Foreman beat an ATG heavyweight in Frazier twice and battered the difficult Norton, Tyson hasnt got wins like that. Foreman and its not particularily close.
Yes, Tyson defeated a larger number of ranked opponents, while Foreman beat a select few who were among the elite. It's debatable who rates higher, but I tend to go back and forth. Foreman was the oldest man to ever regain the title, while Tyson was the youngest. Foreman a brief, but very meaningful reign, while Tyson's was a bit longer and perhaps a tad more dominant. Foreman beating Frazier in two rounds was outstanding, but Tyson stopping Spinks in 1, was nothing to scoff at either.... Both were multiple time champions. It depends on your citeria.
Well, everything depends on your criteria. That's not what I meant, by the way. Maybe Tyson beat more guys in The Ring top 10, but that don't mean much. Foreman's record: Frazier, Frazier - ATG HWs Moorer, Norton - very good HWs Chuvalo, Lyle, Cooney maybe - "ranked" HWs Tyson's record: Spinks, Holmes (being extremely generous about Holmes' condition at the time) - very good HWs Berbick, Tucker, Ruddock... - "ranked" HWs It's certainly not clear that Tyson has more depth. And, certainly, Foreman has the better wins overall.
Not much difference from where I'm standing. ------- Quite a bit of 'look who George beat' argument. I think a more proper argument is 'HOW a guy fights WHO he fights'. Quality of performance in light of quality of opposition (I got that phrase from TED SPOON). There's no logical contradiction (that I can see) in the idea of the greater fighter having the weaker resume of names. Even the greatest fighter can only fight the guys who are there for him/her. (Now, if they avoided opposition, this needs looked into). I'm not saying this to down Foreman, who came up with huge performances against some big names. I'm just saying (to continue TED SPOON's metaphor) that the opposition is the light in which we see a fighters greatness; it is not the fighters greatness, per se.
True. Mike Tyson: 1. Michael Spinks 2. Tony Tubbs 3. Marvis Frazier 4. Frank Bruno 5. Razor Ruddock 6. Tony Tucker 7. James Smith 8. Carl Williams 9. Tyrell Biggs 10 Trevor Berbick 11. Pinklon Thomas 12. Alex Stewart 13. Buster Mathis 14. Bruce Seldon 15. Francois Botha 16. Lou Savarese 17. Clifford Etienne 18 Brian Neilson GEORGE FOREMAN: 1. Joe Frazier 2. Ken Norton 3. Ron Lyle 4. George Chuvalo 5. Boone Kirkman 6. John Denis 7. Jose Roman 8. Adilson Rodriguez 9. Alex Stewart 10. Gerry Cooney 11. Pierre Coetzer 12. Lou Savarese 11. Michael Moorer NOTE: I don't know if all these guys were ranked when they fought them, but they appear to be their best opponents. It should also be noted that some of them were better when one man fought them, as opposed to when the other did. Gerry Cooney was no longer ranked when Foreman fought him, and nor was Alex Stewart.. Pierre Coetzer was also coming off of two beatings to Frank Bruno and Riddick Bower within 6 months prior to facing Foreman. While Foreman has better wins against Norton and Frazier than any of Tyson's, I'm not sure that two opponents in two careers that combine some 140+ fights is enough to decisively rank one man over the other. I do however factor the fact that Tyson probably had a few losses that were more devastating to lesser opponents than Foreman.
Frazier's condition is questioned in both Foreman fights. Smoking Joe went into the first Foreman fight overweight expecting an easy win against a nobody. George himself said something to the effect that "If it was the Frazier of a few years ago, I don't think I could have beat him". In the second fight, Frazier put up a good effort but was physically broken after Manila, it was said he could barely spar without gassing going into the fight. Still, the first fight was a terrific win for Foreman but there is certainly some context that needs to be placed on it if your looking at Mike under a microscope. Chuvalo was also well past his best, no longer a major contender, and the stoppage was somewhat controversial. As far as Tyson: Pinklon Thomas was an avoided top contender, though injured it was a good win. Carl Williams and Bruno were dangerous title fight veterns respectively. Bruno was a tough contender, going on to give the rising Lewis a hard fight. And Golota was still hanging around when Tyson beat him.
No comparison. Had Foreman stayed retired after retiring the first time then their legacies would have been pretty similar. But when he came back and won the heavy title in his late 40's and defend it several times before being robbed by judges for political reasons, he's a Hall of Famer. Tyson's just another "what coulda been" guy along with Riddick Bowe, Andrew Gulota and Tommy Morrison.
It is fair to rate Foreman above Tyson... But comparing Tyson to Tommy Morrison and Andrew Golata does not do Tyson much justice.
Foreman all the way..... Not even close....... Tyson ruined himself by being a moron......... MR.BILL:deal
Even if George had never returned after Young, I'd give him the edge. Unlike Mike, he came off the deck twice to prevail in a desperate situation by stopping Lyle, the key match in my mind to this separation between the two. Denis was a big, undefeated cutie with good movement, and Foreman proved it took more than hitting and running to survive a match with him. Frazier was shot, but he also had a good plan, based upon his previous experience with George as well as his own ringside observations in Kinshasa. Foreman dealt with him effectively anyways. He was also a far more accomplished amateur than Tyson, based on Mexico City alone. Mike has not yet reached the age George was at when he upset Moorer. Can Tyson still come back to regain the lineal title? I somehow doubt it.
Not only that, but Foreman had a more successful "second career" and at a much more advanced age than Tyson. Unlike Tyson, Foreman actually managed to regain his status as the real lineal champ after losing it. I don't see a viable case for ranking Tyson above Foreman.