The expression " outside of ", isn't the reality and nor does it coincide with your original statement which was The 1980's alphabet soup champions were the most talented big men of all time. Incidentally, those " talented big men " of the 1980's were on average about 6'3" and anywhere from 215-230 lbs. I can name a lot of guys within those dimensions who were better than Trevor Berbick, Greg Page or Pinklon Thomas.
Yes, but there are a lot of men within that range and quite a few who's abilities and career accomplishments exceded that of the 80's alphabet crew. Mike Weaver and Tim Witherspoon are possible exceptions.
jack may get knocked down but to tysons amazement this so called little man would be up at the count of 1 tearing into a bewilderd tyson with shots as hard as any of the overrated heroes everyone blabs about untill tysons legs folded right after his confidence does
Norton would lose to a lot of guys. He did great against boxing type of fighters, but completely choked against punchers. Foreman was lucky to have him around as an easy-resume maker, just like Frazier and Moorer were easily stylistic matchups. Tyson has proved himself against a much wider variety of styles. A guy like Tucker who had good skills, was durable and big, would give Foreman loads of trouble. Tyson beat him into submission. Sorry to say this, but a win like that proves a lot more than blowing out a glass chinned Norton, even if there is no doubt who is greater.
What submission was that? My recollection of the fight is/was a decision win for Tyson over the guy. And by the way, did you actually know many people picking Tucker to win that fight? There were quite a few folks picking Norton in the upset over Foreman at the time and the odds were 3-1, George. Tucker/Tyson approached the odds of the Foreman/Roman bout.
Yes, and that's because Norton looked great against Ali, but they didn't know yet about the fragile nature of his jaw.
So you actually knew folks placing $$$ on Tucker when he fought Tyson? I sure didn't. I knew of more actually picking Berbick to beat Tyson and those were few are far between. I can't recall exactly, but the over/under on Tyson was bet pretty good and most $$$ was on the under in that Tucker fight. The reason nobody thought Norton had a weak jaw was that nobody had ever walked thru the guy prior to the Foreman fight. A classic case of hindsight versus foresight. Even folks picking George sure didn't think he'd destroy Norton early and the consensus was that Kenny would hang tough and give a good account of himself in there.
However you spin it, Chris' point stands. Tyson proved himself against both big bangers and good boxers, who had sturdy beards. Foreman got embarrased by the two best boxers he met and almost KO'd by the best slugger. The far superior depth of Tyson's resume for this reason beats Foreman's more impressive best win (Frazier). Btw, I think that Tyson's win over Spinks is better than Foreman's over Norton. And Tyson's win over Holmes isn't that extremely much less impressive than Foreman's over Frazier.
Well, after that Norton was KO's even more quickly by both Shavers and Cooney. Guess how many other first round KO's they have over top opposition?
Foreman fought Frazier, Norton, Ali, Lyle, Young, Cooney, Holyfield, Moorer, and several other lesser but still solid heavyweights. This is a weak resume?
I think Foreman's resume is awesome, but your list here needs some explaining. He either lost or was nearly defeated by Ali, Young and Lyle in fights that he was heavily favored to win. The Cooney bout means little or nothing as Gerry hadn't won a match in 3 years, and in fact had only made maybe 4 ring appearances over the previous 8. The Holyfield loss was a game and competitive effort against a peak prime all time great, but still a loss. I give him full credit for his wins over Norton, Frazier, Moorer, and yes even the Lyle win considering that he was coming off a 16 month layoff and a mind jolting defeat.