As an all-time great I have George just outside my top 10. He was a great fighter but his achievements are lacking. He beat very few great boxers and was a below average heavyweight champion. He had just three successful title defenses during his two reigns and two of those defenses were against Axel Schulz and Joe Roman.
He is a man whose ranking could be quite plastic, depending upon your criteria. You could argue that he holds the two best wins in the history of the heavyweight division, twenty years apart. That is an incredible accomplishment. On the other hand you are looking at a very padded record, in both careers, and there are things missing from his resume. He has to be in the top ten in my opinion, and he might be in the top five, depending upon your criteria.
I personally place him anywhere between 5 and 6 solid top ten for me. No one will do what he did. Win the title 20 years after u lose it ( no fake alphabets but lineal)
I don't like those arguments either. That every contested win is somehow a loss instead of a hotly contested win.
I used to have him tied with Lewis for third spot. For a while, I'd go back and forth between Foreman and Lewis for 3 and 4. For some year now, I have Lennox at 3 and George at 4.
Even a “tie” is not a robbery. A robbery is when a fight was awarded to someone who obviously lost. A close fight is never a robbery. People throw around that word loosely.
Listen, we've been around about this one many times on the forum when I've said this but in terms of modern heavyweights, I have an asterisk or a caveat with my lists that states I don't actually rate Sullivan or Foreman for obvious reasons.
