Who is greater P4P George Foreman or Gennady Golovkin?

Close fight either way and having a close competive fight with a prime ATG in Canelo is much more impressive then gassing out against Young.

 

I agree with the decisions of the Canelo fights but don’t think they hurt GGG. Canelo turned out to be pfp 1.

 

Destroying Frazier and Norton, was better than a laboured win over Jacobs, and a struggle against Derev.

We can play this game all day.

GGG has no win more impressive than those, and his win over Moorer at 45.

Or don’t they count?

Because it was just a lucky shot?

And he only won due to his power?

BS.

You are the guy who thinks Wlad is the 3rd best HW of all time.

And where would he rank if we’re penalising fighters for being big and powerful?

BTW, Canelo is terribly overrated.

Even if GGG had officially won, it wouldn’t be the monster win that you try and claim it to be.

 

Essentially you're asking who do posters rank higher p4p, GGG or Canelo. More posters will rank Canelo higher.

I do too, on account of superior opposition beaten, even though I think GGG was the better fighter at their respective peaks.

 

My point exactly the fights raised both guys stocks it was one of the highest levels of boxing in the modern day and yet people only use the fights to degrade one or the other............

 

They were both great fighters.

But they both get overrated.

They wouldn’t have been celebrated as much in stronger eras, such as periods of the 80’s and 90’s.

They’d have just been part of a group of other respected fighters.

 

When people say “stronger era,” they rarely define what that actually means. If the argument is simply that Canelo and GGG didn’t beat names you personally rate as all-time greats, that becomes circular. You’re using historical reputation to measure greatness instead of evaluating the actual skill level of the fighters.

A better way to compare eras is to look at traits, defense, ring IQ, punch selection, adaptability, conditioning etc, and then ask how those stack up stylistically. Boxing knowledge builds over time, the sport doesn’t reset every generation. That doesn’t mean modern fighters are automatically greater, but it does mean you can’t assume older eras were deeper just because they’re more mythologized.

If someone thinks they wouldn’t dominate the 80s or 90s, fine make that stylistic case. But just saying they’d “blend in” isn’t analysis unless you explain who they’d clearly be behind and why.

 

Nobody who is knowledgeable of those eras needs anything at all defining.

You don’t need any analysis whatsoever, if you know who was there, and who they fought.

The fact that you want your little breakdown speaks volumes of your lack of knowledge.

There would be no 21 fight title reigns for GGG in that era.

And Canelo wouldn’t have had a hope of being the the P4P no.1.

 

So instead of explaining what specifically made that era stronger, you’re saying “if you know, you know”?

That’s exactly what I was talking about. You’re treating reputation as self-evident proof rather than actually breaking down skill sets or stylistic matchups. If it’s that obvious, it should be easy to explain. What traits did those middleweights consistently have that Canelo or GGG lack? What technical gaps are you seeing?

Saying analysis isn’t needed isn’t an argument it’s just appealing to mystique. If the era was stronger, show it in concrete terms instead of assuming everyone who disagrees just “doesn’t know.”

 

Norton was the same size as Foreman as was Lyle.

Let’s not forget that GGG too had a size advantage over Kelly Brook, for example. And while GGG was not huge, he was a far more powerful than most of his opponents l

In deciding who is greater P4p, you have to look at their whole careers. We can’t separate first and second career Foreman. Foreman overcame a near 20 year age difference to beat Michael Moorer. Moorer is arguably better than Jacob’s, which is GGG’s best official win.

Overcoming a huge age gap should not be discounted in a P4p sense. Foreman’s resume is far better. It doesn’t matter if he relied on brute force. Frazier x 2’ Norton, Moorer, Lyle. If you believe that GGG won the first Canelo fight, as I do, then you can make a case for GGG. However, even in that case, Foreman’s resume is far better.

 

Not entirely maybe but it certainly helped. I don't think Foreman's power and physical strength are so impressive when you compare him to guys his own size like Lewis or Cooney. Had he been consistently fighting guys his own size he'd be less dominant

 

Yes, to all of the above.