George Foreman : Overrated?

[Hawkins]

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.

[them_apples]

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.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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.

[Hawkins]

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.

[BKM-]

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.

[Hawkins]

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

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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.

[sleazyfellow]

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 ******est 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?

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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.

[Hawkins]

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.