Who is greater? George Foreman or Mike Tyson

Love that part. Frazier was obviously better against Bonavena and Mathis than he was against Ellis, Foster and Ali. Beautiful load of crap.

 

Tyson for his title reign is higher all-time for me. I'm probably in the minority who thinks he'd beat George in the ring too.

 

I agree that George the second loses to prime Tyson or even the Tyson of the mid nineties.

But George the first (pre Ali) takes it.

 

I think Tyson started out real well with some impressive wins over the Berbicks, Thomas(less the prime) Boneclutcher Smith,Tubbs,Tucker,Rudduck, Spinks and it was down hill from there

I think Foreman had the good win over Frazier done impressively but his resume was light at that point he had a good win over Norton (but do we think Norton would have held up better vs Tyson? but then it was down hill from there when George stepped to fight Ali and Young and proved his mettel vs Lyle but was a too close for comfort fight that could have been stopped either way a few times

The comeback is what gives Foreman the edge with solid wins capped off by Moorer and a close fight with Briggs, While Tyson was losing to Williams, McBride

Foreman gets the edge based on his solid comeback and improvement in stamina(thanks to Archie)

 

Tyson is the greater fighter............Youngest HW champ in history...He cleaned out the division during his first reign. Lost to Douglas in the huge upset, but rebounded with two big wins against the leading top contender at the time in Ruddock.....He goes to jail, comes out after 3 years off and regains the title from a streaking Bruno. He lost to HOlyfield of course, but Holyfield was closer to his prime than Tyson was.....Tyson still had some good solid wins against Golota, Botha, Savarese, and Etienne. Foreman's carefully choreographed comeback was more smoke and mirrors than anything.....The fact that he got lucky against chinny Moorer doesn't change that.

 

Someone will say it so it may aswell be me.

Tyson post 1990 really isn't that good.

The bold part, solid wins, for real?
Golota quit when doing ok, Botha was kicking his ass, Savarese and Etienne were jokes, come on now!!

 

Frazier was IN his prime because he whupped Ali.

Frazier was NOT in his prime because he got bounced
around on the canvas like a basketball must be the
reasoning.

It was Joe's responsiblity to show up in top form.
Frazier never made any excuses about the Foreman fight.

 

So beating Moorer, Cooney, Qawi, Coetzer just don't count? While the guy was in his 40s? You can't just ignore **** like that. Also bear in mind that Tyson's best win came against a career LHW in Spinks. You ignore that, too?

 

I rate Foreman higher.

 

I have George at 8 and Tyson at 9 - so George - only heavyweight great to be a contender and champion during two different eras which were seperated by another - oldest champ, oldest to regain it - first reign during era popularly considered the greatest era in heavyweight history (??) and won it back during an era some modernists refer to as the next best era overall after the 70's - how many fighters could argue that at one one point or another they were briefly avoided by Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson? Was never given 'a beating' in defeat and probably would've been better suited to 12 round limits in prime - best series of competetive opponents from Jan 73 to June 76 Frazier-Norton-Ali-Lyle-Frazier again - decent back to back opponents during comeback in Tommy Morrison and Michael Moorer aswell thinking about it.

 

Didn't he beat Ali like 2 years before fighting Foreman?

 

Well, Tyson beats him in career 1 in my opinion. That Frazier and Norton would have lost to Tyson but would that Foreman be able to walk through Tyson s foes on the way to Spinks.....Tyson had the loss to Douglas but Foreman lost to Ali and Young and had the scare of his life with the first decent puncher he faced Lyle....I think Tyson 1 would be Young and Lyle but not Ali