Who ranks higher as a heavyweight, George Foreman or Mike Tyson?

As NoNeck has pointed out, basically Moorer's entire reputation at heavyweight is based on the first fight with Holyfield when Holyfield was seemingly having an off-night due to PED use.
It's understandable surely that many don't rate Moorer that highly given his thin resume. In the rematch with Holyfield he was beaten decisively. I think its perfectly reasonable to argue guys like Tucker, Ruddock, etc were comparable or better wins.

As far as Norton goes, he had success against boxers who weren't big punchers but was taken out by every big hitter he faced. I don't think a puncher beating him is an impressive feat given how he fared against Cooney and Shavers

 

So Moorer beating a "crackhead" is an irrelevant win, but Spinks beating a known alcoholic is a good win?

Golota was a NC not an actual win.

Tyson had already beaten Bruno before and he had lost multiple times already. Therefore, winning the title over him is not as good as winning the title over Moorer who was undefeated.

You are continuously making the conversation about h2h, which is subjective, instead of the merit of the actual win and the rankings.

I could easily use your logic and claim Foreman demolishes every single one of Tyson's best opponents h2h.

You're one of the most biased posters on this entire site and you refuse to stay on topic. Have a good day.

 

Bruno's multiple losses can be attributed to fighting good competition, guys like Tyson, Lewis, and Witherspoon whom Moorer avoided. I don't think this is necessarily indictive of Moorer being better but rather being more carefully matched. Golota's losses are likewise in many instances to guys whom Moorer conveniently failed to face.

Very few would favor Moorer over Lewis or Tyson for example.

 

George

 

Personally an argument can be made that Tyson has become the most underrated while Foreman the most over rated ..

 

I do not care who you favor over Moorer between him, Tyson, and Lewis. That's an entirely different subject.

Tyson was in prison when Moorer moved up to heavyweight so not sure how you're figuring that he avoided him. When Tyson came back, his main focus was the big money matches with Holyfield. He got his ass kicked and faded into bolivian.

Witherspoon was never in a position to demand a fight when Moorer was in the rankings/champ.

Lewis' timeline didn't really match up.

Absolutely none of this has anything to do with the fact Bruno had already lost to Tyson before. It's not a very remarkable title winning effort compared to Foreman beating Moorer who had just beat Holyfield.

 

If you believe that Bruno and Moorer are roughly comparable as heavyweights (which is a reasonable conclusion based on available evidence) than Tyson beating Bruno is comparable to Foreman beating Moorer. Tyson beating Bruno earlier doesn't detract from his subsequent win. You seem awfully eager to give Moorer passes for not fighting various guys but these excuses could be applied to fights between practically anyone. In any case, its bonkers to argue Moorer is better than Bruno based on Bruno losing to guys Moorer for whatever reason never fought. Or in Smith's case fought when he was totally shot.

Evidence points to Moorer's win over Holyfield being an aberration. He was decisively beaten in the rematch.

 

To your first point, yes. Cooney was even favored and a laughing emoji won't save you.

Your second point only proves that you're a desperate idiot because I'm sure you know the reason for the NC.

With that, we conclude the discussion. I won.

 

No, I'm simply saying beating a guy for the 2nd time for a title shot isn't as impressive as beating a brand new opponent. It's not like Tyson's first time facing Bruno was a fight he barely won in a grueling back and forth type of match like Pacquiao vs Marquez.

The fact Moorer didn't face the guys who beat Bruno is pretty irrelevant. Bruno had multiple losses and was beaten before. He lost every time he stepped up outside of his single elite win over McCall. We're evaluating the worth of Tyson and Foreman's title wins based on how good the guy they beat at the time was.

 

Yes I'm laughing because you're making a big deal out of one addiction while ignoring another.

There is no desperation, except perhaps your attempt to give Tyson additional wins by ignoring official verdicts.

 

And what about Foreman's Top 10 rated wins?

 

I believe all these guys were ranked by either the WBC, WBA or IBF when they fought Mike Tyson. Green, Ribalta, Frazier, Stewart, Mathis Jr., Bruno(rematch), Seldon, Botha, Golota, Nielsen, Etienne...

I did a list a while back and found everything I needed to find when dissecting ranked opponents for both Tyson and Foreman. I can't find the list as it was included with a Top 10 list of ATG heavies and their opposition win/loss percentage that I've posted here many times before.

It's quite a long and extensive experiment and I'll have to research on my own again in the future.

And yes, there's a huge gap in disparity regarding quality of competition between Tyson and Foreman, and it's very overwhelming in Tyson's favor.

 

Prime Mike possiblty is a favorite over anyone in history.

But his short prime and quick dive make this an obvious answer.

Foreman easliy ranks higher all time.

 

it is a tough pick.. Tyson had a longer reign but George had better wins against better guys. You have to say George is more involved with other fighters careers, which always sticks, yet Mike was so iconic.. They are close. Both guys were big punchers who had flaws when made to fight against their styles or made to back up.

 

Three belt era to two belt era, though.