George Foreman , overrated ?

Foreman was not overrated, he lost his way, came back and became the oldest to win the heavyweight title.............he also won a gold medal in the Olympics...........

 

I agree with most of your post and likewise that foreman should not be compared to johannson. But it's incorrect to refer to Eddie Machen as a " journeyman." He was a 25-0 contender in his prime and ranked around #2 in the world when ingo hammered him in one round.

 

Of course George was a ferocious puncher, a devastating hitter. But in the 1980s during his ten year absence Foreman was looked back upon as a flash in the pan since it turned out he had been champ for not that long. No longer than guys like Baer and Johansson.

There was a sense that he had looked like he was going to be champion for a very long time but he retired young when there should have been more to achieve.

 

I was about to post the same. When it comes to Liston or Foreman anything can and will come out of his keyboard.

 

In 1958-59 who was better than or justifiably rated higher than Patterson and Machen?

1n 1972-73 who was better than or justifiably rated higher than Frazier and Norton?

 

The general feel at that time from the publics standpoint was that Ali burst Foremans bubble. George just did not carry that aura of invincibility after 1974. There was no great clamor for an Ali-Foreman fight. I remember a year after Ali koed Foreman thinking where did Foreman disappear to? His one sided loss to Young and immediate retirement eliminated Foreman in everyone's mind regarding ATG status. His comeback to rewin the hwt championship after a decade in retirement changed all that. He makes my top five. Only Ali, Louis and Holmes IMO would beat him at his best. However I would say a great boxer such as Tunney could pull it off.

 

He rewon the true hwt championship of the world after being retired for a decade. It was the greatest achievement in the history of sport. He proved with that comeback that he had the ATG characteristics of courage, determination, durability, that he had failed to exhibit in his prime. YES he becomes an ATG when you look at the entirety of his boxing career. Absolutely no doubt.

 

Thank you! That is just how I remembered it.

It is difficult to imagine it like that from this end of things now because it is already such a long time since he beat Moorer.

But Those retirement years, Ten years from jimmy Young to the comeback, Foreman was, like you say, eliminated from ATG status. It was like his career was over and done already and it was decided although Foreman initially had "the look of a good champion" at one point, he had then been so eclipsed by the loss to Ali to the point that he had simply retired. The book was closed on Prime George Foreman.

Much Later, after coming back and working his way up from the ridicule of his early comeback fights to a commendable attempt against Holyfield, then again to Morrison, then actually beating Moorer a Huge reassessment on his earlier career took place. A combining of all that earlier stuff (that had almost been overlooked from beyond the shadow of Ali) together with the fortitude and perseverance of his second career established a new found place in ATG rankings for George.

I think it is justifiable in retrospect to look back upon the initial response of that first career and accept it without combining a redemption provided from the second career because in many ways it was two separate men.

Old Foreman rose like a Phoenix from the flames to achieve the unbelievable but it was only a rare set of smart and selective circumstance, a remarketing of himself, trading on his new acceptance that allowed it to happen. That said it was remarkable that Foreman pulled it off, that he was able to resurrect some earlier talent in a functional way as a veteran fighter. He never resurrected Prime George Foreman. The book had closed on that guy.

 

Maybe "journeyman" was too harsh of a word. I thought the label was for a guy who at one point could have been champ but just didnt make it and eventually becomes a "name" for other people to build their rep around?

Anyway, my point with the silly johanson comparison is machen wasnt a champ, norton and frazier were and theyre HOFers. Johanson demolishing the #1 contender is impressive but foreman koed the guys who gave "the greatest" all he could handle. I just consider that a much grearer feat. And you cant just write off lyle, chuvalo, wepner, scott ledoux, peralta, all those guys were rated and had winning records when foreman demolished them iirc. Both before and after zaire he beat some decent quality guys, this whole "nothing but bums" rhettoric is glossing over the facts. Its the same thing people did as soon as tyson lost, they ignored all his good wins.

Lol, a "blip" doesnt smash two HOFers and has a 92% ko rate. If were being honest here, Ali was written off after struggling with frazier and norton for the second time. He pretty much rejuvenated his career BECAUSE he beat foreman. To this day, people are amazed he pulled it off and there are plenty of people that just cant accept foreman wasnt invincible and make a dozen excuses. Look at any thread about zaire and youll see a whole truckload of cynical comments or passie aggressive observations. You claim to have studied the press of that era but this seems to have flown past you.

yeah, im gonna have to stop you right there. Frazier ONLY lost to HOF former/future champs. His only losses were a thrilling war against Ali and won fight of the year. The second was when he was pretty much blind and past his best.

As you said, he got whooped by Ali twice and steamrolled by liston twice. He LOST to ellis and quarry, period. So no matter how you slice Frazier going 3 (2kos)-1-2 is better than Floyds 20-1-6 and getting stopped 4x. It looks better at first but then you realize other than ingo, machen, bonavena, and chuvalo the rest of his wins were over bums. And you also realize frazier beat two of those guys.

Frazier regained the hearts of millions of fans in manilla. As the great eddie futch said "no one will forget what you did here son".

Floyd was dropped more than any other champ. He was remembered for ducking most of the top contenders when he was the champ. He won the title in the first place by beating an old light heavtweight and regained it beating the unknown blip of a guy who beat him. He ran out the ring with a disguise when he lost.

Who were all these "elite fighters" available for him? Quarry and ellis were as good as he could get. He was ONLY interested in beating the very best in Ali and foreman and you want to take that away from him?! Norton was his friend and they said theyd only fight for a lot of money or someone had a belt. If i recall, lyles trainer didnt want him fighting frazier and shavers career kept going up and down like a see-saw with inconsistent performances. So i ask again, who the hell was he supposed to fight? He cleaned out most of the division in Alis absence.

As i said above, foreman actually beat a few contensers on his way to the top. Hed need to be to get his shot in the first place. Peralta was in the top 10. Chuvalo had a winning record, granite chin, decent power, and foreman was one of only 2 guys to ever stop him. He crushed wepner.

The main reason he fought the guys he did was because he had a short amateur career (in which he won gold, but people gloss over that). Mexican boxers tend to do the same thing, they turn pro very young as teenagers and learn on the job. Seems more like fraziers camp overlooked big george because, i dunno...thet were COCKY after winning the biggest event in sports history and undefeated...?

Except foreman also had a thrilling war with lyle and won fight of the year. He crushed frazier in a rematch, stopped scott ledoux, and became #1 contender again. After floyd beat ingo, he was a blip. There werent a bunch of people going "come back and fight sonny liston". When george retired, people were genuinely shocked. There were still big fights and big money to be made. Ingo was a 1-hit wonder like a kimbo slice.

 

When we look at the entirety of Foremans career he probably deserves a honorary ranking like a lifetime achievement rather than an outright oscar because Two halves don't make a whole in one time zone.

He is a special case. You can't combine prime George with old George.

 

whatever your label for Machen was it incorrectly represents where Machen was at the time he fought Johansson. Machen at that time (unbeaten #1 contender with wins over several ranking contenders like Valdez, Baker, Jackson,Holman and Maxim) represented everything ken Norton was in 1973.

Norton was no more a champ than Machen was. If Machen had of been handed a belt like Norton was I would not trump him around as a champion. As you say Foreman demolished the guys that gave Ali all he could handle so isn't it similar that Ingo demolished Machen who gave Liston all he could handle? When did Foreman demolish Peralta? Where were Ledoux and Wepner regarded when Foreman beat them? At least Machen, Erskine, Cavicchi, Neuhaus and Hoff had made the ratings by the time Ingo fought them.

norton was not hall of fame. He was Ali's bogey man. His next best win was over a faded quarry or Duane Bobbick. Machen beat Quarry too as a veteran fighter. Ali amazed people because it was Foremans fight to win.

I love the guy. Joe Frazier was tops! But the record shows as brave as he was after that point the Frazier career really ended as an elite guy when he beat Ali.

Floyd was a veteran fighter beating Bonavena. As a veteran fighter Frazier drew with Jumbo Cummings. I don't see the comparison.

yes a peice of history. A losing effort never enhanced Joe Frazier glory years when he cleaned out the division. Ali, Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena. After that it was ultimately all down hill.

all that came later. This does not disguise how highly regarded he was in 1958. Who was regarded higher?

As for Floyd ducking contenders it's not strictly true. Jackson and Ingo were both #1 contenders. Harris rated #3. Radmacher was merely a warm up for Jackson. London was still #4 and merely a warm up for Ingo. Folly and Machen drew an eliminatior and Harris went ahead on that basis. Liston had wait for the rematch clauses to be resolved. Floyd did not duck anyone.

The Frazier career really ended after beating Ali. There's only so many ways you can say it. After that Frazier was really a part time boxer looking for superfights. He really was a 1960s guy campaigning in the 1970s. His rematch with Foreman was not an eliminator or anything like it. A kind of "one for the road" match. two guys who met before. It wasn't about Foreman it was about Frazier seeing if he could reverse the one embarrassing defeat

Bugner crushed Wepner too. Chuvalo was the one good win. But Ali as a rival contender eclipsed it with his 1972 run by a huge margin. There's so many guys Foreman could have fought who were better thanGordwin, Boone and Sorrell! Quarry, Ali, Ellis, Foster, Bugner, Bonavena...

There is no excuse for Sorrell, Gordwin and Boone. Those guys had not won fights since the 1950s! Talk about digging up opponents.

you are only familiar with the Foreman story. I am aware of the winning run George had between the Ali And Young defeats. The five man Canadian debacle too. I remember George took 15 months off after Ali had burst Foremans bubble, he lost momentum, people wondered what happened to him. The wins he had for one reason or another kept George firmly in Ali's shadow. There was no desperate clamour for an Ali rematch. There was however a desperate clamour for Ingo to rematch Floyd Patterson to see if he could reclaim the title like Floyd had from him. The ingo-Floyd triology fights were big news in the 1960s. Once it was over ex champ Ingo won the Euro title and was talked of being a challenger to the first reign of Ali. It was not so dissimilar to exchamp Foreman at all. Ingo retired after he looked bad against London and Foreman retired after he looked bad against Jimmy Young. It's the same thing.

 

Well that

Yeah and Holmes ducking title challengers is another topic to avoid as well