Who is greater? George Foreman or Mike Tyson

Spot on, longevity as well. No contest in my opinion, I cant really see a case for Tyson. I feel George gets underrated here by some, the people who rate Tyson higher, do they rate him higher than Frazier as well? That doesnt make sense to me.

 

I'm going with Big George.

 

wow 3 to 1 edge to George. When I saw this thread now I was expecting it to be Tyson or a draw..

 

Foreman has refused to take credit for any of his wins since he converted to Christianity. I've seen him claim that he was scared to death of Norton and had to be pressured into taking the fight by his people; and he thanks God that he "got lucky" and caught Norton early or else he would've got his ears boxed off.

Chuvalo was past his peak, but he was coming off his biggest career win over Quarry, which put him back in or near the top 5. The fight with Foreman was considered almost pick 'em at the time.

Only in Chuvalo's eyes.

You could easily make as much or more criticism about Tyson's opponents here than you could about Frazier and Cuvalo. For example, Thomas was coming off an embarrassing upset loss to Berbick and then a shitty performance against Hosea. His status was considered very questionable coming into the Tyson fight, and even what small success he had against Tyson was considered a surprise.

 

delete that bollocks

 

Yeah Tyson's comeback was much more impressive.

 

Moorer was more accomplished than Morrison (both before and after losing to Foreman) and had no worse a chin. Moorer had beaten Holyfield and held the real lineal championship, and had never been beaten or KO'd prior to fighting Foreman. Morrison never had a win as big as Holy in his career, and had already been stopped by Mercer, and would be again by Bentt.

Tyson's comeback was no more impressive or successful. His biggest wins were Bruno and Seldon, who also had always had suspect chins, he never won the real title, and he was twice beaten by an old, faded Holy who had already lost to Moorer. A 40-something Foreman actually put up a better fight against a prime Holy than a much younger Tyson did with an old Holy.

We can't, because Bowe never proved himself against a big KO puncher like Foreman. Morrison at least beat Ruddock (who Bowe's people had turned down chances to fight) in addition to Foreman.

 

Foreman.

Both H to H and by accomplishment.

Tyson had better boxing skills, but too many negatives.

 

We have to be honest with ourselves. He was a dead man walking.




















































Joking of course.

 

If you're asking for a breakdown...

Young Foreman versus Tyson:
Foreman by Manslaughter

Old Foreman versus Tyson
Foreman by Late Round Stoppage

A young PRIME Foreman would absolutely obliterate anyone except Ali on THAT night IN Zaire.

 

Humble or not, Foreman is right about Norton too. He was a dangerous fighter if you couldn't take him out early. He does take credit for the Frazier win, citing his style as easy to predict and ideal for his uppercuts. Noone is saying Smoking Joe was shot, not even George, but it is well documented he did foolishly take the big fellow easy and come in out of shape.

Forgot about the Quarry fight for some reason, your absolutely right.

It wasn't a popular decision, the fans obviously thought it was too early as well. Chuvalo's manager was looking out for his man though.

I agree about Thomas, but his name deserved to be tossed in the hat if Cooney is going to be brought in as a good win.

 

I know, I've had enough of that **** to. There is a poster on here who believes that Frazier was completely "shot" against Foreman, and that had he been in his prime, George would have lost. He also thinks that Frazier's prime dates back from 1966 - 1969, pre - FOTC. If that isn't just the biggest crock of revisionist bull **** I've ever heard, then I'm at a loss for finding a better example...

 

Foreman > Tyson