George Foreman , overrated ?

Eddie machen was a journeyman who lost his biggest fights.

Patterson was considered small and chinny in his OWN era.

Frazier was the reigning undefeated ATG champion. People thought he was invincible after fotc--NOBODY thought patterson or eddie freaking machen were invincible. Norton only had 1 loss and had cosistently ranked in the top 10. Both guys had succesful careers after foreman (norton won a belt and had a thrilling war with holmes, frazier had a few decent performances against quarry and ali).

Thats a pretty silly comparison, ingemar to prime foreman.

As for thread, there is no such thing as luck in a fight. Foreman beat an undefeated lineal 2x champ in moore fair and square, deal with it. He beat briggs, outlanded him, was in complete control against a man half his age who had tremendous power and size and was robbed. Morrison literally ran and changed his style to beat foreman. Young made anyone look bad at his best, including lyle, shavers, norton, even the greatest ali himself. Horrible style match up with a shattered confidence.

So the 3 glaring losses in a career spanning two decads are to two of the best heavies of all time (ali, holyfield) and a defensive wizard who would always give him problems (young). Thats better than a lot of people can say when they retired.

 

Not even in the same stratosphere.

The Cobra has saved me having to spell out the obvious.

 

Cooper checked into a hotel the night before the fight that was mysteriously stocked with cocaine and hookers, if I remember right. I don't think he showed up in top form.

 

Yes, there's a number of ways you can look at it.

I have little doubt that his defeat at the hands of Ali took quite a lot away from him in terms of his psychological strength and make-up.

Had Ali's plane crashed on the way to Zaire and "the rumble" never happened, I'm reasonably sure he would have destroyed Young and made quicker, cleaner work of Lyle.

He was on a rampage up till Zaire, and you might argue that many of his victims were no-names, but the way he dealt with Norton and Frazier in four rounds combined (in comparison to how both men did against Ali in a combined seventy rounds), tells me that it probably wouldn't have made much difference who he faced.

He was a wrecking machine.

Only when Ali (GOAT) found a way to beat him did his confidence slip and he was a mental wreck for a decade or more.
We know that so much of the game is mental and George's mental game took a big hit, a hit that took ten years to mend.

With his KO ferocity, and wins over Frazier and Norton, he would have been remembered as pretty decent even if he'd stuck to preaching thereafter.

But to mount a comeback ten years later at age 38, an age where both Ali and Joe Louis were both shot, and most pugilists have taken to golf or something tamer, and still box competitively for another nine years, regaining the linear title and beating Moorer (and Briggs, if we're honest) and fighting competitively with a prime Holy ( a man he would have blown out twenty years earlier), this moves him into my list of ATGs.

The dude is an original !

I have him at 3/4, a bit higher than most , I'll admit, but I don't think too many have him outside the top 20.

I'm enjoying our discussion.

 

The relevant thing about Eddie Machen in this discussion is that Eddie Machen was the red hot undefeated #1 contender when he fought Ingmar Johansson. To be able to dismiss the Machen win you need to know where Machen was at the point of his career he lost to ingo and by then Eddie had knocked out rated contenders Nino Valdez, Tommy huricane Jackson and john Holman. eddie had also already beat Bob Baker, Johnny Summerlin and Joey Maxim. About this time it was said Machen was "a perfect fighting machine".

Patterson was the best heavyweight in the world at that time. You can't get better than that. There was nobody who came close. Floyd was a sensation as a light heavyweight, he then beat Archie Moore as the underdog to win the vacant heavyweight title. Floyd knocked out Huricane Jackson right after Jackson had established himself as the top contender having beaten Bob Baker. It was a big deal that Floyd had won the title at just 21 years of age. It's okay to call Floyd chinny now, but back before he fought Ingo nobody was saying that. He was kid dynamite. Gazelle punch and all of that.

Nobody thought Norton was unbeatable. It was a total surprise and Nobody thought Norton would beat Ali after he was knocked out by Jose Luis Garcia.

Frazier was well regarded after beating Ali, but as it turned out Frazier never was the same again. The record bares this out.

after losing to ingo Machen beat the man George Foreman ducked..Jerry Quarry!! Patterson had a better career after losing to ingo than Frazier had after losing to Foreman. Realistically Fraziers career ended after TFOTC.

this was the established view when Foreman retired the first time. He was seen as a "flash in the pan" kind of guy. Just like Ingo Johansson.

Briggs and Morrison? Any prime champion worth anything should get past them. They are not such a feather in the cap as soon as you factor in the whole of heavyweight history. Young also. That guy was nothing but a nuisance trial horse who could eke out the odd result here and there.

Sure George was a special guy. Unique in that hIm coming back proved he had plenty left of the unfulfilled talent he had been last time. An old guy with miles left on the clock. The selective navigating and golden chances George got out of trading on his name second time around really might have flattered him but still nobody can take away that surprising win he had over Moorer.

Had Foreman not been given the opportunity to fight Moorer (a fight he did not deserve to get by the way) what would have became of his legacy?

 

I haven't followed the whole discussion so I may be off on some things. But is someone seriously comparing ingemar Johannson to George Foreman?

 

Before his comeback George Foreman WAS regarded as wasted talent. a "flash in the pan". His resume BEFORE his comeback the Foreman legacy stood much like the ingo Johansson resume. Two outstanding wins at elite level then it fizzled out.

 

^youre gonna need to cite some sources. Articles, interviews with coaches or writers of the 70's etc. People TO THIS DAY did not get over zaire and could not come to grips with him losing. When johanson lost, nobody gave a rats turd and regarded him as a blip in heavyweight history.

Patterson did not have a better career than frazier after he lost to johanson. He was brutalized by liston twice and failed to recapture the title in the heavyweight tournament. He was humiliated by ali. Frazier still had a few good wins. Manilla was one of his greatest performances despite losing.

Nobody thought frazier was "washed up" immediately after fotc, you are using revisionist history. Foreman was a major underdog.

Again, none of johansons opponents were on the same calibre of frazier or norton, nor were they rated as highly even in their own era. that is ludicrous. And you even had the nerve to bring up eddie machen, lmao.

 

Lol no.

 

I read magazines right through the 1980s during the time George was a retired preacher. Whenever his name came up it was "wasted talent" this and "wasted talent" that. In fact one magazine even gave out a "George Foreman wasted talent of the year award". Assessing boxing History and top ten ranking the best heavyweights up until the time BEFORE George came back never included George or ingemar Johansson. In fact Baer, Johansson and Foreman were often linked together in debates as "what might have been" kind of thing. Guys who looked like they could be great. I had a book by Henry Cooper written in the late 1970s about the greatest heavyweights up until that point and that said Foreman came into prominence like a Lion but went out like a lamb.

when Johansson lost nobody gave a rats turd...he was a blip in heavyweight history.... BEFORE his comeback So was George Foreman a blip in heavyweight history!

after losing to Foreman Frazier had how many fights? He fought Ali, Ellis and Quarry and Foreman again. All rematches. He beat Bugner as well. The Bugner win was ok, Ellis and Quarry was old ground revisited and Frazier lost hard to Foreman and Ali twice. Where as Patterson after losing to Ingo actually beat Ingo x2 in rematches which was seen as sensational at the time because Ingo was the top heavyweight in the world. Yes he blew two fights with Sonny boy and the two with Ali but Patterson also beat Cooper better than Ali ever did, beat machen, won fight of the year against Chuvalo and as an old man Floyd beat Bonavena and some say he was also robbed against both Ellis and Quarry at the time both were elite men. What elite fighters did Frazier beat AFTER Foreman. Don't say Old man Ellis and faded Quarry.

floyd was brutalised twice after regaining the title! What did Frazier regain?

a few wins over guys he already beat. Frazier never won another elite fight after beating Ali.

And getting robbed by Ellis was one of Patterson best performances. Beating Bonavenna and Chuvalo was as good as Floyds title form. After beating Ali there was nothing Frazier did that was as close to anything he did before it.

I never said anybody thought Frazier was washed up after fotc. Truth was everybody thought Frazier was or could be as good that's how Foreman was the underdog! We know with the benefit of hindsight that Frazier had spent too long singing in a band and that he turned up in horrible shape and paid a price but the writing (with hindsight) should have been on the wall.

The Stander and Daniels fights both show a slip in Frazier form...but how could anyone guess that George Foreman, the protected prospect who fought terrible guys in 1972 like Joe Murphy Gordwin, Terry Sorrell and Clarance "boo-boo" Boone who were the most pitiful characters ever assembled (records of 1-14, 3-25 and 4-15) would be the one to expose it?

The reason why Foreman was so overlooked as a challenger was because he fought lousy guys like Clarence Boone, Terry Sorrell and Joe Murphy "God Awful" Gordwin! That's how Foreman was able to hoodwink the public into thinking there must be a reason he was getting all those soft touches so close to a title fight. Whilst that same year Ali beat a host of real contenders. It was disgraceful really that Ali had to wait for George to get his shot first.

in their own era Patterson and Machen were the top two heavyweights in the world. Just like Norton and Frazier were the top two heavyweights. You might prefer Norton and Frazier over those two but that is not an option. At the time (when Ingo beat them) there was nothing better. It was as good as it got. And Ingo smashed the pair of them to smithereens just like Foreman snuffed out Frazier and Norton.

I have the nerve to bring up Eddie Machen because he was not only unbeaten and rated as high as possible but He was the outstanding contender having knocked out a swathe of contenders like Valdez, Holman and Jackson. At that time he was as good as it got so you can't do better than beating the best two in the same style as George Foreman did.

 

What an absolute utter load of bollocks !

 

George was never seen as a flash in the pan. After Ali, he went on a pretty good tear. He flattened Ron Lyle in a war, something Ali couldn't do. He demolished Frazer a second time, much easier than Ali did in Manila. Dino Dennis was an undefeated prospect and George crushed him. Scott LeDoux was a tough guy with a great chin, and Foreman decimated him. George was the number one contender for a good solid year before the Young fight...and Muhammad Ali wanted nothing to do with him. Foreman called him out repeatedly and Ali ducked and dodged, willing to fight anyone else under the sun other than George Foreman.