Foreman was wrong for Tyson, but Mike was greater. Mike took a small body and beat bigger guys with his speed and skills. George was a big strong guy. Mike did more with what he had and I think greater. George was a bit overrated vs. the champions.
Foreman... Just as dominant in his prime. Beat better fighters like Frazier and Norton very decisively.. And you have to factor in the comeback years and regaining the title at what 45.. Foreman!!
i disagree.... foreman was more than a big and strong guy.... he was not valuev or carnera, foreman had great heart, he was top 1-2 hardest puncher in the history and probably the strongest boxer ever, he had great chin, he had a very good jab, he did cut the ring pretty well, he destroyed great fighters in 2 rounds, he is the oldest hw champ, and he won the golden medal. tyson was tyson and foreman was foreman, 2 different styles. tyson had better skill yes, he was faster yes,he was more accurate yes,he had better defence yes, his stamina was not much better,foreman was stronger,he had better chin, longer reach, he was bigger,he was harder puncher,he had by far more heart , foreman had better career and probably he would ko tyson because foreman had the style . it is my opinion...
please explain me how tyson was greater.... he never did beat a legend ( holmes88 was a dummy), he lost by ko against buster douglas and he never won a rematch, he was destroyed by holyfield and lewis. foreman in his 40s won the belt, tyson in his late 30s was a joke( with all my respect) but he was a joke. he was destroyed by club fighters.... foreman in his 40s would absolutely destroy the tyson who faced lewis. foreman was greater than mike tyson
this is a laughable bull**** argument. foreman was a circus freak at best during tyson's championship and not exactly a stepping stone back to the title during his post-champ and then post-incarceration time. outside of beating chinny LHW moorer, foreman did so damn little besides being a showbiz act in his "second life" it's pretty ridiculous to consider him a major entity of that era.
Frazier he destroyed with the style. Norton was never great, but he beat Ali. Being the oldest fighter to win a title doesn't mean much nowadays when you can handpick and Foreman fought 3 times for the title when he was older and lost 2 of the 3, once to Tommy Morrison. Moorer was a former 175 pound guy and had no chin. I think Tyson was greater and in his prime which was short he impressed more. Foreman's big size and style made it that he could fight later in his career, but he lost to some guys who were not great in his second career. His first career is not better than Mike. Foreman against Ali did not show great heart, and Tyson vs. Lewis took many punches. and Tyson vs. Ruddock, Mike showed heart. I do not think Foreman was that great in his first or second career. He is a bit overrated. Especially his second career where he was slow. Foreman was a big strong guy, but a bit lumbering. A quick guy would always trouble him. Sure Tyson would be a good matchup for him, Mike was like Frazier. Came forward and walking into the bigger stronger guy. Foreman's second career shows more how undisciplined and really how bad the heavyweights were in the 1990's, not how great Foreman is.
Foreman was still getting outboxed by Stewart, Schulz, and Morrison though he beat 2 of them(got a gift against Schulz). A durable boxer-type would've always gave George problems and his second career proves that theory too.
The heavyweight scene started to really turn for the worse in 94. Thats why Lewis was able to domiante for the next seven years.
Obvously Foreman, I believe that Tyson would've lost to someone even if he didn't go prison. Foreman did much more as a sportsman, he is alright as a man and good business man with a head on a steady neck.