George Foreman , overrated ?

How did you guess?

 

1973
George Foreman, Champion

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Frazier
3. Ken Norton
4. Jerry Quarry
5. Ron Lyle
6. Earnie Shavers
7. Oscar Bonavena
8. Joe Bugner
9. Jimmy Ellis
10. Chuck Wepner

Notice old Chuck in there ,the guy Foreman stopped in his 4th pro fight?

 

I am in contact with certain people.

 

Tate was completely shot. Berbick certainly rugged. Weaver was on the way out but still had a punch. Bey so so. Bruno good but stiff. I'd back Norton across the board. Prime Bugner would beat his share of those. Terrell would outbox some of them.

So i'd hardly consider the older era "weak" if that is considered strong.

 

Norton would beat Biggs for sure. Day in day out i'd back him to beat all of those too. It's a good bunch tho.

Again i don't consider the Roman mob to be "weak". They'd compare favorably to some of Louis and Marciano's mob i bet.

 

I don't agree at all that Frazier is fairly rated here. In my view too many people over-extrapolate from the Foreman knockout to conclude -not without some warrant but nonetheless far too confidently- that Joe is hopeless against any big punchers. It's even worse with Ken Norton, who was sparked by big punchers three times (if you don't count Garcia), but few people seem to have considered that perhaps (perhaps) each of these brutal knockouts made the next more likely.

 

Your motive is you are tyson lover and foreman is a living nightmare for him so i
understand it

 

A not.. You are wrong. ALI IS. HE WAS THE BEST OVERALL BUT STILL THE MOST OVERRATED, nobody had chance against Ali past present or future

 

The most funny thing is the part "could punch" you can use these words with a kid from a remote town but it is not a good pick of words for a guy who is a top 2 hw punchers in history.
Also foreman fought and destroyed bigger guys than Ali and lyle and bigger than himself. You are talking nonsenses . he always was not the bigger guy.. And does not matter the height..jack o"halloran was a giant 6'6 and huge , chuck wepner was 6'5 bigger than lyle and Ali, Norton was as big and stronger than Ali, roberto dávila was 6'4, conney was 6'6 ,bob hazelton was 6'7, and foreman rag dolled all them Foreman was much stronger than your fatty crappy flabby bowe and stronger than lewis too so it would not change anything

 

Bugner beat Chuck just as easily. It never gets a mention. He looked good then.

This content is protected

 

I think he's a little overrated, yeah.

He makes my all-time top 10 heavies, but he's around 9 or 10 on my list. I used to rate him higher because of the wins over Frazier and Norton but I feel Frazier was already past his best when he met Foreman and the rest of his résumé is a bit thin.

His win over Moorer in 1994 felt more like an indictment of a declining heavyweight division than a momental win. Perhaps that's unfair but I always felt it reflected badly on Moorer more than it reflected well on Foreman. He got schooled by Holyfield three years earlier and then he sat on the title and fought nobody after he won it.

There's no doubt he's one of the three or four best punchers in heavyweight history but overall he's a bit overrated in my opinion.

 

Good post. Foreman has great wins, that cannot be denied, and he was a huge talent. But like you say his later career, whilst producing one amazing result, needs to be taken a face value.

But saying all that, I agree, he is good enough to still be regarded 10 or 11 all time best by many.

 

I have always said that in each decade there is enough wins out there for any contender from one decade to conceivably rank in any time frame. When career timing allows that is. So yes, I agree because it works both ways. There has never been a ranked fighter who could not rank in another era.

 

Errr, just a bit...................

 

Just the one wasn't it?