George Foreman , overrated ?

that is fine. A guy like Mike who will not back up has problems with someone as strong as Foreman. If Foreman can use his power and land it clean he will knock out who he hits. And he was physically bigger than Tyson. It would have been an interesting fight. I was nervous for Mike on this one.

 

Lewis seems to have improved under Stewart but beating him in 1994 is still a huge win. He was considered by many to be the best heavyweight in the world, was undefeated, had destroyed Ruddock who had given Tyson a lot of trouble in two fights and in the Olympic finals had beaten Riddick Bowe.

 

So basically the hater's main arguments are that

"any decent puncher" would have koed norton and frazier" (foremans best prime wins)

And "old foreman fought 99% bums and moore was a weak champ who would have been exposed anyway. Foreman did nothing with the title afterward and didnt unify".

Both are dumbass arguments.

1-Frazier was only ever KOed by Foreman. In the first fight he was dropped six times but he also got up six times and the ref had to save him from himself. In the 2nd fight Frazier was past his prime and ironically lasted longer with some style adjustments.

2-Its pure speculation that Frazier would have lost to any decent puncher based on his 1 sided beatdowns to Foreman. Foreman is no doubt a top 5 heavy hitter of all time. Saying someone is weak chinned and would get decked by "any" big puncher because they lost to one of the biggest punchers is nonsense and a non sequitur. Not only that, you still have to set up a KO and have the skill to break a guy down. If it was that easy anyone with a decent uppercut could have just come out swinging and stopped Joe long before George did (or after).

Frazier got off the floor to beat Bonavena twice. He also took blows from Chuvalo, Quarry, Mathis, Bugner, Ali, etc who werent the biggest punchers of all time obviously, but they could all box excellently and could bang. They also had decent KO% rates when they faced Frazier and were near or in their primes. Yet only Bonavena dropped him (a huge slugger) and only Foreman was able to KO him. No glass jawed fraud could face that many high calibre fighters in nearly 40 pro fights and only get KOed twice (by the sam guy). You cant ignore these stats, especially because Joe was a short, aggressive swarmer in a golden age of technicians and bangers who were nearly always taller and heavier.

3-Norton, like Frazier, was only ever stopped by 2 of the most devastating punchers in history. That is hardly something to be ashamed off, and to his credit he got off the floor against Foreman and made it to the 2nd round.

Again, if he was a "glass jawed fraud who would have lost to any puncher in another era" how did his chin hold up against:

Cobb 94% ko rate
Holmes 70% ko rate
Bobbick 84% ko rate
Kirkman 72% ko rate
Ali 76% ko rate
Lovel 88% ko rate

^Name me some "glass jawed" fighters who could face all these guys without hitting the canvas or being stopped?

Also, its interesting Norton avenged his prior ko loss to Garcia. Usually glass jawed weaklings either avoid a rematch or fail to win one against the guy who stopped them.

Theres levels to this, and i think people are forgetting or just choosing to ignore how devastating of a puncher Foreman (and shavers) were. And its not just the power, its the style clash and the fact foreman was an absolute killer once he smelled blood in the water.

4-Foreman fighting weak competition because he had 10 years of ring rust was the SMART thing to do. Literally every prior champion who attempted a comeback thought they could jump right back into facing top contenders or getting title shots lost badly, even Ali.

When he was ready, he stepped up and fought decent guys like cooper, rodriguez, qawi, etc before blasting out cooney and letting the division know he was ready and he still had an iron chin and devastating power. He went the distance with a prime holyfield in a hell of a figh and proved he belonged there.

5-saying "anyone would have beaten moore eventally" is bs because moore was only stopped 3x in 57 fights. Tua and Foreman, again, are two of the scariest brutal punchers in history. It took Foreman 10 rounds to Ko Moore and his stoppage loss to Holyfield was by the doctor in a fight where he was ouf of shape and got off the floor wanting more and eager to fight. None of the stats are indicative of a glass jaw.

6-"foreman did nothing with the title, feasted on bums and hid from any decent fighter and wouldnt unify".

Complete bs. Grimsley and Savarese were undedeated. Schulz and Briggs only had 1 loss. Briggs was an obvious robbery. All four of them were in their prime with high ko rates while coming off wins and he beat all 4 of them. He retired realizing the establishment was tired of him and he had made millions and cemented his legacy. He was nearly 50 and had nothing to prove so he didnt protest and bowed out gracefully.

Little known fact: he actually considered a comeback but his wife begged him to stop. Why the hell would a 50 year old grandpa continue to fight and attempt to unify against young killers when his wife is urging him to stop, he has millions in the bank, and the establishment no longer wants him there and blatantly robs him?

Name one heavyweight fighter whose career, legacy, health, and finanances were intact at 50...? Oh and lets not forget he was a gold medalist with only 26 amateur fights. If thats "overrated" then please enlighten me on a top 10 list of fighters at HW who you think had a way better career.

 

Lmao.

This content is protected

0:30-0:46
Before you land a crap first you should make your homework

 

10 fighters with better careers
1.Joe Louis
2.Muhammad Ali
3.Wladimir Klitschko
4.Larry Holmes
5.Lennox Lewis
6.Rocky Marciano
7.Evander Holyfield
8.Mike Tyson
9.Vitali Klitschko
10.Sonny Liston

Those are a few names that come to mind.

 

Rating some of the guys way back is difficult due to the color line. Since Louis its a bit easier because champions generally faced the best available.

 

Lewis's reputation in 94 was nothing compared to Joe Fraziers. I don't see how this is debatable. You say it yourself - Lewis was considered by "many" to be the best. There was still plenty of doubt and at that stage he probably wasn't the best but he got there pretty fast after that. Well Frazier was considered the best by basically all. He'd proved it.

 

That is one fantastic post.

 

The fact you think Vitali had a better career than Foreman solidifies your validity on the matter.

 

Absoloutley. Frazier literally cleaned out the division in Ali's absence.

 

Do you consider Willie Pep great? Sandy Saddler? How about Kid Gavilan? Holyfield? James Toney? Griffith? Benitez?

How about Frazier and Tyson? Are both great? Just one?

Serious questions.

 

Perception doesn't always equal reality. In 1973 I would rank both Ali and Foreman ahead of Frazier. Norton is also arguable. Frazier hadn't beaten Lyle, Norton, Foreman, or Middleton so he clearly hadn't cleaned out the era either.

 

Do you consider Mike Tyson great?

 

**** off!





lol

 

By 1970 Frazier held wins over the majority of the top 10. The major names he didn't where, Ali, who he would fight in the following year and Foreman, who was somehow occupying the number 3 spot. Can I also just say that if Foreman was rated no.3 behind Ali and Frazier just a year and a half into his career and has 1 meaningful win over Chuvalo at this point that leads me to draw 1 of 2 conclusions. 1. The strength of the 1970s era is massively overrated or 2. Foreman was a great fighter and that it was obvious just a year and a half into his career that he was the next best thing behind Frazier and Ali.

Now I don't want to start a debate about the 70s as an era, because it was a strong era, but I have to point out that the MAJORITY of people that think that it's hands down the best era, are also the same people that call out other posters for wearing rose tinted glasses when bigging up previous fighters of previous eras. Truthfully it's a mixture of both conclusions, but mainly number 2.