Is George Foreman A Top Ten Heavyweight?

[Jesus]

He never beat a fighter that could move and in his vaunted second act if his opponents were more carefully picked it would have been a WWE production.

2 time world champ.....oldest hw world champ ever.......fought some of the best fighters in arguably 2 of the best era's of hw boxing (frazier, ali, norton, holyfield, moorer, morrison) he would just about make my top 10 list and i would have him around 7th-10th....

[BoxBuzz]

He never beat a fighter that could move and in his vaunted second act if his opponents were more carefully picked it would have been a WWE production.

First may I say that it is not me that has taken any action in your case.

Second you are a devil's advocate, and though you don't really believe your own words I'll take this on.

His return to the championship was well managed. Even a great fighter, when age takes it's toll must get back into the game gradually. Look at Tyson's return....Look at Foreman's return one method worked, the other? Not so much.

Even those who have great skills must "re hone" them gradually after a layoff. Just like a rookie coming up through the ranks, Foreman's second trip in was genuis. And though he was dealt some "justice" (If you want to look it that way) by "winning" the Schultz fight and "losing" the Briggs fight his second trip in was pretty amazing.

Holding his own vs Holyfield? Pretty interesting stuff for an old man. Holy said no one hit him harder than George. Not even a prime Lewis.
He beat Peralta.....he could move. But Peralta created the road map that Ali would use later.


But you already know, and believe this.

You know it I know it and Bob Dole knows it.

[dempseyfire]

A clear top 10 HW. Legitimate (not paper titles) two time HW champion, in his first career beat HOFers Frazier and Norton along with Lyle, Peralta, Chuvalo. His 2nd career of course less impressive opponent wise but jeez the guy was in his 40s, what do you expect? Still winning the title vs Moorer and beating Cooney, Cooper, Stewart, Saverese, and unofficially Briggs (who pathetically is getting another title shot NOW) is not too shabby.

I remember another poster saying Foreman couldn't beat fighters who moved . . .based on what? Axel Schultz when he was 45 and just collecting paychecks? Ali didn't move on him, and Young (who used angles but was no dancer) barely got a decision vs a dehydrated George (I can imagine some modern refs even stopping the fight and awarding George a TKO in the 7th). Bottom line, a clear ATG HW.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

He has as good a claim to the #3 slot as anybody else. I have him 5th.

[jrc26]

Name a heavyweight in boxing history, who if George(in his prime) fought, he wouldn't be at worst an even money bet. There is not a single fighter, that I can think of, who you can argue would clearly beat George. No other heavyweight can make that claim. Ali, Louis, Lewis, Holmes, Marciano, and on and on have matchups where you can make the argument that they would lose. I don't think there is such a matchup for George. On this alone I think he is a clear top 10.

Not to mention his body of work speaks for itself.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Name a heavyweight in boxing history, who if George(in his prime) fought, he wouldn't be at worst an even money bet. There is not a single fighter, that I can think of, who you can argue would clearly beat George. No other heavyweight can make that claim. Ali, Louis, Lewis, Holmes, Marciano, and on and on have matchups where you can make the argument that they would lose. I don't think there is such a matchup for George. On this alone I think he is a clear top 10.

Not to mention his body of work speaks for itself.

Disagree on George being the most dominant head to head Heavy there is, agree that he is definitively a top 10 fighter.

[The Great John L]

I remember another poster saying Foreman couldn't beat fighters who moved . . .based on what? Axel Schultz when he was 45 and just collecting paychecks? Ali didn't move on him, and Young (who used angles but was no dancer) barely got a decision vs a dehydrated George (I can imagine some modern refs even stopping the fight and awarding George a TKO in the 7th). Bottom line, a clear ATG HW.

Giving angles is moving. If you say a boxer moves, it doesn't necessarily mean that he dances on his toes. And yes, Ali also used subtle head movement to avoid getting hit solid by Foreman.

Young barely won a decision over George!? It was close on the cards but was a clear decision for Young, who controlled the fight and clearly outfought George, who was dehydrated after getting slapped around. It's not like he entered the ring after drying out to make weight.

There's a reason why the Ring top 20 HWs list from the mid 80's that was posted in another thread had George near the bottom of the list. Prior to his comeback most people weren't wearing rose colored glasses and actually recognized all of George's shortcomings. I've got him just outside my top 10, but could see him just inside the top 10. Of course I also think he was maybe the most flawed of any of those regularly listed as ATG's, with the possible exception of Marciano. Slow of foot, clumsy, nearly incapable of throwing a straight right or a real combination, prone to wildness and lack of control, and relatively easy to hit. Of course, his jab, power and iron will were just about as good as anybody's. But there was a reason why he was matched almost exclusively against stationary targets.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I have Holmes & Holyfield ahead of him and I would strongly favor both to beat him.

[allworld80]

I have him 3rd behind the Ali and Louis. How anyone could have him outside of the top 10 is puzzling.

[Controversial]

1. His performance against Bert Cooper. I'm a big Bert Cooper fan and I was so shocked at how Holyfield could get rocked that easily against a guy who took the fight on 7-14 days notice.

2. His victories over Buster Douglas and Mike Tyson (in hindsight) don't get looked at as being too impressive.

1. Man anyone can get rocked, especially when the other bloke punches like a mule, 7 days notice or not. Surely your not using that as grounds to dismiss Holyfields chin?

2. You can only beat who is in front of you. Tyson was in much better shape than when he fought Douglas. Plus there was some issues between the two of them. No doubt Tyson was up for it. I think it was an impressive win for Holyfield, he walked through Tyson's punches and totally destroyed him. Not bad for a blown up cruiserweight.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I have Holmes & Holyfield ahead of him and I would strongly favor both to beat him.

Putting Holmes ahead of Foreman (to me) is going more off potential than actuality.

Some days I feel like Holmes could have beaten anyone head-to-head (other days I'm not so sure).

I'm a huge Holyfield fan (which is hypocritical w/how against PEDs I am) and I want to agree w/you except you said "strongly favor" so it's pretty hard to. I'm sure Evander would give him a tough time, but, that fight to me would be even money.

Also, sometimes I want to put Holyfield very high up, but, I'm not sure. He has some flaws that must be taken into account:

1. His performance against Bert Cooper. I'm a big Bert Cooper fan and I was so shocked at how Holyfield could get rocked that easily against a guy who took the fight on 7-14 days notice.

2. His victories over Buster Douglas and Mike Tyson (in hindsight) don't get looked at as being too impressive. Which begs the question: "Do you rank the win based on the circumstances during it?" OR "Do you rank the win based on how hindsight played out." I'm confused as to which to go with. A part of me recognizes how great Buster could have been when he came focused & prepared, but, that did not seem to be the case when Evander fought him. Also, the media at the time was raving about Michael (Tyson) making his second career comeback, but, anyone that is objective can tell after '88 (and especially post-prison) he was becoming nothing more than a glorified puncher. I'm convinced that a good handful of top contenders could have also beaten Tyson the way Evander did in '96 (E.G. George Foreman, Lennox Lewis - if he can survive the early onslaught, Ray Mercer, Francois Botha - if his chin were to hold up, Axel Schulz, Michael Moorer, Riddick Bowe).

3. His first performance against Lennox Lewis (I haven't gotten around to watching the second fight - I have heard that deserved the win, although not by much). I scored the first Lewis/Holyfield fight as so:

March 13, 1999

“The Lion” Lennox Lewis (34-1-0) vs. Evander “The Real Deal” Holyfield (36-3-0)

Round 1: 10-9 LL
Round 2: 10-9 LL
Round 3: 10-9 EH
Round 4: 10-9 LL
Round 5: 10-9 LL
Round 6: 10-9 EH
Round 7: 10-9 LL
Round 8: 10-9 LL
Round 9: 10-9 LL
Round 10: 10-9 LL
Round 11: 10-9 LL
Round 12: 10-9 LL

(10-2), 118-110, Lennox Lewis.

4. His three fights against:

Byrd, Toney, Donald.

Admittedly, I haven't watched the Byrd/Holyfield or Donald/Holyfield fights, however, I did watch the Holyfield/Toney fight and I don't think I've ever seen Holyfield get dominated so easily.

I haven't seen the Ibragimov or Valuev fights, but, I've heard that Holyfield deserved to be the victor in his fight against Valuev.

You can possibly dismiss #4 as this is Evander fighting well after his peak and or prime, but, they're still on his resume and had he retired after the second Lennox Lewis fight, then I would have him at the #4 spot easy.

His performance against Cooper was awesome. That should have been Tyson in there eating those uppercuts.

Holyfield's fights against Byrd, Donald and Toney mean as much as ali's against Holmes & Berbick. Absolutely nothing at all. A fighter gets to a point where their legacy is secure and they can only enhance it, that's where Evander already was.

I wouldn't say he deserved to win the Lewis rematch, but it could have went either way. He would have beaten Tyson at any moment of their careers. I stated I would strongly favor him over George, I would guarantee him over Tyson.

That being said, there isn't much difference between 4 and 13 on the Heavyweight ranks. They all have holes to nitpick, as long as Holyfield is rated ahead of Tyson I wouldn't complain about him anywhere in the top 15.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I have him 3rd behind the Ali and Louis. How anyone could have him outside of the top 10 is puzzling.

I have him at third as well, & anyone who doesn't make room for him in their top-10 is kidding themselves (ditto, the growing number of fans out there who continue to downplay his ONE-IN-A-BILLION achievement in 1994 --- to people criticising that, I say get real).

Foreman does very well in the two critical areas of assessment (mythical head-to-head, & career accolades), giving him a strong case for the #3 spot, a very strong case for top-5, &, IMO, a shoo-in placement for anybody's top-10.

I am most interested to see anyone's list which omits Foreman from that ten.

[Bricks]

Since my all time lists are always based on a even 50/50 mixture of accomplishments and who would have beaten who on their respective best days.....I rate George Foreman very very highly. He is a top 5 heavyweight for me.

People will use the nonsense about "he couldn't beat anyone who moved especially in his second career".....try telling that to Adilson Rodriguez who had Angelo Dundee in his corner and despite his frame could really move. George took him out with one awesome combination.

I'm with Larry Merchant on the Schulz fight....Schulz didnt do enough. The New York boxing press who had been constantly mocking George since his 1987 comeback were still smarting at some level from the egg on their faces and were keen to consign Foreman to retirement.

[dempseyfire]

Since my all time lists are always based on a even 50/50 mixture of accomplishments and who would have beaten who on their respective best days.....I rate George Foreman very very highly. He is a top 5 heavyweight for me.

People will use the nonsense about "he couldn't beat anyone who moved especially in his second career".....try telling that to Adilson Rodriguez who had Angelo Dundee in his corner and despite his frame could really move. George took him out with one awesome combination.

I'm with Larry Merchant on the Schulz fight....Schulz didnt do enough. The New York boxing press who had been constantly mocking George since his 1987 comeback were still smarting at some level from the egg on their faces and were keen to consign Foreman to retirement.

Come on, what the hell did Foreman do except chase Axel around and eat punches? I'm a big Foreman fan but he lost that fight clearly, that was a bogus decision.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Since my all time lists are always based on a even 50/50 mixture of accomplishments and who would have beaten who on their respective best days.....I rate George Foreman very very highly. He is a top 5 heavyweight for me.

People will use the nonsense about "he couldn't beat anyone who moved especially in his second career".....try telling that to Adilson Rodriguez who had Angelo Dundee in his corner and despite his frame could really move. George took him out with one awesome combination.

I'm with Larry Merchant on the Schulz fight....Schulz didnt do enough. The New York boxing press who had been constantly mocking George since his 1987 comeback were still smarting at some level from the egg on their faces and were keen to consign Foreman to retirement.

Come on, what the hell did Foreman do except chase Axel around and eat punches? I'm a big Foreman fan but he lost that fight clearly, that was a bogus decision.

No doubt, big time robbery.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I laugh when I hear people say Foreman couldn't beat anyone who moved during his second career.

Wonder how well Muhammad Ali, Sonny Liston, Mike Tyson, Jack Dempsey etc. would've done against 20-something Boxer-movers when they were in their forties

[Ambling Alp]

I have him at #3 as well. However, I can see people having him lower. There are several guys who were fairly close-Johnson,Frazier,Holmes,Marciano,Dempsey,Holyfield, Lewis. Even if you rate all of those guys higher, he is still #10.
I guess you could even make a decent arguement for Tyson, Liston, or Jeffries being higher than him, but that seems a little bit of a stretch.

All of these guys have blips in their careers and had weaknesses. Of course they all had great careers and tremendous stengths.

If Foreman had beat Young, I think he would have been a very solid #3. However, he didn't so it is a close call.

As for having trouble with movers-well that is a fair arguemnt to a certain extent. Young moved a lot and Ali still did somewhat when they fought. I do think he gets a bad rap for not blowing away Peralta. Foreman was very inexperienced at the time and was fighting a tricky opponent. He still landed enought to take a decision.
None of his fights in his comeback mean anything as far as criticism go.

[Martin Sosa Cameron]

Yes! Georgie was one of the ATG Heavyweights! Of course, a Top Ten

[Bricks]

I laugh when I hear people say Foreman couldn't beat anyone who moved during his second career.

Wonder how well Muhammad Ali, Sonny Liston, Mike Tyson, Jack Dempsey etc. would've done against 20-something Boxer-movers when they were in their forties

good point part of Foreman mk II's greatness apart from his iron will and determination and focus.........was his ability to adapt.

[HomicideHenry]

In his 'first' career he fought a lower caliber of opposition than he did in his 'second' career; look at the win/loss totals on Foreman's first opponents from his debut til 1977 and compare it to the second go-around. He fought better men the second time around. Is he a top ten HW? I believe so!

[Goodnight, Irene]

In his 'first' career he fought a lower caliber of opposition than he did in his 'second' career; look at the win/loss totals on Foreman's first opponents from his debut til 1977 and compare it to the second go-around. He fought better men the second time around. Is he a top ten HW? I believe so!

I cannot see any realistic way to exclude him from a person's top-10. It is somewhat difficult to even expunge him from the top-5, IMO (he's my number-three).

[man]

i think foreman is a curiosity of boxing. in a way he had
three careers. first until ali. second until first retirement
and third ... well you know.

he beats frazier and norton almost embarrassingly easy.
loses to a slightly postPrime ali, who, unlike common rumor,
really is in no big danger of losing. then struggles against good,
but not great contender lyle. beating again frazier by TKO.
never getting a shot against ali again ... which by the way
is in my eyes one of the big fights missing in boxing history:
ali foreman II ... that would have been something ... maybe
the best bout ever.

third part. taking out early cooney and cooper. koing moorer,
losing against morrison and schutz and losing close against
briggs.

his career is probably the biggest roller coaster ride of all time.
but you can argue that he lost to really not great people. but
you can as well argue he won astonishingly easy over great
people. wrapping it up. i think foreman I+II lacked defensive
skills and was in this way a weak boxer. whenever someone
could capitalize on that weakness he had BIG trouble. but only
few came through. unlike his third career, which was actually big
in defense. this is the real mystery which really might finally
make him a top ten: he managed to put his strategy upside
down. while early foreman was the ultimate aggressor, the later
as the great enduring force that would eventually get you ...
after having suffered punishment half night.

so what's my conclusion? around ten is actually perfect. not higher
than five, not lower than fifteen. but within this range he undisputably
belongs.

[Ezzard]

There's a reason why the Ring top 20 HWs list from the mid 80's that was posted in another thread had George near the bottom of the list. Prior to his comeback most people weren't wearing rose colored glasses and actually recognized all of George's shortcomings. I've got him just outside my top 10, but could see him just inside the top 10. Of course I also think he was maybe the most flawed of any of those regularly listed as ATG's, with the possible exception of Marciano. Slow of foot, clumsy, nearly incapable of throwing a straight right or a real combination, prone to wildness and lack of control, and relatively easy to hit. Of course, his jab, power and iron will were just about as good as anybody's. But there was a reason why he was matched almost exclusively against stationary targets.

I do generally agree with this sentiment.

Winning the title back makes him top 10. It goes some way to making up for the early retirement. Without the comeback i'm not sure he qualifies.

[pound per pound]

Sure Foreman is top ten. Not top 5 in my opinion.

[Diamond WEAPON]

I also have Foreman at #3. The man had an excellent career and even his worst losses aren't as bad as certain HOF HWs who either drew with or nearly lost to MWs and LHWs, along with the fact that all of those losses were competetive and one could even argue away his loss over Briggs, who (after Lewis) would eventually rise up and snatch another title later in his own career.