What is ur HW top 10?

It does, thanks.

 

I hate it when people arrange rankings into "classes" or "levels" with the presumption that such things are somehow less controvertible than the ordering of the list itself.

 

Also, Foreman's record seems to be getting under-rated as usual.

 

I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't have him in the top 10.. Being a two time world champion by convincingly knocking out two undefeated lineal champions who were both either prime or very close to it... One of those champions usually makes most people's top 10, while the other is probably worthy of top 40.. In addition, he defeated several very good contenders, including one who is a top 40 heavyweight and a future world champ ( Ken Norton. ) Lastly, having the claim to being the oldest man to win the heavyweight title under impossible odds, being a gold medalist and having the best win/ko ratio, is enough for me...

 

I agree. He is top 10 for me, without a doubt. I feel though, he had too many flaws to rate top 5, and I would have liked to seen him add more depth to his resume in the 70s so we know just how many different styles he can beat(one of my main criticisms of Marciano for not being in my top 3, I would have liked to seen rock take on Clarence Henry or even Nino just to showcase his talents against different size/styles). Even though I thought foreman looked fat and past his prime against young, the loss still hurts him.

 

Well said. The Liston lovers will defend his two wins over Patterson to the last stand when Foreman's wins over Frazier are vastly more impressive, and he also has more depth.

 

As much as I love the man, I can't rate George top 5 either... He has some very high quality wins and longevity that's absolutely sick, but like you say, there's also a lot of padding on that record. He really needed to win that Ali fight to give the boost into the upper tier, and losing to Young didn't help his case much either... All in all though, he easily makes top 10 for me..

 

Yep. Anywhere from 6th-10th is ideal for foreman. No higher, No lower. I feel there are a few champions whos accomplishments are so extreme they are automatic top 10. Marciano and Foreman fit that bill. You just have to have them both somewhere in your top 10.

 

There's a lot of things that I really admire about Foreman, other than just being a great fighter... He is a true American.. I love looking at old clips of him carrying the American flag around the ring after winning the gold medal.. He is a nice guy, but can be tough as nails when he wants to be... His comeback basically changed the way that people look at age 40, and rapidly approaching that age myself, I can certainly feel a lot better about it...

 

1. Liston is better than foreman. No doubt abput it. Liston is a more scientific, better skilled version of george foreman. I think both are very even in terms of power, strength, and durability.

2. I wouldn't say foremans wins over frazier are THAT more impressive. Frazier by 1973 had declined physically. he was a fat 215lb, he didn't train as much anymore. He was still a great fighter, but not the fighter he was 2 years earlier at rock solid 205lb for FOTC. Forget about the 2nd win over frazier, frazier was washed up by that point. Patterson, was right in the middle of his prime when he fought Liston. Liston did the same thing to him, twice in one round. That is unheard of.

 

:good I must concur with this, well put.

I rank Liston higher for H2H and Greatness.

 

So if we talk about Foreman again...magoo, Suzie - how would you respond to my previous post on this thread:

 

Jaffay,

Maghoo said it best here

"eing a two time world champion by convincingly knocking out two undefeated lineal champions who were both either prime or very close to it... One of those champions usually makes most people's top 10, while the other is probably worthy of top 40.. In addition, he defeated several very good contenders, including one who is a top 40 heavyweight and a future world champ ( Ken Norton. ) Lastly, having the claim to being the oldest man to win the heavyweight title under impossible odds, being a gold medalist and having the best win/ko ratio, is enough for me..."


To add on to this wonderful post,

Think about this. The two best eras in heavyweight history quality wise are the 1970s and 1990s. Foreman was lineal champ in BOTH eras.

 

1. I have already addressed that he shouldn't be top 5 due to his losses to Ali and Young, but I don't feel that they keep him out of the top 10..

2. I don't personally hold losses or gift decisions that he had when past 40, and if we want to swap the Briggs robbery for the Schultz gift, then I think he actually comes out looking even better.

3. He probably did not deserve his title shot against Moorer, but look at the state the division was in late 1994.. Holyfield was temporarily out of the game.. Lewis had just lost to McCall... Bowe was building himself back up after losing to Holy the year before.. Mcall was fighting Holmes... Worse and less qualified contenders than Foreman have been given shots at the title. In any event, he did what most challengers couldn't, and that was capitalize on the opportunity, and in so doing, made history...

 

Thanks,

I also never really thought about it that way, when you said that he won titles in two of the most competitive eras.. Especially when we consider that he was 45 years old during one of them.. :good