Who is greater? George Foreman or Mike Tyson

Take Foreman's top 20 wins
Take Tyson's top 20 wins.

After a while you'll probably struggle to get to 20 and rather than using Foreman's own resume to stand on it's own you may very well end up trying to bring down Tyson's resume so that doesn't seem as bad.

 

You just named ALL of Foreman's big wins in one sentence. You're trying hard to even get 10 names in there.

 

It's pretty simple.

Legacy: Foreman
Better Fighter: Tyson

 

You know, I read through this whole thread, and only this and one other post suggests that people are using their brains.

To think that Foreman, or frazier for that matter, were actually better than Tyson is just plain wrong.

He wasn't invincible, and I wouldn't go as far as to say he could've beaten anyone, but in that short space of time at the start of his career he was damn near unstoppable and could have given any heavyweight ever a run for their money.

 

o, i forgot a thing, prime vs prime foreman would knock tyson out, probably in 3-4 rounds. past `prime vs past prime, foreman would knock tyson out in 5 rounds.
tyson was good, but foreman was greater and he was wrong for tyson.

 

Some say Foreman is overrated in his comeback. Maybe.
But it shows how good he must have been in his prime. Even after 10-year layoff he comes back and becomes good enough to go 12 rounds with Holyfield, beat fighters like Moorer, Rodrigues, Coetzer and Briggs really too.
Look how **** most heavyweights are at 40 - 45.

Tyson seems to have a better technical style and more speed, but Foreman was just a natural destroyer.
And really, losing the title to the great and experienced Muhammad Ali is nothing to be ashamed of. Ali was better than Buster Douglas.

 

ali was better than anyone.
and yes, tyson was better technically but walcott and charles were better and faster than marciano too... the skill and the speed are not all. frazier was "better" than foreman, holyfield was better and faster than bowe,norton was better than shavers..
i would say that even ken buchanan was faster and more skilled than duran.

 

On a related note, I actually think Tyson might have beaten Ali. I know I'll get flamed for it, but logically a guy with great infighting skills and an ability to evade most shots has a style made for destroying a guy with underwhelming power and fast straights.

Tyson would have had all the advantages Frazier had, except Tyson was bigger, stronger and better.

 

Tyson didn't have great infighting skills though

 

1_ ali was not in his prime when he faced frazier
2_ tyson was not bigger,stronger and better than frazier, mike had modern advantages in nutrition, modern training,supplements and weights. frazier was a natural big boned, he never trained with weights and still he weighed 205-2171/2 pounds among 1969-72. the best tyson weighed 212-220 pounds. past prime tyson weighed around 230 pounds just as frazier, probably a peak frazier in the era of tyson would have weighed around 220 pounds easily, and tyson would have weighed around 210 pounds in the era of frazier. frazier had a bigger structure of bones,tyson was more ripped, more skilled,he had faster hands and he had power in both hand .but frazier was much better pressure fighter, he was much better inside, he had much more heart, much more stamina,better body puncher ,he was much stronger late. frazier was the ultimate pressure fighter. ali had problems with pressure fighters with great stamina and heart who keep coming .
3_ ali would beat tyson for sure, tyson had problems against green,tucker or tillis.
4_so not, tyson would not have the advantages of frazier against ali

 

Right, I don't give a **** about the rest of your post, but if "Tyson wasn't any bigger than Frazier" despite weighing more, why do you insist that "Frazier was much bigger than Marciano"?

 

Yes he did. Think about all the KO's that were created on the inside..

 

Frazier was 217lbs of pure muscle in '72 against Ron Stander!


Foreman Ganchoooooo!:smoke