Who is greater P4P George Foreman or Gennady Golovkin?

Stating something doesn't mean its true. Good day sir hope the door doesn't hit you on the way.

 

You said you shouldn't include fights which Foreman didn't win, then proceeded to Incline fights Canelo factually didn't win. Back tracking - again - isn't gonna change that.

We've had a debate about Canelo vs GGG scoring before, where we both watched certain rounds with the actual scoring criteria; I'm not getting into it again but I had the first two fights both as draws. I don't think we should treat judges words as gospel but pretending a draw and a loss are two wins because you disagree with the official decision is dumb.

Imagine in football if you disagreed with a ref that something was handball or offside. Doesn't matter; rules are the rules and results are results.

 

Football and boxing aren’t really the same. In football it’s objective the ball either crosses the line or it doesn’t. In boxing, rounds are scored based on criteria, but it’s still subjective. Two good judges can watch the same fight and score it differently.

When I rank fighters, I go by how I personally scored the fight. I had GGG winning the first one, so when I look at his career, I treat that performance like a win. I’m not changing the official result, I just evaluate the performance differently based on how I scored it.

And we already do this all the time in boxing. A lot of people treat Whitaker–Chavez or Lewis–Holyfield I like wins for Whitaker and Lewis when talking legacy. The record doesn’t change, but when we’re discussing greatness, people separate the official decision from how the fight actually played out.

 

Does it matter? LOL. Both are great, stop cheerleading

 

OI think the whole Foreman hit harder than Lewis thing needs perspective ... second career , he didn't and it wasn't close ..

 

Power is the last thing to go

 

Not denying that but I dont think he was a harder hitter or even close to Lewis at that stage of his career .. George was a natural very strong man and a big time clubbing puncher .. in his first career he was a Goliath and really underachieved .. he was developing but then lost to Young and vanished ... in his second career he was a brilliant showman an inspiration but never one of the five best in the world and brilliantly market and promoted and performed .. on the other hand GGG had become ridiculously underrated .. he was always in exceptional condition, had big time strength and power, world class skills, terrific dedication and as good a chin as Hagler .. he was a great fighter.

 

I think GGG is a tad bit overrated as far as greatness goes

 

Comeback Foreman didn't stop anyone of note aside from Moorer so I don't find that plausible.

He didn't face many punchers so that's a big question. Fighting Tyson or Lewis would give us a better idea.

 

Morrison and Briggs were punchers. Lennox had a much better delivery system and was in his prime compared to Foreman, that doesn't mean Foreman didn't punch as hard

 

I think both are a bit overrated personally.

Foreman has better signature wins over Frazier Norton, Moorer, but his time at the top wasn't that long.

Foreman also only won 5 World title fights and he doesn't have alot of filler to his resume.

Golovkin has more consistency winning many more world title fights. But his resume isn't that strong he also lacks signature wins and it wasn't a strong Middleweight division at that time either.

I'm also not one of those people that believe Golovkin got robbed vs Canelo. Whilst I did have Golovkin edging their 1st fight I don't think a draw was as bad as people make out.

Overall Golovkin has better fundamentals and is more skillful with a more consistent record in regards to world title wins.

But Foreman had higher highs than Golovkin and has better signature wins.

 

Were either of these two ever lineal champs?

 

Foreman was after beating Frazier

 

He may have even been lineal twice.................