People have argued that the 70's was the classic era of heavyweights. George Foreman (from the late 60's and 70's) actually beat a mid-90's beltholder without the need for a time machine, and gave Holyfield a good tussle as well. I always thought that was kind of cool. Although in some ways, the comeback Foreman was superior to the original, e.g., stamina, relaxation.
I agree with you. Although I have done my fair share of "Foreman basing" on this site, George Foreman was actually a big reason for my becoming a huge fight fan back in the late 80's and early 90's. I always thought it cool that this legendary fighter from the Muhammad Ali era of boxing came back and was fighting. I was a huge George Foreman fan in my teens and early twenties. I guess I still am to a degree, but as I've gotten older, I have learned to evaluate Foreman and his comeback more objectively - rather than through a clouded lens of nostalgia. I think the comeback Foreman was smarter than his original self. He was older, wiser, and he used his maturity to maximal effect. He also learned the value of self-promotion, and it was this skill that enabled his comeback to become as successful as it did. As a fighter, the comebacking Foreman was good but certainly not as good as the 1970's version. He was slower, less mobile, and he was always in danger of being outboxed and outworked by busy, quick fighters. But he had heart - a lot of it! His war with Alex Stewart and the drubbing that he took from Holyfield and Moorer proved that. George was a better businesman than he was a fighter, and I think his main goal for coming back was to become rich and famous again - regardless of what he said about his charitable/youth foundations. The guy was shrewd and cunning, and he made the most of his limited fighting skills!
Right about the heart. He hadn't forgiven himself for not willing himself up from the Ali knockdown. He proved again and again in his comeback that he had attained "character", something he didn't have much of in his first career. He also seemed to have genuinely become a nicer person, which is a big victory in and of itself. He was a pretty surly fellow back in the day, whose role model was Sonny Liston. Can you imagine Liston having a re-birth like Big George? I don't know what George's positive ratings are in polls/surveys, for things like product endorsements, but I'm sure they're very high. As for his boxing, he vastly improved the use of the jab, which was a very good weapon for him. He outboxed several contenders in his comeback, including in his last fight, although he did not get the decision. If the earlier version of George had relaxed and used the jab, he could have done even better.
I wonder how much George really did change personality wise from his younger self? It's possible that George was always a nice guy, but he turned on the "meanness" and the surliness to fit his image of what a heavyweight champion shoud be. Or, it's also possible that today's George Foreman is the same ol' surly George Foreman; he just learned to put on the "nice, jovial George" mask in order to endear himself to the fans and media. Ask Larry Holmes about George. He swears up and down that George is not a nice man, and that he only "acts" nice and goofy for the cameras or for certain situations...... Who knows!!!!
George now is very self-deprecating, something that he never was as a younger man. For example, I saw a Jerry Quarry documentary, and George says that Jerry was the only man that he intentionally ducked. Hard to say now what George says is true, or just being nice.
*spittake* If that's the only guy Foreman is saying he ducked, then he's still not self-deprecating enough. During his 90s run he was openly, even cheerfully forthright about the guys he wanted to avoid fighting. Since he was 'Cuddly Uncle George' and no-one wanted to see him take more batterings even as the heavyweight champ (!), he got away with it.
