Tyson's unification took four separate wins. Foreman only needed a nice punch against a below average heavyweight champ. Oliver McCall wouldve had a shot at pulling it off in his forties, but he wouldn't have unified the belts at his absolute best. End of discussion. And no, Moorer did not match Spinks' heavyweight resume. Tucker yes, but Tucker underachieved and his best win at the time was against a guy who was better than advertised.
You can't only place emphasis on best wins when one fighter's resume is far, far deeper than the other. Like I stated before, Tyson went 22-4 against rated opposition whereas Foreman went 7-5. Foreman has the better "win". Tyson has the better "wins". By a lot. Like...a lot.
I think Tysons only wins vs guys who were top 10 were Berbick, Thomas, Smith, Tucker, Spinks, Holmes, Tubbs, Williams, Bruno, and Ruddock so a total of 10
You can't praise Tyson for having "four separate wins" (which was due to the division weakening from multiple split titles popping up) and not giving Foreman praise for beating Moorer who had two belts and the real lineal title (only was missing one major belt). I don't care if you think Oliver McCall could have beaten Moorer. That's irrelevant to the discussion and pure speculation. Foreman has two signature wins better than any single signature wins of Tyson pre or post prison. That's the elephant in the room you keep avoiding by babbling about what some other boxer would do in Foreman's place or ignoring the fact Tyson was incredibly gifted and young which is obviously more of an advantage than being fat and old and coming off a huge layoff. Spinks only had 3 relevant wins at HW. Beating an old Holmes twice, and an inactive alcoholic Cooney. People argue that he lost at least one of those Holmes fights. Moorer had wins over Holyfield, Smith, Cooper (fight of the year), and Stewart. Advantage: Moorer. It gets worse if you factor in what Moorer achieved post Foreman (Botha, Schulz, Jirov). Spinks HW resume was thinner than a wet piece of paper and you know it. Tucker's only good win prior to facing Tyson were Douglas the underachiever and a very old and somewhat gunshy Jimmy Young. He had done virtually nothing.
Don't see how wins over Cooper, Stewart, Botha are relevant. Those guys are no more than journeyman level. Same for Schulz. It would be like giving someone credit for beating Malik Scott
Not sure why people argue on here to be honest. It's not like anyone's opinion ever changes. Never seen it in all the time I've been here.
Occasionally someone on here, or a family member/friend, says something that I hadn't thought of, and I slightly adjust my opinion of a fighter, or group of fighters. (I take another look at them.) I have to add, though, that it would take a shift in my thinking, of monumental proportions, to believe that Mike deserves to be ranked higher all time than George Foreman. (That doesn't mean that I don't think Mike Tyson was an all-time great, because I indeed think he was.) Edit: Punctuation correction. (When my, long gone from Earth, Grammar School English Teacher hears about this, she'll crack a smile.)
What signature wins are you even talking about? That's how signature they were. Frazier 1 and...there isnt another one that's above the level of Tyson's best wins. Now stop pretending that Moorer did anything serious at heavyweight other than edge an off night Holyfield.
Frazier 1 and Moorer. Both were more impressive title winning efforts than Tyson's pre and post prison. There aren't many guys above Norton on Tyson's resume either.
Prime for prime, Foreman's best win over Frazier is better than any of prime Tyson's title wins. Leon Spinks beat a zombie Ali who had nothing left in the tank but his pride. Stop it. Moorer beating Holyfield is certainly a better win. And as I mentioned, he has a better resume than Spinks with additional wins over Cooper, Stewart, Smith, etc. Tyson was done at the elite level in his 30's let alone 40. Foreman's post lay off career is more impressive given his age. Still waiting on this post prison win that compares. He beat Seldon who clearly took a dive, and rematched Bruno who offered little resistance.
Ruddock and Bruno were x2, so that's 12. You left off Seldon and Biggs. Frazier, Golota and Stewart were fringe, but idk if they were in. So I've got 14, but it might be 15 or 16. Maybe he meant sanctioning body rankings.
Moorer's place is behind Michael and ahead of Leon. He didn't really do **** at heavyweight except for that one night, and I think plenty of guys wouldve handled Holyfield on that night. I don't care for his other wins no matter how hard you try to pump the White Buffalo and a journeyman crackhead. Spinks' win over Cooney is better than Moorer's second best win. Bruno and Golota were pretty comparable to Moorer in h2h terms. I really don't care if you think they were scared.
