BoxRec

These are questions I spend too much time pondering.

Charles, Walcott, Tunney, Jeanette and Langford and others were better than Foreman...but by the standards of their day Foreman was a giant monster. Does this level it out?

The world never seen the likes of George Foreman til then (when) and..the world never seen his likes since. It was like a planetary eclipse. The entire world was amazed and in shock and me saying that IS NOT exageration.
Of course, we are talking George before the night Muhammad Ali somehow pulled off his miricle win.
Anyone living then, when they think back on it all, it comes back to them.

golden oldie wrote:

Cojimar 1946 wrote:For example there is no reasonable argument for rating Foreman ahead of Marciano. Marciano cleaned out his division and firmly established himself as the best of his era, something Foreman was unable to do.

Marciano never came up against an Ali. Blown up Light Heavies, and guys who have seen far better days don't compare. Furthermore none of Marciano's title fights come anywhere near Foreman's destruction of Joe Frazier, not even the Walcott rematch.

I love when people say "blown up light heavies" when talking about heavies from the past

That's where I stop reading and I know I didn't miss anything.

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.

to

dalcumly wrote:I've just realised that my American friends seem to feel that Lennox Lewis fails to make to top 14 heavyweights of all time. Are you all joking? Using what criteria would you suggest that Lewis doesn't make this elite group. Ezzard Charles and Peter Jackson, give me a break !

That is ridiculous, you can make a case for him as high as 3.

People are ranked based on what they accomplished and Foreman simply didn't accomplish enough in his own era. How on earth is a few impressive performances comparable to dominating a division for years?

Moreover, Frazier is barely over the current cruiserweight limit. If we are going to use head to head as a basis than one could convincingly argue that Frazier is too small to be competitive in later eras like the 90s and 2000s.

dalcumly wrote:I've just realised that my American friends seem to feel that Lennox Lewis fails to make to top 14 heavyweights of all time. Are you all joking? Using what criteria would you suggest that Lewis doesn't make this elite group. Ezzard Charles and Peter Jackson, give me a break !

That was a sample list of the time that Big George came back from retirement in 1987. Some say Big George was top 10 heavyweight then. I don't remember that a boxing magazine like The Ring or KO had him in high esteem since Foreman retired at a very young age after Jimmy Young gave him a boxing lesson.

By 1987, Lennox Lewis was still an amateur boxer.

golden oldie wrote:

dalcumly wrote:I've just realised that my American friends seem to feel that Lennox Lewis fails to make to top 14 heavyweights of all time. Are you all joking? Using what criteria would you suggest that Lewis doesn't make this elite group. Ezzard Charles and Peter Jackson, give me a break !

They have a simple criteria. He is NOT American, and he defeated every guy he ever fought.

The list was a sample where Big George rated at the time by the year 1987. Lennox Lewis was still an amateur boxer.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Moreover, Frazier is barely over the current cruiserweight limit. If we are going to use head to head as a basis than one could convincingly argue that Frazier is too small to be competitive in later eras like the 90s and 2000s.

Oh please. The frikkin size line again. Frazier would have been fine in the 1990s and would have domiated the 2000s. How did Holyfield do against these giants?

Foreman has a win bigger than almost anyone else. He also has the huge win over Norton, who had as good of a chin as Louis, Johnson, Dempsey, Walcott, Charles, Langford, Sharkey, Schmeling.

We can find fault with anyone's opponents. Really, what are Charles and Walcott's best wins ? Each other and what else?

A light-heavyweight like Matthew Saad Muhammad could have beaten many of the big heavyweights of the 90s and 2000s

Ezzard wrote:These are questions I spend too much time pondering.

Charles, Walcott, Tunney, Jeanette and Langford and others were better than Foreman...but by the standards of their day Foreman was a giant monster. Does this level it out?

You can make a better argument that Norton was better than these guys than they were better than Foreman.

Norton's chin is less proven than guys who actually faced the best of their era.
Norton got wrecked when he faced Shavers, he may have been past it at that stage but in his prime he failed to fight the divisions big hitters aside from Foreman who wrecked him.

Since the mid 1990s the man regarded as the best in the division has always been 240+ pounds. If Frazier could be competitive today why are fighters his size unable to become champion? I think 20+ years of big men dominating is strong evidence that the little guys are no longer able to reach the top.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:People are ranked based on what they accomplished and Foreman simply didn't accomplish enough in his own era. How on earth is a few impressive performances comparable to dominating a division for years?

What if the division and, thus, the era a John L.Sullivan era? When there was only 24 real boxers in 38 States and boxing was start up? (Only guessing what it was back then ha ha!)

dalcumly wrote:I've just realised that my American friends seem to feel that Lennox Lewis fails to make to top 14 heavyweights of all time. Are you all joking? Using what criteria would you suggest that Lewis doesn't make this elite group. Ezzard Charles and Peter Jackson, give me a break !

Is that Elmers list your mentioning? I think Lennox was rated pretty highly overall in Crease's thread rating the heavyweights. Charles was a truly great fighter tho so no shame in his name popping up.

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.

He certainly did look terrible against Lyle.

It gets forgotten because of the gutsy KO of Lyle, but he looked shocking. He was virtually knocked out at one point, but somehow recovered to take Lyle out.

Also, against Young, he looked clueless, much like he did against Ali.

He was trying to prove that he could actually box, but he was nowhere close against Young.

golden oldie wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
They have a simple criteria. He is NOT American, and he defeated every guy he ever fought.

The list was a sample where Big George rated at the time by the year 1987. Lennox Lewis was still an amateur boxer.

And Peter Jackson along with Ezzard Charles were long since dead, so what is your point?

THE POINT IS, you don't get it.

Syntax Error 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.

He certainly did look terrible against Lyle.

It gets forgotten because of the gutsy KO of Lyle, but he looked shocking. He was virtually knocked out at one point, but somehow recovered to take Lyle out.

Also, against Young, he looked clueless, much like he did against Ali.

He was trying to prove that he could actually box, but he was nowhere close against Young.

He neglected his good jab in those fights and couldn't relax or pace himself. The 2nd round of the Lyle fight only went 2 minutes and Lyle was hurt. If it had gone the proper mount of time, and Foreman KOd Lyle in 2 and if Young hadn't survived round 7. If, if and if, right?

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Since the mid 1990s the man regarded as the best in the division has always been 240+ pounds. If Frazier could be competitive today why are fighters his size unable to become champion? I think 20+ years of big men dominating is strong evidence that the little guys are no longer able to reach the top.

Not all. That is simply because there are no good smaller fighters. When great smaller heavyweights have fought heavyweights over 240, they almost always won.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Norton's chin is less proven than guys who actually faced the best of their era.
Norton got wrecked when he faced Shavers, he may have been past it at that stage but in his prime he failed to fight the divisions big hitters aside from Foreman who wrecked him.

Your evidence basically comes down to he got "wrecked" against he hardest hitting heavyweight of all time. He had three fights vs Ali, one against Quarry ad one against Holmes and never even got knocked down. They all stopped quality opponents, but not Norton.

Charles, Walcott, Schmeling, Sharkey, Langoford all got wrecked by fighters nowhere near Foreman.

The Norton didn't have good chin line is one of the biggest myths in boxing.

My biggest problem is the Young loss. Yes it should count against him. However, why is such a big deal?

Charles and Walcott lost to Rex Layne.
Schmeling could not even outbox Max Baer.

How come nobody says they were "exposed"?

I have no problem if someone rates the usual suspects (Holmes, Johnson, Frazier, Marciano Dempsey, Lewis, Holyfield )ahead of him. It's arguable.

However, the mid-level champs like Charles, Walcott, Schmeling, Sharkey, and John L Sullivan and Peter Jackson? Come on.

Ambling Alp II wrote:My biggest problem is the Young loss. Yes it should count against him. However, why is such a big deal?

Charles and Walcott lost to Rex Layne.
Schmeling could not even outbox Max Baer.

How come nobody says they were "exposed"?

I have no problem if someone rates the usual suspects (Holmes, Johnson, Frazier, Marciano Dempsey, Lewis, Holyfield )ahead of him. It's arguable.

However, the mid-level champs like Charles, Walcott, Schmeling, Sharkey, and John L Sullivan and Peter Jackson? Come on.

I mostly agree with this other than you can't rate Frazier ahead of Foreman. Fighters before 1950 fought much more often, so therefore there were more surprising results sometimes.

golden oldie wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
Marciano never came up against an Ali. Blown up Light Heavies, and guys who have seen far better days don't compare. Furthermore none of Marciano's title fights come anywhere near Foreman's destruction of Joe Frazier, not even the Walcott rematch.

I love when people say "blown up light heavies" when talking about heavies from the past

That's where I stop reading and I know I didn't miss anything.

Which is why you are obviously unaware that Ezzard Charles, and Archie Moore were former Light Heavies. No amount of Marciano hero worship changes that FACT.

I feel bad for people who live to troll the internet. Why has life been so hard on you poor little prince?

golden oldie wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
Which is why you are obviously unaware that Ezzard Charles, and Archie Moore were former Light Heavies. No amount of Marciano hero worship changes that FACT.

I feel bad for people who live to troll the internet. Why has life been so hard on you poor little prince?

Save your feelings, and try to work out why your life has been so sad that you need to hero worship someone who has been dead 47 years instead.

You poor little guy