George Foreman : Overrated?

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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.

[Jim Jeffries]

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 Tyson and Cus even told Tyson so. That's one reason Tyson ducked even an old Foreman.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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

[hemichromis]

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

[hemichromis]

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'

[hemichromis]

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

[hemichromis]

A young Foreman would have 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!

[Jim Jeffries]

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

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.

[Hawkins]

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.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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 ****** 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