Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

[Cojimar 1946]

Marciano was floored twice in his entire career, less than Ali, Louis, Dempsey, and many others and somehow this is being held against him.

What about little Henry Cooper flooring Ali? What about Ali losing his title to Leon Spinks who had only 7 pro fights?

[Cojimar 1946]

Anyway, I would count Charles significant wins as follows-Jimmy Bivins, Elmer Ray, Joe Baksi, Joe Walcott, Joe Louis, Pat Valentino, and Rex Layne. I think those guys were all legit top 10.

[Kalan]

Marciano was floored twice in his entire career, less than Ali, Louis, Dempsey, and many others and somehow this is being held against him.

What about little Henry Cooper flooring Ali? What about Ali losing his title to Leon Spinks who had only 7 pro fights?

Spinks weighed 197 to Rocky's 184... Leon was probably too big and quick for Rocky on the night he beat Muhammad Ali... Cooper caught Ali with a perfect shot... but even at 185 he was a Heavyweight... Ali had no trouble whatever with Moore and pounded him out with perfect ease... It was day and night -- because Marciano struggled for many rounds to stop Moore while getting knocked down -- and Ali and Patterson ran over the old dude quickly.

[Kalan]

Patterson was a near-contemporary of Marciano yet achieved less in his career. If Marciano was as bad as people say its hard to understand how he was so successful. A flash knockdown against Archie Moore in a fight he won by knockout is somehow being held against him.

Patterson had twice as many world title fights as Marciano...and he was the first 2-time Heavyweight Champion... Plus Patterson fought guys like Liston, Ali, Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena, Machen, and others who it's very doubtful Marciano could have beaten, given Rocky's lack of size, speed, skills, and athleticism.

[Ambling Alp II]

Anyway, I would count Charles significant wins as follows-Jimmy Bivins, Elmer Ray, Joe Baksi, Joe Walcott, Joe Louis, Pat Valentino, and Rex Layne. I think those guys were all legit top 10.

Lets say you count all those guys as wins for Charles. He still lost to Valdes, Johnson, Layne, Walcott, Marciano. Thats 7 wins and 5 losses. That is a worse "ratio" than Foreman who was 4-2.

[Ambling Alp II]

He would not have a lot trouble hitting Marciano. However, Marciano had a very good chin and would be able to take Patterson's shots.
Patterson is not going to be able to win on points over 15 rounds. His defense was not good enough to handle Marciano's constant pressure.
Marciano had tremendous power. Patterson did not have the chin to stand up to it. It might be interesting for a while, but eventually Marcinao takes him out.

Marciano would never been hit as hard, fast or as often if Patterson was in the other corner. If 39 year old Archie can floor Marciano, the 21 year old much faster harder punching Patterson can do so for fun, the difference being he will keep doing it.

That was only one of only two knockdowns in Marciano's entire career. He got up right away.
Pete Rademacher (in his first pro fight) decked Patterson. So did Roy Harris. Quarry did twice. Johansson knocked him down several times and stopped him once. None of these guys hit as hard as Marciano or threw as many punches.

In comparison to Marciano, Patterson had a glass jaw.

[Joe Speck]

When I first started to become an obsessive fan of the sport Foreman was never in a top 10. His comeback was carefully managed...and despite a brave effort versus Holyfield and one punch against Moorer it wasn't anything special.

I like Foreman...exciting fighter with limitations... But I don't see him as a top 10 HW.

Right!

[Cojimar 1946]

Virtually all the losses you mention came after 1951, up through 1951 he was 7-2

[SaadOffTheDeck]

So you want the whole 70's decade counted but only 1 year for ezz in the 50's? You're a contradiction machine.

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't see what Charles prime has to do with the 70s, I am arguing that as an era the 50s match the 70s but I don't see what that has to do with Charles per se.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You're enlightened.

[Kalan]

I don't see what Charles prime has to do with the 70s, I am arguing that as an era the 50s match the 70s but I don't see what that has to do with Charles per se.

WTF??? ... How could the '50s match the 70's??? Take the top 5 Heavyweight Champions of the 70's: Frazier, Foreman, Ali, Holmes, and Norton -- Match them against the top 5 Heavyweight Champions of the 50's: Charles, Walcott, Marciano, Patterson, and Johansson -- and the 50's champs get obliterated.

Joe Frazier would run over Charles like he did Bob Foster---who weighed 188, but the skinny kid gave up 21 pounds to Smokin' Joe ... Foreman would smash Marciano like he did Frazier---only faster because he was much smaller... Ken Norton would beat up Floyd Patterson like he did Lil Jerry Quarry, very easily... Larry Holmes would box the piss out of Johansson. It would be a joke... Ali would drill the 18 times beaten Walcott like shooting fish in a barrel

It could be argued that the 1950's had the weakest champs in the History of the Heavyweight Division. Now if Liston got a title shot that wouldn't be true.

[Cojimar 1946]

Frazier is counted as a 70s heavyweight even though he has few good wins after 1971, how is that different from Charles?

[Cojimar 1946]

both Frazier and Ali seem to have peaked in the 60s but people like to count them as 70s heavyweights (maybe because the decade looks a lot worse without them)

[Joe Speck]

H uh

Let's say that the great George Foreman would've never made a comeback and stayed retired since 1977. Where would we put him in the all time heavyweight rankings? In 1987, at the time of his comeback.
Let's see:
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Larry Holmes
7. Joe Frazier
8. Mike Tyson
9. Peter Jackson
10. Sonny Liston
11. John L. Sullivan
12. Ezzard Charles
13. James J. Jeffries
14. George Foreman

Is that the right ranking for Big George by 1987, in the time of his comeback?

#14 is absurd.

I have him #3 and I ignore his second career. Granted there are several guys who are close whom you could argue for #3.
He was clearly better than Liston, Jeffries and Tyson. Rating Jackson, Sullivan and Charles ahead of him is unbelievable.

Well, let's examine Big George's career before the comeback.

vs Sonny Liston: Many people dismiss Sonny because: One, he quit in first fight against Cassius Clay. Two, he didn't help himself in the rematch. That's OK. I could understand people's thinking. What we can't dismiss that before the Clay fiasco, Liston CLEANED UP THE WEIGHT CLASS OUTRIGHT. He beat all the top contenders before the crown...Something that Big George didn't do. As a matter of fact, he cleaned up the class way before his title match with Floyd Patterson. He was ducked for years for the heavyweight crown. At least for 3 years. Foreman beat the great Joe Frazier. Great win. Frazier was undefeated. He was 29. Still prime, right? Well, not so primmy. He looked bad against Ron Stander and the other cat that I forgot his name. He looked really bad. That wasn't Smokin' Joe before FOTC. Then, he beats Ken Norton, a guy I believe beat The Greatest 3 times in my view. He destroyed him in two. And after that? ALI regains his crown. Then, he struggles with Ron Lyle. And Jimmy Young gave him a boxing lesson in San Juan. That's it for Big George. Not enough to be #3 in my estimation. At least Liston had more longevity.

vs Jim J. Jeffries: Jeffries was considered tops by Nat Fleischer. He never lost the crown. He retired undefeated champion. Short career like Foreman. But, in my estimation, he held the title longer. And he beat good quality opposition just like Foreman "seemed" to do.

vs Mike Tyson: By 1987, Tyson, just 21 years old, cleaned up the heavyweights. He won the three titles. Held crown longer than Big George. At the time, in 1987, he was being compared with Ali and Louis as such a young age. No heavyweight was not compared with the past greats like that. By 1988, many people believed at the time that he was not just the best heavyweight champion ever, but the best fighter pound per pound ever. The people AT THE TIME, THOUGHT OF HIM LIKE THAT. Big George never had that sentiment by the people. The boxing world was around Mike Tyson. It was never around George Foreman. Tyson was the second best fighter pound per pound of the 80s decade in my estimation. Foreman? Hmmm.

vs Peter Jackson: Well, Big George could be ahead of him. Not so fast. Jackson had over 80 fights. Something unheard of from a heavyweight. He was the best fighter of the 1880s behind John L. He was a victim of circumstances. He was black. But, what he did, it was remarkable. He had a longer career than Big George. Let's check his record.

vs Ezzard Charles: Charles reign at the top was a remarkable one. He was not a heavyweight. We all know that. But being heavyweight champion, he defended it 9 times in 2 years. He could have been the first heavyweight champion to regain his crown. Unfortunately, because of some judges, (many people saw he beat the great Jersey Joe Walcott in fight #3). He gave the great Rocky Marciano fits in two memorable bouts.

vs John L. Sullivan: He was the best of his time, pound per pound, period. He drew the color line. But, should he get penalized for that? Maybe yes. Maybe not. We don't know. What we know is that he held the heavyweight crown longer than Foreman. He was considered a great fighter by the time he retired. Could we say that about Foreman when he retired? Not. Still, John L., because of the popularity he gave the sport of boxing, is a ring legend now days. Foreman first retirement was never considered as a legendary fighter but a bafoon by many. It was the second career that Big George got the adjective of all time great heavyweight and pound per pound. Not the first career.

Yeah. All real nice intellect here but..remember now, them
People are antient creatures. They was SLOW!!!! They didn't live as long a life back then too!!!!
Remember, them people lived without electricity and no cars and not even type writer. No running water thus, they were cavemanishy. If you are cave man ishy then your SLOW!
So..with all that in mind plain simple reason tells us the facts about being modern compared to "dem days"!
Sure James J. Jeffries a truly great champion. He had to rank first of the early on cats! We all have read what he done! His comeback against Johnson, in my book adds doesn't subtract from his greatness. But, still..these cats didn't have running water! No TV diners! No microwaves. Sure, they was hard but...they were all SLOW!
Slow don't cut it in sports! (except maybe golf!)
Plus, anyone who lived thru the astonishing raise of George Foreman will tell you clearly. That man put whole world in shock more great than JFK Assasination. Even now (today) anyone stops to think twice about it..
They know it was a very unique athlete we were witnessing there! (Though, honestly..Norton was scarred! He would of done better except he froze up!)
Common sense! But..keep coming you all! LOVE & HAPPINESS Ha Ha Ha!

[Joe Speck]

And elmersasa, Foreman past the loss Yeah! You could be partially correct on that! But..Foreman at his peak is what we remember. It was a shocking rein. Very shocking. Nobody ever left the same impression thru out boxing history.
Can appreciate the time you take and all but you have definetly a distorted and unrealistic perception of George Foreman. I wouldn't take what you say as gospel!

[Joe Speck]

Terry Daniels that webb match Joe took on along side Ron.

[Ambling Alp II]

Virtually all the losses you mention came after 1951, up through 1951 he was 7-2

And Foreman was 4-1 if we don't count anything after 1976.

Do you not see the contradictions that you make?
You keep making a big deal about Ali losing to Spinks in 1978. You completely disregard that ali was way past it. But you want to discount several of Charles losses where he certainly wasn't as far past his best as Ali was when he fought Spinks.

Look we can go round and round about accomplishments for the decades. If you think about it, every decade is going to come out about even if you do that.

Every time, I can point a big win for someone in the 1970s, you can make it a negative by pointing out its a loss for the loser.
I can do that for the 1950s too.
Every win for a 1970s fighter is a loss for another 1970s fighter.
Every win for a 1950s fighter is a loss for another 1950s fighter.

Just use common sense. Watch the videos of these guys.
Rating the Top 10 for each decade like I asked but you keep ducking.
Compare #1 for the 1970s to #1 for the 1950s, #2 for the 1970s and #2 for the 1950s and so on.

It's pretty obvious that the 1970s was better.

[cfang]

When it comes to heavys the 70s and the 90s are king.

Virtually all the losses you mention came after 1951, up through 1951 he was 7-2

And Foreman was 4-1 if we don't count anything after 1976.

Do you not see the contradictions that you make?
You keep making a big deal about Ali losing to Spinks in 1978. You completely disregard that ali was way past it. But you want to discount several of Charles losses where he certainly wasn't as far past his best as Ali was when he fought Spinks.

Look we can go round and round about accomplishments for the decades. If you think about it, every decade is going to come out about even if you do that.

Every time, I can point a big win for someone in the 1970s, you can make it a negative by pointing out its a loss for the loser.
I can do that for the 1950s too.
Every win for a 1970s fighter is a loss for another 1970s fighter.
Every win for a 1950s fighter is a loss for another 1950s fighter.

Just use common sense. Watch the videos of these guys.
Rating the Top 10 for each decade like I asked but you keep ducking.
Compare #1 for the 1970s to #1 for the 1950s, #2 for the 1970s and #2 for the 1950s and so on.

It's pretty obvious that the 1970s was better.

[Cojimar 1946]

Well, the 70s top 3 are probably Ali, Frazier, and Holmes while the 50s top 3 are Ezzard Charles, Marciano, and Sonny Liston. I think its probable that Marciano beats Frazier and Liston beats Holmes though Ali would probably be favored to beat Charles.

[Cojimar 1946]

The top 3 by decade might be as follows
40s-Louis, Charles, Walcott
50s-Marciano, Charles, Liston
60s-Ali, Liston, Frazier
70s-Ali, Holmes, Frazier
80s-Holmes, Holyfield, Tyson
90s-Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson
2000s-Lewis, K1, K2
2010s-K1,K2, Anthony Joshua?

[Ambling Alp II]

You made a top 3, but just can't do a top 10?
I and many people would Foreman instead of Frazier, but that shows you how much depth the 1970s had. I wouldn't bet on Marciano beating Frazier, or Liston beating Holmes; but that is arguable. Ali would almost for sure beat Charles. (You could just as easily have Walcott or Patterson instead of Charles)
Foreman destroys anyone else from the 1950s.

I would pick Bowe for the 1990s but otherwise am in general agreement with who you have.

[Ambling Alp II]

You made a top 3, but just can't do a top 10?
I and many people would Foreman instead of Frazier, but that shows you how much depth the 1970s had. I wouldn't bet on Marciano beating Frazier, or Liston beating Holmes; but that is arguable. Ali would almost for sure beat Charles. (You could just as easily have Walcott or Patterson instead of Charles)
Foreman destroys anyone else from the 1950s.

I would pick Bowe for the 1990s but otherwise am in general agreement with who you have.

[Taichi]

Foreman was easily hit and throw far to many hooks, that being said Ali took a lot of hits as well.

[Cojimar 1946]

I feel that Foreman could really struggle with slick boxers. He would generally be favored over 50s heavyweights who were not exceptionally durable and/or good defensively but someone like Machen might beat him.