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

I have always felt that George Foreman was a perfectely legitimate top 10 fighter.

- Olympic gold medalist

- Two time lineal champion

- Highest win-Ko ratio of any lineal champ

- The oldest man to ever capture the crown

- Wins over at least 3 or 4 top 30 guys, including one who is commonly top 10.

- Only stopped once in a career consisting of over 80 fights, and by a man usually referred to as " the greatest. "

Without going into any further detail, that's basically enough for me. His record is often scrutinized as being padded, or lacking in substance. While this may be true, I think that its also overstated, and there are definetaly some quality wins in there.

 

i had him at number 9 on my list btw

 

His reign lasted 2 fights, that isnt too bad as he fought 'The Greatest', but Ali was 34 and way past prime and he also lost to Jimmy Young and ran away from the sport after that. If he stayed around Holmes would have out right schooled him if they ever squared off.

The only reason he gets rated high by most is because of his 90s comeback. BUT his 90s comeback is the most overrated comeback of all time, He fought the following top10ers and lost to all but 1 - Holyfield, Morrison, Moorer. Moorer was beating him hands down and got caught, a good win but Foreman wasnt a top HW he would be outboxed by Axel Schulz of all people in his next bout.

His best wins are as follows: Frazier x2, Moorer, Norton, Lyle whats his 5th best win? Shot Cooney? Alex Stewart? Coetzer? Thats not much depth to his resume

The following all have much more quality in depth of their resumes: Ali, Louis, Holmes, Lennox LEwis, Holyfield, Tyson, Johnson, Marciano (hard to rank him above any of them with the sparce wins he has)

Fighters with similar quality top 4-5 wins: Frazier, Liston, Schmelling, Wills, Walcott, Charles (I'd rank him above all of them)

Fighters with weaker win resumes: Jeffries, Dempsey
, Patterson
Head to Head Foreman is both great and poor because he is the epitomy of styles make fights. He might KO Tyson, Marciano, Frazier and Dempsey at his best (I reckon Tyson would do but never mind), the exact same man may have outboxed to decisions to lesser mover types like Young, Roy Jones Jr (yes give me flack Foreman fans but if Young can do it Jones may be able to), Walcott, Tunney - I'm sure he'd KO some of those. Because of his footwork and defense hes also susceptable to being KO'd himself by the likes of Louis, Tyson, Lewis, although obviously he has his own punchers chance

Boxing rankings are subjective to a degree Foreman is both great and somewhat poor at the same time. I would however put him in the top10 but the bottom end of it, anyone putting him in the top 5 is vastly overrating the man

 

he wasn't mentally prepared was he , i thought that was a given.thats my point.

 

:roll:

 

possibly you are right, but i have never seen a fight of both. so i don't regarded them

 

they were both fine boxers and gentlemen and have my respect for what its worth but they are not top 10.walcott higher than braddock imo

 

No, he wasn't (and that's of course what I meant with "questions can be raised..."). But being umotivated and mentally unprepared, but in your physical prime, and facing Young, is in a totally different ballpark from being an old, shot fighter (and in Ali's case also sick and ****ed up on meds) and facing Marciano or Holmes.

As I said, Tyson-Douglas is a much better comparison.

 

:goodi get your point

 

Do n't want to nitpick,but Ali was only 32 when Foreman fought him. I'm only bringing this up because Ali at 34 had slipped considerably from when he was 32. Once a boxer hits his thirties,two years can be a long time.

 

But you have seen Foreman being taken to school by the best technical boxers he met. So how on earth can he be your nr. 1? I mean, say what you will about motivation and gameplan, in both those fights he shows such a lack of technique that you can't possible have him as the best HW ever. Looking great in two fights can't make up for that.

So, to summarise: If you go by achievements Foreman starts to look good. He destroyed an undefeated and undisputed champion in a way that's unrivalled in the division. 21 years later he recalimed the crown. These are both great achievements.

But Walcott and Braddock also have great achivements. They came back after years of poverty and inactivity to cut a swathe through the division and beat feared champions (most agree Walcott beat Louis). Walcott continued after that and claimed the title years later, at the age of 37. So then they should be pretty close to George.


If you go by record Foreman doesn't look good enough against his top opponents (about 50-50). If you watch him on film it's the same: he looks great against some and awful against some.

 

Your right, still 7years past his prime as mentioned because Ali was all about movement/athleticism at his best and he'd lost it when he faced Foreman, imagine Ali-Foreman where Ali can move none stop, it wouldnt look competitive

 

I don´t agree with everything but over all that´s a good summery :good

 

Exactly like me, glad to be in agreement

 

I think Foreman belongs in the ring with all these guys. Meaning, on any given night as the saying goes, I can see him beating any of these greats.