Was there ever an ATG who achieved so little when champion, as Foreman ?

Losing to Ali IS Foreman's fault. Retiring from the sport at the age of 28 was his decision.

 

sure it was.. I never saw him as one of the top 10 heavyweights of all time. His early career was legendary for Frazier and he and Norton and Ali and Lyle, but at the same time it was short. Then he came back and beat mediocre guys but wiped them out, then fought Evander and Morrison and lost in good efforts and knocked out Moorer with one punch. It is a hell of a career and he is iconic.

 

Saint Primo was a brilliant champion he pales in comparison to Sugar God Valuev but he's literally and metaphorically a head an shoulders above all those listed.

 

When I saw this subject matter, the first fighter that came to mind was Tommy Hearns. Well, he and Milt McCrory, but he was no ATG. I don't know what it was in the water at Kronk, but two very ordinary reigns at welter. Focusing on Hearns only, before his 4th defense against Leonard in the unification, he defends against Luis Primera, a 15-0 fighter with absolutely no recognizable names on his ledger (well, you could say Luis Resto, noted for his final fight, but he and Primera were only novices when they met). The WBA should have hung their heads in shame putting that no-hoper against Hearns. Tommy, in his 3rd defense, beat Pablo Baez. I remember Baez well from his bouts on the west coast and he was absolutely nothing but a clubfighter. Hearns' second defense was against Randy Shields. OK, a recognizable name. But Randy had already been beaten by Cuevas, Leonard, Ranzany and Benitez and if there was any style out there that I would deem safe for Tommy, it was Shields. Randy had a great jaw and no punch. He was going to take a one-sided thrashing, which he did.

Some people may say, 'Well, give him an easy defense', but three?! With Tommy's amateur pedigree, the way he went through the contenders on his way to the title and the way he crushed a long-serving champion like Cuevas doesn't give you a pass in my book. If anything, the bar should have been raised on him. Not defending against a bunch of no-hopers.

 

Foreman in his first incarnation:

Olympic gold medalist.

Koed in two rounds an unbeaten undisputed worlds hwt champion thought to be unbeatable.

Koed in two rounds the leading contender.

Second incarnation came back after being retired for ten years to rewin the true hwt championship 17 years after winning it the first time. Greatest achievement ever in all of sports.

 

It was indubitably an incredible set of accomplishments, and you put it succinctly and well.

 

Holmes gave both these fellows, obliterating Norton in less than a round combined, a hell of beating. One of them twice.

Holmes best win.....

 

It was a great win and a top 5 heavyweight fight imo...but for me Holmes mostly proved his ATG-ness after that fight, and I mean from a cumulative standpoint. His overall achievements as champ more than speak for themselves.

It's a damn shame Larry couldn't have proved himself against Foreman as well as Norton in '78. No doubt in my mind he would have beaten George from then into 1982...and it would have allayed some of Holmes' bizarrely self-conscious worries.

 

The division was weak except at the top. Who should Hearns have fought?. Go back and look at the WBA ratings in late 80 and 81. WBA champs had to deal with that corrupt organization. There was talk of him fighting Benitez, but it fell through. But, he took care of Benitez later at 154. We got the Hearns/Leonard Super fight at 147 so it worked out.

As for McCrory, same situation. The division was weak except at the top. Jones was seen as the 3rd best at 147, and Mcrory beat him. Then, Milt lost to Curry in a unification match.

It doesn't seem logical to say a title reign is underwhelming when a guy loses his title in a unification match.

 

Holmes beat a much better version of Norton than Cooney did. Plus, big punchers were always Norton's Achilles Heel. Holmes was not a big puncher so had a tough time with Norton. Norton gave Holmes a much tougher time than Cooney gave Holmes. Why? Because he was a better all around fighter than Cooney. Better defense, better all around skill. All Holmes had to do was utilize some lateral movement and Gerry was thrown off his game.

Holmes win over a still near prime, skilled Norton is a better win than that over a plodding, albeit dangerous, overrated one trick pony like Cooney.

 

Read my post. 9 months after Norton lost to Holmes, he got KOd by Shavers in 2 minutes. Was he near prime too? So Shavers best win > everthing Holmes did? One round quicker than Foreman?
Afterwards, Holmes gave both these fellows a lesson!

 

Saad54, I think I was pretty clear that I was talking about up to the unification matches. Perhaps Manny Steward was babying the two of them for the unification matches that he saw in their future. I will even give a break on Hearns on his first defense. As pure crap of an opponent that Primera was, perhaps the WBA forced him down their throat. There were extreme ties to Venezuela back then. But as bad as Hearns' reign was, McCrory's was woeful. Let's not talk about Colin Jones - his only decent title opponent before the unification with Curry - he had to fight Jones. It was for a vacant title, so there was no picking and choosing at the low-hanging fruit. His challengers were Milton Guest, Gilles Elbilla, Pedro Villela and Carlos Trujillo. This was pathetic. Guest was a novice and was out of the business shortly after. Elbilia and Vilella were recipients of a luck win apiece that got them into the top ten and were immediately signed to fight McCrory before they lost to a clubfighter. Trujillo was so pathetic he couldn't get past the equally inept Eduardo Rodriguez on two occasions. But I digress. We shouldn't be talking about MM on this subject matter, he was never an ATG. On the Hearns matter, again, I don't know if he had the gun to the head on the Primera matter. But again, Shields never had a chance and Pablo Baez was a clubfighter. One cannot explain that away. Hearns was a veritable superstar at the time and should not have been fighting this ilk. He was fighting better contenders on the way up.

 

I get what you're saying scar and agree to a point. In Tommy's defence though, he did sign to fight Leonard within 9-10 months of winning the title. He didn't hang around getting paydays for easy fights for long. He had three defences and signed to fight a superstar within the timeframe that some new champions might think about a first defence.

 

You're right about that. We have Gary Russell 'fighting ' today and I believe he has fought once a year for 4 straight years. Pathetic! I'm probably just a purist when it comes to what I expect and what I think everyone should expect out of a champion, so I do nitpick.

 

I thought Primera was the number one contender, but I forget now. He was a little wild and hit Hearns with some nice punches stunned him once I think, but Hearns settled down and went to the body in that fight. And Shields was a top fighter. He had fought top guys, but it was a big fight and Tommy won it late- he had to work to get that win. And Pablo Baez? That was a showcase fight to set up the Leonard/Hearns in Sept. That was in June in Houston and Tommy was on the undercard. I don't think the defenses were weak. Shields was a top fighter the last few years.. Baez a showcase fight. Primera undefeated. And remember this Hearns fought a Hall of fame fighter in 1980. Cuevas winning the title. Leonard. 1981.. Unifications. Benitez 1982 winning 154 title, 1983 Sutherland -bad year because of hurting hand- but Murray was not hall of fame, but he does have the distinction I think of being the first 168 pound title holder. Actually I think the fight was Sutherland against Singletary... So whomever won,, Hearns would have had a win over. I could be wrong.. Duran 1984 , and then Hagler 1985.. With Hearns you cannot say he took the easy route.