Is George Foreman the most overrated boxer in history?

I agree that HOlmes' comeback didn't start out with a lot of noise and approval. I couldn't have cared less about Holmes' comeback until he beat Mercer. Prior to Mercer, he fought low-level bums, but he did step up and take a risk...That's the point! I remember when Holmes stepped in to fight Mercer that he was indeed rated number 9 by one of the boxing organizations. I thought that was ridiculous and undeserved.

As for Foreman, I also recall Bob Arum talking about he started promoting some of Foreman's earlier fights and tried in vain to match Foreman with a better class of fighters, not necessarily top level guys, but guys who were better than the typical Foreman cakewalks. One guy, Anders Ecklund, a very unreknowned Swede, was supposed to fight Foreman. Foreman balked and refused the fight. Arum got frustrated with Foreman and parted ways until hooking up with him again later. He told the press that Foreman didn't want to fight anybody.

 

I think his win over Ron Lyle was very impressive. To win so many fights as old as he was, deserves some respect also.

 

This content is protected

 

Sorry to burst your bubble and destroy the fairy tale image you have of Foreman but its true Foreman clearly avoided every dangerous fighter in the 90s unless he had no other choice.

 

Geez, I'm kinda surprised anyone would be stupid enough to come with a thread thinking that George Foreman is way overrated.

Amazing.

 

You think Ken Norton had a glass chin? Just for comparision sakes, do you think Lennox Lewis has a glass chin, you know he did get splattered twice by single shots.

 

Although I appreciate the author laying out the reasons for the opinion, rather than just asserting a claim, I respectfully disagree with the argument.

I think, if anything, Foreman is underrated as a heavyweight, and I think the perception comes on the basis of his losses to Ali and Young. Ali outsmarted Foreman, whose problems with stamina were exposed. Young also fought smartly against Foreman at a time when Foreman's head wasn't in a good place. Although that fight was close, Young, as he did to a lot of fighters, made Foreman look bad.

But these failures don't erase Foreman's accomplishments during this period. His destructions of Frazier were impressive. Frazier was no push over by any stretch of the imagination. Although he could be hurt early, he almost always battled back to win. Foreman crushed him.

Norton was no push over, either. He had a setback against Garcia, but I remember that fight ending under strange circumstances. At any rate, Norton performed well against Ali on all three occasions, fought a thriller with a prime Holmes, defeated Young, and trounced Quarry. Yet Foreman blew him away when Norton was at the top of his game.

Foreman's problem with stamina meant that a smart fighter with outstanding skill had a shot at beating him. But Foreman had skills, as well, and his punching power and ability to finish a hurt fighter really need no discussion. Add to all that his size, and he is a threat in any era and likely champion in most.

His second career is impressive, too. He met Holyfield at Holyfield's prime and I acquitted himself admirably. Moorer was a talented fighter, as well, and Foreman took him out with a single shot.

Few fighters in any division can claim to have two complete careers at the top of their division. Foreman can, and his came during solid eras of competition.

 

Foreman trod a very different route to the land of 'greatness', choosing to have a second run 10 years after retirement. Certainly, in terms of statistics, Foreman is a marvel of preservation and must be given marks.

A couple of legendary blow-outs and a fearsome reputation paved the way for an unquantifiable reign of terror that turned out to be short-lived. Still, the reverberations of his handiwork would be felt for some time after.

This was not so much about capturing the imagination like Tyson; blasting Frazier and Norton (particularly at that time) meant a lot.

A change of style onto re-capturing the title off of Moorer may be attributed to Moorer's main weakness (punch resistance at heavyweight) in a bout that he was easily walking away with, but nothing like this had, and still has not been done.

Foreman is indeed great, but a top 5 spot is not warranted. George was never a fully realised talent, focusing his strength into sure bet, but it was a plan designed to fail at some point. When thinking of complete packages; Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano and Ali had much more to their game and better demonstrated periods of dominance.

 

I have two questions concerning the last post by Ted Spoon. Who on Dempsey, Louis, or Marciano's resume is comparable to Frazier, Norton, and Lyle? Is Foreman's loss to Ali comparable to Louis' loss to Schmelling?'

I do agree that recordwise Louis' numbers are more impressive. That's true for Louis when compared to everybody. There's a lesson in there about records. Do people in this forum judge such matters in terms of the period in which boxers fought and the numbers they put up or in terms of the quality of the periods in which boxers fought? The first approach disadvantages boxers in competitive and more talent-rich periods. Competition and talent in the heavyweight division represent an arc. For example, watch the Sam Peter v Jameel McCline fight. Suppose Peter ruled a division like that for a decade and posted 20 title defenses. Would we say that Peter was better than Foreman?

I'm not saying Foreman is top five. I'm just curious about your opinion.

 

I think that joe louis is the most overated fighter in history, he would have serious trouble against the heavyweights of the 70's as well as a few from today.

I don't see where foreman is terribly overrated. He had the size and power to compete successfully in any era, and only maybe a handfull of fighters would have beaten him.

 

More originality I see. You still have yet to refute many of my earlier points. Thus far, all I've seen is the same repetitive empty rhetoric...

 

Damned good post. Welcome to the boards also, Marvel.

 

which has a bigger impact on the legacy of each HW?

the two wins of foreman over frazier? Or the two losses of frazier to foreman?

is it more of a loss to frazier or a career defining wins for foreman?

 

Very good post,

prior to Foreman's comeback, I think Frazier is a man who most would have rated higher between the two, by virtue of the Ali victory as well as a somewhat less padded record. Foreman's second career, however was enough to surpass Joe's legacy. Becoming the oldest man to regain the crown against another young undefeated lineal champ, and in the second coming of the golden era, pulled Foreman ahead of a lot of greats.