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

Excellent posts in favor of Tyson here. Funny how the thread has completely put on the brakes after the above posts by Ironchamp and Rock0052...

 

It's not a complex question. The context of each achievement and what any given poster values more highly answers it for them.

 

Everyone else had already posted their opinions.

 

Without a doubt Foreman. Tyson was at his physical prime at 20 years old, his body never matured after becoming champion nor did his attributes improve.

Foreman on the other hand had been out of the ring for a decade, ballooned massively in weight yet continued to be competitive despite slowing considerably.

 

I am going to stick my neck out and say that Foreman's feat is more likely to be matched in the future.

With fighters having longer amateur careers today, we are unlikely to see another champion as young as Tyson.

We are seeing heavyweights ageing better today, taking less punishment early in their careers, and the top fighters tend to have a style suited for longevity.

I suspect that some Wladamir Klitschko type will hold the title in his mid 40s eventually!

 

Foreman's comeback was insane.

A guy last seen in the 70's knocking out the HW champion of the world 20 years later, incredible.

I know there are some ridiculous people who say Old Foreman was better than Young Foreman but they're delusional.

 

Did my post bother you?

 

As well it should.

 

On the other hand if you have said once upon a time that Jimmy Young was going to knockdown and beat George Foreman you would’ve been called delusional.

 

Foreman clearly in my view

 

Yeah but upsets happen in sports. There's actually people on this site while genuinely believe that Foreman was better in his comeback than in his prime lol

 

Why would your post bother me? I was simply correcting you - the topic had already been posted on by most and had slowed. It was 4 pages deep and dying.

 

You're right...Ironchamp just killed it. Unless you had something to say about his post?

 

Haven't read it.

 

I should elaborate further as to my Foreman choice.

Tyson at the end of the day won one belt during the days of fragmented titles at the age of 20. Michael Spinks was lineal and seen as the man to beat not Berbick. By the time Tyson beat Spinks and became lineal i believe he may have been slightly older than Patterson. There are guys that would have a chance of beating Spinks at the age Tyson did i reckon.

When Foreman won the lineal crown he was i believe 8 years older than the previous oldest belt holder. 8 years! That is absolutely absurd. I can't see any 45yo beating Moorer in a hurry.