Why is George Foreman so highly rated?

[elmersalsa]

H uh

Let's say that the great George Foreman would've never made a comeback and stayed retired since 1977. Where would we put him in the all time heavyweight rankings? In 1987, at the time of his comeback.
Let's see:
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Larry Holmes
7. Joe Frazier
8. Mike Tyson
9. Peter Jackson
10. Sonny Liston
11. John L. Sullivan
12. Ezzard Charles
13. James J. Jeffries
14. George Foreman

Is that the right ranking for Big George by 1987, in the time of his comeback?

#14 is absurd.

I have him #3 and I ignore his second career. Granted there are several guys who are close whom you could argue for #3.
He was clearly better than Liston, Jeffries and Tyson. Rating Jackson, Sullivan and Charles ahead of him is unbelievable.

Well, let's examine Big George's career before the comeback.

vs Sonny Liston: Many people dismiss Sonny because: One, he quit in first fight against Cassius Clay. Two, he didn't help himself in the rematch. That's OK. I could understand people's thinking. What we can't dismiss that before the Clay fiasco, Liston CLEANED UP THE WEIGHT CLASS OUTRIGHT. He beat all the top contenders before the crown...Something that Big George didn't do. As a matter of fact, he cleaned up the class way before his title match with Floyd Patterson. He was ducked for years for the heavyweight crown. At least for 3 years. Foreman beat the great Joe Frazier. Great win. Frazier was undefeated. He was 29. Still prime, right? Well, not so primmy. He looked bad against Ron Stander and the other cat that I forgot his name. He looked really bad. That wasn't Smokin' Joe before FOTC. Then, he beats Ken Norton, a guy I believe beat The Greatest 3 times in my view. He destroyed him in two. And after that? ALI regains his crown. Then, he struggles with Ron Lyle. And Jimmy Young gave him a boxing lesson in San Juan. That's it for Big George. Not enough to be #3 in my estimation. At least Liston had more longevity.

vs Jim J. Jeffries: Jeffries was considered tops by Nat Fleischer. He never lost the crown. He retired undefeated champion. Short career like Foreman. But, in my estimation, he held the title longer. And he beat good quality opposition just like Foreman "seemed" to do.

vs Mike Tyson: By 1987, Tyson, just 21 years old, cleaned up the heavyweights. He won the three titles. Held crown longer than Big George. At the time, in 1987, he was being compared with Ali and Louis as such a young age. No heavyweight was not compared with the past greats like that. By 1988, many people believed at the time that he was not just the best heavyweight champion ever, but the best fighter pound per pound ever. The people AT THE TIME, THOUGHT OF HIM LIKE THAT. Big George never had that sentiment by the people. The boxing world was around Mike Tyson. It was never around George Foreman. Tyson was the second best fighter pound per pound of the 80s decade in my estimation. Foreman? Hmmm.

vs Peter Jackson: Well, Big George could be ahead of him. Not so fast. Jackson had over 80 fights. Something unheard of from a heavyweight. He was the best fighter of the 1880s behind John L. He was a victim of circumstances. He was black. But, what he did, it was remarkable. He had a longer career than Big George. Let's check his record.

vs Ezzard Charles: Charles reign at the top was a remarkable one. He was not a heavyweight. We all know that. But being heavyweight champion, he defended it 9 times in 2 years. He could have been the first heavyweight champion to regain his crown. Unfortunately, because of some judges, (many people saw he beat the great Jersey Joe Walcott in fight #3). He gave the great Rocky Marciano fits in two memorable bouts.

vs John L. Sullivan: He was the best of his time, pound per pound, period. He drew the color line. But, should he get penalized for that? Maybe yes. Maybe not. We don't know. What we know is that he held the heavyweight crown longer than Foreman. He was considered a great fighter by the time he retired. Could we say that about Foreman when he retired? Not. Still, John L., because of the popularity he gave the sport of boxing, is a ring legend now days. Foreman first retirement was never considered as a legendary fighter but a bafoon by many. It was the second career that Big George got the adjective of all time great heavyweight and pound per pound. Not the first career.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

a remarkable, long, career is brilliant reasoning for a top 10 spot.

[Ambling Alp II]

I guess we are supposed to give Jackson the edge over Foreman because he Jackson had more fights.
But Jeffries who won 19 fights in his entire career gets rated ahead of George as well.

Jeffries competition (old Fitz and old Corbett, Sharkey) are being compared to beating Frazier and Norton?
Sullivan was the best of his time pound for pound, period? huh? Maybe Sullivan should get penalized for drawing the color line?
Charles gets credit for going 0-2 against Marciano?

It's classic elmer. He uses different criteria for each fighter that he rates ahead of Foreman. No mention of any of their losses except for Liston. Downplays the win over Frazier because he likes Frazier. Got to love it.

[elmersalsa]

I guess we are supposed to give Jackson the edge over Foreman because he Jackson had more fights.
But Jeffries who won 19 fights in his entire career gets rated ahead of George as well.

Jeffries competition (old Fitz and old Corbett, Sharkey) are being compared to beating Frazier and Norton?
Sullivan was the best of his time pound for pound, period? huh? Maybe Sullivan should get penalized for drawing the color line?
Charles gets credit for going 0-2 against Marciano?

It's classic elmer. He uses different criteria for each fighter that he rates ahead of Foreman. No mention of any of their losses except for Liston. Downplays the win over Frazier because he likes Frazier. Got to love it.

When Big George retired the first time, he was an afterthought.

John L did at the time more for boxing than Big George. He was larger than life in those times. He made the sport popular. He was an era in boxing. Big George. WAS NEVER AN ERA. Big George had a short career. He had to comeback out of his Marshall, TX farm and redeem himself. I don't recall no boxing magazine of the late 70s and early 80s talking about Foreman. As a matter of fact, he was view as a coward, a pussycat and a recluse church going reverend when he retired. A buffon after losing to Jimmy Young. Nobody took him seriously after he claimed "He saw the light of the Lord" and angels from the sky crap. One of the biggest wastes of boxing heavyweights at the time. He was considered a great puncher. Not a great heavyweight.

Jim J. Jeffries held the crown longer, no matter the circumstances of the times. He could only fight in his era. And he did great at that time. Now? Jeffries, because time has passed by, is not even thought as someone great now. Plus, the whupping of the great Jack Johnson didn't help, either.

Sonny Liston didn't go away after the Clay fiascos. He kept fighting even though he was way past his prime. At the time he lost to Ali, he only had one loss. He already cleaned up the division. He beat the top contenders of his time. Really, he was the first truly great big heavyweight.

Peter Jackson was A VICTIM OF CIRCUMSTANCES. If different thinking and times, he probably would have been champion for a long time. But he had over 80 bouts. Something unheard of for a heavyweight. Now, Big George surpassed him because of the combinations of both careers. It's hard to offset what Foreman has done in his two careers. Very remarkable with that comeback winning the heavyweight crown after 20 years. Remarkable! Before 1980, Foreman was nowhere to be found.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

he had 80 bouts!!!!!!!!!!

[elmersalsa]

he had 80 bouts!!!!!!!!!!

[Ambling Alp II]

You do realize he is making fun of you, right?

Johnnie Risko had well over 100 fights. where should we rate him, 6th, 7th?

Doesn't matter if you think John L. was bigger than life. Was he as good as Foreman?
Doesn't matter if you think Liston was the first big heavyweight (btw There were several before him that were bigger.)
Yes Jackson was a victim of circumstances. He wasn't as good as Foreman.
Love how Charles gets credit for losing memorable matches to Marciano and Foreman gets penalized for losing a memorable match to Ali.



All of these guys were great. None were as good as Foreman.

[Jaywheel]

he had 80 bouts!!!!!!!!!!

Lets check his record.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

he had 80 bouts!!!!!!!!!!

Lets check his record.

After a double check, Elmer is right. He was black and had 80 bouts. I can't see anything else needed to place him in the all time top 10.

[Cygnus475]

vs Mike Tyson: By 1987, Tyson, just 21 years old, cleaned up the heavyweights. He won the three titles. Held crown longer than Big George. At the time, in 1987, he was being compared with Ali and Louis as such a young age. No heavyweight was not compared with the past greats like that. By 1988, many people believed at the time that he was not just the best heavyweight champion ever, but the best fighter pound per pound ever. The people AT THE TIME, THOUGHT OF HIM LIKE THAT. Big George never had that sentiment by the people. The boxing world was around Mike Tyson. It was never around George Foreman. Tyson was the second best fighter pound per pound of the 80s decade in my estimation. Foreman? Hmmm.

Actually, writers at the time thought foreman was going to demolish Ali and hold onto the title as long as he felt like it. They didnt think anyone was going to dethrone him.

[BoxBuzz]

vs Mike Tyson: By 1987, Tyson, just 21 years old, cleaned up the heavyweights. He won the three titles. Held crown longer than Big George. At the time, in 1987, he was being compared with Ali and Louis as such a young age. No heavyweight was not compared with the past greats like that. By 1988, many people believed at the time that he was not just the best heavyweight champion ever, but the best fighter pound per pound ever. The people AT THE TIME, THOUGHT OF HIM LIKE THAT. Big George never had that sentiment by the people. The boxing world was around Mike Tyson. It was never around George Foreman. Tyson was the second best fighter pound per pound of the 80s decade in my estimation. Foreman? Hmmm.

Actually, writers at the time thought foreman was going to demolish Ali and hold onto the title as long as he felt like it. They didnt think anyone was going to dethrone him.

Along the lines of a Rhonda Rousey.........

Gotta wonder if she's got a second act.....I'm bettin' she don't cuz Unlike George, she has the option of becoming a mom.

[HomicideHenry]

You do realize he is making fun of you, right?

Johnnie Risko had well over 100 fights. where should we rate him, 6th, 7th?

Doesn't matter if you think John L. was bigger than life. Was he as good as Foreman?
Doesn't matter if you think Liston was the first big heavyweight (btw There were several before him that were bigger.)
Yes Jackson was a victim of circumstances. He wasn't as good as Foreman.
Love how Charles gets credit for losing memorable matches to Marciano and Foreman gets penalized for losing a memorable match to Ali.



All of these guys were great. None were as good as Foreman.

I'm a huge John L. Sullivan fan, and can say you're right.

He was a legend in ever sense of the word, but the truth was he was in an era where its difficult to properly rank and asess fighters worths, and by and large his boxing contests were four rounds--- mostly cus nobody could last longer than that with him, and on the rare occasion they did they got $10,000 for doing so. That being said, Foreman is so far above Sully that there is no reason to make comparisons. It's not that John L. couldn't fight, he could. It's just apples and oranges really.

As for mentioning Liston.... I must add.... when I interviewed Chuck Wepner a few years back, I asked him about George and Sonny as he fought them both. He insisted that even though it was Liston's last fight as a professional, that Liston hit harder than Foreman did. I found that quite remarkable considering how many guys George blew away and all, but I'll take Chuck's word for it.

[Kalan]

I guess we are supposed to give Jackson the edge over Foreman because he Jackson had more fights.
But Jeffries who won 19 fights in his entire career gets rated ahead of George as well.

Jeffries competition (old Fitz and old Corbett, Sharkey) are being compared to beating Frazier and Norton?
Sullivan was the best of his time pound for pound, period? huh? Maybe Sullivan should get penalized for drawing the color line?
Charles gets credit for going 0-2 against Marciano?

It's classic elmer. He uses different criteria for each fighter that he rates ahead of Foreman. No mention of any of their losses except for Liston. Downplays the win over Frazier because he likes Frazier. Got to love it.

When Big George retired the first time, he was an afterthought.

John L did at the time more for boxing than Big George. He was larger than life in those times. He made the sport popular. He was an era in boxing. Big George. WAS NEVER AN ERA. Big George had a short career. He had to comeback out of his Marshall, TX farm and redeem himself. I don't recall no boxing magazine of the late 70s and early 80s talking about Foreman. As a matter of fact, he was view as a coward, a pussycat and a recluse church going reverend when he retired. A buffon after losing to Jimmy Young. Nobody took him seriously after he claimed "He saw the light of the Lord" and angels from the sky crap. One of the biggest wastes of boxing heavyweights at the time. He was considered a great puncher. Not a great heavyweight.

Jim J. Jeffries held the crown longer, no matter the circumstances of the times. He could only fight in his era. And he did great at that time. Now? Jeffries, because time has passed by, is not even thought as someone great now. Plus, the whupping of the great Jack Johnson didn't help, either.

Sonny Liston didn't go away after the Clay fiascos. He kept fighting even though he was way past his prime. At the time he lost to Ali, he only had one loss. He already cleaned up the division. He beat the top contenders of his time. Really, he was the first truly great big heavyweight.

Peter Jackson was A VICTIM OF CIRCUMSTANCES. If different thinking and times, he probably would have been champion for a long time. But he had over 80 bouts. Something unheard of for a heavyweight. Now, Big George surpassed him because of the combinations of both careers. It's hard to offset what Foreman has done in his two careers. Very remarkable with that comeback winning the heavyweight crown after 20 years. Remarkable! Before 1980, Foreman was nowhere to be found.

They don't rank Heavyweights for a long time after they retire. Now Boxrec feels Mayweather is the best ever and they rank many completely unknown fighters rank over Jeffries all-time. People have strange ideas about who should rank where. Foreman's miracle victory over Moorer came after failed title shots at Holyfield and Morrison. Moorer was trashing George but got careless. He got the right guy at the right time. Foreman ran and hid with the title and didn't fight any top guys. Foreman could never beat a good boxer, but he could murder anybody who led with their head like Norton or Frazier. A Foreman who could box would have been scary.

[Klee Gluckman]

Foreman won the title 20 years apart.

He gave Holyfield a great fight. His destruction of Frazier was cruel beauty.

Wins over Norton, Frazier x 2, Lyle, Moorer, great fight with Holyfield.

Very few would beat Foreman 1973 head to head.

I think he's top 10 head to head for sure.

[Tomasino]

Lets check his record.

After a double check, Elmer is right. He was black and had 80 bouts. I can't see anything else needed to place him in the all time top 10.

Surely nothing more is required?

[bwu]

"I don't recall no boxing writer in the 70s or 80s decade labeling Big George as an all-time great heavyweight after his first retirement. He was considered a big, and powerful puncher and strong boxer that lacked stamina and boxing skills. A brute kind of guy. Especially when he lost to The Greatest and Jimmy Young."

Yeah. I do recall boxing writers looking down on George during his first retirement for the reasons you mention. He was not held in high regard between 77 and his comeback.

"I remember a lot being made of his age when he made his comeback, that he was too old blah blah blah..."

Oh yeah. When George came back 38 was indeed considered OLD. I was friends with an acquaintance of Charles Hostetter, an early Foreman comeback opponent, and my friend was like, "Charlie ought to be ashamed himself for getting knocked out by that old man." Remember, Foreman-Cooney was billed as "Two Geezers At Caesars" when Cooney was all of 33.

Foreman's second career helped his ATG status tremendously.

Yeah, this is how it was for Foreman. There was a pretty sympathetic article about him in Sports Illustrated, maybe 1984, but the general view of him was pretty dim at the time.

Two title reigns, wins over all-time greats, a remarkable out of the ring story and one of the greatest comebacks in the history of sports. He deserves his high rating.

Can you imagine attaching comeback Foreman's head on first-run Foreman's body? All that boxing wisdom combined with that incredible physical presence would've been nearly unbeatable.

[Ezzard]

Foreman was woeful in the Ali fight. One dimensional. Very predictable. Limited.

He'd have been too much for many of the top HWs. But he'd also have been very vulnerable to others.

Sold himself a fairy-tale when he got out-boxed and out-fought for a second time. And left the sport.

Achieved a hell of a lot more than most.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Lets check his record.

After a double check, Elmer is right. He was black and had 80 bouts. I can't see anything else needed to place him in the all time top 10.

Surely nothing more is required?

Nope, great news for Shavers!

[Syntax Error]

Foreman was woeful in the Ali fight. One dimensional. Very predictable. Limited.

He'd have been too much for many of the top HWs. But he'd also have been very vulnerable to others.

Sold himself a fairy-tale when he got out-boxed and out-fought for a second time. And left the sport.

Achieved a hell of a lot more than most.

The ironic thing is that Muhammad Ali spents weeks before the Rumble In The Jungle telling the world that Foreman was one dimensional mummy, but nobody believed him.

[Cojimar 1946]

Some of these arguments for Foreman are difficult to understand. Foreman beat few top contenders and failed to clean out his era. Also the win over Norton is perhaps not as impressive as some are arguing given that Norton is unproven against punchers.

[Cojimar 1946]

For example there is no reasonable argument for rating Foreman ahead of Marciano. Marciano cleaned out his division and firmly established himself as the best of his era, something Foreman was unable to do.

[Joe Speck]

I don't recall no boxing writer in the 70s or 80s decade labeling Big George as an all-time great heavyweight after his first retirement. He was considered a big, and powerful puncher and strong boxer that lacked stamina and boxing skills. A brute kind of guy. Especially when he lost to The Greatest and Jimmy Young.

It was in his second career that boxing writers were giving him his props after losing to the great Evander Holyfield by decision in which he gave a spirited performance that he was starting to get his props as one of the best heavyweights ever. Then, when he regained the title, against champion Michael Moorer at age 45 where he got the title of ATG p4p and top 10 heavyweight ever.

What if he never had made a comeback? Would he still be considered a top 10 heavyweight of all time? I don't think he would have been seen then like how he's perceived today.

You may not be on drugs..but that outlook is a on drugs outlook. Just totally weird and twisted, 00:00

[dalcumly]

This is all about the big problem when rating heavyweights from different eras. If we were rating middleweights there isn't an issue because they're all below 11sts 6 lbs.
Do we compare a 5'10" slightly overweight John L Sullivan against a 6'5" 18sts Lennox Lewis. Common sense will tell us that Lewis would have smashed John L to pulp within half a round at most. But the average height of a man in the US in the late 19th century was around 5'7" so Sullivan was about 3.5 inches taller than average. When Lewis was fighting the average height of a man in the UK was about 5'9". So if we want to compare like with like we either bring Sullivan up to date and make him around 6' and half an inch and for example make him around 15.5 stones, or we take Lewis back to the 1880's and bring him down to around 6'2" or 6'3" and perhaps 16 sts.
It's just impossible I think to compare heavyweights.

[dalcumly]

I've just realised that my American friends seem to feel that Lennox Lewis fails to make to top 14 heavyweights of all time. Are you all joking? Using what criteria would you suggest that Lewis doesn't make this elite group. Ezzard Charles and Peter Jackson, give me a break !

[Controversial]

For example there is no reasonable argument for rating Foreman ahead of Marciano. Marciano cleaned out his division and firmly established himself as the best of his era, something Foreman was unable to do.

Marciano never came up against an Ali. Blown up Light Heavies, and guys who have seen far better days don't compare. Furthermore none of Marciano's title fights come anywhere near Foreman's destruction of Joe Frazier, not even the Walcott rematch.

Foreman came up against Ali and was knocked out. I think Marciano would have given Ali a hard fight.