Is George Foreman the most overrated boxer in history?

I have already refuted your points you want to believe in the fairy tale image of Foreman in the 90s i see the reality of Foreman in the 90s

 

Louis had something along the lines of 33-3 against ranked opposition. Foreman had something like 6-5.

You notice a difference?

 

Thank you Bokaj, at least you're someone on this forum who actually sees the difference between the Frazier of 1967 - 1970 and the Frazier of 1973 who showed up to defend against Foreman.

This is my exact reasoning for believing that a prime Joe Frazier wouldn't have gotten blown out in two rounds and makes the fight much more competitive against Foreman. I have no arguments with making Foreman the favourite in a prime to prime match, based on the notion that styles make fights. Based on overall boxing skills and experience, I'd favour Frazier in a prime to prime matchup.

There's a big difference between the pressure and pace of a prime Frazier, and the signficantly slower pace he showed against Foreman in Jamaica. In the 1976 rematch against Foreman, he proved that he could move and box with what little he had left after Manillla, totally blind wearing contact lenses.

 

No matter how impressive Foreman was, it's always strange to watch that fight. He seems to land so much more easily than Ali, a FAR more accurate puncher, did. Sure, his pushing and shoving helped set Frazier up, but still...

On the other hand, he had easier than Ali with landing on Norton as well. Some things are perhaps just down to style.

 

Most contenders, prospects, young hopfuls, etc. don't face ALL the best opposition available before challenging for the title. Foreman deserved his title shot........Plain and simple. Why continue denying it?

 

True,

Foreman essentially starts his career over at age 39 and after a decade of inactivity and he's supposed to match the standards of a man who is both a crusierweight champ and heavyweight champ in the peak of his absolute prime. I also find it interesting that no one acknowledges Foreman's pounding Moorer within the same calendar year that Holyfield lost to him.. I realize that Holyfield showed up in **** poor shape for this fight with the shoulder injury and heart condition, etc, but still....

 

This isn't an exact answer to your question, but more of my final take on the matter now that I've thought about it for awhile.

This thread, and the criticism in it, exists because Foreman, despite his accomplishments, has a relatively shallow resume that gets painted as an ATG level one. Show me one other fighter with that many fights that has only a dozen fights against top 10 comp, lost half of them, and still has people defending that he fought the absolute best and has a phenomenal resume. I guess I didn't know landing shots before getting knocked out by Ali meant that much.

His career arc looks like a very long roller coaster with a couple exceptionally high peaks, but with miles of nothing but flat in between them. It doesn't take away from those peaks, but let's not pretend the whole thing was a thrill fest from start to finish filled with tough, meaningful fights. To put it into perspective, Joe Calzaghe takes **** for his resume, yet beat (and fought) more top 10 guys than George did in nearly 40 less fights. I'm not arguing Joe's got the superior resume, but instead I bring this up to point out the double standard in measuring resumes since George's gets so many defenders. For a more relevant comparison, I've seen Foreman's resume ranked above Tyson's and Wlad despite the fact both beat more quality fighters and sustained their quality against good competition longer.

Maybe if Mike or Wlad had the forethought to quit for 15 years after a bad loss and come back against handpicked, weak comp that was most likely paid to take a fall instead of fighting through it, people would be going ape**** about their resumes, too.

Doesn't change that George was still a dangerous fighter with unprecedented accomplishments, though. I just don't believe exaggerating and embellishing the hell out of his resume does any justice to the heavyweights who did fight and beat contenders regularly.

 

George met a lot of great fighters: Ali, Frazier, Norton, Lyle, Young. Sure he and had some in betweeners, and a lot of filler, who didn't. He fought future Ali challenger Wepner early in his career, as well as Chuvalo. I don't know too many who put him in top 5. That Ali fight really messed with George's head buthe kept on going and winning tilll he met the always difficult Jimmy Young. To come back after ten years with Qwuai, Holyfield, Moorer, Morrison, Cooney ain't too shabby, even if there was a lot of filler there too. He's not overrated in my book.

 

This content is protected

 

Yeah I think so. His size advantage and power helped him in his career against smaller guys. In his first career he had great wins over Frazier and Norton, but then lost to Ali and had his struggle with Lyle. Then in his second career he did score big wins over smaller hand picked guys, but then did win the title. But he did have 3 chances to win the title (losing to not so great Tommy Morrison by decision), and he gets a fight with weak chinned Michael Moorer who lost in 30 seconds to David Tua. I always thought he was good and his power impressive, but he gets too much credit for the Moorer win which seems to have put him in higher spots on the ATG list compared to before the Moorer fight.

 

I think if anything Foreman's the most under-rated and over-rated heavyweight. I used to hear Teddy Atlas say that of Rocky Marciano, but George is a hard one to figure. At his best as a young man, he was second to Ali and ahead of Frazier and Norton. At his best as an older man, he was easily a top five heavyweight throughout the 1990's and was ahead of Moorer, but behind Lewis and Holyfield.

Not too damn bad.

 

You dont think Foreman comes even close to being a top 50 ATG,{fair enough} so why have you ranked George Forman as your #74 All Time Great :roll:.
You make a case out to say Foreman does not belong anywhere near a top 50 yet you rank Foreman just outside your top 50 at #74 :nut
I have Foreman at #114.

 

What was Moorer when George beat him? Moorer was a weak chinned guy and what he had was a little speed, but no foot movement whatsoever. He moved up from lightheavyweight and was fighting George 4 years after fighting at 175. He beat Holyfield stylistically and on a bad night for Evander, yet then he lost the rematch. The fact Michael was hit with the right hand by Foreman was not a shock. His whole defense was his jab and some speed and a little head movment. Eventually that was going to happen when he fought George, and with his weak chin what is the shock like I said. The guy who George beat up easily (Bert Cooper) had a war with Moorer. I never thought the Moorer fight was anything surprising. In his second career George had 3 chances to win the heavyweight title against Holyfield,Morrison and Moorer and he won the 3rd time. I wouldn't say that is really a great great accomplishment. Yeah he was 45 years old, but at heavyweight where speed does not matter and the guys are lazy, a big punching guy who is bigger than everyone at the time can get that one punch in which knocks a guy out, especially if he has 3 chances to do it. His age didn't mean much, he could still punch. I am just saying, he used power to overwhelm and his age was not much of a factor.