BoxRec

A heavyweight that always seems to be highly rated by most yet his career isn't really filled with great wins. He often fought smaller guys and prior to his title shot never beat any big names, in fact many had awful records. He only made two defences of the title and one of them was over a poor Jose Roman who weighed only 196lbs. Sure he had two big names in Frazier and Norton but it can be argued that Frazier was on the decline and Norton always struggled with punchers. Lyle dropped him and came close to beating him, he was knocked out by Ali and dropped and outpointed by the feather fisted Young.

Not many who need to be better ranked.

Old George regaining the title also romanticizes his career and make him gain a couple of spots in many peoples list, whether they admit it or not.

Is there any other fighter who has come back from a 10 year hiatus to accomplish what he accomplished? I can't recall another one, but I'd genuinely like to know if I'm wrong.

golden oldie wrote:

Controversial wrote:A heavyweight that always seems to be highly rated yet his career isn't really filled with great wins. He often fought smaller guys and prior to his title shot never beat any big names, in fact many had awful records. He only made two defences of the title and one of them was over a poor Jose Roman who weighed only 196lbs. Sure he had two big names in Frazier and Norton but it can be argued that Frazier was on the decline and Norton always struggled with punchers. Lyle dropped him and came close to beating him, he was knocked out by Ali and dropped and outpointed by the feather fisted Young.

I would hazard that the reason he is highly rated is because in his younger days he was considered something of a monster. He ploughed through his opponents with only 3 of the 37 guys prior to Frazier hearing the final bell. And lets not forget, Ali beating him was considered something of a miracle at the time. People genuinely feared for Ali's health going into that fight.

People can talk all they like about quality of opponents because everyone has got 20 / 20 vision in hindsight, but the fact is Foreman gave the impression that no matter who he hit, they capitulated, through sheer brute force. His punches weren't snappy, or even pretty to look at, he just clubbed guys to the canvas. Even the previous so called " monster " Sonny Liston didn't destroy guys the way George did.

That's my guess anyway.

Yes but he gets zero criticism. Over half of his opponents were under 200lbs, his 29th and 33rd opponents had one win each and most of the others had awful records too. He really had an easy route to his title shot, pretty much the same story the second time around. In fact I can't recall anyone pulling apart Foreman's record on here, Tyson, Holmes, Dempsey, Liston, Klitschko, Lewis and Ali yes but never Foreman. He was only 28 when he retired as well.

I wouldn't want the size of his opponents to mar his rep. He can't help if he was born a big galoot.

1. Arguably the most powerful puncher of all time, look how he moves even big guys around with a variety of punches.
2. Remarkably impressive KO record
3. Much feared/respect by his peers
4. His Rise, Fall, Hiatus 2nd Rise, and ongoing tenacity

That ability to pull himself together after becoming unglued, is pretty inspirational in my book.

His decision to chug twice "through the ranks" speaks of an intelligence unrivaled in the boxing world. He defends his decision in a vey sensible fashion, as to just what he gained by that decision. Upon his return, he considered himself a novice once again and was patient and "re tooled" his skills. He then competed quite well with Holyfield as a result. He was once again competing at the top.

Compare that to some other choices by returning pugilists. It may stand alone in it's humble, and thoughtful nature. And success I might add.

The heavyweight category has a very interesting history, but is also overrated. There are really not many fighters that can be ranged before him. He had two big careers. For me he is nr. 5.

BoxBuzz wrote:I wouldn't want the size of his opponents to mar his rep. He can't help if he was born a big galoot.

1. Arguably the most powerful puncher of all time, look how he moves even big guys around with a variety of punches.
2. Remarkably impressive KO record
3. Much feared/respect by his peers
4. His Rise, Fall, Hiatus 2nd Rise, and ongoing tenacity

That ability to pull himself together after becoming unglued, is pretty inspirational in my book.

His decision to chug twice "through the ranks" speaks of an intelligence unrivaled in the boxing world. He defends his decision in a vey sensible fashion, as to just what he gained by that decision. Upon his return, he considered himself a novice once again and was patient and "re tooled" his skills. He then competed quite well with Holyfield as a result. He was once again competing at the top.

Compare that to some other choices by returning pugilists. It may stand alone in it's humble, and thoughtful nature. And success I might add.

Impressive KO record indeed but he didn't KO many world class opponents. Plus he only made 2 defences of the title and never avenged a defeat or rematched his conqurerers. How would you rate him if his second career never happened and he stayed retired at 28?

Rethinking Foreman Mark 2 is certainly not an act of boxing sacrilege....I never saw him in his prime so don't want to pass judgement on something I did not see or really know about....but I do remain somewhat ambivalent-questioning about the second coming of Big George.

A good deal of it seemed to be clever marketing/matchmaking until he got to meet a daft, maddeningly erratic Moorer.

Morrison - who was sadly and so often prone to blowing all his big fights - beat him handily and as a couple of other recent threads on this board have suggested he almost certainly lost to Axel Schulz (a draw at the very least) and Axel really was not the second coming of Johansson.

That massive win against Moorer and at the advanced age surely deserves respect - Foreman had all those miles on the clock - but Moorer was also a vulnerable champion who went AWOL at the wrong time.

I really need to watch some prime Foreman when he was knocking over Frazier, Norton and Lyle early and hard.

When rating him, ignore his second career.
His first career he had two losses. One was to Ali, the greatest heavyweight ever. The other was to Young. Anyone who saw Young around is time knows how good he was.

He beat Joe Frazier in his prime. In two rounds. Is there any other heavyweight who crushed anyone close to Frazier ? No.

Foreman crushed Norton in two rounds. People like to say Norton didn't have a good chin, which is nonsense. The Shavers and Cooney fights were when he was past it. This is a huge win for Foreman. It's more impressive than almost any other heavyweight's best win.

Yes he almost got knocked out by Lyle. The key word being almost. The bottom line is it is a KO5 over a very good heavyweight.

Ali and Louis are 1-2, Foreman has as good of a case as to being #3 as anyone else.

Bodyshot3 wrote:Rethinking Foreman Mark 2 is certainly not an act of boxing sacrilege....I never saw him in his prime so don't want to pass judgement on something I did not see or really know about....but I do remain somewhat ambivalent-questioning about the second coming of Big George.

A good deal of it seemed to be clever marketing/matchmaking until he got to meet a daft, maddeningly erratic Moorer.

Morrison - who was sadly and so often prone to blowing all his big fights - beat him handily and as a couple of other recent threads on this board have suggested he almost certainly lost to Axel Schulz (a draw at the very least) and Axel really was not the second coming of Johansson.

That massive win against Moorer and at the advanced age surely deserves respect - Foreman had all those miles on the clock - but Moorer was also a vulnerable champion who went AWOL at the wrong time.

I really need to watch some prime Foreman when he was knocking over Frazier, Norton and Lyle early and hard.

Foreman vs Lyle is awesome as f*ck!!!! One of the all time great Heavyweight slugfests

golden oldie wrote:

Controversial wrote:
Impressive KO record indeed but he didn't KO many world class opponents. Plus he only made 2 defences of the title and never avenged a defeat or rematched his conqurerers. How would you rate him if his second career never happened and he stayed retired at 28?

Hang on a minute. Who decides who is world class and when? You want to throw in say Larry Holmes? He wasn't considered world class in Foreman's first reign. When George lost to Ali, Larry was still fighting 8 rounders. The guys Foreman beat prior to Ali were considered the best available at that time. Anyone can look back and say they don't compare to Holmes, Tyson, Holy, Lewis, K2 bros, blah, blah, blah. They did then.

Before he fought Frazier he didn't beat any real big names. The only two who were top 10 ranked when Foreman beat them were Peralta (PTS win) and Chuvalo (TKO3). His opponents upto his title shot were quite poor, I don't think anyone can really dispute that. Also Jose Roman (5'10" and 196lbs) was a very poor title challenger and stood zero chance of winning.

before he became champion in 1973,Foreman wanted to fight Roy "Tiger"Williams.(who bailed out at the last minute)
Foreman wanted to fight Joe Bugner as a title defense before he agreed to fight Ali.(Bugner wasnt up to it even for a world title)
Foreman also wanted a fight with Jerry Quarry that never happened either.
also before he turned pro Dick Sadler wanted Foreman to do an exhibition bout with Earnie Shavers
but Shavers turned it down because Sadler asked Shavers 'to let Foreman win" supposedly.
(this was over the phone according to Earnie Shavers)

Caractus, I think it's pretty much a matter of record that George clearly did not want to fight Quarry.

He's said a few times in a few different interviews. Where did you get that reverse info? Maybe his handlers wanted the fight?

But not George....and there's not many on that list, but Jerry is clearly on it.

Not that he didn't think he could win, just too much risk for no compelling reason probably. He may have thought there was a style conflict as well.

When I first started to become an obsessive fan of the sport Foreman was never in a top 10. His comeback was carefully managed...and despite a brave effort versus Holyfield and one punch against Moorer it wasn't anything special.

I like Foreman...exciting fighter with limitations... But I don't see him as a top 10 HW.

Very difficult to have them 10 in front of it.
A lot of criticism makes sense but again competition such that he is certainly in the top 10 and probably much better.

As far as criticism has to Marciano, Johnson, Dempsey and the same is much more realistic.

The nature of his wins and his overall record are impressive.

Looking more deeply at that record there are indeed some duds but there are also some remarkable wins.
Beating Frazier twice and Norton are impressive enough but the way he did it is remarkable.
If George Foreman was fighting now and someone came on here and said "I think he stops a 73 Frazier early, all day every day" i'd say impossible, I wouldn't believe anyone could demolish Frazier the way George did.

His longevity and second career certainly add to his profile, winning a second title how he did adds hugely to how I rate him overall, I remember it at the time and thought it was a remarkable achievement.
Carefully managed? Maybe but he still did it, at 45.

On top of all that, I think a certain defeat has to actually add to his record. Yes he lost to Ali.
But when you consider the lengths the Greatest had to go to to get that win. A lengthy propaganda campaign, taking him to the Congo and turning a nation against him, the unprecedented method of devising a tactic that involved allowing George to pummel him for half a fight in the African heat before starting to fight.
Nobody believed Ali could beat him and it's possible that without all of the above he might not have.
Just like Frazier in Manilla, his ranking improves as a result of a loss to the best heavywieght of all time

George was a monster, he was feared and aside from the devastating power he wasn't a bad fighter either and deserves to be highly ranked as a result.
There are legitimate criticisms or his record but his achievements are among the best in the sport and he still holds certain records, he is an all time great!

One reason I rate George so high is because he was the most destructive monster of a Heavyweight Champion I ever seen Frazier/Norton would attest to that another reason he regained the Heavyweight Title 20 year's after losing it no Heavyweight will ever do that probably no fighter at any weight will do that Big George would bomb out any Heavyweight in history that traded with him in a shoot out that's afew reason why I rate him so highly.

George I appeared clumsy and over reliant on his power. With shortcomings in stamina. And clear psychological issues.

George II showcased his jab. A stouter chin than most thought. And a tactical nous we hadn't seen before.

I get why people might have him in their top 5. I get why others don't have him in their top 10.

"It's Target Practice for George Foreman."

Ali shocked the world in 1964 against Sonny Liston, but Foreman also shocked the world in 1973 against Joe Frazier.

Frazier-Ali 1 was considered The (FOTC) Fight of the Century at the time, and then Foreman comes around less than 2 years later and bounces the winner of the (FOTC) off the canvas 6 times in 5 minutes and literally lifts Joe into the air with an uppercut.

He then destroys Norton in the same amount of time after Norton fought Ali pretty close to even after 24 rounds. That stuff may have something to do with him being highly rated.

Exactly. The Frazier fight alone has to count for an awful lot.

To answer some criticisms- His pre-title competition. Certainly some tomato cans. However Peralta was a good fighter. Foreman didn't seem to have stamina fighters against him. He also beat Boone Kirkman who was a good fighter. Jack O'Halloran wasn't bad either. Compare that to other champions. A lot of them didn't do much more before winning the title.

-Only two successful title defenses. Come on. The third was against Ali. He won the title from Joe Frazier, not some paper champion.

The fact that Foreman got to the top of the pile during the two most celebrated eras of HW boxing; the second time when he was 45 & slower than an arthritic snail should give him more than enough ATG kudos points.

George Foreman was a monster puncher. A jab which could have taken your head off and big sweeping swipes which could knock down a horse. Also totally fearless, and learned his stuff, I believe, alongside Sonny Liston.
Would have been at least a top 5 fighter in ANY era. His defeat from Ali was down simply to exhaustion, he'd punched himself to a standstill on Ali's arms, and sadly the back of his head.
A don't recall Ali ever wanting a rematch incidentally. Ali fought Frazier 3 times, Norton 3 times (I think),but no thought of a return bout with Foreman.I wonder why?

[quote="dalcumly"]George Foreman was a monster puncher. A jab which could have taken your head off and big sweeping swipes which could knock down a horse. Also totally fearless, and learned his stuff, I believe, alongside Sonny Liston.
Would have been at least a top 5 fighter in ANY era. His defeat from Ali was down simply to exhaustion, he'd punched himself to a standstill on Ali's arms, and sadly the back of his head.
A don't recall Ali ever wanting a rematch incidentally. Ali fought Frazier 3 times, Norton 3 times (I think),but no thought of a return bout with Foreman.I wonder why?[/quote]

Apart from a farcical exhibition in Canada, Big George disappeared in 1975 & when he returned in '76, he didn't look that great.

Yes, he beat Frazier again in '76, but Joe was more washed up than Riddick Bowe's favourite knife, fork & plate.

Jimmy Young finally exposed Foreman again in '77, then he retired seeing Angels for a decade.

If he wanted a rematch with Ali, he should have got back out there in '75.

Controversial wrote:WHY IS GEORGE FOREMAN SO HIGHLY RATED?

To answer the original question, I think it is a combination of factors.

Firstly, when you take into account that he had practically 2 separate careers & was fairly successful with both of them, achieving World Heavyweight titles each time.

Secondly, regardless of people's opinions of him he did carry an aura of invincibility about him & he destroyed his way through the Heavyweight division the 1st time around. The man was just a big powerful monster.

Thirdly, if you are judging it on a head-to-head basis, I don't think that many Heavyweights worthy of note can live with him in the ring. He easily overpowered men & would do so with a few of the great Heavies of the past.

So all in all - i think it is an accumulative effect of all of the above.
George definitely deserves his place in the top 10.