What is ur HW top 10?

On the whole, I agree. Liston is the better man, and the much more rounded man.

All the things you said in those last two sentences may well be true, but it makes no difference. The reason it makes no difference was because Frazier didn't even get a look in against Foreman. He may have looked overweight, but we didn't get to see anything from him to confirm that, because he was blown away before he could get in the fight. Whether it had been FOTC Smokes or the one that's hanging around in 2010, Foreman would still have annihilated him.

Foreman was hardly prime himself.

Patterson is no Frazier.

 

Thank you guys for reply. It's not that I don't like Foreman, he is one of my favourite heavyweights all time. But I just think that there are at least 10 better fighters than him:

Ali

Louis

Marciano - Walcot x2, Charles x2, underrated resume, undefeated

Holmes - it would be interesting to see them fighting in the 90's

Lewis

Johnson - there are fighters who have better resumes, but his legacy and inovation ranks him high on my list

Holyfield - one of the best resumes ever despite his loses

Tyson

Liston - comparable resume with Foreman. Wins over Patterson are equal to those over Frazier (imo Frazier better HW, but Floyd was closer to his prime). But list had many good and dominant wins before his reign and for me was better skilled fighter than Big George

Frazier - best win in HW history against Ali and couple of very good wins (Quarry x 2, Ellis x2, Machen)

It's tough for me to drop one of those fighters to put Foreman in...the closest are Tyson and Liston

 

Nice to see Holyfield getting his due here.

 

I know we're all basically talking legacy here, but on a sidenote, I think his skills are vastly underappreciated as well.. For far too long, Foreman was labeled as a slow moving, clumbsy, plodding slugger, and frankly I don't think that does him any justice...Even in the 1970's, Foreman had a two fisted attack, and utilized punches like the hook and uppercut very well... He also knew the value of working the body, could tie a man up and had the instincts to know when a fighter was hurt, finishing him off quickley.. In some of his earlier fights, such as Boone Kirkman, he actually showed some boxing ability as well.. One can say what they will about him being " limited " but at the end of the day, there is a definite reason why he won 45 of 47 fights, had a huge KO percentage, defeated some all time great opponents, and was a lineal champion in one of the toughest periods of the division.... I don't just chalk it all up to luck or shear brute strength..

 

I totally agree. Look how often we get it wrong when trying to predict the outcome between fighters who have fought similar opposition. Trying to predict across eras is ludicrous in many cases.

And even if it wasn't, it would still penalise those who happened to fight when boxing was less evolved.

 

He could also cut off the ring rather well.

 

Vitali if you want to label him great.

 

I agree with everything you say.. My only point, is that his skills are really underappreciated, but that's just my opinion..

 

Still got the nice avatar, I see. Could you keep her for just another 20 minutes? That should suffice.

 

I must agree, she's not bad..

 

Makes it hard to keep one's mind on the matter at hand, though.

But you still manage to do some really good work in Foreman's corner. He's very hard to rank, IMO, but you and Suzie make a compelling case for him.

 

Thanks,

his record, resume and overall career require some close examination to fully appreciate... Whenever his name comes up, there is always at least one person who makes excuses for his best wins, ie

1. " Foreman got lucky against a careless Moorer "

2. " Norton had no chin "

3. " Frazier was shot "

I prefer to give the man credit for WHAT he did, and not HOW he did it..

 

Would be interesting to hear RockySplitnose's take on it.