Rank these attributes in order of their importance to greatness

It is different. Foreman fought more iconic guys but sort of crumbled early, and Tyson had many more defenses..

 

Iron Dianabol Tyson (just joking, don't anyone take it personally).

 

And crumbled in his prime. Foreman lost to Ali, Young, both really good to great fighters. Who did Tyson lose the title to again? At what age did he win it back?

 

I feel it really important at this point to state that I fully respect the opposing opinions here. I'm sure I could be totally wrong.

I think we're all unavoidably biased, and this forum is here for us to have fun and attempt hashing it out.

 

Then Jimmy Young. He did well and head to head he was trouble, but the fact is he sort of crumbled on his first test. And he never recovered fully. and in his whole career only 7 title fights. Tyson had 15 title fights Foreman 4-3 and Tyson 12-4. How is 4-3 title fights top 10 really?

 

Young was a very fine fighter who beat Foreman and Norton (got seriously robbed on the latter). Young would have been champ and up against Holmes had he got the decision he deserved.

 

Oh dear, I almost forgot, watch the Young-Ali fight and honestly tell me who you thought won.

 

I see your point, I am talking more about Foreman as this all time great. He was great, but I think his second career helped his standing, but to me what did he really accomplish.

 

He was good and I love the Lyle fight against Foreman. But if Foreman is top 10 all time heavyweight, shouldn't he have beaten Young?

 

You have a mostly valid point (as to what Foreman accomplished, beating Norton and Frazier wasn't enough?). I absolutely agree however that his second career had a lot (if not most) to do with what made him great.

Foreman could be argued to have been as lacking a championship heart as Tyson and Liston in their heydays; George's comeback proved otherwise.

 

No, Young and Ali had a lot in common...only Young was, well....younger.

As I mentioned, you're bringing up some very good points, but it doesn't add up for me.

But again, that's just me so big deal.

 

He was good and he was solid. And George against Mike head to head was a scary fight for Mike. Almost unsurmountable in someways. Mike's speed but at the same time George could push Mike back and just tee off when Mike came forward. It would have been very interesting.

 

And PW, I love the Foreman-Lyle fight too. Interesting when you think of how overall impressive Lyle looked against Foreman compared to when Ron fought Ali (and looked like a bum).

That said, Ron knocked the crap out of Shavers and a couple of other very good fighters.

 

That was the era of heavyweights right there. I love that fight. Looked like either guy had the fight at different points.

 

I saw a video where Eddie Mustafa Muhammad (cool fighter, though ultimately non-commital on this point) mentioned what a lot of other boxing experts think. Tyson had one direction, just like Frazier and Norton. Tyson was terrified of Foreman (though most of this info is admittedly second hand), and was never capable of adapting his style/completely changing his game plan.

Imo entirely, Foreman would have made the floor a rubber mat for Tyson. I'm not sure Mike would make the first round. He moved almost as purposefully forward as Frazier at his best, and wasn't unlike Norton in his fighting style.

George called it correctly, Mike would have fallen for good in 1, 2 rounds (and he was being generous imo).

Styles make fights...sleep tight, Mike.