BoxRec

Would George Foreman have been a top ten HW ATG without his second act?

I think his career as a whole makes him a cinch for top 10. Without the second act, many might have seen him as a fluke. So I voted no. Though my own opinion might have been contrary to that.

Absolutely, knocking out Frazier alone is greater than anything just about anyone else ever accomplished. Norton & Lyle with it? I'd probably have him at 7 or 8 instead of at 5.

great poll. i finally decided on "No", not because
of the oldest champ in history thing, but since he
showed something in his second coming, that was
desperately lacking: ring intelligence and with
that a much improved defense. i think the second
version would have been more of a problem for
ali. so i voted no.

BoxBuzz wrote:I think his career as a whole makes him a cinch for top 10. Without the second act, many might have seen him as a fluke. So I voted no. Though my own opinion might have been contrary to that.

Agreed to that

No.

Too one dimensional a fighter....it was a hell of a dimension...and he had the winning ticket in the 'styles make fights' lottery to come up against a great champ who was made to order for him...

I think he would have ended up in the same position that Liston was. Mind you, in the 1967 NCR computer tournament of the so-called greatest heavyweights of all time, Liston didnt make the cut. Yet Jess Willard did and some others who Liston may very well of destroyed. Why? Because of the stigma that he was nothing more than a bully, and when confronted he would crumble.

The same, I think, would of been held against George Foreman. Sure he blew away Frazier twice, and Norton and Lyle, but the majority of the men he defeated were essentially hand picked dead men. No, the comeback and the winning of the title almost 20 years to the day he lost it in Zaire made Foreman a top ten heavyweight.

HomicideHenry wrote:I think he would have ended up in the same position that Liston was. Mind you, in the 1967 NCR computer tournament of the so-called greatest heavyweights of all time, Liston didnt make the cut. Yet Jess Willard did and some others who Liston may very well of destroyed. Why? Because of the stigma that he was nothing more than a bully, and when confronted he would crumble.

The same, I think, would of been held against George Foreman. Sure he blew away Frazier twice, and Norton and Lyle, but the majority of the men he defeated were essentially hand picked dead men. No, the comeback and the winning of the title almost 20 years to the day he lost it in Zaire made Foreman a top ten heavyweight.

A singularly historic achievement. Did you know he wore the same trunks?

He'd probably be just outside the top 10 for me (along with Lennox, Tyson, Walcott etc.)

BarryWashington wrote:Demps

Tyson & Lennox have to be Top 10

I see very little basis for Tyson in the top 10. It certainly isn't criminal to have him at 9 or 10.

Lennox is more proven, but again it doesn't have to be. I have Lennox at 7 or 8, Mike 14 or 15.

Yes, destroying unbeaten Frazier and Ali-conqueror Norton should be enough for 10th spot

A lot of heavies would have beaten the robot version that faced Ali. Thought out his comeback I would say on ability he was never one of the top five heavies of any given year. I would say no.

polecateddy wrote:A lot of heavies would have beaten the robot version that faced Ali. Thought out his comeback I would say on ability he was never one of the top five heavies of any given year. I would say no.

The robot version that faced Ali had just turned Joe Frazier and Ken Norton into rubble. Ali had a brilliant tactical plan and was clever , strong, and fast enough to execute it. Saying a lot of heavies could execute it is like saying a lot of generals could have encircled the North Koreans at Inchon.

polecateddy wrote:A lot of heavies would have beaten the robot version that faced Ali. Thought out his comeback I would say on ability he was never one of the top five heavies of any given year. I would say no.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

BarryWashington wrote:Demps

Tyson & Lennox have to be Top 10

I see very little basis for Tyson in the top 10. It certainly isn't criminal to have him at 9 or 10.

Lennox is more proven, but again it doesn't have to be. I have Lennox at 7 or 8, Mike 14 or 15.

Lewis's inability to decisively beat a past-it Evander in their rematch is a big negative for me. If he'd gotten the Bowe fight and won or beaten Tyson in 96 instead of 02, he'd rise up. But he never beat an ATG in his prime, and his overall level of comp is too (historically) weak to be with the top 10ers. I think many look back more fondly on the calibre of Heavyweights of the 90s now than is merited because the 2000s have been so atrocious.

Old Evander was still formidable. Guys like Dempsey, Marciano & Liston never beat an ATG in their prime either.

I dare say vitali was possibly an ATG in his prime when Lewis beat him or at least closer to being prime than Lewis was.

polecateddy wrote:A lot of heavies would have beaten the robot version that faced Ali. Thought out his comeback I would say on ability he was never one of the top five heavies of any given year. I would say no.

Hilarious!

dempseyfire wrote:... he never beat an ATG in his prime ...

did joe louis or for that matter jack dempsey?

Louis did, Dempsey didn't.

Il Duce wrote:

ThatOne wrote:Would George Foreman have been a top ten HW ATG without his second act?

No,

I think the 'loss' to Muhammad Ali hurts Big George 'Part 1' big time.

He should have mopped the floor with Muhammad Ali, who just let George punch himself
out.

Losing to Muhammad Ali, a guy who just went 12-Rounds with Rudi Lubbers is 'pathetic'.

"It... is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,Signifying nothing."

dempseyfire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

BarryWashington wrote:Demps

Tyson & Lennox have to be Top 10

I see very little basis for Tyson in the top 10. It certainly isn't criminal to have him at 9 or 10.

Lennox is more proven, but again it doesn't have to be. I have Lennox at 7 or 8, Mike 14 or 15.

Lewis's inability to decisively beat a past-it Evander in their rematch is a big negative for me. If he'd gotten the Bowe fight and won or beaten Tyson in 96 instead of 02, he'd rise up. But he never beat an ATG in his prime, and his overall level of comp is too (historically) weak to be with the top 10ers. I think many look back more fondly on the calibre of Heavyweights of the 90s now than is merited because the 2000s have been so atrocious.

I agree with you. Lennox Lewis was nothing to be awed about.

He certainly belongs in the Top 10 without the comeback. Should be no question about it.

14 is a good spot for Dempsey.

Tomasino wrote:

polecateddy wrote:A lot of heavies would have beaten the robot version that faced Ali. Thought out his comeback I would say on ability he was never one of the top five heavies of any given year. I would say no.

Hilarious!

You're just buying into a myth. Watch the fight. Foreman looks terrible!