Honestly, I'm not sure that I'd rank Foreman very highly without his second career. He'd be one of the lesser lineal 70s champions. Below Holmes, 70s Ali, and Frazier at least; not much better than Norton, either, if you want to count Norton as lineal. Yes, he'd still be a very good puncher. But he wouldn't seem much of a cut above your typical 1990s punchers, or his own contemporaries like Shavers, either. Foreman just wouldn't look that special. His apparent crudity would probably be cited as proof that the 70s were overrated when a guy like that could rely on brute force despite being average-sized by 90s standards. Of course, Foreman threw a wrench into that tidy analysis by flattening 90s fighters and shrugging off the punches Morrison and Briggs bounced off of him. Still, where would you rate a Foreman who permanently hung them up after the first retirement?
I would rate him lower than I do. Foreman had a pretty darn good second career, and he showed us some things I do not believe he showed us in his first career. I am sure many might say the same thing about Muhammad Ali.
Yes and no. Ali showed us a lot more in his second career, and gave us reason to rate him higher. But his first career didn't really display many weaknesses in the way that Foreman's did. Ali got KD'd here and there in the younger part of his first career, but by and large, the guy obliterated people. Ironically, Ali might be viewed as more of a puncher if we just had his first career to work from. Lots of stoppages. (Ali did, however, share with Foreman the fact that he demonstrated continuing mastery over younger fighters; Foreman's was perhaps more extreme in its contrast.)
Same as you guys. A great puncher but that's it. I'd probably put him below a few, whilst now he's at 6 for me.
Hmmm. I dunno. What Foreman achieved in his first career was substantial and extraordinary. Foreman could be crude at times but earlier in his career (eg at just 21 yo v Chuvalo) he upheld excellent progress, firming up nicely on the fundamentals. KOs came all too easy though and Foreman not only fell off the accrued technical skills he had developed but he also wasn’t learning anything new - having become too intoxicated with his very real power and quick finishes. Still, the consecutive wins were very good and he rolled top comp. in Frazier and Norton like they were nothing. He came undone v Ali (like many did, including Liston). But then he still had excellent wins over Lyle and Frazier in the rematch - despite having his prior aura of invincibility well and truly burst. In his first career he was thought of well enough that very few rated Ali a chance, in fact many feared for Ali’s health. That’s no mean fighter - and he was actually levels above Shavers. IMO, young Foreman was special enough but like Liston before him, he was disproportionally framed by his loss to Ali who swallowed up all the attention and adulation thereafter - prior achievements of the vanquished (Liston and Foreman) and their post defeat performances also being a bit too easily forgotten or dismissed. We can talk absolutes for George’s first career but Foreman’s second coming is difficult to divorce from the relative view - 10 years out, in his late 30s, overweight, whatever successes he was going to have were going to impress from the get go. The pacing was slowed but that was still the same punch and chin that Foreman always had and it’s arguable that the best comp. of his second career weren’t as good as the upper echelon guys he beat and also lost to in the 70s. For mine, young Foreman just as easily destroys the version of Cooney that the older George fought. Also, just IMO, but I believe ‘73 Foreman would’ve brutally dispatched 1991 Holyfield - but no plan B If he failed in his pursuit of said KO, which I don’t think he would. If young George wasn’t so special I doubt he could’ve commuted himself to the later successes of old George. In this thought experiment we are isolating Foreman’s first career to see how it holds up on its own. However, the second career isn’t being isolated thusly, rather it’s being viewed as an addendum to Foreman’s first career with the suggestion that it enhanced Foreman’s ATG rating - which can make sense, but notably, Foreman’s 2nd career achievements gain extra credit for relativity (Foreman’s prior inactivity, advancing age etc. ) as compared to absolute credit. Finally, that leads me to suggest comparison of Foreman’s first career (in isolation) vs his second career (in isolation). Foreman’s second career was an unquestionable advertisement for incredible longevity and age defiance quality , still very impressive in absolute terms but that much more so in relative terms - a template that of course wasn’t applied to the performances of the young Foreman. So, which career, in its own right, absolute, would you afford the most credit? I would choose George’s first career by a fair margin.
Yeah, I think the second career puts the first in perspective. Not just in defiance of age, but reframing what was going on in the 70s, how strong the 70s were, and how talented the young Foreman must have been. Without his comeback, imagine someone responding to a criticism of the 70s by saying, "Oh, yeah? If Foreman was around today, the likes of Briggs and Morrison would be running from him. Your modern punchers aren't so tough." Such a statement would be greeted with disbelief. Mountains of steroid muscle running from this dehydrated, mentally fragile 70s champion who relied on his size to push around cruiserweights? No way. And yet, look what happened.
Well that’s the thing also, while some opposition might’ve qualified as cruisers, they didn’t represent a ceiling, there were also a number of legit big sized HWs (as viewed as at that time at least) but also, some even bigger, over sized guys George manhandled and easily shoved around also. It also seemed that there was def. a lot less 70s HWs going around with spare flesh as compared to their later counterparts. To acquaintances only aware of the late 80s/90s Foreman, I have shown footage of the 70s version, and they have been duly gob smacked by the extraordinary power and strength exhibited by the more svelte, faster but still big and heavily muscled version. In short, they were more impressed by the 70s version than the 90s version that they were more familiar with.
Honestly, even with his second run, i think he is still one of boxing’s great “what might have been’s…", i mean after falling to Ali in Zaire, he paced himself, fighting in a newfound measured style (which was all wrong for him when you look at the lyle, young fights) instead of using his old "seek and destroy" style and his enormous talent and promise would go forever unfulfilled.
Ok. So basically you guys telling me, without that winning punch against Moorer, he wouldn´t be inside your top 10?
Absolutely. The relics of George and Larry still being effective fighters in the 90s, still capable of beating all but the very top dogs, show just how good the 70s were. George showed that the 70s punching power was for real, and Larry showed that 70s boxing technique was for real. Collectively, they kind of stuck a fork in the whole "new is better than old" schtick. If George had stayed retired, he'd still be that big puncher from the 70s who demolished Frazier twice, had that great ATG rubber match with Lyle, and who was invincible until he met Ali. He'd still be a bit of a legend. Has anyone ever so thoroughly demolished the champ in a title match like that? Even Tyson's destruction of Berbick wasn't as impressive, and plus, Berbick wasn't an ATG while Frazier clearly is. His second career showed how much potential he really had in terms of boxing IQ. It was like he took a good, honest, expert look at what he was still physically capable of and what his former weak areas were, developed a new style that worked with his current capabilities while also addressing his prior weak areas. Without that high boxing IQ, in the 90's, he have been dangerous for a few rounds and that was it.
You could make a case for bottom top 10. 8-10 would be generous, but any higher would be kind of crazy if we are only looking at this 1st career. He did manage at least 2 defenses and had a decent resume, with a very impressive 1 sided beat down of an undefeated lineal undisputed champion. If you factor in the gold medal, his resume is "very good" but not "marvelous". He didn't avenge any losses and the majority of his career he was learning on the job against low level opposition due to being young and having a short amateur career. But when he finally did step up, he was like a natural disaster that people had to just pray would end until Ali put a stop to things. He's certainly above 1 hit wonders such as Douglas, Baer, Rahman, Ruiz, Tate, Smith, Bruno, Braddock, etc. They aren't within the same zip code as 70's Foreman. Is he comparable in resume to guys like Bowe, Joshua, Witherspoon, Patterson, etc? I would say so. But could you rate him above them for sure? I don't know, but if you have any of those names in your top 10, it would likewise be hard to rate them above Foreman. They would be kind of close I think...maybe top 15 at worst.
Foreman before his comeback didn’t seem to be regarded highly as an ATG due to his short reign and his only meaningful victories being Frazier and Norton, possibly Lyle. Depending on the circles he’d be outside top 10 and the likes of Patterson, Liston, and the Klitschkos would be rated higher.