Who is greater? George Foreman or Mike Tyson

Foreman. Next question.

 

I'd pick Foreman but to me it's close enough that I wouldn't debate anyone who picked Tyson..there's pro's and con's to each.

 

Tyson.

Mike Tyson had better skills. George Foreman was just power.

Mike Tyson brought the unique combination of top-shelf speed plus top-notch power to the division. George Foreman was just a ton of power.

Had Foreman never come back, this question would have an even clearer answer.

Yet Foreman's comeback proved basically one thing: after a seven-year campaign and on his third try at a title, Foreman landed the knockout punch for the ages on a cocky, former light heavyweight champion. It proved Foreman retained his devastating power on a stationary target into old age, because it was of the blunt-force variety, thus augmented by his greater weight.

Old Foreman's born-again calm and patience cannot be factored into the best version of Foreman though: the young, relatively wild, undisputed champion.

Mike Tyson's fighter's résumé is deeper than Foreman's: Foreman beat Frazier, but Frazier was no longer at his best and was made for Foreman with his unvariably stationary head-first style. Tyson can boast two tremendous knockouts over past-it greats too, in Spinks and Holmes. Tyson's destruction of Tony Tubbs is every bit as impressive as Foreman's of Norton. Foreman beat Lyle (very, very barely), but, on the other hand, Tyson bombed out such powerful men as Thomas, Biggs, Berbick, Bruno, Ruddock and Williams. Tyson's clear 12-round unification victory over such a big, powerful, skilled, undefeated opponent as Tony Tucker is something George Foreman never came close to accomplishing.

Head-to-head, I believe Tyson demolishes George Foreman:

I think Foreman had too many gaps to be exploited by someone like Tyson: a two-handed combination puncher with blazing speed.

a) Foreman did not handle top speed well; he got hit before he could react, as in Zaire. This would be bad against Tyson.

b) Foreman was very vulnerable to the straight right; Tyson had a dandy, and he could bring it from way out of range.

c) Much is made of Foreman's strength, but, at their best, Tyson was actually a tiny bit heavier than Foreman; sure, Foreman could push, but Tyson had great torso movement and mobility on his feet. Foreman would not simply be able to push and swing as he did with the one-gear (forward) Frazier. In fact, the pushing could lead to counter
openings for Tyson from either hand in the form of hooks and uppercuts.

I actually think Tyson became passive inside because he didn't need to fight inside. His fabulous midrange attack was all he needed. So he was content to have the ref break. But watch the Tubbs fight to see how lethal Tyson could be in an inside brawl.

d) Much is made of the Frazier fights, but, again, in a word, Tyson is much better than Joe Frazier. Tyson would never pose with his chin out like Joe did.

e) Foreman, with his relative slowness, could only hope to land single shots, which would certainly be tremendous, but not enough to get the job done because --like it or not-- Tyson at his best was elusively hard to hit, and had a tremendous chin.

f) Another myth in my view is Foreman's chin: Ali was shaking Foreman good with single shots early, and Lyle felled him twice and had him reeling all over the place with single shots.

f) So, I say Tyson gets to Foreman first, early, brutally, and categorically.

Tyson.

 

foreman is more accmplished but tyson is far more exciting...i go for iron mike

 

Either,or TBH. I gave George my vote on the back of the Moorer win

 

LMAO, joke thread.

Tyson was a bum, Foreman was a God.

 

Foreman. He was tougher IMO. Far more mentally tougher

Besides Foreman's win over Frazier is better then any of Tyson's wins

 

Actually, Foreman is greater, and it's not actually close.

 

What changed your mind?

Lets recap here:

Tyson's deeper resume > The Frazier Win and comparable but shallow resume.

Tyson had a longer reign as champion. Foreman as champion in his first career couldn't hold his title very long. In his second career as champion he was stripped because he chose not to defend against mandatories and he instead chose soft touches resulting in the splintered belts.

Tyson cleaned out his division. This is something Foreman never did in either career.

At no point in Foreman's career would he ever top the p4p lists, let alone make the top 10.

In Tyson's career:

Ring Magazine p4p list:

1987

1. Mike Tyson
2. Julio Cesar Chavez
3. Sugar Ray Leonard
4. Marvin Hagler
5. Tommy Hearns
6. Micheal Nunn
7. Jeff Fenech
8. Azumah Nelson
9. Michael Spinks
10. Edwin Rosario

1988

1. Mike Tyson
2. Julio Cesar Chavez
3. Evander Holyfield
4. Ray Leonard
5. Jeff Fenech
6. Michael Nunn
7. Azumah Nelsoin
8. Jung Koo Chang
9. Buddy McGirt
10. Sumbu Kalambay

1989

1. Mike Tyson
2. Julio Cesar Chavez
3. Pernell Whitaker
4. Micheal Nunn
5. Antonio Esparragoza
6. Meldrick Taylor
7. Azumah Nelson
8. Raul Perez
9. Virgil Hill
10. Marlon Starling

Bottom line is when the two were relevant to their division Mike Tyson simply had the greater impact.

 

^^^ Everyone forgets Tyson was at the head of the pound for pound heap for 3 straight years. People here are saying if Foreman didn't capture the title in 1994 that it wouldn't be as close. Regaining the title is one thing, but doing something with it is another.

 

Tyson probably has a better argument for being greater. He held the title longer and ruled his divison. I regard the Spinks win higher than the Moorer win because Spinks beat the man before Tyson(Holmes) twice opposed to Moorer who never did that. Spinks even ranks higher as a lightheavyweight than Moorer does. Still this is close and both Foreman & Tyson were great fighters, no need to hate on either man as I have respect for both. Both men are ATGs. I still go for Foreman but it's close.

 

1_ TYSON IS NOT TOP 10 HW.
2_TYSON DID BEAT CRAPPY FIGHTERS LIKE BERBICK IN HIS 30s, a lhw spinks in his 30s,smith in his 30s, the worst version of larry holmes... tyson lost by ko in his prime against A ****ING BUM like buster douglas, tyson was destroyed in his late 30s by bums like williams or mcbride. he was destroyed by past prime evander and past prime lewis.
3_ foreman is top 5-6 hw for sure. he destroyed 29 years old undefeated frazier , prime norton(both men did beat ali).george chuvalo,ron lyle, goyo peralta,in his 40s he did beat gerry cooney, michael moorer(who did beat holyfield),bert cooper,alex stewart, he was stolen against briggs, he was competent against a peak holyfield.
4_ foreman was retired during 10 years and he won the belt again, he is the oldest hw champion .
is it even a debate?

 

i like watching tyson a bit more than watching foreman but the fact that foreman won the tittle for a second time at the age he did and in the savy he showed in his comeback in a strange way to me showed a level of advancement the second time around that pushes him ahead of tyson

 

Good posts. Definitely a tough pill to swallow for Tyson haters on here like Rooster & Combates lol.

 

Finally!