Who ranks higher as a heavyweight, George Foreman or Mike Tyson?

Probably George Foreman due to his destruction of more recognised competition (say Frazier who was coming off from beating Ali, and Norton who recently broke Ali's jaw), and his achievement of winning the HW title at 45.

But Tyson, who had the achievement of destroying much bigger men, and being the youngest HW champ, comes close.

 

This is an easy one.

George Foreman.

 

Foreman has the better resume and arguably the better accomplishments. Tyson has the longevity (title defences). Even with or without H2H criteria, Foreman is above Tyson imo.

 

Foreman

 

Both were considered almost invincible before their first defeats. Tyson had more title defenses but Foreman had the bigger wins against Frazier and Norton. If Foreman didn't have his second career, I would rank Tyson higher. I think his style was more unique and technically more impressive. He had a few good wins in the 90s and won the WBA belt against Bruce Seldon. Anyway, his performance in the 90s was pretty poor compare to the 80s. Foreman, on the other hand, had a pretty impressive comeback after a 10-year hiatus. He has even improved in some aspects. He became lineal heavyweight champion again at the age of 45 after 20 years. So, all in all, I give the edge to Foreman.

 

Yeah this is how I see it.

Tyson had a better reign/longevity in his first career. However, Foreman has better and more memorable signature wins (Frazier, Norton, Lyle) compared to easy blowouts over spinks (very thin HW resume) or old Holmes coming off a loss. Tyson's utter demolition of Berbick is actually becoming a little underrated, he was one of the only guys to make him look that bad and it was a championship fight.

Foreman's comeback was astronomically better than Tyson post prison whose best wins are Seldon (quit) and Bruno (whom he had beaten before) before going 0-3 against Lewis and Hoylfield.

 

Just comparing their first part of their careers I would say Tyson by a good bit. Tyson did dominate the division held the title longer than Foreman. Unifying the belts and eventually beating Spinks was great for boxing.
Tyson's comp at the time had become a bit underrated. I'll concede Larry Holmes was shopworn and had been out of action 18 months but Trevor Berwick, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tubbs, Carl "The Truth" Williams, Biggs etc. Were the best going.
Foreman was a monster with those famous wins vs Frazier and Norton but his resume is a bit top heavy. Didn't beat alot of names in his first 37 fights. His title reign pretty short. He does have a good win over Ron Lyle.
When you weigh in George's amazing comeback 10 years after retirement. That was pretty special. That tips the scales in George Foreman's favor.

 

Tyson easily. Foreman only made one or two title defenses.

 

Interesting to see people consider this a shoe-in either way...but not unexpected, as they are both somewhat polarizing figures occupying that odd paradoxical "simultaneously overrated and underrated" liminal space.

 

Foreman wins this on his comeback tour and second time around. Never forget the fantastic wars with Holyfield in his comeback as well.

Foreman was as big a force in his first tour as Tyson. Act two of his career ices this for Big G

 

Tyson dominated his era whereas Foreman did not. Tyson staged a comeback which was no worse Foreman’s; he was just younger.

 

In a way, they were kind of similar in their comebacks. The main danger they posed had largely become just their power. But for Foreman's lucky shot against Moorer, he wouldn't have won the title back. But for Tyson failing to get a lucky shot against Lewis, he might have been a three time champ instead of a two time champ.

 

Tyson ranks higher.
Both lost and then regained the title, but in Foreman's case, it was only due to a lucky punch.