BoxRec

Ambling Alp wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Foreman beat better opponents, and beat them more easily. He lost a lot less. This is not even close.

He lost a lot less because once you get past a handfull of world class opponents everybody else on George's resume is pretty sad. Charles spent years fighting the best LHs and HWs in the world multiple times. Just look at Walcott's resume leading up to the first Louis fight. Yes, beating Frazier, Norton and Lyle sounds better, but I think it's hardly a stretch to say that if Foreman and Lyle had fought 4-5 times that Ron would have beaten George at least once. And had George fought Young multiple times he would have lost multiple times.

If you fight 15-20 fights against world class opposition losing a few really doesn't mean much. Had George fought a similar lineup prior to the Frazier fight he probably would have never gotten a title fight. Three or four fights each against Bugner, Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena, etc. and I'm sure George probably would have seen God and started preaching a little earlier.

I also think George was a better HW than Charles and Walcott and Marciano. But a prime Charles and Walcott would have presented some serious matchip problems for the slow, crude Foreman. Of course, George's management probably never would have let George near either one of them.

wow, you don't have much respect for Foreman, do you? Do you really think Chalres and Walcott's competition at heavyweight was that much better than Foremans? I don't see that at all. They certainly weren't beating heavyweights the caliber of Lyle, Norton, and Frazier three and four times. They were losing fights they never should have.Foreman could quite possibly went undefeated against Charles and Walcott's competition. No George didn't fight Bugner, Ellis, Quarry or Bonavena. Unless you are Ali you don't fight everyone else that is really good. Frazier never fought Lyle, Young, or Norton but never gets any flack.

Foreman did beat Chuvalo, Peralta and Kirkman before fighting for the title. something that gets overlooked is that Foreman was in his first year as a pro when he beat Peralta. If you think those guys weren't that good look at the guys that Chalres and Walcott lost to during their careers. Then he beat Frazier twice, Norton, and Lyle.
What is the arguement? That Charles and Walcott's 4th best victims were better than Foreman's? That is reaching pretty deep to find and advantage for them.

Foreman has 1 better win than Charles... That's it...

If you want to give Walcott the benefit of his points 'loss' to Louis then Foreman doesn't even have that over Joe.

George was a great. Might have beaten them in the ring... But he's not clearly better than them them... Though he does, quite clearly, not have the same rosta of victories.

Foreman had just win better than Charles? Well maybe we are talking about two different things.

I am not counting any of Charles wins at light heavyweight. I certainly count Norton (Foremans 2nd best victim) as being better than Charles #2 heavyweight victim. Louis was way past it when Charles beat him.
As for Walcott, his first fight vs Louis was also when louis was past it, though not as far past it when Charles beat Louis. Louis certainly was not as good of a fighter when he fought Walcott as Frazier was when Foreman beat him.
btw-His resume before fighting Louis is not that impressive at all.

We are miles apart on this. Part of it is because you are not considering losses. You have to do that when rating fighters. (Of course you have to factor in the amount of losses, how close they were, and who they were to.)
It is better to beat 2nd raters than lose to them. Charles and Walcott did lose many times to ordinary fighters and Foreman did not. Being consistent is part of rating fightings, not just a few key wins.

I believe Foreman is the group with guys like Johnson, Holmes, Marciano, Holyfield,Lewis Dempsey, Frazier etc. Behind Ali and Louis, these guys are very close. Guys like Tyson, Liston, and Jeffries are a little behind them.

Then you have Charles and Walcott who are in a group with people like Norton, Patterson, Schmeling, etc.

Yancey the only laughing stock here is you. You are an outright troll since i have tried to be courteous with you in regards to your frankly retarded opinions expressed on this thread and all you have come back with is insults every time i have refuted your points, rather than come back with anything to diprove my points.Others here are willing to be respectful of each others differing opinions.



Perhaps you feel some sense of loyalty to take over the trolling duties from the now sadly departed Goodnight Urine and the now suddenly impotent without his buddy Saad.....either way carry on trolling i wont bother treating your posts with the courtesy of a response since they are just garbage from someone who doesnt know what he is talking about:OhYes: Also try and learn to use the quote function.

mugabi wrote:Yancey the only laughing stock here is you. You are an outright troll since i have tried to be courteous with you in regards to your frankly retarded opinions expressed on this thread and all you have come back with is insults every time i have refuted your points, rather than come back with anything to diprove my points.Others here are willing to be respectful of each others differing opinions.



Perhaps you feel some sense of loyalty to take over the trolling duties from the now sadly departed Goodnight Urine and the now suddenly impotent without his buddy Saad.....either way carry on trolling i wont bother treating your posts with the courtesy of a response since they are just garbage from someone who doesnt know what he is talking about:OhYes: Also try and learn to use the quote function.

My opinions are "retarded", eh?



You really are hilarious.

Have a nice day, bud.

Im having a very nice day Nancy thanks. I hope you are too. I should have understood the trollish link to Goodnight Urine though. You also have an effeminate name, as did all of Irenes trolling crew (Sadie, Nancy and Irene ) what a trio! I also recall Urine calling me Gabi as if to initiate me into his drag queen cabal of pseudo boxing historians !! D I politely declined!!

mugabi wrote:Im having a very nice day Nancy thanks. I hope you are too. I should have understood the trollish link to Goodnight Urine though. You also have an effeminate name, as did all of Irenes trolling crew (Sadie, Nancy and Irene ) what a trio! I also recall Urine calling me Gabi as if to initiate me into his drag queen cabal of pseudo boxing historians !! D I politely declined!!

Ambling Alp wrote:Foreman had just win better than Charles? Well maybe we are talking about two different things.

I am not counting any of Charles wins at light heavyweight. I certainly count Norton (Foremans 2nd best victim) as being better than Charles #2 heavyweight victim. Louis was way past it when Charles beat him.
As for Walcott, his first fight vs Louis was also when louis was past it, though not as far past it when Charles beat Louis. Louis certainly was not as good of a fighter when he fought Walcott as Frazier was when Foreman beat him.
btw-His resume before fighting Louis is not that impressive at all.

We are miles apart on this. Part of it is because you are not considering losses. You have to do that when rating fighters. (Of course you have to factor in the amount of losses, how close they were, and who they were to.)
It is better to beat 2nd raters than lose to them. Charles and Walcott did lose many times to ordinary fighters and Foreman did not. Being consistent is part of rating fightings, not just a few key wins.

I believe Foreman is the group with guys like Johnson, Holmes, Marciano, Holyfield,Lewis Dempsey, Frazier etc. Behind Ali and Louis, these guys are very close. Guys like Tyson, Liston, and Jeffries are a little behind them.

Then you have Charles and Walcott who are in a group with people like Norton, Patterson, Schmeling, etc.

I consider Walcott to be better than Norton.

You don’t consider that the losses have to be put alongside eras, management paradigms and competition. Compare the numbers if you like but it’s not a computer game.

Foreman is consistent because his opponents were carefully selected.

Ezzard wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Foreman had just win better than Charles? Well maybe we are talking about two different things.

I am not counting any of Charles wins at light heavyweight. I certainly count Norton (Foremans 2nd best victim) as being better than Charles #2 heavyweight victim. Louis was way past it when Charles beat him.
As for Walcott, his first fight vs Louis was also when louis was past it, though not as far past it when Charles beat Louis. Louis certainly was not as good of a fighter when he fought Walcott as Frazier was when Foreman beat him.
btw-His resume before fighting Louis is not that impressive at all.

We are miles apart on this. Part of it is because you are not considering losses. You have to do that when rating fighters. (Of course you have to factor in the amount of losses, how close they were, and who they were to.)
It is better to beat 2nd raters than lose to them. Charles and Walcott did lose many times to ordinary fighters and Foreman did not. Being consistent is part of rating fightings, not just a few key wins.

I believe Foreman is the group with guys like Johnson, Holmes, Marciano, Holyfield,Lewis Dempsey, Frazier etc. Behind Ali and Louis, these guys are very close. Guys like Tyson, Liston, and Jeffries are a little behind them.

Then you have Charles and Walcott who are in a group with people like Norton, Patterson, Schmeling, etc.

I consider Walcott to be better than Norton.

You don’t consider that the losses have to be put alongside eras, management paradigms and competition. Compare the numbers if you like but it’s not a computer game.

Foreman is consistent because his opponents were carefully selected.

Exactly. Someone like Boone Kirkman had a fancier-looking record when he fought George than Hatchetman Sheppard when he was beaten by Walcott, but I would confidently back Sheppard to kick Kirkman's ass all over the ring. Compare this day and age, when fights are cancelled over stubbed toes and the sniffles, to Walcott's time period when they not only would often fight several times a month, but take whatever fights they could, regardless of existing injuries, illness, whatever to survive. Doesn't mean one should just discount all losses, but the late 60s/early 70s (with the likes of Mac Foster and Foreman) was the beginning of seeing well-funded managers taking guys out of the AMs and feeding them lots of soft touches in order to build up a record (Frazier earlier had the good backing as well but was matched extremely tough) Some, like Foster, turned out to be more hype than substance, whereas Foreman was the real deal. But he reaped great benefits from having a long time to work on his craft vs a bunch of journeyman; if Foreman had been thrown to the wolves like Walcott was in the late 1930s with no real management, he never comes close to sniffing a title . . he would've been like a bigger version of Johnny Haynes.

dempseyfire wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Foreman had just win better than Charles? Well maybe we are talking about two different things.

I am not counting any of Charles wins at light heavyweight. I certainly count Norton (Foremans 2nd best victim) as being better than Charles #2 heavyweight victim. Louis was way past it when Charles beat him.
As for Walcott, his first fight vs Louis was also when louis was past it, though not as far past it when Charles beat Louis. Louis certainly was not as good of a fighter when he fought Walcott as Frazier was when Foreman beat him.
btw-His resume before fighting Louis is not that impressive at all.

We are miles apart on this. Part of it is because you are not considering losses. You have to do that when rating fighters. (Of course you have to factor in the amount of losses, how close they were, and who they were to.)
It is better to beat 2nd raters than lose to them. Charles and Walcott did lose many times to ordinary fighters and Foreman did not. Being consistent is part of rating fightings, not just a few key wins.

I believe Foreman is the group with guys like Johnson, Holmes, Marciano, Holyfield,Lewis Dempsey, Frazier etc. Behind Ali and Louis, these guys are very close. Guys like Tyson, Liston, and Jeffries are a little behind them.

Then you have Charles and Walcott who are in a group with people like Norton, Patterson, Schmeling, etc.

I consider Walcott to be better than Norton.

You don’t consider that the losses have to be put alongside eras, management paradigms and competition. Compare the numbers if you like but it’s not a computer game.

Foreman is consistent because his opponents were carefully selected.

Exactly. Someone like Boone Kirkman had a fancier-looking record when he fought George than Hatchetman Sheppard when he was beaten by Walcott, but I would confidently back Sheppard to kick Kirkman's ass all over the ring. Compare this day and age, when fights are cancelled over stubbed toes and the sniffles, to Walcott's time period when they not only would often fight several times a month, but take whatever fights they could, regardless of existing injuries, illness, whatever to survive. Doesn't mean one should just discount all losses, but the late 60s/early 70s (with the likes of Mac Foster and Foreman) was the beginning of seeing well-funded managers taking guys out of the AMs and feeding them lots of soft touches in order to build up a record (Frazier earlier had the good backing as well but was matched extremely tough) Some, like Foster, turned out to be more hype than substance, whereas Foreman was the real deal. But he reaped great benefits from having a long time to work on his craft vs a bunch of journeyman; if Foreman had been thrown to the wolves like Walcott was in the late 1930s with no real management, he never comes close to sniffing a title . . he would've been like a bigger version of Johnny Haynes.

You never know though… Foreman was well managed in the sense you describe. But, perhaps, had he been matched like Walcott, lost a few on the “journey” he might have been better prepared for Ali in Zaire…certainly not have seen G0d…and continued his career. Such management strategies do seem to render some fighters mentally brittle.

dempseyfire wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Foreman had just win better than Charles? Well maybe we are talking about two different things.

I am not counting any of Charles wins at light heavyweight. I certainly count Norton (Foremans 2nd best victim) as being better than Charles #2 heavyweight victim. Louis was way past it when Charles beat him.
As for Walcott, his first fight vs Louis was also when louis was past it, though not as far past it when Charles beat Louis. Louis certainly was not as good of a fighter when he fought Walcott as Frazier was when Foreman beat him.
btw-His resume before fighting Louis is not that impressive at all.

We are miles apart on this. Part of it is because you are not considering losses. You have to do that when rating fighters. (Of course you have to factor in the amount of losses, how close they were, and who they were to.)
It is better to beat 2nd raters than lose to them. Charles and Walcott did lose many times to ordinary fighters and Foreman did not. Being consistent is part of rating fightings, not just a few key wins.

I believe Foreman is the group with guys like Johnson, Holmes, Marciano, Holyfield,Lewis Dempsey, Frazier etc. Behind Ali and Louis, these guys are very close. Guys like Tyson, Liston, and Jeffries are a little behind them.

Then you have Charles and Walcott who are in a group with people like Norton, Patterson, Schmeling, etc.

I consider Walcott to be better than Norton.

You don’t consider that the losses have to be put alongside eras, management paradigms and competition. Compare the numbers if you like but it’s not a computer game.

Foreman is consistent because his opponents were carefully selected.

Exactly. Someone like Boone Kirkman had a fancier-looking record when he fought George than Hatchetman Sheppard when he was beaten by Walcott, but I would confidently back Sheppard to kick Kirkman's ass all over the ring. Compare this day and age, when fights are cancelled over stubbed toes and the sniffles, to Walcott's time period when they not only would often fight several times a month, but take whatever fights they could, regardless of existing injuries, illness, whatever to survive. Doesn't mean one should just discount all losses, but the late 60s/early 70s (with the likes of Mac Foster and Foreman) was the beginning of seeing well-funded managers taking guys out of the AMs and feeding them lots of soft touches in order to build up a record (Frazier earlier had the good backing as well but was matched extremely tough) Some, like Foster, turned out to be more hype than substance, whereas Foreman was the real deal. But he reaped great benefits from having a long time to work on his craft vs a bunch of journeyman; if Foreman had been thrown to the wolves like Walcott was in the late 1930s with no real management, he never comes close to sniffing a title . . he would've been like a bigger version of Johnny Haynes.

Demps, you don’t have to answer this but… where are you from?

Ezzard wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Foreman had just win better than Charles? Well maybe we are talking about two different things.

I am not counting any of Charles wins at light heavyweight. I certainly count Norton (Foremans 2nd best victim) as being better than Charles #2 heavyweight victim. Louis was way past it when Charles beat him.
As for Walcott, his first fight vs Louis was also when louis was past it, though not as far past it when Charles beat Louis. Louis certainly was not as good of a fighter when he fought Walcott as Frazier was when Foreman beat him.
btw-His resume before fighting Louis is not that impressive at all.

We are miles apart on this. Part of it is because you are not considering losses. You have to do that when rating fighters. (Of course you have to factor in the amount of losses, how close they were, and who they were to.)
It is better to beat 2nd raters than lose to them. Charles and Walcott did lose many times to ordinary fighters and Foreman did not. Being consistent is part of rating fightings, not just a few key wins.

I believe Foreman is the group with guys like Johnson, Holmes, Marciano, Holyfield,Lewis Dempsey, Frazier etc. Behind Ali and Louis, these guys are very close. Guys like Tyson, Liston, and Jeffries are a little behind them.

Then you have Charles and Walcott who are in a group with people like Norton, Patterson, Schmeling, etc.

I consider Walcott to be better than Norton.

You don’t consider that the losses have to be put alongside eras, management paradigms and competition. Compare the numbers if you like but it’s not a computer game.

Foreman is consistent because his opponents were carefully selected.

Exactly. Someone like Boone Kirkman had a fancier-looking record when he fought George than Hatchetman Sheppard when he was beaten by Walcott, but I would confidently back Sheppard to kick Kirkman's ass all over the ring. Compare this day and age, when fights are cancelled over stubbed toes and the sniffles, to Walcott's time period when they not only would often fight several times a month, but take whatever fights they could, regardless of existing injuries, illness, whatever to survive. Doesn't mean one should just discount all losses, but the late 60s/early 70s (with the likes of Mac Foster and Foreman) was the beginning of seeing well-funded managers taking guys out of the AMs and feeding them lots of soft touches in order to build up a record (Frazier earlier had the good backing as well but was matched extremely tough) Some, like Foster, turned out to be more hype than substance, whereas Foreman was the real deal. But he reaped great benefits from having a long time to work on his craft vs a bunch of journeyman; if Foreman had been thrown to the wolves like Walcott was in the late 1930s with no real management, he never comes close to sniffing a title . . he would've been like a bigger version of Johnny Haynes.

Demps, you don’t have to answer this but… where are you from?[/quote]

Born in the state of Louisiana, have moved around the States since then. Have extended family that is English, thus my use of occasional "English-isms"

Okay, makes sense... You used the word "bollocks" but wrote it "bollucks" That threw me...

Extended family eh... I always knew there was something a little more refined about you...

dempseyfire wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Foreman had just win better than Charles? Well maybe we are talking about two different things.

I am not counting any of Charles wins at light heavyweight. I certainly count Norton (Foremans 2nd best victim) as being better than Charles #2 heavyweight victim. Louis was way past it when Charles beat him.
As for Walcott, his first fight vs Louis was also when louis was past it, though not as far past it when Charles beat Louis. Louis certainly was not as good of a fighter when he fought Walcott as Frazier was when Foreman beat him.
btw-His resume before fighting Louis is not that impressive at all.

We are miles apart on this. Part of it is because you are not considering losses. You have to do that when rating fighters. (Of course you have to factor in the amount of losses, how close they were, and who they were to.)
It is better to beat 2nd raters than lose to them. Charles and Walcott did lose many times to ordinary fighters and Foreman did not. Being consistent is part of rating fightings, not just a few key wins.

I believe Foreman is the group with guys like Johnson, Holmes, Marciano, Holyfield,Lewis Dempsey, Frazier etc. Behind Ali and Louis, these guys are very close. Guys like Tyson, Liston, and Jeffries are a little behind them.

Then you have Charles and Walcott who are in a group with people like Norton, Patterson, Schmeling, etc.

I consider Walcott to be better than Norton.

You don’t consider that the losses have to be put alongside eras, management paradigms and competition. Compare the numbers if you like but it’s not a computer game.

Foreman is consistent because his opponents were carefully selected.

Exactly. Someone like Boone Kirkman had a fancier-looking record when he fought George than Hatchetman Sheppard when he was beaten by Walcott, but I would confidently back Sheppard to kick Kirkman's ass all over the ring. Compare this day and age, when fights are cancelled over stubbed toes and the sniffles, to Walcott's time period when they not only would often fight several times a month, but take whatever fights they could, regardless of existing injuries, illness, whatever to survive. Doesn't mean one should just discount all losses, but the late 60s/early 70s (with the likes of Mac Foster and Foreman) was the beginning of seeing well-funded managers taking guys out of the AMs and feeding them lots of soft touches in order to build up a record (Frazier earlier had the good backing as well but was matched extremely tough) Some, like Foster, turned out to be more hype than substance, whereas Foreman was the real deal. But he reaped great benefits from having a long time to work on his craft vs a bunch of journeyman; if Foreman had been thrown to the wolves like Walcott was in the late 1930s with no real management, he never comes close to sniffing a title . . he would've been like a bigger version of Johnny Haynes.

Walcott was hardly thrown to the wolves. His pro debut was 9 years before he fought the great Hatchman Sheppard. He only fought two ranked fighters during that time. Of course you think Sheppard was better than Kirkman; Sheppard fought in an earlier era after all.

Waloctt was fighting a lot less than Foreman. Foreman was the one who was taking on guys with very little time between fights. Foreman had as many fights in 5 years as Waloctt did 14 years after he pro debut. He was much more consistemnt than Walcott. He always beat the journeyman while Walcott lost to them too many times.

Foreman fought a very experienced Peralta in the first year as a pro. He fought him again later before getting a title shot. At tthe time, Kirkman was conisdered a promising young fighter. There was some risk in Foreman taking that fight. Chuvalo still had something left as well.

Yes Foreman had a "pretty record". Some of the guys he fought on the way up were stiffs. However, he proved himself against enough good fighters.