Who was better in their prime Foreman or Tyson?

That is a cop out answer.

Ali psyched out fighters before his fights using psychological warfare to get in their heads and he's labeled a genius.

Tyson assaults his opponents in the ring in a vicious fashion and as a result fighters come in weary of him because of his highlight reels and all of a sudden it's Tyson's fault?

Tyson isn't overrated.
Unless you rank him in the top 5.

Tyson was the goods, and that's why he got so many chances; because he had the attributes that made people believe in his ability.

Tyson vs Foreman is a different argument altogether.

The question is who was better in their prime.

 

Foreman for me and its not even close.

 

Tyson had better fundamentals and better speed and defense so I can see why people pick him because he looks better on film where as foreman looked sloppy but foreman was effective and had the better record than Tyson. I go with the better record and most people do as well.

 

How was Tyson "more consistent" than Foreman? When did foreman ever struggle until the Ali fight? both of their careers followed the same pattern, they were predominately all dominating knockout wins until their first loss.

 

Mental strength in the face of adversity.

Prime Foreman > Prime Tyson

Record, H2H, on the street, Foreman would ruin him.

 

Actually, most people go for Tyson. Take a look at the poll.

 

Don't see any mental weakness in Tyson in his prime. I like how in the interviews afterwards, he likes to talk about how to improve his game and what he could have done better in the ring. It wasn't about opponents or fans or who he fights next that you could see he was just focused on his technique. The guy was single minded in his pursue of perfection... well earlier on.

 

technically Tyson was superior but Foreman would have kicked the crap out of Mike because of the styles matchup.

 

Foreman and its not even close.

Foreman Ko'd Joe Frazier in his prime

Mike Tyson lost to Douglas and Holyfield in his

 

Compare Tyson's resume with Foreman and you'll see what I'm talking about; Foreman while he has some quality victories, lacks the depth that Tyson has when assessing his resume.

Take the top 20 names in Tyson's resume.
Take the top 20 names in Foreman's resume.

You'll come to the same conclusion; Tyson has far more depth.

And was therefore far more consistent against top fighters than Foreman. It's the reason why Tyson's reign was more dominant than Foreman's reign.

Mental strength is not giving up and mentally folding against Muhammad Ali in Zaire. Foreman got up at the count of 9 and never once protested the stoppage rather he accepted defeat against a fighter he was supposed to blow away. Foreman was hurt no doubt, but he was coherent enough to know what he was doing.

Tyson on the other hand was incoherent against Douglas but even still tried to win, albeit unsuccessfully, against Douglas until the very end even getting up after taking a significant amount of punishment. Same with Holyfield. Minus the last 30 seconds of round 10 in their first fight, the round was Tyson's. He just didn't have anything left in the tank.

Record goes to Tyson. More depth in his resume, more title defenses.

H2H goes to Tyson, far more complete fighter than George and he had the handspeed and power that would see Mike beat him to the punch and through his sloppy defense to get him out of there in 5 rounds.

In the street not sure how that ends but it would be a pretty violent thing to watch.

 

Foreman was stopped by Ali because he went wild & punched himself out. nothing to do with mentality. George climbed off his ass to win fights he'd been knocked down in, something Tyson never did. Losing to Ali is certainly more respectable than losing to Douglas.

Record goes to Tyson? U mad?

H2H Tyson would be eating uppercuts from probably the strongest & hardest hitting guy to ever lace em up. He would beat Mike in 4-5 rounds.

 

You forgot to mention that Foreman lost to Ali and Young in his prime.

 

Tyson ducked old Foreman. Thats your answer right there.

 

How's that for ring intelligence? Tyson wouldn't have fallen for something like that. But watch the 8th round again and tell me that Foreman could have put more effort in to continue fighting a very winnable fight (in terms of scoring).

Doesn't take away what happened in Zaire.

Tyson never hit the canvas that early against opponents and therefore never had to get up to win a fight. A lesser chin and flawed balance may have seen Tyson get off the floor to beat Bruno and Ruddock. But his chin was granite and his balance was near perfect and therefore it took a hell of a lot to get him down in the canvas in the first place.

Personally, I don't give extra credit to guys who get up to win fights because it doesn't always give you the whole story. For instance, who was more hurt; Tyson against Douglas when he hit the canvas or Foreman against Lyle the first time he hit the canvas? or Second time he hit the canvas?

I'll answer it for you. Tyson was more hurt and more exhausted than Foreman was in both occasions.

What about losing to Young?

Affirmative.

No. But it seems to me that you are and I'm not sure why. This is a boxing forum and we are talking about 2 great fighters. There is bound to be a difference in opinion.

When you look at Tyson's career it becomes pretty evident that having concussive power is not a prerequisite to beating him. It takes guile, solid defense and strong fundamentals to beat Tyson. Foreman didn't have the kind of defense to keep Tyson from landing early and often. Mike's ability to counter effectively via his cat like reflexes and top notch handspeed is the reason why fighters often went in to survival mode against him so they could at the very least last the distance. Foreman still could win but he would have to take control very early and never let go until he's pummeled Tyson to the ground. But he simply doesn't have the handspeed, lateral movement or defense to keep Tyson from landing. Their power and chin are a wash but Mike's handspeed is a clear advantage and likely the deciding factor.

 

didnt foreman go into hiding because he lost?