunn..

I can’t even believe some of those fart sacks got title shots

[Kalan]

Cruiserweight Champ Oleksandr Usyk would smash all of those 3rd raters from bygone eras.

[Cojimar 1946]

I would agree that the 1990s to 2010s are probably better in a head to head sense. But that might be partially due to advances in nutrition and training methods.

[davie]

For instance -- today you have 1. Anthony Joshua... 2. Luis Ortiz... 3. Deontay Wilder... 4. Tyson Fury...5. Wladimir Klitschko... 6. Alexander Povetkin... 7. David Haye... 8. Andy Ruiz... 9. Joseph Parker... 10. Bryant Jennings... 11. Carlos Takam... 12. Hughie Fury... 13. Kubrat Pulev... 14. Johann Duhaupas... 15. Erkan Teper... 16. Bermane Stiverne... 17. Lucas Browne... 18. Malik Scott... 19. Charles Martin... 20. Mike Perez... 21. Christian Hammer... 22. Alexander Ustinov... 23. Dereck Chisora... 24. Ruslan Chagaev... 25. Robert Helenius... 26. Steve Cunningham... 27. Artur Szpilka... 28. Otto Wallin... 29. Czar Glazkov... 30. Dominic Breazeale... 31. Amir Mansour... Of course many of those guys aren't good enough to get World Title Shots.

In the 1950's.. 1960's, and 1970's you had such terrible Heavyweight Title challengers as: Don Cockell... Tom McNeely... Pete Rademacher... Roy Harris... Brian London... Henry Cooper... Karl Mildenbugger... Alfredo Evangelista... Chuck Wepner... Jean Pierre Coopman... Leon Stinks... Terry Daniels... Dave Zyglewitz... Manuel Ramos... Ron Stander... and Richard Dunn..

Why do you keep doing this? posting the top 31 heavyweights as if it makes a point?

I really don't know where to start criticising the names in the second half of that list.
I didn't even know who Otto Wallin was. A guy who's best win is a 10 round decision over Raphael Zumbano Love, what point are you actually trying to make here?

[Ambling Alp II]

The heavyweight division has been abysmal for at least 15 years.
Ever notice that nobody brings up great heavyweights during this time period? If it was any good there would be some. There weren't because the division has been so bad.
Of course you can find fighters from any division at anytime that weren't very good. But there has not been a great heavyweight since the prime of Lennox Lewis. No one even remotely close.

The 1970s (particularly the first half of the decade) had some ATG heavyweights at the top as well as a lot of depth.
The 1990s was not that good but was still pretty good. You could make a case for it being the second best.

[punchoutsb]

The heavyweight division has been abysmal for at least 15 years.
Ever notice that nobody brings up great heavyweights during this time period? If it was any good there would be some. There weren't because the division has been so bad.
Of course you can find fighters from any division at anytime that weren't very good. But there has not been a great heavyweight since the prime of Lennox Lewis. No one even remotely close.

The 1970s (particularly the first half of the decade) had some ATG heavyweights at the top as well as a lot of depth.
The 1990s was not that good but was still pretty good. You could make a case for it being the second best.

Not one remotely close? Come on man, Wladimir Klitschko clearly has accomplished greatness. CLEARLY.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

That's the last word that comes to mind for me. If he beats joshua, I'll be forced to reconsider.

[Cojimar 1946]

Anthony Joshua and Deontay Wilder are not impressive to you? I should think they have at the least showed considerable potential.

[Ambling Alp II]

The heavyweight division has been abysmal for at least 15 years.
Ever notice that nobody brings up great heavyweights during this time period? If it was any good there would be some. There weren't because the division has been so bad.
Of course you can find fighters from any division at anytime that weren't very good. But there has not been a great heavyweight since the prime of Lennox Lewis. No one even remotely close.

The 1970s (particularly the first half of the decade) had some ATG heavyweights at the top as well as a lot of depth.
The 1990s was not that good but was still pretty good. You could make a case for it being the second best.

Not one remotely close? Come on man, Wladimir Klitschko clearly has accomplished greatness. CLEARLY.

Clearly not. I don't care about the number of his WBS title defenses. His best win was over Chris Byrd, a good but nowhere near great fighter. He got knocked out by three different fighters that were quite ordinary. He had a glass jaw and little stamina.

[punchoutsb]

The heavyweight division has been abysmal for at least 15 years.
Ever notice that nobody brings up great heavyweights during this time period? If it was any good there would be some. There weren't because the division has been so bad.
Of course you can find fighters from any division at anytime that weren't very good. But there has not been a great heavyweight since the prime of Lennox Lewis. No one even remotely close.

The 1970s (particularly the first half of the decade) had some ATG heavyweights at the top as well as a lot of depth.
The 1990s was not that good but was still pretty good. You could make a case for it being the second best.

Not one remotely close? Come on man, Wladimir Klitschko clearly has accomplished greatness. CLEARLY.

Clearly not. I don't care about the number of his WBS title defenses. His best win was over Chris Byrd, a good but nowhere near great fighter. He got knocked out by three different fighters that were quite ordinary. He had a glass jaw and little stamina.

You may not care about the number of defenses, but that doesn't diminish it's importance. He has many wins over top contenders and prospects. He was stopped (not knocked out) by three fighters, avenged two of them, and dominated a division for a decade. Downplaying his accomplishments is a joke.

[Ambling Alp II]

The division has been a joke for a long time. Yes he dominated a weak division for a long time. So would a lot of other guys form other eras if they fought during his time. Had he fought in most other eras he wouldn't even be remembered.

Thinking these are huge accomplishments is a joke.

Not sure how he "avenged" two of the losses.
He avenged the Brewster loss. so what? Doesn't change the fact that he lost to him in the first place.
Got stopped by Sanders; never rematched him.
Got stopped by Ross Purrity a tomato can. Never rematched him either.

[punchoutsb]

The division has been a joke for a long time. Yes he dominated a weak division for a long time. So would a lot of other guys form other eras if they fought during his time. Had he fought in most other eras he wouldn't even be remembered.

Thinking these are huge accomplishments is a joke.

Not sure how he "avenged" two of the losses.
He avenged the Brewster loss. so what? Doesn't change the fact that he lost to him in the first place.
Got stopped by Sanders; never rematched him.
Got stopped by Ross Purrity a tomato can. Never rematched him either.

I forgot he never fought Purrity again, a guy who survived as a young, inexperienced Wlad punched himself out.

If you don't think beating every top contender of your day and making the third most title defenses is a great achievement then I'd say you don't know the definition of the word. Also, consider this; if Wlad isn't great then why didn't he fall by the wayside like all the other title holder? Lyakhovich didn't dominate. Peter didn't dominate. Ibragimov didn't dominate. You get the picture. Wlad was a cut above everyone else and that coupled with his longevity is a great accomplishment. I'm not comparing him to Muhammad Ali, but to act like he's not great is blind.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Wlad is clearly the best of his generation. Why does that make him great?

[punchoutsb]

Wlad is clearly the best of his generation. Why does that make him great?

Because we can't cross generational gaps. Rating fighters across generations is done purely on faith in our own insight. Plenty of not-great fighters held titles over the past 10 years. Plenty of not-great fighters had certain amounts of success. Only one dominated the entire division, and to dominate a division of any calibre for as long and over as many fights as Wlad did is rare. Wlad is painfully underrated, but I had this exact same conversation years ago when Lennox Lewis was still just the gay glass-jawed Brit. Wlad will be respected more ten years from now.

[Cojimar 1946]

I still fail to see why some of these 70s heavyweights are viewed as ATG and favored over guys from other eras. Foreman lost in his prime to Jimmy Young. If Jimmy Young could beat him than why should we be confident of his chances against guys like Walcott and Ezzard Charles? Was Young better than Ezzard Charles in your view?

[Ambling Alp II]

They were better becasue we can see by watching them that they were better.
Yes Foreman lost to Young. You can do that with any era.
Charles and Walcott lost to Rex Layne who was no where near as good as Young.
Charles and Walcott had several other losses as well. Foreman's only other one (until his comeback much later) was Ali.
Young at his best was a great fighter. Foreman proved in other fights he was a great fighter.


Ali, Frazier, and Foreman are by far the best top 3 in any era. Then you have Norton, who would have been the top guy in some eras and certainly better than #4 in most. Then you had a lot of depth as well. You had Quarry, Ellis, Shavers, Lyle, Young. (There were others a notch or two below who were pretty good as well.) Yes you can nitpick their records. However, they would have been closer to the top in any other era and would have been the top guy in weak eras.

It was not as good in the late 1970s, but even then you had the emergence of Holmes.

There were a ton of great fights and great perfmances in this era. You can actually point them out. You don't have to hide behind crap like WBS title defenses or their weights to prove it. You can actually watch the fights of 1970s heavyweights and see it.

Some earlier eras were good and some weren't in the heavyweight division. (I think the 1930s is underrated). None can match the 1970s man for man.

[Ezzard]

Foreman retired and that saved him losing more. He was depressed. Lost his mind. And quit the sport. Other fighters had their problems. Schmeling too became depressed, lost a number of fights and slowly came out of it...fought his way back and had a mini-renaissance.

Charles had a bad time during the war...lost a few fights in 42-43...and fought his way back... Walcott's issues were well documented.

Foreman would have been exposed many more times had he continued with his first career. His second career was considered a joke by everyone... He got plaudits for a valiant effort in defeat to Holyfield. Earned his shot against Moorer by being out of the ring for a year and a half...and his last fight before that was a defeat! He should never have been in that ring...

Foreman was a terrific fighter. Powerful puncher but there are plenty of argument to put him behind other champions.

[Kalan]

Ali, Frazier, and Foreman are by far the best top 3 in any era.

Johnson, Jeanette, and McVea were better... Lewis, Tyson, and Holyfield were better... Joshua, Ortiz, and Wilder are better... All 9 would flatten the super hittable Frazier like a roach -- kind of in the way Foreman did it, but with more finesse.

The 80's wasn't a bad era either -- and Holmes, Witherspoon, and Page would get the best of Ali, Foreman, and Frazier respectively.. Take an 80's also-ran like Bonecrusher Smith.. An in-shape Smith took out Weaver, Spoon, and Bruno -- so he might take out Frazier as well... Frazier hated to fight big, tall, slow, powerful swingers -- who were in shape and could hit real hard -- and with one exception he stayed away from that style.

[Ambling Alp II]

Foreman retired and that saved him losing more. He was depressed. Lost his mind. And quit the sport. Other fighters had their problems. Schmeling too became depressed, lost a number of fights and slowly came out of it...fought his way back and had a mini-renaissance.

Charles had a bad time during the war...lost a few fights in 42-43...and fought his way back... Walcott's issues were well documented.

Foreman would have been exposed many more times had he continued with his first career. His second career was considered a joke by everyone... He got plaudits for a valiant effort in defeat to Holyfield. Earned his shot against Moorer by being out of the ring for a year and a half...and his last fight before that was a defeat! He should never have been in that ring...

Foreman was a terrific fighter. Powerful puncher but there are plenty of argument to put him behind other champions.

Why is that Foreman was "exposed"? How come when other fighters who lost more often and to lesser opponents were not "exposed".

Charles lost to Layne and Valdes well after 1943. Walcott lost to Layne. Schmeling lost to Hamas and badly to Baer. Can we mention Gypsy Daniels?
I agree that other champions can be put above him but not that many.
Ali and Louis of course. Maybe Johnson, Frazier, Holmes, Marciano, Dempsey, Holyfield, and Lewis. That's about it. That puts him at worst #10.