Who is greater P4P George Foreman or Gennady Golovkin?

Foreman had a good chin and Holyfield himself thought an aging Foreman hit harder than Lewis so his talent would translate in any era

Considering worse fighters have had success at elite level i doubt Foreman would be significantly hindered just because he's facing bigger guys

 

I saw him beat Canelo 8-4 twice. To be fair to Foreman as well, I thought that he narrowly beat Briggs.

 

"unless its my favourite fighter that got knobbed by the judges" is what I am hearing

 

Foreman should be called Forum-man because you know damn well Classic will vote for him even if its Superman in the other corner

 

[loudon] Here, we can only compare the MW division during GGG's reign, with the specific HW divisions that George was apart of. Yes, GGG dominated his division, in a way that George didn't. But if it was a weaker division, then we have to take that into account.

I don’t think that middleweight was particularly weak when Golovkin was champion. I think it is more of a case of a dominant champion making everybody look like garbage. This happens nearly every time a champion rules for a long time. Louis, Holmes, Hopkins, Wlad etc have all been accused of being champions in a pudding era.

On the other hand while I think the 70s era was good, it has been overblown by the competitive nature of the top fighters. They all took turns at beating each other which made the division fresh and exciting. There is moreover a ‘halo effect’ created by that relentless self-promoter Ali, who sold the idea of him being the best ever. If that is true, then ergo, the division he headed must also be the best ever. I think that if we scrape the nostalgic patina off our glasses, it becomes apparent that this is debatable.

[loudon] By any metric, GGG's opposition were B and C level guys. With or without GGG, that would always have been the case. We can assess the careers of everyone who GGG fought.

I mean, we can. Golovkin has beaten a whole string of champions in his career. If we include NABF level guys in the list, like some of Foreman’s opponents, then GGG’s list becomes even more prodigious. Foreman’s roster is largely composed of fluff; Golovkin’s opponents by and large are much more decorated.

Moreover since this is a P4P debate, there arises the thorny question of said pounds. Foreman was nearly always the bigger man in the ring, particularly in the 70s. Golovkin was usually the smaller guy. Even when Foreman was about the same weight as the other guy, this was usually because he’d dehydrate himself (very stupidly) in order to become more ‘explosive’ or somesuch thing.

I think we can agree that a boxer with more weight has an advantage over a boxer with less weight. If Golovkin got extensive flak for fighting ‘smaller Brook’, then what can we not say about Foreman fighting guys that were barely heavies? Foreman’s roster is studded with guys that weighed in the 190s like Peralta for instance. Fights became much easier when he had a 10-20lb weight advantage most of the time.

Myself, I will add more weight to the results of the smaller guy consistently beating larger opponents, rather than the bigger guy beating smaller opponents.

 

[loudon] You know that this is always disputed. It always has been. Due to the regular belt etc.

“Gennadiy Golovkin retained his IBF middleweight belt via technical knockout against Kamil Szeremeta after the seventh round on Friday at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Hollywood, Florida. Golovkin (41-1-1, 36 KOs) registered a record-breaking 21st middleweight title defense in the dominant victory.”

https://www.thescore.com/boxing/news/2073807

[me] Foreman managed to do well for himself in a division full of midgets and guys that he outweighed. Many of the guys he beat were middling boxers at best. Yet, because his fight game was full of holes, he got taken to school by the guys that could box worth a lick.

[loudon] Okay. But you don't share this opinion when it comes to Wlad K.

On the contrary, I recognise fully that Wlad utilized his size and height to crush smaller guys. Coupled with his superior boxing, it made him mission impossible to beat for many years. That said, in a P4P sense Wlad must suffer as a result. Would he have been as dominant if he’d been the same size as the rest of them? Hell no.

 

[loudon] GGG barely beat anybody of real note. And his best wins aren't on another level to George's best wins. Many people would actually argue that George's best wins were better.

That of course is your opinion. The quantity of belts and reputations stacked up by GGG’s defeated foes makes quite a long list. Even the guys without a ‘proper’ champions belt like (iirc) Murray, had given actual champions like Martinez all they could handle and arguably beat them.

Foreman’s best scalps are guys like Norton and Frazier. Most people rank them highly, and fair enough. However, if we examine the particular matchups, we can see that both of them were especially well suited for Foreman to blow up. Frazier was a smaller and lighter hitting guy with a worse chin trying to slug with Foreman. Norton’s notorious paper chin was a win button just waiting to be pressed by heavy-handed Foreman.

But for me P4P means more than just getting a high level scalp or two. Ross Puritty is still not really highly regarded despite blowing Wlad away for instance. As an all-round fighter, Golovkin outclasses Foreman because he achieved his success against every style, not just the guys that especially suited him.

[loudon] Okay. But then you have to give credit to a small 45 year old HW for winning back a version of the title against a competent guy.

I agree Moorer was competent. So much so that he basically boxed Foreman’s ears off for 80% of their match. However Foreman outweighed him by 30lbs, and Moorer had the ideal Foreman opponent flaw of a weak chin. Kudos to Foreman for doing it at all and he showed his improved fight IQ and toughness in that one.

 

[loudon] Now whilst something like that has never happened to GGG, he's simply never found himself in a situation like that, with a truly great, iconic fighter, in similar conditions.

I don’t give Foreman too much stick for losing to Ali. But I will note that Ali could box, Ali had a chin, Ali was almost the same size and that Foreman was one-dimensional in his fight plan even when it became obvious it was not working.

As I have demonstrated, Golovkin’s tack when he has the other guy pinned to the ropes is levels above Foreman trying to swim through his man even though he himself was exhausted. Tell ya what, I had that same fight plan when I was 12 and it worked out the same for me. I expect a world champ to have a better fight IQ.

The only time that Golovkin found himself in a barrel like that was in the third Canelo fight (and arguably against Derevyanchenko) and he managed to finish strong regardless.

[loudon] Had he have fought many more fights, and into advanced years like George, then he also could have accumulated more losses too.

Almost certainly he would have had more losses. As I noted before, the lighter weights do not age nearly as well as heavyweights. Golovkin looks like he is stuck in tar at the end of his career.

 

[loudon] Ability

Resume

Wins

Achievements

Longevity

This is all mostly debatable. Ability wise Golovkin is well ahead. He is technically next level. So what then of their resumes? It’s simple.

Do you weigh losses in evaluating a fighter?

I do. You don’t – or, at least, you weigh the losses less.

Do you weigh sheer quantity of names on the ledger?

I do, but only to a certain extent. 50 mattresses on a resume are much the same as each other. Foreman has an eclectic mix of mostly garbage and some crème de la crème fighters. Golovkin’s average opponent is better than most of what Foreman faced.

You could argue that Frazier and Norton are better wins than any on Golovkin’s ledger. But I feel they were particularly vulnerable to Foreman. Ideal opponents.

I think we disagree on the basic metrics of the weight of the somewhat nebulous criteria at play. For example you rate Foreman’s comeback win extremely highly, whereas I think it’s pretty good but not the equivalent of career dominance at Golovkin’s chosen weight.

And there are others that we are not considering, such as physicality. Most people would reflexively pick Foreman as the physical superior, whereas in fact Golovkin is physically superior, within his weight bracket.

Foreman had been knocked down.

Foreman had been knocked out.

Foreman gassed.

You can’t say any of those things about Golovkin. Their KO rates are comparable – but then usually GGG was doing it against bigger guys and Foreman against smaller dudes.

 

[loudon] Whereas GGG was happy at MW, where he didn’t really want to venture any higher for a prolonged period.

Golovkin did try to make fights at higher weights. Chavez jr, Froch and Ward were some of them. He also agreed to go down, like for Mayweather. These all fell through. I personally have no problem with him staying at 160.

[loudon] The man literally struggled with Canelo, Derev and Jacobs.

As an old fighter. The lower weights age much faster than the higher weights. Hagler was done by 32. Meanwhile Golovkin gets judged for what he did after 35.

To conclude:

I feel the point of P4P is to try to evaluate who would win if fighters were the same size.

You clearly feel that it is more to evaluate achievements and legacy wow factor.

Even if I took your criteria, we are then faced with evaluating a few top wins vs a bunch of solid wins. Undefeated dominance vs a career with lower lows but arguably higher highs. The middleweight defence record vs the oldest heavyweight champion in history.

It all becomes a matter of preference.

 

I’m literally conversing with a guy who believes that:

Wlad K is the 3rd best HW of all time

That GGG was fighting at a higher level than George Foreman, because he had more technical ability

That George only won based on his physical attributes

No. I don’t need to explain to you why a guy like Mike McCallum, had a harder run of opponents than what a guy like GGG had, having fought guys like: Macklin, Murray and Rubio etc.

Now if you don’t understand that, then you’re not worthy of my time.

It’s simply self explanatory.

It doesn’t need any analysis.

It would be like asking why Oscar’s De La Hoya’s resume was better than Amir Khan’s.

It’s not needed.

So, yeah, if you know, you know.

100%

If you don’t, then go and do some research and expand your knowledge.

 

Same weight isn’t the same as same physical size frame and strength also matter. Foreman was physically denser and stronger than most of his opponents, even when they weighed similarly. That showed in how he handled guys like Norton and Lyle. But also he had the perfect style to exploit both Norton's and Frazier's flaws.

Brook wasn’t some small welterweight he was a large WW who rehydrated well. On fight night, the size difference was not that big (they weight around the same at fight night). The bigger issue was experience at middleweight but it was still a win over a high-level, skilled fighter not some fringe contender.

Moorer was good, but let’s be honest he won the heavyweight title in a very close fight against a declining Holyfield, and he wasn’t widely viewed as the clear best heavyweight of that era. It was a great moment for Foreman, especially at his age, but Moorer wasn’t an all-time dominant champion nor was a he some great fighter. He was a good fighter with an obvious weakness that Foreman was able to exploit. Compared that to Jacobs who doesn't have an obvious weakness, was more refined, more dangerous, and bigger. Add those up and I think it would suggest it a much better win then Foreman's over Moorer.

In a P4P discussion, opponent quality should matter more than the narrative of when the win happened. A great win at 45 is impressive but it should still be measured by how good the opponent actually was. Resume-wise, Foreman has huge peaks like Frazier, Norton, and Moorer. But outside of those names, the depth isn’t great. Golovkin, during his title reign, beat multiple top contenders and unified belts. And if you score the first Canelo fight for GGG, which many people do, that significantly strengthens his case. Beating or arguably beating a prime pound-for-pound elite like Canelo is something Foreman never had the chance to do at heavyweight. So if we’re weighing resumes honestly, it’s not as lopsided as people make it sound. Foreman had better highs but Golovkin had the better depth and arguably the best single win between them in Canelo.

 

Foreman was a dominating presence in that ring.

 

I literally laughed hard at this.

Jacobs had no obvious weaknesses?

Jacobs was a better win than Moorer?

GGG’s unofficial win over Canelo, was better than any win than what George had?

Ha!

Comedy gold.

I’ll be back over the weekend.