BoxRec

man wrote: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.

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:On the downside, George never had a decent run of successful defences.....

but then again he HAS to be ranked above Joe Frazier beceause he smoked him twice.... and Joe was not old when he did it. Ken Norton is arguable a top 20 all time HW, and George made short work of a prime Norton too.
On that basis (and given he is the oldest and hardest hitting HW ever) I would place George in my top 10... but at the lower end, say 8 or 9.

man wrote: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.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote: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).

lucaselrey wrote:I would have him somewhere in the top 30 but no where near the top ten. Maybe 20.

Ezzard wrote:Honest question here...

Why should Foreman be ranked above someone like say Langford?

funso banjo baby wrote:i dont see why you get more points for age.

also longevity is measured by actual years fighting.....i wouldnt include the massive gap in activity.

also measurements are taken by how many defences

george rates average on most of these

awesome Ko's

but i wouldnt have him in the top ten...just under.