Is George Foreman a top 10 heavyweight of all-time ?

Charles has way more depth to his resume and was on top for roughly 3 years. Seems reasonable to me if you value depth.

 

Only injuries and his understandable reluctance to fight his brother
prevented him from being the dominant heavyweight of his era.

 

Realistically though guys Tyson beat like Ruddock or Bruno could potentially beat the best guys Foreman beat h2h. Ruddock seems like a horrible matchup for Ken Norton and a far bigger puncher than anyone Frazier faced. Why should we have any confidence in Frazier versus huge punchers when he never beat any.

There's no reason to think a fight with Foreman would play out any different in 1973 than it did in 1974. Douglas is a poor example because Tyson was clearly a better overall fighter than Douglas and did better against every common opponent. Tyson has a better case for being the best from 1986 to 1988 than Foreman does from 1973 to 1974 in my humble opinion.

 

Lots of excuses. He quit on his stool while ahead with 3 rounds to go against a pillow fisted cruiserweight.

 

Yeah right,really bottled it against Lennox Lewis didn't he ?
For crying out doctors told Vitali that if he carried on with
his injury ( a torn rotator cuff ) there was every chance he
would never recover full use of his arm again.
Look,you're obviously one of the more experienced posters
on this forum.I'm surprised you've come out with this garbage.

 

I’m not. Awful lot of sniping posts where he swoops in to unmitigatedly smear a fighter.

Just for the record, I’m not defending Vitali Klitschko either. Gotta keep my record intact

 

LOL ! Ok buddy,I guess you've got to be consistent !