Why is George Foreman rated so highly on a lot of peoples lists?

[butterfly1964]

dude the guy fought frazier and lyle, which top notch heavy hitters did liston truly beat.

Cleveland Williams, Eddie Machen, Mike DeJohn, Wayne Bethea, Bert Whitehurst, Nino Valdez. All these were hard punchers.

Foreman befroe fighting Frazier fought George Chuvalo, Gregorio Peralta, and that's it. Besides Frazier and Norton, Foreman did not beat anybody special, and did not even deserve a title shot, while Liston cleaned out the entire division completely.

[hemichromis]

Cleveland Williams, Eddie Machen, Mike DeJohn, Wayne Bethea, Bert Whitehurst, Nino Valdez. All these were hard punchers.

Foreman befroe fighting Frazier fought George Chuvalo, Gregorio Peralta, and that's it. Besides Frazier and Norton, Foreman did not beat anybody special, and did not even deserve a title shot, while Liston cleaned out the entire division completely.

i used to think foreman would beat foreman but IMO if liston boxed he could very well win

[Hydro]

** Your rump is padded with very select quality adipose tissue.

** Foreman turned pro in 1969 almost 40 yrs ago. Of his last 5 opponents, 4 are still active and 2 have titles in their records and the public knows he beat both of them.

the only justification for that is his (understandable) reluctance to fight tucker

Nonsense. Foreman's whole second career was selective opposition.

Of his first 24 opponents, none of them were contenders. the closest one was rodriguez, and even he had been stopped about a year earlier in just two rounds by evander holyfield. Cooney hadn't fought in 3 years. After losing to Holyfield, Foreman fought Jimmy Ellis. Good if we're talking about the Jimmy Ellis of the late 60s and early 70s, but not this Ellis, who was a former football player. Foreman then fought Alex Stewart, whose own manager even had questioned his confidence, and Foreman squeaked by a close decision. Foreman then fought Pierre COetzer who was coming off of two straight KO losses, including a brutal war with Rid**** Bowe. After beating Coetzer, Foreman fought a dangerous Morrison, and loss. Foreman beat Moorer for the title, then got stripped and did not fight any contender afterwards.

He got a pass for his actions because people loved the smiling old fat guy.

[LondonRingRules]

He got a pass for his actions because people loved the smiling old fat guy.

** And you get a pass because we smile at your large rump and BB noggin.

Foreman currently owns the top 4 threads in the Boxing History section. I look at some of Ali or Holmes title fights against Leon the Lessor, Evangelista, Frank, London, or the reknown Lion of Flanders, Coopman, and I know they were very selective in their choices knowing that you'd get your skirt blown up over them!

[Friedie]

walcott and schmeling would only be contenders like quarry, lyle and shavers had they fought in the 70's.

Oh, there I disagree. Max Schmeling e.g. beat 4 HOFers and was involved in 4 Ring Magazine Fights of the year (winning 3 of them). 1931-1933 and 1936-1938 he was recognized by experts to be the best Heavyweight of the World. That's another league than quarry, lyle and shavers.

[brownpimp88]

Oh, there I disagree. Max Schmeling e.g. beat 4 HOFers and was involved in 4 Ring Magazine Fights of the year (winning 3 of them). 1931-1933 and 1936-1938 he was recognized by experts to be the best Heavyweight of the World. That's another league than quarry, lyle and shavers.

First of all 1924-1936 is widely considered as the worst era of heavyweight boxing. A hall of famer is a very broad term, jim braddock is in the hall of fame, does that mean he was a great fighter, **** no it doesnt.

There is no way either schemling or walcott would have been world champ in the 70's, if you disagree then you dont know boxing.

[Friedie]

First of all 1924-1936 is widely considered as the worst era of heavyweight boxing. A hall of famer is a very broad term, jim braddock is in the hall of fame, does that mean he was a great fighter, **** no it doesnt.

There is no way either schemling or walcott would have been world champ in the 70's, if you disagree then you dont know boxing.

1924-36 was never the worst era of heavyweight boxing. It had Dempsey vs. Tunney (twice) and Schmeling vs. Louis. And I suppose Walcott and Schmeling both would have beaten the reigning Champion Leon Spinks in 1978.

[brownpimp88]

1924-36 was never the worst era of heavyweight boxing. It had Dempsey vs. Tunney (twice) and Schmeling vs. Louis. And I suppose Walcott and Schmeling both would have beaten the reigning Champion Leon Spinks in 1978.

from 1924-1936, there was no title match in 1924, 1925, 1929 and 1936. You had guys like carnera, sharkey and braddock as your champ. At least in the 80s you had holmes and tyson. At least in the 50's you had rocky marciano.

[butterfly1964]

from 1924-1936, there was no title match in 1924, 1925, 1929 and 1936. You had guys like carnera, sharkey and braddock as your champ. At least in the 80s you had holmes and tyson. At least in the 50's you had rocky marciano.

Please don't put Sharkey in the same class as Carnera and Braddock.

[brownpimp88]

Please don't put Sharkey in the same class as Carnera and Braddock.

sharkey aint nothin..... *****