His point as I understood it, is that 70s Foreman was about equal to Max Baer in terms of achievements. I disagree. Foreman’s win over Frazier is better than anything Baer achieved in his career.
Baer has more wins over ranked opponents though and his top wins were also quite strong (especially Schmeling one).
Patterson also has more wins over Foreman. Wins over ranked opponents aren't the be all end alls you seem to think it is.
Fighters aren’t judged by one win though otherwise Frazier would be ranked a lot higher then he is. Max has wins over Max Schmeling Earnie Schaaf Tony Galento King Levinsky Primo Carnera Johnny Risko Tommy Farr And more. I’d say that’s roughly equal to Frazier Norton and Chuvalo. Just my opinion. Frazier is the biggest name their for sure but George was a little light on the names otherwise
I mean that one win put Frazier in most top tens I don't think those guys were that good imo except Schmeling. Certainly not on the level of Frazier's conquests. I'll take wins over Frazier 2X, Norton, Chuvalo, Lyle, Peralta over Baer's any day. Also Baer has at least three losses against those fighters as well off the top of my head, and he also had many more losses, than 70s Foreman to subpar fighters as well.
Agree to disagree. Foreman over takes Baer with ease in his second career for sure. I have Frazier in the top ten but more towards the bottom. Think guys like Earnie Schaaf and Kind Levinsky are grossly underrated. Primo gets shitted on but he was a top notch win. Baer had a lot of DQs and was a known slacker…he really only had a short stretch of focused training and fighting 1932-34. Otherwise he was to focused on women and party”s to bother.
I don't think it would be a given that 1970s Foreman would have better resume than Patterson either. I mean, Patterson has much deeper resume than Foreman without 1990s career.
Do you have Max Schmeling in the top 10? If not, do you think a win over Frazier matters more than a win over Louis? I mean, Frazier and Norton are great. Lyle is decent, but Peralta and past prime Chuvalo are certianly worse than any of these names, with the exception of King Levinsky. Names like Schaff or Farr are around Lyle's level. Schmeling is lower than Frazier, but higher than Norton. Gazelle didn't mention some other wins as well, while Foreman doesn't have much else.
He's probably be rated a lot like Sonny Lison. A ferocious puncher with a fearsome persona who tore through the division and then lost in a huge upset to Muhammad Ali, continued for a few more years and then retired without ever getting to the world title level again. Instead he came back and clinched (imo) the title of the greatest hw puncher of the modern era. And while I do think Foreman's comeback involved some very shrewd matchmaking and luck, it's still just an amazing achievement.
No I don't have Schmeling in my top 10 because Schmeling also had many losses, and his one big win was reversed more than emphatically. I disagree. I think Peralta and Chuvalo would do well against that list of fighters. I also think the Frazier Foreman dominated sweeps those fighters. I disagree. Even so, Baer was 2-2 against those fighters so I wouldn't say he was overly successful against them. Foreman's wins in the 70s,blow Baer's out of the water any day. What's more is he doesn't have any of Baer's many losses either.
Without his comeback, he definitely ranks lower. And he showed much improved stamina and better durability as an older fighter , which is unheard of. —Mark
No way he is under Patterson even without the comeback. There is no way Patterson, while certainly a good fighter , would last long against Foreman. His chin was too soft. On top of being KOed in the first round twice by Liston, he went down often in other bouts. As champion he even went down against a man making his pro debut, Olympic gold medalist Pete Rademacher. Also, Foreman defeated a great heavyweight, Joe Frazier, twice.
Without Foreman's second career, we might not regard Frazier as kindly. We might conclude that Frazier was either shot against Foreman, or maybe even not as good as originally believed. Consider what Foreman's career looked like without his comeback. He's a puncher with a relatively padded record going into the Frazier fight. Frazier has already hit a career downslope. Foreman clobbers him. And clobbers Norton. Then loses to Ali and Jimmy Young. Retires shortly thereafter, following a mental meltdown. Does this incarnation of Foreman look massively better than Lyle or Shavers? Shavers performed better against Young than Foreman did, performed better against Ali, and also crushed Norton in the same way George did. Lyle did a bit better against Ali as well, and had a close-run fight against Foreman himself. Remember also that Lyle/Foreman and Lyle/Shavers both involved guys getting bounced off the canvas on both sides. The victors of these 70s big puncher wars could be attributed to chance. Sure, Foreman probably looks better overall, out of the three. However... More people might ask themselves: Was Foreman just lucky to get Frazier first? How much really separated Foreman from Shavers or Lyle? Could they have gotten Frazier instead if they'd been in their primes at the right moment? We answer these questions "No" today because we saw what grandpa Foreman could still do to the roided up 90s fighters. The guy had Morrison running. But without that? "Oh, yeah. That guy was a scary puncher from the 70s. Limited, though. Crude. You need more than power and physicality to stay on top in this sport. Made an amateur mistake against Ali, didn't clear it up against Young, and that's all she wrote. He beat a fading Frazier at the beginning of his run, but eventually found his level. Good contender who got lucky. Like Rahman, Walcott, or Ingo." When you remember that Shavers came close-ish to the 70s crown himself, the gap narrows further. As for Lyle, he also stacks up pretty well with Foreman. Lyle's resume looks like a less-lucky version of 70s Foreman who didn't retire early, and didn't "duck" Quarry (George's word.)
By your own admission, Baer was only consistently at his best for 2 years. His career was sprinkled with losses at the beginning, in his prime, and at the end, and many of the fighters who beat him were less than stellar to say the least. I see no reason whatsoever, apart from having an agenda to rate Baer up there with 70s Foreman, either as an ATG or H2H.
