Who is better, Harada or Foreman?
Fighting Harada leads with a GOAT score of 85.9 against 85.8 for George Foreman — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Fighting Harada above George Foreman: 85.9 vs 85.8. Fighting Harada leads on Peak, Dominance, Honours. George Foreman leads on Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Harada wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours, Statistics
Foreman wins: Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/fighting-harada-vs-george-foreman
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Harada leads in 4 of 5 weighted categories.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇯🇵 Harada | 0 | 0 | 45 | 100 | 242 | 631 |
| 🇺🇸 Foreman | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 44 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 year periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | HaradaRetired | ForemanRetired |
|---|---|---|
| World titles in weight classes | 2 | — |
| Title defences | 4 | — |
| Professional wins | 55 | — |
| Knockouts | 22 | 68 |
| Professional bouts | 62 | — |
| World titles | — | 3 |
| Olympic golds | — | 1 |
| Career wins | — | 76 |
| Years between title reigns | — | 20 |
| Ring Magazine Fighter of the Year | — | 2 |
| Dominance w25% | 86 | 82 |
| Peak w20% | 94 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 76 | 92 |
| Honours w20% | 86 | 82 |
| Statistics w15% | 88 | 86 |
Fighting Harada leads with a GOAT score of 85.9 against 85.8 for George Foreman — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Foreman scores higher on longevity. Harada leads on peak, dominance, honours, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Harada: 85.9, Foreman: 85.8.
Make your case for Harada vs Foreman. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.