George Foreman

It's a given that George Foreman gets a look in as a top-ten great.The reasons are pretty obvious and there seems to be consensus about how painful his punches were-his arms swung forward as if he was a threshing machine.Norman Mailer in his book, "The Fight", wondered "how many men would he be able to kill with his bare hands before he had to stop...hundreds, definitely".Which is why many feared for Ali's life in Zaire in'74.

Before "The Rumble" however, his resume was much weaker than, say, "Peak Tyson"s;winning the title in spectacular style against Joe Frazier most definitely,plus( second-tier all-time-great) Ken Norton and Jose Roman.
Less well- remembered is the Ron Lyle scrap, in 1975, which was a brawling classic, where George actually hit the canvas twice but came back up to nail Lyle.

George's second comeback is not really remembered for any classic fights.Gerry Cooney, never very good and coming off the back of a long period of inactivity.Foreman was easy to outbox if you wanted to stay well clear of him,and that's what generally happened.Although he never hit the deck ever again, he did not fight Bowe or Tyson,and was widely outscored by a retreating Holyfield. His victory against Moorer, whilst absolutely sensational, Big George was chomping at the bit to fight the guy who didn't really want to be in the ring in the first place.

So, the fact that George won the championship belt back 20 years after losing it to Ali, does that affect your reasoning for putting George up there? My feeling is that he is there, on good merit for sure, but for his FIRST career.All credit to him for learning new defensive skills, soaking up the shots to land his own ponderous blows,however, much as I rate Goerge I don't really see his latter career bringing much to the table when it comes to assessing his legacy. And my point is this- despite the murderous punches, should he not , like Lewis, be regarded in the LOWER end of the top ten?Cheers.

I don't know, andy. Sometimes I look at George's LAST fight, when he was narrowly outscored by Shannon Briggs at the age of 48, and reckon that his second adventure underlines why he belongs so high. See, Briggs would go on to give Lewis a bit of aggro before losing and was capable of picking up a strap ten years after just outlasting George.

Holyfield couldn't budge an utterly immobile Foreman, who didn't even deign to sit down between rounds in his early 40s. Can you imagine what Foreman in the mid-70s might have done to Commander Vander? Ditto Morrison. Hell, even people like Schulz, whom he controversially beat during the second coming, would be very handy contenders for a strap now. Let's also not forget that Moorer had beaten Holyfield to win the heavyweight crown, whatever his mental state prior to fighting George.

No, the first part of his career is rightly well documented and it warrants giving George a position in the lower reaches of the top 10 on its own for me. It's when you add that scarcely believable second act of his career into the mix that Foreman has to be elevated to top 5 material. Rather like Eder Jofre's miraculous featherweight comeback, we have to consider George's career in the round (very round, in the end).

Yes, the Briggs fight deserves a mention ,quite right.

Nice one, andy.

I'd have George in the top seven heavies of all time on ability alone.

It's pretty much a given that there are three fundamental styles in boxing, these being boxer, slugger and swarmer. George, for me, is out on his own as the greatest modern slugger of them all, ( Jeffries being the best of the old timers, ) courtesy of his devastating power, ability to cut the ring off, battering ram jab and aura of menace and ferocity.

I'd say that his ability trumps his record as champion, whether it be first or second incarnations, or both.

George should be higher windy on account that he became champion in 2 eras of heavyweight boxing.

HumanWindmill wrote:Nice one, andy.

I'd have George in the top seven heavies of all time on ability alone.

It's pretty much a given that there are three fundamental styles in boxing, these being boxer, slugger and swarmer. George, for me, is out on his own as the greatest modern slugger of them all, ( Jeffries being the best of the old timers, ) courtesy of his devastating power, ability to cut the ring off, battering ram jab and aura of menace and ferocity.

I'd say that his ability trumps his record as champion, whether it be first or second incarnations, or both.

Agreed windy. His ability alone stands him in good stead. But if he came back a 4th time would it be the fourth incarnation? Even more, would it be better than the 2nd and 3rd. Or it the fourth going to be cr@p and a spoiler?

As with most of my top ten outside the top two (Jeffries and Mace) George can go up and down the rankings on an almost daily basis, but he is always in there. As others have said his second coming definitely adds to the mix, but personally think it has become something of a fashion to dig at his first reign. Accept there are some relatively ordinary fighters in there but show me a heavy the same cannot be said of.

However what there also is are the blowouts of Frazier and Norton, both near peak and for me these stack up well against pretty much any results through heavyweight history, particularly Frazier. Easy to say with hindsight he was made for him stylistically etc but to blow out an undefeated champion with a reputation for toughness and to bounce him off the canvas six times is an awesome acheievement and should not be dismissed as readily as is often the case

Top 10 for me easily

Champ in 2 massively contrasting eras

Oldest HW Champ (If Tyson gets props for youngest he gets some for oldest)

Beat the likes of Frazier, Norton & Lyle

Lower end of the top 10, but a name i'd always include in there. Zero comparison between him and Tyson as the latter doesn't have one prime name let alone 3 that rank near the above 3 in terms of prime v prime victories etc

Agreed, jeff, but the problem for Foreman is that the first incarnation also featured a pretty sound loss against Young, which is the only reason that one could carp at his first career. George was still only 28 at that point, so no real excuses. The Lyle fight is one that shouldn't be totally glossed over, either. Ron could dig and George showed great courage in roaring back to win, but should he really have been so vulnerable to Lyle's punches?

To an extent, this is just devil's advocacy. As I say, George is top 5 for me (fifth, as it happens). While, you could always forgive George Kinshasa, however, since he was up against a supernatural force that night, I can't overlook the Young result entirely. If I could, George would rank third for me.

Fair point re Young Captain. I am the first on here to castigate those that would seek to airbrush Buster Douglas from Tyson's resume so only reasonable Young has to be put in the mix when assessing his first phase. Still feel Norton, Frazier and Lyle is a body of work in favourable comparison to most and would probably warrant a top ten berth even without his comeback exploits.

He had a habit of punching himself out in his 1st career. 9/10 he got rid of the guy so it rarely caught up with him but I often wonder what he would have been like with a more measured approach and if he would have beaten Ali had he just conserved his energy better. A rematch would have been very interesting. Most people say Ali wuld have won regardless but I think Foreman lost because he was basically punched out. I think it was against Chuvalo he said that if the ref hadnt stopped it when he did, he would not have had had the energy to go another 3 rounds and Chuvalo might have got to him.

He seems to have a better chin in his second career oddly and I have alwas thought that this is down to him not using up so much energy in ferocious attacks like he did in his first career.

Hes an easy top ten for me and I think he has a case for top 5.

Well I think most would agree that having Foreman in the top ten is a no-brainer. Tyson fan boys take note; if we were reduced to ranking Heavyweights purely on their "primes", then Foreman is clearly the greatest of them all. No other Heavyweight, in a title fight, has dealt with a possible top ten Heavyweight of all time as consumately as Foreman did with Frazier.

But to rate them like that doesn't make sense or hold water. Foreman's record does lack depth with means I'd have to have a bare minimum of Ali, Louis, Johnson and Holmes ahead of him every time. But rather than saying his second career doesn't really add much to his legacy, I'd go on the other hand and say that without it he'd have no claim to a top ten spot at all. As Coxy said, if we're going to laud Tyson for being the youngest champion, then we have to rave over Foreman managing such a feat in what is, historically speaking, a young man's game.

Not quite top five for me, though. My order does change now and then, and right now I'd have to say Foreman resides in joint sixth place along with Lewis. Ahead of him, Ali, Louis, Johnson, Holmes and Jeffries, in that order. The clincher is that none of those five were knocked out in their primes, at the peak of their powers. Foreman was. Yes, Johnson had his jaw slackened by Choynski and Louis was put to the sword first time around by Schmeling, but neither of them had yet entered their championship years and it's undeniable that, in 1903 and 1936 respectively, both Johnson and Louis were nowhere near the fighters they would be another four or five years down the line.

Misses out for me, but is certainly worthy of consideration for a top five spot and for me his 'second career' is a huge factor in that.

Windy, you are always too kind about my articles....interesting comment about how GF ranks highly on "Ability" alone. I was musing the other week on the thread " Does Jack Johnson deserve his standing?" ,that "Potential" was on my list of criteria..I wonder if these two are the same things.
Baltimora made a good point that(in that thread), you have to really nail down the person's achievements if they are to be "nailed-on" top ten'ers.
I have always been in awe of George Foreman, and was delighted when he beat Moorer. Not to take anyting away from his achievements at all, but really interested in how we come to rank him as we do.
I love George's honesty when he admits to being so close to gasing out against Chuvalo. I recall he also said that he was actually afraid of Joe Frazier-!-and that ,at the stare-out, he hoped to god that Joe didn't look down and see that his knees were trembling!
Anyhow, I've not read Chris' contribution...gourmet stuff gentlemen, thankyou

If Foreman had fought Holmes he would have lost. Where would his top 10 standiing be then. Apparently he did everything he could not to fight Holmes.

Can't really see when Larry and George might have met, apart from the 1975-77 period after Foreman lost his title. As the Mexico gold medallist, George was on a much faster track than Larry, who wasn't really a factor in anyone's considerations when George beat Frazier. Similarly, there was no call for George to defend his title against Larry.

Now, I think that George and Larry would have met if Foreman hadn't got religion and quit boxing after the Young fight. At that point, 1977, Holmes' career was just beginning to get into gear and the long, slow run at the title was becoming a sprint. Fighting Frazier a second time and Lyle were more marketable fights for Foreman than Holmes, who was only really known by boxing insiders in 1975-6. I'm far from convinced that Foreman actually ducked Holmes, and I'm bound to say that I couldn't be as dogmatic as azania that Larry would have beaten him if they had met. Larry was all over the place against Snipes and Shavers and George was a much harder puncher than Snipes and a far better finisher than Earnie. I can't help remembering the punishment that Holmes shipped against Norton and then imagining George dishing out those licks. Larry wouldn't have gone 5 with Foreman if he'd fought like that. Holmes improved with age and I have him one place above George overall, but a head to head in their primes would be a pick 'em fight for me.

He may have lost but seeing Shavers deck Holmes it gives me a good indication that he could have done the same and if he does no level of recuperative powers are going to save you from Foreman. Mentioned this before but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Foreman ran from Holmes, their career paths were going in very different directions and it's from Holmes himself that the rumours started.