DO You Think Foreman Is Overrated?

I think serious boxing fans like ourselves neither overrate nor underrate him,Fergy. In his prime,when it came to sheer naked power,he was arguably the hardest hitting heavyweight ever. Pretty nifty too at cutting the ring off on opponents. Muhammad Ali said that George was the best he faced at doing that.

 

His argument doesn't make a lot of sense. It's completely normal for the challenger to be the underdog to the champion, especially an undefeated former gold medalist champion like Frazier (who had a heated rivalry with Ali, another great champion, and beat Ali convincingly) and cleared out the division (demolishing Quarry, Ellis, Mathis, etc). It wasn't just that Foreman won, it was that it was a completely 1-sided beat down that shocked people.

To put it in perspective, Foreman upsetting Frazier with a brutal 2nd round KO would be like if Boots KOd Crawford right after he beat Spence. People would lose their minds.

Foreman then went on to destroy Norton, a guy who was consistently in the top 10 rankings for nearly the entire 70's decade and had beaten Ali, and he was looking unstoppable. Prior to the championship, his resume wasn't very eye catching but he had some decent wins over Peralta, Johnson, Wepner, and manhandled and stopped tbe very durable and rugged Chuvalo. Even after losing the title, Foreman had a few decent scalps beating Lyle in an epic slug fest, another Frazier win, Ledoux, etc before retiring against Young. Even if he hadn't come back, he could still qualify for a fringe top 20 ATG ranking. But the fact he did come back and won the title again in his 40's solidifies him for top 10 to a lot of people. It's an amazing career with lots of exciting ups and downs.

 

Obviously overrated. A guy who went 4-2 in title fights should not rank above or near guys who pushed near 20 defenses or unified champions who reached 10 wins in title fights.

 

He was not overrated, he was limited. He beat who he could and couldn't beat who he couldn't beat.

 

my main thing is he was never a true 15 round warrior, sure the Lyle fight was a war, but he never went life or death in deep water

 

he's a little overrated h2h by some people I think but that's obviously all relative. some people on here act like he loses to every guy who knows how to pivot his feet.

 

Out of interest do purely go on stats and H2H when rating fighters? I only ask as I will factor in historical importance as well in my overall tally. I can see how keeping a more analytical assessment separate from a historical perspective is perhaps more realistic way of doing it. After all Bob Fitzsimmons ranks high historically and P4P but I am pushed to include him that high in my rankings due to what I perceive as H2H limitations. On the other hand if you then take away the historical rating then he would drop far lower in my rankings than he deserves if that makes sense?

 

Doesn't that describe pretty much any fighter in history? I mean if you beat someone you weren't expected to beat you still beat them so they couldn't be said to have beaten who they couldn't beat because they beat them. On the other hand if you mean a fighter causing an upset over a favoured opponent Foreman beat Moorer who he wasn't expected to beat so he could beat who he couldn't beat, although he beat him?

Also the list of ATG champs who could be described as "limited" is pretty endless, Frazier, Marciano, Patterson, La Motta, Ketchel, Basilio, Fulmer, Gomez, Monzon just off the top of my head and they are all great fighters. I think sometimes a perceived limitation is actually what makes a fighter great. I think Marciano is a great example of someone who had many limitations which were built into a distinctive winning style, in his case an unbeatable style. With Foreman his limitations made him twice the lineal HW champion of the world, once when a grandfather, sounds pretty effective to me!

 

Both. Stats are also determined by who a fighter beat on a h2h basis.

 

I think he receives a generous shake in lots of H2H matchups and is a unanimous top 10 HW great for many people so there are strong grounds for him to be overrated.

Personally I can’t rate his career that high.

It’s actually staggering how few title fights he had. It’s hard to take his second ‘reign’ at all seriously, so we’re left with Frazier, Norton, Roman, Ali, Holyfield and Moorer. 4-2. He doesn’t have the benefit of alphabet straps like modern guys but 6 title fights even still is… interesting.

Comeback Foreman really stepped up once and although game, got absolutely nailed all night by some of the sharpest punching I’ve seen even on a p4p level. He didn’t fight the 3 other best fighters of the era.

I actually give credit for the smart matchmaking of his comeback. A decade later, washed Holyfield was getting clowned by slick guys who could move like Byrd Toney Donald etc. Foreman would NEVER have gone near Byrd/Donald. Aside from Holyfield, Foreman also picked 2 weak chins for his other ‘step up’ fights and still lost to Morrison. The rest of his competition was mediocre, not rubbish, but guys who suited him stylistically.

The title win was fortunate shall we say, and required a dubious Holyfield medical condition for Moorer to get a razor decision. Moorer of that night did not deserve the crown. He was actually more engaged in the Holyfield rematch. Foreman did not deserve a title shot either and got his win with a late KO after getting hammered all night against a less than durable Moorer.

Whilst his comeback win was a great story and very much Hollywood esque, it was largely smoke and mirrors. I rate it highly no doubt, but I would find it hard to start sticking him above guys who fulfilled their primes in their 20s and as declined 30+ year olds were outperforming comeback Foreman.

And Foreman at 41 was actually quite fresh. Holyfield at 37 against Lewis was in ring years more worn out than Foreman same with Holmes against Mercer. Heck even Lewis at 38 against Vitali. Foreman is not the only older fighter to be good.

I will add early knockout artists never have been my cup of tea. Especially in terms of greatness of a victory. For example, I would struggle to say Foreman’s early knockouts of Frazier/Norton were greater performance than Bowe’s brutal display against Holyfield that ended in a decision or Ali’s slower less devastating breakdown of Foreman himself with those right hands off the ropes.. But I’m likely in a minority here.

H2H he’d probably knockout a few guys but over 15 rounds there will just be durable guys he cannot beat and he’ll crack. Probably top 10 but not Holmes/Ali/Tyson H2H tier.

 

I don’t think he’s overrated no. I consider him one of the best heavyweights of all time and that title is well earned. The fact that he didn’t beat anyone “ extraordinary “ before Frazier doesn’t erase the fact that he beat Frazier and achieved a great many things after.

 

His pre-Frazier winning streak wasn't bad per se, it simply wasn't the beloved climb over the bodies of the top contenders. Boone Kirkman, Gregorio Peralta x2, George Chuvalo, and a lot of first to third round knockouts. He fought often to learn on the job.