Who Do You Rank Higher Mike Tyson or George Foreman ?

[MikeyMike100]

That’s why it’s the history section so it’s not going to reflect more thought out opinions. Tyson had 9 title defenses ,and undisputed champion. Foreman had three I think and against unranked guys like Crawford Grimsley , in his first career he had 2 title defenses . When ranking these guys you aren’t going to get honest answers because then it would be Mike Tyson ranking higher .

Yes I can see arguments for both sides. On the one hand, like you said, Mike Tyson has more good wins and title defenses, as Geroge Foremans resume is a bit thin.

On the other hand George Foreman beat Joe Fraizer and Ken Norton in dominant fashion so he has better top wins than Mike Tyson. Also losing to Ali can be more defendable than losing to Buster Douglas (Although Buster Douglas fought great and a loss to Jimmy Young is similar)

They both regained the title but Moorer was probably a better heavyweight than Bruno (A guy Mike Tyson already beat)

Both sides of the argument are good. Is Mike Tyson quantity enough to make up for George limited quantity but better quality?

[REDEEMER]

Yes I can see arguments for both sides. On the one hand, like you said, Mike Tyson has more good wins and title defenses, as Geroge Foremans resume is a bit thin.

On the other hand George Foreman beat Joe Fraizer and Ken Norton in dominant fashion so he has better top wins than Mike Tyson. Also losing to Ali can be more defendable than losing to Buster Douglas (Although Buster Douglas fought great and a loss to Jimmy Young is similar)

They both regained the title but Moorer was probably a better heavyweight than Bruno (A guy Mike Tyson already beat)

Both sides of the argument are good. Is Mike Tyson quantity enough to make up for George limited quantity but better quality?

Douglas is one of the most underrated fighters ,I’d pick him to beat Young ,he had a killer jab and 83 inch reach I think ? He was no small guy ,the difference is Foreman looked like the bully who got embarrassed in the end in the playground picking on a guy twice as small .

Title defenses are more important if they are against top ranked guys . Who’s to say the guys Tyson dismantle were inferior ? Going on Frazier and Norton doesn’t take away from accomplishments , if the thread was about popularity I’m sure Foreman would win here , Holyfield is considered at least the second best 90”s fighter I assume and Lewis should be 1 both guys Tyson took on ,you can’t compare the second stages of their careers . The only thing they have in common is Holyfield, Savarese , and Stewart in their second careers . But Tyson clearly fought the better guys in his career ,even in losses I didn’t see Foreman step up to fight Bowe or Lewis both declined on camera to while Tyson was in prison.

Norton and Frazier are great wins but they can’t possibly themselves surpass what Tyson did as a career , no way .

[MikeyMike100]

Douglas is one of the most underrated fighters ,I’d pick him to beat Young ,he had a killer jab and 83 inch reach I think ? He was no small guy ,the difference is Foreman looked like the bully who got embarrassed in the end in the playground picking on a guy twice as small .

Title defenses are more important if they are against top ranked guys . Who’s to say the guys Tyson dismantle were inferior ? Going on Frazier and Norton doesn’t take away from accomplishments , if the thread was about popularity I’m sure Foreman would win here , Holyfield is considered at least the second best 90”s fighter I assume and Lewis should be 1 both guys Tyson took on ,you can’t compare the second stages of their careers . The only thing they have in common is Holyfield, Savarese , and Stewart in their second careers . But Tyson clearly fought the better guys in his career ,even in losses I didn’t see Foreman step up to fight Bowe or Lewis both declined on camera to while Tyson was in prison.

Norton and Frazier are great wins but they can’t possibly themselves surpass what Tyson did as a career , no way .

I agree that Douglas is underrated and that the loss is overratedly bad for Mike Tyson. Good points by you.

[QueensburyRules]

- -Big George in my top 5 and Mike in the next five, but I've got 3 levels of rankings depending on the criteria used. Boxing is a complex sport poorly understood by the proto anthropoids who tend to form the majority of boxing fan base.

[billeau2]

That’s why it’s the history section so it’s not going to reflect more thought out opinions. Tyson had 9 title defenses ,and undisputed champion. Foreman had three I think and against unranked guys like Crawford Grimsley , in his first career he had 2 title defenses . When ranking these guys you aren’t going to get honest answers because then it would be Mike Tyson ranking higher .

Your an imbecile, a half wit. The proof is that you cast aspersions on people who do think past paper titles and popular opinions... I can always smell your stench... you are the proverbial turd in the punchbowl. HA! Now idiot go tell us how good Wallin is because of his height. lol

[billeau2]

I agree that Douglas is underrated and that the loss is overratedly bad for Mike Tyson. Good points by you.

Actually think about it. Douglas fought superb against Tyson but underated? Douglas was never that consistent. On the other hand Jimmy Young was underated. Young beat Shavers, Lyle and could have easily gotten the nod against Norton, as well as Ali. Douglas was superb the night he beat Tyson but Foreman losing to Young is also acceptable, as Young was a fghter, like Burley, who was much better than given credit for.

And if we take Douglas on average? there is no way he beats Jimmy Young... Maybe the night he beat Tyson, MAYBE.

[HOUDINI563]

Frazier was a borderline ATG fighter. A true worlds heavyweight champion. No win on Tysons resume compares. Tysons era was watered down boxing scene that was around since Ali retired. Many fighters called heavyweight champion when in fact they were only top ten contenders.

Douglas had the shortest prime of any heavyweight champion. ONE FIGHT. He came into the ring prepared vs a unfocused and unready Tyson. How Douglas would have done against the best Tyson is certainly debatable.

[MikeyMike100]

Actually think about it. Douglas fought superb against Tyson but underated? Douglas was never that consistent. On the other hand Jimmy Young was underated. Young beat Shavers, Lyle and could have easily gotten the nod against Norton, as well as Ali. Douglas was superb the night he beat Tyson but Foreman losing to Young is also acceptable, as Young was a fghter, like Burley, who was much better than given credit for.

And if we take Douglas on average? there is no way he beats Jimmy Young... Maybe the night he beat Tyson, MAYBE.

Great points. This is what makes the discussion interesting

[billeau2]

Great points. This is what makes the discussion interesting

I really like Douglas. He has devoted his time now to working with kids. That night he was indeed, a phenomena. I would recommend that people actually watch the Jimmy Young, George Foreman fight... I does not look, in any way like a fluke. He does an incredible job. He also shows he has the chops beating Lyle (twice I believe).

[Anthony342]

Your an imbecile, a half wit. The proof is that you cast aspersions on people who do think past paper titles and popular opinions... I can always smell your stench... you are the proverbial turd in the punchbowl. HA! Now idiot go tell us how good Wallin is because of his height. lol

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.