How was George Foreman better than Max Baer

Tuffy Griffiths had an excellent KO ratio TBH. And we see how Frazier did against one big puncher....

 

It hurts that you think I'm trolling simply because I march to the beat of my own drummer

 

Yeah, comming from one trolling side to another.

Good job, another troll thread. A shame because Baer was good fighter who had some similarities to George. Of course Foreman was better fighter overall.

 

Of course Foreman had better resume overall, there is no reason to discuss that.

To this particular question - Max Schmeling at least deserves consideration.

 

Schmeling could have stood a chance vs Frazier

 

I'm just joining in with the general merriment. Don't be a killjoy.

But seriously, Baer has way more in common with Huck than he ever does with Big George.

 

Joe Frazier, Ken Norton and Michael Moorer is better than anyone that Baer beat

 

You can only beat those in your own time. And I guess Schmeling and King Levinsky can be on Norton and Moorer level

 

No, Schmeling is better than anyone outside of Joe.

 

Foreman wasn’t better than Baer. Foreman and Baer are pretty much on the same level. Both were very durable punchers and both have excellent resumes with wins over plenty of good fighters. Foreman had a better Jab than Baer, but Baer had better handspeed.

Both struggled with clever fighters, since Baer was completely neutralized when he fought Loughran and Braddock just like Ali and Young were able to neutralize Foreman.

 

Before his comeback, Before Foreman was able to show the more measured side of himself as a veteran fighter who could really pace himself, All there was to go on George was the tremendous ability he showed but wasn’t able to dominate that era with. In that regard he was compared to Max Baer.

The comeback put an end to such comparisons...at least up until he beat Moorer. But that certainly was not the case until he beat Moorer.

before he beat Moorer George was seen as a guy who proved he could have been a better champion than he was. Because he was able to compete at such a level with Holyfield at what was seen impossible odds after the ten years away.

The win over Moorer took it up another notch. By then the Baer comparisons were completely forgotten. By beating Moorer he had become special. An old champion who did the impossible. This gave Foreman a unique platform. It elevated him novelty level to superstar. He is now rated as a special fighter who won the titles 20 years apart.

This doesn't takeaway the initial prime vs prime comparison though.

 

What do you think of my top ten? Does it need tweaking in any way?

 

I believe Michael Moorer would've beaten Max Schmeling

 

George Foreman was a focused fighting machine, who used his gifts to maximum effect. Max Baer, despite his gifts, was easily distracted and his consistency suffered, as a result.

 

You can believe that, but it doesn't change the fact that Schmeling was greater fighter.