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

Foreman made 3 title defenses, 2 of them successful.

 

It’s not a defense unless it’s a win or draw.

 

He had a chinny dance partner who fought like an idiot though.

 

He could’ve beaten Rahman after the first Lewis fight, but Lewis blocked it.

The main difference here is that Tyson underachieved pretty dramatically in his comeback whereas Foreman overachieved, but the actual level of accomplishment is similar.

 

I believe it is an unsuccessful defense if a loss.

 

Semantics. Defense means you leave with the title not counting NCs. Otherwise nothing was defended.

 

Sure semantics, which is what you are arguing with. We are discussing what the words mean.
Logically you have a title defense & lose, you defended it: but just not successfully.

 

Start a thread on it. First time I’ve ever heard of this.

 

There is no such thing as a lucky punch.

You threw it with the intention to hit your opponent.

It's a punch you practiced thousands of times in the gym.

And it's amazing that 20 years later people still think Foreman just threw out something hoping it would land when he obviously was baiting Moorer.

 

Foreman's comeback is superior to Tyson's.

Much longer lay-off; at a much older age; regained the Lineal Championship (not one trinket swapped out for another against cherry picks)

Foreman even put in a better performance against a Prime Holyfield, than did Tyson against the version the world had considered washed up.

No contest, really.

 

Gotta love the revisionism when people were fearing for Hoylfield's life, the odds were against him, etc. Then all of a sudden this was a new and improved Hoylfield and a beast of a heavyweight when he beat Tyson.

He looked like crap in his last few fights, had been in brutal wars that would've ended the careers of lesser boxers, and was 4 years older than Tyson.

 

Indeed. So concerned about their liability, NSAC ordered a medical of Holyfield that most astronauts wouldn't even be asked to go through.

Just looking back at the footage and newspaper clippings of the time brings it all back.

Huge, huge upset.

 

Tyson's record against rated opposition is something like 22-4. Foreman's is something close to 7-5. Huge disparity right off the bat.

Tyson 50-6-0 (44ko's)
Opp W/L/D-1334-213-17
Opp Winning %-85.3
Winning %-89.3
Overall Ranking: 87.3

Foreman 76-5-0 (68ko's)
Opp W/L/D-1727-609-96
Opp Winning %-71.0
Winning %-93.8
Overall Ranking: 82.4

Foreman went 3-1 in his first stint as champion. Tyson went 10-1 during his first stint as champ. In between, Foreman beat Lyle and Frazier and lost to Young. Tyson beat Stewart and Ruddock twice before prison.

Comebacks: Foreman beat Qawi, Cooper, Cooney, Rodriguez and lost to Holyfield. Then he beat Coetzer, Stewart and Lost to Morrison. Then he beat Moorer, Schulz, Grimsley, Savarese and lost to Briggs.

Tyson beat Mathis Jr, Bruno, Seldon and lost to Holyfield twice. He beat Botha, Savarese, Golota, Nielsen and lost to Lewis. He beat Etienne and lost to Williams and McBride.

Tyson fought the better opposition in both stints. Foreman has the greater win overall.

This has been done to death with very detailed replies about 2 months ago.

1.)Louis
2.)Ali
3.)Holmes
4.)Johnson
5.)Marciano
6.)TYSON
7.)Lewis
8.)FOREMAN
9.)Dempsey
10.)Frazier
11.)Holyfield
12.)Liston
13.)Wlad

 

PEDs

 

Yeah, if you aren't sentimental, the answer is Tyson. Just look at all of the posters who are overly impressed with the Moorer fight while not mentioning that Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champion ever.