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

Title fights is important but it’s not the most important thing. Well it isn’t to me.
Title reign, Head to head skills/styles, overall record, defining wins
( Tyson and Wlad don’t have one between them)
All of this is important.

Wlad never beat anyone as good as Norton or Frazier, dare I say he might not have beaten anyone as good as Young was when he beat Foreman.
I really don’t care how many title wins he has, the quality was awful. Then he was knocked out multiple times.
Tyson doesn’t have that defining win either, his opponents were better than Wlad’s, but he still lost to Douglas and couldn’t deal with old Holyfield.

I think the difference is you place more emphasis on title reign, but how important is it really? If you’re making a list of top ten heavies or any weight you should be going on more than title fight wins, otherwise you’re just making a list of the boxers with the most title fight wins.

 

I place emphasis on the wins over top competition from your era. Foreman's record is just too weak in this department. Majority of his wins are over bums, second and third graders. Beating 2 guys who are suited for you stylistcally, doesn't outshine 9 years of dominance, 18 title defences and 15 Top 10 wins, even if they are legends in their own right. Wlad would be a nightmare for them in H2H match up too. He didn't have a chance to fight them. And it would be easier for Wlad to beat Frazier and Norton than for Foreman to recreate Wlad's reign. He just didn't have the qualities. Foreman doesn't have the deph than Wlad or even Mike have.

 

Agreed.

 

Wlad is better H2H fighter than Foreman. Beat and dominated more styles, including the styles he had problems with.

Wlad beat multiple fighters better than Jimmy Young. Young would be another title defense for Wlad.

 

Wlad only beat bums (or got knocked out by them)
He only had the IBF title until 2010 so it’s hardly 9 years of dominance is it or 18 title defences when he only had alphabet titles.
Give Foreman Wlad’s WBA defences I’d pick him to beat them all comfortably.
Wlad or Tyson might beat Frazier and Norton or they might not, they didn’t win the title back at 45 though.
Foreman destroyed the men who were ranked the best heavies in the world at the time outside of himself and Ali.
The Klitschkos dominated an incredibly weak era, Povetkin and Haye were the only half decent names in the rankings for several years.

 

Wlads best opponents were who? Povetkin, Byrd, Peter?
Any of the top 10 or top 15 greatest heavyweights would beat his bum of the month club but not get knocked out a few times on the way there

 

That's factually incorrect.

He won the IBF title in 2006, unified with WBO in 2008, became the lineal champion in 2009 and added the WBA belt title in 2011. Even if you count the lineal defenses he has 11 to George's 5. And he was cleaning out the division while defending the belts the thing that Foreman never did.

He would be a favorite, sure.

So, again, is Jersey Joe Walcott better than Tyson because he won the title back at 37 and Tyson didn't?

2 of them. Where are his other scalps from Top 10? Exactly.

Wlad's era wasn't worse than Louis' or Holmes' and both of them have better resumes than Foreman.

Hard to say that about Foreman tho, who couldn't beat Jimmy Young. Looking at his track record, he would get beaten in some of these fights.

 

Peralta, Lyle, Chuvalo and Roman were all ranked in the top 10 when Foreman beat them, I think they were anyway

Certainly 18 is a stretch

No course not, his overall record is poor compared to Tyson or Foreman and 37 isn’t 45. What does Jersey Joe have to do with it.

I think it probably was worse but Holmes and Louis weren’t getting ko’d by nobodies like Wlad. It detracts a lot from his record, compared to Foreman’s loss to Young it’s much worse.

 

Yes. Foreman has 9 Top 10 guys beaten, and that list includes the likes of Peralta, Roman and Rodrigues. Hardly world beaters.

We can go off 11 - still twice as more.

So, like you see, being the oldest champion isn't anything that swings the pendulum when it comes to resume.

That's why they should be rated higher than Wlad. Wlad had losses but the sheer quantity and quality of top wins trumps Foreman's resume.

 

Has Foreman perhaps become the most polarizing fighter on this board? Followed by Tyson or Wlad?

A decade ago I would have said Leonard and Ali hands down, but things seem to have chenged.

 

He was a solid 'decent' ring cutter for a heavyweight. Certainly nothing special compared to other weight divisions. His power and initial ultra aggression did some very heavy lifting for him, but that isn't really based on a high level technical ability. A truly great ring cutter wouldn't have struggled with Young, no matter what his mental state was. For me, Chavez and Chocolatito are the best cutters off the top of my head.

He's basically taken the mantle of 'Classic divider' from Primo and Rocky before him. Expect a few years of this

 

As for Foreman's ranking, I can see a fairly wide range based on criteria. If we look at achievements, he ranks very highly based on first winning the title by perhaps the most one-sided destruction of a great champion ever and then winning it again 21 years later. And no one has perhaps ever damaged the "pre 90's fighters were ****" argument as much as he did by beating Briggs in the eyes of most at almost 50.

But if you look more at number of ranked opponents beat and run of dominance, which I do, it's more a question if he gets into the top 10.

 

As good as most of Wlad’s opponents.

If we go of 11, it still doesn’t matter that much. Are Mancini and Watt better lightweights than Buchanan because they have double the number of title defences? This argument can be almost meaningless at times. Wlad was consistent for a long time I’ll give him that.

Not alone it doesn’t, but that’s a bit silly to throw Jersey Joe in there as proof. He was good but lost almost half as many fights as he won .

Those losses are huge for Wlads resume. Plus he never beat a great champion or contender, all he as is consistently and longevity.
If someone like Byrd might give George a Young type UD, It’s fair to say Lyle might have taken Wlad’s head off if we’re looking at the rest of their careers.
Foreman made up for the Young loss with the rest of his career to put him over someone like Wlad.

 

decent yes, masterful no.

 

I'd add Golovkin to that list as well but both are great picks.