Is George Foreman the a masive underaceiver?

If he had had Moore as head coach all the way, no Sadler, and been able to combine the relative explosiveness and speed of the young George with the smartness and coolness of the older George, who knows... But still, I can't see him as a technical marvel. Don't think he had it in him to be a Joe Louis kind of fighter.

That's why I'm more inclined to call him over-achiever, but who knows. He started late and got taught to fall in love with his power, strength and aggression. If he had started early and got, say, Arcel as a coach when turning pro... Intriguing thought.

 

He should have fought during larry holmes's era, then we would have seen holmes truly get tested.

 

I thought he was best when he was with Dick Sadler.
Gil Clancy tried to make him more technical and it didn't really work.

 

I think Gil Clancy could have worked with him to better shore up his defense earlier on, and perhaps his stamina too. with improvements in those areas, he would have been very difficult to beat, and was already a monster as it was. In addition, taking 15 months off after Zaire was a mistake. He should have climbed right back into the saddle and gotten right back into the mix of things by facing some of the top contenders, to keep his persuit of the title alive. The Jimmy Young affair was disgraceful. Apparently some other clown, and not Clancy was calling the shots in his corner and as result, Foreman failed to take advantage of some key oppertunities in that fight.

So yes, I do think that if certain roads were taken, Foreman may have acheived more than he actually did. As for being an underacheiver, I'd also have to say yes, but its not by much.

 

Personally I think not.

He destroyed 2 of the top 3 heavyweights in brutal fashion. Losing to the goat and later to a slickster he couldn't pin down.

Later in his career he'd find himself making the second greatest comeback in heavyweight history.

Considering his skillset and era I think he overachieved.

 

His career is beautiful as it is. Just perfect IMO, they should make a movie about it. It would be a lot more intersting than the one about Ali.

If he didn't lose to Ali or to Young, he wouldn't transform into a freaking pastor (after being a symbol of a bad ass) and come back 10 years after retiring as a completely different person to eventually regain the title exactly 20 years after he lost. in those same trunks he wore that day, by the way of outsmarting (being outsmarted 20 years before) and KTFO a young champion that could have been his son. Are you kidding me???

Also, I think he would beat Ali in the rematch but it doesn't matter... You couldn't write a better scenario than life did about his career.

 

Well, not getting a rematch did make it all more beautiful in the end...

 

This is a guy with less than 30 amateur fights who won a gold medal and went on to beat Frazier. Took off 10 years and won the title again almost 22 years after first winning it. I'd personaly call that overacheiving.

 

Jokes aside you've completely changed my view of his career. Thanks man.

 

His prime was in 72-74 ish

 

He's an over-achiever if anything

-Winning gold with only 20 amateur bouts and 1 and a half years of boxing
-Beating undefeated Joe Frazier
-Winning the title after coming back from a 10 year layoff not getting knocked out by a prime Holyfield and not getting knocked down once in his whole comeback and obviously winning the title back and becoming the oldest heavyweight champ beating the record that was set all the way back with Jersey Joe