Is Geroge Foreman overrated by everyone? It so happened to occur to me while watching Bert Sugar's Top 10 Heavyweights Of All Time.

Why does Foreman get such praise?

Lets look at his accomplishments -

*Devestating power puncher.
*Has one of the highest KO% in the history of the division.
*Won the heavyweight championship.
*Destroyed Joe Frazier & Ken Norton.
*Returned to action and regained the title at age of 45.


These are the things most attributed to George's greatness, but lets look at them a little closer.

*Devestating power puncher - True he was a devestating power puncher, but he wasn't very good at anything else. Power is about all he had. His skills weren't anything to write home about, especially compared to alot of other fighters of the period.

*Has one of the highest KO% in the history of the division - True, a path to the title for a power puncher is littered with tomato cans and over the hill fighters but when you look at Foreman's resume thats what 90% of it consists of.

*Won the heavyweight championship - He destroyed Joe Frazier in route to capturing the title, then defended it twice (one being a KO of Ken Norton) before losing it to Muhammad Ali in one of the biggest upsets in history.

*Destroyed Joe Frazier & Ken Norton - As described in the above he won the title from Frazier and one of his two defenses was against Norton. But other than Frazier, is defeating Norton an all-time list worthy accomplishment?

*Returned to action and regained the title at age of 45 - True, at 45, he regained the title. But lets be honest he got lucky against Moorer. Got a gift wrapped decision against Schulz then got stripped of the belts for refusing to fight the aforemention Schulz and Tony Tucker.


Now I'm not distancing myself from the pack because I'm right along with everyone else. But when you compare Foreman's resume to everyone else in the Top 10 All Time he severely lacks. Lets look -

*He only defeated one elite fighter - Joe Frazier
*He had two unspectacular title reigns.
*He held the title a total of 1025 days(if you subscribe to the fact that he lost when he was defeated by Shannon Briggs)and his record as champion was as follows. 7-2 (4)

Joe Frazier (w)
Ken Norton (w)
Jose Roman (w)
Muhammad Ali (l)
Michael Moorer (w)
Axel Schulz (w)
Crawford Grimsley (w)
Lou Savarese (w)
Shannon Briggs (l)

Of the above mentioned list, only Frazier could be considered a true elite great. Fact is Foreman hasn't faired well against other great fighter throughtout his career.

So my question is why do we rate Foreman so high? What has he truly done to deserve it? Why do alot of fans/experts/historians (myself included) rank him ahead of people such as Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield or Ezzard Charles etc? Each of the aforementioned has done just as much, or not more, within their respective careers?

What affords Foreman to held above them?

Like Tyson, Foreman is another fighter that reached his peak early in his career. I like to rank fighters by how well they would have done against each other in their primes. I think Foreman was the least skilled of all the top ten heavyweights in history, but at the same time he was one of the most gifted physically. I think he would have had a hard time with big defensive fighters like Lewis, Clay, Johnson, and Holmes. But, I think he would have knocked out guys like Marciano, Dempsey, and even Joe Louis. Foreman is the only puncher I think that realistically could have knocked out Tyson. I think Tyson would have beat him, but of all the punchers Foreman had more of a chance. I would only rank Tyson, Ali, Johnson, and Holmes over him. Lewis didn't have a great chin so it's hard to say what would have happened there.

What affords Foreman to held above them?

** The only fighter to defeat Don King.

Everything else is just potential, bauble$, and minor glitches in the life of a religious man.

Like Tyson, Foreman is another fighter that reached his peak early in his career. I like to rank fighters by how well they would have done against each other in their primes. I think Foreman was the least skilled of all the top ten heavyweights in history, but at the same time he was one of the most gifted physically. I think he would have had a hard time with big defensive fighters like Lewis, Clay, Johnson, and Holmes. But, I think he would have knocked out guys like Marciano, Dempsey, and even Joe Louis. Foreman is the only puncher I think that realistically could have knocked out Tyson. I think Tyson would have beat him, but of all the punchers Foreman had more of a chance. I would only rank Tyson, Ali, Johnson, and Holmes over him. Lewis didn't have a great chin so it's hard to say what would have happened there.

But, in your opinion, what has he accomplished that others havent in order for him to be placed over them? He hasn't defeated anyone of note other than Joe Frazier and his championship reigns pale in comparison to other greats.

So the question still stands..what did he do to rank him over these others?

All those other heavyweight champions have accomplished much more over their careers. If we go by careers, Foreman doesn't even make the top 10. IMO
So the question still stands..what did he do to rank him over these others?
In the way I rank, it's not what he did but what he could have done. IMO

All those other heavyweight champions have accomplished much more over their careers. If we go by careers, Foreman doesn't even make the top 10. IMO

In the way I rank, it's not what he did but what he could have done. IMO

Well for arguments sake, since you do that do you rate guys like Buster Douglas, Riddick Bowe and Tony Tucker higher than anyone else? All three had unlimited potential in what they could have done yet what they did accomplish was mediocre-average compared to other champions.

Well for arguments sake, since you do that do you rate guys like Buster Douglas, Riddick Bowe and Tony Tucker higher than anyone else? All three had unlimited potential in what they could have done yet what they did accomplish was mediocre-average compared to other champions.
Out of all those, I think Bowe was the only one that was any good. He did good against Holyfield, but I think it had more to do with his youth, power, and other physical advantages. I do think he was talented as well, but I don't feel he did enough to rate him over even the smaller great heavyweights. I think Bowe could have beat some of them but only because of the extreme size differences. I wouldn't throw him in the top ten though. But I see what your saying and I think your points are just as good as mine but even though foreman didn't attain as much as most of the great fighters, I think just by looking at him fight he was the best of the punchers next to Tyson that never achieved greatness. I think in his prime, Foreman was a serious force to be reckoned with. I don't get that same feeling from Tua, Ruddock, or Shavers. Those KO's over Frazier and Norton were back to back and I think that shows what kind of level he was at and that neither fight was a lucky knockout.

Out of all those, I think Bowe was the only one that was any good. He did good against Holyfield, but I think it had more to do with his youth, power, and other physical advantages. I do think he was talented as well, but I don't feel he did enough to rate him over even the smaller great heavyweights. I think Bowe could have beat some of them but only because of the extreme size differences. I wouldn't throw him in the top ten though. But I see what your saying and I think your points are just as good as mine but even though foreman didn't attain as much as most of the great fighters, I think just by looking at him fight he was the best of the punchers next to Tyson that never achieved greatness. I think in his prime, Foreman was a serious force to be reckoned with. I don't get that same feeling from Tua, Ruddock, or Shavers. Those KO's over Frazier and Norton were back to back and I think that shows what kind of level he was at and that neither fight was a lucky knockout.


Keep in mind, I'm not disrespecting your view - just trying to see where you're coming from.

Let me ask you this - do you think potential is a worthy quality when ranking fighters? I mean there are lots of coulda-shoulda-wouldas but that does quantify a boxer to be placed over another than actually accomplished a great deal more in a career?

Well for arguments sake, since you do that do you rate guys like Buster Douglas, Riddick Bowe and Tony Tucker higher than anyone else? All three had unlimited potential in what they could have done yet what they did accomplish was mediocre-average compared to other champions.

Honestly, I think it has allot to do with pure pressure in the days of Riddick Bowe and Tony Tucker. As for Douglas, that guy has always had potential, a strong jab great foot work athletic too bad he only put it together for one night, against Tyson. He was always known for being an out of shape fighter that is what stopped him from becoming something greater. Tucker, was undefeated and I think the lose to Tyson ruined him, mentally he was never the same and later admitted the Tyson fight ruined him, he has always been a softy religious man himself! As for Bowe, kind of like with Douglas but not so much, for a natural big guy he moved pretty well, but it wasn't until a bit later in his career did his problem with food become an issue to bring up. His beloved passion for food simply got in the way of his thinking. Out of shape with all the wrong nutrients in your body just won't cut it!


IMO, Foreman beat Frazier, so why is Frazier an all time great? They were both in their primes Frazier was only about 3 and half years older. He then destroys Frazier again for a second time, if you guys are in such a hurry to rank Foreman a loser amongst bums then you should seriously look at what Joe Frazier did? He gets his ass taken out by Foreman not once but twice than gets a lucky win over an Ali who was already old, and out of commission for more than 2 years. Ali, then comes back and gives Frazier an ass whoopin twice in a row. Why is Frazier so great?

IMO, Foreman beat Frazier, so why is Frazier an all time great? They were both in their primes Frazier was only about 3 and half years older. He then destroys Frazier again for a second time, if you guys are in such a hurry to rank Foreman a loser amongst bums then you should seriously look at what Joe Frazier did? He gets his ass taken out by Foreman not once but twice than gets a lucky win over an Ali who was already old, and out of commission for more than 2 years. Ali, then comes back and gives Frazier an ass whoopin twice in a row. Why is Frazier so great?


Well if we follow that logic - then it diminshes the greatness of alot of fighters. Norton and Frazier both beat Ali, and Ali defeated them. All in close, grueling fights. Yet Foreman demolishes them both only to be knocked out by Ali. But going by your way it would put Norton and Frazier on a level of Ali since they defeated him.

Anyways, Frazier was great but he was on the downside, 29 I think. when he met Foreman. Besides those swarming/brawler types generally don't have an extended prime like others. But despite that Frazier only knew one way to fight and that was full steam ahead and those types are tailor made for a puncher like Foreman.

I just think the wins over Frazier and Norton, combined with his reigns as champion, aren't enough to qualify him as a Top 10 all-time great. Keep in mind I've had on my list, but after carefully looking at everything there seems to be abit of hypocrisy going on amongst the fans/experts/historians when we do our rankings.

Keep in mind, I'm not disrespecting your view - just trying to see where you're coming from.

Let me ask you this - do you think potential is a worthy quality when ranking fighters? I mean there are lots of coulda-shoulda-wouldas but that does quantify a boxer to be placed over another than actually accomplished a great deal more in a career?
I don't think it's always fare to use but of coarse it is something that comes to mind. When I think about Tyson and Foreman, I think Tyson had much more potential to become a really great fighter. But when I match them up in my mind fighting each other, I don't think of that part. I think if you were going to compare two fighters careers to rank one over the other, and you felt they were even in accomplishments, then it would be alright to use potential as the deciding factor. Even with Muhammad Ali, he had 3 of his prime years taken from him. If he would have had those years who knows what would have happened, maybe we would be calling him the greatest P4P fighter ever. But that doesn't matter with him because he should always be the number one ranked heavyweight champion. At least for me he is.

Like Tyson, Foreman is another fighter that reached his peak early in his career. I like to rank fighters by how well they would have done against each other in their primes. I think Foreman was the least skilled of all the top ten heavyweights in history, but at the same time he was one of the most gifted physically. I think he would have had a hard time with big defensive fighters like Lewis, Clay, Johnson, and Holmes. But, I think he would have knocked out guys like Marciano, Dempsey, and even Joe Louis. Foreman is the only puncher I think that realistically could have knocked out Tyson. I think Tyson would have beat him, but of all the punchers Foreman had more of a chance. I would only rank Tyson, Ali, Johnson, and Holmes over him. Lewis didn't have a great chin so it's hard to say what would have happened there.

A young Foreman would have :owned: Tyson and Cus even told Tyson so. That's one reason Tyson ducked even an old Foreman.

Dude, at least try to convince me with some boxing knowledge. Or is it that you just don't have any? :owned:

Is Geroge Foreman overrated by everyone? It so happened to occur to me while watching Bert Sugar's Top 10 Heavyweights Of All Time.

Why does Foreman get such praise?

Lets look at his accomplishments -

*Devestating power puncher.
*Has one of the highest KO% in the history of the division.
*Won the heavyweight championship.
*Destroyed Joe Frazier & Ken Norton.
*Returned to action and regained the title at age of 45.


These are the things most attributed to George's greatness, but lets look at them a little closer.

*Devestating power puncher - True he was a devestating power puncher, but he wasn't very good at anything else. Power is about all he had. His skills weren't anything to write home about, especially compared to alot of other fighters of the period.

*Has one of the highest KO% in the history of the division - True, a path to the title for a power puncher is littered with tomato cans and over the hill fighters but when you look at Foreman's resume thats what 90% of it consists of.

*Won the heavyweight championship - He destroyed Joe Frazier in route to capturing the title, then defended it twice (one being a KO of Ken Norton) before losing it to Muhammad Ali in one of the biggest upsets in history.

*Destroyed Joe Frazier & Ken Norton - As described in the above he won the title from Frazier and one of his two defenses was against Norton. But other than Frazier, is defeating Norton an all-time list worthy accomplishment?

*Returned to action and regained the title at age of 45 - True, at 45, he regained the title. But lets be honest he got lucky against Moorer. Got a gift wrapped decision against Schulz then got stripped of the belts for refusing to fight the aforemention Schulz and Tony Tucker.


Now I'm not distancing myself from the pack because I'm right along with everyone else. But when you compare Foreman's resume to everyone else in the Top 10 All Time he severely lacks. Lets look -

*He only defeated one elite fighter - Joe Frazier
*He had two unspectacular title reigns.
*He held the title a total of 1025 days(if you subscribe to the fact that he lost when he was defeated by Shannon Briggs)and his record as champion was as follows. 7-2 (4)

Joe Frazier (w)
Ken Norton (w)
Jose Roman (w)
Muhammad Ali (l)
Michael Moorer (w)
Axel Schulz (w)
Crawford Grimsley (w)
Lou Savarese (w)
Shannon Briggs (l)

Of the above mentioned list, only Frazier could be considered a true elite great. Fact is Foreman hasn't faired well against other great fighter throughtout his career.

So my question is why do we rate Foreman so high? What has he truly done to deserve it? Why do alot of fans/experts/historians (myself included) rank him ahead of people such as Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield or Ezzard Charles etc? Each of the aforementioned has done just as much, or not more, within their respective careers?

What affords Foreman to held above them?


i tend to rate fighters on how dangerous they were in their prime. foreman was one of the most dangerous. he destroyed frazier the heavyweight champ of the world, destroyed norton, soon to be the heavyweight champ. and everyone else he faced!

Ali was the underdog for a reason! ali would have lost if he couldn't take all the punishment he took. he said himself foreman's feet were too quick, if you watch the match in the first round ali tried to dance away from him but foreman just stayed with him.

foreman was not a skilled fighter by any means but his strange, unothodox ways made him very difficult to face.

there are not many boxers i can see taking a prime foreman down

But, in your opinion, what has he accomplished that others havent in order for him to be placed over them? He hasn't defeated anyone of note other than Joe Frazier and his championship reigns pale in comparison to other greats.

So the question still stands..what did he do to rank him over these others?

who? he dominated the division in its golden era! if he hadn't have met ali he would have kept it alot longger! the truth is he was beaten by a fighter regarded by most as the 'Greatest Of All Time'

I don't think it's always fare to use but of coarse it is something that comes to mind. When I think about Tyson and Foreman, I think Tyson had much more potential to become a really great fighter. But when I match them up in my mind fighting each other, I don't think of that part. I think if you were going to compare two fighters careers to rank one over the other, and you felt they were even in accomplishments, then it would be alright to use potential as the deciding factor. Even with Muhammad Ali, he had 3 of his prime years taken from him. If he would have had those years who knows what would have happened, maybe we would be calling him the greatest P4P fighter ever. But that doesn't matter with him because he should always be the number one ranked heavyweight champion. At least for me he is.


ii don't think you should really used potential while doing rankings it makes what is basically only guess-work even more complex!

there are so many who could have been alot better than they were if they were a bit smarter in the ring, more patient, more poweful etc etc

A young Foreman would have :owned: Tyson and Cus even told Tyson so. That's one reason Tyson ducked even an old Foreman.

stylistically foreman owns tyson, tyson would get forced back by foreman and eventually knocked out.

tyson made no secret that he was scared of foreman but cus had previousl shown him lots of videos of foreman destroying opponents, telling yson he has to be THAT destructive. with tyson's fragile mind that would be enough!

Dude, at least try to convince me with some boxing knowledge. Or is it that you just don't have any? :owned:

You're right newb, Tyson was the greatest ever and no one could ever stand a chance. At 30, he was already using a walker and had a pacemaker when Holyfield stopped him (Holyfield was 34), he was 23 when Buster Douglas, a 42 to 1 underdog with 4 losses already (David Bey ????, Mike White ????, Jesse Ferguson ????,) stopped him, granted he was a little past it when Lennox Lewis stopped him, a geriatric 35, (wait Lewis was 36,) 38 when Danny Williams KO'd him and 38 when Kevin McBride (????) TKO'd him, so the last 2 I'll cut him some slack.

who? he dominated the division in its golden era! if he hadn't have met ali he would have kept it alot longger! the truth is he was beaten by a fighter regarded by most as the 'Greatest Of All Time'

Ok, but who did he dominate? He dominated Frazier. Like I said that is the only elite fighter he dominated. He beat Ken Norton,a good but not great heavyweight.

What other fighters did he beat to warrant a high placement?

Of all the fighters he faced in his prime here are the only ones that could be considered noteworthy.

Joe Frazier (w)
Ken Norton (w)
Muhammad Ali (l)
Ron Lyle (w)
Jimmy Young (l)

I can understand all of your opinions, still yet, no one has come forth with a valid argument as to why we place Foreman at such a level.

You're right newb,
You joined the same month.
Tyson was the greatest ever and no one could ever stand a chance.
Glad you've seen the light. lol
At 30, he was already using a walker and had a pacemaker when Holyfield stopped him (Holyfield was 34), he was 23 when Buster Douglas, a 42 to 1 underdog with 4 losses already (David Bey ????, Mike White ????, Jesse Ferguson ????,) stopped him, granted he was a little past it when Lennox Lewis stopped him, a geriatric 35, (wait Lewis was 36,) 38 when Danny Williams KO'd him and 38 when Kevin McBride (????) TKO'd him, so the last 2 I'll cut him some slack.
Tyson sucked after he got rid of Rooney. Everyone that really knows his career knows that, so using that Tyson to further your cause is ridiculous and just goes to show what you really know on the subject. Matching both against each other in their primes is the only way to go. If we match them at age 39, Foreman wins hands down. Dude, you really don't know **** about boxing. LOL

I don't think it's always fare to use but of coarse it is something that comes to mind. When I think about Tyson and Foreman, I think Tyson had much more potential to become a really great fighter. But when I match them up in my mind fighting each other, I don't think of that part. I think if you were going to compare two fighters careers to rank one over the other, and you felt they were even in accomplishments, then it would be alright to use potential as the deciding factor. Even with Muhammad Ali, he had 3 of his prime years taken from him. If he would have had those years who knows what would have happened, maybe we would be calling him the greatest P4P fighter ever. But that doesn't matter with him because he should always be the number one ranked heavyweight champion. At least for me he is.

Well I understand what you're saying but my point is, in relation to the way is ranked by most of us, shouldn't we relay the same standards to others?

Here are three guys that Foreman is routinely ranked over, and their achievements far outweigh or are as equal as his.

Floyd Patterson - At the time was the youngest heavyweight champion ever. 2 Time heavyweight champion. First man to regain championship. 6 total defenses.

Mike Tyson - Youngest heavyweught champion ever. Regained a portion of the title upon release from prison. Defended his titles a total of 11 times.

Lennox Lewis - 2 time heavyweight champion. Defeated every man that defeated him. Defended his titles 6 times.


Mind you this is just a rough sketch of accomplishments but they are more than George accomplished yet he is placed in much higher regard. I don't understand the logic and that includes me.

stylistically foreman owns tyson, tyson would get forced back by foreman and eventually knocked out.

tyson made no secret that he was scared of foreman but cus had previousl shown him lots of videos of foreman destroying opponents, telling yson he has to be THAT destructive. with tyson's fragile mind that would be enough!

Tyson was afraid of everyone, so thats nothing new.

You do realize the old foreman dodged lots of guys to and also admitted he was afraid of Tyson. Because realistically, during Tyson's reign the 90's foreman would not have stood a chance.

But back on topic, Foreman in his younger years was an extremely tough fighter, although he lost to Ali, look at the beating he dished out in the process. Ali beat him because Foreman got exhausted, If he would have paced himself better Ali probably never would have won.

Foreman had one of the hardest chins in boxing ever, whenever he was dropped it was always in combination with sever exhaustion. When he was Older his chin got even harder.. I mean hell look at the beating he took from morrison. The only guy with a harder chin would probably be Tua.

Well I understand what you're saying but my point is, in relation to the way is ranked by most of us, shouldn't we relay the same standards to others?
I wish it was that simple. I don't think everyone is capable of sticking to one thought of thinking when ranking fighters. But if you asked me, I'd give you an honest answer. And you know what honest is, if someone says they still rank Tyson or Foreman in the top 3 going by accomplishments, they are either liars or just plain clueless. I've been here only a short while and it's unbelievable how many clueless members post here. LOL

Mind you this is just a rough sketch of accomplishments but they are more than George accomplished yet he is placed in much higher regard. I don't understand the logic and that includes me.
I think the problem there is that we all look at things very differently. But, if you ask the question, how do you rate Foreman based on accomplishments alone, you'll probably get many more answers closer to yours. But like the way I am, I go by the member your asking or their answer. You know when your getting an idiotic answer from an idiotic member. LOL I don't think Foreman was a very good fighter, his punches were easy to see but there's always those certain boxers that are easier to hit than others, and those are the ones he knocked out. He did have decent boxing skills but compared to the all time greats, he knew nothing. He was a lot smarter in his comeback.

I wish it was that simple. I don't think everyone is capable of sticking to one thought of thinking when ranking fighters. But if you asked me, I'd give you an honest answer. And you know what honest is, if someone says they still rank Tyson or Foreman in the top 3 going by accomplishments, they are either liars or just plain clueless. I've been here only a short while and it's unbelievable how many clueless members post here. LOL


I think the problem there is that we all look at things very differently. But, if you ask the question, how do you rate Foreman based on accomplishments alone, you'll probably get many more answers closer to yours. But like the way I am, I go by the member your asking or their answer. You know when your getting an idiotic answer from an idiotic member. LOL I don't think Foreman was a very good fighter, his punches were easy to see but there's always those certain boxers that are easier to hit than others, and those are the ones he knocked out. He did have decent boxing skills but compared to the all time greats, he knew nothing. He was a lot smarter in his comeback.



Well I think some members just have never truly devoted the time to study any of these fighters or thoroughly watch them fight. Alot of fans just get on the bandwagon of a particular process of thought and thats that.

Anyways, I just think I need to really re-evaluate how I have been rating fighters all of these years...call it an epiphany if you will, but the realization about Foreman just smacked me in the face when I was comparing his career and accomplishments to others.

I think Foreman was very overrated but with this new breed of posters I see people getting away with trashing Ali and the fighters of the 70s. Tyson has been getting more recognition, Marciano is still hated on like always. So today, Foreman is slightly overrated.

I think Foreman was very overrated but with this new breed of posters I see people getting away with trashing Ali and the fighters of the 70s. Tyson has been getting more recognition, Marciano is still hated on like always. So today, Foreman is slightly overrated.



Yeah but most posters just spout off garbage without knowing a right cross from a celtic cross so its all relative. LOL

ii don't think you should really used potential while doing rankings it makes what is basically only guess-work even more complex!

there are so many who could have been alot better than they were if they were a bit smarter in the ring, more patient, more powerful etc etc
Basically we're on the same page here. I talked about using potential as a last means to compare two different fighters only under certain circumstances.

Tyson was afraid of everyone, so thats nothing new.

When he was Older his chin got even harder..

good god you dont even know much about recent boxing history do you? Foreman wanted to fight tyson but tyson did not want that fight. Also, tyson was not afraid of everyone, thats bull****. But the last statement that i quoted is the stupidest thing to say...so when you get older, ur chin gets better? wow how come we dont have 60 plus year old boxers with cast iron jaws? :nonono:

Well I think some members just have never truly devoted the time to study any of these fighters or thoroughly watch them fight. Alot of fans just get on the bandwagon of a particular process of thought and thats that.
I think a lot of it is not truely understanding boxing, only watching a few of his greatest knockouts, and just plainly, he's their favorite knockout fighter.

Anyways, I just think I need to really re-evaluate how I have been rating fighters all of these years...call it an epiphany if you will, but the realization about Foreman just smacked me in the face when I was comparing his career and accomplishments to others.
I agree, there's not much to go by.

I agree, there's not much to go by.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm kind of wondering how he got afford such a lofty perch while others didn't get the same pass. Is based totally on knockouts/impressiveness? If so, Mike Tyson was more impressive.

I think maybe someone else in this thread touched on abit of the mystique and thats he was a champion in the greatest era of heavyweight boxing, combine that with his demolition of Frazier and you have the automatic anointment of greatness.

However in a more panoramic view its less clear..well to me anyway. I think I'm going to retool my evaluation/rankings process, because it's clear to me it's flawed somewhere, and give the heavyweights another go.

I think sometimes I even overrate him. It's hard not to. All that power and physical strength is quite a package.:fing02:

stylistically foreman owns tyson, tyson would get forced back by foreman and eventually knocked out.
Stylistically Tyson owns Foreman for many reasons. 1) Unlike Foreman, Tyson had great head movement. Foremans punches were not short, so in other words they were very easy to see. Tyson was the best at slipping punches while moving forward. 2) Foreman had no head movement. When the bombs were flying, his only defense was to lock his arms up so you couldn't punch around them. But, Tyson threw very fast and powerful combinations from every different angle. If you don't move back, grab, or move your head, your going down. 3) Tyson had the technical skill to counter punches, Foreman didn't (or at least not on the same level). 4) Tyson threw much shorter and faster punches, Foreman didn't have the reflexes or defense to get away from them. Guys like Ali, Holmes, Lewis, and Johnson would have been tough for Tyson to beat because of their defense alone. Foreman was just made to order plain and simple. But unlike you, I give the other opponent a punchers chance. LOL

tyson made no secret that he was scared of foreman but cus had previousl shown him lots of videos of foreman destroying opponents, telling yson he has to be THAT destructive.
It's just human to be afraid. Every man has his weaknesses, fears, and insecurities. Foreman or any other fighter was not this fearless, flawless, knockout machine you might see him as.

with tyson's fragile mind that would be enough!
It's that fear a fighter needs to be at his best. It ensures your going to really watch for each punch and hit when the opportunity comes. A fighter with no fear is at a disadvantage. Foreman even said he was scared to death of Joe Frazier, many times.

good god you dont even know much about recent boxing history do you? Foreman wanted to fight tyson but tyson did not want that fight. Also, tyson was not afraid of everyone, thats bull****. But the last statement that i quoted is the stupidest thing to say...so when you get older, ur chin gets better? wow how come we dont have 60 plus year old boxers with cast iron jaws?

Thanks captain stupid,

foreman wanted to fight Tyson? Thats BS

Tyson was not afraid of anyone? where the hell is your head at? Have you watched any Tyson documentaries at all? Tyson for the first half of his career was a very respectful boxer and actually was scared of entering the ring, its only later on in his career that he threw up the ****y wall of "fearless".

I said Foreman's Jaw got harder, you worded it like I said it's some natural occurance that your jaw gets harder. Shut the hell up and only take things out of context.

Stylistically Tyson owns Foreman for many reasons. 1) Unlike Foreman, Tyson had great head movement. Foremans punches were not short, so in other words they were very easy to see. Tyson was the best at slipping punches while moving forward. 2) Foreman had no head movement. When the bombs were flying, his only defense was to lock his arms up so you couldn't punch around them. But, Tyson threw very fast and powerful combinations from every different angle. If you don't move back, grab, or move your head, your going down. 3) Tyson had the technical skill to counter punches, Foreman didn't (or at least not on the same level). 4) Tyson threw much shorter and faster punches, Foreman didn't have the reflexes or defense to get away from them. Guys like Ali, Holmes, Lewis, and Johnson would have been tough for Tyson to beat because of their defense alone. Foreman was just made to order plain and simple. But unlike you, I give the other opponent a punchers chance. LOL

I think one area that Tyson would be at a distinct disadvantage would be he would play right into Foreman's hands by coming straight forward. Joe Frazier and Ken Norton made the same mistake. Granted Tyson has greater overall technical skills than Frazier or Norton it still should give at least an idea.

Foreman is at his utmost best when he has a guy coming straight at you. Tyson has more head/shoulder than does Frazier but he'd still be easy to land a punch on. In his youth Foreman's punches mostly came from the side and rarely over the top.

Personally I think it could go either way.

But I'm going to quit while I'm ahead, if not we'll be overflowing with Tyson/Foreman topics lol

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm kind of wondering how he got afford such a lofty perch while others didn't get the same pass. Is based totally on knockouts/impressiveness? If so, Mike Tyson was more impressive.

I think maybe someone else in this thread touched on abit of the mystique and thats he was a champion in the greatest era of heavyweight boxing, combine that with his demolition of Frazier and you have the automatic anointment of greatness.

However in a more panoramic view its less clear..well to me anyway. I think I'm going to retool my evaluation/rankings process, because it's clear to me it's flawed somewhere, and give the heavyweights another go.
I think the big thing about Foreman was that he knocked out two very, very, good fighters back to back in two rounds. There's no explaining it away as a fluke. With his limited skills, there were still some fighters made to order for him.

I think one area that Tyson would be at a distinct disadvantage would be he would play right into Foreman's hands by coming straight forward. Joe Frazier and Ken Norton made the same mistake. Granted Tyson has greater overall technical skills than Frazier or Norton it still should give at least an idea.

Foreman is at his utmost best when he has a guy coming straight at you. Tyson has more head/shoulder than does Frazier but he'd still be easy to land a punch on. In his youth Foreman's punches mostly came from the side and rarely over the top.

Personally I think it could go either way.

But I'm going to quit while I'm ahead, if not we'll be overflowing with Tyson/Foreman topics lol
That's funny because I see Foreman coming forward as playing into Tysons hands as well. It would have been a great fight.

You joined the same month.

Glad you've seen the light. lol

Tyson sucked after he got rid of Rooney. Everyone that really knows his career knows that, so using that Tyson to further your cause is ridiculous and just goes to show what you really know on the subject. Matching both against each other in their primes is the only way to go. If we match them at age 39, Foreman wins hands down. Dude, you really don't know **** about boxing. LOL

Yeah Tyson sucked after he got rid of Rooney because he was no longer fighting BUMS. He did look good fighting tomatoe cans though. Look up Tye Fields, he has fought similar guys that Tyson, but with more impressive results. And Tye Fields is a BUM.

That's funny because I see Foreman coming forward as playing into Tysons hands as well. It would have been a great fight.

Well I agree, thats why I say it could go either way. Tailor made for each other. But to clarify I just pointed it out as the other side of the same coin you were presenting for Mike.

I think the big thing about Foreman was that he knocked out two very, very, good fighters back to back in two rounds. There's no explaining it away as a fluke. With his limited skills, there were still some fighters made to order for him.

Yup, like Mike Tyson.:boxing:

good god you dont even know much about recent boxing history do you? Foreman wanted to fight tyson but tyson did not want that fight. Also, tyson was not afraid of everyone, thats bull****. But the last statement that i quoted is the stupidest thing to say...so when you get older, ur chin gets better? wow how come we dont have 60 plus year old boxers with cast iron jaws? :nonono:

ali's got better
hearns' got better depite going up in weight
foremans also seemed to gt better

i canot think of why this would happen but it seems too.

Stylistically Tyson owns Foreman for many reasons. 1) Unlike Foreman, Tyson had great head movement. Foremans punches were not short, so in other words they were very easy to see. Tyson was the best at slipping punches while moving forward. 2) Foreman had no head movement. When the bombs were flying, his only defense was to lock his arms up so you couldn't punch around them. But, Tyson threw very fast and powerful combinations from every different angle. If you don't move back, grab, or move your head, your going down. 3) Tyson had the technical skill to counter punches, Foreman didn't (or at least not on the same level). 4) Tyson threw much shorter and faster punches, Foreman didn't have the reflexes or defense to get away from them. Guys like Ali, Holmes, Lewis, and Johnson would have been tough for Tyson to beat because of their defense alone. Foreman was just made to order plain and simple. But unlike you, I give the other opponent a punchers chance. LOL


It's just human to be afraid. Every man has his weaknesses, fears, and insecurities. Foreman or any other fighter was not this fearless, flawless, knockout machine you might see him as.


It's that fear a fighter needs to be at his best. It ensures your going to really watch for each punch and hit when the opportunity comes. A fighter with no fear is at a disadvantage. Foreman even said he was scared to death of Joe Frazier, many times.

yes tyson has very nice short punches. thje problem becomes getting close enough to land! foreman had alot of flaws but he was very good and keeping fighters away from him .

How in the world does every thread end up pitting someone against Tyson???? Tyson isn't the measuring stick for greatness so what gives?

Thanks captain stupid,

foreman wanted to fight Tyson? Thats BS

Tyson was not afraid of anyone? where the hell is your head at? Have you watched any Tyson documentaries at all? Tyson for the first half of his career was a very respectful boxer and actually was scared of entering the ring, its only later on in his career that he threw up the ****y wall of "fearless".

I said Foreman's Jaw got harder, you worded it like I said it's some natural occurance that your jaw gets harder. Shut the hell up and only take things out of context.

how long have you been a fight fan? when foreman was on the comeback trail he stated he wanted tyson....magazine articles and all. Of course i seen tysons bios, that seems to be all you see and jerk off too.

yes tyson has very nice short punches. thje problem becomes getting close enough to land! foreman had alot of flaws but he was very good and keeping fighters away from him .
Very true about all that. Foreman pushed off Frazier to keep him outside which isn't allowed anymore. If Foreman & Tyson fought under the current rules, I'll bet Tyson would have made it in close a lot more than Frazier did. Not saying you, but a lot of us look at that Foreman Frazier fight to gage how Tyson would have done, but without the "pushing off" it would have been a very different fight.

How in the world does every thread end up pitting someone against Tyson???? Tyson isn't the measuring stick for greatness so what gives?

Ha ha ha ha ha. Because Tyson was the ultimate puncher (well, at least I think he was), so matching him against other punchers like Foreman and Marciano is a natural.

when foreman was on the comeback trail he stated he wanted tyson....magazine articles and all.
Yeah, I remember Foreman yelling with his hands up that he wanted Tyson during his comeback. No doubt about that.

Yeah Tyson sucked after he got rid of Rooney because he was no longer fighting BUMS. He did look good fighting tomatoe cans though. Look up Tye Fields, he has fought similar guys that Tyson, but with more impressive results. And Tye Fields is a BUM.
Yup, like Mike Tyson.:boxing:
You bring a new meaning to the phrase: "You can learn a lot from a dummy". LOL

Yeah, I remember Foreman yelling with his hands up that he wanted Tyson during his comeback. No doubt about that.

I know Foreman always made mention of it but he was loudest after Evander KO'd him, though to be fair to Tyson after that I'm sure they wanted him to build himself back up more before throwing him in with someone as dangerous as Foreman.

I know Foreman always made mention of it but he was loudest after Evander KO'd him, though to be fair to Tyson after that I'm sure they wanted him to build himself back up more before throwing him in with someone as dangerous as Foreman.
Yeah, especially after getting his ass knocked out. LOL I don't think Foreman yelled for Tyson because he thought he could beat him, it was for the huge pay day. But I won't argue that he didn't want to beat Tyson and be the camp again. It's just that, he wouldn't have been there without the big bucks.IMO

Yeah, especially after getting his ass knocked out. LOL I don't think Foreman yelled for Tyson because he thought he could beat him, it was for the huge pay day. But I won't argue that he didn't want to beat Tyson and be the camp again. It's just that, he wouldn't have been there without the big bucks.IMO



If I'm not mistaken wasn't there serious talk of making the fight happen at one point? Can't remember for sure, but I was thinking that after he beat Mathis or Bruno there was serious consideration for a Foreman bout. Furthermore I was thinking it was scrapped because of the $$$$ not being right for one side or the other.

I could be wrong tho'.

If I'm not mistaken wasn't there serious talk of making the fight happen at one point? Can't remember for sure, but I was thinking that after he beat Mathis or Bruno there was serious consideration for a Foreman bout. Furthermore I was thinking it was scrapped because of the $$$$ not being right for one side or the other.

I could be wrong tho'.
Yeah, I almost remember them talking about how the fight was almost made, but I can't really remember. Your right, it had to be the negotiations that fell through. Since Tyson is always the main attraction, I'll bet it was Foremans side that wanted more money, didn't get it and said forget it then.

Yeah, I almost remember them talking about how the fight was almost made, but I can't really remember. Your right, it had to be the negotiations that fell through. Since Tyson is always the main attraction, I'll bet it was Foremans side that wanted more money, didn't get it and said forget it then.

It's hard to tell in todays circus of promoters, managers, HBO and Showtime. There seems to be an infinite list of things that can derail a fight these days.

You bring a new meaning to the phrase: "You can learn a lot from a dummy". LOL

Hilarious how you say Mike Tyson is the greatest heavyweight ever and then tell me to watch more boxing.:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

Hilarious how you say Mike Tyson is the greatest heavyweight ever and then tell me to watch more boxing.:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
CASE IN POINT! LOL you are a dummy because I never said he was the greatest. I think everyone here knows what kind of crap comes out of your mouth. And I didn't say go watch more boxing. LOL

CASE IN POINT! LOL you are a dummy because I never said he was the greatest. I think everyone here knows what kind of crap comes out of your mouth. And I didn't say go watch more boxing. LOL

Duh, "you're a dummy cause you don't agree with me" What are you about 8 years old? I don't have the patience (or the stomach) to dig up your old posts.

I would have to be 8 years old to agree with you. LOL Can't make no good points because you don't know **** about boxing. You think with pure emotions, which shows how weak you are and that I'm getting to you. LOL Your fun to play with.

Back to the topic...where do you rate Foreman, and why do you rate him there?

OOPS! Duplicate LOL

I'll just say I'm not sure why I rated him so high. I guess its suffice to say I just follow trends because I'm a trendy type of guy. LOL

If we rate by who we thought would win against each other in their primes, I would put Foreman at #4.

I would have to be 8 years old to agree with you. LOL Can't make no good points because you don't know **** about boxing. You think with pure emotions, which shows how weak you are and that I'm getting to you. LOL Your fun to play with.

You're the moron that stooped to insulting me because I didn't agree with you. You think Tyson is GOD and that shows how little you know about boxing. Maybe some day.... hopefully this site will help. This thread is about George Foreman, not Mike Tyson, and certainly not about insulting me. A young Foreman and Liston OWN any age Mike Tyson, deal with it.

Well, no disrespect to anyone, but one would think thats all they watch because its all alot of posters talk about : Mike Tyson. Gets kinda old.

You're the moron that stooped to insulting me because I didn't agree with you. You think Tyson is GOD and that shows how little you know about boxing. Maybe some day.... hopefully this site will help. This thread is about George Foreman, not Mike Tyson, and certainly not about insulting me. A young Foreman and Liston OWN any age Mike Tyson, deal with it.
I came out you like that because of the way you talk and act on this forum. You need to take a serious look back at my posts if you think I put Tyson up there with GOD. LOL And Tyson would have knocked them both out.:boxing: When your ready to act like a "cool guy" you'll be treated as such.

Well, no disrespect to anyone, but one would think thats all they watch because its all alot of posters talk about : Mike Tyson. Gets kinda old.
There's a good reason why the majority talk about him, but to each his own.

There's a good reason why the majority talk about him, but to each his own.

Lack of boxing knowledge? LOL

I understand, he was exciting to watch and his later years he was like a traveling freak show...wonder what in the hell he was going to do next. I just don't see the allure of 24/7 Mike Tyson banter. There are many other fighters who are just as interesting if they'll only take the time to see for themselves.

Lack of boxing knowledge? LOL

Ha ha ha ha ha. Good one!

I can see how it gets tiring for you and some others around here. I'll try to keep it out of our conversations unless someone busts out with some ridiculous **** about Tyson, then I just got to jump in. LOL

Lack of boxing knowledge? LOL

Ha ha ha ha ha. Good one!

I can see how it gets tiring for you and some others around here. I'll try to keep it out of our conversations unless someone busts out with some ridiculous **** about Tyson, then I just got to jump in. LOL

Lack of boxing knowledge? LOL

Ha ha ha ha ha. Good one!

I can see how it gets tiring for you and some others around here. I'll try to keep it out of our conversations unless someone busts out with some ridiculous **** about Tyson, then I just got to jump in. LOL

Lack of boxing knowledge? LOL
Ha ha ha ha ha. Good one!

I can see how it gets tiring for you and some others around here. I'll try to keep it out of our conversations unless someone busts out with some ridiculous **** about Tyson, then I just got to jump in. LOL

I've been doing some research, this is purely a statistical deal, but I found this site (http://www.geocities.com/mgpaul2/) through hurricane72 and the Top 10 heavyweights thread.

Anyways, this site has all kinds of stats. But one that really intrigued me was the number of ranked opponents/total registered wins.


These stats are only thru 2002, but I think they prove a point.

I'll highlight the stat I refer to.

According to this out 33 victories during his first title run Foreman beat 7 opponents ranked in the top 10. During his second title run, out of 22 victories, he beat 2 in the top 10.

GEORGE FOREMAN 1970-1977 7/33 .21 #1 (1st time champion)
GEORGE FOREMAN 1991-1994 2/22 .09 #3 (2nd time champion)

So, out of 55 wins, only 9 have come against ranked opposition.


Ok lets look at 2 fighters that Foreman is almost always ranked ahead of -

Lennox Lewis, out 37 victories, 16 have come against top 10 opposition.

LENNOX LEWIS 1991-2003 16/37 .43 #1

Mike Tyson, out of 41 victories, 17 have come against top 10 opposition.

MIKE TYSON -1986-2002 17/41 .41 #1

Evander Holyfieldm, out of 34 victories, 16 have come against top 10 opposition.

EVANDER HOLYFIELD-1988-2002 16/34 .47 #1


I think this is one of the clearest indications that Foreman has indeed been overrated in regards to placing him in a top 10 all-time list because clearly going by statistics there are three who deserve placement over him.

Like I said, this is a purely statistical deal but it does paint a pretty revealing picture.

I don't understand how people are saying anyone who roots for Tyson has a lack of boxing knowledge, if anything watching millions of older fighters would just encourage them into rooting for Tyson even more.

Like honestly, what would bring you to think Liston would stand a chance vs Tyson? Tyson is faster, he knocks guys out bigger than him with both hands, he can switch to a south paw on the fly and even his chin is better, and last but not least he had one of the most extreme forms of defense ever witnessed in the boxing scene.

Why would you think Liston hit harder? Tyson hits guys and they go flying across the ring! what evidence is there that proves Liston is a harder hitter?
Tyson dropped Spinks with a body shot (first knock down) He has made guys cry in the ring.

Tyson has a lot of fans because he showed a great level of skill in the ring, he beat the crap out of guys way bigger than him and even lifted them off the ground.

I'm NOT a Biased Tyson fan, I only root for him when I see fit, and when your going to compare guys like Marciano or Liston to Tyson it's almost comical, I wonder what planet your living on.

I'm not trying to be a dick but it makes some of you guys that root for the Old timer's look sort of stupid and naive.

Do I think Tyson was unbeatable? With Rooney in his corner, he's probably the closest fighter to date that could have achieved that status. Every other heavyweight champion has had a major flaw, Tyson's only flaw would be his mind.

In the coming years a better fighter will probably come along, and the wars will continue. But please no more, "this old slow guy that we adore would fix so and so's wagon just because I grew up watching him".

I don't understand how people are saying anyone who roots for Tyson has a lack of boxing knowledge, if anything watching millions of older fighters would just encourage them into rooting for Tyson even more.

Like honestly, what would bring you to think Liston would stand a chance vs Tyson? Tyson is faster, he knocks guys out bigger than him with both hands, he can switch to a south paw on the fly and even his chin is better, and last but not least he had one of the most extreme forms of defense ever witnessed in the boxing scene.

Why would you think Liston hit harder? Tyson hits guys and they go flying across the ring! what evidence is there that proves Liston is a harder hitter?
Tyson dropped Spinks with a body shot (first knock down) He has made guys cry in the ring.

Tyson has a lot of fans because he showed a great level of skill in the ring, he beat the crap out of guys way bigger than him and even lifted them off the ground.

I'm NOT a Biased Tyson fan, I only root for him when I see fit, and when your going to compare guys like Marciano or Liston to Tyson it's almost comical, I wonder what planet your living on.

I'm not trying to be a dick but it makes some of you guys that root for the Old timer's look sort of stupid and naive.

Do I think Tyson was unbeatable? With Rooney in his corner, he's probably the closest fighter to date that could have achieved that status. Every other heavyweight champion has had a major flaw, Tyson's only flaw would be his mind.

In the coming years a better fighter will probably come along, and the wars will continue. But please no more, "this old slow guy that we adore would fix so and so's wagon just because I grew up watching him".


Why did you pick a thread about Foreman to post this in when there are a bunch of threads about Tyson???

I don't understand how people are saying anyone who roots for Tyson has a lack of boxing knowledge, if anything watching millions of older fighters would just encourage them into rooting for Tyson even more.

Like honestly, what would bring you to think Liston would stand a chance vs Tyson? Tyson is faster, he knocks guys out bigger than him with both hands, he can switch to a south paw on the fly and even his chin is better, and last but not least he had one of the most extreme forms of defense ever witnessed in the boxing scene.

Why would you think Liston hit harder? Tyson hits guys and they go flying across the ring! what evidence is there that proves Liston is a harder hitter?
Tyson dropped Spinks with a body shot (first knock down) He has made guys cry in the ring.

Tyson has a lot of fans because he showed a great level of skill in the ring, he beat the crap out of guys way bigger than him and even lifted them off the ground.

I'm NOT a Biased Tyson fan, I only root for him when I see fit, and when your going to compare guys like Marciano or Liston to Tyson it's almost comical, I wonder what planet your living on.

I'm not trying to be a dick but it makes some of you guys that root for the Old timer's look sort of stupid and naive.

Do I think Tyson was unbeatable? With Rooney in his corner, he's probably the closest fighter to date that could have achieved that status. Every other heavyweight champion has had a major flaw, Tyson's only flaw would be his mind.

In the coming years a better fighter will probably come along, and the wars will continue. But please no more, "this old slow guy that we adore would fix so and so's wagon just because I grew up watching him".



Why would you choose to put this post about Tyson in a thread about George Foreman when there are 3-4 on the main page of the history forum????

I've been doing some research, this is purely a statistical deal, but I found this site (http://www.geocities.com/mgpaul2/) through hurricane72 and the Top 10 heavyweights thread.

Anyways, this site has all kinds of stats. But one that really intrigued me was the number of ranked opponents/total registered wins.


These stats are only thru 2002, but I think they prove a point.

I'll highlight the stat I refer to.

According to this out 33 victories during his first title run Foreman beat 7 opponents ranked in the top 10. During his second title run, out of 22 victories, he beat 2 in the top 10.

GEORGE FOREMAN 1970-1977 7/33 .21 #1 (1st time champion)
GEORGE FOREMAN 1991-1994 2/22 .09 #3 (2nd time champion)

So, out of 55 wins, only 9 have come against ranked opposition.


Ok lets look at 2 fighters that Foreman is almost always ranked ahead of -

Lennox Lewis, out 37 victories, 16 have come against top 10 opposition.

LENNOX LEWIS 1991-2003 16/37 .43 #1

Mike Tyson, out of 41 victories, 17 have come against top 10 opposition.

MIKE TYSON -1986-2002 17/41 .41 #1

Evander Holyfieldm, out of 34 victories, 16 have come against top 10 opposition.

EVANDER HOLYFIELD-1988-2002 16/34 .47 #1


I think this is one of the clearest indications that Foreman has indeed been overrated in regards to placing him in a top 10 all-time list because clearly going by statistics there are three who deserve placement over him.

Like I said, this is a purely statistical deal but it does paint a pretty revealing picture.
OK so we have Holyfield in 1st and Foreman in last place on just these stats. However, I think in their primes, Foreman would have knocked out Holyfield. He hurt Holyfield a little, 2 times in their 91 or 92 bout and Foreman was an old man. Just like louis was out boxing Marciano for a few rounds when he was 37 and Marciano was in his prime. LOL :hijacked:

I don't understand how people are saying anyone who roots for Tyson has a lack of boxing knowledge, if anything watching millions of older fighters would just encourage them into rooting for Tyson even more.

Like honestly, what would bring you to think Liston would stand a chance vs Tyson? Tyson is faster, he knocks guys out bigger than him with both hands, he can switch to a south paw on the fly and even his chin is better, and last but not least he had one of the most extreme forms of defense ever witnessed in the boxing scene.

Why would you think Liston hit harder? Tyson hits guys and they go flying across the ring! what evidence is there that proves Liston is a harder hitter?
Tyson dropped Spinks with a body shot (first knock down) He has made guys cry in the ring.

Tyson has a lot of fans because he showed a great level of skill in the ring, he beat the crap out of guys way bigger than him and even lifted them off the ground.

I'm NOT a Biased Tyson fan, I only root for him when I see fit, and when your going to compare guys like Marciano or Liston to Tyson it's almost comical, I wonder what planet your living on.

I'm not trying to be a dick but it makes some of you guys that root for the Old timer's look sort of stupid and naive.

Do I think Tyson was unbeatable? With Rooney in his corner, he's probably the closest fighter to date that could have achieved that status. Every other heavyweight champion has had a major flaw, Tyson's only flaw would be his mind.

In the coming years a better fighter will probably come along, and the wars will continue. But please no more, "this old slow guy that we adore would fix so and so's wagon just because I grew up watching him".

Well, if all you talk about is one fighter - in every thread - then it does give the strong impression that your knowledge in other areas of boxing are limited.

why would you quote me 3 times? I responding to the posts, not the thread name..guess it's a little off topic but every thread usually is.

OK so we have Holyfield in 1st and Foreman in last place on just these stats. However, I think in their primes, Foreman would have knocked out Holyfield. He hurt Holyfield a little, 2 times in their 91 or 92 bout and Foreman was an old man. Just like louis was out boxing Marciano for a few rounds when he was 37 and Marciano was in his prime. LOL :hijacked:

He may beat him in a head to head match-up prime vs. prime but when all we have to compare them to is stats and past accomplishments Foreman gets his oversized butt handed to him by most all time greats. LOL

I know people will think I'm leading a crusade to get Foreman declassified a top 10 all time great and thats not the case because I genuinely like him. I just think there are some questions that need to be asked.

why would you quote me 3 times? I responding to the posts, not the thread name..guess it's a little off topic but every thread usually is.

My net screwed up and it was telling me I had an error because the posts didn't show up. My bad.

Yea np

Foreman was really lacking in skills, he didn't have the tools to be a long gym champion because he was to easy to figure out. His tremendous power gave him a large fan base and an impressive Ko percentage.

Still, I put him on my ATG list on the sole fact that he had a punchers chance on a very high level.

Yea np

Foreman was really lacking in skills, he didn't have the tools to be a long gym champion because he was to easy to figure out. His tremendous power gave him a large fan base and an impressive Ko percentage.

Still, I put him on my ATG list on the sole fact that he had a punchers chance on a very high level.

This is what I don't understand about the logic you guys are using in quantifying Foreman's placement on an all-time list. You're putting him up there by basically saying he's not an all-time great for what he accomplished rather what he could have accomplished.

Going by that logic you'd have to place many fighters in the top 10. Riddick Bowe and Buster Douglas were two of the best modern heavyweights I've seen when they were on their game and would have had a chance to beat any heavyweight when they were at their peaks. But does that alone predicate a placement on an all-time greats list?

I dunno, but if Foreman is one of only two people to ever stop George Chuvalo (the other being Frazier), dominated Joe Frazier twice, made short work of a Ken Norton who had just given Ali so much trouble, stopped Ron Lyle who at that point had been beaten only by Ali and Jimmy Young... registered only two losses (once to Ali and once to Young) all in his first incarnation...

Then, returing a few days short of a full decade later to face the prime Holyfield, become only the second man to stop the stubborn Dwight Quawi (Holyfield was the first), stop Gerry Cooney who had been stopped only twice previously and thereafter (by Holmes and Michael Spinks), TKO the then undefeated Jimmy Ellis, win a world title...

Then finished his career after 81 fights, losing 5, and having been stopped only once. By Ali in that Rumble In The Jungle...

Then, I think he deserves much of what he's getting.

I don't think any of Lennox Lewis' opponents come to the level of the Joe Frazier that Foreman defeated twice; not even the Tyson that Lewis beat. Tyson had been beaten three times before facing Lewis.

I don't think Lewis faced, much less beat, anyone with the stubborness of a Chuvalo, who is considered by many as among the toughest heavyweights seen atop the ring...any ring. Foreman took care of Chuvalo in 3 rounds; Frazier took a round longer to do it. Nobody else did.

I'm not sure that the two who dealt Lewis his two defeats (and whom Lewis defeated in return matches, thus giving him the right to claim having defeated every fighter he faced) come close to the Norton, Ellis or Lyle that Foreman took on and out.

One tends to dismiss Gerry Cooney. I'm one of them sometimes. But, while Cooney may not look all that good in the rearview mirror, he was quite something when we saw him through the windshield then as he took care of Norton in 1, Lyle in 1 and Young in 4.

The 41-year-old Foreman dispatched the 34-year-old Cooney in 2 rounds.

The thing is if you don't put Foreman in the top ten, the question will always arise why he wasn't included when he more than likely he would have KO'ed a lot of the fighters on the list. It would be an endless debate, so just to shut everyone up you have to add him. LOL

Young Foreman with an old foreman brain would have been a HW, ATG.

I dunno, but if Foreman is one of only two people to ever stop George Chuvalo (the other being Frazier), dominated Joe Frazier twice, made short work of a Ken Norton who had just given Ali so much trouble, stopped Ron Lyle who at that point had been beaten only by Ali and Jimmy Young... registered only two losses (once to Ali and once to Young) all in his first incarnation...

Then, returing a few days short of a full decade later to face the prime Holyfield, become only the second man to stop the stubborn Dwight Quawi (Holyfield was the first), stop Gerry Cooney who had been stopped only twice previously and thereafter (by Holmes and Michael Spinks), TKO the then undefeated Jimmy Ellis, win a world title...

Then finished his career after 81 fights, losing 5, and having been stopped only once. By Ali in that Rumble In The Jungle...

Then, I think he deserves much of what he's getting.

I don't think any of Lennox Lewis' opponents come to the level of the Joe Frazier that Foreman defeated twice; not even the Tyson that Lewis beat. Tyson had been beaten three times before facing Lewis.

I don't think Lewis faced, much less beat, anyone with the stubborness of a Chuvalo, who is considered by many as among the toughest heavyweights seen atop the ring...any ring. Foreman took care of Chuvalo in 3 rounds; Frazier took a round longer to do it. Nobody else did.

I'm not sure that the two who dealt Lewis his two defeats (and whom Lewis defeated in return matches, thus giving him the right to claim having defeated every fighter he faced) come close to the Norton, Ellis or Lyle that Foreman took on and out.

One tends to dismiss Gerry Cooney. I'm one of them sometimes. But, Cooney may not look all that good in the rearview mirror, yet, he was quite something when we saw him through the windshield then as he took care of Norton in 1, Lyle in 1 and Young in 4.

The 41-year-old Foreman dispatched the 34-year-old Cooney in 2 rounds.



Well, in response - aren't great fighters supposed to beat other great fighters in order to placed amongst a pantheon of the sports all-time greats?

The list you presented is admirable, but shouldn't be considered when comparing it to most of the other guys. Besides Lennox avenged his defeats and faced more top rated opposition within his career.

Is beating Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Dwight Quawi, Ron Lyle and Gerry Cooney while losing to Jimmy Ellis and Muhammad Ali enough to place you amongst the sports immortals? It shouldn't be.

The thing is if you don't put Foreman in the top ten, the question will always arise why he wasn't included when he more than likely he would have KO'ed a lot of the fighters on the list. It would be an endless debate, so just to shut everyone up you have to add him. LOL



I just can't agree with that mindset. Your placing your rankings on the basis of something that may have happened rather than on the platform of something concrete as in achievements and accomplishments.

Well, in response - aren't great fighters supposed to beat other great fighters in order to placed amongst a pantheon of the sports all-time greats?

The list you presented is admirable, but shouldn't be considered when comparing it to most of the other guys. Besides Lennox avenged his defeats and faced more top rated opposition within his career.

Is beating Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Dwight Quawi, Ron Lyle and Gerry Cooney while losing to Jimmy Ellis and Muhammad Ali enough to place you amongst the sports immortals? It shouldn't be.

Well losing to Ali shouldn't hurt anyone's rating since he is #1 or #2 or almost everyone's list of ATGs. As for Jimmy Ellis, everyone is entitled to ONE bad night. I'll add that Joe Frazier was a perfect 29-0 with 2 belts when Foreman demolished him. Norton was 30-2, one of those losses coming from Ali, he has to get points for KOing Michael Moorer when he was 45, and I give him a little credit for beating (in most people's eyes) a 26 year old Shannon Briggs when he was 48.

Well losing to Ali shouldn't hurt anyone's rating since he is #1 or #2 or almost everyone's list of ATGs. As for Jimmy Ellis, everyone is entitled to ONE bad night. I'll add that Joe Frazier was a perfect 29-0 with 2 belts when Foreman demolished him. Norton was 30-2, one of those losses coming from Ali, he has to get points for KOing Michael Moorer when he was 45, and I get him a little credit for beating (in most people's eyes) a 26 year old Shannon Briggs when he was 48.

I don't know. It just doesn't add up when comparing him with the others mentioned in the lists of all-time greats. The accomplishments just aren't there in comparison.

I just can't agree with that mindset. Your placing your rankings on the basis of something that may have happened rather than on the platform of something concrete as in achievements and accomplishments.
Well in that case it would be better to make two lists. But if you were to make one list, you would have to explain what criteria you used to come to those conclusions.

Well, in response - aren't great fighters supposed to beat other great fighters in order to placed amongst a pantheon of the sports all-time greats?

The list you presented is admirable, but shouldn't be considered when comparing it to most of the other guys. Besides Lennox avenged his defeats and faced more top rated opposition within his career.

Is beating Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Dwight Quawi, Ron Lyle and Gerry Cooney while losing to Jimmy Ellis and Muhammad Ali enough to place you amongst the sports immortals? It shouldn't be.First off, Foreman did not lose to Jimmy Ellis. It was to Young that he lost. He knocked out Ellis, who up until then was undefeated.

I scanned the statistical presentation you made of champions in your earlier post, and quickly noted that those statistics do not quite embrace the quality of the contenders when these contenders are compared from era to era.

For instance: how does one rate a Ken Norton in the era of Lewis? Shall he be rated in the same fashion as the actual contenders of Lewis in Lewis' own era? If so, why do we speak of the Golden Age of Boxing when the quality not only of the champions but also of the contenders are considered?

Moreover, what is the qualitative value of a loss to Ali compared to the qualitative value of a KO loss to an Oliver McCall or a Hashim Rachman? Shall it be fair if we consider them the same, simply because each merely represents one loss? Shall a loss to the widely acclaimed greatest heavyweight of all time be treated as neither bigger nor smaller to a loss against what may, in the future, be hardly recognizable names?

I don't think a win over Oliver McCall is similar to a win over, say, a Ken Norton who had just given Ali a handful, not once but twice. This is notwithstanding the fact that that win over McCall comes after losing to the very same McCall.

I think numbers are good but I think they should be put to better use than just merely pinning 1 for every loss and another 1 for every win, then adding them up together, getting averages, etc....

How do Ali and Young (the only losses of Foreman in his first incarnation) stack up against the combo of Rachman and McCall (the only two losses of Lewis in his entire career)?

On the win collumn, how does one reckon two devastating wins against a prime Frazier against a 7th round stoppage of a Tyson who had already lost three times? Shall we say simply, "2 wins vs. 1"?

Well in that case it would be better to make two lists. But if you were to make one list, you would have to explain what criteria you used to come to those conclusions.

Maybe it's just a total lack of sleep and overstress from life LOL But this has really thrown me for a loop as far as my own personal rankings go. Of course my mother-in-law is in town to help with the baby so that never helps matters.

Got a baby on the lap, a crabby wife in one ear and an evil mother in law in the other and rankings on the desk in front of you. Sounds like the opening monologue of an episode of Mission : Impossible.

I don't know. It just doesn't add up when comparing him with the others mentioned in the lists of all-time greats. The accomplishments just aren't there in comparison.

What about Liston's accomplishments, quite a few people have him on their top 10 ATG lists, and he had 1 succesful title defence, though in fairness I believe Patterson ducked him for a long time (for good reason it turned out.)

First off, Foreman did not lose to Jimmy Ellis. It was to Young that he lost. He knocked out Ellis, who up until then was undefeated.

I scanned the statistical presentation you made of champions in your earlier post, and quickly noted that those statistics do not quite embrace the quality of the contenders when these contenders are compared from era to era.

For instance: how does one rate a Ken Norton in the era of Lewis? Shall he be rated in the same fashion as the actual contenders of Lewis in Lewis' own era? If so, why do we speak of the Golden Age of Boxing when the quality not only of the champions but also of the contenders are considered?

Moreover, what is the qualitative value of a loss to Ali compared to the qualitative value of a KO loss to an Oliver McCall or a Hashim Rachman? Shall it be fair if we consider them the same, simply because each merely represents one loss? Shall a loss to the widely acclaimed greatest heavyweight of all time be treated as neither bigger nor smaller to a loss against what may, in the future, be hardly recognizable names?

I don't think a win over Oliver McCall is similar to a win over, say, a Ken Norton who had just given Ali a handful, not once but twice. This is notwithstanding the fact that that win over McCall comes after losing to the very same McCall.

I think numbers are good but I think they should be put to better use than just merely pinning 1 for every loss and another 1 for every win, then adding them up together, getting averages, etc....

How do Ali and Young (the only losses of Foreman in his first incarnation) stack up against the combo of Rachman and McCall (the only two losses of Lewis in his entire career)?

On the win collumn, how does one reckon two devastating wins against a prime Frazier against a 7th round stoppage of a Tyson who had already lost three times? Shall we say simply, "2 wins vs. 1"?


You're right about Ellis/Young..I don't know how in the world I got them crossed up.

I understand what you're saying in regards to the quality of the eras they fought in, however wouldn't sheer number of wins against ranked opposition for Holyfield, Lewis and Tyson put them on an even keel with Foreman considering he had so little?

The comparisons are all relative mind you, but for the time period Ken Norton wasn't considered great. But I guess in retrospect you may have a point in the fact that a mediocre heavyweight from the 70's would probably qualify as a good heavyweight in the proceding eras.

But the loss to Ali should count against Foreman in a negative way since he was the heavy favorite and if he had fought a better fight would have likely won so in a way it could be compared. Lewis has the advantage because he avenged his defeats where as Foreman did not.

What about Liston's accomplishments, quite a few people have him on their top 10 ATG lists, and he had 1 succesful title defence, though in fairness I believe Patterson ducked him for a long time (for good reason it turned out.)

I would place him in the same catergory, and question if he too was overrated. However you see him in top 10 lists alot less than you see Foreman who is in almost every one.

Maybe it's just a total lack of sleep and overstress from life LOL But this has really thrown me for a loop as far as my own personal rankings go. Of course my mother-in-law is in town to help with the baby so that never helps matters.

Got a baby on the lap, a crabby wife in one ear and an evil mother in law in the other and rankings on the desk in front of you. Sounds like the opening monologue of an episode of Mission : Impossible.
Ha ha ha ha. I here ya. No matter what's going on in our lives, there's always our crazy "obsessions" knocking at the door.

You're right about Ellis/Young..I don't know how in the world I got them crossed up.

I understand what you're saying in regards to the quality of the eras they fought in, however wouldn't sheer number of wins against ranked opposition for Holyfield, Lewis and Tyson put them on an even keel with Foreman considering he had so little?

The comparisons are all relative mind you, but for the time period Ken Norton wasn't considered great. But I guess in retrospect you may have a point in the fact that a mediocre heavyweight from the 70's would probably qualify as a good heavyweight in the proceding eras.

But the loss to Ali should count against Foreman in a negative way since he was the heavy favorite and if he had fought a better fight would have likely won so in a way it could be compared. Lewis has the advantage because he avenged his defeats where as Foreman did not.
It's easy to get mixed up in the Young/Ellis case. They're both named Jimmy and that's not the last thing they have in common.

I work with stats too in my real life but I have learned to alternately respect and suspect them...

And, numbers are not the only ones that deserve suspicion; alphabet rankings do too, especially in the recent past...and, yes, the present.
So, putting weight on rankings can often mislead.

Foreman failed to avenge his defeats in his first incarnation because he retired soon after the UD loss to Young and did not return until very close to a decade later. I suspect the reason he failed to avenge his later defeats is because he was not the Foreman of the former incarnation.

It is best to keep in mind that Foreman was stopped only once: by the "Greatest". Also, it may be good to remind ourselves that with close to twice as many fights as Lewis had, Foreman suffered only three defeats more than Lewis. All those three were not stoppages and came when he was past 40 years old.

Foreman beat two HOFs: Frazier and Norton--both in their primes-- and the fashion with which he beat them reverberates today. He beat Frazier twice.

In the meantime, I think it is safe to say Lewis has Tyson and Holyfield. The latter he met twice--the first for a draw and the second by decision.

It is also good to remember that an old Foreman went the distance with Holyfield and rocked the latter a few times.

It's easy to get mixed up in the Young/Ellis case. They're both named Jimmy and that's not the last thing they have in common.

I work with stats too in my real life but I have learned to alternately respect and suspect them...

And, numbers are not the only ones that deserve suspicion; alphabet rankings do too, especially in the recent past...and, yes, the present.
So, putting weight on rankings can often mislead.

To be honest, I never use stats in rankings - not when it refers to the different rankings of a fighter that someone beat. 1 because there are no uniform ranking systems for any period of boxing and 2 they are often too hard to compile from previous eras even if you wanted to use them. I just used those stats in trying to get a handle on the original question I asked as it relates to other fighters.

Foreman failed to avenge his defeats in his first incarnation because he retired soon after the UD loss to Young and did not return until very close to a decade later. I suspect the reason he failed to avenge his later defeats is because he was not the Foreman of the former incarnation.

It is best to keep in mind that Foreman was stopped only once: by the "Greatest". Also, it may be good to remind ourselves that with close to twice as many fights as Lewis had, Foreman suffered only three defeats more than Lewis. All those three were not stoppages and came when he was past 40 years old.

Foreman beat two HOFs: Frazier and Norton--both in their primes-- and the fashion with which he beat them reverberates today. He beat Frazier twice.

In the meantime, I think it is safe to say Lewis has Tyson and Holyfield. The latter he met twice--the first for a draw and the second by decision.

It is also good to remember that an old Foreman went the distance with Holyfield and rocked the latter a few times.


Maybe it'd just fatigue and stress, I don't know. It just seems unbalanced to me. I'm not sure why, because until today it was never a question I pondered. But I guess questions like these are what makes compiling a top 10 list so challenging.

Let me pose this to you, where do you rate Foreman in relation to the three other fighters I compared him with?

To be honest, I never use stats in rankings - not when it refers to the different rankings of a fighter that someone beat. 1 because there are no uniform ranking systems for any period of boxing and 2 they are often too hard to compile from previous eras even if you wanted to use them. I just used those stats in trying to get a handle on the original question I asked as it relates to other fighters.




Maybe it'd just fatigue and stress, I don't know. It just seems unbalanced to me. I'm not sure why, because until today it was never a question I pondered. But I guess questions like these are what makes compiling a top 10 list so challenging.

Let me pose this to you, where do you rate Foreman in relation to the three other fighters I compared him with?I'm not in the habit of rating top tens or compiling anything of the sort. I've been a fight fan too long to know I'll never get satisfied with any list that I manage to make--albeit temporarily.

I have learned to take each fighter's strengths, weaknesses, accomplishments (and whatever else) as they are and appreciate them.

What I do is I enumerate the fighters I like accross weights and eras without ranking them. Many of those I like won't ever come within ten thousand miles from Canastota, but I like them for one reason or another. A fighter I like may be capable of doing nothing more than delivering a picture perfect left hook and nothing else...

This, I find, makes me enjoy the sport even more.

I do, however, make observations on ratings that are put out but would never knock ay reasonable list.

Back to Foreman: I think the thing that Foreman accomplished that is tough to overlook is the fact that he is the oldest man to ever win a heavyweight world title of some sort. Pundits appreciate the fact I guess that he was fighting not only his opponent in the ring, but, something that is to many, the bigger fight: unforgiving age. This, alongside his conquests, plays some part in his being rated so highly. If you think that's a pass, well, some people will just quickly point out that the accomplishment has not be equalled or been beaten.

Re: the rankings, that comment came about because of the statistics you presented in your earlier post, about champ A, facing x number of ranked contenders while champ B faced only y number of contenders, ergo...etc.

Back to Foreman: I think the thing that Foreman accomplished that is tough to overlook is the fact that he is the oldest man to ever win a heavyweight world title of some sort. Pundits appreciate the fact I guess that he was fighting not only his opponent in the ring, but, something that is to many, the bigger fight: unforgiving age. This, alongside his conquests, plays some part in his being rated so highly. If you think that's a pass, well, some people will just quickly point out that the accomplishment has not be equalled or been beaten.

Re: the rankings, that comment came about because of the statistics you presented in your earlier post, about champ A, facing x number of ranked contenders while champ B faced only y number of contenders, ergo...etc.

See thats where my struggle comes in. I too thought well maybe you lump together what he did do with his title win at age 45. But when you do that, it seems to me you'd have to do the same for someone like Joe Walcott.

I guess thats the entire problem with a list. What works and quantifies one fighters doesn't mean it will do the same for someone else. I think thats where the hypocrisy of lists come in..you laud one for doing it, yet another gets condemned are hardly the same credit.

On a sidenote, I just used those rankings as part of a presentation to rationalize whether a top 10 placement was warranted. By no means do I base my entire rankings process around something like that.

The reasons stated on the first page and his other attributes are the reason he is number 11 in my ATG list. But by being in one of the greatest fights, people tend to think more highly of him. Even more overated it think is Liston

You're right about Ellis/Young..I don't know how in the world I got them crossed up.
I understand what you're saying in regards to the quality of the eras they fought in, however wouldn't sheer number of wins against ranked opposition for Holyfield, Lewis and Tyson put them on an even keel with Foreman considering he had so little?

The comparisons are all relative mind you, but for the time period Ken Norton wasn't considered great. But I guess in retrospect you may have a point in the fact that a mediocre heavyweight from the 70's would probably qualify as a good heavyweight in the proceding eras.

But the loss to Ali should count against Foreman in a negative way since he was the heavy favorite and if he had fought a better fight would have likely won so in a way it could be compared. Lewis has the advantage because he avenged his defeats where as Foreman did not.

for some reson i do to!

George Foreman is a living legend, and a 2 time champion.

George Foreman is a living legend, and a 2 time champion.

Well, thats not in dispute. The question of the thread is George Foreman : Overrated? Not whether or not he is a legend or if he was a champion.

Well, thats not in dispute. The question of the thread is George Foreman : Overrated? Not whether or not he is a legend or if he was a champion.



Anyone that claims the heavyweight title at age 45 is NOT overrated.

Ok, but who did he dominate? He dominated Frazier. Like I said that is the only elite fighter he dominated. He beat Ken Norton,a good but not great heavyweight.

What other fighters did he beat to warrant a high placement?

Of all the fighters he faced in his prime here are the only ones that could be considered noteworthy.

Joe Frazier (w)
Ken Norton (w)
Muhammad Ali (l)
Ron Lyle (w)
Jimmy Young (l)

I can understand all of your opinions, still yet, no one has come forth with a valid argument as to why we place Foreman at such a level.
Ken Norton is considered a top 25 heavyweight, michael moorer is in the top 30, rony lyle is top 50 for sure, joe frazier is top 10. How the **** does that not make foreman top 10 of all times?

Ken Norton is considered a top 25 heavyweight, michael moorer is in the top 30, rony lyle is top 50 for sure, joe frazier is top 10. How the **** does that not make foreman top 10 of all times?

I never said it did, however if you compare Foreman's accomplishments alongside anyone else in most Top 10 All Time lists he pales in comparison. That brings into question if he is/isn't overrated by most.

And another thing..Norton, Moorer and Lyle are not considered great by any stretch of the imagination. Good, yes. Great, no.

However if you had taken the time to read any of the thread you would have seen all of this laid out for you.

See thats where my struggle comes in. I too thought well maybe you lump together what he did do with his title win at age 45. But when you do that, it seems to me you'd have to do the same for someone like Joe Walcott.

I guess thats the entire problem with a list. What works and quantifies one fighters doesn't mean it will do the same for someone else. I think thats where the hypocrisy of lists come in..you laud one for doing it, yet another gets condemned are hardly the same credit.

On a sidenote, I just used those rankings as part of a presentation to rationalize whether a top 10 placement was warranted. By no means do I base my entire rankings process around something like that.Yeah... making lists is a tough chore, even making one for Santa. Even to-do lists...

Like I said, I stopped doing most lists a long time ago. Not even one for Santa. I still do the tasks enumeration, though. The last one is a curse I'll have to live with...

Re: the sidenote: okay...

this isa rare thing on boxing scene......

Mature discussion!

I'm leaving it now because i rate fighters differently to the way you do.

you rate them by accomplishments.
i rate them by their fighting prowess on their best day.

in the very prestigious ME ratings foreman tends to drift between 2 and 6 in all time greats. i can see very few fighters who could beat foreman in his prime.

this isa rare thing on boxing scene......

Mature discussion!______:) ____

I never said it did, however if you compare Foreman's accomplishments alongside anyone else in most Top 10 All Time lists he pales in comparison. That brings into question if he is/isn't overrated by most.

And another thing..Norton, Moorer and Lyle are not considered great by any stretch of the imagination. Good, yes. Great, no.

However if you had taken the time to read any of the thread you would have seen all of this laid out for you.

"Pales in comparison," who exactly did Jack Johnson beat again? And he is on a lot of people top 10 ATG lists. And please don't give me some guy who hadn't fought in 6 years, or some puffed up middleweight, or some 5'7" "champ."

"Pales in comparison," who exactly did Jack Johnson beat again? And he is on a lot of people top 10 ATG lists. And please don't give me some guy who hadn't fought in 6 years, or some puffed up middleweight, or some 5'7" "champ."

So are alot of guys that don't belong if you compare them to others. But thats what brought the whole debate about to begin with. Because of this I'm redifining my entire way of ratings, trying to at least.