George Foreman , overrated ?

Louis, Patterson, Ali, Marciano ... all these got sat on their ass as 20somethings as much as George. That shouldn't preclude George from ATG consideration if it hasn't stopped us thinking so highly of those men.

Also, he has wins versus two near prime ATGs. That's more than Larry Holmes managed despite making 20 defences. Should we rank Larry higher because he kept busy fighting the Leroy Joneses, Lorenzo Zanons or Alfredo Evangelistas of this world? As someone has said, George had quality rather than quantity.

This has been a good debate, largely due to the absence of combatdeboxeo/Foreskin&Dempsey who would have turned it int a snarling abusathon at the very mention that Foreman may not have been Godzilla. Good, measured and respectful answers from posters with opposing views makes a nice change.

George is an ATG without doubt. Maybe his resume is a bit thin but when it shone, ie in the Frazier or Norton fights, it really shone. What he lacked in depth he made up for in the sheer spectacular nature of what he did albeit briefly. Burning bright but fast is still worth a lot.

And I disagree that Ali's reputation was built on the trilogies with Frazier and Norton. For many, the apogee of Ali's career was the miracle of Zaire, a feat made so incredible because of the scale of what he achieved. And that achievement was so amazing because his opponent that morning was George Foreman.

 

George was freakishly strong. Especially first time around and it took a still very dangerous incarnation of Muhammad Ali to beat him.

 

Up until that point in history ( Zaire ), who else could of beaten Joe Frazier in that fashion?, or Norton for that point.
George didn't just beat them, he ****ing destroyed them both.
I also started a thread couple years back asking who could of beaten Foreman that night in Zaire. IMO very,very few.

 

You missed a few things. Foreman also was stripped of titles twice for not fighting mandatory opponents and self admits to ducking guys ....later in career would also duck bowe and Lewis. He though he could k.o Morrison but like i tell everyone when you see a punch coming you can brace for it.

Was he overatted? For sure he was,but the one thing he had was superb chin and durability. For that he should be rated.However the length i hear of how he would be a world beater certainly isnt true. He was actually better in the early 90's what stopped him was BETTER fighters than the 70's.

hell ive conversed with the guy a few times he is a class act but lets be real here he was limited skill wise but just out matched in most top fights he was in in both eras. If he was in the modern era and there were no Ali fights you guys would call him a bum ...in THIS section...lol

 

No.He did beat two great fighters who were at or near their prime in Frazier and Norton.He did beat Lyle too.
Also beat some good fighters in his 2nd career.

 

George was either able to realise his vast potential with that one fight or he just got Joe Frazier on a very bad day. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle?

That night in Zaire there have been many champions I would give better than 40-60 to beat George Foreman.

 

I don't think I have seen a Foreman thread on here where he isn't considered the favorite. So yes, he is overrated. Is he top 10 heavyweight in history? Yes. Is he durable and had a decent chin? Yes. Are there at least a couple guys who could beat him? Yes.

 

The biggest problem is combining qualities from the first career with the second career to create a guy who never was.

If Without doing that George still makes your top ten that's fine, then you are not over rating him. But if he only makes your top ten because he had the best of both worlds all the way to his mid forties then that is over raring him.

Myself, George is in my top ten.