Is Foreman’s “masterful ring cutting ability” a myth?

He beat Holmes, Shavers, Bugner, Tate, etc.?

 

Probably because of silly posts that try to put them down, Liston and Foreman only had one fight they ‘should’ have won outside of Ali. They blitzed everybody else.
Mike,Louis, Lewis, Holyfield, Wlad, they all lost to inferior opponents so why do Sonny and George get the hate ?

 

Beating washed up Cooney isn't anything spectacular. Some other decent names aren't enough to be Top 5. He should get the credit for his comeback, but not to the point of calling him Top 5 or, even worse,Top 3 HW of all time. He just doesn't have the resume.

If you wouldn't put him up there after the 70's, then beating Moorer shouldn't catapult him either.

Besides Ali, Louis and Holmes I have Lennox, Wlad, Mike, Marciano and Johnson over Foreman.

 

Foreman ? Why does he need to beat them to be considered great? And I think Holmes would probably have beaten him, but he’s still 4th or 5th for me

 

Liston at least cleaned out the division he was in, Foreman was never dominant for the long stretch like Liston was.

 

It catapults him pretty high when no one else could do it, Moorer just beat Holyfield, he wasn’t a chump.
It’s also the nature of his big wins, who else does what he did to Frazier? Nobody.
You say that he doesn’t have the depth or resume, take Young away, his career would be next to faultless. He gets far too much stick for that loss. Ali might have lost to Norton x3, but he’s still no1.

Lennox, fought old men or other caveats, chinned sparko by two inferior men.
Mike, no longevity, ko’d by Douglas
Marciano feasted on old men and light heavies
Wlad, destroyed by several bums who nobody even remembers, not even as good as his brother.

You can take apart almost any resume

 

I don't think there's anybody that wouldn't consider George great. It just shows he didn't clean out his divsion and left a lot to be desired in his resume.

 

Both of them ran in to Ali, Foreman was knocking everyone out like Liston was

 

It's a pretty good win, especially considering his age, but it's not Top 5 worthy considering overall resume.

Styles make fights and Foreman was all wrong for Frazier. Great, historic wins, but it's only 1 boxer.

No it wouldn't be, as he still doesn't have the deph. You can't beat 3 guys and be considered Top 3/5 HW of all time.

Still better resume than George.

And Mike still did more in 3 years than Foreman did in 20 years.

Still better resume than Foreman. More Top 10 guys, longer (even tho kind of a short) reign, undefeated.

Way better than his brother and achieved the level of dominance Foreman could only dream of.

Sure you can, but these guys have better resumes than George.

 

Foreman was mostly knocking out second and third tier heavyweights. Liston cleaned out the Top 10, which Foreman never did.

 

Because the former had consistency, solid title reigns, and ,with some exceptions, improved and avenged their losses. The latter pretty much stopped fighting after their losses. No ones hating but its not a wild take to consider the former much more accomplished then the latter.

 

It’s not a wild take no, it’s fair enough to have Mike or Marciano over Foreman, but for me I don’t think they are.
Lennox and Wlad definitely not for me but again, sure.
Consider taking any of them and giving them Foreman’s career, in my opinion they all lose to Ali. So it’s just Young that’s the problem. Would they all beat Norton, Cooney, Frazier? Maybe, but quite possibly they all take a loss somewhere, you would think.
Then factor in George winning the title at 45 over a solid, if not spectacular unbeaten opponent. And again, the nature of the big fights he win, bombing everyone out.
I find it hard to put very many over George when you add everything up

 

I think all of them beat that version of Ali tbh. This isn't prime Ali, his legs were pretty much gone and the rope a dope wouldn't work against most of them as it didn't against anyone not named Foreman. Norton would struggle against any hard hitting HW so I think they beat him maybe not as easily but still beat him. Same with Frazier especially that version who was on the slide after the FOTC. Cooney was done so not much of an accomplishment there. And I think all of them would have beaten Young. So again not that impressive of a career lol. Lot more impressive being a long reigning champ imo. Winning at 45 is the more impressive feat but again its not like he beat the top fighter of the time he beat Moorer who was never great at HW and was always chinny and dropped the belt to avoid fighting any of the actual top HWs. So overall some very good wins and after that its a pretty lack luster resume outside of those wins.

 

Do they though ?
I think if you put the consistency of Mike or Lewis against the ups and downs of Foreman it’s pretty close, but Foreman did win the title at 45.
He was knocking out every one put in front of him, what more did he have to do? Then he lost to Ali like they all would.
Like I said in the last post, put Lewis or Wlad or Mike in Foreman’s shoes, I think they lose to Ali and on balance from what they did in their own careers they’re probably losing another one somewhere, just as they did in reality.
The difference is none of them are winning the title back at 45, so Foreman edges them for that top 5 spot, doesn’t matter how many 40 year old Tony Thompsons or Mariusz Wachs they beat

 

You didn’t “clean up” if you went 2-2 against three of the four best guys of the decade (if we put Young at 4th) and skipped one (Holmes).