Who was a more feared fighter in their time, Mike Tyson or George Foreman?

[Mugwump]

There had been other media superstars before Tyson - Ali being the most obvious example. Plus many fighters at other weights (Leonard, Duran etc.)

But Tyson's arrival came at a time when the media was undergoing a revolution. More channels were arriving daily. Satellite bandwidth (which previously had been rationed on miserly scale) was becoming broader and much, much cheaper. Throw in wholesale deregulation of the airwaves which increased the level of coverage whilst decreasing the number of broadcasters (who were all buying each other up) and suddenly you were seeing huge amounts of (much needed) investment in infrastructure. Extremely fertile ground for the new breed of professional athletes seeking to make their names and fortunes.

Tyson was *exactly* what the suits in LA and Madison Avenue were looking for. And with modern methods of marketing and hype generation you had the tools to turn an athlete of his calibre into a media phenomenon.

And Tyson *was* a phenomenon. I can't recall ever feeling as terrified for the health and well-being of a fighter as I did whenever Tyson marched menacingly toward the ring. Sure, it helped that guys like Spinks and Berbick didn't acquit themselves particularly well in their bouts but I think they too were, at least in part, under the spell of the Tyson myth which was being spun by the media.

Would Foreman have been as successful if the roles had been reversed? Well - he certainly had many of the necessary tools and you could make a good case that he was a far better fighter than Mike in his prime. But whilst Foreman's surly nature would undoubtedly aid in the portrayal of him as "The Baddest Man on the Planet" ... it should be remembered that Tyson had other attributes which helped to sell him as a superstar. For instance, off camera Mike was usually extremely eloquent and regularly demonstrated that he had an encyclopaedic knowledge of the sport. Sure, it means nothing in the ring. But this kind of "media friendly" stuff really helps in selling The Man.

[Joe Beamish]

Actually this comment brings up a very big difference. The whole demographic of the boxing fan had changed when Tyson plied his trade. I remember being in college and because of the way he won people all knew about Tyson.

When foreman was in his heyday, boxing fans had less casual elements... for example, most people would be shocked to know that Foreman was covered by Norman Mailer, in a piece from Playboy Magazine. But at that time sportswriters were more Oscar Madison than Kevin Lole.

But to have an a great writer do a piece on you is a fantastic endorsement.

One of the themes of that piece was how terrifying Foreman was. But you're right....different world.

[them_apples]

Tysons day was a lot of marketing and not a lot of serious competition. Foreman was a more fearsome man by a longshot actually however his oponents were feirce themselves.

Tyson had a lot of mediocre fighters scared and certainly had some talent, but the only real competition around was holyfield and old george. He didn't fight Holy until 96 or so (I forget when the first fight happened) and he lost that one pretty much because holy was actually tough and came to win. Foremans competition was all like that in the 70s.

There had been other media superstars before Tyson - Ali being the most obvious example. Plus many fighters at other weights (Leonard, Duran etc.)

But Tyson's arrival came at a time when the media was undergoing a revolution. More channels were arriving daily. Satellite bandwidth (which previously had been rationed on miserly scale) was becoming broader and much, much cheaper. Throw in wholesale deregulation of the airwaves which increased the level of coverage whilst decreasing the number of broadcasters (who were all buying each other up) and suddenly you were seeing huge amounts of (much needed) investment in infrastructure. Extremely fertile ground for the new breed of professional athletes seeking to make their names and fortunes.

Tyson was *exactly* what the suits in LA and Madison Avenue were looking for. And with modern methods of marketing and hype generation you had the tools to turn an athlete of his calibre into a media phenomenon.

And Tyson *was* a phenomenon. I can't recall ever feeling as terrified for the health and well-being of a fighter as I did whenever Tyson marched menacingly toward the ring. Sure, it helped that guys like Spinks and Berbick didn't acquit themselves particularly well in their bouts but I think they too were, at least in part, under the spell of the Tyson myth which was being spun by the media.

Would Foreman have been as successful if the roles had been reversed? Well - he certainly had many of the necessary tools and you could make a good case that he was a far better fighter than Mike in his prime. But whilst Foreman's surly nature would undoubtedly aid in the portrayal of him as "The Baddest Man on the Planet" ... it should be remembered that Tyson had other attributes which helped to sell him as a superstar. For instance, off camera Mike was usually extremely eloquent and regularly demonstrated that he had an encyclopaedic knowledge of the sport. Sure, it means nothing in the ring. But this kind of "media friendly" stuff really helps in selling The Man.

Turn the tables though and I don't think Tyson would have been a boxer in the 70s. He wasn't made up for that

[Mugwump]

Tysons day was a lot of marketing and not a lot of serious competition. Foreman was a more fearsome man by a longshot actually however his oponents were feirce themselves.

A better fighter? Sure.

But when you are talking about an abstract concept such as "fearsomeness" logic kind of goes out of the window because like a lot of subjective metrics it's measured in the subconscious of the viewer.

I mean, thinking about it *logically* I'd probably say Foreman because whilst Tyson hit like a truck - Foreman's punches could crush one. And Foreman definitely had the scarier personality.

But purely in terms of their ability to instil *fear* in me as a person - Tyson wins by a country mile. A Foreman fight consisted of a few short pieces on TV (maybe an interview, the weigh-in etc.) and a handful of minutes (maybe seconds) of fight time. Thereafter you have a post-fight interview, a few articles in the newspaper and then you are waiting till the next bout. Sure - the guy was a scary character. But you just didn't see *enough* of him for it to really make an impression.

With Mike we weren't quite at the point today where superstar coverage is effectively wall-to-wall. But we were certainly getting there. From the moment he arrived the guy was on every TV channel in every household every week. Total media saturation and it helped create almost a Tyson-mania which gripped not only the US but most parts of the world.

[GhostofDempsey]

I'd say Tyson. Foreman really wasn't talked about much until his first win over Frazier. A year and change later he lost to Ali and the boogeyman was exposed. He still had a rep, but he was no longer invincible. Tyson's reign as the baddest man on the planet lasted much longer.

[DreamFighter]

up to a point, both were highly feared. The media made tyson out to be more unbeatable, but thats a statement on media power in the 80s. We as 80s boxing fans were constructing in our heads a tyson reign that lasted 10 years, when clearly with hindsight that was never going to happen. Probably 70s fans were more lucid.

[QueensburyRules]

- -Ephemeral Question decided unanimously when Tyson refused to fight George.

Anything else just schoolboy hyperventilation...

[Granath]

Seen as the most feared? Tyson, hands down.

Tyson was a phenom, a cultural icon, a tour-de-force. He was news. The youngest HW champion of all time who just knocks everyone out. No one thought they could beat him and he won fights before he ever got in the ring. Even champs like Spinks seemed afraid of him. The baddest man on the planet. In reality we know that Mike was heading downhill because of the lack of leadership in his life. It's easy to look at it in retrospect now and discount that reputation but at the time Mike was seen as invincible.

George was also seen as a wrecking ball and had the respect of the public and other fighters. But I don't know that he had that same aura of fear that Tyson had. George is higher up on my ATG list because he had the better career but in terms of reputation Tyson is the guy.

Of course, it's not Big George who compares with Tyson in that way. It's Sonny Liston, the original baddest man on the planet. Handled by the mob and having done hard time, Liston was absolutely feared by boxers inside the ring and the public outside of it.

[PRINCEKOOL]

I can remember watching my 'When We Where kings' VHS tape as a kid, it was a Christmas present. And I was aware of who Mike Tyson was at the time but? Those images of George Foreman blasting out Norton & Frazier where incredible 'Their reactions to being hit where horrific'. I can remember reading that, George Foreman used to train along side Sonny Liston and earlier on in his career? Was influenced by his demeanor greatly.

But I would have to say at his peak Mike Tyson among the public may have been more feared, but among his competitors? It is very close to call 'They where probably equal'.

[Dempsey19]

It was impossible for a man who was a contemporary of Muhammad Ali to ever be feared, the best one could hope to be was a gorilla who'd get the chillah in manilla or a dope to be roped.

The real question is Liston or Tyson, who was more feared ?