BoxRec

To Kalan:

Cerdan and LaMotta were smart sluggers. It's a pound for pound discussion. As in if Cerdan and LaMotta were heavyweights or George was middleweight, etc. And, yes, Cerdan had the brains, toughness, and rope-a-dope to beat George. Add in, Cerdan had a punch that carried into the late rounds.

To Saadoffthedeck:

He did struggle a little with Cooney until Gerry started with the low blows. Then, it was out of reach. Holmes got the better of it, but--in the rounds towards the middle of the fight--Holmes was taking good shots and Cooney was winning rounds. It wasn't a Holmes VS Frank by no means.

To be honest, It doesn't even matter. George was by far an even better fighter than Cooney. Better at cutting the ring off, faster, and more relentless with punching. As much as Holmes got hit and as good as Foreman's chin was to Holmes' punching--within 4 rounds--Holmes was through!

aajayunlimited wrote:To Saadoffthedeck:

He did struggle a little with Cooney until Gerry started with the low blows. Then, it was out of reach. Holmes got the better of it, but--in the rounds towards the middle of the fight--Holmes was taking good shots and Cooney was winning rounds. It wasn't a Holmes VS Frank by no means.

To be honest, It doesn't even matter. George was by far an even better fighter than Cooney. Better at cutting the ring off, faster, and more relentless with punching. As much as Holmes got hit and as good as Foreman's chin was to Holmes' punching--within 4 rounds--Holmes was through!

He won 2 or 3 rounds. There was never a second where he had a chance to win. Holmes struggled with Carl Williams, he schooled Gerry. I'd take Larry over George.

To SaadOfftheDeck:

What about all the punches Holmes took in his career? Furthermore, George was a power punching machine that could cut the ring off, so you'd better be able to defend head and body together until he got tired. Dancing--unless you were as good as the prime Ali--wasn't good enough. You had to have a way to stop INCOMING punches up and down. I know Holmes had a better punch than Ali, but what about George's chin? You're overrating Holmes and underrating George. Holmes doesn't even have a puncher's chance; he wouldn't make it until George tired so that he could use it. I'll explain.

Holmes was a boxer with a punch rather than a counterpuncher that could attack between George's swings. A boxer needs to be able to do what Ali did(defend a storm of punching), because GF would be on the inside--making Larry's straight punches shorter and less effective. He couldn't get full extention on that big right! STILL, EVEN THOUGH HOLMES COULDN'T EXTEND HIS STRAIGHT PUNCHES FOR MAX EFFECT EARLY, HE COULD STILL WIN BY KO(IF AND ONLY IF HE COULD DEFEND WHAT GEORGE DID FOR AWHILE). COULD HE? FROM EVIDENCE ON LARRY'S CAREER: NO! IF HE, AS A BOXER, COULD NOT, GEORGE CATCHES HOLMES WITH SOME OF THOSE BOMBS AND--BY ROUND 5--HOLMES IS DONE! ALSO, With Ali, George's punches were missing or defended and that tires a fighter more quickly. With Holmes, he wouldn't tire as quickly and would probably be able to go another couple of rounds at full power, at least. SO, GF MIGHT BE ABLE TO GO 6 AT FULL POWER WITH HOLMES, BECAUSE HE'D BE LANDING OFTEN.

For a counterpuncher, the formula's a little different. A counterpuncher fighting GF would need to--in between Foreman's swings--give him a powerful enough JOLT to register with George from an angle or a twisting around punch. If they can gain George's respect, then they don't have to wait as a boxer would. Nobody could fully extend straight punches on George too often early. They could, however, counterpunch from angles or around to deliver them at any time(Lyle in Rd 4 or Ali in Rd 5). How could Holmes outlast George when he is a boxer(NOT A CP) that has no defense?!

aajayunlimited wrote:Comment 2: I don't think any boxer with a punch beats George. As a rebuttal to that, I think any boxer that had very good defense upstairs and downstairs would beat George, because they'd outbox him. I don't think Larry Holmes beats him, because Holmes would be hit to the head or body often and Holmes did not move his head. George loved targets. George did not have the chin flaws that Shavers had either! Think of how Holmes struggled with Cooney. Well, George is only an inch or 2 shorter than Cooney(and still taller than Holmes), faster, and a flood of punches! With Lewis, Lewis could win or Foreman could win. I make Foreman the favorite, because of Lewis' chin, George's style, Lewis' defenseless trainer(Stewart), and George had 4 rounds to put him away. Lewis could win by cuts or KO(but he used 1 or 2 shots/was not nearly as active and GF used many). Yes, Lewis could win by cuts or KO, but--since George would close the gap immediately--he had 4 rounds to do it. Again, a jab or few punches hitting a great chin versus many punches hitting a weak chin!

Just insane... Young lost 3 of his next 4 fights after beating the sloppy swinging Foreman. Young also lost to cruiserweight Ossie Ocasio who only had 11 fights.. Holmes moved his head much better than Ali or Young as he proved by beating Ray Mercer when he was 42... Foreman couldn't move his head at all ... and couldn't out-box pathetic Tommy Morrison who Ray Mercer beat unconscious in 5 rounds by drilling the guy who would beat Foreman.

Young was a matchup problem for Foreman, because he was a counterpuncher that proved he could hurt George. Lyle could do the same even more effectively. It's not proven, but I think Louis would do the same(best counterpuncher of all time that didn't lose to wild fighters). Many fighters have matchup problems that would be tough at any stage of their career or for a period of a fighter's career.

To my understanding, Young was affected by judges saying he lost when he thought he had beaten the big names. This can take a fighter from very good or better to bad in a heartbeat(heart is gone). I can beat a lot of different fighters. Still, I think he loses to crouchers regardless of where he is in his career, because they lose by KO/TKO or a decision due to being outworked.

Foreman lost to Morrison as an old man(post prime). How does that have any relevance to any discussion? If anything, losing only 3 fights as an old man says something positive about your career.

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT:

George beats any croucher that doesn't have a defensive gameplan that can block head and body punching(unless they had the techinique for getting big enough counterpunches in consistently). We know that that fighter has to be more powerful--at the very least--than Frazier(counterpuched to land the left hook and body shots). And they wouldn't have very long to be effective, because crouchers bent down into the uppercuts. To give you some idea, Ali rolled into(instead of away from, as he usually does) a powerful shot of Norton's in the 2nd round of the 1st fight. That punch is a great candidate for the punch that broke Ali's jaw, because these shots seem to be double or triple impact punches. When GF hits a croucher flush, he'd have the same effect as Norton did with Ali(doubling or tripling the effect of his already impressive punching power). So, George beats almost every croucher in 2-3 rounds. He dominates crouchers.

George beats any boxer that could not tire him out! Only Ali showed that he was defensively able to do this. Tunney would try to move, but George was too long and cut off the ring too well for that to be the gameplan alone. Tunney would need a gameplan in the trenches to stop Foreman's punches or it was curtains. Holmes took too many punches and he wouldn't be able to fully extend his right. You don't take George's blows for too long no matter what kind of chin or body you have. Lewis is interesting, because he was longer than George and had power enough to KO him. He could also cut him quickly. I don't like Lewis against GF, because of Lennox's own chin; Stewart's lack of defense; and he'd have to continually to hit George to discourage him from coming in. I think that George would get in within a round and--once he did--Lewis would be in trouble, getting hit just like Holmes. I do think Lewis has the best shot, but George would outwork him(Lennox threw few punches that were not jabs) and stop him.

So, George is successful against both most boxers and most crouchers. Then, against punchers, period. Not many punchers could take both what George had and overcome his punches. And finding a defensive puncher must be 1 in a 1000 type proposition. Cerdan is definitely one and LaMotta is smart enough to be. So, George dominates them, too!

His problem comes with counterpunches that weren't afraid of being knocked out, but that could continally gain his respect. Few fighters still meet that criteria. Lyle, Young, Louis, Walcott are the only ones that come to mind to possibly have a chance to beat George more than he did them. Traditional counterpunchers could not gain GF's respect and would be hit to the head or body until it was over.

So, as you can see, few fighters have a chance to beat George more than he does them. Out of those few, only maybe 3 of those could or would beat more fighters. This would make him better than these rest of these fighters. Then, look at his record: 76 - 5--losing 2 in his prime and only 3 as an old man! WHAT I'VE SAID TO YOU HAS TO CONSTITUTE A TOP 10 FIGHTER! SO WHAT IF GEORGE DOESN'T HAVE STAMINA WHO COULD HE BEAT?! ANY BOXER BUT ALI: CHECK! ANY CROUCHER THAT HAS EVER FOUGHT: CHECK! ANY PUNCHER THAT HAS EVER FOUGHT: CHECK! MOST OF THE COUNTERPUNCHERS THAT HAS EVER FOUGHT: CHECK! People need to stop looking pessamistically at George and look optimistically him!

You're quite mad.

Kalan wrote:

aajayunlimited wrote:George deserves to be highly rated: 76 - 5 and not dodging anybody. Who did he lose to? Ali(everyone Ali had fought up until then he had beaten--whether through fight or rematch; not to mention, he was the greatest fighter of all time) and Young(counterpunchers and boxers are similiar, except counterpunchers either look to make snapshots of what little they do or land huge shots when a fighter is out of position: the latter is what happened to George both versus Lyle and Young) were the only 2 to beat him in his prime. And he only lost 3 as an old man. One was to Holyfield--rumored to sign for peds under the name Evan Fields. It even seemed that he had Tyson scared to death and he was an old man! He may have been
Kalen, your crazy! Chris Byrd had nice skill at his height but how you gonna rate Chris next to George Foreman other that to say he is very comprable rated beside Jimmy Young?
wild, not having much stamina, but he was a great puncher, cut off the ring as well as any, and--if you had defensive flaws upstairs or downstairs and were not Ali or a counterpuncher who could hurt him--you were going to lose! George is not overrated: I believe that he could beat anyone in boxing history that wasn't Ali or a counterpuncher(Lyle and Louis are prototypes, but Young proved to be able to do it, too) or Cerdan was--as far as I know--the orchestrator of the rope-a-dope(too smart for George). Other than that, I feel like George COULD beat any fighter in history! I don't think just any counterpuncher could beat GF--only the ones that could time you with huge shots typically or as he was out-of-position. For instance, I don't see Mayweather, Marquez, or Benitez beating George. If you say that he COULD AND PROBABLY beats every other fighter in history other than Ali, Cerdan, and a few counterpunchers, then that constitutes a great fighter!

So Cerdan beats Foreman eh? ... You're in Zu Zu Land with BuzzBox with that dumb comment.

Good boxers like Jack Johnson, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis, Larry Holmes, Lennox Lewis, the K Bros, maybe Chris Byrd, and Anthony Joshua all out-box Foreman and the big hitters who could box would stop him.. Is Foreman in the Top-10??? I don't think so because the 1950's version of Sonny Liston could also jab pretty good -- so I think there were enough really good boxers in History so he wouldn'

Kalan, your crazy! How will you ever rate Chris Byrd beside George Foreman -though, he was good- other than the fact that Chris and Jimmy Young are very comparable side by side. You are missing a bolt on this one.

Ezzard wrote: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.

If you would of lived thru his era the Joe Frazier and Ken Norton time you'd see things different. Foreman did something unique that second coming but, the first, had the entire world eyes on him.

Joe Speck wrote: Good boxers like Jack Johnson, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis, Larry Holmes, Lennox Lewis, the K Bros, maybe Chris Byrd, and Anthony Joshua all out-box Foreman and the big hitters who could box would stop him.. Is Foreman in the Top-10??? I don't think so because the 1950's version of Sonny Liston could also jab pretty good -- so I think there were enough really good boxers in History so he wouldn'

Kalan, your crazy! How will you ever rate Chris Byrd beside George Foreman -though, he was good- other than the fact that Chris and Jimmy Young are very comparable side by side. You are missing a bolt on this one.

Chris Byrd beat David Tua who was a big puncher.. He was very crafty at not getting hit.. He's the weakest candidate I presented along with Jack Johnson, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis, Larry Holmes, Lennox Lewis, and the K Bros.. That's why I said "maybe" Chris Byrd could beat Foreman.. Eddie Chambers beat Sam Peter and outboxed huge 6'7" X 253 Alexander Dimitrenko at his best -- Dimitrenko was 29-0 at the time -- by boxing like Young boxed against Foreman.

He's another possible at his best... Boxers tend to beat punchers.

Actually the first paragraph in the above quote is mine... The next paragraph is Speck's

The 70s top 10 might be something like follows
(1)Ali
(2)Holmes
(3)Frazier
(4)Foreman
(5)Young
(6)Norton
(7)Jimmy Ellis
(8)Floyd Patterson
(9)Jerry Quarry
(10)Mike Weaver

That is ballpark.
I would switch Young and Norton. Would also switch Patterson and Quarry. Holmes, Frazier and Foreman are all pretty close from #2-#4; where you have them is arguable. Overall you have the right guys except for Weaver. Lyle and Shavers were better. Otherwise that is pretty close.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:The 70s top 10 might be something like follows
(1)Ali
(2)Holmes
(3)Frazier
(4)Foreman
(5)Young
(6)Norton
(7)Jimmy Ellis
(8)Floyd Patterson
(9)Jerry Quarry
(10)Mike Weaver

Not a bad list but I would rank them a lot differently...

1. Holmes would rank at the top because he beat Shavers and Norton, won the title, never lost a fight in the decade, and all the others lost repeatedly

2. Foreman got out-boxed twice when he wasn't in shape -- but he ranks 2nd because his wins were so amazing, devastating, and convincing. All the rest but Holmes had questionable wins as well as losses where they got hammered, pounded, and trashed. Foreman was in unbeatable condition for Frazier 1

3. Ali had a great decade, but lost to Frazier, and suffered losses to massive underdogs Norton and Spinks where he looked really bad

4. Frazier would rank next. He lost the trilogy to Ali and was wiped out twice by Foreman in ridiculously pathetic performances

5. Norton would rank next. He blew the trilogy with Ali and looked like an inept amateur versus Foreman, Shavers, and LeDoux

6. Young did a great job outboxing Foreman and Lyle, but looked terrible in losing to Norton, Ali, Ocasio, Dokes, and losing 9 fights in the decade

7. Quarry suffered 4 losses in the decade, but scored impressive wins over Ron Lyle, Ernie Shavers, and Mac Foster

It wasn't a great decade for Weaver, Ellis, or Patterson so I can't rank them... They had their best decades earlier or later... So I might put Ron Lyle 8th, Earnie Shavers 9th, and possibly Joe Bugner at 10th.

The late 70s/80s are the first era in which we see the beginning of the massive size explosion we see today. You still did not have any guys in the top 10 bigger than the biggest top rated heavyweights of earlier eras but I think the average size of top contenders was now greater than ever in the past which might indicate we are seeing more big men with skills. Some people have dismissed the dominance of big men today due to the division being in a bad state but it's worth noting that the beginnings of such a trend can be seen as far back as the late 70s/80s

It's just like the NBA... There's much bigger, taller, and better athletes today because the world population is 3 X what it was in the 1950's...

And countries that never had professional Boxing before 1990 are producing many of the top Heavyweights 27 years later... The UK has totally revamped it's amateur boxing programs and we're seeing many more Heavyweights -- and boxers from every division -- from them than at any time in the past.

Yep in todays NBA Wilt would be lucky to survive.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:The late 70s/80s are the first era in which we see the beginning of the massive size explosion we see today. You still did not have any guys in the top 10 bigger than the biggest top rated heavyweights of earlier eras but I think the average size of top contenders was now greater than ever in the past which might indicate we are seeing more big men with skills. Some people have dismissed the dominance of big men today due to the division being in a bad state but it's worth noting that the beginnings of such a trend can be seen as far back as the late 70s/80s

The fighters listed from the 1970s were not much bigger (at least in terms of weight) than previous decades.
In the 1980s you started seeing more in the 220s and 230s. Though Holmes was still the best until he got too old.
Many were heavier than Wilder, who has been outweighed in his last 15 fights. He won them all.

Once you get too heavy, the weight stops being an advantage. We have seen this over and over and over.

BoxBuzz wrote:Yep in todays NBA Wilt would be lucky to survive.

Wilt would dominate today like he always did... Chamberlain was an athlete way ahead of his time... A HOFer in 2 sports. He tried to make it 3 ----https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF57P1uUG0s

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Cojimar 1946 wrote:The late 70s/80s are the first era in which we see the beginning of the massive size explosion we see today. You still did not have any guys in the top 10 bigger than the biggest top rated heavyweights of earlier eras but I think the average size of top contenders was now greater than ever in the past which might indicate we are seeing more big men with skills. Some people have dismissed the dominance of big men today due to the division being in a bad state but it's worth noting that the beginnings of such a trend can be seen as far back as the late 70s/80s

The fighters listed from the 1970s were not much bigger (at least in terms of weight) than previous decades.
In the 1980s you started seeing more in the 220s and 230s. Though Holmes was still the best until he got too old.
Many were heavier than Wilder, who has been outweighed in his last 15 fights. He won them all.

Once you get too heavy, the weight stops being an advantage. We have seen this over and over and over.

We certainly saw the advantage Gerald Washington had over Deontay Wilder in size and strength... He won the first 4 rounds by clearly outscoring the smaller man... If GW had a stance, some weapons, a coach, and half of Wilder's boxing knowledge and experience he would have made it very rough for DW.

No, there is not a huge size gap between the 70s heavyweights and heavyweights of previous eras but there is still a noticeable increase in average size of champions and top contenders. Guys like Ali and Holmes were larger than virtually all heavyweight champions pre-Liston. In the 40 years prior to Ali beating Liston only one heavyweight champion (Carnera) was significantly bigger than Ali. In the 40 years after Ali-Liston there were at least 4 lineal champs over 225 pounds (Douglas, Bowe, Lewis, and Rahman).

In the 50s and earlier eras men under 200 pounds (Dempsey, Marciano, Ezzard Charles) generally were able to keep guys the size of Ali and Holmes away from the title though many of them made it into the top 10.

With the 50s and 70s heavyweights the gap in size and athleticism is small enough that the 50s heavyweights might be able to overcome it. Bit I don't think that holds true for the even bigger giants of later eras.

Size matters big time if you have the skills, strength, speed, and athleticism to go along with it -- but obviously if you have no talent you're David Price.

Anybody who thinks Sonny Liston would have had any more trouble with Marciano than George Foreman had with Frazier, needs their heads examined.