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

So he was 100% clean before 1996?

And this doesn't change the fact the odds were against him, that he looked bad in his last few fights, and was 4 years older.

 

Is it easier or harder to win a championship when you're in your prime and arguably the most gifted fighter in the division's history or when you're past 40?

Has nothing to do with sentimentality. Foreman has the better signature wins while Tyson has the better reign and more contenders. Tyson has approximately zero title winning efforts comparable to beating a prime undefeated Frazier pre prison and zero title winning efforts comparable to beating a prime undefeated Moorer post prison. It's that simple.

 

I guess Tyson being in prison for 3 years and not having fought in 4 years means and fighting less than 8 complete rounds means absolute ****in zilch? Who ****in cares if the media picked Tyson to win 9 championships in 1996, their job is to hype fighters and fights without ever picking up a glove in their entire ****in lives!

Not sure why I posted this but I have a feeling nobody gives two shits about Tyson's inactivity before facing certain roided out fighters with their skin stretching to high heaven.

**** this place!!

 

Better first career: Tyson, but Foreman faced better opposition

Better second career: Foreman, Tyson was on track to become the best of two decades till he folded

Overall: Foreman

 

It's true that Tyson was rushed and should've gotten more rounds in before taking a fight like that. They should've put Tyson in with McCall to make him go 12.

What I'm alluding to with Holyfield is that his outlier level of juicing adversely affected him for a period, then turned him into a bull at an age when he should've been fading out.

 

I think Moorer is probably being overhyped by some. The guy spent his career ducking his contemporaries. I don't think he would have been undefeated or become champion in the first place without extremely careful matchmaking that allowed him to avoid Bowe Lewis Ruddock Tyson McCall etc etc

 

Foreman won the Lineal Heavyweight Championship 2 x, successfully defended it 5 x, and had 78 wins and 3 losses, over 28 years. George's best win was probably over Joe Frazier (Won by KO 02), or over Ken Norton (Won by KO 02). His worst loss was probably to Muhammad Ali (Lost by K0 by in 08).

Tyson won the Lineal Heavyweight Championship 1 x, successfully defended it 2x, and had 50 wins and 6 losses, over 20 years. Mike's best win was probably over Michael Spinks (Won by KO 01), or over Larry Holmes (Won by KO 04). His worst loss was probably to Evander Holyfield (Lost by DQ by in 03).

I'll rank Foreman above Tyson.

 

It's a factoid either way, not a resume maker. BTW I'm confident that Vitali would've one sidedly beaten Moorer while in his mid forties, but I have no clue who other than Tyson could've unified all of the belts in the 80s at age 21.

 

Agree with the first part. Tyson was not ready for such a big super fight. Bruno did not offer much resistance and was mostly just grabbing to survive and throwing one or two shots to keep Tyson honest. Seldon offered zero resistance and did absolutely nothing for Tyson other than grabbing a paper belt which helped hype up the Holyfield fight.

The second part of your post is a little harder to prove and somewhat subjective.

 

Tyson ranks higher.

Foreman never knocked down John L. Sullivan.

 

Well both of those strange comparisons are impossible to prove and way off topic. We're discussing their resumes "as is" not speculating how other heavies would have done in their place.

Vitali's body was breaking down in his late 30's, let alone 40. Which is why he retired in the first place. I don't see him easily beating prime Moorer at that age and it's wild speculation since he has zero fights anywhere near the age of 45.

Tyson's path to unification wasn't the most perilous task. Prime Berbick was a good but not great boxer, fairly straightforward slugger with some decent ring IQ. A reserved Tucker with a hand injury, and a flat footed James "Boneclutcher" Smith who hugged often enough to make Ernie Terrell blush. There aren't tons of heavies who could beat them at 21, but I'd wager the young Louis who was demolishing the ex champions could do it. Ali at 21 possibly. Patterson might be able to pull it off.

 

Vitali's last fight was at 41. His late thirties and early forties career was decidedly better than Foreman's during that age range. He quit boxing for politics and hinted of a return several times. He also is a fitness freak to this day. I think he could've come back to beat Moorer at age 45.

Tyson beat Spinks at 21, which is an important part of the puzzle. Three belts + lineal. Ali is the only guy even deserves discussion, but he was struggling with Doug Jones at 21 so beating Berbick, Tucker, Bonecrusher and Spinks is wishful thinking.

 

No one said Vitali doesn't keep himself in shape. That's also incredibly irrelevant to the fact he was retired long before 45. His injuries and medical issues are well documented. It's literally why he retired. Two completely separate issues.

Ali beat Liston at 22 so no, it isn't remotely wishful thinking saying he could beat those guys. None of them could carry Listons jock strap. Louis beats the dog **** out of Smith, Tucker, berbick, and spinks.

But we're way off topic. Foreman winning the title at 45 is more impressive than a freak athlete in his 20's unifying a fairly weak era.

 

Foreman overall had a better career.

 

Truly they were all on PEDs no question.

No testing, millions of dollars on the line, no one cared and nothing but benefits?

Nah hard pass...