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

[Abe Attell]

1970 george had 16 inch arms but the 1990 george had 20 inch ones thats why i believe he may have been stronger

george also had a mini mental breakdown agai9nst ali he had thrown everything he had against ali and ali was not only still standing but pounching away!

George, by well known reporters/sports writers, and even by his own account, was broken before the fight during the layoff after he was cut in sparring; before that he had his normal confidence:
He and others said that he was filled with confidence when he landed his plane, leading up to the sparring session that got him cut; after he got cut, the fight had to be postponed, allowing bad **** to get into George's mind...George actually wanted to leave to go back to the States, but the "Government/Soldiers" said "Nobody Leaves."
Take that, add the fact that he was said to have gained a bit of weight during the time off {not sure if it is true}, fighting in heat, wanting to get the fight over with, etc. George was going into the fight not the same fighter that beat Frazier.

I can't remember their names off the top of my head, but the writers/reporters, and George himself, said if the fight had not been postponed, he would of won. I am not sure if he would of won, but you have to wonder if George's normal confidence was there, his willing to be there to fight, and not feeling like he was being held against his will, if he really would of won; if you notice in that fight, though George was known to never really have a formula for pacing himself, he seemed to be throwing more punches than normal, looking to get it over with so he could get back to the States A.S.A.P.

[Haglerwins]

no see your only counting his wins. 68 is 89% of 76 but 68 is 87% of 81 which is his total amount of fights (76+5=81)

Gotcha, but why do losses factor into a man's KO rate if the goal of the calculation is to determine how likely a fighter's victories ended in stoppage?.. especially when that calculation is used to correlate to the fighter's punching power. At least that's how I see it. I see no logical reason for including losses.

[BKM-]

Gotcha, but why do losses factor into a man's KO rate if the goal of the calculation is to determine how likely a fighter's victories ended in stoppage?.. especially when that calculation is used to correlate to the fighter's punching power. At least that's how I see it. I see no logical reason for including losses.

That is actually the most logical reason. Especially with Foreman. DId Foreman even come close to knocking out Ali? Hell no, wich is why you HAVE to count that fight cause hey, he's not THAT great of a ko artist if you think about it.

When you have a ko% of 90, it might be bull**** cause of the fighters you ko'd. They might have been bums with no good chins.

[Haglerwins]

I'd agree if George didn't win the title back at 45 by KO. All I'm saying is if you're trying to gauge how powerful a guy was, why include losses? Losses deserve a seperate formula if they're going to be construed as a knock on the fighter's power. You could lose a bunch of fights like Shavers did, but it still wouldn't change the fact your punch was like a mule kick.

[BKM-]

I'd agree if George didn't win the title back at 45 by KO. All I'm saying is if you're trying to gauge how powerful a guy was, why include losses? Losses deserve a seperate formula if they're going to be construed as a knock on the fighter's power. You could lose a bunch of fights like Shavers did, but it still wouldn't change the fact your punch was like a mule kick.

Cause Foreman didnt get beaten severely by Ali. He was the one that had control of the fight and He had so many chances to land a decent punch on his head, its not even funny. It shows that Foreman(or similar fighters like him) was not as good in koing opponents.

[Haglerwins]

I'd chalk that up to his power being neutralized by a ring savvy fighter rather than it being overblown. It was Muhammad Ali he was in there with for god sakes. Regardless, some folks just ain't gettin' knocked out no matter what you do or how hard you hit.

[Frazier's 15th round]

Also, I could KO guys like Joe Goodwin, an opponent Foreman fought the year before his title shot. Goodwin's record? 0-14-1, he doesn't have any wins, so none of them are good.

[hemichromis]

Gotcha, but why do losses factor into a man's KO rate if the goal of the calculation is to determine how likely a fighter's victories ended in stoppage?.. especially when that calculation is used to correlate to the fighter's punching power. At least that's how I see it. I see no logical reason for including losses.

actually you should only count wins i know that means that foreman had a higher ko percentage the marciano in his first career but that is how its alwaysa don

[hemichromis]

Cause Foreman didnt get beaten severely by Ali. He was the one that had control of the fight and He had so many chances to land a decent punch on his head, its not even funny. It shows that Foreman(or similar fighters like him) was not as good in koing opponents.

ali was in control the whole way foreman just tried to batter through alis guard. on almost any other fighter foreman would have managed it but ali was strong and durable and hit foreman coming in several times.

i have to ask, who do you think was good at KOing opponents if not foreman?

[BKM-]

Let me ask you this.

If Peter McNeely had 40 wins with 40 kos, all against bums. But he has 10 losses against good fighters. would you think he'd have a 100% ko?

And this is not directed at Foreman.