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

Moorer was not a good heavyweight. He was knocked out by Tua in seconds. I think Berbick was a better challenge than Moorer. Moorer's chin was terrible. This is revisionism if people think Moorer was a good heavyweight champ.

 

Berbick was a natural heavyweight. He beat Pinklon Thomas to win that title, who beat Witherspoon and I think Weaver. Moorer beat Holyfield but also lost to Holyfield.. And Moorer lost to Evander by knockout. Moorer was overrated as a heavyweight and was not very good. Holyfield fought everyone and lost to a few. Even Toney later. I am not a big fan of Moorer at heavyweight. Great jab decent combination punching-sharp, but no foot movement and weak weak chin.

 

Well said!!!!

@mark ant while I have chided you a little I have not said much negative, and have routinely defended you. First if you are going to make fun of someone’s parents (yes, mine) you need to be able to take a little good natured ribbing back. Anyway IMO feel free to post what you want when you want, as frequently as you want. I chime in on what interests me, and ignore what does not...and act bewildered when I just can’t believe it lol. I assume most of us are grown ups and can do the same. However if you want more positive feedback and dialogue @mrkoolkevin has given some solid suggestions that have also been given before. Anyway happy new year and God bless

 

Berbick beat an ATG too. I can include Ali if you/re including the Holyfield of the first fight with Moorer.

'Moorer was a good heavyweight who couldn't hold on to his titles' ? He sounds fantastic. And you accuse markant of not making sense.

Tyson battered Berbick comprehensively and cleaned out the division by the time he was 21. Foreman got schooled by a fat LHW until he landed a slightly suspicious knockout punch, a feat made more suspicious by the fact that he had never achieved it before and, despite selecting a handful of weak opponents, never came close to doing again.

Tyson's performance left me in awe. Foreman's left me scratching my head.

 

How's it ******ed (unpleasant and unnecessary btw. Disagree by all means but keep the insults to yourself)? I don't buy into him having heart failure but Holyfield was undeniably terrible the night Moorer beat him yet you claim Moorer beat an ATG (and even then, only just beat him). He beat an ATG in name only. Just like Berbick did when he fought Ali. Yes, I know I was being ridiculous but you started it.

Berbick competed with prime Holmes, Pinklon Thomas, Greg Page, Buster Douglas, The Truth among others, beating some. If you say Moorer was 'a good heavyweight who couldn't hold on to his titles', I suggest Berbick is the same (more so given that he was a genuine heavyweight). Feel free to refute that, though, by all means. Preferably with an explanation other than that I am '******ed'.

I know what I'm looking at. I'm not blinded by claims of Foreman's preternatural power. He softened Moorer up, did he? Moorer had a cut lip but otherwise no visible damage to his face and Foreman barely landed to the body in that fight, so the evidence suggests otherwise. And why didn't he soften up the likes of Alex Stewart, Tommy Morrison, Axel Schulz, Lou Savarese and Crawford Grimsley? None of these guys were renowned for being durable yet survived where Moorer couldn't. Foreman was fortunate imo that he got a mentally fragile small heavyweight with a weak chin.

 

I'm not all sure that Foreman of 1994 would be destroyed by Tyson of 1986, but I fail to see how that's relevant in any case.

Tyson won a title by 20, became unified at 21 and lineal at three days shy of 22. Benitez won a title at 17, I think it was, Patterson was undisputed champ at 21 and Ali hardly at a month past 22. So what Tyson did is not unique.

But being away for 10 years and becoming undisputed champion at 45 is unique, I believe. So I'll go with that.

So I think that a more relevant comparison than who would win between a 20 year old Tyson and a 45 year old Foreman, would be who you'd give the best chance to duplicate the others feat. A 45 year old Tyson beating the Moorer of 1994 for the undisputed title or a 20 year old Foreman beating Berbick (or a 21 year old Foreman beating Tucker or Spinks).

 

^ Interesting. So we'd be looking at the pro debut version of Foreman against Berbick and six years past McBride version of Tyson against Moorer.

 

I say Foremans acheivement at 45 beats Tysons at 20, both remarkable both deserving the highest plaudits.

However a boxing schooled 20 yr old with trainers/mentors like D'Amato, Rooney and Atlas guiding you from your teens, makes attaining the World title easier than getting your 45 yr old body into something like shape and managing to title at 45.

 

Foreman's achievement is greater.

His comeback seemed like madness to begin with. He was 38; an age when the majority of boxers are either retired or about to hang 'em up. And yet, Foreman would go on to have another 10-year career.

To be fair, as I recall, it took several years and only after his great performance against Holyfield, before people woke up to the fact that Foreman was serious and a viable force in the Heavyweight division. But, by then, he was 42, while Holyfield was a great champion in his pomp.

At the time, I thought that had been his last hurrah and I think he could have bowed out, at that point, with his head held high. Imagine then adding another three and half years of age; several more fights and a 17-month lay-off into the mix, before his next shot - against Moorer. As serious and as viable Foreman had been a few years earlier, beating Moorer, at age 45, seemed too massive an ask.

Well - the win was the stuff of Fairy Tales and goes towards providing another example of not everything going according to how it should, on paper.

A great victory.

 

Foreman at 45.

 

Pretty much, yeah.

 

Foreman enjoyed a lucky punch against a chinny fighter, otherwise he was completely outboxed and out pointed. But that still doesn't take away from his miraculous achievement.

 

George Foreman's win over Micheal Moorer at age 45 and Mike Tyson's win over Trevor Berbick at the age 20 are both incredible feats in boxing history and remain unbroken decades later. While they are both great achievements, I find it a little bit surprising how one sided the response is to the thread in favor of Foreman; I guess I assumed it would be more balanced all things considered.

Mike Tyson has the uncanny ability to make a great achievement look easy; no matter how eventual the outcome appeared, it was a stellar performance from a young man not old enough legally drink champagne to celebrate his win. Foreman's win on the other hand was more miraculous and consequently more sensationalized. Objectively speaking, Foreman's performance wasn't anything special; he was being outboxed and was behind on all 3 cards. However the stars had aligned for George; the win was so unexpected that even up until the last right hand it still seemed like Micheal Moorer was most likely going to win. Could he have replicated that performance if they had a rematch? Could he have done the same thing if Evander Holyfield didn't lose his belts? What if Riddick Bowe was still the champion?

Conversely, if you replaced any active Heavyweight in 1986 and put him in Berbick's place would Tyson not steamroll him all the same considering he thoroughly cleaned out the division anyway in rapid fashion?

Liston, Frazier, Holyfield, Lewis, Marciano and Holmes all turned pro at 21, 21, 22, 24, 24 and 24 respectively. Meanwhile Ali, Louis, Dempsey, Johnson and Foreman at the age of 20 were nowhere close to beating anyone of Berbick's caliber. If you were to take the 11 fighters that I just mentioned 'as they were' at the age of 20 and transplant them into a ring against the Berbick that faced Mike Tyson, Berbick would beat the majority of the fighters especially the ones who hadn't even turned pro at that stage.

And yes I do realize that flipping the script and asking who at age 45 would be able to pull it off against the same Moorer would yield similar results, the difference here is that its quite likely that even Foreman himself may not be able to replicate that performance. Whereas if Tyson was given a do-over he would still waste Berbick early. And yes there is a qualitative difference between Micheal Moorer and Trevor Berbick but I think its a wash here is because Foreman didn't dominate Moorer, he simply landed his sunday best against an arrogant fighter susceptible to big punchers while trailing on the score cards.

I don't want to trivialize or undermine Foreman's achievement, after all the Moorer victory alone guaranteed his place in the Top 10 when you factor in the context in which it was won. It was great and quite honestly its the same tier as the Tyson win over Berbick for the youngest ever champion, but in the end I give the edge to Mike.

Tyson's win over Berbick speaks more about who Tyson was at 20 than just the win itself. Whereas Foreman's win was taken entirely in the context of this was a great man capable of producing a miracle.

 

Tyson for me.

The heavyweight division has been skewing towards older champions ever since Mike for a variety of reasons. I don't believe we'll ever see a HW champ that young again. Let alone one as dominant as Mike.

It wouldn't shock me to see another 45 year old champ in my lifetime.

Plus, the style of win matters. George landed a miracle punch in a fight he was losing, but Mike flat out destroyed him. Full credit to George for pulling it out, but the latter is the more impressive result to me.