View Full Version : Why is George Foreman rated so highly on a lot of peoples lists?


paul750
06-14-2006, 12:05 PM
Don't get me wrong, i think Foreman is a legend just like most people do, he was a murderous puncher, and destroyed most of the guys he faced. But lets face it, he was always one dimensional, and was beaten by the two good ''boxers'' he faced in his first career. Surely to be ranked as high as the top five you need to have versatility? Foreman was undoubtedly a beast of a man and physical specimen, and any guy who took the fight to him would most likely not survive just like Joe Frazier didn't, but does he really deserve to be ranked so high considering his limatations?

Southpaw Stinger
06-14-2006, 12:20 PM
but does he really deserve to be ranked so high considering his limatations?

I think thats why he is ranked so high. He had little actual boxing skills yet he destroyed guys in his prime and no one could go more than 3 rounds with him. He looked unstoppable and destroyed greats like Frazier and Norton both in two rounds - and those guys had both defeated Ali.

He is also rated high for cming back in his 40's and KO'ing undefeated Micheal Moorer to become the oldest champ ever. Which is a huge achievement. Moorer beat prime Holyfield and Foreman went the distance with prime Holyfield (somthing Tyson couldn't do)

Yaman
06-14-2006, 01:45 PM
Foreman is a little overrated..

Considering the fact that most people believe no one could go toe to toe with him and win. When Foreman went up against a slugger that was powerfull enough to make a competitive fight with him, he was nearly KO'd. Sometimes i believe Lyle would have knocked him out even if they fought before Foreman lost to Ali..because Foreman said something like ''If it was before Rumble in the Jungle, i would've thought to myself..i got knocked out. There was no way i would get up and win if i got rocked like that before'' cause he didnt have the heart like he did after Ali. I believe these fighters in their prime would have a very good shot against him in a slugfest.

Rocky Marciano
David Tua
Mike Tyson
Ike Ibechau
Sonny Liston

And maybe some more. Im not saying they would beat Foreman..no not at all. Im saying that Foreman is not unbeatable when he's trading blows.

And apart from that, there are also some very good BOXERS in their prime that could have outboxed him.

Other than that, Foreman is top 5 for sure.

joeytrimble
06-14-2006, 01:59 PM
gotta agree slightly with yaman on foreman...he did lose his focus if he was met with his own power ...foreman vs moore would have been very very intresting had moorer packed just a liiiittle bit more power into those punches ....would have we seen a foreman stoppage? who knows ...

Brassangel
06-14-2006, 02:33 PM
A lot of it is redemption. The fact that he came back after such a layoff to fight the top contenders and win a few of those matches says a lot about his determination.

Tyson, on the other hand, had opportunities to redeem himself and chose exile instead. When he was champion the first time, he flushed his chance at immortality by forgetting his defense, and forgetting how to attack the body. Against Holyfield, he tried to throw head shots all night and got outboxed. In their second meeting, when he actually had Holyfield in trouble in the 3rd round, he threw the whole thing away by getting DQ'ed. In another match, he tried to break a guy's arm, etc. These are the things that allow someone like George Foreman to be ranked higher than Mike Tyson. Tyson was a more skilled fighter, quicker, with better stamina and freakish power. Foreman stuck with it, however, and believed in himself. Tyson could have a chance today to do something similar, but he refuses to care anymore as we saw when he gave up against a McBride that he was winning rounds against.

Plus, he demolished a decent crop of heavyweights in Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, and Ron Lyle.

(I'm still not convinced that the tippy-tap truly knocked Moorer out, by the way. Especially since Moorer briefly cracked a smile while on the canvas.)

K-DOGG
06-14-2006, 02:43 PM
Don't get me wrong, i think Foreman is a legend just like most people do, he was a murderous puncher, and destroyed most of the guys he faced. But lets face it, he was always one dimensional, and was beaten by the two good ''boxers'' he faced in his first career. Surely to be ranked as high as the top five you need to have versatility? Foreman was undoubtedly a beast of a man and physical specimen, and any guy who took the fight to him would most likely not survive just like Joe Frazier didn't, but does he really deserve to be ranked so high considering his limatations?

In a nutshell...people are enthralled with power. Foreman's destruction of Frazier and Norton were awesome to behold. Also, his war and off the canvas victory over Lyle showed his heart and determination to win. In addition, there's the miracle of his second career where he hung in with Holyfield and stopped Moorer after taking a shellacking...his will to win.

Now, all of that being said, I feel the Foreman is shamelessly overrated as people are blinded by their love for power-punchers while ignoring Foreman's weaknesses which were on display against Ali, Young, Stewart, and Morrison.

George is a legend, an icon, and an all time great IMO; but ranks no higher than # 10 when compared to the other big men who hold that honor.

hemichromis
06-14-2006, 03:08 PM
a prime foreman could only be defeated by a hadnful of very skillful boxers that is why he is top 5 material.

but seeing him absolutely destroy the undefeated heavyweight champion in 2 rounds after the champhad just defeated 'the greatest' did make him seem unstoppable

i do think the comeback is what secured him a place in history

he is between 1 and 3 in my list

hemichromis
06-14-2006, 03:12 PM
Foreman is a little overrated..

Considering the fact that most people believe no one could go toe to toe with him and win. When Foreman went up against a slugger that was powerfull enough to make a competitive fight with him, he was nearly KO'd. Sometimes i believe Lyle would have knocked him out even if they fought before Foreman lost to Ali..because Foreman said something like ''If it was before Rumble in the Jungle, i would've thought to myself..i got knocked out. There was no way i would get up and win if i got rocked like that before'' cause he didnt have the heart like he did after Ali. I believe these fighters in their prime would have a very good shot against him in a slugfest.

Rocky Marciano
David Tua
Mike Tyson
Ike Ibechau
Sonny Liston

And maybe some more. Im not saying they would beat Foreman..no not at all. Im saying that Foreman is not unbeatable when he's trading blows.

And apart from that, there are also some very good BOXERS in their prime that could have outboxed him.

Other than that, Foreman is top 5 for sure.

rocky tyson and tua would not have stood a chance aginst foreman because they were swarmers. i'm not saying that foreman is a muich better fighter its just swarming never works aginst someone who is so much stronger than you

Yaman
06-14-2006, 03:34 PM
rocky tyson and tua would not have stood a chance aginst foreman because they were swarmers. i'm not saying that foreman is a muich better fighter its just swarming never works aginst someone who is so much stronger than you

And why do you think that? Cause he beat 1 swarmer who was past his prime?
Thats the only win of a swarmer for Foreman that people look at, and they think Foreman is unbeatable in trading shots. Come on, be real. How many times did prime Foreman face a fighter that swarmed with powerfull punches quite like Rocky or Tyson?

Only a past prime Frazier who could've done a lot better.
And Ron Lyle who nearly ko'd him.

You think Tyson, Rocky or Tua would ''swarm'' into Foreman's uppercuts? You dont think they could land some deadly punches on Foreman's ****ty defence? The guy kept his hands low for Gods sake. Lyle nearly ko'd him in the 1st round with 1 punch who landed flush, and these guys hit harder than Lyle.

They all have a good chance but people totally overrate Foreman when it comes to slugging. They think he was this unstopable monster who could destroy any great fighter and boxer.

Brassangel
06-14-2006, 03:55 PM
While styles win fights, they don't automatically define the hypothetical ones. Frazier was starting to decline, and his vision had become borderline 2-dimensional by that point. I'm not saying that Frazier would win that fight on a different day, but he certainly would have caused some damage instead of getting clocked 6 times in two rounds. Foreman might have looked a little different if he exchanged blows with Frazier, instead of just getting to tee off against him.

Foreman's defense wasn't all that great, and a fighter like, say, Marciano, would keep punching until the cows came home. I think that, despite what occurred (or didn't) in 1991, Tyson would make a very game opponent for Foreman. Even against a prime Foreman.

Regardless of all this, I'd still rank him top 10. Even if his boxing abilities weren't great, and his stamina was limited, he simply had the power to take the other guy out. When it comes down to it, it's two human beings in a ring, with what they know.

The Raging Bull
06-14-2006, 04:04 PM
Ye i think hes rated highly because he made the most of his small talent. He also stuck to what he was good at, beating people up. He was no true boxer, but a brawler. He also fought many top heavy weights and really fought well against them and this is probably why history has shined well on him.

sleazyfellow
06-14-2006, 06:45 PM
i thought foreman had ok defense, he caught alot of punches with his gloves, and he was very good at cutting the ring off and cornering sumone...i dont think i rate him too high, but hes top 10 material for sure

Dempsey 1919
06-14-2006, 11:10 PM
Foreman was by far the greatest physical specimen to ever box. He had the most strength, the most power, an iron chin, and he could box well for a big man. Also his comeback sealed his fate of being an all-time great, arguably the greatest comeback in history.

NJFighter91
06-15-2006, 08:54 AM
I never read much on George Foreman and haven't seen lots of his fights but I, if I rank him, rank him in the top 10 because of his comeback, power, and beating Frazier.

Frazier's 15th round
06-15-2006, 05:25 PM
All you had to do was box and you gave this brute problems. Frazier, who never "boxed" a day in his life, actually won some rounds the second go around. Outside of Frazier, Norton, and Moorer, his record looks pretty padded to me. In fact, that 37-0 record before fighting Frazier had 17 opponents with losing records.

Southpaw Stinger
06-15-2006, 06:02 PM
All you had to do was box and you gave this brute problems. Frazier, who never "boxed" a day in his life, actually won some rounds the second go around

I saw both fights and Frazier didn't win any rounds...

leff
06-15-2006, 06:23 PM
All you had to do was box and you gave this brute problems. Frazier, who never "boxed" a day in his life, actually won some rounds the second go around. Outside of Frazier, Norton, and Moorer, his record looks pretty padded to me. In fact, that 37-0 record before fighting Frazier had 17 opponents with losing records.

dude he is like 70-5, belive me he meet several who could box

Southpaw Stinger
06-15-2006, 06:27 PM
Leff, Frazier 15th round said that Ali has a journey mans record. Take no notice of him.

leff
06-15-2006, 06:37 PM
Leff, Frazier 15th round said that Ali has a journey mans record. Take no notice of him.

i beg your pardon :D

Southpaw Stinger
06-15-2006, 09:27 PM
i beg your pardon

I don't think my blood pressure can take any more of the guy so lets just pretend he doesn't exist!

RockyMarcianofan00
06-15-2006, 09:46 PM
I rank Foreman high because
-He hit probably harder then any heavyweight in history

-He's argueably the physically strongest

-He had good/well rounded boxing skill for a man his size

-He beat some of the best competition and the best contenders in history- excluding Ali and Young (only two he lost to in his prime)

-Some of his big name wins are Chuck Wepner (3), Joe Frazier (2), Ken Norton (2), Ron Lyle (5), Joe Frazier II (5)

-another notable thing: Sparring Partner for Sonny Liston

-Had Possibley the greatest comeback in Boxing History, only Comeback I can think of that maybe considered better was Ali's. Foreman came back only losing three times and once to a formidable contender Evander Holyfeild (other 2 are Tommy Morrison and Shannon Briggs).

-I believe he was the oldest man to fight for and win the heavyweight crown at 49- I believe it was

and I'm sure I missed many accomplishments, George Foreman is arguabley one of the greatest Heavyweights ever, IMO top5 easy...

In his prime...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/George_Foreman.jpg

During his successful comeback
http://www.boxrec.com/media/images/thumb/3/30/250px-Foreman.george.jpg

76-5-0 (68 KO's)
87% KO Percentage (92.5 in his prime)

How can you not rate him high on your list?? :confused:

Dempsey 1919
06-15-2006, 10:04 PM
I rank Foreman high because
-He hit probably harder then any heavyweight in history

-He's argueably the physically strongest

-He had good/well rounded boxing skill for a man his size

-He beat some of the best competition and the best contenders in history- excluding Ali and Young (only two he lost to in his prime)

-Some of his big name wins are Chuck Wepner (3), Joe Frazier (2), Ken Norton (2), Ron Lyle (5), Joe Frazier II (5)

-another notable thing: Sparring Partner for Sonny Liston

-Had Possibley the greatest comeback in Boxing History, only Comeback I can think of that maybe considered better was Ali's. Foreman came back only losing three times and once to a formidable contender Evander Holyfeild (other 2 are Tommy Morrison and Shannon Briggs).

-I believe he was the oldest man to fight for and win the heavyweight crown at 49- I believe it was

and I'm sure I missed many accomplishments, George Foreman is arguabley one of the greatest Heavyweights ever, IMO top5 easy...

In his prime...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/George_Foreman.jpg

During his successful comeback
http://www.boxrec.com/media/images/thumb/3/30/250px-Foreman.george.jpg

76-5-0 (68 KO's)
87% KO Percentage (92.5 in his prime)

How can you not rate him high on your list?? :confused:

Was this copied and pasted from another thread? :D

Dirt E Gomez
06-15-2006, 10:40 PM
I rate Foreman as my #1 heavyweight of all time. When making my list I decided that a factor which is most important to me is longevity first and foremost. Foreman, at an age when most people are retired after all ready losing several fights in embarassing fashion was winning the HW title again.

RockyMarcianofan00
06-15-2006, 11:18 PM
Was this copied and pasted from another thread? :D
nope off the top of my head which is why I say I believe or I think so, I say that because I don't feel like doing research at the time :D I'm lazy at 10:17 EST

BAREKNUCKLES
06-15-2006, 11:23 PM
George Foreman was a physical freak of nature.

If you could mold the ring saavy of old man George with the body of young George, you would have a formiddable opponent indeed. Not to say that either old or young George was a slouch. Old George was the wise old fighter, while the younger George was just reckless abandon in the ring.

First, when I think of George Foreman, I think of a large tree with a huge trunk. George was the unstoppable force. I think his chin was much better when he was older. It's discouraging to hit a guy and he just stands there and starts walking you down, swinging that big axe.

His skill level was much better during his second career. He was measured, he did not waste energy, and you damn sure couldn't kock him down.

We've all heard that the last thing that leaves a fighter is his power. Since George's fight game was power, it was a cinch that he was able to come back as he did. I think George hit harder in his old age than he did in his 20's.

George had deceptive hand speed and one of the best jabs in the game.

When big George pulled the trigger, it was "game over".

Because of his incredible durability and power, I rank George in the top 5 all time. I don't see too many guys being able to hang with him.

RockyMarcianofan00
06-15-2006, 11:34 PM
George Foreman was a physical freak of nature.

If you could mold the ring saavy of old man George with the body of young George, you would have a formiddable opponent indeed. Not to say that either old or young George was a slouch. Old George was the wise old fighter, while the younger George was just reckless abandon in the ring.

First, when I think of George Foreman, I think of a large tree with a huge trunk. George was the unstoppable force. I think his chin was much better when he was older. It's discouraging to hit a guy and he just stands there and starts walking you down, swinging that big axe.

His skill level was much better during his second career. He was measured, he did not waste energy, and you damn sure couldn't kock him down.

We've all heard that the last thing that leaves a fighter is his power. Since George's fight game was power, it was a cinch that he was able to come back as he did. I think George hit harder in his old age than he did in his 20's.

George had deceptive hand speed and one of the best jabs in the game.

When big George pulled the trigger, it was "game over".

Because of his incredible durability and power, I rank George in the top 5 all time. I don't see too many guys being able to hang with him.
I'd have to disagree with the bold, when George Foreman can't KO Evander Holyfeild then there's a problem. George Foreman in his prime would have torn any of the fighters he fought later in life to shreds..

Dempsey 1919
06-16-2006, 12:02 AM
I rate Foreman as my #1 heavyweight of all time.

Ahahahahahahahahahaha, now I've heard everything!

RockyMarcianofan00
06-16-2006, 12:06 AM
Ahahahahahahahahahaha, now I've heard everything!
Eh I've heard worse, I mean IMO he's not #1 but I mean its not that bad, I mean the way you do your top10 its very possible that Foreman could be #1...

Dempsey 1919
06-16-2006, 12:14 AM
Eh I've heard worse, I mean IMO he's not #1 but I mean its not that bad, I mean the way you do your top10 its very possible that Foreman could be #1...

My point is if you get owned in your prime, then there is no way you are number one. At most you would be number two, next to the guy that beat you.

Brassangel
06-16-2006, 12:35 AM
Originally Posted by BAREKNUCKLES
I think his chin was much better when he was older. It's discouraging to hit a guy and he just stands there and starts walking you down, swinging that big axe.

There's actually an old saying that says a good chin isn't something you can learn or develop. While a person might get more accustomed to taking punishment, their chin is something they have from very early on.

[They] could be nuts though...

RockyMarcianofan00
06-16-2006, 02:02 AM
My point is if you get owned in your prime, then there is no way you are number one. At most you would be number two, next to the guy that beat you.
hm
so I guess that would make the Federal Government #1
and Ali Number 2

ZING

No I'm just kidding of course
but I guess i could see where your coming from but still Prime 2 Prime I see Foreman beating Ali....

Southpaw Stinger
06-16-2006, 08:13 AM
so I guess that would make the Federal Government #1
and Ali Number 2

But Ali beat the government man! It was his greatest triumph! And yet I'm still threatened with prison when I refuse to pay my bills. What a world we live in.

Southpaw Stinger
06-16-2006, 08:17 AM
I rate Foreman as my #1 heavyweight of all time.

I rate Foreman as my #3 heavyweight of all time, behind Ali and Louis. But Foreman should definatly be in everyones top five.
My top 10 is not based on head to head but still it's wrong if you put Frazier ahead of Foreman for obvious reasons.

From muscle to flab and still KO'ing guys!

http://www.boxing-memorabilia.com/images/frazierforeman2.jpeg

Early 1970's 220 lbs




http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/2000/03/31/foreman_ap/t1_foreman_all_01.jpg http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/boxing/news/2000/04/26/ibf_bribery_ap/t1_foreman_all_01.jpg

Early 1990's 260 lbs

RockyMarcianofan00
06-16-2006, 02:40 PM
But Ali beat the government man! It was his greatest triumph! And yet I'm still threatened with prison when I refuse to pay my bills. What a world we live in.
Ali won the rematch 3 years later but he got owned the first go around :p

Dempsey 1919
06-16-2006, 03:02 PM
I rate Foreman as my #3 heavyweight of all time, behind Ali and Louis. But Foreman should definatly be in everyones top five.
My top 10 is not based on head to head but still it's wrong if you put Frazier ahead of Foreman for obvious reasons.

From muscle to flab and still KO'ing guys!

http://www.boxing-memorabilia.com/images/frazierforeman2.jpeg

Early 1970's 220 lbs




http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/2000/03/31/foreman_ap/t1_foreman_all_01.jpg http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/boxing/news/2000/04/26/ibf_bribery_ap/t1_foreman_all_01.jpg

Early 1990's 260 lbs

Yeah, I have him at #3, too. Behind Ali and Liston.

Dempsey 1919
06-16-2006, 03:04 PM
I rate Foreman as my #3 heavyweight of all time, behind Ali and Louis. But Foreman should definatly be in everyones top five.
My top 10 is not based on head to head but still it's wrong if you put Frazier ahead of Foreman for obvious reasons.

From muscle to flab and still KO'ing guys!

http://www.boxing-memorabilia.com/images/frazierforeman2.jpeg

Early 1970's 220 lbs




http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/2000/03/31/foreman_ap/t1_foreman_all_01.jpg http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/boxing/news/2000/04/26/ibf_bribery_ap/t1_foreman_all_01.jpg

Early 1990's 260 lbs

Yeah, he even had tyson scared of him, lol!

hemichromis
06-16-2006, 04:54 PM
And why do you think that? Cause he beat 1 swarmer who was past his prime?
Thats the only win of a swarmer for Foreman that people look at, and they think Foreman is unbeatable in trading shots. Come on, be real. How many times did prime Foreman face a fighter that swarmed with powerfull punches quite like Rocky or Tyson?

Only a past prime Frazier who could've done a lot better.
And Ron Lyle who nearly ko'd him.

You think Tyson, Rocky or Tua would ''swarm'' into Foreman's uppercuts? You dont think they could land some deadly punches on Foreman's ****ty defence? The guy kept his hands low for Gods sake. Lyle nearly ko'd him in the 1st round with 1 punch who landed flush, and these guys hit harder than Lyle.

They all have a good chance but people totally overrate Foreman when it comes to slugging. They think he was this unstopable monster who could destroy any great fighter and boxer.

i think your forgetting norton, he and frasier stood no chance agianst foreman, tyson would pobably do alot better but the thing with foreman is that he keeps swarmers out of their preferred range by pushing and punching, he is so much stronger than them that he can actually get away with that, he is also alot quicker on his feet than people give him credit for; when a boxer tries to dance away he keeps with them 9 times out of ten.


lyle was a slugger with alot of power he definately hit harder than tyson frasier and norton and is probably about 5 on the hardest hitters list, maybe higher!

and most good fighters tend to keep their hands lower than is 'textbook' this allows them greater visability

hemichromis
06-16-2006, 05:00 PM
I'd have to disagree with the bold, when George Foreman can't KO Evander Holyfeild then there's a problem. George Foreman in his prime would have torn any of the fighters he fought later in life to shreds..

i;m with you there, as he got older he lost alot of snap even though he was probably stronger

still had a dynamite jab though!

Brockton Lip
06-16-2006, 05:17 PM
Something like this for me:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Rocky Marciano (can be switched with 3)
3. Joe Louis (can be switched with 2)
4. George Foreman
5. Joe Frazier
6. Larry Holmes
7. Jack Dempsey
8. Sonny Liston
9. Mike Tyson
10. Archie Moore

Louis would probably be number 2 for sure if his chin was proven to be better. I believe Rocky on his best night could defeat anyone in history. Ali could probably beat anyone 2/3 times so I have him at 1 for now but if someone puts him at 2, I wouldn't argue.

Dempsey 1919
06-16-2006, 05:38 PM
Something like this for me:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Rocky Marciano (can be switched with 3)
3. Joe Louis (can be switched with 2)
4. George Foreman
5. Joe Frazier
6. Larry Holmes
7. Jack Dempsey
8. Sonny Liston
9. Mike Tyson
10. Archie Moore

Louis would probably be number 2 for sure if his chin was proven to be better. I believe Rocky on his best night could defeat anyone in history. Ali could probably beat anyone 2/3 times so I have him at 1 for now but if someone puts him at 2, I wouldn't argue.

Archie Moore over Jack Johnson? :confused:

Southpaw Stinger
06-16-2006, 05:52 PM
Archie Moore over Jack Johnson?

I can agree with that.

Yaman
06-16-2006, 06:26 PM
i think your forgetting norton, he and frasier stood no chance agianst foreman, tyson would pobably do alot better but the thing with foreman is that he keeps swarmers out of their preferred range by pushing and punching, he is so much stronger than them that he can actually get away with that, he is also alot quicker on his feet than people give him credit for; when a boxer tries to dance away he keeps with them 9 times out of ten.


lyle was a slugger with alot of power he definately hit harder than tyson frasier and norton and is probably about 5 on the hardest hitters list, maybe higher!

and most good fighters tend to keep their hands lower than is 'textbook' this allows them greater visability

I understand that Foreman would always have the advantage against swarmers and he would have been victorious most of the time imo. But you also gotta understand that these fighters aren't jokes, they have a VERY good chance against Big George.

I doubt Lyle hit harder than Frazier and Tyson. Maybe his right hand comes very close..i dunno.

Southpaw Stinger
06-16-2006, 06:43 PM
I doubt Lyle hit harder than Frazier and Tyson. Maybe his right hand comes very close..i dunno.

It's Ron Lyle man, he hit harder than most guys including Tyson and Frazier - probably. Foreman said Lyle was the hardest hitter he ever faced so that has to say somthing.

Dempsey 1919
06-16-2006, 06:51 PM
I can agree with that.

With me, or with chum?

Dempsey 1919
06-16-2006, 06:51 PM
It's Ron Lyle man, he hit harder than most guys including Tyson and Frazier - probably. Foreman said Lyle was the hardest hitter he ever faced so that has to say somthing.

Yeah, Ron Lyle was one of the hardest hitters of all time.

Southpaw Stinger
06-16-2006, 07:10 PM
With me, or with chum?

Well you have to consider that Moore was a better light heavy than he was a full heavyweight.

Abe Attell
06-16-2006, 07:11 PM
rocky tyson and tua would not have stood a chance aginst foreman because they were swarmers. i'm not saying that foreman is a muich better fighter its just swarming never works aginst someone who is so much stronger than you


I was going to say something like that too, but I would give Tyson the best chance since he was the better boxer and more agile than the rest...he also had the ability of speed of hand, with great combinations that could of kept Foreman off balance...unlike Marciano and Tua, they didn't have the head movement Tyson had.

All that said, Foreman one of the best style match-ups to beat Tyson.

With Foreman, in my opinion, it was his ability to win a Gold Medal after a short amatuer career, then going on to win the Heavyweight Championship without reaching his full potential; relying more on his "natural" talent.

I could only imagine if he started at 13 years of age, and had a trainer that could connect with him; maybe like Emanuel Steward.

Dempsey 1919
06-16-2006, 07:12 PM
Well you have to consider that Moore was a better light heavy than he was a full heavyweight.

So you think he was better then Jack Johnson?

Southpaw Stinger
06-16-2006, 07:24 PM
So you think he was better then Jack Johnson?

No Johnson was a real heavy.

Abe Attell
06-16-2006, 07:32 PM
Foreman was a beast of a man... A "Silver Back" of Males

Dempsey 1919
06-16-2006, 07:32 PM
No Johnson was a real heavy.

Oh. *sighs in relief*

I was a bit worried there. :p

BAREKNUCKLES
06-16-2006, 07:33 PM
I'd have to disagree with the bold, when George Foreman can't KO Evander Holyfeild then there's a problem. George Foreman in his prime would have torn any of the fighters he fought later in life to shreds..


Evander Holyfield, at that point in his career was not somebody you just "knocked out". He was a master boxer and tremendous counter puncher.

George had trouble with counter punching boxers. He stood toe to toe with Evander for 12 rounds and took a tremendous beating. Evander Holyfield had a good beard, you can't deny that. The only thing that ever knocked out Evander was fatigue and/or old age.

Did you ever see Evander Holyfield KO'd out cold? It never happened.

Bowe KO'd him, but that was fatigue and attrition, not a clean knockout.

He was KO'd by Toney, but you can't slam the man because father time had stopped Evander, not James Toney.

George had brutal power in his 40's. He KO'd Addelson Rodriguez so vicously, that the man's eyes were crossed. Gerry Cooney was flattened, Michael Moorer went to sleep on a slow motion punch.

The added body mass added to his raw power. The young George threw tons of punches, and took you out that way.

The old George loafed around the ring until he had an opening, he
normally would slip that right hand in, and it was over.

George knocked people unconscious. There is a difference between the real KO vs. the TKO.


Bert Cooper, who was a very good, tough fighter, quit after George whacked him with two good body shots.

The reason he gave for quitting was, and I quote---- "He's a big man."

Abe Attell
06-16-2006, 07:45 PM
There's actually an old saying that says a good chin isn't something you can learn or develop. While a person might get more accustomed to taking punishment, their chin is something they have from very early on.

[They] could be nuts though...


People miss one key point with "Chin"...is the fighter taking full, flush shots, or is he rolling or partially blocking those punches, like most, good boxers know how to do:
You can have a fighter that has never been knocked out before and people will say, "He has the greatest chin in history". But the truth is, that fighter may have never had to keep taking flush shots over and over; if he even took a serious full shot on.

Guys like Foreman, never learned how to actually roll with the punch, or partially block those punches coming in directly at his chin...he took flush shots over and over again...even when he was knocked down by Lyle, if you notice, part of it may have been do to George throwing a punch...which is now bringing his force into the punch...and getting caught by Lyle's punch before he was able to land his own...so not only is his chin being exposed, his body weight is being pushed into the punch.

For the Ali fight, it was more stamina: as you are tiring, your ability to take punishment is being depleted.
It was clear how heavy Foreman was breathing when on the ground; he looked like an asthmatic looking for his inhaler ;)

I also think the added weight and even age may have helped in his later career: Your body still grows/thickens with age, mostly starting in your mid 20's, you thicken out to more of a "Man."
I also remember reading an article where it discussed that George's trainers wanted him to come in "light", which was about 217-220, in order to make sure his stamina was good.
George himself, said he believed his true, ideal weight, was 235lbs...George was known in those days to have to lose weight before fights in order to make the weight of 220.

hemichromis
06-17-2006, 04:56 AM
I understand that Foreman would always have the advantage against swarmers and he would have been victorious most of the time imo. But you also gotta understand that these fighters aren't jokes, they have a VERY good chance against Big George.

I doubt Lyle hit harder than Frazier and Tyson. Maybe his right hand comes very close..i dunno.


frasier and tyson are no jokes and both of them would and in frasiers case did do better against some fighters foreman had trouble with

tyson would stand the best chance of any swarmer agaist foreman i would have loved to see him in his prime against a 40 yearold foreman because he might have been fast enough to get inside

hemichromis
06-17-2006, 04:58 AM
People miss one key point with "Chin"...is the fighter taking full, flush shots, or is he rolling or partially blocking those punches, like most, good boxers know how to do:
You can have a fighter that has never been knocked out before and people will say, "He has the greatest chin in history". But the truth is, that fighter may have never had to keep taking flush shots over and over; if he even took a serious full shot on.

Guys like Foreman, never learned how to actually roll with the punch, or partially block those punches coming in directly at his chin...he took flush shots over and over again...even when he was knocked down by Lyle, if you notice, part of it may have been do to George throwing a punch...which is now bringing his force into the punch...and getting caught by Lyle's punch before he was able to land his own...so not only is his chin being exposed, his body weight is being pushed into the punch.

For the Ali fight, it was more stamina: as you are tiring, your ability to take punishment is being depleted.
It was clear how heavy Foreman was breathing when on the ground; he looked like an asthmatic looking for his inhaler ;)

I also think the added weight and even age may have helped in his later career: Your body still grows/thickens with age, mostly starting in your mid 20's, you thicken out to more of a "Man."
I also remember reading an article where it discussed that George's trainers wanted him to come in "light", which was about 217-220, in order to make sure his stamina was good.
George himself, said he believed his true, ideal weight, was 235lbs...George was known in those days to have to lose weight before fights in order to make the weight of 220.

1970 george had 16 inch arms but the 1990 george had 20 inch ones thats why i believe he may have been stronger

george also had a mini mental breakdown agai9nst ali he had thrown everything he had against ali and ali was not only still standing but pounching away!

Dirt E Gomez
06-17-2006, 08:15 AM
Ahahahahahahahahahaha, now I've heard everything!

I stated my reasons why and if you disagree that's ok... mostly because you're a moron. You run around acting as if your opinion is law and anybody who thinks differently has to prove something to you.... You realize your knowledge is virtually based upon only Ali and everything else you get by copying Yogi or a handful of others and chiming in with "I agree, deerrrrrr."

By 36 Ali was considered washed up and those final fights of his career are not to be spoken of. George was busy winning fights at 45 along with the Title of Heavyweight Champion of the world. Hell, Foreman retired only after getting robbed of a decision against Shannon Briggs... who ins 2006 is still considered a possible contendor.

My top 3 HW's have always jumped around from Foreman, Ali, and Louis. Odds are Louis will be back up to #1 soon and I'll dump off Ali to #5 or so as to erase all the stupid comments you make about fondling his balls from my mind as quickly as possible.

Haglerwins
06-17-2006, 08:44 AM
I rank Foreman high because
-He hit probably harder then any heavyweight in history

-He's argueably the physically strongest

-He had good/well rounded boxing skill for a man his size

-He beat some of the best competition and the best contenders in history- excluding Ali and Young (only two he lost to in his prime)

-Some of his big name wins are Chuck Wepner (3), Joe Frazier (2), Ken Norton (2), Ron Lyle (5), Joe Frazier II (5)

-another notable thing: Sparring Partner for Sonny Liston

-Had Possibley the greatest comeback in Boxing History, only Comeback I can think of that maybe considered better was Ali's. Foreman came back only losing three times and once to a formidable contender Evander Holyfeild (other 2 are Tommy Morrison and Shannon Briggs).

-I believe he was the oldest man to fight for and win the heavyweight crown at 49- I believe it was

and I'm sure I missed many accomplishments, George Foreman is arguabley one of the greatest Heavyweights ever, IMO top5 easy...

In his prime...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/George_Foreman.jpg

During his successful comeback
http://www.boxrec.com/media/images/thumb/3/30/250px-Foreman.george.jpg

76-5-0 (68 KO's)
87% KO Percentage (92.5 in his prime)

How can you not rate him high on your list?? :confused:

68/76 is 89%

hemichromis
06-17-2006, 09:01 AM
68/76 is 89%

i'm not entirely sure what you mea by that but in foremans first career is knock out ratio was 92.5% and alot of those were aginst tough guys

Haglerwins
06-17-2006, 09:14 AM
i'm not entirely sure what you mea by that but in foremans first career is knock out ratio was 92.5% and alot of those were aginst tough guys

Overall it's 89%+ not 87% as was quoted.

Just plain freakish, probably the highest KO rate of all the HOF heavies.

RockyMarcianofan00
06-17-2006, 02:41 PM
68/76 is 89%
no see your only counting his wins. 68 is 89% of 76 but 68 is 87% of 81 which is his total amount of fights (76+5=81)

Abe Attell
06-17-2006, 04:01 PM
1970 george had 16 inch arms but the 1990 george had 20 inch ones thats why i believe he may have been stronger

george also had a mini mental breakdown agai9nst ali he had thrown everything he had against ali and ali was not only still standing but pounching away!


George, by well known reporters/sports writers, and even by his own account, was broken before the fight during the layoff after he was cut in sparring; before that he had his normal confidence:
He and others said that he was filled with confidence when he landed his plane, leading up to the sparring session that got him cut; after he got cut, the fight had to be postponed, allowing bad **** to get into George's mind...George actually wanted to leave to go back to the States, but the "Government/Soldiers" said "Nobody Leaves."
Take that, add the fact that he was said to have gained a bit of weight during the time off {not sure if it is true}, fighting in heat, wanting to get the fight over with, etc. George was going into the fight not the same fighter that beat Frazier.

I can't remember their names off the top of my head, but the writers/reporters, and George himself, said if the fight had not been postponed, he would of won. I am not sure if he would of won, but you have to wonder if George's normal confidence was there, his willing to be there to fight, and not feeling like he was being held against his will, if he really would of won; if you notice in that fight, though George was known to never really have a formula for pacing himself, he seemed to be throwing more punches than normal, looking to get it over with so he could get back to the States A.S.A.P.

Haglerwins
06-17-2006, 04:32 PM
no see your only counting his wins. 68 is 89% of 76 but 68 is 87% of 81 which is his total amount of fights (76+5=81)

Gotcha, but why do losses factor into a man's KO rate if the goal of the calculation is to determine how likely a fighter's victories ended in stoppage?.. especially when that calculation is used to correlate to the fighter's punching power. At least that's how I see it. I see no logical reason for including losses.

Yaman
06-17-2006, 04:40 PM
Gotcha, but why do losses factor into a man's KO rate if the goal of the calculation is to determine how likely a fighter's victories ended in stoppage?.. especially when that calculation is used to correlate to the fighter's punching power. At least that's how I see it. I see no logical reason for including losses.

That is actually the most logical reason. Especially with Foreman. DId Foreman even come close to knocking out Ali? Hell no, wich is why you HAVE to count that fight cause hey, he's not THAT great of a ko artist if you think about it.

When you have a ko% of 90, it might be bull**** cause of the fighters you ko'd. They might have been bums with no good chins.

Haglerwins
06-17-2006, 05:01 PM
I'd agree if George didn't win the title back at 45 by KO. All I'm saying is if you're trying to gauge how powerful a guy was, why include losses? Losses deserve a seperate formula if they're going to be construed as a knock on the fighter's power. You could lose a bunch of fights like Shavers did, but it still wouldn't change the fact your punch was like a mule kick.

Yaman
06-17-2006, 05:11 PM
I'd agree if George didn't win the title back at 45 by KO. All I'm saying is if you're trying to gauge how powerful a guy was, why include losses? Losses deserve a seperate formula if they're going to be construed as a knock on the fighter's power. You could lose a bunch of fights like Shavers did, but it still wouldn't change the fact your punch was like a mule kick.

Cause Foreman didnt get beaten severely by Ali. He was the one that had control of the fight and He had so many chances to land a decent punch on his head, its not even funny. It shows that Foreman(or similar fighters like him) was not as good in koing opponents.

Haglerwins
06-17-2006, 05:25 PM
I'd chalk that up to his power being neutralized by a ring savvy fighter rather than it being overblown. It was Muhammad Ali he was in there with for god sakes. Regardless, some folks just ain't gettin' knocked out no matter what you do or how hard you hit.

Frazier's 15th round
06-17-2006, 05:44 PM
Also, I could KO guys like Joe Goodwin, an opponent Foreman fought the year before his title shot. Goodwin's record? 0-14-1, he doesn't have any wins, so none of them are good.

hemichromis
06-17-2006, 06:17 PM
Gotcha, but why do losses factor into a man's KO rate if the goal of the calculation is to determine how likely a fighter's victories ended in stoppage?.. especially when that calculation is used to correlate to the fighter's punching power. At least that's how I see it. I see no logical reason for including losses.

actually you should only count wins i know that means that foreman had a higher ko percentage the marciano in his first career but that is how its alwaysa don

hemichromis
06-17-2006, 06:20 PM
Cause Foreman didnt get beaten severely by Ali. He was the one that had control of the fight and He had so many chances to land a decent punch on his head, its not even funny. It shows that Foreman(or similar fighters like him) was not as good in koing opponents.


ali was in control the whole way foreman just tried to batter through alis guard. on almost any other fighter foreman would have managed it but ali was strong and durable and hit foreman coming in several times.

i have to ask, who do you think was good at KOing opponents if not foreman?

Yaman
06-17-2006, 06:52 PM
Let me ask you this.

If Peter McNeely had 40 wins with 40 kos, all against bums. But he has 10 losses against good fighters. would you think he'd have a 100% ko? :rolleyes:

And this is not directed at Foreman.

Southpaw Stinger
06-17-2006, 06:57 PM
If Peter McNeely had 40 wins with 40 kos, all against bums. But he has 10 losses against good fighters. would you think he'd have a 100% ko?

You can get bums with good chins so those 40 KO's could be an acheivement.

Yaman
06-17-2006, 09:42 PM
You can get bums with good chins so those 40 KO's could be an acheivement.

Thats not the point. The point is that sometimes a fighters abilty to knock his opponents out is shown on his losses.

RockyMarcianofan00
06-18-2006, 12:50 AM
You count a fighters losses in a fighters KO Percent because the point of the calculation is too determine out of all his fights how many times did that fighter KO somebody in his ENTIRE career

Haglerwins
06-18-2006, 01:52 AM
Agree to disagree.

A really high KO% compared with a stack of losses would more than likely tell me a fighter probably sucked in the ring, but he hit hella hard. If power was the only diff between a win and a loss I'd put more merit in losses being a factor when gauging a fighter's power. Variables will always be in the picture so a loss can take place for a myriad of reasons. I think it's better to scrutinize a boxer's punch (more in a way like Frazier's 15th round did) by looking at the guys on the fighter's record (that were defeated of course) that did or didn't get KO'd.

That paints a better picture in my view. The calc including losses tells me something more like 'the chance a fighter's bout ended in a KO'. Too general. Doesn't give me the same picture as comparing KO rate from wins and then looking at the losses. That may not be easy to make sense out of, but I hope you all get what I mean. Anyways, great discussion.. I enjoyed it. First thread I really participated in.

RockyMarcianofan00
06-18-2006, 02:40 AM
Agree to disagree.

A really high KO% compared with a stack of losses would more than likely tell me a fighter probably sucked in the ring, but he hit hella hard. If power was the only diff between a win and a loss I'd put more merit in losses being a factor when gauging a fighter's power. Variables will always be in the picture so a loss can take place for a myriad of reasons. I think it's better to scrutinize a boxer's punch (more in a way like Frazier's 15th round did) by looking at the guys on the fighter's record (that were defeated of course) that did or didn't get KO'd.

That paints a better picture in my view. The calc including losses tells me something more like 'the chance a fighter's bout ended in a KO'. Too general. Doesn't give me the same picture as comparing KO rate from wins and then looking at the losses. That may not be easy to make sense out of, but I hope you all get what I mean. Anyways, great discussion.. I enjoyed it. First thread I really participated in.

I do agree with the bold...

eh
Archie Moore had 132 KO's out of 222 fights
W 187 (132 ko's) | L 23 | D 11 | Total 222

but much of the time his KO percent is said to be 71%
when doing it the way I do it it would be 59 or something like that. So I may be wrong with the way it is calculating...

Only reason I do it that way is because when people calculate Marciano's KO percent vs Foreman's, it comes up 88% vs 87%

however if you did it the other way it would come up with Marciano still having 88% (because of no losses) and Foreman's 89% so .......




side note: Archie Moore has more KO's then any other fighter in any weight class, he's quite possibley the Greatest Light Heavyweight ever


http://www.historie24.de/Archie.JPG

hemichromis
06-18-2006, 05:03 AM
You count a fighters losses in a fighters KO Percent because the point of the calculation is too determine out of all his fights how many times did that fighter KO somebody in his ENTIRE career

well the hbo dont count losses so i dont! when they show ko percentage of fighters it is always KO percentage of wins

hemichromis
06-18-2006, 05:05 AM
Let me ask you this.

If Peter McNeely had 40 wins with 40 kos, all against bums. But he has 10 losses against good fighters. would you think he'd have a 100% ko? :rolleyes:

And this is not directed at Foreman.

well he wouldn't win the championship if he cant beat good fighters so you wouldn't count him.

your not likely to get someone in that situation but if they were they would be someone with massive power but no skills

Hydro
02-02-2007, 08:16 PM
All you had to do was box and you gave this brute problems. Frazier, who never "boxed" a day in his life, actually won some rounds the second go around. Outside of Frazier, Norton, and Moorer, his record looks pretty padded to me. In fact, that 37-0 record before fighting Frazier had 17 opponents with losing records.

Foreman's second career was padded with very selective opposition.

LondonRingRules
02-03-2007, 12:03 AM
Foreman's second career was padded with very selective opposition.

** Your rump is padded with very select quality adipose tissue.

** Foreman turned pro in 1969 almost 40 yrs ago. Of his last 5 opponents, 4 are still active and 2 have titles in their records and the public knows he beat both of them.

brownpimp88
02-03-2007, 01:04 AM
Foreman's second career was padded with very selective opposition.

You want to talk about padded, go look at gene tunney. From 1915-1921, he didnt fight a single guy worth a damn.

hemichromis
02-03-2007, 05:07 AM
Foreman's second career was padded with very selective opposition.

the only justification for that is his (understandable) reluctance to fight tucker

abdiel2k3
02-03-2007, 05:50 AM
Don't get me wrong, i think Foreman is a legend just like most people do, he was a murderous puncher, and destroyed most of the guys he faced. But lets face it, he was always one dimensional, and was beaten by the two good ''boxers'' he faced in his first career. Surely to be ranked as high as the top five you need to have versatility? Foreman was undoubtedly a beast of a man and physical specimen, and any guy who took the fight to him would most likely not survive just like Joe Frazier didn't, but does he really deserve to be ranked so high considering his limatations?

thats why hes ranked so high
becuz of how far he went
despite his limitations
he managed to beat joe fraizer
who ofcourse is held in high regard
so in order to give joe credit
ya gotta give george credit
he is what he was
just becuz he isnt a boxing virtuoso doesnt mean he wasnt great
he just did the one way he knew how

Yaman
02-03-2007, 01:25 PM
Because he's extremely overrated. Tricked people into believing that his early losses(Counting Young fight too, where he got schooled like an amateur) were caused by depression or religious reasons. Beat a washed up Frazier and in spectacular fashion, and ofcource a Prime Norton. But you know, people don't look at the times he met a superior skilled boxer, or a powerfull slugger that could hang. Not a legendrary fighter that fell into his hands because of STYLES.

I do LOVE this comment though, one of my all time favorites ''Heart of a Lion *points at the guy*''

K-DOGG
02-03-2007, 01:34 PM
...because he's an Icon. Legends are invincible.....or didn't you get the memo? ;)

hemichromis
02-03-2007, 01:35 PM
Because he's extremely overrated. Tricked people into believing that his early losses(Counting Young fight too, where he got schooled like an amateur) were caused by depression or religious reasons. Beat a washed up Frazier and in spectacular fashion, and ofcource a Prime Norton. But you know, people don't look at the times he met a superior skilled boxer, or a powerfull slugger that could hang. Not a legendrary fighter that fell into his hands because of STYLES.

I do LOVE this comment though, one of my all time favorites ''Heart of a Lion *points at the guy*''

you are kidding aren't you! i know you arent a big foreman fan but thats just plain wrong.

SABBATH
02-03-2007, 02:03 PM
Very Simple.

Foreman was a fighter blessed with the superior strength, punching power, ability to absorb punishment, and mental toughness to be the linear heavyweight champion in his 40's. NO OTHER MAN WHO EVER HELD THE TITLE CAN MAKE THAT CLAIM.

If you guys think that's no mean feat, hold your thoughts until you are that age. Energy, stamina, speed, timing, reflexes are just a few physical attributes that wane over the years not to mention enthusiasm and desire.

Most heavyweights peak in their late 20's to early 30's. After that,
god given attributes diminish, and I don't care how hard a fighter trains or what kind of shape he is in. Mother nature takes it's course on all athletes.

Foreman was a guy that sat on his ass for ten years and weighed over 300 lbs before launching his comeback. His comeback and rise to heavyweight champion (a come from behind by one punch KO no less) puts him in a class of his own.

I can guarantee in your lifetimes you will never see a heavyweight champion win the belt 22 years apart or at the age of 45 (almost 46).

K-DOGG
02-03-2007, 02:19 PM
Very Simple.

Foreman was a fighter blessed with the superior strength, punching power, ability to absorb punishment, and mental toughness to be the linear heavyweight champion in his 40's. NO OTHER MAN WHO EVER HELD THE TITLE CAN MAKE THAT CLAIM.

If you guys think that's no mean feat, hold your thoughts until you are that age. Energy, stamina, speed, timing, reflexes are just a few physical attributes that wane over the years not to mention enthusiasm and desire.

Most heavyweights peak in their late 20's to early 30's. After that,
god given attributes diminish, and I don't care how hard a fighter trains or what kind of shape he is in. Mother nature takes it's course on all athletes.

Foreman was a guy that sat on his ass for ten years and weighed over 300 lbs before launching his comeback. His comeback and rise to heavyweight champion (a come from behind by one punch KO no less) puts him in a class of his own.

I can guarantee in your lifetimes you will never see a heavyweight champion win the belt 22 years apart or at the age of 45 (almost 46).

Great points my friend and Foreman surely deserves to be in the top 10 becasue of those very attributes. What I think Paul was getting at is how Foreman is consistantly put on almost "god-level" where some people are concerned, as if he were invincible.

Yaman
02-03-2007, 02:45 PM
you are kidding aren't you! i know you arent a big foreman fan but thats just plain wrong.

Needles to say, i do believe Foreman is Top 10 HW, Maybe even Top 5 if im in a good mood, or listen to his ''Heart of a Lion *finger pointing*'' comment a lot of times, but he's NO WAY Top 3 HW. If you list his accomplishments, you'll probably put him around the top5 or lower, if its pure skill, then he's barely Top 10. Maybe im wrong, but most people put him so high, wich is why i think he's overRATED.

Dempsey 1919
02-03-2007, 02:48 PM
Needles to say, i do believe Foreman is Top 10 HW, Maybe even Top 5 if im in a good mood, or listen to his ''Heart of a Lion *finger pointing*'' comment a lot of times, but he's NO WAY Top 3 HW. If you list his accomplishments, you'll probably put him around the top5 or lower, if its pure skill, then he's barely Top 10. Maybe im wrong, but most people put him so high, wich is why i think he's overRATED.

How would you rate him in terms of head-to-head matchups?

brownpimp88
02-03-2007, 03:27 PM
I would pick foreman to beat every heavyweight from the pre 1960's era, and that includes joe louis too. Joe Louis wont try and box him, he's gonna go for the ko and get blasted, Name 1 guy louis beat thats half as good, walcott and schmeling would only be contenders like quarry, lyle and shavers had they fought in the 70's.

Yaman
02-03-2007, 03:57 PM
How would you rate him in terms of head-to-head matchups?

Probably lower than in terms of accomplishments. He was flawed as a fighter, and there are more than a handfull of great Boxers that would probably Beat him, i also don't think he's invincible as a slugger. There have been Swarmers and Sluggers that could KO him, and one almost had: Lyle. Who ever would have thought that Lyle could almost ko a prime Foreman? Nobody, but he happened to get a chance to go toe to toe with Big George, and it showed a lot. Prime Foreman just hasn't had enough fights with Sluggers and Swarmers to be invincible in a slugfest. If he was a lot more skilled, and used his powerfull jab better, he would be very high on the list.

''Heart of Lion, The Heart of a Lion *points*'' I love it!

Dempsey 1919
02-03-2007, 04:13 PM
I would pick foreman to beat every heavyweight from the pre 1960's era, and that includes joe louis too. Joe Louis wont try and box him, he's gonna go for the ko and get blasted, Name 1 guy louis beat thats half as good, walcott and schmeling would only be contenders like quarry, lyle and shavers had they fought in the 70's.

Who would you favor between Foreman and Sonny Liston?

brownpimp88
02-03-2007, 04:16 PM
Who would you favor between Foreman and Sonny Liston.

i dont really know, liston hasnt been tested properly, beating a glass chinned floyd will not convince me. He could beat foreman, not sure. I think foreman hits harder but liston is more accurate. Trust me joe louis would lose though, joe's defense isnt too great and he isnt very cautious.

Dempsey 1919
02-03-2007, 04:29 PM
i dont really know, liston hasnt been tested properly, beating a glass chinned floyd will not convince me. He could beat foreman, not sure. I think foreman hits harder but liston is more accurate. Trust me joe louis would lose though, joe's defense isnt too great and he isnt very cautious.

Liston was tested a lot more than Foreman, that's for sure. Liston was thrown to the wolves early in his career. He was fighting contenders when he only had 10 or so fights. Foreman only fought one or two top ten guys before fighting Frazier, while Liston completely cleaned out the division prior to fighting Patterson.

brownpimp88
02-03-2007, 04:39 PM
Liston was tested a lot more than Foreman, that's for sure. Liston was thrown to the wolves early in his career. He was fighting contenders when he only had 10 or so fights. Foreman only fought one or two top ten guys before fighting Frazier, while Liston completely cleaned out the division prior to fighting Patterson.

dude the guy fought frazier and lyle, which top notch heavy hitters did liston truly beat.

Southpaw Stinger
02-03-2007, 05:00 PM
dude the guy fought frazier and lyle, which top notch heavy hitters did liston truly beat.


cleveland Williams. Opponents of both said prime Williams hit harder than Liston.

brownpimp88
02-03-2007, 05:06 PM
cleveland Williams. Opponents of both said prime Williams hit harder than Liston.

are you basically agreeing that liston has been tested more cuz IMO Sonny is an underachiever in boxing.

Southpaw Stinger
02-03-2007, 05:09 PM
are you basically agreeing that liston has been tested more cuz IMO Sonny is an underachiever in boxing.

You asked - which top notch heavy hitter did liston truly beat - and I answered your question.

On whether Liston was tested more I have mixed feelings. I think on a whole Foreman definatly fought and beat the better opposition but if you look at their earlier careers I'd say Liston fought the better guys from the start.

K-DOGG
02-03-2007, 05:11 PM
Sonny fought and beat some damn good fighters before Patterson finally gave him a shot against D'Matto's wishes. Cleveland Williams, Eddie Machen, and Zora Folley were all top-notch heavyweights in their primes by anyone's standards....and that's when Liston beat them.

Liston was far more tested by the time he fought Patterson than Foreman ever was on the way to his first clash with Frazier.

Terry A
02-03-2007, 05:15 PM
A couple of random comments after reading this thread...
1. Rocky Marciano (5'10" 189lbs) vs George Foreman (6'3" 225) Does anybody really think that Marciano could really catch Foreman hard & flush BEFORE Foreman teed off on the oh so easy to hit Marciano? Foreman lifted a 205 lb Frazier off the ground, knocked Norton accross the ring, etc, etc. If Archie Moore rocked Rocky...well.
2. Foreman, in his autobiography, says he & Liston sparred alot. I would love to have seen those sessions. According to Foreman, they had mutual respect.
3. STYLES MAKE FIGHTS...Foreman, great as he was, would always have trouble with the likes of a Jimmy Young, Larry Holmes or Muhammad Ali while I think he would look overwelming against the likes of a Frazier, Marciano, or Tua-like fighters.

Dempsey 1919
02-03-2007, 06:25 PM
dude the guy fought frazier and lyle, which top notch heavy hitters did liston truly beat.

Cleveland Williams, Eddie Machen, Mike DeJohn, Wayne Bethea, Bert Whitehurst, Nino Valdez. All these were hard punchers.

Foreman befroe fighting Frazier fought George Chuvalo, Gregorio Peralta, and that's it. Besides Frazier and Norton, Foreman did not beat anybody special, and did not even deserve a title shot, while Liston cleaned out the entire division completely.

hemichromis
02-04-2007, 05:42 AM
Cleveland Williams, Eddie Machen, Mike DeJohn, Wayne Bethea, Bert Whitehurst, Nino Valdez. All these were hard punchers.

Foreman befroe fighting Frazier fought George Chuvalo, Gregorio Peralta, and that's it. Besides Frazier and Norton, Foreman did not beat anybody special, and did not even deserve a title shot, while Liston cleaned out the entire division completely.

i used to think foreman would beat foreman but IMO if liston boxed he could very well win

Hydro
02-05-2007, 05:01 PM
** Your rump is padded with very select quality adipose tissue.

** Foreman turned pro in 1969 almost 40 yrs ago. Of his last 5 opponents, 4 are still active and 2 have titles in their records and the public knows he beat both of them.



the only justification for that is his (understandable) reluctance to fight tucker

Nonsense. Foreman's whole second career was selective opposition.

Of his first 24 opponents, none of them were contenders. the closest one was rodriguez, and even he had been stopped about a year earlier in just two rounds by evander holyfield. Cooney hadn't fought in 3 years. After losing to Holyfield, Foreman fought Jimmy Ellis. Good if we're talking about the Jimmy Ellis of the late 60s and early 70s, but not this Ellis, who was a former football player. Foreman then fought Alex Stewart, whose own manager even had questioned his confidence, and Foreman squeaked by a close decision. Foreman then fought Pierre COetzer who was coming off of two straight KO losses, including a brutal war with Riddick Bowe. After beating Coetzer, Foreman fought a dangerous Morrison, and loss. Foreman beat Moorer for the title, then got stripped and did not fight any contender afterwards.

He got a pass for his actions because people loved the smiling old fat guy.

LondonRingRules
02-05-2007, 05:15 PM
He got a pass for his actions because people loved the smiling old fat guy.


** And you get a pass because we smile at your large rump and BB noggin.

Foreman currently owns the top 4 threads in the Boxing History section. I look at some of Ali or Holmes title fights against Leon the Lessor, Evangelista, Frank, London, or the reknown Lion of Flanders, Coopman, and I know they were very selective in their choices knowing that you'd get your skirt blown up over them!

Friedie
02-08-2007, 06:35 PM
walcott and schmeling would only be contenders like quarry, lyle and shavers had they fought in the 70's.

Oh, there I disagree. Max Schmeling e.g. beat 4 HOFers and was involved in 4 Ring Magazine Fights of the year (winning 3 of them). 1931-1933 and 1936-1938 he was recognized by experts to be the best Heavyweight of the World. That's another league than quarry, lyle and shavers.
:boxing:

brownpimp88
02-08-2007, 06:47 PM
Oh, there I disagree. Max Schmeling e.g. beat 4 HOFers and was involved in 4 Ring Magazine Fights of the year (winning 3 of them). 1931-1933 and 1936-1938 he was recognized by experts to be the best Heavyweight of the World. That's another league than quarry, lyle and shavers.
:boxing:

First of all 1924-1936 is widely considered as the worst era of heavyweight boxing. A hall of famer is a very broad term, jim braddock is in the hall of fame, does that mean he was a great fighter, **** no it doesnt.

There is no way either schemling or walcott would have been world champ in the 70's, if you disagree then you dont know boxing.

Friedie
02-08-2007, 07:09 PM
First of all 1924-1936 is widely considered as the worst era of heavyweight boxing. A hall of famer is a very broad term, jim braddock is in the hall of fame, does that mean he was a great fighter, **** no it doesnt.

There is no way either schemling or walcott would have been world champ in the 70's, if you disagree then you dont know boxing.

1924-36 was never the worst era of heavyweight boxing. It had Dempsey vs. Tunney (twice) and Schmeling vs. Louis. And I suppose Walcott and Schmeling both would have beaten the reigning Champion Leon Spinks in 1978.

brownpimp88
02-08-2007, 07:59 PM
1924-36 was never the worst era of heavyweight boxing. It had Dempsey vs. Tunney (twice) and Schmeling vs. Louis. And I suppose Walcott and Schmeling both would have beaten the reigning Champion Leon Spinks in 1978.

from 1924-1936, there was no title match in 1924, 1925, 1929 and 1936. You had guys like carnera, sharkey and braddock as your champ. At least in the 80s you had holmes and tyson. At least in the 50's you had rocky marciano.

Dempsey 1919
02-08-2007, 08:09 PM
from 1924-1936, there was no title match in 1924, 1925, 1929 and 1936. You had guys like carnera, sharkey and braddock as your champ. At least in the 80s you had holmes and tyson. At least in the 50's you had rocky marciano.

Please don't put Sharkey in the same class as Carnera and Braddock.:nonono:

brownpimp88
02-08-2007, 08:33 PM
Please don't put Sharkey in the same class as Carnera and Braddock.:nonono:

sharkey aint nothin..... *****:boxing:

Dempsey 1919
02-08-2007, 08:44 PM
sharkey aint nothin..... *****:boxing:

He's way better than Carnera and Braddock.:rolleyes:

brownpimp88
02-08-2007, 08:49 PM
He's way better than Carnera and Braddock.:rolleyes:

you know that was the worst era of heavyweight boxing, 1 title match a year and sometimes it was a complete can fighting for the belt.

Dempsey 1919
02-08-2007, 09:04 PM
you know that was the worst era of heavyweight boxing, 1 title match a year and sometimes it was a complete can fighting for the belt.

No, actually right now is the worst era of heavyweight boxing for your information.:owned:

brownpimp88
02-08-2007, 09:08 PM
No, actually right now is the worst era of heavyweight boxing for your information.:owned:

nope, not at all

vitali beats schemling
valuev beats baer
maskaev beats carnera
brewster beats braddock
wladimir beats sharkey

:owned:

you are my *****

ben41193
02-08-2007, 09:35 PM
because he is an animal!!!!!!

Welter_Skelter
02-08-2007, 09:47 PM
Maybe its just because THAT WHOLE ERA is a little overrated...
It might have been the golden era in terms of Excitment due to the NOVELTY of satellite technology that the whole world could take intrest.. But that doesn't mean it was Better... Boxing was just veiwed through mainstream eyes.. And thats where the HYPE comes from.. I truly dont think the talent was any better than 30 years before or after..
I think people confuse hype with talent...

Friedie
02-09-2007, 10:41 AM
nope, not at all

vitali beats schemling
valuev beats baer
maskaev beats carnera
brewster beats braddock
wladimir beats sharkey

:owned:

you are my *****

Louis beats Vladimir
Tunney beats Vitaly
Schmeling beats Brewster
Sharkey beats Maskaev
Baer beats Briggs
Carnera beats Valuev

:boxing:

Southpaw Stinger
02-09-2007, 10:47 AM
Louis beats Vladimir
Tunney beats Vitaly
Schmeling beats Brewster
Sharkey beats Maskaev
Baer beats Briggs
Carnera beats Valuev

:boxing:

:owned: :owned:

Yaman
02-09-2007, 10:48 AM
Nobody owned annybody. Those stuff are opinions.

Southpaw Stinger
02-09-2007, 10:50 AM
Nobody owned annybody. Those stuff are opinions.

i was just doing an impression of our beloved brownpimp as he belives he owns people with his oppinions, why shouldn't it work the other way around?

Yaman
02-09-2007, 10:56 AM
i was just doing an impression of our beloved brownpimp as he belives he owns people with his oppinions, why shouldn't it work the other way around?

It wasn't purely directed at you:owned: uhum(see how people take that stupid smiley out of context haha) im just saying, nobody could possible be more annoying than Butterfly.

Southpaw Stinger
02-09-2007, 11:10 AM
It wasn't purely directed at you:owned: uhum(see how people take that stupid smiley out of context haha) im just saying, nobody could possible be more annoying than Butterfly.

And after a sung you a song as well. :nonono:

Dempsey 1919
02-09-2007, 01:17 PM
nope, not at all

vitali beats schemling
valuev beats baer

Both are these are wrong.:nonono:

Dempsey 1919
02-09-2007, 01:18 PM
nobody could possible be more annoying than Butterfly.

And nobody could possibly be more of a dip**** than you.

Frazier's 15th round
02-09-2007, 01:50 PM
Foreman had some amazing accomplishments, but he fought a lot of tomato cans. I'd probably rate him around the number 7 best heavyweight.

Yaman
02-09-2007, 03:04 PM
And nobody could possibly be more of a dip**** than you.

Im just stating the facts, butty.

Dempsey 1919
02-09-2007, 03:06 PM
Im just stating the facts, butty.

Don't talk buddy. You cringe with fear everytime SABBATH comes on, nuff said.

Yaman
02-09-2007, 03:09 PM
Don't talk buddy. You cringe with fear eveytime SABBATH comes on, nuff said.

Buy yourself some new kneepads then.

Dempsey 1919
02-09-2007, 03:19 PM
Buy yourself some new kneepads then.

You better get some yourself, and wipe the semen off of your Tyson vids.

Yaman
02-09-2007, 03:29 PM
You better get some yourself, and wipe the semen off of your Tyson vids.

No, YOU get yourself some!!:banana: boy you sure are creative. Waste of time, im not even gonna bother with you.

Dempsey 1919
02-09-2007, 03:33 PM
boy you sure are creative. Waste of time, im not even gonna bother with you.

Yeah of course your not, cause you know that you just got :owned:

brownpimp88
02-09-2007, 04:05 PM
Both are these are wrong.:nonono:

no they arent, baer is a scared ***** and he lost to braddock. Let me guess butterfly, he was past it? Lol, its the same old **** you pull off. Baer and Schemling aint ****.

Dempsey 1919
02-09-2007, 04:21 PM
no they arent, baer is a scared ***** and he lost to braddock. Let me guess butterfly, he was past it? Lol, its the same old **** you pull off. Baer and Schemling aint ****.

Vitali is too unskilled for Schmeling, Schmeling wins a UD.

Valuev is a bum, Baer would pound him into dust, he's too powerful.

hemichromis
02-09-2007, 04:33 PM
Vitali is too unskilled for Schmeling, Schmeling wins a UD.

Valuev is a bum, Baer would pound him into dust, he's too powerful.

vitali was a very good boxer, better than schemling. he also had more power and weighed a good 40lbs more. i sa vitali by KO

valuev would get owned by baer

Dempsey 1919
02-09-2007, 04:41 PM
vitali was a very good boxer, better than schemling. he also had more power and weighed a good 40lbs more. i sa vitali by KO

valuev would get owned by baer

If you said Wlad then that might be a different story. But Vitali would get countered all-night by Schmeling.

Friedie
02-09-2007, 05:16 PM
vitali was a very good boxer, better than schemling. he also had more power and weighed a good 40lbs more. i sa vitali by KO

valuev would get owned by baer

Who the hell is this "Schemling" some of you write about all the time ? Never heard about that guy, so it's possible that Vitali beats him.

...or do you mean Max Schmeling ? Than you're wrong. Max would win this one by UD IMO. Against Vladimir Max wins by Knockout. Vladimirs chin is not the best and Max counter-right hand would pulverise him like it did with Louis in the '36 fight.

b.t.w. Vitali admired Max a lot and therefore named his newborn son "Max".

brownpimp88
02-09-2007, 05:20 PM
Louis beats Vladimir
Tunney beats Vitaly
Schmeling beats Brewster
Sharkey beats Maskaev
Baer beats Briggs
Carnera beats Valuev

:boxing:

joe louis was not from the era i'm talking about. carnera does not beat valuev, and i definetly wouldnt pick tunney to beat a prime vitali.

Friedie
02-09-2007, 05:26 PM
joe louis was not from the era i'm talking about.

....the era you're talking about was from 1924-1936, wasn't it ?. In 1935 Joe Louis K.o.ed former Champions Primo Carnera and Max Baer and other high ranked guys like King Levinsky and Paolino. In 1936 he was considered unbeatable. So he definetly is from that era.

brownpimp88
02-09-2007, 05:33 PM
....the era you're talking about was from 1924-1936, wasn't it ?. In 1935 Joe Louis K.o.ed former Champions Primo Carnera and Max Baer and other high ranked guys like King Levinsky and Paolino. In 1936 he was considered unbeatable. So he definetly is from that era.

I was talking about champs from that era and the title fights that occured during that era. There were 8 title fights during that time frame, how sad is that.

Friedie
02-09-2007, 05:43 PM
I was talking about champs from that era and the title fights that occured during that era. There were 8 title fights during that time frame, how sad is that.

"worst era of heavyweight boxing" you said. In my opinion an era of boxing does not only enclude title bouts.

And if you compare fighters of different eras (what is it we do in this thread) you have to evaluate all their fights, not only their title bouts IMO. Or do you think it is fair to evaluate e.g. Max Schmeling only on his loss to Louis in '38 excluding the fight they had two years before ?

And for the counting of title fights ...there was only one title at stake... and not four.

brownpimp88
02-09-2007, 05:46 PM
"worst era of heavyweight boxing" you said. In my opinion an era of boxing does not only enclude title bouts.

And if you compare fighters of different eras (what is it we do in this thread) you have to evaluate all their fights, not only their title bouts IMO. Or do you think it is fair to evaluate e.g. Max Schmeling only on his loss to Louis in '38 excluding the fight they had two years before ?

The 1990's was better than that era, the 80's had tyson and holmes and they are better than any champ from that era. Rocky marciano's era was better, joe louis's era from 1937-1948 was better. Jack Johnson-jim jeffries era was better too.

Friedie
02-09-2007, 06:00 PM
The 1990's was better than that era, the 80's had tyson and holmes and they are better than any champ from that era. Rocky marciano's era was better, joe louis's era from 1937-1948 was better. Jack Johnson-jim jeffries era was better too.

that doesn't answer my question.... ;)

anyway my opinion differs here.
(b.t.w. I wouldn't define an era of sports from 1924 to 1936.)

brownpimp88
02-09-2007, 06:03 PM
that doesn't answer my question.... ;)

anyway my opinion differs here.
(b.t.w. I wouldn't define an era of sports from 1924 to 1936.)

Schemling is not considered as a great champ, niether is Sharkey or Baer. Braddock and Carnera were horrible, Tunney didnt do much at heavyweight anyways, his main acomplishments were at 175.

Friedie
02-09-2007, 06:13 PM
Schemling is not considered as a great champ, niether is Sharkey or Baer. Braddock and Carnera were horrible, Tunney didnt do much at heavyweight anyways, his main acomplishments were at 175.

who is Schemling ?

Max Schmeling was a great Champ IMO. He won the tile by a foul (that's not his fault) but then was the first fighter to stop Young Stribling after about 300 fights and than was robbed badly against Jack Sharkey.

If not for political and money reasons he would have been the first Heavyweight to regain the title. He qualyfied for the titlefight against Jimmy Braddock by knocking out Joe Louis. What could a boxer do more in Heavyweight History to earn a title shot ?

brownpimp88
02-09-2007, 06:14 PM
who is Schemling ?

Max Schmeling was a great Champ IMO. He won the tile by a foul but then was the first to stop Young Stribling and than was robbed against Sharkey.

If not for political and money reasons he would have been the first Heavyweight to regain the title. He qualyfied for the titlefight against Jimmy Braddock by knocking out Joe Louis. What could a boxer do more in Heavyweight History to earn a title shot ?

He was a good fighter but, not a great one. There is a huge difference in those words.

Friedie
02-09-2007, 06:20 PM
He was a good fighter but, not a great one. There is a huge difference in those words.

Many experts rate him as an ATG Heavyweight (somewhere between 10 and 20).
I think that's realistic too and consider that great (if you consider the timespan of over 120 years of Heavyweight history).

brownpimp88
02-09-2007, 06:22 PM
The maximum i would place him is #15, anything higher than that is simply overrating him.

Friedie
02-09-2007, 06:34 PM
The maximum i would place him is #15, anything higher than that is simply overrating him.

yes, agreed ....that sounds realistic to me too.
(I rate him #12 ...but I'm a bit biased cause I'm german ;)

As I said before, after over 120 years of Heavyweight History I consider the best 20 fighters all as ATG Heavyweights. It's a matter of definition I guess.

ROSEWOOD
02-09-2007, 06:39 PM
I believe Foreman and Frazier both rack high because neither had what one would call true boxing skill...These dudes just destroy everything in front of them..He is an all-time great but where i personally would rank him is still unclear..

Dempsey 1919
02-10-2007, 12:45 PM
I believe Foreman and Frazier both rack high because neither had what one would call true boxing skill...These dudes just destroy everything in front of them..He is an all-time great but where i personally would rank him is still unclear..

They had more boxing skill that most people think.

SABBATH
02-10-2007, 01:09 PM
Buy yourself some new kneepads then.

I think you're hilarious. Maybe you should read your own ****in' threads before posting. Here's what you previously wrote in response to Kid Achilles regarding his opinion of a Foreman-Baer fight. Now you can't throw on your kneepads and get down on the floor quick enough for the Kid. No wonder you're the joke of boxingscene. Go away.

Write your own ****in' material.

Kid Achilles
02-10-2007, 01:12 PM
I believe Foreman and Frazier both rack high because neither had what one would call true boxing skill...These dudes just destroy everything in front of them..He is an all-time great but where i personally would rank him is still unclear..

Frazier had skill, considerable skill. Foreman however fought a lot on instinct. He had a good jab when he felt like using it but a lot of the time he degenerated into a sloppy, wild fighter, throwing some pretty unorthodox punches. He was successful and an all time great, but not skilled or extremely well schooled IMO.

But then again, skill doesn't win boxing matches. Imposing your will on the other guy in any way you can find a way to wins you boxing matches.

Hydro
02-12-2007, 02:57 PM
I believe Foreman and Frazier both rack high because neither had what one would call true boxing skill...These dudes just destroy everything in front of them..He is an all-time great but where i personally would rank him is still unclear..

Frazier had skills. It takes plenty of skill to come forward and slip and avoid shots, and to attack an opponent.

Foreman had a ramrod jab and good ring cutting skills, but often had awful technique when he winged those shots.

hemichromis
02-12-2007, 03:48 PM
Frazier had skill, considerable skill. Foreman however fought a lot on instinct. He had a good jab when he felt like using it but a lot of the time he degenerated into a sloppy, wild fighter, throwing some pretty unorthodox punches. He was successful and an all time great, but not skilled or extremely well schooled IMO.

But then again, skill doesn't win boxing matches. Imposing your will on the other guy in any way you can find a way to wins you boxing matches.

Very true!!

frazier certainly had skill he just wasn;t an orthodox boxer. with a reach of 74 inches at HW he wouldn't have stood a chance

Dempsey 1919
02-12-2007, 11:44 PM
Write your own ****in' material.

:lol1:.........