Rank The 5 Top Heavyweight s From The Last Great Era In Heavyweight boxing?

Foreman has ONE WIN. Tyson has deeper quality wins than just a Michael Moorer. I stated them in my post. Foreman went 12-3 with wins over Jimmy Ellis, a gift over Alex Stewart who Tyson KO'd in 1 round, a gift over Axel Schulz, a squeaker over Lou Savarese who Tyson KO'd in 38 seconds in 2000, a win over Euro bum Crawford Grimsley who in his very next bout got KO'd in a record 8 seconds against Jimmy Thunder.

What were Foreman's best wins after Moorer? Cooney, who hadn't fought in 3 years since being KO'd by Spinks? Rodrigues, who was starched in 2 rounds to Holyfield a year earlier? Coetzer, who was KO'd in his two previous bouts to Bowe and Bruno?

Yeah, it's not even close! So Foreman went 12-3 to Tyson's 9-3. Tyson had the better quality wins and more of them. You can debate all you want but Tyson has one Jimmy Ellis or Crawford Grimsley level fighter in McNeeley, and that was his first fight in 4 years so he's forgiven. Even Henry Tillman is better than those guys.

I have Foreman ranked right behind Tyson because of his one win over Moorer. Without that win and Foreman doesn't make my 90's Top 10 heavies list at all.

 

Your assessment only holds water if you firmly believe that Foreman was gifted against Stewart which I don’t and neither did Harold Letterman. As for Tyson looking more impressive against him then I’ll point out that Foreman lasted longer against a peaking Holyfield than Tyson did against an aged and inactive one. And All this depth you’re giving Tyson credit for isn’t that impressive. Foreman was 47 years old when he beat a prime savarese and got jobbed against a prime Briggs. Savarese had just retired Buster Mathis who was one of Tyson’s Better 90s wins. Tyson didn’t beat Savarese until years after foreman did. His win over Bruno was “ ok “ but a victory over another guy on the comeback trail. Foreman’s wins over Coetzer, Savarese, Rodriguez, Stewart and Of course the best win between the two of them in Moorer make for a close comparison. Tie breakers for me is foreman was a bit more active, wasn’t ko’d, had less devastating defeats and the big win over Moorer

 

I don't believe YOU even believe what you're writing Magoo!

George Foreman's 1990's record:
Gerry Cooney: 28-2, UNRANKED, W KO 2
Mike Jameson: 14-15, UNRANKED, W KO 4
Adilson Rodrigues: 36-3, UNRANKED, W KO 2
Ken Lakusta: 21-15, UNRANKED, W KO 3
Terry Anderson: 19-3, UNRANKED, W KO 1
Evander Holyfield: 25-0, Ranked #1 Champion, L UD12
Jimmy Ellis:16-0-1, UNRANKED, W KO 3
Alex Stewart: 28-3, UNRANKED, W MD 10
Pierre Coetzer: 39-4, UNRANKED, W KO 8
Tommy Morrison: 36-1, Ranked #9, L UD
Michael Moorer: 35-0, Ranked #1 Champion, W KO 10
Axel Schulz: 21-1-1, UNRANKED, W MD 12
Crawford Grimley: 20-0, UNRANKED, W UD 12
Lou Savarese: 36-0, UNRANKED, W SD 12
Shannon Briggs: 29-1, UNRANKED, L MD 12

Mike Tyson's 1990's record:
Buster Douglas: 28-4-1, Ranked #5, L KO10
Henry Tillman: 20-4, UNRANKED, W KO1
Alex Stewart: 26-1, Ranked #6, W KO1
Razor Ruddock: 25-1-1, Ranked #2, W KO7
Razor Ruddock: 25-2-1, Ranked #2, W UD12
Peter McNeeley: 36-1, UNRANKED, W DQ1
Buster Mathis Jr: 20-0, UNRANKED, W KO3
Frank Bruno: 40-4, Ranked #6(WBC champ) W KO3
Bruce Seldon: 33-3, Ranked #8(WBA champ) W KO1
Evander Holyfield: 32-3, Ranked #5, L KO11
Evander Holyfield: 33-3, Ranked #1(WBA champ), L DQ3
Frans Botha: 39-1, UNRANKED, W KO5
Orlin Norris: 50-5, UNRANKED, No contest

Now, look at the unranked cans Foreman faced opposed to the unranked fighters Tyson faced.

NO COMPARISON!!!

 

I understand your reasoning completely, my friend, but I'm not sure Mike beat someone the level of Moorer in the 90s.

 

To be clear I don’t see either one as standing out significantly over the other when doing strictly a 90s comparison. But I for one never held Tyson’s 90s career in terribly high esteem. When comparing Foreman to Tyson in that decade, think of it this way: One of them became the oldest heavyweight champion of all time against all odds while the other lost in the biggest heavyweight upset of all time. It kind of sets the tone for me.

 

This is a good argument.

 

Ruddock was DEFINITELY on Moorer's level when Mike beat him. And he beat him twice. Even so, what is Foreman's next best win? And his next after that?

Foreman has 1 better win over Tyson. Tyson fought more ranked opponents, was more consistent and better wins overall.

Foreman struggled with guys he shouldn't have. He raised his competition and started losing. Tyson lost to guys he shouldn't have but Holyfield and Douglas are better than Morrison, Stewart, Schulz, Savarese and Briggs!! FFS down is up and up is down in this world all of a sudden!!!!!!!!

 

That's only one piece of the entire pie!! Here's a bigger piece for ya...

George Foreman's 1990's record:
Gerry Cooney: 28-2, UNRANKED, W KO 2
Mike Jameson: 14-15, UNRANKED, W KO 4
Adilson Rodrigues: 36-3, UNRANKED, W KO 2
Ken Lakusta: 21-15, UNRANKED, W KO 3
Terry Anderson: 19-3, UNRANKED, W KO 1
Evander Holyfield: 25-0, Ranked #1 Champion, L UD12
Jimmy Ellis:16-0-1, UNRANKED, W KO 3
Alex Stewart: 28-3, UNRANKED, W MD 10
Pierre Coetzer: 39-4, UNRANKED, W KO 8
Tommy Morrison: 36-1, Ranked #9, L UD
Michael Moorer: 35-0, Ranked #1 Champion, W KO 10
Axel Schulz: 21-1-1, UNRANKED, W MD 12
Crawford Grimsley: 20-0, UNRANKED, W UD 12
Lou Savarese: 36-0, UNRANKED, W SD 12
Shannon Briggs: 29-1, UNRANKED, L MD 12

Mike Tyson's 1990's record:
Buster Douglas: 28-4-1, Ranked #5, L KO10
Henry Tillman: 20-4, UNRANKED, W KO1
Alex Stewart: 26-1, Ranked #6, W KO1
Razor Ruddock: 25-1-1, Ranked #2, W KO7
Razor Ruddock: 25-2-1, Ranked #2, W UD12
Peter McNeeley: 36-1, UNRANKED, W DQ1
Buster Mathis Jr: 20-0, UNRANKED, W KO3
Frank Bruno: 40-4, Ranked #6(WBC champ) W KO3
Bruce Seldon: 33-3, Ranked #8(WBA champ) W KO1
Evander Holyfield: 32-3, Ranked #5, L KO11
Evander Holyfield: 33-3, Ranked #1(WBA champ), L DQ3
Frans Botha: 39-1, UNRANKED, W KO5
Orlin Norris: 50-5, UNRANKED, No contest

Now, look at the unranked cans Foreman faced opposed to the unranked fighters Tyson faced.

NO COMPARISON!!!

 

1. Lewis
2. Holyfield
3, Tyson
4. Foreman
5. Bowe

 

i think you’re underrating Foreman’s win over Moorer while also sweeping Tysons KO loss to Douglas under the rug. And that Forman did better against a prime Holy than Tyson did against a declining one. I think you’re also mixing alphabet ratings with ring ratings. Guys like Lou Savarese and Adilson Rodriguez were better than Alex Stewart, Buster Mathis, Peter McNeely or Henry Tillman. And you know as well as I do that Bruce Seldon was about as much of a true belt holder and ranked fighter as Dominos pizza is truly Italian food. That WBA vacant title match between him and an ancient tucker was a scam designed to make it easy for Tyson to win a belt. Neither of those guys had any business being ranked #1 and #2

 

Seldon beat Tucker who was ducked by your boy. You really wanna go there?

I've stated on every reply that Foreman's win over Moorer is tops. How many times do I have to type that? Tyson's wins, plural, over Ruddock come very close.

Stewart was not worse than Savarese or Rodrigues. That's up for debate but not really. Tyson destroyed Savarese 3 years after Foreman squeaked by him. Foreman barely beat guys and was given gifts over UNRANKED opposition. Why aren't you acknowledging that?

If you want to use alphabet rankings then Tyson has beaten more than Foreman has. If you want to use Ring ratings like I did, well, again Tyson beat more than Foreman did.

Your only argument is Tyson's losses. Well, Foreman lost to worse opposition, should've lost to even worse opposition and struggled against even WORSE opposition than Tyson struggled with.

Tyson has 3 losses to legit opponents. Foreman has losses to legit opposition, non-legit opposition and struggled with anyone who was closely ranked by the alphabet boys you demean.

Case closed.

 

Not one person in the civilized world wanted to see foreman vs tucker and Tony had about as legit claim to a #1 rating as you or I did. Having tucker at #1 and Seldon at #2 was a Don king match making scam to put a fresh outta jail Tyson into an easy title winning spot. In fact it was SO easy that one of those combatants went down without even getting hit !!! For those of us who were around back then we remember Larry Merchant claiming how ludicrous it was that a man who lost in one round to Riddick Bowe and was beaten by Oliver McCall could somehow be rated above both.

No… Tyson’s wins over Ruddock don’t come close. Donoven Ruddock’s entire resume was built on has beens and even had an early loss to Dave Jaco. Following his losses to Tyson he never did anything of note again. Michael Moorer was a 35-0 two division champion and the current linear champion. Foreman at the age of 45 knocked him out convincingly becoming the oldest man to ever win a title which I think bolsters his rating in the 90s significantly. He was the beneficiary of one of the biggest upsets of the decade while Tyson was the victim of one.

I think it’s rather disingenuous to compare performances against common opponents given that Foreman fought these guys at different times than Tyson did. George fought Savarese when he was a c**t hair away from 50. Same with Briggs. BTW, most people feel Foreman beat Briggs but I bet you’re not willing to call THAT fight a robbery. And a lot of people felt at the time foreman fought Stewart that it was the best Alex ever looked.

No… I don’t think think Stewart was as good as Rodriguez or Savarese. Alex Stewart never beat ONE noteworthy opponent in his career.. Not ONE.

Here’s where you’re REALLY wrong. First of all Tyson’s losses are NOT my only argument as has been clearly dictated in my numerous replies to you. Secondly, Do you really think that a prime Holyfield was worse than ANY of Tyson’s losses in the 90s ? George took a peaking Evander the distance and even rattled him a few times. Five years LATER Tyson gets his ass handed to him by a 34 year old Evander who had on and off health problems over the years and who most people figured was done after the third Bowe fight. And Buster Douglas ? You’re right.. he was so awesome that he was a 36-1 underdog or some crazy number like that. Only reason that dude is even remembered is because he beat Tyson.. oh yes, and there’s of course Foreman’s losses to Morrison and Briggs who were both young enough to be his kids and one of whom might have gotten a gift. Well at least it beats getting KTFO.

you’re right Sangria !!! The case IS closed. Nice debating with ya pal !!!!

 

Your arguments rely on your opinion of how good a fighter was, how young they were and what their record was when they faced Foreman and using them as a barometer for a 40 year old fighter who did well but not as good as you claim. You're glorifying Foreman because of his age. Then you lower that same barometer for Tyson because he was younger and was part of the biggest upset of the decade!?!?

I heard you the first 5 times bro. You keep saying the same thing in every post like you hammering home your opinion is worth something.

I'm bringing facts and figures to the table. Screw that...I AM THE TABLE!!

Nobody in the civilized world wanted to see Foreman face Axel Schulz FFS!!! Yeah, nobody wanted to see Foreman face Tucker or Seldon because they wanted to see him face Tyson, Bowe or Lewis!!! The fact that he sidestepped Tucker & Seldon for a worse fighter in Axel Schulz is devastating to your argument! My gawd, bro, do you even lift?

EVERYONE would rather see Foreman face a decent named fighter in Tucker whose only losses were to Tyson and Lewis than a nobody Euro bum who had to get ranked by Bob Arum shenanigans. You **** on Don King, well Arum pulled the same strings buddy boy!

You **** on Seldon but Seldon beat Tucker and Joe Hipp and beat Hipp far more convincingly than Tommy Morrrison did. The same Tommy Morrison who toyed with Foreman and forced him into retirement.

Ruddock was the perceived #2 contender by every single person in boxing at the time he faced Tyson in 1991. Ruddock was feared and avoided by others including Foreman, Bowe and Holyfield, the same Holyfield who wiped the floor with, you guessed it...George Foreman!! Ruddock was dangerous and a perceived threat to anyone in the division after his demolition job on #3 heavyweight Dokes, a man Holyfield went life and death with one year earlier.

What did Moorer do besides beating a roided up Holyfield by majority decision? That's right, he beat Alex Stewart, the same guy you keep shitting on from post to post. And that's ALL that Moorer did to earn his shot at the heavyweight title.

Now Moorer was able to regain a "vacant" title afterwards against Schulz, because Foreman got stripped of his only remaining belt for not facing Schulz in a rematch, and then beat Botha and Vaughn Bean before losing to Holyfield. I guess that's better overall than Ruddock, but that's not our argument.

Foreman pulled off a miracle after 9 rounds of a shellacking. Let's call a spade a spade here. Foreman didn't do jack **** after winning the title either. "Even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while!" - Larry Holmes

We're not comparing age here. We're comparing accomplishments, stats, records and opposition in the 90's. Stay on track. That's what we're discussing. Alex Stewart looked good against Foreman because he just couldn't, ****in, miss! He stood in the pocket, picked his shots, which were many, and turned Foreman's face into some mongoloid Jason Voorhees look-a-like creature feature! He looked like a gargoyle and I hate watching that fight because I squint every time Stewart lands on Foreman's catcher's mitt. Holy **** that was grotesque!

Stewart didn't beat ONE opponent in his career, huh? Well most people think he beat George Foreman. There's your ONE.

At least Tyson fought someone as talented as Douglas. And Douglas was 42-1. I mean, Foreman wouldn't dare face a rehabbed Tony Tucker. I bet Bruce Seldon puts trade marks around Foreman's eyes. Seldon is certainly better than Axel Schulz, Crawford Grimsley, Lou Savarese and even Shannon Briggs, all guys Foreman went to heaven, hell and back with. Why didn't Foreman fight someone Tucker's or Seldon's style? I know why, because he'd get exposed and his entire circus smoke and mirrors act would be exposed with it.

Every time Foreman stepped up his comp he got his azz handed to him. He went 1-2 against Ring rated opposition and that win was a miracle. It was incredible nonetheless, but one win doesn't put you ahead of a guy that boxing revolved around. Tyson's wins are far deeper and even if he did get KTFO he at least came back and was the perceived #1 guy again on 2 separate occasions. Foreman becomes the #1 guy and immediately hurts his rep by facing unranked opponent after unranked opponent. Unranked opponents who handed him his azz time after time.

Tyson fought the better opposition, beat that opposition and never lost to an unranked fighter who shouldn't have been in the ring with him to begin with.

You gonna come back from the dead like your boy Jason Voorhees and regurgitate the same post like another Friday The 13th flick?

 

Foreman did beat Briggs