Big George proved he was a better fighter than Smokin' Joe twice. But did he also have a better resume?
Both guys' wins vs ranked Heavyweights: Joe Frazier: Muhammad Ali Jimmy Ellis x2 Jerry Quarry x2 Joe Bugner Eddie Machen Oscar Bonavena x2 Doug Jones George Chuvalo Manuel Ramos George Foreman: Joe Frazier x2 Ken Norton Ron Lyle George Chuvalo Michael Moorer Chuck Wepner Gregorio Peralta x2 Gerry Cooney Jose Roman Scott Ledoux I'm gonna go with Frazier. They happen to be dead even in terms of ranked wins, with 12. But the Ali win > both Frazier wins, Quarry x2 >> Lyle for obvious reasons, and while the Norton and Moorer wins are great, George's resume falls pretty hard after that. Chuvalo aside (who Frazier also beat and even closer to his peak), guys like Wepner, Peralta (really just a blown up LHW, not better than even the Foster win), Roman and Ledoux were either ranked close to the very bottom of the top 10 list or for all of 5 minutes. Guys like Ellis and Bonavena were top contenders, and even Ramos had a brief period where he shined with wins over Machen and Terrell and got a top 5 ranking. Even Cooney in his prime wasn't that much better than a Joe Bugner, and he had like what, 2 fights in the prior 5 years ? Whereas Foreman already had 20 fights under his belt in his comeback by that point. Like yeah, George was really old, but 1 fight in 3 years vs 20 fights in 3 years isn't something we can just ignore due to age when Foreman was close to his peak comeback form by that point. Love Foreman but yeah, it's Frazier for me. Best win between the 2, Foreman has the best second and third win, but Frazier's 4-12 is better than Foreman's 4-12.
Frazier by default since he had both a real title reign and arguably the best win in heavyweight history. Foreman’s resume is like putting icing on a cake that was never fully baked to begin with.
Foreman for sure. Their opponents are relatively even when you exclude their best wins, but dominating Frazier himself 2x and Norton > beating Ali once and losing the next two fights with him. Foreman also has his 90s career. Cooney is a good win and him regaining the title against a prime Moorer at 45 comfortably bums him up above Frazier imo.
If Foreman had beaten Godzilla, King Kong and the Red Army, it still wouldn't be above FOC. Frazier for me.
I don't know if Foreman is the better fighter. Sure, he won their actual fights, but it's also a question of different styles. Frazier beat Ali in the FOTC though and I think he would've beaten Young as well... Anyway, I tend to rank Foreman a little higher due to his much longer career and far more fights. That said, if I only took Foreman's first career into account, I would rank Frazier higher. Nevertheless, personally, I prefer Frazier. He's one of my favorite boxers. Nothing against Foreman, but he just isn't really my cup of tea. It's subjective, I guess...
Foreman very much did not prove that he was a better fighter twice. He just beat him up twice. One thing doesn't necessarily mean the other because it's not that simple.
Foreman is higher on my ATG list and had his way with Frazier twice, but if you're saying better all-around resume not H2H, FOTC is an awfully substantial brownie point.
