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

On one hand Foreman has several epic wins. High quality. On the other hand - he never had a long lasting reign as champion, and he never cleaned out the division in either incarnation.
He did good in the 70s beating Frazier, Norton, Lyle, losing to Ali and Young. Never facing Shavers, Quarry, Bonavena, Holmes.

The older version has the Epic win over Moorer. But losses to Holyfield, Morrison, (Schulz if we're honest)
and never facing basically everyone - Tyson, Bowe, Lewis, Mercer, etc etc

He has a lot of padded wins on his ledger.
A case can be made for the back end of top 10.

 

Few Heavyweights had long reigns.

 

No. That 0 needs to be removed.

 

Yes. He looked great against fighters who couldn't back away, got outboxed every time he faced a skilled boxer, nearly got his head taken off by Lyle and was given an undeserving shot by Moorer who was winning the fight by a wide margin before Foreman got the chance to lower the boom.
He has two phenomenal achievements in beating Frazier in two rounds and Moorer at the age of 64, but the resume takes a nosedive afterwards.

 

Gone but not forgotten...

 

Where does he place, then? & who’s above him?

 

Over the course of his two title reigns he made a total of 5 defenses.

The first time he made two : Jose Roman and Ken Norton

The second time he made 3 and it should have been zero. Schulz, Grimsley, Savarese.
That’s hardly worth noting.

Now you got guys like Ali with two separate runs of 10 defenses each. You got Joe Louis with 25 title defenses. Holmes 20 and Wlad 18. Epic runs.
Then you get quite a few guys with 9 - like Tyson, and Lewis and guys that won multiple times and made a several ok runs like Holyfield.

I’m not hating on Foreman his accomplishment in beating Moorer is the stuff of legend. But it’s an accomplishment it doesn’t mean he was best in division. His comeback as improbable as it was, was mostly smoke and mirrors. He never stepped in with Lewis, Tyson, Bowe. Even old Holmes may have exposed the gravy train that was old Foreman.
I think it’s ok to put him in top 10 on back end. Just pointing out there are some clear cut criticism that can be made.

 

Louis, Ali, Marciano, Holmes, Lennox are unquestionably more accomplished because they thoroughly dominated their eras.
You can make a case for the following to be ranked above him based on quantity of wins or accomplishments:

Wlad
Johnson
Holyfield
Dempsey
Tyson
Jeffries
Liston
Walcott
Frazier
Charles
Schmeling

 

That’s five. I don’t need to hear who you could, “make a case for.” You could make a case for anything. Who are the ten you’d put above him?

 

If Holyfield’s run is okay, then why isn’t Foreman’s? Both were two-time champions. Foreman beat Frazier & Holyfield beat Douglas. Foreman, five defenses through two reigns, Holyfield, three defenses through two reigns. Tyson only made two defenses of the linear crown. He lost it to Douglas - Foreman lost it to Ali. Where’s that figure in your calculations?

Hell, between the three of them, Foreman even has the most impressive singular defense - vs Norton.

 

Tyson beat roughly twice as many top 10 heavyweights as Foreman and was briefly the best heavyweight in the world while its not clear Foreman was ever the best. He was widely regarded as best pre-Spinks so reasonable to count 9 title defenses.
Foremans second reign didn't feature any top contenders.

 

You can’t seriously tell me you rank Tyson above Foreman on achievements. Don’t do it. You’ll regret it for the rest of your life

 

It is not reasonable. You aren’t the man until you beat the man.

 

Tyson was clearly better than Spinks prior to beating him and thus can rightly be regarded as the man prior to beating Spinks. From November 1986 onwards Tyson was beating far better opposition.

 

We will have to widely disagree then. Being perceived as the best, correctly or incorrectly, counts for nought. I don’t pay on potential. I pay on results.

When do you start counting Sonny Liston as champ with that logic, then? 1959? 1960?