Who is greater P4P George Foreman or Gennady Golovkin?

You have debated Wlad’s career a lot over the past month. And you never apply the same level of thinking.

Yes, I said that GGG was a better boxer. He had better overall ability.

However, he was absolutely not operating on a higher level.

He barely beat Jacobs and Derev.

He struggled with a smaller, vastly overrated Canelo.

He never beat a prime ATG in his life.

He never did anything to even suggest that he was operating at a level much higher.

George has a better group of wins.

 

I apply a different standard to P4P then to divisional ranking

If he's a better boxer by definition he's operating on a higher level

 

Lol, he got hit MORE in the 90s. You're objectively wrong. He didn't use the cross guard because he had better reflexes and he could move laterally, he usually never needed to however.

You don't know what your watching

This content is protected

He is moving on his backfoot and bouncing on his toes. You're claim has been proven wrong. He usually never needed to, but he can.

What's your point ? Bugner and Foreman are the only examples but Bugner was seen as tough and a solid contender. Not surprised Frazier didn't stop him. Foreman was the second best heavyweight in the 70s and an all time great puncher. When we actually compared how he does against bigger and smaller fighters of a similar level Fraizer usually doesn't stop the smaller fighters quicker. Most SHWs don't even fight like Foreman, not to mention most don't hit as hard. He walked down tall fighters as well and it wasn't necessarily his size that got to them lol, he just cut down the ring and broke them down with power.

Because Foreman didn't throw haymakers in his 40s ? Lol..His punching mechanics were the almost exactly same. Nothing changed about the way Foreman punched beyond him swinging more with his hips and winding up more when he was younger because he had the athleticism and slightly faster hands to do it. Evidence points to him having less power during his comeback because of this, otherwise he'd have KO'd chinny Morrison who was using the ring less than Dino Denis. Go ahead and explain that, how did he not catch up to or even drop Morrison despite being supposedly more improved as a 40 year old but manage to walk down and corner Denis on the ropes who was doing nothing but backpeddling ?

I'll give you the answer. Foreman was too slow and had cement feet compared to his prime. Thats why. Prime Foreman is not losing to Morrison in a million years, but Jimmy Young would have an even easier time with 90s Foreman. Go ahead and tell me who you think 90s Foreman can beat that 70s Foreman wouldn't. Foreman took 7 rounds to get rid of Dwight Muhammad Qawi and he used the same tactics he used against Frazier !!!

Foreman was not more skilled. He couldn't use any movement or pivot like he occasionally did in the 70s, his power punches were less accurate, he had less head movement, he couldn't step back from a punch, he certainly wasn't better at countering, he couldn't cut the ring. All he did better was pace himself and use a cross armed guard because he lost his ability to step back and move his head. He didn't have good head movement but it was a level above when he fought in his 40s

And he considered Lyle a harder puncher than Morrison, his words over yours

 

Foreman didn't face any world class guys who were bigger than him in the 1970s. Those he faced were nowhere near elite

 

There were none. All of the taller heavyweights were slim back in those days. Who should he have faced ? Bugner ? Considering he has losses to fringe HWs you wouldn't consider him elite.

Saying he didn't face any bigger guys is one thing. Saying Foremans style was entirely predicated on being the bigger man is not really supported. Bigger heavyweights don't necessarily have better chins

 

Size does not only mean weight, but also height. Foreman had a bigger frame and reach.

 

Not that big of a deal.
Frazier was smaller and had a sylistic disadvantage vs Foreman.
And Norton, although a good boxer, is overrated cause he beat Ali.

This does not impress me one bit.
Foreman only won due to a lucky punch.
Moorer was miles ahead on the scorecards and outboxed Foreman all night long. If his ego hadn't gotten the better of him in the last round, Moorer would have won.

GGG ranks higher cause:
1. he was way more skilled
2. had a much better career. Having a record-tyin

This content is protected

hing B-Hop) is more impressive than having 3 and beating Frazier and Norton, plus a fluke vs Moorer.

 

He got hit more in the 90s because he was older and fighting better, more complete heavyweights who he couldn’t just run over in two rounds. But he also wasn’t getting dropped or seriously hurt like he did in the 70s which isn't an accident but a result of fighting much more controlled.

And showing you can bounce on your toes against someone clearly levels below you doesn’t mean you can do that consistently against elite opposition. Lots of fighters show extra tools when the skill gap is huge. That doesn’t mean it works the same at the top.

My point about Frazier was that when he couldn’t physically move a guy or bully him, the fights were tougher. Bugner and Mathis weren’t elite punchers nor particularly good, but they were strong enough to hold their ground and make him grind out a win instead of being able to blow them apart. Compare that to Quarry, Foster, Ellis much better fighters, but easier for Frazier to physically impose himself on because they were all smaller or around the same size.

And if you actually compare Foreman in the 70s to the 90s, the technical differences are pretty clear. Against Frazier his guard was wide and his head was pretty static. Once he had someone trapped he’d square up and start winging bombs. Against Holyfield he used the cross-arm guard, even a Philly shell at times, was much more aware of what’s coming back and controlled the center better and kept his stance under him instead of overcommitting. His jab was much better and more purposeful, he used feints more, his timing was better etc. He set things up instead of just swinging for the fences. I don’t see the 70s version setting up that straight right on Moorer or the off-tempo uppercut on Cooney that shows skill, experience and ring IQ the very things he lacked in the 70s. Yeah, he wasn’t as fast or explosive as he was in his 20s but he was more disciplined and calculated.

And Morrison being tougher to corner than Denis isn’t shocking. Morrison was faster and a better fighter. Styles and levels matter.

Acting like 70s Foreman was some refined technician who later just became a slow plodder doesn’t match what’s on film. Early Foreman’s athleticism and overwhelming physical advantage covered up his flaws but when that faded, he had to tighten things up to stay competitive which is exactly what you saw in the 90s.

As for the Lyle comments, fighters say all kinds of things about opponents, especially those they beat. Interesting, sure but doesn’t really mean anything end of the day.

 

Because Alex Stewart is more technically refined than Chuvalo and Fraizer ? Lol. Is this some kind of joke ? Alex Schulz is not more skilled than even Ledoux. You are just making stuff up at this point. Fighting more controlled allowed him to maintain stamina, but his knockdown against Young was moreso matter of exhaustion rather than his defensive flaws.

He was using basic movement against Chuvalo in spurts, but he didn't need to most of the time. Cutting down the ring and breaking down his opposition with power shots worked fine, this is a strategy fighters TODAY use. It can be effective if executed right

Okay but if that have some truth to it he still stopped Mathis. If size were that much of an issue he'd have struggled with Mathis, because Mathis was pretty talented for his size, but regardless of the outcome Frazier was controlling that fight. Bugner was 13 pounds heavier, Chuvalo was also about 13 pounds heavier and got stopped. Bugner gave him more problems than Chuvalo because of his superior skill and speed, but weight wise Frazier was outweighed by the same amount. Bugner wasn't pushing Frazier back more than other top 10 hws he fought, he came off second best in most of those exchanges. You are over exaggerating the factor of size in these situations is my point. In the division today and throughout history there are guys with 20, 30, 40 pounds disadvantages winning.

How was he more purposeful with the jab ? 70s Foreman had a good jab. It's virtually the same heavy jab he's always used. 90s foreman had a more consistent jab but I've never seen old Foreman triple or quadruple up on his jab like he did against Lyle, so is his lead hand really better ? He couldn't outbox Tommy Morrison and had 50/50 fights with Stewart, Schulz and Savatese, so i don't think so. He also used feints when he was younger. I have no clue what you are seeing on film.

He didn't use the cross armed guard because he simply stepped back to avade oncoming punches and as defensively poor was Foreman was, he still had better head movement and used a long guard to smother punches and control opponents positions. He was taught the cross guard to compensate for reduced speed and conserve energy. But regardless he got hit more in the 80s and 90s. So you really can't say he had better defense, the right word would be more educated defense.

Morrison also didn't have faster feet than Ledoux, he had faster hands and hit harder, but he wasn't moving around the ring anymore than Denis or Ledoux.

This content is protected

This content is protected

You're the one who said Foreman can't box on the backfoot, and i showed film of him doing it. He also used a bit of movement against Chuvalo but it was for a few moments, if you watch the full fights you would have known this. Foreman was more of a plodder in the 90s, this is a fact. Here's what Foreman did better in the 90s - Pacing himself better to conserve energy, having higher iq, better balance and using the cross armed guard. That is really it. Foreman does nothing else better. He doesn't counter more effectively, he doesn't have a better jab, he is even slower with hands and feet which leads to him being unable to use lateral movement, pivot or cornor his opponents as much. His punching technique did not become more refined, this is an oversimplification, he used the same looping shots, he just didn't wind up on them as often because he was too slow for his haymakers to land like they used to, but he still used wild haymakers when he had his opponents in the corner. He used wild haymakers when he was following up on an inactive Holyfield in round 7. Go back and watch that fight.

When Foreman is steamrolling his opponents in the 70s, landing his shots accurately and his subtle skillset is being explained to you by numerous posters here, you just refuse to acknowledge these facts and his ability. It is bizarre. Old Foreman was smarter because he needed to be, he was physically declined, but he wasn't better, or multifaceted in comparison. It is really a misconception. He had a different approach, he wasn’t exactly more skilled.

 

You’re arguing like I said 90s Foreman was faster and more athletic, I didn’t obviously he wasn’t. He was older and slower but that’s not the point.

In the 70s he relied a lot on explosiveness and physicality. He’d square up, overcommit, and once he had a guy hurt he’d start winging shots. When it worked, it was very effective. When it didn’t like against Lyle or Young he didn’t have much else to fall back on.

In the 90s he was more compact and controlled. He kept his balance under him better and he wasn’t just loading up and swinging once he cornered guys, he was picking spots to land the most effective punches. The cross-arm wasn’t just because he was slower, it was part of a more structured defensive system then he ever had in his prime. He was more aware of what was coming back and didn’t throw himself out of position nearly as much.

You keep saying he got hit more, but context matters. He was going more rounds against better-conditioned, more mobile guys and not blowing them out in three. Of course the amount he got hit went up. The difference is he wasn’t getting dropped and scrambled like he was in the 70s against much smaller guys but going head to head with top fighters.

On the jab it’s not about throwing four in a row it’s about how it’s used. Younger Foreman used it to bully and set his opponents up for his barrages. Older Foreman used it to measure, draw reactions, and line up timing shots. The right hand on Moorer wasn’t a random shot but something he carefully setup same with the uppercut on Cooney.

With Frazier, you keep turning it into a scale argument it’s not about 13 pounds. It’s about who can hold ground and disrupt rhythm. Pressure fighters look more dominant when they can physically impose themselves. When they can’t, fights get tougher. That’s just how that style works and that's what both those fights show.

And let’s not pretend Morrison and Stewart were bums. Morrison was a legit champion with solid wins. Stewart was a dangerous, proven contender. Those guys were better overall fighters than Denis or Ledoux, who were fringe top-10 at best (if that). Going 12 with a legit champ like Morrison at 45 isn’t the same thing as flattening a lower-tier opponent level matters. Pretending like those guys were anywhere near Morrisons or Stewarts level is just pure delusion.

You’re basically defining “skill” as speed and athleticism. I’m including balance, positioning, pacing, shot selection, and defensive awareness. By that definition, 90s Foreman clearly adjusted and improved in certain areas, even if he lost physical traits. Prime Foreman might beat Morrison easier sure but that doesn’t mean the comeback version didn’t evolve technically. Saying he only improved stamina and nothing else just doesn’t line up with what’s actually on film.

 

Foreman.

Next.

 

Having the reflexes to step back to evade a punch, or move your head out of the line of fire counts as a skillset. Having the athleticism to pivot, use basic lateral movement is a skillset. Prime Foreman was more accurate with his punches, threw more combinations, was a better counter puncher, was more clinical on the inside and he punched from more angles. All of this counts as skill. Foreman overcommitted all the time in the 90s, he winged wild overhands, wild hooks, you would be lying to suggget he didn't even if he didn't do it as often. Is this some sort of HD bias ?

The actual results don't reflect your observations. If Tommy Morrison beat that version of Foreman, what do you think Jimmy Young would do ? Do you honestly believe Comeback Foreman has a better chance at beating Jimmy Young when he's having 50/50 fights with Schulz and Stewart ? Schulz is not better than Dino Denis. 90s Foreman is not winning a single round against Jimmy Young. He would get shut out. Lyle is better than Stewart and hits much harder, he'd just decision old Foreman because Lyle could box going backwards like Morrison.

"he wasn’t just loading up and swinging once he cornered guys"
But if loading up and pounding the body to wear the opponent down and throwing well timed punches is very effective at scoring KOs, why is this a negative ? Picking his spots to land punches didn't make his offense more effective, Foreman was just more measured. It's biggest impact was allowing him to conserve stamina because he didn't commit as much or throw as often, we can tell by the results. He didnt gas out, yet he barely beat Alex Stewart and got beat up by glass chin Morrison. How was Tommy Morrison more mobile than Ledoux when he used the ring less ? Regardless of the levels Morrison wasn't known for a good stamina, so how was he better conditioned than Denis or Ken Norton ? Ken Norton was boxing on the backfoot against Foreman for the entire fight and was experienced in 15 rounders. Please explain the logic. If old Foreman were capable of blowing his opponents out in 3 rounds he'd have done it.

No suprise you completely ignored me taking about Foreman using the long guard to smother punches, control the opponents position by keeping them at a distance, and shoving them.

Yonger Foreman used the jab to measure and set up his power shots as well as a battering ram, but younger Foreman was harder to outjab anyway because of his activity. Foreman used a pawing jab to line moorer up, but he was getting completely outboxed, he allowed Moorer to get comfortable and set him up, but he wouldn't have been able to outbox him anyway, nor did he have the ability to trap Moorer in a corner.

Fraizer still dominated Buster Mathis and knocked him out, i wouldn't call it a tough fight, so the point is mute for the most part historically, the evidence isn't strong enough. We have numerous examples of much bigger heavyweights not being able to knock out smaller guys. Bugner giving Fraizer a good fight can be interpreted as a highlight of Bugners strengths not a lowlight of Fraizers weakness, considering he's stopped bigger guys. Bugner was always a tough contender with grit.

Fraizer and Norton are better than ALL of them and its not close. Foreman destroyed them in 2 rounds, but instead you chalk it up to Foreman being the bigger man and nothing more, and then you glaze 90s foremans more tactical approach despite him having 50/50 fights with gatekeepers !!

Old george didn't have better positioning, he had better balance, he wasn't able to access the positions a yonger foreman could with better footwork.

 

On second thought, I am considering putting GGG above Foreman pfp the more I debate about this.

More title defenses but he doesn't have better wins, so idk