George Foreman , overrated ?

Forrman is overrated in the sense that some people try to put him in the top 10 and rank him alongside guys who dominated the division. Foreman failed to do this thus he doesnt deserve to rank with guys like Lewis, Holmes, etc. He also has a fairly thin resume.

 

Many,many boxing people put him in the all time top ten,Manny Steward among them.
Contemporary lists that have him within their top ten include;
SI . 4
Boxing News.5
Fortis Fight.4
Bleacher Report.6
I B Times.5
Boxing Insider.6
Sports & Combat .5

 

There is nothing on his resume to justify putting him in the top 10. He wasnt even the best of his own era He cant even beat the best of his own day so there is no reaso to rate him with the best of other eras. The people that put the lists togethet are ptobably baby boomers who tend to overrate the 70s. Younger boxing fans tend to rate him much lower.

 

He was never the best heavyweight in the world at any time and on top of that has a very thin resume. Foreman only beat 5 top contenders his entire career whereas Wladimir beat more than 10 and Lewis beat roughly 12.

 

That is your opinion,to which you are entitled.Lumping everyone who disagrees with you into the same generalized convenient category is very common amongst those who think they know best.
ps The heavyweights of the70's are considered to be the golden era .

 

Foreman not dominating his own era is fact not opinion, Foreman only beating 5 or 6 top contenders is another fact and Foreman only managing 2 defenses is yet another fact. These seem like pretty damning stats and have nothing to do with my personal opinions.

 

They seem pretty damning stats in your opinion.Most would disagree.

 

The fact that he wasnt even the best of his own time id obviously pretty damning to his legacy. This point really is obvious and not open to disagreement.

 

In the year of our lord 1973, George Foreman ABSOLUTELY was the best heavyweight in the world. Muhammad Ali, whose ass-licking worshippers probably feel he was number one, was busy losing to Ken Norton and then getting a gift decision against him. Foreman was undisputedly the best heavyweight in the world at that time.

And because of that, he deserved a rematch with Ali six months later, which he had a serious chance of winning.

 

Nope Ali was the best in 1973 and would have beaten Foreman had they fought.

 

Well you state a thing as fact and it turns out not to be correct .eg" Roman was not ranked in the top ten when Foreman defended against him."When in fact he was.

 

Foreman losing to Ali in Zaire is fact not opinion. I cant see any reasonable case for putting Roman in the top 10 the people who ranked him there were simply mistaken.

 

The point is they did and you said they didnt.So,actually it is you who were mistaken.

 

Please list the other champions that regained the lineal title at Foreman's age, or even after that level of time.

Cheers.