George Foreman : Overrated?

[Hawkins]

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.

[Hawkins]

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.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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.

[grayfist]

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 su****ion; 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.

[Hawkins]

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 su****ion; 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?

[grayfist]

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.

[Hawkins]

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 Iron Man]

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

[hemichromis]

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!

[Mike Tyson77]

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