Is George Foreman the most overrated boxer in history?

Finally, a fair and well balanced view on the subject :good

 

DudeGuyMan,

I applaud you. You have layed it out beautifully.

 

90s Foreman was very careful who he fought and mostly fought no hopers.

He survived and did ok vs Holy more due to Holy choosing to engage rather then box.

And he got lucky vs Moore good for him.

Again Foremans 90s carreer is mostly smoke and mirrors.

 

Roberto Duran is.

 

When a guy doesn't fight for 10 years, he's not likely to comeback and start right off the bat against contenders. No, he needs to start over like any other prospect regardless of his name. Foreman fought some mediocre fighters in the begining, but if you look at the first 20 or so fights of a lot of men, it doesn't look pretty. Who did Riddick Bowe fight in his first 20 something bouts? Besides, I can think of worse fighters than Terry Anderson, Adilson Rodriguez, Bert Cooper, Tony Fulialangi, Steve Zouski and Ken Lakusta. I can also think of a lot of young top fighters at that time who looked a hell of a lot worse in beating men of that calibur than Foreman did.

Holy rarely chose to box when engaging a bigger, stronger, foe. The truth of the matter is, Foreman may very well have faced the very best version of Holyfield ever who was 28 years of age, undefeated in 26 pro fights, and had not yet sustained the multiple beatings that he would later undergo. By the way, Holyfield had stopped or KO'd 19 of his last 20 opponents and was riding 13 strait. Additionally, none of the previous 7 heavyweights had survived the distance, and Foreman had become the first despite being about 10 years older than anyone else who had tried.

That fight was not luck. The man had to take Moorer's best for 10 rounds while maintaining focus and subtly ad******g his strategy to make that big punch happen. If we're going to start with this luck ****, then why don't we just call Marciano's first win over Walcott luck, even though he alsready had a 10 year youth advantage - something that Foreman was on the short end of the stick against.

 

Mr. Magoo you are the best poster ever.

Ken Norton is so underrated.

:hammertime

 

Which fails to change the fact that the crowd did the exact same thing when Foreman was outright robbed against Briggs. In truth, the Schultz fight, while a bad decision, was much less of a robbery than Foreman-Briggs.

 

Foreman fought nobody dangerous unless they had a belt.

Terry Anderson, Adilson Rodriguez, Bert Cooper, Tony Fulialangi, Steve Zouski and Ken Lakusta third tier at best.

Foreman would NEVER EVER have taken on 90s Ruddock once more Foreman did'nt eatn his shot by beating a contender like Larry did Holmes beating a contender in Mercer is more then Foreman did in every fight leading up to the holyfield fight.

Foreman survived against Holy good but not great performance holy made it more difficult for himself then he had too.

And yes the Moorer win was lucky though i give him credit for getting it.

Foremans 90s carreer was carefully scripted .

If you want to believe the feel good story of Foremans carreer you are entitled to your opinion the reality is different . I am more impressed with 90s Holmes still beating legit contenders and putting up good fights against champions then the carreer of 90s Foreman.

 

I have been trying to convey the exact same point to people for years. Listening to the way people blatantly bash his comeback opposition, one would think that these men weren't even licensed professionals.....Hardly the case.......

 

re: "Foreman's 90s carreer was carefully scripted".

All great boxers careers are carefully scripted.

That is the purpose of great managers & promoters ....provide maximum reward at minimum risk for the guy who is putting it all on the line in the ring.

 

That's a fantastic avatar.

 

A lot of early guys he fought during his comeback were damned hard hitters if nothing else as well. Not quite guys who had absolutely nothing going for them.

 

As another poster here has already pointed out, nobody is claiming that Foreman fought stellar opposition. My earlier point, was that the guys he beat on the way to the title were no worse than a lot of the guys that other top raters were defeating with the only difference being, that these other contenders, were young men in their twenties and coming off extensive amateur careers rather than a 10 year period of carrying a bible across the state of Texas.

Rodriguez was a top 10 rated contender and the Brazillian heavyweight champ. Ken Lakusta was the Canadian heavyweight champ. Terry Anderson had KO'd 17 of his 19 opponents. Tony Fulilangi was a 28 year old, 37-3 professional who's career was looking pretty good up until 1988. Steve Zouski was no great speciman of talent, but coming off a 10 year layoff and chosing a 25-11 journeyman as your first opponent, is not what I'd call playing it safe. If we were to place Foreman in the category of a debuting prospect ( and we should ), then an appropriate first opponent should have looked something along the lines of 1-4. Again, you have to put it into perspective.

You criticize Foreman for his choice of oppostion, but don't hold others to the same standard? Ruddock made waves with his knockout victory over James Smith - a fight in which he was facing a man who was 36 years of age, hadn't won a match in close to 3 years, was 20 Lbs over his best weight, was coming off a losing streak, and very nearly KO'd Ruddock despite the previously mentioned. Frankly, I think a fight with Foreman would have been just as risky for Razor as it would have been for George, but that's a whole other argument. Also, I never recall an offer placed on the table from either camp to fight the other. Both men were after the same thing. The heavyweight title.

Here's where the debate calls for a little working knowledge of history.
The winner of Holmes vs Mercer was promised a shot at Holyfield. It wasn't like Holmes fought Mercer without previously knowing weather his next fight was going to be Holyfield or Dave Jaco. He was guaranteed a shot at the champ before ever even signing to fight Mercer, and in the meantime would make approximately $1 million for this little elimation match. Now, can you honestly tell me what the hell Holmes had done to be placed in that type of position? I mean Foreman had to KO at least 22 strait journeyman over 3 years - many of whom had winning records, before even getting a shot against a rated contender in Adilson Rodriguez on the undercard of Tyson vs Tillman, and still wasn't promised anything in the event that he won. Holmes comes out of retirement in April of 1991, and fights a whole whopping 5 fighters in Tim Anderson, Eddie Gonzalez, Michael Greer, Art Card and Jamie Howe in just a year to get within drooling distance of the title.

That's really weak. Holyfield was in the peak of his prime and hitting Foreman with every Goddamn thing except the kitchen sink, and getting rocked with some great shots in return. Rather than giving him credit, and conceding a stupid point you'd rather just say that the defending champ fought a lackluster fight......BTW, what did Holyfield do that was so impressive against Holmes? that fight was about as exciting as watching old people ****.

What the hell was so luck about it? Did Foreman benefit from shady officiating? Did more show up in **** poor shape and fight a half ass match? Did something drop out of the sky leaving Moorer dead on the canvas? The only thing I saw was Foreman taking the very best that a 28 year old man with a good punch had to offer and ended up nailing him with a well timed shot that resulted in a perfectly legitimate knockout win. What do you think happens in boxing?

No it wasn't. The initial intention of the comeback was to raise money for his youth facility in Marshal Texas. He had no idea that his career would become so lucrative and reach legendary proportions. If it had been so carefully scripted, he would have used his name recognition to engage in novelty matches with other washed up named opponents like Leon Spinks, etc in an effort to take a fast track to the title, but he didn't. His path was hardly fast track.
I

You're condescending tone implies that I'm a believer in fairy tales, when there is more revision in your responses on the subject than in any fairy tale I've ever read.

How many Contender(s) did Holmes beat other than his single match with Ray Mercer? And you praise him for his losing efforts to Holyfield and McCall, when Foreman looked better against Holy than he did? Foreman chalked up wins over Michael Moorer ( lineal title ), Adilson Rodriguez, Peirre Coetzer, Bert Cooper, Alex Stewart, and Lou Savarese. Who else did Holmes beat outside of Mercer? The exhumed remains of Jesse Ferguson???

 

Speaking of Ruddock/Smith...

The knockdown of Ruddock in that fight was brutal. As was usual with Ruddock he hit the canvas like a sack of **** and looked dead, only to get up and to continuing doing his thing.