George Foreman , overrated ?

The below is pretty strong -


"He went from forgotten to a circus clown overnight."

 

I understand precisely what choklab is saying and it seems quite reasonable.
The perception of Foreman was of a man who had appeared to be a monster for about 2 or 3 fights and then had been badly deflated by Ali and after that it looked like he wasn't ever what he'd appeared to be. He was at best a "flash in the pan" and being sent into retirement by a fighter of Jimmy Young's type did him absolutely no favours.

It happened to Sonny Liston a bit too, but there was far more substance to Liston, both in his record and in terms of obvious boxing skills, and with the passing of time Liston's reputation had already been revived.

 

The 5-man exhibition was circus clownish, perhaps that's the reference ?

 

do you mean "universal #3" after the Moorer fight or "universal #3" after the Jimmy Young fight?

If it's hypothetically universal #3 after the Jimmy Young fight (which in light of everything contemporary I have researched for this thread this position would seem ridiculous in the extreme) as you say nobody would forecast anything more. The position would be proven already.

If it is a hypothetical #3 rating today we might look back and find an imaginary rating for the initial career...which is exactly what is going on by the looks of it.

 

You forget the "forgotten" bit. Foreman was never forgotten rest assured.

 

This was the issue of RING magazine with all-time heavyweight rankings I cited earlier :

[url]http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/File:87Aug.jpg[/url]

I might be wrong but I seem to remember there were 26 or 27 total eligible champions. Primo Carnera was ranked 27th, I believe. George Foreman (who was in the initial stages of his comeback when the article was published) was ranked 19th or 18th, I believe. And there was a nice little blurb and explanation for each entry, and points were given in categories for skills and other stuff.
Sonny Liston came in at 8th.
Frazier maybe somewhere just outside the top 10.

 

At best a flash in the pan? Flash in the pans don't decimate a reigning ATG and then a guy coming off one maybe two wins over Ali. He also defeated a respectable Lyle and was regarded as or among the hardest hitters to ever lace them up. For me this does not equal flash in the pan in any way, shape or form.

 

By boxing fans, no, of course he wasn't forgotten.

 

From what I can gather, He was relatively unknown before beating Frazier. He was largely ignored after Ali defeated him. It's less than 2 years.
The 1970s was Ali's stage. Frazier played the main support. Foreman's was a bit part, a curiosity.
This is the perception that was passed down to me in that same era (by the mid-80s) when I was learning this stuff. And until you show something to back up your equally valid perception of the time, and where we're getting it wrong, I'll just have to be stuck with what I have.

 

The flipside of this is Foreman not getting his Ali rematch. There's been great discussions here in the past per this topic and many believe Ali avoided him. Foreman was not defeated for over 2 years after Ali, including another win over Frazier and Lyle of course. I won't debate the merits of it, but there's been some pretty strong thought on it previously.

 

It's possible for a fighter to still be great and overrated, and that's where Big George lines up for me.

I consider Foreman's accomplishment of winning the championship so late one of the greatest things the division's seen- arguably, the greatest- yet, I still feel like he gets overrated on ATG lists considering the short amount of time he was actually the best heavyweight on the planet relative to others. The number of contenders he beat also isn't on par with others.

Truth is, he gets a heck of a lot of mileage off of the fact a ton of people just like Big George. Sandwiched around that historic win over Moorer were losses to Holyfield and Morrison, and the Axel Schulz fiasco. Few other heavyweights, if any, would've enjoyed the bump George did in ATG lists based off the body of work even if there was one genuine gem of an achievement in there.

 

Yes, but maybe we're discussing two different things here.
It's not about where/how Foreman should have been rated pre-comeback, I'm only interested in where he was generally rated and in what terms he was viewed historically.
To me that's the interesting part. The perceptions of the period. At the time, my own impressions were on a very enigmatic figure, a bit too obscurely portrayed relative to what he'd done just 10 or 12 years prior. Destructive puncher but not one of the great heavyweight.

I think what McGrain said about it effectively being suggested here that he was "underrated" is spot on.
But if he was indeed held as an "all time great" or "one of the greats" at heavyweight during his interim period then that cannot apply.
I think he WASN'T yet held as an "all time great" and that he WAS underrated. But I could be wrong.

 

This is exactly my position. I am going to try and buy a August 87' Ring Magazine.