Which is a greater achievement, Tyson becoming a champion at 20 or Foreman becoming a champ at 45?

I think those guys publicly hate on you because they feel that you start too many threads on a whim or on the basis of flimsy source material, like dodgy youtube videos or quora threads making outlandish claims. The attacks are their way of nudging you to post fewer new threads, and to do more of your own background reading and viewing to make sure that the questions you pose are reasonable and interesting.

Just my interpretation. Happy holidays, Mark!

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

I’d have to go with foreman, to become champ at that age is near physically impossible, added to the fact moorer was decent. It’s still amazing to become champion at such a young age as well, but the obstacles a 45 year old fighter has to face outweighs that for me. It’s more possible for a fighter groomed from the age of 12 to become a young champion than it is for an old guy coming back after a long break.

 

If you're judging on one fight then I'll pick Foreman not just because of his age but because I think Moorer was a slight favourite with the bookies while Tyson was 3-1 on to beat Berbick.

 

Foreman at 45, and I think Moorer was better than Berbick

 

It's one thing to say you start too many threads but to say you have autism is a bit severe! I think I joined in a bit on the March 96 Ring issue thing because it did seem you were posting threads every day related to that issue but hopefully you know that was in jest. Anyway, keep posting but I agree that sometimes less is more on the thread creation. But all the best for 2019, Mark.

And I'm going to buck the trend and say Tyson's was more impressive.

 

Another vote for Foreman.

Tyson was drilled like a marine by a great, great trainer in a style absolutely suited to him and he was a physical force.

Foreman at 45 ... that's not just old for a boxer, that's positively ancient.

 

As a creaky 40 something myself I have to go with Foreman.

 

I think it’s equal. What Foreman was truly phenomenal. That’s 5 yrs from 50! And Michael Moore was a real champion too. This win is why I think he’s a top 5 heavyweight. Winning the title 20 to winning it at 45 is like comparing a million in cash in 20 or 50 dollar bills. Both great and all time legacy things

 

Foreman winning it all at 45.

For much of his comeback Foreman was thought to be a farce. The fact that he did as well as he did was pretty amazing. He was picking and choosing his opponents and avoiding the best of the best, yet he got himself two shots at the legitimate title. In his previous fight before Moorer he was outboxed (!) by Tommy Morrison (!!). The only reason George was given any chance at beating Moorer was that Moorer had a suspect chin. So that fact that he pulled it off was pretty extraordinary.

By contrast, Tyson was an heir apparent dating back to his amateur days. He was steamrolling everyone, had a great team around him, and was building his resume in a way we hadn't seen since Sugar Ray Leonard's rise. So it wasn't much of a surprise when he got Spinks out of there so quickly to win it all at such a young age. (Or the quick kayo of Berbick if you give credence to the organizational belts.)

 

Tyson.. Foreman had

Tyson easily.
3 chances to win the title and lost to Holyfield and Morrison before beating a weak chinned Moorer. Tyson moved up and won at 20 and beat Berbick. And he had title defenses.

 

He lost his other two chances and against Morrison. He is 1-2 in title challenges. Eventually Foreman would get a punch in.