Is George Foreman the a masive underaceiver?

No, he did okay.

 

He had the bad luck of running into the greatest, if Ali wasn't around I don't know who would've beat him until Holmes came around but then again I doubt Foreman would've stuck around that long so his record could've potentially been unblemished.

He's a top 10 Heavyweight in any case so certainly not an underachiever.

 

I'm glad to see you feel the same as me in regards to his victory over Frazier, and Moorer for that matter. I also feel the same and feel it gets underrated compared to the likes of Schmelling over Louis, Ali over Foreman, Frazier over Ali.

We saw in his second career that Big George had a very good jab, as well as an exceptional chin. Mixed in with his awesome power I believe if he had a truly great trainer after his triumph in Mexico he may have been better off staying an amateur for a few more years to improve his boxing skills.

There's always a counter argument, that being an aggressive brawler with extremely limited boxing skills, he overachieved beating an ATG undefeated heavyweight champion and winning the title back 20 years later.

I think hypothetically the idea of someone with Foreman's physical prowess and good boxing skills would suggest he'd be a much better fighter and would have achieved more in the sport, but looking at the highest rated heavyweight with comparable boxing skills to Foreman, they would probably struggle to make it into anyone's top 30.

He truly was one of a kind and had he of gone away from what he did best in a boxing ring, throwing bombs and meeting his opponent head on, he would have achieved a lot less.

 

The again, my suggestion of him staying out of the pro game for a few years after his gold medal, could have seen him run the same sort of opposition, but slightly worse versions. It certainly wouldn't have been out of the question for Foreman to have been the top heavyweight of the 70s and still been champ when Holmes came about, probably leading to at the very least 2 fights and a potential rubber years later

 

His comeback was massive over-achievement, if anything.

 

Of all TIME:deal

 

I believe he underachieved but not massively. I lean more toward the counter-arguement of overachieving on skillset, but record/legacy wise he was about even, maybe a little less than he should've. I wouldnt've minded him staying in the game, but instead he gave us one of the greatest comebacks of all time, as well as one of the greatest grills of all time.

 

He's proven in his old age that he was capable of massive improvement. If you couple that amount of relaxation, self-belief and determination with the youth and physical capabilities of the younger George, you've got better than both.

And he could even be greater than the sum of their parts. He stopped developing technically for twenty years -- another five years fighting top-boxers could have seen him improving technically as well.

He could have been a much more consistent knockout artist, leaning heavily to the puncher side of boxer-ppuncher, even. Anyone that could convince young George to pursue that route instead of hunter/destroyer is due a medal, though.

 

If only you removed the weight draining he got he would have been better especially his stamina.

 

Foreman never had a prime, he retired before it began and when he came back he was past it. He is easily the most under rated heavyweight of all time.

 

George had many formidable weapons...he was such a beautifully destructive fighter. But as Larry Merchant once said: "He was a tremendous destructive machine...but with flaws."

George struggled with movement and speed, and even had he continued post Young, there was a young Larry Holmes waiting to become the heir apparent. I'd have bet every last dime on Holmes beating George, formidable as George was.

 

I rate his achievements more than his actual ability, so no.