Do you think Tyson was better than Foreman?

Career wise, no. Prime for prime, no. Head to head, no.

Foreman was a more well rounded fighter, much tougher and more resilient, and achieved more in his career. He's better no matter what angle you look at this from.

 

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/boxing-news/lotierzo1609.php

Here's the key point.

Depends on whether you believe it or not.

I think Tyson would have won, in fact most people do. But if Tyson didn't, then it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks.

 

I think Tyson accomplished more and was the better fighter prime for prime. Yes, Big George deserves plenty of credit for knocking out Moorer to become the oldest HW champ in history, but you're talking about a guy who in his younger years flamed out quicker than Tyson at the world level. His style allowed for more staying power than any swarmer could ever achieve, but Mike did more during his time on top than George did.

George had 3 title defenses in his entire career, and one of them was a robbery against Schultz. Also the oldest HW champ in history.
Tyson had 10 title defenses, and unified the big 3 belts one at a time as well as becoming the youngest HW champ in history.

 

Tyson>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Forman :yep:yep:yep

 

Skills, speed, balance- Tyson...Power -Foreman ( although not that much)...Stronger - Foreman...Chin - Equal

 

Precision- Tyson

 

I think Tyson....prime 4 prime..

But I would say if that story is true..

It wouldn't be suprising...Tyson knows the history of boxing...

So he looks at the outcome..of similiar style fighter...&...the cus's....words..it's suicide...

It all starts ...in the mental...

Not suprising..if true...he made a smart decision..if he thought he couldn't win..

 

Sadly only a time machine would settle this. I do know this though...if the 2 of them ever met prime vs prime, someone's getting royally KTFO! :!:

 

Prime for Prime they're as good as each other.

Different styles though.

And Foreman's resume is twice as good.

 

I would say in there prime tyson and post prime gotta be foreman

 

Head to head, I can see either guy winning. And I can see either guy winning early.

But I think Tyson was just a better fighter than Foreman.

 

[YT]zVmDlNqPwWk[/YT]
[YT]Dkm-Fb9LdxE[/YT]

 

Yes. I do.

 

Foreman more well rounded???? The man barely had a defence to speak of; he's a classic example of a fighter whose defence is his offense. Tyson was technically schooled perfect and rarely hit flush in his (short) prime.

I think Tyson was better and more complete in his prime, while Foreman probably had the better career.

 

Better fighter? Hmmm, possibly.

Greater fighter in terms of accomplishment? **** no!