Is George Foreman the most overrated boxer in history?

Exactly! George's philosophy seemed to be: mismatch or title match.

 

Mercer had beaten Bert Cooper in a war and knocked out Francesco Damiani with a come-from-behind punch. He then blasted up-and-coming prospect Tommy Morrison. Mercer was a solid, proven top contender. Larry Holmes wanted to fight for the championship, so he beat a legitimate top ten contender in Mercer to get it. That's how it should work. Holmes jumped out of retirement and fought a few nobodies to get his ring rust off and his timing sharp, and then he fought a contender. I don't understand the criticism? Mercer was already a contender and had more than likely already done enough to warrant a shot at Holyfield, based on his recent KO's of Morrison and Damiani...The fact that Mercer/Holmes was set up as a title eliminator was not Holmes' fault. Holmes was the one climbing the mountain; Mercer was the guy who was supposedly given an easy entrance to a title shot, but that, of course, didn't happen.

 

Well, you have to look at fighters on a case-by-case basis. Do you think Bert Cooper was in the same condition for Foreman as he was for Mercer? The cooper that showed up to fight Foreman was rumored to have been coming off a cocaine/booze binge and sleeping with prostitutes in the days leading up to the fight. These allegations surfaced during a corruption probe of Bob Arum, Bob Lee, and included some less than savory things about other Foreman comeback opponents, including fixed fights, opponents with falsified records, etc.

And as far as Foreman/Cooney - give me a break! Why Gerry Cooney? What was so special about Cooney that Team Foreman needed to fight him? Did inactive, fragile, only recently sober Gerry Cooney represent the best, toughest, most worthy comeback opponent for George at that time? Heck, Orlin Norris, the former cruiserweight, all 5 feet 9 inches of him called Foreman out repeatedly to no avail. Fighting an active, ranked, and skillful(yet undersized) opponent like Norris would have meant much more than fighting Gerry Cooney.

 

With his head on right, Norris would've been a potential nightmare for the plodding 90s Foreman.

 

Beating a legit contender in Mercer >>>>> 3 years of beating third tier Journeymen Holmes took the shortest and RISKIEST path to a title shot in taking on a legit top 5 contender in Mercer .

Foreman took the longest and SAFEST route in fighter third tier contenders and using his name and image of the jolly fat guy to get a title shot.And stop propping up Adilson Rodriguez Columbian champion means nothing on the world stage.

Mercer was the WBO World champion before the fight with Holmes granted the WBO did'nt mean much back then still more then the champion of columbia.

Foreman fought **** and relied on his name and image to get a titleshot.

Holmes earned his shiot by beating a legit top 5 contender.

 

90s Foreman fighting an active ranked and skillful contender ?

 

Most credible people rate Larry Holmes higher than George Foreman on their all time lists. I personally rank Holmes 4th all time, and Foreman 7th. This arguing about whether or not Larry fought the better fighter is pointless for this thread.

I think that Holmes has the better overall record, but Big George has done a couple things that Larry never did. Foreman blasted out an all time heavyweight top 10 when he ko'd an undefeated Joe Frazier. Foreman also became champion, 20 years after he'd lost the title in Zaire, when he busted up Michael Moorer for 9 and half rounds before koing him in the 10th. Moorer was the undefeated lineal champion.

 

Fair post mate.

 

Holmes took a shorter path, because

The offer to fight a legit contender for 1 million dollars and a guaranteed title shot upon winning WAS ON THE TABLE... And he didn't have to go through 24 opponents to reach that point.....Are you telling me that Holmes would have PREFERRED to take the route that Foreman did? Upon returning to the ring in 1987, Foreman clearly said that he wanted to be heavyweight champion of the world and was willing to fight Tyson to do it. Now, if say around early 1988, the man had been offered a shot at a top notch contender for 1 million dollars on a pay per view circuit with the winner getting a guaranteed shot at the champ for say 15 million, do honestly think he would have CHOSEN to continue fighting the Qawi's and Jaco's of the world? Perhaps you think that Foreman had a crystal ball and the ability to forsee Tyson losing to Douglas, Holyfiield winning the title, and the opportunity against Moorer years down the road.. Sorry, but your reasoning makes no sense.

Again your reasoning differs greatly from that of the norm. Typically, when a washed up ex-champion makes a comeback run, he searches for the shortest and most lucrative path to the title. For one thing, 3 years is a hell of a long time to be ****in' around with, when your health can give out on you at any minute and fighting 20+ nobodies who have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Holmes used his name recognition to get a title shot FASTER than Foreman did. George had to work his way into that position, and if we're honest, probably paved the way for Holmes and other returning veterans to receive lucrative paydays more expediently.

As much as I enjoyed Mercer and felt that he was a genuinely good fighter, I will also point out that he fought life and death with Bert Cooper, struggled with Journeyman Kimueal Odum over 12 rounds, was thoroughly outboxed by Francesco Damiani before prevailing and nearly dropped by Morrison. Holmes definately took a risk by fighting him, but lets just say that it was probably the safest of the young fighters for him to be in the ring with, not to mention he was given a million bucks plus a guarenteed title shot to sweeten the deal had he won. Don't kid yourself, it took more guts for Foreman to comeback after 10 years, knowing full well that he'd get **** from the fans and media along with having to fight a string of matches before getting anything that even resembled a decent payday. Holmes road on the back lash of the trend that Foreman had set, and only had to fight 5 matches against the same kind of opposition ( or worse ), before getting a lucrative payday and being placed within seeing distance of the crown.

On the contrary, Holmes was far more guilty of doing this during the 90's. Foreman had to reinvent himself entirely in order to sell himself to the public. He had to change his fighting style, his image, his personality. He had to fight numerous matches on multiple different venues over a near 4 year period before getting a very much earned shot at Holyfield. Holmes didn't even change the color of his shorts....

This is really sounding old...

 

Funny, how in a past debate a few months ago you used these performances of Mercer to DEVALUE him as a fighter, saying that he was nearly beaten by Damiani and Morrison, but now you're using them to create a circular argument to justify Holmes being a more worthy comeback challenger than Foreman.

Becuase the offer along with great rewards was there for the taking.

There is no criticism from my end on Holmes behalf. There is only my objection to the somewhat unfair comparison between his comeback efforts and Foreman's. George Foreman had to reinevent himself entirely to get a title shot. Fight 24 matches over 4 years. He had to make gross adjustments to his fighting style. He had to fight on numerous venues over the years. He had to take crticism and ridicule from the public, all before getting decent paydays with Cooney and Rodriguez. Holmes never even changed the color of his shorts. He comes back in April of 1991, fights Tim "Doc ****ing " Anderson....4 fights and maybe 9 months later, he gets a 1 million dollar payday plus a guaranteed shot at the title afterwards against the safest possible challenger for his stylistic needs of the top crop. What people commonly ignore or just plain don't realize, is that Holmes path back to the title, while excelerated, was probably vastly shortened because the pathway for returning veterans in their 40's was already paved by George Foreman. With Holmes unpopular personality, bad blood with the sanctioning bodies, brutal onesided loss to Tyson in 1988, and style that was somewhat tedious to watch, it is doubtful that he would have made waves enough to earn as title shot at all, never mind as quickley as he did, had Foreman not preceded him. It was because of Foreman that promotors, matchmakers, cable representatives, and yes even Holmes himself saw that their was a gold mine in it.

This is truly a laughable statement. Are we actually going to try and victomize Holmes for taking a lucrative payday and fast track to the title? Rather than saying that " it wasn't Holmes' fault that the fight was set as an eliminator ", we should probably be asking ourselves " Would Holmes had taken this fight if it wasn't?"

 

Foreman earned $1 million for fighting Gerry Cooney. In fact, it was the Gerry Cooney win that enabled Foreman to crack the top ten in most boxing organizations. Foreman turned down a lot of fights against top-tier fighters and instead opted to play it safe. He wanted a title shot, but he didn't want to risk losing on the way to one. And the thing is, if Foreman fought for nearly four years in order to "earn" his shot against HOlyfield, it was his own damn fault. He started calling Tyson out as early as 1988 and proclaiming that the only thing stopping him from winning the heavyweight title was the opportunity to fight for it; "George Foreman is ready" was a constant proclamation coming from Foreman early on in his comeback. Well, why not try to make a match against one of the leading, established contenders in order to shorten the length of time that he would have to wait to get a title shot? Don't fault Larry Holmes because he took a shorter route to a title fight in 1992. Holmes could have continued to fight nobodies and hope to be given a shot at the championship, but he didn't.....Guys like Razor Ruddock, Tyrell Biggs, Orlin Norris - these are just some of the more well-known and active fighters who routinely called Foreman out. But Foreman always said that he wasn't the champion so those other guys had no reason to call him out......Foreman also routinely stated that the only reason to fight a top opponent was to get a name, but he(Foreman), already had a name! So, Foreman didn't pursue, or accept, any dangerous, risky match in order to expedite his title shot; Holmes did and he gets criticized????

 

Foreman was gone for ten yearrs; Holmes was champion up to 1985, and rematched Spinks in early 1986, then retired, unretired to fight Tyson, then retired again. There is no comparison between the status of Foreman when he returned to boxing in 1987 and when Holmes returned again in 1991. Holmes hadn't been gone for nearly as long. So of course, Foreman had much farther to travel, but that wasn't Holmes' fault.

 

Nice try! I've always said that Ray Mercer was the most beatable of the young, up-and-coming heavyweights in 1991-1992. I just reiterated that assertion a few posts back. And I also reiterated how he was outboxed by Damiani and fought a war with Bert Cooper. So, your "aha" moment was really no "aha" moment. But, Ray Mercer was a dangerous opponent with a lot of durability and power........Ray Mercer was a better fighter than anything Foreman fought pre-Holyfield - so, yes, I am using Ray Mercer to illustrate why Larry Holmes was a more deserving challenger for the heavyweight title than was George Foreman. As limited as Mercer was, and I've always said that he was, he was a better fighter than Gerry Cooney, Adilson Rodriguez, etc......

 

The Cooney fight came only after George had fought 19 other opponents in an effort to make noise, and while he made good money for the fight, it was not a match that got him a title shot. By the way, upon KO'ing Tim Anderson - Holmes first fight back, he had breached the ratings and from memory, was like #9 by the IBF immediately following that fight. Kind of ridiculous when you think that it was the only match he had won in 6 years. I can remember reading Ring magazine in those days and some of the comments that people were making. Believe me, Holmes' comeback was not looked at as anything special. In fact, a lot of people were calling him a " Foreman rip off ". As for Ruddock, Biggs and Norris calling out Foreman, I do not recall hearing any of those guys making proposals. I remember Tim Witherspoon saying that he'd like a fight with Foreman right around 1990, but Tim had been basically black balled from the spotlight and was hoping to get a fight with any decent person he could. Besides, Foreman wouldn't be the only fighter to turn him down, as nobody really wanted anything to do with Spoon. He did talk briefly about fighting Gary Mason and Francesco Damiani ( while they were still undefeated,) but those fights never materialized. I can't imagine why Foreman would be afraid of a fighter like Norris whom he dwarfed in size and who had no power to hurt him with. Orlin was awkward and quick. Not a bad boxer by the general standards, but George would have killed him.........

 

It's truly laughable because you don't seem to comprehend that Larry Holmes had only been away from the sport of boxing for about 3 years.....He didn't have to fight 24 fights all over the country like Foremand did because he didn't have the cobwebs to shake off. Foreman was gone 10 years, and he hadn't been a champion since 1974; Holmes was champion up to 1985 and had fought a championship fight in 1986 and 1988; he wasn't that far removed from the heavyweight scene.

You seem to be offended that Larry Holmes received $1 million to fight Ray Mercer, but you make no mention of George Foreman receiving the same amount - $1 million - to fight Gerry Cooney, a guy who, since losing to Holmes in 1982, didn't accomplish much, except get knocked out by Spinks, go in and out of drug/alcohol rehab, and remain idle....But fighting Gerry Cooney was good enough for George to earn $1 million and get a top ten ranking out of it...Your arguments are comical in that they are so unilateral. Mercer posd a much bigger threat and step-up in competition for Holmes than Cooney did for George...No way around that. And of course HOlmes knew what was on the table for the Mercer fight - what fighter wouldn't? George knew it for Cooney.

So, to recap again:
Foreman inactive and away from the sport far longer than Holmes
Holmes was not that far gone from the heavyweight scene
Holmes fought a risky fight against a legit top ten contender for $ 1mill
George fought a joke fight against Cooney for $1mill
George fought 24 guys before fighting for the title
Holmes fought 5 guys before fighting for the title
Foreman turned down many fights against top ten fighters all the while moaning how all he needed was a "shot" against the champion.
Holmes made his shot by fighting a legit contender
Holmes reached a so-called "money fight" earlier than Foreman because A) He was not gone as long as Foreman was B) He was more willing to accept a risky fight C) He didn't want to waste time fighting a bunch of bums and schmear cases(just four).....
Any time a heavweight(Holmes) fights a top fighter they earn more money than they do when they fight a trailhorse. So, of course Holmes was going to make money against Mercer - it was a big fight against a risky opponent. And he took the risk! But it wasn't like the $5 million that George Foreman made for beating the legendary and very dangerous Jimmy Ellis......

After this I'm going to start charging.........