George Foreman : Overrated?

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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

[QuCongee]

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

[Hawkins]

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.

[Hawkins]

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.

[Jim Jeffries]

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.

[Hawkins]

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.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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.

[grayfist]

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"?

[Hawkins]

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.

[Jim Jeffries]

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.)