Foreman overrated or underrated?

seems to me you're just slating george. at his peak he was stopped by the greatest hw of all-time. he destroyed an undefeated frazier in two rounds.

 

It is tempting to think of Foreman as having two careers, as two different fighters, because of his ten year layoff from boxing in the middle of his career. Also because of his seeming personal tranformation. I don't really buy the make over. I am not saying he is a scam artist, or that he doesn't believe in his ministry. I am referring to the good guy, bad guy routine. I don't believe that Foreman was ever really a bad guy. I think he was perceived that way because of his strong will and savage strength. He brutalized his opponents in a way that it would seem only a thug be capable of. After his ten year retirement he came back near forty, bald, clean shaven, fat, forcing a smile, and perceived by many as a joke. Also perceived was a change of heart. It is hard to paint a forty year old smiling fat man as a villian. George Foreman may now be famous for his smile, but he has never been a joke. Foreman posessed a sledge hammer jab, granite chin, dogged determination, and was probably the physically strongest heavyweight champion ever. Before losing his title to Muhammad Ali, he demolished Joe Frazier and Ken Norton. He was involved in one of the greatest heavyweight bouts ever when he knocked out Ron Lyle. He inspired millions when, Foreman age 42, unsuccessfully challenged 29 year old Evander Holyfield for the heavyweight championship. He later went on to become the oldest heavyweight champion in history, 45 years old, when he defeated Michael Moorer. Shannon Briggs found out that a 48 year old Foreman was stil a formidable foe, when he was pummeled and won a disputed decision over him in Foreman's final outing.

I have Foreman at #6 all time at heavyweight.

 

If a 1974 Ali is the greatest of all time, then we need to seriously start re-ranking Ken Norton and Jimmy Young. That Ali was damned good, but far from unbeatable.

To me, that fight showed that George couldn't adjust on the fly or execute backup game plans. I can't say it's entirely surprising considering how effective Plan A usually was, but I think he gets too much of a free pass for his tactical decisions in the Ali fight just because it was Ali he was fighting.

I have a tough time ranking Foreman because his accomplishments are fantastic, but he's also only got about a little better than .500 record against top 10 fighters. The Ring ranks him as one of the top 25 fighters ever; I tend to think that's overrating him, but if we're talking pure accomplishments, I can't think of many better than winning the title as old as he was. So really, there's enough evidence there on each side to say he's going to be both over and underrated.

 

I think he is overated in his first career because of what he managed to accomplish in his second. It's misleading to believe he had the same skill sets but better in his first run when he did not. He had the physical abilities but never showed the poise, the patience, the pacing, the consistant jab ... if we are able to combine the two we have a top three to five guy but the first was a physical marvel with serious limitations. He was wild, he was impatient, he had challenged stamina, he lacked confidence. His overwhelming skills would dominate certian styles but always be vulnerable against others ... the young Foreman, to me, would lose to:

Ali
Holmes
Holyfield
Johnson
Louis
Lewis
Liston
Vitali
Walcott
Sharkey
Tunney
Witherspoon

and that is just former champs ...

 

Above all he is a fighter who is hard to rate.
His first career was pure crap apart from two of the greatest wins of all time.

His second career was pure crap apart from a couple of valiant loosing efforts and arguably the greatest heavyweight win of all time.
Go figure.

 

Agreed.

 

Alot of good points being made in this thread, I guess one thing that alot here would probably agree to is that he is an overachiever.

 

I've had this discussion in another thread. I don't think Foreman overachieved. I believe he underachieved. Foreman had inferior technique to most fighters anywhere near his level, yet he was able to win because of his physical gifts. Overachievers would, in my opinion, be fighters that accomplished a lot in spite of physical shortcomings. Foreman accomplished a lot in spite of technical shortcomings.

 

Foreman won the heavyweight title in the best 2 eras for heavyweight boxing the 70's and the 90's. Even past his prime he was able to beat gifted fighters like Shannon Briggs. How many of you think Louis, Ali, Tyson, Lewis or Holyfield could beat Briggs when they were 48? Foreman is highly underrated.

 

He also lost to some of the best of the 90's though. It's not like he was nearly as competetive against the top guys. Holyfield dominated him, Morrison outboxed him, he went life and death with Stewart, and Moorer was well on his way to a wide decision before he got caught.

 

This just about nails it to a certain extent. All in all, I believe Foreman gets his dues from those who are willing to assess his career(s) sensibly.

 

Holyfield knocked out Tyson so Tyson must suck worse then huh? Morrison ran like a ***** from Foreman. Lewis was iced by both Rahman and McCall, Tyson struggled with people like James Tillis. Joe Louis struggled with Billy Conn and was knocked out by Schmelling a guy who isnt a modern sized heavyweight. Both Ted Lowry and Roland LaStarza beat Marciano but apparently that doesnt matter right? If Foreman struggles with somebody it is a sinn.

 

Apparently Marciano is the greatest fighter pound for pound yet his best wins came against guys pushing 40. Lewis is a all time great yet his best wins came against a washed up Holyfield and Tyson. Holmes never beat a top tier world class fighter who was in their prime but he is a top 10 fighter right? Who in the hell did Tyson beat? Trevor Berbick? A bunch of other no name bums controlled by Don King?