BoxRec

What would have been the great George Foreman's legacy in boxing if he never would have step to a ring again after his first retirement in 1977?

Would he be considered an all-time heavyweight great or an overrated hw with a big punch that stopped the great Joe Frazier?

I got him rated in the top 50 all-time fighters pound per pound because of what he did in his comeback. What if he never did that? Will he be an all-time great pound per pound?

I would like to see your comments. In his first career, he fought some good and great heavyweights. In his second career, he almost did the same thing and recaptured the hw crown. He missed to fight the great Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis out of the great hw bunch.

I rate foreman very highly for his prime career. Even if he never came back he would still be a great IMO elmer. He was gifted a couple of decisions in his comeback although his KO of Moorer was stunning. Head to head he could have beat anyone on his night.

When I started watching and obsessing about boxing in the early 80s most of the writers didn't think much to George beyond his amazing punch power. Few had him in the top ten. In fact i can't remember anyone having him in the top ten.

I remember after Holmes beat Bey there was an article on Holmes versus all the greats. Frazier and Foreman were not included on that list. Seems odd now. People wrote in complaining that Frazier was not on the list, nobody wrote in about Foreman.

Ezzard wrote:When I started watching and obsessing about boxing in the early 80s most of the writers didn't think much to George beyond his amazing punch power. Few had him in the top ten. In fact i can't remember anyone having him in the top ten.

I remember after Holmes beat Bey there was an article on Holmes versus all the greats. Frazier and Foreman were not included on that list. Seems odd now. People wrote in complaining that Frazier was not on the list, nobody wrote in about Foreman.

Not much was thought of George after his losses against Ali and Young, and without his second career most now would have him rated with the second tier of past HWs like Sharkey, Schmeling, Patterson, etc. Any objective assessment of his second career really shouldn't have had any effect on that, but George put a great deal of effort into re-inventing his public image which probably has more to do with how people rate him now than his actual abilities.

The Great John L wrote:

Ezzard wrote:When I started watching and obsessing about boxing in the early 80s most of the writers didn't think much to George beyond his amazing punch power. Few had him in the top ten. In fact i can't remember anyone having him in the top ten.

I remember after Holmes beat Bey there was an article on Holmes versus all the greats. Frazier and Foreman were not included on that list. Seems odd now. People wrote in complaining that Frazier was not on the list, nobody wrote in about Foreman.

Not much was thought of George after his losses against Ali and Young, and without his second career most now would have him rated with the second tier of past HWs like Sharkey, Schmeling, Patterson, etc. Any objective assessment of his second career really shouldn't have had any effect on that, but George put a great deal of effort into re-inventing his public image which probably has more to do with how people rate him now than his actual abilities.

In his second career he showed great punch resistance and a really good jab. Before, he almost neglected his jab and was dropped by guys like Ali and Youngt who weren't considered huge punchers.

But the problem is he's almost 2 separate fighters. In terms of what he achieved...that punch against Moorer makes a massive difference to his standing. And so it should.

Foreman would blow away many of the greats but he was also very beatable...

He would of been tossed into the proverbial trash can because of the Ali mystique, just like Liston was.

I tend to agree with ezzards viewpoint.

He really was two very different beasts.

The first one the intimidating,seemingly unbeatable for a while pulverising puncher, free swinging, yet exposed as lacking stamina and susceptible to movers/clever boxers in his two defeats of the time.

His second career he showed one of the greatest chins in HW history, a unorthodox and highly effective defence, tremendous punch power if not that of the first incarnation. But he was slower by hand and foot and it showed in his losses to Holy and Morrison and his punches didnt carry quite the same dig even if he was still a incredible puncher capable of unbeleivable combinations.

I always consider the first versions losses to have had some extenuating circumstances. A rematch with Ali in the states circa 1976/77 would have been great to see and a Young rematch had it taken place in America in cooler climes may have been different. Bottom line....I have the 1st George right up there in my top 6 HWs of all time.....the second one more illustrated how great the first one was or could have been if he had carried on fighting circa 1977-83 and evolved......

If Foreman had been the one to dethrone the last vestiges of Ali in 77 instead of Spinks in 78....that Foreman had he matured quickly and taken on the defensive skills of his second career , with the stamina and chin improvements to the level of his second career..... would have wiped out Holmes, Shavers, Norton (again) , Cooney , Dokes and Witherspoon and the rest and gone down as one of the top 3 HWs of all time.

Too bad he wasnt quite young enough to meet Tyson in late 86 having been champ all those years!!

He had the same chin in the second career; he just fought a much easier group. Have a look at his list of opponents. Ron Lyle would have stopped old George in the 1st round. Holyfield was an ATG, but not an ATG puncher. Morrison could crack, but wisely fought a defensive fight and never really sat down on his punches. I do agree with the earlier poster that George did learn how to use his excellent jab in his second career, but besides that there really wasn’t anything else better about him. He was even slower and easier to hit, and his power had diminished. Well, he did manage his career better. You didn’t see him fighting anyone who could move and jab real well, unless it was a title fight.

Ezzard wrote:When I started watching and obsessing about boxing in the early 80s most of the writers didn't think much to George beyond his amazing punch power. Few had him in the top ten. In fact i can't remember anyone having him in the top ten.

I remember after Holmes beat Bey there was an article on Holmes versus all the greats. Frazier and Foreman were not included on that list. Seems odd now. People wrote in complaining that Frazier was not on the list, nobody wrote in about Foreman.

This pretty much sums it up, I remember Foreman being described in the 80's as coming into boxing like a Lion and leaving like a Lamb. Between 11 and 20 without the comback IMO.

The Great John L wrote:

Ezzard wrote:When I started watching and obsessing about boxing in the early 80s most of the writers didn't think much to George beyond his amazing punch power. Few had him in the top ten. In fact i can't remember anyone having him in the top ten.

I remember after Holmes beat Bey there was an article on Holmes versus all the greats. Frazier and Foreman were not included on that list. Seems odd now. People wrote in complaining that Frazier was not on the list, nobody wrote in about Foreman.

Not much was thought of George after his losses against Ali and Young, and without his second career most now would have him rated with the second tier of past HWs like Sharkey, Schmeling, Patterson, etc. Any objective assessment of his second career really shouldn't have had any effect on that, but George put a great deal of effort into re-inventing his public image which probably has more to do with how people rate him now than his actual abilities.

Agree with this.

He was an obvious great before the comeback, winning the belt again in his 40's moved him up a couple spots but he would be in my top 10 anyway.

The Great John L wrote:He had the same chin in the second career; he just fought a much easier group. Have a look at his list of opponents. Ron Lyle would have stopped old George in the 1st round. Holyfield was an ATG, but not an ATG puncher. Morrison could crack, but wisely fought a defensive fight and never really sat down on his punches. I do agree with the earlier poster that George did learn how to use his excellent jab in his second career, but besides that there really wasn’t anything else better about him. He was even slower and easier to hit, and his power had diminished. Well, he did manage his career better. You didn’t see him fighting anyone who could move and jab real well, unless it was a title fight.

He was a lot fatter... Harder to knock over... Lower centre of gravity...

But he still landed that one punch. Other than that most of what we have is well, if he'd have used that jab in the 70s... A bit like a reverse Tyson argument...if he'd have kept that head movement in the 90s...

Both could have been the best; neither of them were close.

He fought the way he did in the 1990s because he had to. He didn't have the same power and he simply could not throw nearly as many power shots. He had to fight at a much slower pace. He fought the way he did in the 1970s because he had the physical ability to do it. If he had fought the slow pace that he fought in the 1990s in the 1970s he would not had been nearly as good. Throwing more jabs and looking for one big shot each round would have limited him.

As for the original question, I don't really rate him higher for what he did in the 1990s. It was a great achievement, but he obviously was not anywhere near what he once been. It would sort of like rating Jimmy Connors highly because he reached the US Open Semifinals at 39 when he was way past it. A great achievement, but not a huge factor when rating him as a player. However, I do agree that it has to count for something.

I mainly rate Foreman highly for what he did in the 1970s. However, he was more likeable in the 1990s which probably helps him rate higher for the casual fan who didn't remember him during his prime, or forgot how good he once was.

The fact that a select cabal of the magazines of the time (early 80s) didnt rate Foreman in the top ten HW listings of all times, really pretty much sums up the pettiness and lack of impartiality of those journalists of the times (ahem, Ryan/Farhood etc etc)....These kind of men Dempsey,Liston,Foreman, Tyson it seems were rated to the skies by people during their intimidating peaks but as soon as they were exposed......they were suddenly persona non grata........I cant see how anyone with impartiality can have Foreman Mk1 on his own merits outside the top 12 HWs of all time.

Likeable should not have anything to do with it, in the hearts and minds of the informed boxing observer....... and the fact Foreman and Frazier did not merit consideration for a poll in the early 80s of the top ten greatest HWs suggests the panel was not made up of totally informed observers.

Go to the average youtube discussion and Tyson is one of the two best HWs of all time and the hot debate is if Tyson would have beaten Ali. Tyson is Liked hugely by the 20 30 something crowds but in all seriousness Tyson cant be considered a top 5 HW.

mugabi wrote:The fact that a select cabal of the magazines of the time (early 80s) didnt rate Foreman in the top ten HW listings of all times, really pretty much sums up the pettiness and lack of impartiality of those journalists of the times (ahem, Ryan/Farhood etc etc)....These kind of men Dempsey,Liston,Foreman, Tyson it seems were rated to the skies by people during their intimidating peaks but as soon as they were exposed......they were suddenly persona non grata........I cant see how anyone with impartiality can have Foreman Mk1 on his own merits outside the top 12 HWs of all time.

Likeable should not have anything to do with it, in the hearts and minds of the informed boxing observer....... and the fact Foreman and Frazier did not merit consideration for a poll in the early 80s of the top ten greatest HWs suggests the panel was not made up of totally informed observers.

Go to the average youtube discussion and Tyson is one of the two best HWs of all time and the hot debate is if Tyson would have beaten Ali. Tyson is Liked hugely by the 20 30 something crowds but in all seriousness Tyson cant be considered a top 5 HW.

Good post

problem with foreman in his ATG status is very simple:
he is so inconsistent. walking through prime frazier and
foreman as through thin air, punching himself out like
an amateur against ali, struggling all over the place with
contender lyle ... that is IMO really controversial for a
prime ATG.

his second career showed what he lacked in the first:
ring smarts and defense. with these qualities his first
career without any doubt would have been top top notch.

but it wasn't. so he will be left with a controversial career.
and let us not forget that while his second career was
impressive - the opposition was less so.

in a tournament of the best 20 heavies of all time he sure
has a ticket. how would he rank? around ten fighting at the
age 24 and as well around ten at age 45. for different
reasons though.

Hi man…

I can’t see 45 year o0ld George in the top 50. Young George, it’s up to the person compiling the list. Just my take…

He is certainly in the top 10 when he was in his prime. He gets ripped for the Lyle fight, but the bottom line is that he knocked out a very good fighter. He almost lost, but showed a lot of heart in coming back. Dempsey doesn't get ripped very much for almost losing to Firpo (a much worse fighter than Lyle.) Foreman was also coming off a little bit of a layoff as well. He fought the Ali fight like he always did but that time it was not good enough. Would have been against almost anyone else.

The Foreman of the 1990s did great for a man of his age; but if you don't consider his age he wasn't that impressive. He had several fights in his comeback where he didn't look good. Morrison, Stewart, Schulz etc. Maybe you could put him in the top 50, but nowhere near the top 10.

Ezzard wrote:Hi man…

I can’t see 45 year o0ld George in the top 50. Young George, it’s up to the person compiling the list. Just my take…

point taken. carried away while writing. top ten at
45 is too ambitious. though i think the old foreman
was really not easy to beat by (corr: hardly) anyone.

Ambling Alp wrote:Morrison, Stewart, Schulz etc. Maybe you could put him in the top 50, but nowhere near the top 10.

true. but they way he handled cooney and
moorer ... whatever ... you are plain right.

the trouble i have with foreman is this:

frazier
norton

ali
lyle
young

cooney
moorer
schulz

the only really consistent picture i have in my mind
about foreman is that his only achievement as a
tv commentator was to detect whether a guy had
warmed up or not.

Ambling Alp wrote: The Foreman of the 1990s did great for a man of his age; but if you don't consider his age he wasn't that impressive.

Agree with this.

I was mesmerised by Foreman's comeback in the late 80s. He did the best he could with Holyfield in 91. I feel he would have done better with Bowe,Ruddock or Lewis circa 91-95....Holyfield set that moving in and out template that Morrison and Shulz used to such effect.

The Morrison loss undermines more than any other loss the whole Foreman mk 2 project. But I do feel by 93 the wind had left the sails of the comeback 1990-1992 was when old man Foreman was really cooking. I dont think Axel Schulz deserved the win it was a draw imho, I felt Briggs was beaten.....Stewart , he did floor him twice, and on most nights i think George would have finished him....

But because of the losses, its hard to rate Foreman MK2 in the top 50 HWs of all time.

It's not possible if you discount Young George.

Nobody wanted George to come back. I was pleased he was carefully matched. I didn’t want to see him get bashed up. The KO shot of Moorer was possibly the my most celebrated moment in sports. I danced around the apartment…

But I don’t see him as a top 10 HW without that punch on Moorer. I don’t think his first career is as impressive as Ezzard Charles or Jersey Joe…or maybe on a par…at best… His victories were dramatic and devastating but there are less of them.