Is George Foreman the most overrated boxer in history?

The quality of opposition of most of George's comeback was horrendous. His dazzling KO percentage is inflated with a ton of stiffs, no-hopers, and downright bums. Without denigrating his many accomplishments or his amazing comeback, his opponent selection was done with utmost care. I thought George Foreman beat Shannon Briggs handily and he looked good against Lou Savarese, but he also got a gift against Axel Schultz and then shamelessly ducked a mandated rematch against Schultz after the German proved too problematic.

 

Not at all. He was who he was - a clubber, but nonetheless, he was great.

 

I actually rate George very high. H2H he's murder for most ATG HW's, and he accomplished more than most at that weight.

I'd certainly rate him higher than Tyson.

 

I still think he deserves to be top ten, but no argument from me that George does have one of the most padded records amongst those guys. There's a significant chunk of low-grade guys in there.

 

All he has "really" done is beat Frazier twice and Lost to Ali in a high profile fight. That is it.

Good Post, it states the obvious!:good

 

I commented on a lot more than that dude.

 

Is this how you some up his whole career as a fighter?

 

Big George was an underachiever.

His legacy could have been greater.

 

George Foreman never beat a prime Joe Frazier.

The 1973 version of Frazier who showed up to fight in Jamaica was far off from the fighter of the late 1960's. Prime Frazier wouldn't have been hit as cleanly by Foreman, and George probably doesn't survive Frazier's pressure and body attack.

 

70s Foreman is not overrated

90s Foreman is horribly overrated with a carreer of mostly smoke and mirrors ( Yes i know he got a lucky win against Moorer)

 

his win against Moorer was a brilliant tactical plan

moorer was circling away from georges right hanfd by going to his left.

Every so often george would throw a left hook that made him circle to his right.

Then he caught Moorer with a huge left that made him walk into a following right hand that KTFO Moorer

 

Bull**** he got lucky.

 

I don't agree with this. I might be willing to concur that Frazier was declining some in 1973, but I don't think that he was the "shot" ex-superstar that some have often made him out to be, presumably for the purpose of justifying a devastating loss.

The concencus typically believes that Frazier's prime was basically from about 1968-1971 with the fight of the century being the climactic peak performance of his career. That being said, Frazier was not as far removed from his prime by 1973, as you have stated earlier. He was maybe 8 Lbs over his best fight weight, and showing signs of early high blood pressure, along with occupying his free time by singing in his band. But, he was also still a young 29 years of age, and undefeated. Frankly, I don't see being two years younger and 8 Lbs lighter as making the difference between getting anialated in two rounds vs a 180 degree turn of the tables to a victory.

Bottom line, Foreman was a bad styles matchup for Frazier, and would have proven to be a problem for Joe no matter what phase of his career he was in. To suggest anything else is only denying George of rightful credit for a great win.

 

I think George was remarkable, and that this is recognized. I think some other guys were remarkable, too, but not as well recognized these days. So I think Foreman is a little overrated, but only relative to some other greats. I think George is fairly properly appreciated, while some others are under-appreciated.