Is George Foreman a top 10 heavyweight of all-time ?

Don't expect others to go along with that logic, championship is only meaningful if your fighting the best and post-Holmes Spinks wasn't facing top contenders while Tyson was cleaning out the division. He beat far better opposition than Spinks in 87 and 88 regardless of lineage

 

Perhaps because he shared an era with the best of all time?

 

So when does Liston become the, “real” champ under your imaginary rule set?

You’re not the man until you beat the man. That’s just basic common sense.

 

Not only that, but it’s a retrospective statement. Foreman was overwhelmingly considered the best Heavyweight on the planet after Kingston.

 

And none of them were close to Joe Frazier's standing or as good as Ken Norton's for that matter.
Foreman was the best before Ali beat him. He obliterated the champ that had beaten Ali and for good measure almost killed a guy that was recently 1-1 with Ali. You've got the blinkers on, as always.

What if Ali fought Foreman earlier and didn't rate him so barely trained for him nor work himself up into a mental state of near invincibility (for Foreman) on the night, say pre title? Are there any question marks?

But hang on was Tyson ever the best? He was still prime when he lost to Douglas. What if they fought sooner and Douglas was somehow motivated with Tyson taking him for granted? Dear o' dear.

There's your ridiculous double standards and complete lack of logic at work, again. Liston was pretty widely considered to be the best heavyweight sometime before he was finally given a title shot, what's the lack of a title between friends? He still had one to get one title (the main one really) just like Mike. Sanchez was obviously better than Lopez for some time, why don't we have a guess at when he was better and take some defenses off Danny.

But hang on, what about the Foreman/Ali/Frazier triangle? At some stage Foreman was better than Frazier before he won the title why not have him as king........but hang on Ali was always better than George.....but damn Ali had been beaten by Frazier when they fought so he can't be champ. Will the real champ please stand up? What a headache historical revisionism can be.

That's the type of problems your wishful fantasy fest causes.

It didn't need to for him to be top 10. To win the lineal title after that amount of time is incredibly historical.

 

Liston and Charles woudl be difficult sells.

You probably need to dominate some sort of definable era to be ranked ahead of him.

 

In terms of achievements he's probably top 5, but if you emphasise ca prime period, then he's not in my top 10 I think.

 

It’s bonkers logic. Why even fight Spinks at all, if people already think you’re the best I suppose?

 

This is how I see it. Foreman anywhere between #8 and #11 for me.

 

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Holyfield
5. Lewis
6. Foreman
7. Marciano
8. Frazier
9. Tyson
10. Wlad

 

Haven't made a top ten but here's a quick example list

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Holmes
4. Lennox
5. Johnson
6. Marciano
7. Wlad
8. Tyson
9. Frazier
10. Foreman
11. Schmeling
12. Walcott
13. Liston
14. Dempsey
15. Holyfield

 

Alis legacy is to a large degree a product of the era he fought in. In later eras he would not be able to clean out his era due to fighters fighting far less frequently and proliferation of belts giving fighters more opportunities without having to face good opposition.

So it's not really a fair comparison when it comes to resume because of how the sport has changed since the 1970s.

 

In the classic forum Neys position on the lineal title is the overwhelming consensus.

 

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Lewis
4. Wlad
5. Tyson
6. Holmes
7. Marciano
8. Frazier
9. Holyfield
10. Usyk

 

Yes