Roman was not top 10 he had no s wins over notable opponents and always lost when he stepped up in competition. I dont see how any reasonable case can be made for him being a top 10 heayweight. Also the argument about Foreman being a major factor in the 90s seems silly he beat exactly one highly ranked opponent thats it. He did virtually nothing to enhance the 90s as an era.
Possibly because he had recently beatenTerry Daniels who was deemed a fit and credible opponent to challenge Joe Frazier for his title?
Interesting point. I'm not sure I entirely agree. The manner of the defeat was damaging. Similar happening against Young was more damaging ? They did everything they could to rebuild George including feeding him an even worse version of the man who used to be Frazier, but when he was schooled by Young they knew and he knew the game was up.
Foremans first career matches Max Baer, Ingo Johansson and Sonny Liston as talented but brief champions who caused sensational results but lost their titles in huge upsets. His second career should be taken at face value. Amazing feat but at no point did he beat the best or represent the best heavyweight in the world that time around.
Joe Frazier, Champion Muhammad Ali George Foreman Jimmy Ellis Ron Lyle Floyd Patterson Ernie Terrell Jose Roman Joe Bugner Ken Norton Jose Luis Garcia
1984 Larry Holmes, Champion Gerrie Coetzee Greg Page Michael Dokes Pinklon Thomas Tim Witherspoon Mike Weaver David Bey John Tate Trevor Berbick Frank Bruno Number 6-10 is stronger than Roman, Terrell, Garcia and Bugner. I don’t even think Norton can beat all of them.
1986 Michael Spinks, Champion Mike Tyson James (Bonecrusher) Smith Pinklon Thomas Tim Witherspoon Tony Tubbs Trevor Berbick James (Buster) Douglas Tony Tucker Frank Bruno Tyrell Biggs This is a stronger number 6 to number 10 list than Roman, Terrell, Garcia and Bugner. I certainly don’t think Norton necessarily beats Berbick, Douglas, Tucker or Biggs.