Who is greater? George Foreman or Mike Tyson

Was the Moorer victory more impressive than Tyson's win over Bruno? The Moorer victory was about as impressive as Tyson's win over Bruce Seldon, it wasnt.

 

yes, because Foreman was shot to ****, older than Liston really was when he fought Ali and still beat the guy who beat Holyfield. And speaking of Holy, Foreman gave him trouble. I'm a Tyson fan but his win over Seldon was so crappy, I just like to forget about it.

 

Bottom line is Tyson has the depth in his resume and dominated during his reign.

Foreman has better signature wins but lacks depth and although his wins are great they are not enough to give him the edge to Tyson.

 

huge fan of both but i seem to find that boxing history has been muc h kinder to foreman than tyson....i find both versions of foreman somewhat overrated....now, before you shoot me down in flames im not, forone minute, disputing that he was a great hw, but his three most significant fights as a young man were two victorys over a past prime and out of shape frazier, over whom he had incredible size/power advantages, and a resounding loss to a past prime ali...after that we have an up and down battle with ron lyle, RON LYLE...a good fighter for sure, but where does ronnie lyle stand in the grand scheme of things...then a loss too jimmy young, a cagey, crafty boxer

old george had a war with alex stewart, was beaten by tommy morrison ferchrissakes, outboxed at that, sure he gave holy trouble but was clearly the loser, got jobbed agains tshannon briggs for sure, but equally was gifted victroy over axel shulz....and if, as larry holmes famously said, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes, mike moorer was big georges acorn, blighted by poor whiskers..big george ALWAYS had that punchers chance...and took it....

im not denigrating foreman, far from it, he was/is great to watch, involved in some brutal beatdowns and exciting fights, but i do think we overestimate him and forget what an equally impresiv e wrecking machine tyson was in his day

 

Foreman's first,more meaninful,reign had the quality,while Tyson's had the quantity. I also firmly believe that if Muhammad Ali had n't have been around,George would have kept the title as long as Tyson's 3 1/4 years,between 1986-1990. Winning the title from a slightly passed his best,but still damned useful Frazier,and repeating the job over the highly rated Ken Norton,speaks for itself. On a head to head basis,George beats Mike within six stanzas. As is often mentioned,Tyson displayed an inability to come back after being hurt,as George managed against Ron Lyle. Some may say "Ah...but we're talking PRIME Tyson of 1986/88. Well,Mike did n't meet anyone who seriously tested him during that period.

 

A slight edge to Foreman, based on beating Frazier, Norton, Lyle. But a good case can be made for Tyson. In head to head competition, I think Foreman would overpower Mike, too.

 

Tyson and its not even close whats foreman got a loss to clay and his style was more suited to fighting frazier thats it.

Tyson was a phenom lethal weapons in both hands and speed. Tyson G.O.A.T.

 

this :good

 

Ability-wise, Tyson for me. Easily.

Overall greatness, it has to be Foreman. Better resume, greater achievements, superior longevity.

It's a shame, because I think Tyson was a much better fighter, and also would've dominated Large George if they ever met in the ring.

 

Good post. I too am a fan of both(Lately I've been warming up Foreman and liked what I say from him and admire him). I think Mike is getting underrated a bit here. Yes Foreman has that great win over Frazier but overall Tyson MIGHT have the better wins. It's not his fault he didn't fight in the 70's like George but he still dominated and has a longer title reign I think. It is special that George came back his third time and an older age to still win a title again and also give a prime Holyfield a great fight, Mike had great wars with Ruddock but I don't think a past prime Mike had the success that a third career Foreman did. It's debatable who's greater as you have to take into account that Foreman was a top name in the greatest era of hvy boxing(maybe people highlight this too much for George but it's true) but Mike did well for himself to become a champ again although he didn't beat anyone better than Moorer imo. It's close but I go for Foreman.

 

There is a difference between taking a few hard punches and getting hurt, hitting the deck and subsequently coming back and taking a long sustained beating throughout the course of the fight and then miraculously coming back.

So the example that you used with Lyle to me doesn't cut it. If Foreman had a better chin he wouldn't have gone down. After all Tyson was hurt against Bruno and Ruddock and he showed his ability to turn the tables back quick.

A better example to use is the Moorer fight. That is the kind of comeback that deserves real credit because Moorer was beating him up most of the fight and he came back to win.

In Tyson's defense he narrowly missed achieving that same thing because unlike Moorer, Douglas wasn't hurt enough to stay down.

 

Very true. Mike's heart goes underrated but he showed it against Douglas, Botha, Ruddock twice, and during his 80's reign he even recovered after getting hurt by Smith & Bruno to beat them .

 

Actually in terms of resume Foreman lacks the depth that Tyson has.

Foreman

Frazier 2x
Norton
Lyle
Moorer
Chuvalo
Peralta
Stewart
Kirkman
Coetzer
Shulz
Savarese
Cooney

Tyson

Spinks
Holmes
Ruddock 2x
Tucker
Biggs
Thomas
Tubbs
Botha
Smith
Bruno 2x
Seldon
Berbick
Golota
Savarese
C. Williams
Stewart

Feel free to add names to Foreman's win column that will increase his standing.

What remains is overall, Foreman's win over Frazier is a top flight win. But after that they are pretty even in terms of opponents. Tyson just has the depth.

As for one being oldest champ and the other being youngest champ = wash

 

I'm not so sure now.
It's close.

 

Tyson but H2H a very dangerous fight for both men .. could go either way ...