George Foreman , overrated ?

I didn't claim Foreman to be ATG. I just said young griffo made same valid points. Anyway its
complicated . Foreman lost to Ali however two common opponents who defeated Ali and gave
him hell Foreman smashed. Ali legacy is largely based on these 3 victories the other was a
was a past the prime Liston.

 

Its quality not quantity. Foreman victory was against a Frazier 29 -0 and a Norton who was
coming off a win and loss against Ali. Moorer was 35-0 when fight GF. Your list is good and
Mike Tyson list of victims on paper would not make him a ATG even though he is always on
people lists. GG how do you rate MT ?

 

How do you rate Mike Tyson ? Do you consider him a ATG ? His victories in prime was weak and
he got ko by Buster Douglas !! Just seen if when judging fighters that you judge them on their
merits ?

 

Foreman is hard to rate in that his young and old versions were so different.

The young version was far more wild and pushed the pace to the maximum.

The older version had better defence, a better jab and was very measured and composed.

Their common denominator was that both versions had a great chin and great power.

Certainly blowing out guys like Frazier in such a dominant fashion have helped in creating a monster reputation that on the face of it might be undeserved. On the other hand, nobody has ever blasted Foreman to bits - if you beat him, you were going to do it the hard, painful way. His KO losses were after he blew his wad and was exhausted. Sort of how Wlad lost against Puritty and Brewster.

I'd say he is a very formidable fighter with a solid resume, albeit one lacking in wins over many ATG opponents.

 

If you take a microscope to Foremans career then you can just as easily do the same to some other ATG's.

Rahman and McCall were one punch KO/TKO's and even though they were avenged they're still a stain on Lennox's legacy. Just as George never avenged a defeat Lewis never got up off the floor to win. Foreman at least did.

Tyson never once avenged a defeat nor climbed off the floor to win, so where does that leave him?

Foreman gets all the flak due to him for Zaire and Young. He fought dumb in both fights against guys whose styles were kryptonite to him. But he proved time and again he had the courage, heart and determination to come back from his failures. Two blokes he often gets lumped with in Liston and Tyson lacked those very qualities that George possessed.

Resume is important and Foreman's lacks against some but his longevity is also super impressive compared to others. His qualities outweigh his frailties imo. He's an absolute ATG, a physical freak and beats plenty of guys with "superior" resume's on paper in my view.

 

Good answer GG . This answer i 100 % agree with !!

 

Another question gg would be, how would George be regarded now if he never came back after 77. How many fantasy fights would involve the George that lost to young and how many would back him against the big names eg dempsey, Louis, tyson and Lewis? It's a big part of his legacy his return and fight s with holy field, morrison and moorer. But it's a question to ponder if he was always the foreman from 77, would he be seen as greater or less than he is now.?

 

I like George. He was a HUGE talent.

The trouble is George meets a lot of people's idea of what is strictly a modern viewpoint. It's using a 2+2=4 hindsight from two separate careers rather than using 1+1 from one career and 1+1 for the next career and arriving at separate rather than a multiplied result. For this Foreman is entirely over rated.

Georges first career was over and done with and assessed on what it was when he retired. His ATG standing was based by the people of the time there at the time in relation to everything that came before, and what was decided up until then was that George was not top ten. He was seen as something of a Max Baer. A super talent who didn't quite pan out.

The older George addressed what he lacked first time around but was nowhere near the same athlete. His experience and more mature wisdom allowed him to succeed under the selective provisions he carefully made for himself. So he ultimately overachieved here.