greater heavyweight. Foreman or Tyson?

I'm not surprised to see Eastsideboxing leaning in the direction of any heavyweight in preference to Tyson, the critics of eastsideboxing are guilty of a fault that most if not all critics are guilty of, devaluing something great because it is massively popular

in my mind, there is no question, tyson

 

Ditto. Foreman won the title as a young man and as an old man. Tyson wouldn't have done well head to head against either version of Foreman.

 

foreman.

 

I see nothing in the Fraizer fight that tells me Foreman would KO Tyson. They are nothing alike.

 

Hmmmm..........

The Oldest HW Champion ever vs. the Youngest HW Champion ever................Big George wins head to head & legacy wise. Forman effectively had 2 careers, both of which were successful too. He still lost that fight to Axel Schultz...................

 

Theres ann article in Eastside archives on Foreman v Tyson. Even Tysons camp were saying Tyson knew he couldnt beat an old Foreman.

 

Foreman and it's not even close.

 

Foreman he Fought Frazier and Ali
and came back to my own Era and stole the Crown.

Tyson was great in his own right and is 1 of the best HeavyWeights of all time but Foreman Beat one of the Top 2 Heavyweights of all time and Faught the other with Tremendous Heart.
Ali Frazier Foreman top 3

 

George Foreman had two title reigns, one lasting 2 fights, the other 1 fight. Mike Tyson had two title reigns as well, one which lasted three years. The answer is obvious: it's Tyson. Had Foreman not won the title in his 40s, he wouldn't be selling grills right now; he'd be George the wife beater Foreman.

To all the old farts trying to spread the myth of a suppossed 'golden heavyweight era,' pull your heads out of your asses the 60s are over; and your fighters were never that good to begin with...

 

foremans win over frazier is big. tyson has no similar win.
foreman has longevity as well, tyson none.

 

Justify this statement

 

:good You got a point.

 

I don't feel length of career is relevant here. If we are talking prime vs prime what does it matter how long a guy was successful? I am looking at the best of both, and when you do that Mike was just the more complete fighter. He had all the tools, and no real deficiencies when he was at his best. Foreman was slow of hand, slow of foot, poor defense, and kept his hands very low. All weaknesses that I think Tyson could exploit.

 

definitely foreman.

 

Frazier is an all-time great and Foreman destroyed him in under two rounds. Tyson has no such win over an opponent that great.

As far as greatness goes, Foreman by a mile here folks.