Who is greater P4P George Foreman or Gennady Golovkin?

I’m asking you.

You made the claim.

Are you talking about technical skills?

Are you saying that he was a better boxer?

If so, I agree.

But there’s an awful lot more to look at than that.

 

Yep, glad we agree!

 

Having a close fight with a limited fighter like Bonavena. He only really fought Bonavena and Foreman in terms of punchers and didn't look great against either which seems to suggest its something that he's not great against.

Struggle is a strong word but he def wasn't as dominant against them as he was against smaller fighters his size and smaller that seems pretty clear.

Which Foreman was able to do because he's physically bigger and able to push Frazier around not allowing Frazier to get into his normal rythm. Not to mention he could walk through Frazier punches to do so while Frazier could not. All of those were because of the size advantage Foreman had.

 

Okay.


But we have to look at their entire careers.

Who they fought.

Who they beat.

What they accomplished etc.


We can’t automatically rank GGG higher, as he had more technical skill and was a better boxer.

Again, if we did that, a guy like Greb would have no claim to being the GOAT.


Surely the greater overall fighter has to rank higher.

And surely their ranking has to have a set criteria.


Asking specifically who was the most skilled, is a completely different question altogether.


Historically, George should rank higher.

 

He dominated Bonavnea in the rematch after gaining more pro experience. Beyond the knockdowns Frazier won every other round. Ramos was 6'3 and power and Frazier walked through him.

Frazier could not walk Foreman into punches because thats not his style unless he's counter punching, this is a mute point. He chases you down the ring. Ali has a similar size advantage, proved to be as physically strong as Foreman, wasn't typically outmuscled against the few bigger men he faced and still lost to Frazier.

"He could walk through Fraizers punches" Frazier barely landed and Foreman always had a good chin, this is a mute point. Why didn't Fury walk through pillowfisted Steve Cunninghams punches despite being way bigger ? Because after 200+ pounds the correlation between size and durability drops off fast. Buster Mathis wasn't a big puncher but Frazier never has a problem with him in the clinch or when Mathis tried to lean on him.

You're attributing all of Foreman's tactics against Frazier to his size yet he uses similar tactics against heavywights his size and bigger. Most heavyweights bigger than Foreman don't fight as physically as him against smaller men, hit as hard as him, use manipulation tactics for distance control or have a jab as good as his, even Holyfield though Foreman was physically strong for his size and hard to deter. Foreman didn't walk down Frazier and attempt to run him over with size and strength. Him timing Fraziers bobbing and weaving had nothing to do with being much bigger than Frazier, and if being larger than his opponent were that improtant to Foremans success like you claim it is he'd have struggled with every bigger man he faced, but the few heavyweights that were taller or more massive than Foreman in the 70s still got brutally KO'd and lost every round of the those fights.

 

Debatable was closer then you make it seem but the point stands and there's a reason Futch made sure he avoided power punchers.

Ramos wasn't a particularly good fighter and was also only 208 lbs and yet hurt Frazier at least once.

He lost to Frazier because Frazier could exploit the holes Ali had in his game mainly his lack of an inside game and his vulnerability to the left hook because he didn't keep his right hand up when he threw punches. Not to mention Ali didn't have the power to really hurt Frazier despite landing a lot of punches.

So its just a coincidence that Frazier walked through guys who were smaller then him but when he fought guys his size and larger he had more competitive fights and suddenly his punches couldn't effect them as much? Size obviously matters in this context when you have a style that is pretty reliant on it.

Almost all of Foreman's best wins were against smaller opponents outside of maybe Clooney who was shot beyond belief when he fought Foreman. There were no good big men in the 70s and in the 90s he avoided all the good ones and beat Moore, a former LHW, to get a belt and then dropped it to avoid having to fight Lewis. Lets not pretend Foreman was some guy who was equally effective against fighters smaller and then him and larger he wasn't. His entire style relied on being the bigger guy who could push around smaller fighters. And when he fought guys who had no backfoot game like Norton and Frazier it worked. When he fought those who did he didn't look nearly as dominant or effective.

 

GGG best win is a disputed win over glass chin Jacobs. There was prayers for Dannys health going into that fight similar to Rigo vs Donaire.

Foreman is 50 - 100 places ahead of him on the all time p4p list

 

Top 30

 

? This is unsupported

He rocked Frazier but it seemed more like an off balance shot. Frazier didn't seem hurt by it or at least not hurt enough for Ramos to capitalize

Confirmation bias. He KO'd multiple HWs who weighed more than Bonavena and Foreman was the only one who stopped him. Bugner was always seen as durable, but Chuvalo was stopped less times than Bugner and he was smaller.

He dropped Ali, he KO'd Turnbow who was 30 pounds heavier, he smashed Don Smith who was 30 pounds heavier, and ran through Smith quicker than some 190 pound fighters that he beat early on in his career. Where is the correlation ? Why didn't the bigger guys last last longer than the much smaller hws ? Bonavena was smaller than Bugner ! This correlation you're referring to doesn't exist... but Foreman Tho !

Foreman was physical against larger fighters in the 70s, his entire style was not reliant on being the bigger man otherwise he'd have somewhat struggled with the bigger heavyweights he did face, or at least the taller ones, since you claim everything around Foremans success was predicated on being the bigger man. Foremans is a huge puncher in any era and with that power you can hurt much bigger men if you lands clean. Dino Denis was unbeaten, used plenty of movement and still got outboxed and stopped because Foreman knew how to cut the ring. Comeback Foreman has cement foot, even worse defense and couldn't box on his toes if needed.

Since you want to mention Foremans lowlights in his mid 40s, how about let's mention a prime Golovkin ducking a 168 match up with Andre Ward. Go ahead and mention Jacobs being big, thats gggs best win, not on the level of a Ken Norton or a Fraizer. He lost to smaller Canelo and green Pirog, and struggled with 5'8 Derevyanchenko, should've lost that fight really.

 

I don’t get why Bonavena is suddenly the benchmark here, he wasn’t some huge heavyweight. My point isn’t “Frazier can’t beat bigger guys.” It’s that when he fought bigger, competent heavyweights, not random early-career opponents that you keep bring up, it took him longer to get them out of there or the fights were more competitive which we can see with the Bugner and Mathis. When the opponent was physically strong and could hold ground, Frazier couldn't just steamroll them the way he did some smaller guys who couldn’t deal with the pressure. He had to wear them out and outlast them. The Ali fight actually supports my point. Frazier landed left hooks all night for 15 rounds before finally dropping him. You’re telling me if someone like Wlad landed that many clean left hooks on Ali it goes 15?

Who did Foreman beat that was his size and genuinely high level? Most of his best wins were against smaller pressure fighters he could physically control so seems pretty clear to me that size and strength clearly played into how dominant he looked. And the comeback version of Foreman was much more defensively responsible he was slower for sure but also much tighter. In the 70s he got dropped by Lyle and Young while in the 90s he ate bombs from hard punchers and never went down.

The Golovkin comparison isn’t the win you think it is. Even past his best, he beat a bigger, very good Jacobs and then beat (or at worst went 1–1) with an ATG in Canelo. That’s way better then knocking out stylistically perfect opponents and then getting bamboozled by a past it Ali and Young. Shows that Golovkin was operating on a much higher level then Foreman ever was.

 

This is a complete lie. Foremans defense was much worse. You don't know what your looking at, Foreman always had leaky defense but it was worse in the 90s for obvious reasons, he did nothing but get hit and he couldn't box on the backfoot anymore.

Also said correlation doesn't exist. Bugner was durable in general. So was Chuvalo. It's not an argument. Fraizer stopped bigger guys than Bugner. Frazier stopped Mathis. Mathis was ranked and had decent talent.

Maybe Lyle hits harder than you think, did you ever consider that ? Foreman called him among the 3 hardest punchers he's ever fought. Young also dropped him due to exhaustion. Foreman conserved stamina better when he was older, but thats all he was better at doing.

Who is jacobs best win ? Because Jacobs is Golovkins actual best win. We also just saw what Crawford just did to Canelo without controversy. If you want to change official decisions I'd say GGG lost to Derevyanchenko and Canelo lost to Lara and Trout, also Mayweather in reality. Canelo also fought in a terrible era of SMWs, had a close fight with William Scull and ducked Benavidez. GGG also ducked Ward and vacated his belt to Lara since we're bringing up Foremans selective match making in his 40s. Canelo is not greater than Ali, never will be.

 

Neither do you evidently if you think him swinging and leaving himself open all the time means better defense then the solid crossguard he had in the 90s. And he could never box on the backfoot lol.

You're missing my point

Or maybe swinging like crazy and leaving himself open is what allowed Lyle to knock him down and almost stop him. Something he stopped doing in the 90s you ever consider that? And no that's not all he did better 90s Foreman was more skilled, could pace himself better, was better at setting up his shots, had better defense and rolled with punches better which is why he showed a better chin, he went in with an actual game-plan and a corner who knew what they were doing, and was a much smarter fighter than he was in the 70s.

Boxing rec analysis I expected more from you. And I don't see the relevance of comparing a loss to a win.

 

1. Why don’t you apply this level of thinking when debating Wlad’s career?

2. WTF are you talking about, saying that GGG was operating on a much high level??

 

I don't debate how Wlad compares P4P

You admitted GGG was a better boxer