George Foreman , overrated ?

I said at the start if i come across them i will post in coming months. I'm no longer motivated enough to put my life on hold bringing hundreds of mags out of storage and poring thru them.

Contrary to prior posts it need not be front page stories and feature articles. A lot of the gold in these mags can be found in various places such as columns and other.

10 years ago i would have been slaving thru piles of mags to prove the point but have too many side interests now and work different hours.

At the end of the day i remember the feel of these magazines at the time and DC has more than given enough for me to be confident in these memories. If i was on my Pat Malone i would have been second guessing myself.

 

Actually, in 1988 after Tyson destroyed Spinks there were a few mags like Boxing '88 and KO that featured "Mike Tyson vs the heavyweight greats" and Foreman was one of them. Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Sonny Liston, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman and Larry Holmes were the guys Tyson went up against.

I believe the article was done by Steve Farhood.

 

I remember that article. I think he lost twice, to Ali and possibly Holmes. Actually maybe it was Liston. Foreman was most certainly there.

 

I find it fascinating how stupid they think it is to doubt it. As you say, not one shred of evidence of Foreman being described as one of the all time greats before the bald headed comeback has ever been brought forward by any of them. No quotes.

 

I remember an article like that but
I'm not sure Foreman was featured. I might be wrong. This of course was 1988 AFTER Foreman had started his bald headed comeback and had fought Dwight Qawi by then. Use of the Qawi fight could have offered the 2+2=4 result making Tyson a better Qawi and A younger Foreman replacing the older one. But of course that comparison can't happen BEFORE the comeback. If Foreman WAS EVEN FEATURED in this article. Which we don't know he was.

But Let's see that article though.

 

If you are saying Foreman only made the list in the article as a former great because of a comeback win over Qawi you have serious problems.

Even Perry would understand this.

 

The only problem I have is with the evidence.

I am saying, let's see the article. I don't remember George being in it. We don't even know if the author covered boxing during Foremans first career.


It is AFTER the bald headed comeback and not the example I have asked to see, I said an ATG rating before 1985 or so, but let's see this article anyway.

I have produced 8 relevant ATG lists and four quotes from historians and respected boxing writers who covered Foremans first career.

 

You are already setting up to sweep it aside based on a victory over Qawi, an utter nobody at Heavyweight. Shocking but not surprising. So he was an ATG suddenly after beating Qawi was he?

"But his prime just was not regarded on all time lists until after he beat Moorer."

 

I am not setting anything up at all. I'm just asking to call your bluff here, where are these articles? There's no need to turn it into something about Qawi now is there?

Nobody began to rate Foreman based on his Qawi fight but it is reasonable to suggest Foreman was beginning to raise a little credibility by then and allow new fans (who did not cover his first career) to reexamine his back catalogue.

 

That's fair enough, JT.
I wasn't suggesting you should run to your magazines to slave and dig out things to prove a point.

My point was that I've found the tone of the discussion a bit frustrating in that by simply sharing what was my experience and perception of things at the time, the response was just being told "That's completely wrong" and nothing else, to the point of mockery and insult (not from you, mind you.)

 

In my opinion, a renewed and more favourable view of George Foreman happened quite quickly when he'd strung together a few wins and become a serious talking point and story, getting his face out there and talking with the media. And why not ? Retro-appreciation works like that.
Whenever something comes back or is re-made or re-released, people go back and look and assess the original.

Not that everyone was taking his comeback seriously in the sporting sense yet. But he was a great story.

Note this :

*George Foreman was at least 10 fights into his comeback and had already been featured on the cover of RING magazine a few months before the issue tha Sangria referred to.

..... AND he was already going around saying he could beat Mike Tyson !

I'd imagine Foreman would have been a lot LESS LIKELY to have been described as "one of the heavyweight greats" in a magazine article a couple of years earlier and without that context.
But I could be wrong, and it's precisely the instances that go against that perception that I'm interested in seeing.

I said earlier in the thread around 1990 or '91 he was becoming regarded by most as all-time great, and more likely entering the discussion when the greats were being discussed.
I think with the coverage and interviews etc. happening in 1988, that could be likely date too, if we're trying to pin-point it.

It could be ever since 1974, and continously since, as we're being told by an opposing argument here, and that would be fine too. Just still waiting to be shown a few examples for the early-mid-80s period.

 

Hey no worries. I have had the mag with the Tyson matches in my hand at some point recently and am sure i can nab it before the week is out. I've just got boxes of mags under boxes of mags in various locations including about 4 on top of each other and i have boxes of literally hundreds of tennis and golf mags in among Them (boxes) too LOLOL.

I've got a Big Book of Boxing somewhere with a dream fight between Foreman and Liston somewhere from about 81. I reckon i can find it before the weeks end too.

 

Foreman fought in both of the best eras heavyweight boxing has seen and managed to become a champion on both of those. Just think about how special that is for a second.

 

I agree, when you put it like that it's huge. And Nobody can take that away from him.

I just can't get over how low regarded he was in the 1980s by those that covered his first career. His comeback gave that first career a revival.

 

June 1996 Ring Magazine rates the best fighters of the last 50 years. 1946-1996. Only ten heavyweights qualified.


The highest placed heavyweights from the best fighters in the last 50 years and their ranking in order:

#2, Muhammad Ali
#12, Rocky Marciano
#14, Ezzard Charles
#17, Larry Holmes
#19, Mike Tyson
#24 Micheal Spinks
#38 George Foreman
#40 Joe Frazier
#44 Evander Holyfield
#48 Sonny Liston

This is after the George Foreman revival AFTER he beats Moorer for the title and was still active.

Two things, when Ring magazine did a ATG heavyweight list in 1975 prime George Foreman did not register at all. Interestingly neither did Sonny Liston. Yet both feature as the best ten heavyweights on a pound for pound best fighters of the last 50 years in 1996 by the same Magazine!