Who Do You Rank Higher Mike Tyson or George Foreman ?

[QueensburyRules]

- -Joe winning The Fight of the Century in a BTFO Prime undefeated, highly motivated Ali has the best scalp in heavywt history. It ain't even a discussion, it's settled history easily accessable via modern video.

[billeau2]

Actually Tyson has 6 undisputed defenses and 2 lineal defenses. Foreman's got 2 of both in his first career and 3 more lineal defenses in his second career, so if one wants to go by defenses, Tyson is a little better in that department. That's not the end all, be all though. Like you said, Foreman has the better overall wins.

This poster who comes up with some of the most ridiculous pronouncements always has to denigrate others... That is the real reason I am calling him out, and continue to do so. I find it interesting that many posters with the more innane beliefs, which they usually maintain are facts, are hell bent on attacking those who do not agree with them. Queenie does the same thing, and Rusty... of course.

Even if someone has a belief I think is wrong, I can accept it. It only gets me fired up when they tell others "this is a fact" or "if you don't agree you are ******" or some variation there of.

Tyson fought some very talented heavyweights in the 80's but, while it is not a fact (lol) generally there is an opinion that Foreman fought tougher opponents. Also, Tyson lost to the guys that were on the level of a "Frazier" like opponent, while George managed to win and lose some to this level of fellow great. One could argue that Tyson beat Holmes I suppose... One could also argue Tyson beat Spinks, but there are caveats to these victories... the age of Holmes, the weight class of Spinks.

Foreman beat a lot of tough guys like Chulvo, Cooney, Cooper, Stewart and Moore. then you factor in fellow ATG level (for consideration) guys like Norton and Frazier... It does not compare to Tyson who beat talented guys like Pinkleton, Berbick, Tucker and Smith who were a general level below the guys Foreman beat. Bruno and Rudock do not compare to Frazier and Norton... So there is really not much of an issue here that I can see.

Titles are imo not in and of themselves a determinant. Broner has many titles... does not make him any good compared to pac lol,

[cfang]

Foreman by some margin. His kos over norton and frazier are better than any of mikes wins and his comeback into a really tough era at his age was impressive.

[Willie Pep 229]

H2H - Old Foreman stops old Tyson -- young Foreman vs young Tyson IMO is a pick-up.

Career wise in the end Foreman was the more accomplished fighter (in the long run).

[thebrownbomber_]

Foreman and its not even close. Foreman has wins over Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Ron Lyle (Better than any of Tysons fights), while Tysons best win is a injured Tony Tucker and LHW Michael Spinks, but the spinks win was legit IMO, and foreman beat himself in his losses or was past it. Moreover, he did a better job against Prime Holyfield than Mike Tyson did against a old Holyfield. And lastly, Mike Tyson was scared of George Foreman. I have foreman at least 5 places ahead of Tyson.

[thebrownbomber_]

Hell Id rate some of Foremans opponents like Frazier as higher than Tyson lol. Best Era in HW history easily.

[thebrownbomber_]

This poster who comes up with some of the most ridiculous pronouncements always has to denigrate others... That is the real reason I am calling him out, and continue to do so. I find it interesting that many posters with the more innane beliefs, which they usually maintain are facts, are hell bent on attacking those who do not agree with them. Queenie does the same thing, and Rusty... of course.

Even if someone has a belief I think is wrong, I can accept it. It only gets me fired up when they tell others "this is a fact" or "if you don't agree you are ******" or some variation there of.

Tyson fought some very talented heavyweights in the 80's but, while it is not a fact (lol) generally there is an opinion that Foreman fought tougher opponents. Also, Tyson lost to the guys that were on the level of a "Frazier" like opponent, while George managed to win and lose some to this level of fellow great. One could argue that Tyson beat Holmes I suppose... One could also argue Tyson beat Spinks, but there are caveats to these victories... the age of Holmes, the weight class of Spinks.

Foreman beat a lot of tough guys like Chulvo, Cooney, Cooper, Stewart and Moore. then you factor in fellow ATG level (for consideration) guys like Norton and Frazier... It does not compare to Tyson who beat talented guys like Pinkleton, Berbick, Tucker and Smith who were a general level below the guys Foreman beat. Bruno and Rudock do not compare to Frazier and Norton... So there is really not much of an issue here that I can see.

Titles are imo not in and of themselves a determinant. Broner has many titles... does not make him any good compared to pac lol,

Well Cooper and Stewart and Moore are worse than Tucker IMHO. Tyson beat Stewart anyway, although Foremans 2 wins gainst Frazier and Norton alone triumph Tysons career.

[billeau2]

Well Cooper and Stewart and Moore are worse than Tucker IMHO. Tyson beat Stewart anyway, although Foremans 2 wins gainst Frazier and Norton alone triumph Tysons career.

I "trade out" for the purposes of this comparison One Michael Moore (Foreman) for one Michael Spinks (Tyson)... Michael Spinks was better, but Moore was very good, one of the better light heavies, compared to one of the very best (Spinks). Moore did better at heavy than Spinks, so I call this an even exchange when comparing these two lol.

[thebrownbomber_]

I "trade out" for the purposes of this comparison One Michael Moore (Foreman) for one Michael Spinks (Tyson)... Michael Spinks was better, but Moore was very good, one of the better light heavies, compared to one of the very best (Spinks). Moore did better at heavy than Spinks, so I call this an even exchange when comparing these two lol.

Nahh. Spinks beat a younger, closer to prime Larry Holmes than a Larry Holmes who went the distance with Prime Holyfield and exposed Mercer. Moorer got dismantled by Tua, a ripoff tyson, and doesn't have much quality names on his resume. Spinks also KOed Cooney, who was a terrifiying puncher but not the same after Holmes

[billeau2]

Nahh. Spinks beat a younger, closer to prime Larry Holmes than a Larry Holmes who went the distance with Prime Holyfield and exposed Mercer. Moorer got dismantled by Tua, a ripoff tyson, and doesn't have much quality names on his resume. Spinks also KOed Cooney, who was a terrifiying puncher but not the same after Holmes

Moore never materialized but had mad skills... His fight against Holy, the first one for example. It is true Moorer's resume is not good. I have no qualms about Spinks... Truly a marvel.