George Foreman top 10 or not?

This is basically how I have always seen things in regard to this matter. I find it near impossible for a man who won legitimate lineal titles against prime or near prime, undefeated claimants, and in two of the division's most competitive eras, then not be rated as being among the best..

 

You mean the way he got stripped of the belt because he refused to fight his WBA mandatory 37 year old Tony Tucker? In fact foremans title reign after moorer was so **** poor weak, the sanctions stripped him from both WBA and IBF titles. According to my Boxing Register 4th edition ring record book, foreman did not defend his title against one ring magazine top 10 contender. Can you believe glass jawed Crawform Grimsley and Lou Saverese lasted the distance vs foreman? in fact saverese went toe to toe for 12 rounds foreman couldnt put a dent in his chin LOL

 

George Foreman is a top 10 heavyweight. His style espicialy during his first carrer was crude and I would probbly not pick him in most head to head match ups. However he was a two time champion/title holder this enough to gain him concerderation for the top 10. The fact that he did it in two complete difrent earas including the one that most boxing experts and fan conseder to be the best (the 1970's) makes him in my mind a top 10 heavyweight.

 

I usually have him outside the ATHvy top ten, but in the top-15. However, he's certainly viable top-10, with a terrific wallop, good ability to cut a ring, and the capacity to take a punch (atleast until he gets gassed).

 

1. Olympic Gold medalist

2. Two time heavyweight champ

3. highest win/Ko ratio of any lineal champion

4. Oldest heavyweight to ever capture the crown in a history making comeback

5. Destructive wins over two legitimate lineal claimants, including one who was a top 10 ATG.

Yep, I'd say he's top 10.

 

Tucker wasn't rated in the Ring top 10 when George won back the crown either was he? If he was, **** knows why. :huh

 

I don't know. I will check. According to Ring Magazine, George Foreman was stripped of his IBF title for failing to give Axel Shulz a rematch after controversial decision, and was stripped of his WBA belt for refusing to fight WBA mandatory Tony Tucker(tucker fought bruce seldon for the vacant belt). By the time Foreman stepped into the ringby 1996, all he had was the "WBU" belt.

 

The point was, he was stripped for not fighting Tucker, yet Tucker wasn't even rated Top 10 by Ring. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been stripped, but Tucker shouldn't have been in such a position to force the issue.

 

Tucker was rated # 1 by WBA, so therefore if you dont fight your mandatory WBA # 1, you get stripped

 

Agreed,

I can remember Larry Merchant saying around 1994, how absurd it was for both Tony Tucker and Bruce Seldon to be placed in #1 and #2 spots, when neither were beating quality opponents, and one of whom ( Seldon ) had actually been dusted in a single round by Riddick Bowe, who the WBA had lower!!!!!!

I also find it to be somewhat of a double standard how certain posters here call upon ring ratings as gospel, and ignore a champion's obligation to defend against the sanctioning body's mandatories. But, when the alpha contenders are avoided, scream the word DUCK!!

 

True to some extent. However, Frazier did manage to beat a much larger percentage of ranked opponents during the 1970's and had the huge win over Ali - perhaps the single greatest thing ever accomplshed between the two of the them ( Frazier and Foreman. ) He also retired with his only defeats being to Ali and Foreman, whereas George left the ring for the first time with a KO defeat to an aging Ali and a loss to Young. Foreman's signature wins in his first career were over Frazier, Norton, Lyle, and a declining Chuvalo. Not a bad list. Frazier however resoundingly beat Ali, Ellis, Quarry, Chuvalo, Mathis, Bugner, Bonavena, Machen, and did so in a much smaller number of fights.

I suppose the only thing that boosts Foreman a tad higher for me is his incredible comeback effort in regaining the lineal title, along with two very destructive wins over Frazier himself. Outside of that however, the margins are not so wide, and Frazier may actually have had the better 1970's career.

 

So what he was 46 years old and fat who cares. I dont think anyone ever rated or put much weight to his 90s title reign or title defenses. The legacy is that he pulled the huge upset and got the title at 45 in the first place. That is an achievement enough.

edit: ok nevermind I see where you were coming from responding to the claim about never loosing the linear title in the ring

 

even his Grill is awesome

come on

 

Too many people here on ESB pick a George Foreman over Mike Tyson and Riddick Bowe in 1991 in fantasy matchups. Its truelly disgusting and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

IMO no, not h2h. I don't think he'd fare well against skilled bigger men with jabs, for one thing.