George Foreman , overrated ?

Clearly they aren't, because you agreed with the guy who said Foreman was a virtual unknown before the Frazier fight and was largely ignored after he lost to Ali.

And nothing could be further from the truth.

He was known all over the world FIVE YEARS before he fought Frazier.

His buildup to a title shot was covered nationally.

His fight with Frazier was a huge event.

And he was still drawing 35 million viewers and was a staple on national boxing telecasts three years after losing to Ali.

 

Exactly. This thread has gotten completely bizarre.

After all these pages, Foreman has now been reduced by some on here to little more than a one-hit wonder.

It's complete nonsense.

 

Exactly. I can't count the number of articles printed wondering when Foreman was going to come back in the late seventies and early 80s. Or the number of letters written by fans published in pubs year after year wondering when George would return.

When Leon Spinks beat Ali in early 1978, reporters were calling Foreman and Foreman told one interviewer he was considering a return.

Interest in him was still so high and people were asking about him so much that in 1981 RING did a six-page feature story on Foreman and his life then as a preacher.

This bizarre idea that people lost interest in him after he lost to Ali in 1974 is insane.

50 million people watched the Super Bowl in January 1977 and 35 million watched Foreman-Young two months later.

Yep, no interest in him at all.

 

Great stuff mate.

 

I think you are confusing "interest" with "all time great rating".

1978 was within a year of his retirement. It's understandable Foreman was still a talking point then. But once it got to the 1980s George had become very obscure in everything I read at that time. Obviously I can't rule out the possibility of all time great feature articles regarding Foreman at this time but the books and articles I read all happened to dismiss him. Remarkably Patterson and Frazier were often regarded greater than Liston and Foreman. I never understood that. It registered with me as wrong but I saw that time and again during the 1980s.

In the 1980s I remember one magazine handed out a "George Foreman wasted talent award" at the end of a year. KO magazine I think.

A devastating puncher cannot be confused with ATG. So where was George Foremans ATG rating at this time of all these other articles you saw but i haven't ? Everything I remember contradicts what you say. SoLet's see some of these articles from the 1980s then?

You say you don't know who Gilbert Odd was, but in the 1970s and 1980s it was difficult to see a book in a library on boxing that wasn't written by Gilbert Odd. I read his stuff, I read Peter Wilson, frank Butler and Henry Cooper during this period. They were disappointed in him and ranked Foreman low. It was in line with the top ten ATG ratings published in this period.

 

I think you totally misunderstood my comments, or the context. Or perhaps you just wanted to rant a bit.

I said "relatively unknown". I said "largely forgotten".
This is in the context of a debate over George Foreman being considered an "all time great", "one of the greats" circa mid-1980s.
Relatively unknown in the peak of the Muhammad Ali/Joe Frazier era, around 1971, '72. That's true, you can't seriously argue otherwise.
Largely forgotten among the pantheon of heavyweight all time greats by the eve of his comeback 1987. I doubt he was included.

I didn't say he wasn't famous through the 1970s, or very famous in the USA in the 1970s, which is all that you're saying really. I didn't say he was unknown to, or ignored by, fans of televised sports in the USA during his career.

Foreman didn't fight at all in 1975, except for some exhibitions, including the absurd "Foreman v 5 men" event in Toronto, which actually turned into just another episode of the Muhammad and Howard show.
Muhammad Ali fought 4 times in the same year, twice in stadiums/arena in Asia, culminating in the epic third Ali-Frazier fight.
Foreman was a sideshow after Ali beat him, as were many others.

The world doesn't begin and end with American television ratings. You can probably tell me Ken Norton and Jimmy Young drew huge viewing figures on ABC in 1977 but that wouldn't persuade me they were perhaps considered all-time greats at the time or 10 years later either.

Of course people watch George Foreman fights on TV, of course world champions and olympic champions were famous in the 1970s, especially among people who watched those sports.
This is very different from being RECOGNISED AS AN ALL-TIME GREAT or being regarded as an active living legend of his sport, a true great.

And I believe, with 10 years of retirement as a preacher, Foreman's fame faded, and the recognition as one of the all-time great heavyweights just didn't materialise. I believe Joe Frazier was way more likely to be cited among them as was Foreman in those years.
I could be wrong, but STILL nothing said so far has changed that belief.

 

Perhaps you should learn to read more carefully.
I didn't say Foreman was "a virtual unknown". I said he was "relatively unknown".

Those are completely different statements, with completely different meanings.
I hate to get into semantics but I trust you know there's a massive difference in meaning.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
relatively
ˈrɛlətɪvli/
adverb
adverb: relatively
in relation, comparison, or proportion to something else.
"they were very poor, but, relatively speaking, they had been lucky"
regarded in comparison with something else rather than absolutely; quite.
"the site was cheap and relatively clean"

virtual
adjective
adjective: virtual
1.
almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to strict definition.
"the virtual absence of border controls"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If I said George Foreman was a virtual unknown I'd take that statement back. That would mean Foreman was very nearly not known at all. But I didn't say that.

I said George Foreman was relatively unknown prior to facing Joe Frazier.
I believe he was far less well-known than Joe Frazier was at that time, for a start.

I seriously doubt the people of Kingston, Jamaica were interested in having George Foreman over to fight in their National Stadium because he was so "well known" to them.
But I bet they'd heard of Joe Frazier, big time.

 

I think it's strange how one side of this argument has utterly failed to cite any examples of Foreman being described as one of the all-time greats post-Ali-pre-comeback while loudly proclaiming how stupid the other side of the debate is for doubting it.

Despite being able to cite articles, statistics, viewing figures, dates, etc.
Despite being familiar with hundreds of magazines and sitting on a massive pile of them.
Not even one single quote or article or rating that concludes that George Foreman sits in the pantheon of all-time great heavyweights. .... and I'm really lowering the bar here asking to a single instance.

I am actually genuinely interested. For me this was never an argument. I have made it clear all along that I am only talking about my own personal perception based on what I read at the time, mid-80s. I have been absolutely prepared to be educated and shown where that perception is totally wrong. Yet nothing has been shown to challenge my fairly weak beliefs on this.

 

To be fair, I think nostalgia and a revision had already kicked in by then.
Also, personally I think he was perhaps underrated a bit after 1977. Probably not much, but a bit.
Also, I believe going 12 rounds with Holyfield (against expectations) already boosted his legacy in real terms, considering his age and the length of the lay-off before he started his comeback.

But, yes, surely the Moorer fight is the biggest boost to his legacy post-1974. And rightly so !

I'm not sure where he should rank.
He's a unique case, hard to say what to do with him.
Some say he has to be above Frazier but I'm not so sure sometimes. Other times, top 5 seems reasonable.
He was definitely a special kind of fighter.

Losing to Jimmy Young really hurts his legacy. Losing to Tommy Morrison really taints his comeback legacy a bit too, if I'm honest. I'm not sure he even tried to win that one, the result is so poor.
But then I'm not one of those people who think J.Young and T.Morrison were anywhere near great fighters themselves. So those losses hurt him if I'm totally objective.

 

I agree with this except for the last paragraph.

Losing to Jimmy Young when he did hurt because Foreman was the unquestioned number-one contender and was expected to receive a rematch with Ali in 1977.

Then again, Young was in the midst of an incredible run of drawing with Shavers, beating Ron Lyle, fighting Ali for the title and most of the press giving it to Young, fighting Lyle again and beating him, fighting Foreman and winning and then fighting Ken Norton and losing another controversial decision. An argument could be made Young beat Ali, Norton, Foreman, Lyle and Shavers during that stretch, before Young totally went off the rails. So, if you were going to lose to Young at any point, that was the time - because you were in good company (with Ali, Norton, Lyle and Shavers).

Like Sugar Ray Robinson against Maxim, Foreman also suffered from dangerous dehydration during the Young fight, fell unconscious in his dressing room immediately upon returning (where he hallucinated he'd died and gone to hell - which spurred his religious conversion), and had to be carried to the shower to be revived, and spent a couple days in the hospital afterwards.

By 1978, people were pleading with Foreman to return, and reporters kept contacting him for intereviews asking about a possible comeback, because Leon Spinks had the WBA belt and Norton (who Foreman had destroyed in two) had the WBC title, and people felt Foreman was better than both of them.

People just couldn't accept he had actually called it a day. If he'd rematched with Ali and Young in 77 or 78, I don't think anyone would've felt it was an UPSET if Foreman beat them both (like it was seen when they defeated him).

I don't hold losing to Tommy Morrison against George either, just like I don't hold Holmes losing to McCall against him. Morrison was one of the top contenders during a great 90s era, and Morrison totally changed his style just to survive against Foreman. Like George always said, he never adjusted to anyone's style. They always had to adjust to his. Because he was that dominant inside the ropes.

What Foreman did in the 90s was amazing. Of course it enhanced his legacy. The 90s was a great decade for heavyweights and he regained the title. If Larry Holmes had knocked out Evander Holyfield in 1992, it would've enhanced Holmes' all-time legacy, too. If Rocky Marciano had returned in the late 60s and knocked out Jimmy Ellis or Joe Frazier, that would've enhanced Rocky's legacy, too. If Tommy Burns came back during the Roaring Twenties and knocked out Jack Dempsey for the title, it would've enhanced Tommy Burns' legacy, too. If Ezzard Charles knocked out Sonny Liston for the title in the 1960s, it would've enhanced Ezzard Charles' legacy, too.

 

He knocked out Moorer to win the world heavyweight title ... and you're slagging him for "doing nothing afterwards?" Are you insane? Seriously. What did you want him to do from the ages of 46 to 48 exactly?

Had Marciano at the age of 45 knocked out Frazier or Ellis in 1968 ... would you bash him if he didn't keep fighting the very top guys? Or would you praise him for knocking out the top heavyweight?

Christ.

And you claim he didn't have a deep resume? He knocked out the undefeated World Champ Joe Frazier in 1973, knocked out the undefeated World Champ Michael Moorer in 1994, knocked out Hall of Famer Ken Norton in 1974, knocked out Gerry Cooney in 1990, knocked out George Chuvalo in 1970, knocked out former light heavyweight and cruiserweight champ Dwight Qawi in 1988, knocked out contender Ron Lyle in 1976, knocked out contender Pierre Coetzer in 1993 ... and on and on ...

He might have one of the deepest, most diverse resumes ever. And it spans four decades for God's sake.

Hell, his last loss (at age 48) to another future champ, 26-year-old Shannon Briggs, was considered such a poor decision it was investigated by the Feds.

Even when Ali, who is considered by many to be the best ever, beat Foreman, Ali winning was considered an upset.

Nobody is overrating him in this thread. A couple of you are seriously underrating him, claiming he was only factor in the division for a couple years and wasn't well known, and you look like idiots.

He's an all-time great. Where people choose to rank him is up to them. There will be no perfect ranking. But saying he's "overrated" his high. He's one of the best ever.

 

Briggs won the worlds hwt championship by beating Foreman.

Foreman is an ATG but would not be nor was he considered so prior to his comeback.

Very interesting that ALL evidence came from only one side of the argument.