70s Foreman was a bit overrated IMO

You wrote facts. To make Foreman the monster that some try to do, you have to combine the best of 70s Foreman with the best of 38-45 year old Foreman. 70s Foreman was a little faster but he was tense and had stamina issues and his defense was lacking. The older Foreman was patient and relaxed and had no stamina issues, and he was defensive. Combining the two versions makes the Foreman that people use in fantasy fights.

 

I'm on the fence about Foreman. His technique looks poor (for all I can tell), but he had the raw talent to succeed as an old man. He might just be a signpost that perhaps the 90s weren't the golden age they were portrayed as.

As a thought experiment, ask yourself how he'd be remembered if his retirement had been permanent.

 

Foreman was "selective" about who he fought in the 90s. He was the cash cow and he could pick and choose his opponents. That Foreman managed to win a title should not be an indictment of the 90s talent. Even after winning a title, didn't he lose it for refusing to fight someone?

If Foreman had not made the comeback he would probably be George Who? The Ali, Lyle, and Young fights along with the Foreman vs. Five Men exhibition (with Ali and Cosell making fun of him) had diminished Foreman.

 

He did beat the lineal champion, for what it's worth. And was a legitimate contender at an age when most are long retired. (Albeit, as you say, a protected one -- but then, it isn't unique to see a protected contender...)

 

There was no finesse to Foreman’s fighting style but there’s no denying that he was effective. And I concur that his comeback added a great deal of points to his legacy.

 

"Poor technique"...?

This content is protected

 

The 90s was indeed the Golden Age of HW boxing.
Foreman beat no one note worthy in the 90s, bar Moorer, which was due to a lucky punch.

 

In the narrow sense that the way he fought wasn't textbook as, say, USA boxing defines it. I'm not denying that it was effective.

 

I think he was awesome in the seventies. Biggest criticism I have of him during that time was how he didn’t get back on his feet to capitalize on his potential after the Ali loss. He took too much time off and came back fighting a handful of moderately good fighters before losing again to Young in 1977. Foreman should have been a repeat champ at some point during the 70s.

 

These are the same talking points Tyson, Duran, etc fans always make. They have a very convenient subjective cut off point for when their "prime" was just before their big losses.

You can say this for almost every single boxer, including Foreman.

The flip side to this is that Foreman had far less experience and his trainers made him dehydrate to get down to 217.

You wouldn't blame Foreman for underestimating Ali who went life and death with 2 guys Foreman destroyed with ease.

Completely disagree that "quite a few" guys could beat that version of Frazier. Some, but not tons. Again, you can make this argument to discredit any champion who won their belt in a 1 sided fashion such as Liston, Baer, etc.

Norton is easily a top 20-30 ATG. Along with Ali and Quarry he has good wins over Young (a classic battle), Garcia, Zanon (ranked in the top 10), Bobick (undefeated). The Holmes fight was razor thin, could have gone the other way, and is also a classic war considered amongst the best fights ever.

To dismiss Norton as just some plodding forward guy who lacked skill and credentials tells me you haven't careful watched his fights. He boxed beautifully. And Norton did not just come towards him, Foreman cut the ring off and blasted him out.

Ali used a game plan that was both insane and brilliant. He went to the ropes again huge puncher, which is what nobody has ever attempted. Foremans own corner kept telling him to punch away, should he have ignored them? Why can't you just say Ali executed a superb game plan and had a lot of guts? You can give Ali credit without dismissing Foreman.

Let me get this straight.

Foreman suffers a devastating loss, then instead of padding his record with tomato cans, he immediately takes on a murderous puncher (who just won via sensational KO against another murderous puncher), a rugged slugger who knocked him down twice, yet he shows tremendous heart and gets off the floor to win fight of year, and this is a reason to criticism him? You don't have to like the guy, but you are using an awfully strange argument to take him down a peg. Most boxers don't get off the floor once and then win, let alone twice.

Nobody said that

Young was a brilliant defensive fighter, Foreman was a slugger who changed trainers and made many tactical errors. With or without the heat, it would have been a difficult fight. You're conveniently forgetting Young made almost every big puncher he fought look bad. He made everyone look bad and was very hard to hit.

Again, you can praise Young for a remarkable win without blasting Foreman. Foreman retired 45-2 with a 91% KO ratio. His only losses were to arguably the greatest and to a guy who was a stylistic nightmare. I can think of dozens of 'hall of fame" boxers who had far worse record. I'm aware his resume wasn't very deep, but I'm not sure what you mean by overrated? I don't think anyone suggests 70's Foreman had some sort of Sugar Ray Robinson level resume. In terms of h2h, there are very few who could beat him and that isn't overestimating him. There's a lot more to him than just power and size. Having said all that, I don't even have him in my top 5.

 

Underrated. People ignore most of his fights and focus on 5 or 6. He was way more multi dimensional than given credit for.

People overstate his losses to Ali and Young who were some of the best pure boxers ever, to make it seem Like Foreman loses to anyone with technical finesse.

In reality he lost to the GOAT in a competitive fight, and fought an even fight with a very formidable Young, with Youngs Victory Being a fluke objectively. He fought both of them in terrible climate conditions.

 

Thanks for posting this great video, it certainly destroys the poor technique argument. It also supports my contention that Foreman would do the same thing to Mike Tyson with the same techniques.
George Foreman was NOT overrated, he's a solid top 5 of all time, maybe as high as 3.