George Foreman s Greatness,, With out His Comeback?

Those two years were his peak. Doesn’t mean he sucked before or after. Foreman had his own struggles as well. Obviously no agenda not everything is agenda driven lol. I just disagree with your assessment that Baers and Foremans wins weren’t on equal terms. I’ve listed them and think they stack up nicely. If not the same (nothings going to be exact) historically about the same. Beating two prime Hw champs and a long list of good to great contenders is nothing to sneer at.
Foremans second career puts him in my top 3-6 area all time for heavyweights.

 

I rate jimmy young higher

 

Still a top 10 ATG heavyweight for me.
But at the bottom instead of top 5.

 

H2H of course he loses but Patterson had a good legacy youngest champion at the time, first to regain title and fought most contenders even after losing his title.

 

He was a great fighter.

 

That's a great post and hits some real key notes. Fearsome heavyweights with ferocious power will always be remembered quite fondly especially if they have an overwhelming win over an undefeated title holding ATG and a similar defense over another big player of the time.

There'd also be more talk IMO as to why he wasn't in line for a second shot during that time given he went straight from the Ali loss and stopped two top five heavyweights back to back.

 

Correct. Baer is a 25-30 Heavyweight and Foreman first career would have been found anywhere from #7-#15 or so. Foreman's top end wins make a huge difference and only losses are to the GOAT and Young. The Young loss is quite circumstantial but I'd take him over Baer all day long anyway as he's a stylistic nightmare for a guy that had virtually no jab at all, often telegraphed his right hand and thought defence was something you built around de house.

 

If Frazier didn't have that win i shudder to think where he'd be rated nowadays especially in here. Even with a win plenty rate the best in Heavyweight history his resume still gets picked apart on an almost semi regular basis in here.

Virtually everyone that knows anything slips him into the ten. I think McGrain rated him around #5 last time i saw and that's about as high as Joe gets. Take out Ali and a great many wouldn't consider him top 10 even tho i agree he has a nice resume up until the Foreman loss.

He'd be rated a lot worse off by many.

 

Me too.

And I also rank Ken Norton above Ali.

 

Even if their wins were the same (they are absolutely not), surely their losses weren't even remotely equal. Baer had countless losses to less than stellar competition. Foreman only lost to the greatest of all time, and another fighter who was 3-2 against Lyle, Foreman, Norton, and Ali and whom many think deserves to be 5-0. Foreman was also not at his best for that fight.

 

1. I was referring to Baer who had many losses not Schmeling.

2. Please show me, where I specifically stated Cleveland Williams was robbed in any of his bouts. I certainly never said this. I think he deserved the decision against Terrell, but it wasn't a robbery.

Peralta would box Chuvalo's ears off and make him look silly. Carnera may be able to outbox Chuvalo for a decision but I doubt it.

He was good enough to give Ali hell, two years later and beat Quarry, Ellis, and Bugner, three rated contenders.

I sure as hell wouldn't. Frazier didn't have anywhere near Foreman's power to deter Frazier. Frazier would be on him like skin and Schmeling had nothing to hold him off.

Baer losses weren't as a result of him being more active. He actually lost to both Farr and Schaff the first time around. Actually he seemed to be on his way to losing to Schaff again before the final round.

Losses is a different debate? What? I said 70s Foreman blows Baer out of the water legacy wise. How are losses not factored into that discussion?

As I stated earlier, wins against ranked contenders aren't the be-all end-all in terms of legacy. Or else Patterson would be a top five heavyweight.

 

Excellent post JT.

Though to his detriment (but realistic and correct all the same) even Maxie “No, not a House Doctor, get me a People Doctor!” Baer would’ve appreciated your de fence play on words.

And, I truly admire your not sitting on defence when giving the straight dope. Yep, I’ll show myself out…….

 

I know it’s not an answer to the exact question - but if I had to choose one or the other - I would of course take Foreman’s first career over his second career - and by a wide margin. First career in its own right worthy of being inside the top ten. Sometimes it’s seems GF’s first career, a career of incredibly high achievements, is all too easily forgotten.

There’s the Young loss - but Jimmy was a problematic proposition for all the top HWs of the day anyway - and there’s the exceptional heat to factor in. Suffice to muse on - how does 77 Young fare against Old George - in either extraordinary heat or not?

The second career naturally served to enhance GF’s legacy and perhaps overall rating. IMO, GF def. wasn’t a better fighter overall in just his second career and it seems there was more considerate selectivity in terms of opposition second time around.

Old GF gets points for longevity (though there was a 10 year hiatus) but receives extra points for being able to viably comeback after such a hiatus and at an advanced age. Relative weighting.

There’s then absolute weighting which GF gets credit for his post retirement performances and ultimate regaining of the HW Title.

What did the second career reveal that wasn’t evident in Foreman’s first career?

Far better pacing, some improvement to defence but so much slower. Power and chin? For mine, the same. Heart? Again, I see the same moxie but put to the test for longer durations - Old GF fighting under duress for a protracted number of rounds, including full distance, in several instances.

So for me, GF’s first career sufficient for ATG rating and a place in the top 10.

 

No, you clearly stated that about Schmeling:

"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."

That's the quote from your previous post.

So if you are aware that Williams had some losses that were undeserved, then you should know that Schmeling got robbed against Sharkey in rematch.

Peralta vs Chuvalo is not a matchup in question here.

How would Chuvalo beat Primo? He wouldn't stop him and he wouldn't outbox him.

Beating Bugner was certainly impressive, but Quarry and Ellis were at the wnd of their careers by then.
I think beating Louis is more impressive.

Schmeling was very powerful puncher. If you think Frazier would simply shake off all these rights, then you are mistaken.

How is it not? Baer fought more often against better competition on average. What does it change that he won rematches?

You clearly stated that Baer has much worse wins, without counting losses. I agree that Baer was less consistent, so he should be ranked lower than 1970s Foreman but that wasn't your original point.

It's not the end, but quantity matters and Foreman sucks at that without 1990s career.

Patterson wouldn't be top 5 in any criteria, don't worry.

 

If Max’s losses are analyzed closely you’ll see he had two DQ losses as his first losses. His next three came at the hands of Les Kennedy, Earnie Schaaf, and Tommy Loughran. Two HOfs and a decent contender. He avenged the Kennedy and Schaaf loss (and one of the DQs). Something Foreman as much as I love can’t say he ever did.
Baer fought a lot more ranked men in his first career then Foreman did. With that coming up and not carefully picking your opponents you will garner some Ls. Not saying Foreman was protected but he did avoid some fighters where as Baers Team had zero problem with him losing and actually WANTED him too if that’s to be believed. That’s how different boxing matches being made was then to later years