Is George Foreman’s Second Career Overrated?

Can I just ask why you list the Holyfield/Morrison fights as controversial ? Foreman was well beaten in both fights so I'm not understanding where the controversy is.

As for Foreman’s 2nd career there was definitely some good matchmaking that inflated Foreman’s reputation. But I give him alot of credit for winning a title at age 45 it's a great achievement and deserves alot of kudos.

I also think Foreman’s list of opponents from when he fought Holyfield taking into account his age is not that bad honestly Holyfield, Stewart, Coetzer, Moorer, Morrison, Schulz, Savarese, Briggs.

 

Yes, to some degree.

But the reality is most heavyweight champions in history would not have been able to ko Michael Moorer at 45. No way. Moorer was a very good fighter no matter how much people want to pretend otherwise. Moorer was good enough to be a top 10 ranked heavyweight in any era and ko'ing him at 45 is a huge achievement.

I also don't buy the argument that Foreman got lucky against Moorer and that he was down on the scorecard. Foreman lured Moorer into exchanges and carefully planned the whole thing. Just because he was down on points does not mean he got lucky, rather he had a good strategy.

Holyfield is one of the ATG's and losing a decision to him while putting up a good fight is still a good effort.

My issue with Foreman's comeback was the absolute refusal to take any risk beyond title shots. Holyfield, Morrison and Moorer were all world class fighters and all dangerous in their own right. But there were other guys Foreman could have fought. Tim Witherspoon for one. But Witherspoon was a high risk low reward type of fight.

That being said, the reason why Foreman is all time top 10 at heavy isn't his comeback. Even without his comeback, he would arguably be in the lower half of the top 10 or top 15 at worst. In his first career, he had a win over Frazier (i am not counting the second one since post Manilla Joe was shot), Norton and Lyle. Head to head, he was one of the deadliest fighters in history.

Take the best wins of his first career (Frazier 1, Norton and Lyle) and combine them with the win over Moorer and a respectable effort vs Holyfield, plus his overwhelming strength, durability and power that make him a h2h nightmare, and you have a guy who is a bonafide top 10 all time heavyweight. His comeback, while somewhat overrated, is also extremely impressive at the same time since MOST heavyweights in history could not have replicated it.

His comeback simply pushed him from maybe a top 10 all time heavyweight into definitively being a top 10 all time heavy.

 

Yes in the sense that if he wasnt GF, that career MIGHT be considered about a Bonecrusher Smith level. Obviously very impressive for the age though.

 

It was overrated. He lost every round against Morrison, but he fought well in spots against Holyfield. He beat Moorer for the title and then held the lineal title hostage. George Formean ruined the lineal title and got a pass to duck other top heavyweights like Bowe and Lewis.


Considering the circumstances of his age and layoff it was obviously incredible

 

It can be rated pretty much how anyone likes since there's nothing of its kind been done before.

When we start to see other Heavyweights retire in their late twenties, take a ten year hiatus, come back and then, seven and a half years after that, regain the Lineal Heavyweight Championship (some twenty years after losing it), we'll be able to compare and contrast.

Although, it could be a while before we see that again.


For this reason, I lean towards: "A legendary success."

 

It certainly gets overrated when people say that Foreman would have beaten Tyson in the late 80s.

73-74 Foreman might very beat Tyson, but comeback George was farrrr too slow and lumbering to have a chance.

Comeback George was struggling with the bobbing n weaving of a shot Qawi. The thought of him having any chance at beating Tyson in the late 80s is Foreman fan/Tyson hater fantasy talk.

Tyson would have badly hurt the comeback Foreman.

 

Yes.

 

Yes

 

It was impressive for an older athlete, sure.... But I personally found it no more impressive a feat then when Larry Holmes accomplished the same things at the same advanced age. I mean, I'd personally take the Mercer victory over Foreman knocking out a blown up light heavyweight who skipped cruiser but that's just me.

 

No because his SOS matched the quality of the other top 90s fighters. Holyfield fought everyone one, Bowe fought only Holyfield and everyone else fought 2 top HWs. If you look at Foremans weak title defenses it was because the division was in flames when he was champ and there were no matches for him to make.

This comeback is so important because it elevates the 70s to the best HW era and quashed any notions of modern superiority over that era.

 

Foreman was a large part of the reason the division was in such disarray at that time! Every other Joe Blow heavyweight was padding their records and trying to win the Foreman sweepstakes payday.

What did you ever hear of the likes of Jimmy Ellis or Crawford Grimsley after they punched their ticket against Foreman for big money?

 

Every alphabet champ was losing their belt during Foremans reign. Lewis got his belt back and Holyfield beat Moorer a few weeks before the Briggs fight. It is the alphabet bodies fault for Grimsley. One rated him 9th the other handed him a regional belt. Ellis was an undefeated non title opponent.

 

Not overrated but carefully planned. And even more important extremely successful and lucrative not only in boxing but his Grill, which I used to have and loved it and various other endoresments.

 

Watch Morrison-Foreman again. I score it a draw. It could have gone either way.