Who is greater P4P George Foreman or Gennady Golovkin?

This is not neccessarily true.

Foreman during his comeback considered his power to be gone. It briefly returned for Coetzer and Moorer then was gone again. And clearly he still had other stuff or he wouldn't have kept his belt a few fights.

Power is like a pitchers "stuff" it can last to the very end it could also vanish during a fighters so called prime.

 

He was slower too. The slower the punch, the less momentum it has. The less likely it is to be a punch the other guy can't prepare for fully. And yeah, he was also fighting bigger guys and guys with better chins.

 

Tommy Morrison gave an insight into Foreman's power.

He said whilst he felt Foreman's power and he was able to land single punches on him. The issue was Foreman was too slow and couldn't land the follow up punches and that's why he was able to withstand Foreman's power.

Foreman still had good timing in his old age that's why his most accurate weapon was his jab which he always landed a high percentage of. The issue was slower punches overall and struggling to land the follow up punches against better opposition.

 

And yet again I have the need to point out that you couldn't do this with Golovkin. GGG was a master of controlling the range through his superlative footwork. He made you fight the fight that he wanted.

 

But we can all have a back and forth on this for days.

Different fighters.

Different weights.

Different styles.

Yes, we can say that GGG didn’t find himself in that position.

But then George was in his 40’s, where he’d had more fights.

GGG wasn’t fighting those types of opponents at that age. He wasn’t even fighting anyone at that age. And he hadn’t had as many fights.

Morrison was a B level guy.

Jacobs was a B level guy.

GGG didn’t lose, yet he struggled with Jacobs.

And Derev too.

We’re not going to get anywhere.

Because if we say that George beat guys like Frazier and Norton with ease, you’ll just say that it only happened due to his power.

But so what?

GGG beat most of his low level opposition on power too.

He didn’t put any boxing master classes on to beat any elite level guys.

And you have no issue with rating Wlad so highly, even though he won most of his fights on his size and power.

It’s just turned into a bit of pointless debate now.

They were both great fighters.

But the only reason I quoted you in the first place, is because you said that GGG EASILY ranks higher.

Yet that can’t be the case.

 

My knowledge is superior to yours.

No, it really isn't.

Overall, they are good enough. And he has way many of them, that's what you keep failing to realize.
He was clearly more skilled than Foreman.

It was, cause it was aided by Moorer's ego. He wanted to prove he could stand toe to toe with Foreman in the last round. If he had just moved, he'd have won with ease, he was far ahead on the scorecards.

It would have been had he outboxed his opponents. But HE DIDN'T !!! He was the one who was outboxed and only won due to Moorer's ego.

Completely irrelevant.

Yes.

No he did not. Unless you are also accounting the opponents that beat Foreman, which is hilarious.

They are.
All Foreman has is a smaller man in Frazier and Norton's overrated arse.

And ?!?
Nobody was comparing GGG with them.

No they weren't, especially not Calzaghe.

Really ? Do tell me then, apart from Frazier, what great boxer in his prime did Foreman beat ???
Let me tell you: ****IN' NONE.
And even Frazier's best years were coming to an end, if not behind him already.

And plenty other HW's could have replicated what Foreman did.
Take a Lennox Lewis for example. He'd have easily beat Norton, Frazier and Moorer.

Do tell me what the "traditional ranking criteria" is.

You need to educate yourself, not me.

 

This content is protected

 

GGG is not even universally recognized as an ATG. Imo he is not one. He was a near great, that's all.

 

This content is protected

Yet again, and I restate: in a P4P sense Wlad suffers for his size. I rate Foreman highly too for what he accomplished, but in a P4P sense his weight advantage hurts him.

 

White Bomber,

Again, if destroying Frazier and Norton isn’t a big deal to you, then what on earth would be impressive about beating Brook and Jacobs etc?

Again, if coming back after a 10 year lay off, to win a version of the HW title at 45 isn’t a big deal to you, then why should any of GGG’s wins be celebrated??

Again, if those wins don’t impress you, then what on earth would impress you about beating a load of B and C level guys?

It doesn’t make sense does it.

You don’t rate 2 destructions over Frazier, but you’re going to cream your pants over a struggle over Derev, and knockout wins over Brook and Murray etc??

I have acknowledged it.

I have agreed that GGG was more skilled.

Yes, he has a deeper resume. He fought more B level guys.

But he has no wins better than wins over Frazier, Norton and Moorer.

“If this, if that..”

That can be applied to any fight in history.

So he gets no credit?

It wasn’t George who won the fight?

It was Moorer who lost it?

You’re an utter joke.

No. It is extremely relevant.

George was still a world level fighter in his late 40’s.

That is very rare.

And we have no idea if GGG could have fought at the highest level at that age.

How? By doing what?

Having a title reign against mostly B and C level guys?

How’s that better??

A resume is: Who they fought.

The results of those match ups are then debated.

George fought better fighters.

Yes, he lost to them.

And?

The best guy GGG ever fought gave him 2 losses.

Why is it hilarious?

The point is: GGG could have accumulated more losses, had he have fought comparable fighters.

He never fought an Ali.

He never fought anyone like a prime Evander Holyfield at such an advanced age.

All GGG has is Canelo, who couldn’t win a round off of Floyd, and who barely beat Lara and Trout. And he was smaller than GGG too.

It’s really not a good look for you, when you’re dismissing destructions over Norton and Frazier x 2, when the best wins of the guy you’re defending were against: Danny Jacobs and Derev.

It was an example, you utter genius.

A relevant example, to show you that without applying relevant context, the numbers don’t mean anything.

Joe Calzaghe defended a low level belt 21 times. And a dozen of those opponents were literally non world level fighters. That left him with just 9 defences against world class opposition, with the majority of them being B and C class opposition.

There was nothing great about it.

When you have to omit someone, you’ve already lost the argument.

Again, GGG has no win as impressive as 2 destructions over Frazier.

No win as great as a destruction over Norton.

I’ll even give you the Canelo win. Even though it’s not official.

Even if he’d have gotten a decision win over Canelo, I don’t think it would have been that great.

All he has is a deeper resume, where he fought more B level guys.

Was that better than what George did, considering his age and his lay off?

It’s open to debate.

I have already acknowledged this.

However, we don’t know how many of the greats of the past would have fared under the same conditions.

Having fought at the same age etc.

You: “I’ve got more knowledge than you”

Also you: “What’s traditional ranking criteria?”

Ability
Resume
Wins
Accomplishments
Longevity

The main staples.

 

Look, we’ll just condense it down and make it simple:


Ability - GGG

No debate needed.


Resume - George fought the better guys, but he did lose to them.

So this is open to interpretation/debate.


Longevity - George.

George fought and beat world level fighters at an age where GGG isn’t fighting, where he also fought more pro fights.


Wins - Open to debate.

To me, George has the better top wins.

However, GGG has a deeper resume, where he fought more B-C level guys.


Accomplishments - Open to debate.

IMHO, his peak wins, and the comeback at that age, was more of an overall accomplishment than GGG’s title reign over mostly low level opposition.


Now if you don’t rank George higher, then I have no real issue with that.

Again, the issue that I do have, is you saying that GGG is EASILY ahead.


Yet that can’t be the case.

Whether you’re rating on a P4P basis, a H2H basis, or doing a full career comparison.


There’s just no justification for having him so clearly above.


If you want to agree to disagree and leave it there, then we can do.

It’s been a decent debate overall.

 

Bomber has certainly hit his head on a wall.

I would say several times.