Where do you rank George Foreman

I rank him as my main nemesis.

The timer broke on my Foreman grill.

I refused to watch Moorer Foreman on humanitarian grounds because I did not want to see the poor old man beaten to a bleeding mass of jelly.

This guy is just not good for me.

 

Historically,George Foreman is the best heavyweight of all time because of his comeback;and if there ever was an actual tournament he would've been a threat to anybody.Regarding Ali-fought mainly big slow guys or cruiserweight/lightheavy's.Ali arguably lost all three fights to Ken Norton(who I don't consider a great heavyweight).Also-the Foreman Ali beat was a young headcase-he got him on at the right time.And Joe Frazier was at best a great-but overstuffed cruiserweight;everything else is politics.

 

Interesting.

 

He has 3 legacy wins: Frazier, Norton and Moorer. I say he should be in the lower half of the top 10. Foreman would have crushed marciano, dempsey and jack johnson too in my opinion.

 

7-10

 

I agree! I think George gets too much credit for winning the title at age 45. While I agree that that was a tremendous achievement, it was also accomplished in a fight that he was losing badly and against a so-so champion. The rest of his comeback fights are pretty much irrelevant in terms of affecting his ranking. And, during his first career, outside of Norton, Frazier, and Lyle, there aren't too many noteworthy names on his ledger.

 

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Marciano
4. Dempsey
5. Holmes
6. Foreman

 

He changed so much in his approach to boxing over 20 years, that I would actually rate the young and mature versions as two separate entities.

I think each version would have prevailed against, or lost to, opponents the other version would have defeated.

When pairing off against each other, I would pick the mature version to wear down and stop the original sprinter, being strong enough to force back and withstand whatever the youthful slugger could dish out. However, the older edition would have been outhustled by Frazier. Overall, I believe the younger version might have defeated more of history's other great heavyweights, but the older version would have kept his feet against Lyle, where as the younger version would have been dropped by Cooney. The older version also would have probably gone the distance in losing a lopsided 15 round decision to Ali. The younger George could well have been able to stop Holyfield, if Evander wasn't able to stay away or outhustle him into the middle rounds.

The mature Foreman was much smarter than his younger self, but not nearly as mobile. Still, as a mature comebacker, his tremendous size still enabled him to cut off the ring effectively.

Definitely, I would rate him twice, perhaps a key reason why I refrain from considering him at all. (Some boxers simply defy such quantification in my mind, and as I mature, all of them might. Like JohnGarfield, I could see the day when I don't rate them at all, and largely restrict myself to reminiscing on ESB Classic.)

 

Good post Duodendum. A very interesting take on Big George.

 

so beating 3 of the top 25 heavyweights of all times isnt impressive enough?

 

Between 5-10.

 

#6 Foreman

 

possibly/probably

defo top 10, no question.

 

controversial decisions, losing and facing bums isn't what I would call a great comeback. IMO Holmes had a better one. George may have won the title, but he was getting his ass kicked the whole way through, and after that he barely clung onto the title with getting lucky with controversial decisions.

 

I have him at 7.:good