Never assume that the title of ‘boxing historian’ makes a guy feel grand or superior. Only the insufferably smug and deluded feel like that. Trust me when I tell you that the one thing most of us dread is that bold new message in the inbox that opens with the quietly chilling words, “Hey, you’ll know the answer to this one….†When a fellow historian is lurking on the other end of it, the heart beats even faster, the guard goes up and the ridiculous feinting begins. I had one such message just the other day from a friend and fellow obsessive who mischievously asked: “How hard did George Foreman hit? And how does he stack up on the all-time heavyweight list?†http://fightbeat.com/article_detail.php?AT=691
Most of Ali's legacy relies on that win over Foreman. If Ali had lost, he wouldn't be as big a deal as he is. Which goes to show how highly regarded Foreman was. This article sucks balls, Cupey. Who the f*ck is Mike Casey?
I'm gonna just say this. Young George Foreman would give Louis/Dempsey/Marciano the Toronto 5 treatment. Liston/Tyson/Foreman are second tier power punchers at HW? I disagree as well that Foreman could ever do anything different against Ali. A fast guy with a good jab ALWAYS gives Foreman problems. Foreman ran from Larry Holmes like he was the plague for his entire life to avoid being embarassed again the way he was against Ali. I wouldn't criticize George for meeting a style he can't contend with. I like how this was written, it is quality stuff. I sincerely disagree with the above for obvious reasons, but I think he's right in saying ranking George is hard. Its hard to legitimately place 5 guys ahead of him in terms of accomplishment and ability. In no universe could Jack Dempsey be considered better or greater, ditto for Marciano. So that leaves Ali, Louis, Lewis, Holmes above him for me. There's an argument to place him at 5, above Marciano/Tyson/Frazier/Holyfield/Johnson. But overall well written and intriguing
Not a great article for many reasons. Not the least of all that he reckons Marciano & Demsey would have beat George. Anything can happen, I guess but my money would be on Foreman by K.O over both those guys.
Speculation on who-beats-who really shouldn't factor into all-time rankings, though. In terms of accomplishment and ability, he made two successful title defenses in two reigns spread over 20 years apart. He demolished Frazier, and won the title again at 45 which are both great accomplishments. Second round KO of Ken Norton is nice, but Joe "King" Roman? And....that's it? If he didn't knock out Moorer to regain the title, he would barely be mentioned for top-10 status.
What did you think about him placing Jeffries at #6 all-time? He didn't include his full Heavy rankings, but he did mention Foreman at #7 (which I don't disagee with) but I am assuming he has Jeffries rated higher than Frazier, Tyson, Holyfield, etc?? I'd be curious to see what his Top Ten All-Time Heavies list looks like. I wonder if we would see Marciano, Johnson & Dempsey in the top 5.
Well I'm of the mind that ability and accomplishment are both important in rankings. It would be easier to skate over how good someone was and just go with an accomplishment route, but that doesn't tell the whole story. To me, it is important how good someone was for ranking purposes. Longevity in terms of title reigns is certainly not something George has going for him. But I go beyond his title defenses to add names like Lyle and Cooney to his resume, which I will admit is quite poor. The accomplishment of KOing Michael Moorer at 45 really puts him in a special place I think. Pre-Moorer, I don't think there'd be an argument to put him in the top-10, but that win is a unique accomplishment, which to me highlights why Foreman is highly regarded. I would agree with people who think his resume is poor, and that he belongs outside the top 5, I just don't think its legitimate to criticize George and underscore his power, while talking up Dempsey and Marciano is all.
