Who Do You Rank Higher Mike Tyson or George Foreman ?

[StarshipTrooper]

Often crossed his feet over too which was an issue.

His feet were somewhat quick but nothing in comparison to the likes of Ali and certainly not to the ability in positioning to the likes of Louis.

That's true. Ali also had that problem early in his career, especially coming off the ropes. People derisively call Louis "plodding" because he wasn't a dancer, but if you look at his footwork it's practically textbook perfect. He was just measured and meticulous in what he did instead charging in like a Dempsey or a Tyson. It wasn't exciting but it was effective and almost impossible to counter.

[Blond Beast]

Big George. Plenty of reasons. Did better against Holyfield if someone needs an eye rinse.

[MONGOOSE66]

You can't even put together a coherent sentence in English let alone spell "to boot". Now, apparently you need help ******** off. Say no more! Your assisted phuck off is being delivered right now.....

I have sympathy for tards. It ain’t your fault.

[thebrownbomber_]

People insist on calling Spinks a LHW when he fought Tyson. He had four fights at HW before getting in with Tyson, and was only about 7 pounds lighter. He was 4 inches taller than Mike. He was indeed a full blown HW by the time he fought Tyson. He lost the fight in the locker room though, he was intimidated and looked terrified when he climbed through the ropes. He didn't wan to be there.

I agree. If Spinks was a true HW, he would’ve probably lasted 4 rounds instead of a minute.

[Ronn]

His destruction of Frazier and Norton trump any of Tysons wins .

What is so special about beating up Norton?

Tyson had more ability

In what way exactly did Tyson have more ability than Foreman?

[JAB5239]

What is so special about beating up Norton?



In what way exactly did Tyson have more ability than Foreman?

The better question is who on Tysons resume was better than Norton all time and prime? It's just a very good win over a very good fighter who arguably beat Ali twice when Ali was still a great fighter. I guess you could say Spinks for Tyson, but I personally rank Kenny higher all time at heavyweight than Spinks.

I'd say Tyson was faster, a better combination puncher and better defensively than Foreman. I certainly don't believe he was greater but I do think he has more ability.

[Willow The Wisp]

Alright that's a fair argument but I disagree - I'm a lineal guy - holding the HW Title hostage is a boxing tradition (like throwing chairs after a bad decision) -- I say stick with traditions. The world is always an unfair place; many a great contender got screwed out of their shot and I don't think Tyson deserves special treatment - if he didn't want Foreman sitting on the title then he shouldn't have let Douglas kick his butt in the first place. I disagree Tyson never regained his title; needed to beat Holyfield to do that.

Agree. "Titles" are so plentiful that they make a weak argument for anything beyond contendership. Tyson's management slipping an envelope the a WBX bag man hardly compares to George Foreman's 20 years later regaining of the top prize in spectator sports. It was important to state that, for historical integrity, but I do not wish to be argumentative. All-Time? Both greats of the modern age. Pressed, I say George Foreman nicks it. He got control over his ring flaws.

[billeau2]

- - I musta missed his boxing. Where's the fights having him box well?

Tyson x2. The Bowe fight he won.

[billeau2]

True but only because it is over stated. Tyson did have pretty good footwork for a HW. Moved quickly - he didn't cut off the ring in the classic sense but moved forward with a quick relentless assault that he became an irresistible force (circa 1989).

But your point is well taken, so much about him was overstated that it created a revisionist backlash; it became popular to demean his prowess.

DIGRESSION: I'm also a Jack the Ripper geek.

The 1970s was the decade of conspiracy theories and the history of the Ripper murders became plagued by mutiple theories. The 1980s then saw a revisionist backlash seeking to debunk all those theories. Of course they then went too far, claiming all traditionally accepted evidence as bogus. By the time the debunkers got done, one was left wondering if there was ever a city named London [read sarcastic].

I agree on the point about Tyson's fast, but not ATG level feet. But im starting to see something: Cutting the ring is a great skill set. It is ONE of a few ways to be succesful with aggressive footwork. Some of the best pursuers come in fast off a line (pacman), or use a basic step (Liston)... or swarm (Dempsey, Frazier. Marciano). Cutting the ring is not in itself a measure of great feet imo, it is one of a few ways to control distance and the ring. When done properly? It is great skill set for sure.

[QueensburyRules]

Tyson x2. The Bowe fight he won.

- - Big Dummy too stooopid to know how to box at higher levels never met a punch he didnt eat.

Both Tyson fights marred by Evan Butts that Tyson complained about bitterly.

A bit like Two Ton Toney challenge of name a fight where he shows sublime boxing skills? Toney fans have no answers, but me being the all knowing Poohbah in this dereliction, he whooped a masterclass on Evan that night for his one and only signature masterclass, marred by subsequent drug testing failures for steroids.