Which is a greater achievement, Tyson becoming a champion at 20 or Foreman becoming a champ at 45?

I feel Tyson`s performance at 20 out does Foreman`s at 45 because if you took Tyson from 20 he would have destroyed Foreman at 45. Am I correct? I am only posting because it`s almost 12:00 in the morning so is more or less the next day, don`t want to anger my haters.

 

Why would you have haters?

 

IMO, Foreman's feat was more significant.
You would expect great things from a young guy on the way up. Not so much from an old, fat guy on the way out.

Also, what other fighter has come back from the dead, so to speak, after a 10-year retirement, to go on to win a major championship, and to top it off, when you add the seven years of campaigning after his comeback, to win the championship 17 years after his first retirement? Pretty impressive.

In addition, it adds an interesting counterpoint to the argument that a younger generation of fighters are inevitably better than fighters from an earlier generation. In terms of boxing life, Foreman was almost two generations older than Moorer.

Tyson was not that much younger than Floyd Patterson when he won the heavyweight title. No one to my knowledge has come close to doing what Foreman did after such a long lay-off.

 

The questtion is, which is more of a handicap, being 45 vs being 20 (plus who had to win a harder fight). Not which would have won has they fought

 

If you are addressing my post, I agree with you, and that is the approach which guided my answer to mark ant's original question.
I threw in the point about the generations because I thought it was an interesting side issue. And if I am correct about the way I interpret the philosophy of this forum, side issues are a legitimate grist for the mill.

 

I was actually just responding to the opening post.

 

They're both even in my view. Both incredible feats. Amazing, really.

 

45 by far. It was lineal too.

 

Foreman. Tyson's feat and the way he did it was extremely impressive too.

 

People have said I have autism on here, that I post too many youtube vids and that I post too many questions and that I hate Roy Jones and Frank Bruno while loving AJ and Mike Tyson, I think they are angry because I often disagree with them on here and stuff.

 

Tyson couldn`t have beat Moorer at the age of 45 but on the oter hand could Foreman have beat Berbick at the age of 20? He WAS pretty young when he beat Frazier though. At 20 Foreman was a lot more slender than when he knocked out Frazier and Norton.

 

Well in that case Foreman was a lot slower at 45 and had a much better opponent.

 

Paterson won the title from a much smaller man than Berbick though, nobody after Floyd and Tyson have matched either of them in doing this.

 

Foreman s feat is the greater .He s the older guy ,much older than MM .Behind on point's ,he came so close to losing. But Tyson's win over Berbick also impressive .

 

If Markant. Were 20 instead of 12 would it be more imbaressing or less that he posts 47 threads a day in the forum that are