Is George Foreman the most overrated fighter in history?

Another thing to consider: Foreman is the same age as Holmes. By all means, he should have competed in the 80's and as a fully matured fighter battle the likes of Thomas, Smith, Witherspoon, Weaver, Cooney... and Frazier.

Foreman was only 28 when he retired and the fact that he passed on an era that was likely his to rule alongside Holmes, meant he lost the traditional way of building resume with good scalps. Instead the break enabled him to come back at an advanced age and focus on securing the belt.

That's why his legacy is rather complex when compared to your classical champion-of-an-era type whom you define by number of defenses, top challengers beaten, ans perhaps cultural significance. He's had his career cut in half and devoted the second one to an impossible dream.

 

He's overrated when talking about ATG HW champs, but not overrated in a H2H sense and somewhat underrated in a skills sense.

As a two-time champ his longevity sucks in both iterations, and the fact that he became the oldest champ in HW history is a nice factoid but its importance is IMO often overstated when comparing him on a historical scale. After beating Moorer (a decent though not ATG champ, and one with a somewhat shaky chin) he was stripped of the WBA for refusing to fight Tony Tucker, defended his title against Axel Schulz (and basically lost that fight but got a very blatant hometown decision), got stripped again (of the IBF) for refusing Schulz a deserved rematch, defended twice more against low-hanging fruit Crawford Grimsley and Lou Savarese and then lost to Shannon Briggs (in a somewhat controversial fight in itself, but nothing compared to the Schulz robbery). So aside from the genuinely awesome feel good moment of beating Moorer with that punch from the gods there really isn't any substance to his second run as champ.

His first run is obviously way better but again far too short, and his list of opponents leading up to the Frazier bout were Wilder-esque. Post Ali and pre-comeback his only real noteworthy wins were against Ron Lyle in that wild slugfest and Frazier again. Outside of that stacked top tier of Frazier x2, Norton and Lyle (maybe Chuvalo as well) his resume drops off badly after that. Post-comeback his best wins outside of Moorer were probably an alcoholic Cooney, Qawi, Cooper then a lot of lower- to mid-level guys he either struggled to look good against (Alex Stewart, Lou Savarese) or outright lost to (Schulz).

Skills-wise though he's always been underrated. There's a narrative that a lot of Foreman fans like to persist with that Foreman's skills were poor and that it was his incredible punching power that made him great, which I've always found a bit of a fetishistic attitude. His power was great of course, but it was his overall skillset that made it so effective where other hard punchers like Shavers or Lyle fell short. The way he manhandled and manipulated Frazier into his shots was a masterclass in framing and something that needs to be studied by any larger slower opponent fighting a shorter more elusive foe.

 

Overrrated? Hes in the top six ever

 

Americans like creating myths.
They like Foreman because he was friendly out of the ring and getting rich off peddling a useless appliance with celebrity marketing is their idea of high civilisation, the 'American Dream', 'American Exceptionalism', 'Merit-based Society', and all the other propaganda we hear about while getting dragged into wars for 'Freedoms'. So they were very proud of exporting that ridiculous grill around the world and forcing every 'Western' nation to watch those ads and tv interviews for five years.

Foreman got KO'd by light-punching Ali and beaten by Shannon Briggs. He was massive compared to Frazier so who cares.

 

Most of those guys shouldn’t even be put In the same sentence as George, stop it.

What in the blue hell have Bivol, Beterbiev Ken Shiro, Golovkin or Wangek done to be ranked above someone like foreman, that’s absurd.

 

Golovkin actually put together a long title reign.

Sor Rungvisai is a two time champ who beat Roman Gonzalez and Estrada back to back to back. That’s better than Frazier and Norton.

 

No, Mayweather, Marciano, and Canelo are better candidates.

 

Foreman over rated lol and still the oldest Heavyweight Champion in History .

 

77-4 (robbed against briggs so i'm not counting that loss)

 

He was a champion in the two best eras of heavyweight boxing and was a completely reinvented fighter the second time around. He was also an Olympic gold medalist when it meant something. I don't how he's overrated. He's a bonafide top 10 heavyweight as long as accomplishments matter when you rate someone

 

No. Mike Tyson could be, or Joe Frazier...if we're getting into heavyweights

 

George was a great fighter. Certainly not overrated. He always came to fight and fight he did. His first win over Frazier set the boxing world on its head, a huge upset but the way he did it was the story. Full domination of a great fighter.

 

he was ROBBED against briggs. even BRIGGS new he lost that fight. he slumped his way to his stool and hung his head. when his name was called, the look of disbelief was clear. then there were the multiple boos from those in the stands. and to top it off, BRIGG'S name was ALREADY on the belt when it was handed to him.

 

Bivol is 11-0 in title fights with a win vs the consensus pfp #1, Ken Shiro has beaten the second and third best guys in his division while going 11-1 in title fights. On the other hand Foreman in his prime went 3-1 in title fights and failed to beat the best fighter of his day.

Noneck already explained Wangek and Golovkin.

 

What about the Schulz fight? Are you counting that as a legitimate win too?

See above.