Is George Foreman an over achever?

[ripcity]

I think he might be. He is one of the best punchers in the history of the sport but beyond that he has some of the most crude skills I have ever seen. However he has wins over some very good heavyweights. Joe Frazier twice tko2/tko5, Ken Norton tko2, Ron Lyle ko 5, and in his comeback Michael Moorer ko 10. I think that is pretty impresive for someone without a lot of boxing skills. I have him in my top to heavyweight rankings.

[KOTF]

He also won the gold medal w/ like under 30 amateur fights

[Chris Warren]

All sane people have him in their top 10 list. Foreman also beat George Chuvalo, Boone Kirkman, Gregoria Peralta 2 times, Shannon Briggs, Pierre Coetzer, Gerry Cooney ( he was still dangerous) Bert Cooper, Alex Stewart, John Dino Dennis, Scott LeDoux, Alex Shultz, Lou Savarese, Chuck Wepner isnt great but he was a durable and big dude.

If anything people underate Foreman to praise fighters like Holmes who never wanted to fight Foreman in their primes and Tyson who was afraid of the old Foreman

[rekcutnevets]

I think Foreman was more of an under achiever. Foreman accomplished a lot in spite of his technical flaws, not because of them.

[PetethePrince]

Foreman is constantly underrated here. He's underrated in terms of ranking and underrated in terms of his abilities/skills.

[ChrisPontius]

I think he's an overachiever. He caught Frazier at exactly the right time and could easily capitalize on Norton's inability to handle a puncher, while receiving high accolades because both men were great against boxing type of fighters. During his first career he only had to faced one big puncher who could land on him, and nearly had him out of there.

I think he's an overachiever in that if he came along during an other time, his accomplishments wouldn't be as great. But all you can do is beat who they put in front of that, and he did that all too often, so credit for that.

[ripcity]

I think Foreman was more of an under achiever. Foreman accomplished a lot in spite of his technical flaws, not because of them.

Wouldn't accomplishing what he did despite his technical flaws make him by deffentoin an over achever?

[Arka]

I liked the system that Dick Saddler created for him and which was refined by Archie Moore.

He was a great heavyweight around 72/73.

[Ste Hawkins]

I think he's an overachiever. He caught Frazier at exactly the right time and could easily capitalize on Norton's inability to handle a puncher, while receiving high accolades because both men were great against boxing type of fighters. During his first career he only had to faced one big puncher who could land on him, and nearly had him out of there.

I think he's an overachiever in that if he came along during an other time, his accomplishments wouldn't be as great. But all you can do is beat who they put in front of that, and he did that all too often, so credit for that.

Disagree massively. Won the olympic title against strong Russians. When he blitzed Frazier the first time Joe had just beaten Ali and was near his prime. Norton was strong physical specimen who gave all top ten opponents a hard time.
His only real mistake was realising the power he developed. Watch his earlier fights, he fought off a fast,strong jab and had good balance. He didn't forego that until, like Tyson, he realised his brute power was more effective. Had he been given the rematch against Ali he would have learned, won and been an ATG. He didn't get that rematch and his career and motivation faltered.:bbb

[Arka]

Nah,I disagree with the idea that if George had learned to be more patient and conserve himself he would have had a better chance of beaing Ali.

In my opinion,is only real chance against a fighter like Ali was to bomb him out within 5/6 rounds.

[JohnThomas1]

A. He had incredible power, close to the best in history.

B. He had a great chin.


That's two pretty good assets right there that can overcome a helluva lot of deficiencies.

[Muchmoore]

Nah,I disagree with the idea that if George had learned to be more patient and conserve himself he would have had a better chance of beaing Ali.

In my opinion,is only real chance against a fighter like Ali was to bomb him out within 5/6 rounds.

Yep. Foreman didn't get to the top by "conserving energy" and pacing himself. The reason he did so well was because of his balls to the wall style. Foreman pacing himself and fighting a measured fight would of been a horrible plan against Ali, or really any quality HW simply due to him not having the skills or necessary strengths to do it successfully. It didn't look pretty, but Foreman's wrecking ball approach was the right plan.

He tried to rely on his jab/skill after he lost to Ali and looked downright silly. Lyle came close to knocking him out and Jimmy Young made him look foolish because of it.

[curly]

A. He had incredible power, close to the best in history.

B. He had a great chin.


That's two pretty good assets right there that can overcome a helluva lot of deficiencies.
not really

[rekcutnevets]

Posted by ripcity
Wouldn't accomplishing what he did despite his technical flaws make him by deffentoin an over achever?
I see what you're getting at, but I don't think so. I usually think of an over achieving fighter as someone with lesser physical attributes finding a way to overcome them. I think of Greg Haugen, for example. George Foreman may be the strongest heavyweight champion in the division's history, had one of the best chins in history, and a great will to win. Foreman could only have been better with less wasted motion on his punches, and more precision.

Posted by curly
not really
How can you rationalize this statement?

[mr. magoo]

not really

Well, he was stopped only once in 81 professional fights in a match where he ran out of gas, and not because his chin failed him..

[TheGreatA]

Someone once said it would have been illegal to teach George Foreman how to box and I agree with it. The man had crushing power but not the skills to go along with it.

Combine the young and old Foreman and you might as well have the greatest puncher of all time. Unfortunately that never happened.

And George did have a great chin. He was awfully easy to hit, yet was only stopped once due to exhaustion even though he fought in his late 40's.

[JohnThomas1]

not really

Surely you jest.

[mr. magoo]

I agree with anyone who says that George Foreman was no master of the sweat science, but I also think that its false to claim that he was completely unskilled. Foreman knew how to hurt fighters, could nail guys with both hands, was capable of tying a man up, and understood the value of working the body as well as the head. To say that he was just some plodding oaf is a mass injustice. His defense was lacking heavily in his first career, but he did a good job of shoring that up in his comeback as well as learning to pace himself and not waste shots. He was stopped only once in 81 pro fights due to exhaustion against what many consider to be the greatest heavyweight of all time.

Foreman's record has a fair bit of padding on it, but it certainly is not without substance. To berate his wins over Norton and Frazier by writing them off as " a stylistic glitch ", is about the equivalent of saying that those two men beat Ali because they were simply well suited to take on slick boxers.. You don't hear that one very often. And I firmly believe that his win over Michael Moorer at age 45, is grossly underrated and sadly written off as either luck, or the fact that " Moorer was just chinny. " Christ, if Joe Frazier came back around 1986 to KO someone like Michael Spinks, we'd never hear the end of it. Rather than crediting him for a very entertaining battle with Ron Lyle, a lot of people use it as a berometer for setting him up in losses against great punchers. What most never acknowledge, is that it was probably the best performance of Lyle's career and coming after Foreman had returned to the ring from a 16 month layoff and a very devastating loss.

Lastly, I don't think that Frazier, Norton, Lyle and Moorer are the only wins we should be crediting him for. Just to throw out one obscure example, you can say what you will about Chuck Wepner, but the fact is he was a savy journeyman who had 25 pro fights, while foreman was a 3 fight prospect, and destroyed him in no time. In another instance, Foreman was well into his 40's and on the comeback trail, yet managed to beat some decent fringe types and upper tier journeyman like Cooper, Rodriguez, Stewart, Coetzer, Savarese, and a few others. Sometimes you can't just take the opponent for face value, but also have to put the win into context by looking at the circumstances.

[fists of fury]

I agree with anyone who says that George Foreman was no master of the sweat science, but I also think that its false to claim that he was completely unskilled. Foreman knew how to hurt fighters, could nail guys with both hands, was capable of tying a man up, and understood the value of working the body as well as the head. To say that he was just some plodding oaf is a mass injustice. His defense was lacking heavily in his first career, but he did a good job of shoring that up in his comeback as well as learning to pace himself and not waste shots. He was stopped only once in 81 pro fights due to exhaustion against what many consider to be the greatest heavyweight of all time.



You make a good point.
George may not have been a natural when it came to ring science, but these things can be taught. His natural size, power and durability created a wonderful platform for the finer nuances of the game. He may not have excelled at pure boxing, but why could he not employ boxing science at a respectable level?

His jab was very good, and against Frazier and Norton he displayed some almost frightening accuracy. Okay, against Roman he fought like a gorilla, but that was personal.
Ali also commented that George was extremely well drilled when it came to cutting off the ring.

Sure, he was often wild and at times robotic, but there's no doubt that he did show in his second career the ability to compose himself and set up openings, so the seeds were there all along.

I think he just fell in love with his power way too much, and ultimately it made him one-dimensional.

[Chinxkid]

When a guy can swat like that can you blame him for relying on it? The not so obvious answer to this is yes, you can; once he gets into the upper echelon, that is, where it doesn't work as well. For this reason, George for a good bit of his career was an UNDER achiever, but the change began in Zaire, a hell of a hard-learned lesson it was too, but it was the beginning of Foreman's coming of age. Then of course there's the George Foreman Grill ... ah, you may laugh, you may very well laugh, but a few years back he sold it off and made more bread than he did in the ring. We should all under achieve to that depth, eh?

[lefthook31]

George was a very impressive fighter if you look at his career in both parts. His first career he was a mean nasty snarling guy who tried to intimidate his opponents. He went in there with brute strength and tried to overpower everyone. That all changed when he went to Zaire and realized the importance of being a smart fighter.
Coming back a step slower and heavier, he was a very clever fighter. His approach the game was completely different. The ability to just wait and wait for his openings while he was getting his head pounded was pretty amazing. He completely reinvented his style, and became a really sneaking thinking fighter.
As much as the Moorer fight was a one sided affair, George kept trying and trying to make Moorer move into the right hand and set him up and wait for that opening. The openings were so few and far between Foreman can tell you exactly how many openings he saw to lower the boom.
His fight with Savarese was the best of his comeback in my opinion, because he took a pretty decent fighter and set a horrendous pace that big Lou couldnt keep up with. Quite amazing for a man his age. All in all if George fought with the smarts he did in his comeback, he may have been even higher on the all time rankings.

[janitor]

I would say that in Foremans first career he underachieved and in his second career he overachieved.

[Longhhorn71]

Used to spar with Sonny Liston....now that is a nice part-time job.

[lefthook31]

I would say that in Foremans first career he underachieved and in his second career he overachieved.
I would have saved a lot of words saying what you said, but thats basically what I meant as well.

[mr. magoo]

Used to spar with Sonny Liston....now that is a nice part-time job.


Only if the pay covers the hospital bills...:!:

[ChrisPontius]

How can you rationalize this statement?

During his prime i don't see much evidence of Foreman having a great durability.

He got knocked down by a very light hitter in Young and knocked out by another relatively light puncher in Ali. The only heavy hitter who landed on him, Lyle, had him down twice and nearly had him out of there... arguably he was saved by the bell in the 4th. Maybe he was tired, but that's all part of the game.


During his second career however, he seemed almost impervious to taking punches. Amazing.

[janitor]

During his prime i don't see much evidence of Foreman having a great durability.

He got knocked down by a very light hitter in Young and knocked out by another relatively light puncher in Ali. The only heavy hitter who landed on him, Lyle, had him down twice and nearly had him out of there... arguably he was saved by the bell in the 4th. Maybe he was tired, but that's all part of the game.


During his second career however, he seemed almost impervious to taking punches. Amazing.

Perhaps this tells us more about what constitutes an efective puncher.

Speed and delivery are more important than bulk and raw power.

[Jear]

Foreman is constantly underrated here. He's underrated in terms of ranking and underrated in terms of his abilities/skills.
Agree his skill are very underrated. Had a very good jab. Long and very hard. Had a murderous uppercut, he threw well. His footwork and ability to cut off the ring is the reason Ali employed the rope a dope. Ali himself said no one cut off the ring as well as George

[fists of fury]

Perhaps this tells us more about what constitutes an efective puncher.

Speed and delivery are more important than bulk and raw power.

Agreed. How else can one explain the Cooper knockdown? Cooper could punch of course, but he wasn't on the level of a Foreman or Shavers in terms of raw power.

[TheGreatA]

During his prime i don't see much evidence of Foreman having a great durability.

He got knocked down by a very light hitter in Young and knocked out by another relatively light puncher in Ali. The only heavy hitter who landed on him, Lyle, had him down twice and nearly had him out of there... arguably he was saved by the bell in the 4th. Maybe he was tired, but that's all part of the game.


During his second career however, he seemed almost impervious to taking punches. Amazing.

Not that it matters much but he did walk right through the punches of the lesser opposition he fought during his first career. Frazier also landed his left hooks on him to absolutely no effect whatsoever.

As Larry Merchant said, it's the same chin he had on him when he was 217 lbs. I'm not sure if chins can improve but he did improve on his defense/patience.

[ChrisPontius]

As Larry Merchant said, it's the same chin he had on him when he was 217 lbs. I'm not sure if chins can improve but he did improve on his defense/patience.

That's bullshit. You don't take 20 flush punches in a row from Holyfield as well as many heavy shots from Morrison/Briggs without any problem, and then get knocked down by Jimmy Young.

[lefthook31]

That's bullshit. You don't take 20 flush punches in a row from Holyfield as well as many heavy shots from Morrison/Briggs without any problem, and then get knocked down by Jimmy Young.
I think its a little of everything, and mostly because of his mental toughness. I remember Tommy Brooks talking about Holyfield in the Tyson fight saying if a fighter decides he aint getting knocked out you can tee off on him all night and he aint going nowhere. Foreman brought a lot more mental toughness to his game in his second career. He was very aware of his disadvantages going into each fight and what it took to get the win.

[TheGreatA]

That's bullshit. You don't take 20 flush punches in a row from Holyfield as well as many heavy shots from Morrison/Briggs without any problem, and then get knocked down by Jimmy Young.

This simply proves how much his stamina had improved. He was completely gassed out against Young and was caught with a well-placed counter punch.

Young landed a ton of right hand counters previously in the bout which did little more to Foreman than annoy him.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
4:30

In fact the punch doesn't even seem to land cleanly in the slow motion replay. He was just tired and stumbling around the ring.

I think if Foreman had been more tired in the Holyfield fight, he would have gone down from the counter right that Holyfield caught him with in the 9th round.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
8:15

[Muchmoore]

He wasn't tired when he was dropped against Lyle....

Foreman's ability to take a punch improved when he got older because of several reasons. One, he was mentally stronger and refused to go down. Two, old Foreman was bigger and stronger and this DOES help in taking punishment. Three, old Foreman paced himself and didn't leave himself as open as the young one. It's the punches you don't see coming that hurt the most.

The Lyle fight is not one in which Foreman shows an ATG chin, Lyle is NOT a big puncher, contrary to popular belief. His entire rep as one is built on this fight.

[Chris Warren]

Foreman is overrated but Marciano isn't? You are going to say Foreman got lucky against Frazier and Norton didnt have a chin? Yet Marciano beat old washed up bums and nobody ever puts him down

[Unforgiven]

I think people confuse "technique" with "skill"

George Foreman had a lot of crude techniques, but his boxing skill was top-notch.

[Unforgiven]

Foreman's "chin" didn't improve in his second career, but he had slightly better defense, consistently better balance and he didn't punch himself out.
Chins dont improve by putting fat on round the waist !