George Foreman , overrated ?

Everybody knew George had potential, just like everyone knew Max Baer could have been better. The Frazier win really stood out but so did the Ali and Young defeats. He went down as a flawed talent until his return as a successful veteran ten years later.

I personally rate Foreman higher than Gilbert Odd did based on Foreman coming back.

However, Gilbert was a respected British historian. He's not just "some guy". I grew up on his books and so did generations of boxing fans. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about him:


Gilbert Odd (1902 – 12 May 1996) was a British boxing historian and sportswriter.

Odd boxed briefly as an amateur, then at 18 turned his sights on the sports writing side of the game, becoming a ringside correspondent for the weekly magazine, Boxing. Starting in 1941 and continuing for ten years after, he served as Editor in Chief of Boxing News, the successor to Boxing. In 1944, he began assisting in the publication of The Boxers Annual, which compiled the records of both professional and amateur boxers. In addition, he began the publication of a similar record book, the Boxing News Authors' and Record Book. Throughout the process of compiling and publishing these records, Odd became known as the best boxing historian in England.

Odd was a member of the British Boxing Board of Control from 1961 to 1969 and became a founding member of the Boxing Writers' Club. He also is the only journalist to be made an honorary member of the National Sporting Club. Odd was enshrined in the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 1995. He retired to Northiam, where he lived until his death in 1996.

 

What a woeful list on so many levels.

The more revered/appreciated Ali became as time went on the more revered/appreciated George became.

Also, since when did making a top 10 list become mandatory for being considered an ATG. They are so contentious you could well have a list of 17 different fighters included over 10 or so lists.

 

It is difficult for me to call him overrated. I can see however the original posters reasoning however.
George was the "Juggernaut" coming up, he just destroyed people.
All due respect to Ali but I feel that the scenario in Zaire had to be orchestrated perfectly to Ali's advantage for Ali to have a chance in George's first loss. The time of the fight along with the training conditions and the location, George was mentally exhausted and was sleep deprived. If that fight was held in the States, I believe the result would have been different.

 

Obviously Foreman is a great fighter. He just is. If only for lifetime achievement. But his prime just was not regarded on all time lists until after he beat Moorer. George was eliminated from all time great discussions after his first retirement. He had an astonishing win but failed to maintain that stature because of Ali. Later, The comeback afforded George credit for first time around.

The training conditions, the location the sleep deprivation, loose ropes of Zaire all could have been eclipsed had George continued his career in Ernest with the right frame of mind. But he did not until much much later.

 

But the ATG lists of the period after Foremans retirement do show that prime George was totally absent from consideration. Together, these lists from organisations, fan polls, magazines and respected historians (with the contemporary published overview of Foremans first career by writers like Peter Wilson, Henry Cooper and Gilbert Odd) do show Foreman was overwhelmingly eliminated from ATG discussions And lists until he beat Moorer.

 

I don't understand why so many words are wasted on common knowledge. Foreman was not considered by anyone an ATG until his comeback to rewin the championship. Without it he was never and never would be considered an ATG. With it he is top five. The comeback allowed historians to check all the unchecked boxes regarding ATG characteristics. George was an unfinished book since 1977.

 

Does anybody know exactly why he gave up his belt to avoid Tony Tucker?

 

The answer to that question simply is Foreman first time around was ranked exactly where those involved in boxing at that time all felt he deserved to be in relation to Tunney and Jeffries. We should accept that.

Who are we to say (all this time later) that first time around the historians, experts and boxing industry got it all wrong? There was a lot of them too. All those lists. Foreman was retired for ten whole years. It was long enough to reflect on the first edition of George Foreman.

We know what happened after he came back. It was a wonderful story with a happy ending. A renaissance celebrating Foremans former self became fashionable. like Perry says the longevity this ambitious comeback provided, the attributes Foreman was still incredibly able to display, the previously unanswered questions had finally been answered and George earned a new respect.

But what we never should forget is that after ten years everything was decided already on the first version of George because that's how it was documented.

 

Such a bunch of total crap. THIS is why Dempsey is lambasted today by those that are ignorant for not fighting Wills or Greb. THIS is why Johnson's incredible defensive skill is downplayed.

After 100 years all details are lost. Incredibly they are lost to some that are very young from just 40-45 years ago!

Foreman was an unfinished book in 77 when he retired. He was looked at as a fighter who fell apart twice against Ali and a Young. Further so many, just about everyone, felt he would completely wipe the floor with Ali...perhaps kill him or at least seriously injure. Instead Ali not only beat him he knocked him out. After this bout the boxing public walked away from Foreman and in turn Foreman walked away from boxing. This further put Foremans name and reputation on the back burners.

His comeback started in Toronto in a five man exhibition that turned into a circus. George further was pushed away from the boxing public. This effort was a joke across all media.

Foreman was not listed on top ten lists quite simply because HE WAS NOT CONSIDER AN ATG. NOT CLOSE.

I watched Foreman from the Olympics to his loss to Young. Watched all his televised and closed circuit bouts live. Read newspaper and all boxing periodicals all through those years. I was a boxing junkie during those times. He was my favorite fighter from that time period. I never rated him or even considered him as an ATG fighter UNTIL his comeback to rewin the true hwt championship.

Those are the facts but I am sure the unknowing will continue to want to waste life's precious time debating the already well known and understood.

 

Yes, good question, I want to know too

 

I am not condoning anything. I am presenting the notion that the majority of experts and fans did not consider George Foreman an ATG until he came back because they didn't. Not on the lists we can find so far. Now, We can question it. That's okay. But we can't change it.

it was a joint opinion among the majority surety that Foreman was not top ten before he retired, whilst he was retired for ten years and most of the way through his bald headed comeback as a veteran. This was the matter of opinion that was shared by the majority.

But it would not be impossible to judge if Foreman was actually on these lists now would it? After all, ten years was long enough to consider his worth whether it was pound for pound or head to head.

the meaning of these lists so far as this thread is concerned is that they all suggest Foreman was not on them.

we think he should be on them knowing what we know now. But what if we thought we knew George wasn't going to comeback? Max Schmeling beat the unbeaten Joe Louis, Tommy Burns beat a lot of national champions. The lists back then really were seen as "all time" with representation of different times being more of a consideration to now. so I imagine older historians of the day made a good case against younger historians for what they saw. Older eye witness accounts. Once those old guys popped their clogs I guess nobody was going to argue for them. Political correctness could be a factor, I don't know. But all these guys had careers that followed a natural course. They did not retire young after initial humiliating defeats without fulfilling their potential.

I found 8 lists spread over different years where Foreman was legitimately available for consideration between 1975 and 1992. It's all I could find. And Foreman appeared on zero percent of them. I don't know what constitutes a qualified historical list but I think Sports illustrated, Ring Magazine, readers polls, the WBA, and respected published historians (before the internet generation) are a pretty good start.

but if he never came back at all what then??

well I agree he must have been rated somewhere even in those days. He did win the title after all.. but the magnitude of his not shaking off that upset loss, the way his reputation had not recovered, that his career had not ran its course almost eliminated him from consideration. We cannot find where experts thought he should register during the lost ten years.

what rating was he before he came back? It's quite clear he was not considered high enough for debate. although he had many qualities of a great fighter it's possible many experts must have thought he had at least enough attributes to trouble many champions yet nobody was going to go out on a limb for him when there were so many more proven champions to select.

If I knew no more than they knew then, Personally I felt even the young Foreman won the championship by knockout so he deserves to go ahead of champions who won their title on points like Sharkey and Braddock at the very least. But that's just me.

I am surprised you don't know who Gilbert Odd is. He is enshrined in the international boxing hall of fame in 1996, He was an honorary member of the National Sporting Club, a member of the BBBOC, Editor of the Boxing News, edited Jack Johnsons autobiography, was regarded England's greatest boxing historian and as a record keeper, founder of boxing registers, journalist and writer of scores of boxing books that can can be found everywhere.

This is true. With so many great fighters it stands to reason there are more great fighters than ten. To some extent all world champions are great.

 

Foreman as of 1977 was a huge disappointment. As much as I liked watching him fight and as mentioned he was my favorite hwt I rated him very low all time. The thought was that if you give him a tough fight he falls apart. Not a hwt champion characteristic one who is knowledgeable rates highly. At least at that time. Foreman proved what he never proved in his prime with his comeback to rewin the championship.

 

This has to be the majority view on that part of his career.