George Foreman : Overrated?

[Hawkins]

Is Geroge Foreman overrated by everyone? It so happened to occur to me while watching Bert Sugar's Top 10 Heavyweights Of All Time.

Why does Foreman get such praise?

Lets look at his accomplishments -

*Devestating power puncher.
*Has one of the highest KO% in the history of the division.
*Won the heavyweight championship.
*Destroyed Joe Frazier & Ken Norton.
*Returned to action and regained the title at age of 45.


These are the things most attributed to George's greatness, but lets look at them a little closer.

*Devestating power puncher - True he was a devestating power puncher, but he wasn't very good at anything else. Power is about all he had. His skills weren't anything to write home about, especially compared to alot of other fighters of the period.

*Has one of the highest KO% in the history of the division - True, a path to the title for a power puncher is littered with tomato cans and over the hill fighters but when you look at Foreman's resume thats what 90% of it consists of.

*Won the heavyweight championship - He destroyed Joe Frazier in route to capturing the title, then defended it twice (one being a KO of Ken Norton) before losing it to Muhammad Ali in one of the biggest upsets in history.

*Destroyed Joe Frazier & Ken Norton - As described in the above he won the title from Frazier and one of his two defenses was against Norton. But other than Frazier, is defeating Norton an all-time list worthy accomplishment?

*Returned to action and regained the title at age of 45 - True, at 45, he regained the title. But lets be honest he got lucky against Moorer. Got a gift wrapped decision against Schulz then got stripped of the belts for refusing to fight the aforemention Schulz and Tony Tucker.


Now I'm not distancing myself from the pack because I'm right along with everyone else. But when you compare Foreman's resume to everyone else in the Top 10 All Time he severely lacks. Lets look -

*He only defeated one elite fighter - Joe Frazier
*He had two unspectacular title reigns.
*He held the title a total of 1025 days(if you subscribe to the fact that he lost when he was defeated by Shannon Briggs)and his record as champion was as follows. 7-2 (4)

Joe Frazier (w)
Ken Norton (w)
Jose Roman (w)
Muhammad Ali (l)
Michael Moorer (w)
Axel Schulz (w)
Crawford Grimsley (w)
Lou Savarese (w)
Shannon Briggs (l)

Of the above mentioned list, only Frazier could be considered a true elite great. Fact is Foreman hasn't faired well against other great fighter throughtout his career.

So my question is why do we rate Foreman so high? What has he truly done to deserve it? Why do alot of fans/experts/historians (myself included) rank him ahead of people such as Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield or Ezzard Charles etc? Each of the aforementioned has done just as much, or not more, within their respective careers?

What affords Foreman to held above them?

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

Like Tyson, Foreman is another fighter that reached his peak early in his career. I like to rank fighters by how well they would have done against each other in their primes. I think Foreman was the least skilled of all the top ten heavyweights in history, but at the same time he was one of the most gifted physically. I think he would have had a hard time with big defensive fighters like Lewis, Clay, Johnson, and Holmes. But, I think he would have knocked out guys like Marciano, Dempsey, and even Joe Louis. Foreman is the only puncher I think that realistically could have knocked out Tyson. I think Tyson would have beat him, but of all the punchers Foreman had more of a chance. I would only rank Tyson, Ali, Johnson, and Holmes over him. Lewis didn't have a great chin so it's hard to say what would have happened there.

[LondonRingRules]

What affords Foreman to held above them?

** The only fighter to defeat Don King.

Everything else is just potential, bauble$, and minor glitches in the life of a religious man.

[Hawkins]

Like Tyson, Foreman is another fighter that reached his peak early in his career. I like to rank fighters by how well they would have done against each other in their primes. I think Foreman was the least skilled of all the top ten heavyweights in history, but at the same time he was one of the most gifted physically. I think he would have had a hard time with big defensive fighters like Lewis, Clay, Johnson, and Holmes. But, I think he would have knocked out guys like Marciano, Dempsey, and even Joe Louis. Foreman is the only puncher I think that realistically could have knocked out Tyson. I think Tyson would have beat him, but of all the punchers Foreman had more of a chance. I would only rank Tyson, Ali, Johnson, and Holmes over him. Lewis didn't have a great chin so it's hard to say what would have happened there.

But, in your opinion, what has he accomplished that others havent in order for him to be placed over them? He hasn't defeated anyone of note other than Joe Frazier and his championship reigns pale in comparison to other greats.

So the question still stands..what did he do to rank him over these others?

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

All those other heavyweight champions have accomplished much more over their careers. If we go by careers, Foreman doesn't even make the top 10. IMO

So the question still stands..what did he do to rank him over these others?

In the way I rank, it's not what he did but what he could have done. IMO

[Hawkins]

All those other heavyweight champions have accomplished much more over their careers. If we go by careers, Foreman doesn't even make the top 10. IMO

In the way I rank, it's not what he did but what he could have done. IMO

Well for arguments sake, since you do that do you rate guys like Buster Douglas, Rid**** Bowe and Tony Tucker higher than anyone else? All three had unlimited potential in what they could have done yet what they did accomplish was mediocre-average compared to other champions.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

Well for arguments sake, since you do that do you rate guys like Buster Douglas, Rid**** Bowe and Tony Tucker higher than anyone else? All three had unlimited potential in what they could have done yet what they did accomplish was mediocre-average compared to other champions.

Out of all those, I think Bowe was the only one that was any good. He did good against Holyfield, but I think it had more to do with his youth, power, and other physical advantages. I do think he was talented as well, but I don't feel he did enough to rate him over even the smaller great heavyweights. I think Bowe could have beat some of them but only because of the extreme size differences. I wouldn't throw him in the top ten though. But I see what your saying and I think your points are just as good as mine but even though foreman didn't attain as much as most of the great fighters, I think just by looking at him fight he was the best of the punchers next to Tyson that never achieved greatness. I think in his prime, Foreman was a serious force to be reckoned with. I don't get that same feeling from Tua, Ruddock, or Shavers. Those KO's over Frazier and Norton were back to back and I think that shows what kind of level he was at and that neither fight was a lucky knockout.

[Hawkins]

Out of all those, I think Bowe was the only one that was any good. He did good against Holyfield, but I think it had more to do with his youth, power, and other physical advantages. I do think he was talented as well, but I don't feel he did enough to rate him over even the smaller great heavyweights. I think Bowe could have beat some of them but only because of the extreme size differences. I wouldn't throw him in the top ten though. But I see what your saying and I think your points are just as good as mine but even though foreman didn't attain as much as most of the great fighters, I think just by looking at him fight he was the best of the punchers next to Tyson that never achieved greatness. I think in his prime, Foreman was a serious force to be reckoned with. I don't get that same feeling from Tua, Ruddock, or Shavers. Those KO's over Frazier and Norton were back to back and I think that shows what kind of level he was at and that neither fight was a lucky knockout.

Keep in mind, I'm not disrespecting your view - just trying to see where you're coming from.

Let me ask you this - do you think potential is a worthy quality when ranking fighters? I mean there are lots of coulda-shoulda-wouldas but that does quantify a boxer to be placed over another than actually accomplished a great deal more in a career?

[metalinmybrain]

Well for arguments sake, since you do that do you rate guys like Buster Douglas, Rid**** Bowe and Tony Tucker higher than anyone else? All three had unlimited potential in what they could have done yet what they did accomplish was mediocre-average compared to other champions.

Honestly, I think it has allot to do with pure pressure in the days of Rid**** Bowe and Tony Tucker. As for Douglas, that guy has always had potential, a strong jab great foot work athletic too bad he only put it together for one night, against Tyson. He was always known for being an out of shape fighter that is what stopped him from becoming something greater. Tucker, was undefeated and I think the lose to Tyson ruined him, mentally he was never the same and later admitted the Tyson fight ruined him, he has always been a softy religious man himself! As for Bowe, kind of like with Douglas but not so much, for a natural big guy he moved pretty well, but it wasn't until a bit later in his career did his problem with food become an issue to bring up. His beloved passion for food simply got in the way of his thinking. Out of shape with all the wrong nutrients in your body just won't cut it!


IMO, Foreman beat Frazier, so why is Frazier an all time great? They were both in their primes Frazier was only about 3 and half years older. He then destroys Frazier again for a second time, if you guys are in such a hurry to rank Foreman a loser amongst bums then you should seriously look at what Joe Frazier did? He gets his ass taken out by Foreman not once but twice than gets a lucky win over an Ali who was already old, and out of commission for more than 2 years. Ali, then comes back and gives Frazier an ass whoopin twice in a row. Why is Frazier so great?

[Hawkins]

IMO, Foreman beat Frazier, so why is Frazier an all time great? They were both in their primes Frazier was only about 3 and half years older. He then destroys Frazier again for a second time, if you guys are in such a hurry to rank Foreman a loser amongst bums then you should seriously look at what Joe Frazier did? He gets his ass taken out by Foreman not once but twice than gets a lucky win over an Ali who was already old, and out of commission for more than 2 years. Ali, then comes back and gives Frazier an ass whoopin twice in a row. Why is Frazier so great?

Well if we follow that logic - then it diminshes the greatness of alot of fighters. Norton and Frazier both beat Ali, and Ali defeated them. All in close, grueling fights. Yet Foreman demolishes them both only to be knocked out by Ali. But going by your way it would put Norton and Frazier on a level of Ali since they defeated him.

Anyways, Frazier was great but he was on the downside, 29 I think. when he met Foreman. Besides those swarming/brawler types generally don't have an extended prime like others. But despite that Frazier only knew one way to fight and that was full steam ahead and those types are tailor made for a puncher like Foreman.

I just think the wins over Frazier and Norton, combined with his reigns as champion, aren't enough to qualify him as a Top 10 all-time great. Keep in mind I've had on my list, but after carefully looking at everything there seems to be abit of hypocrisy going on amongst the fans/experts/historians when we do our rankings.