Mike Tyson 1987 vs. George Foreman 1973

[MAG1965]

Who wins this matchup of knockout artists?

[mr. magoo]

Either man win this one, but for stylistic reasons I'm going with Big George. Cus D'Amato - Tyson's trainer once said that no swarmer would ever beat Foreman. After watching what George did to another all time great of this particular discipline, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Yes there are some differences between Tyson and Frazier. I have no doubt that someone is bound to jump all over this post by saying that the comparison is non-congruent. But you have my vote.

[Holmes' Jab]

Tyson via stoppage. Circa round 8-9.

[MAG1965]

I will go with Mr Magoo on this one. The style matchup is terrible for Tyson, even when George was fighting his comeback I thought this would be bad for Tyson.

[turpinr]

big george by KO

[Holmes' Jab]

My summary is that Tyson moves much better, has much faster hands, better footwork, more complete offensive arsenal and much better defence. He will get his punches off first and isn't just going to be boring striaght in ala Frazier, hell be looking for a variety of angles. Given the fact Foreman isn't a defensive wizz by any stretch of the imagination he's going to get hit plenty, Tyson won't find it too hard to get inside and the end I can see Foreman visiting the canvas a few times, he'll tire badly, Tyson will pour it on in the latter rounds and in the end the referee will enforce a stoppage.

[jaffay]

Foreman 5 KO and the myth is gone.

[Russell]

Foreman in my opinion.

[Holmes' Jab]

Foreman 5 KO and the myth is gone.


Myth? Sure Foreman would KO Dempsey inside that time. :hey

[My dinner with Conteh]

Big George.

[Holmes' Jab]

... is 90-odd% more hittable than Pernell Whitaker. :yep

[jaffay]

Myth? Sure Foreman would KO Dempsey inside that time. :hey

Probably

[Flea Man]

Tyson also had a very good chin in his prime. If he used his head movement and managed to catch Foreman he could knock him down, but could he keep him down.

Tyson TKO 5 in an amazing war, Foreman was sturdy as Hell but too open in his prime. Walking Tyson down with his hands low wouldn't do him much good, but I have no doubt he would definitely catch Tyson at some point and have him in trouble.

Actually, I really don't know! Kid Dynamite never faced anyone as good as Foreman in his prime, and Foreman destroyed a similar fighter. However, as I think Prime Tyson was a better fighter than Frazier who knows, would Foreman find it as easy.

I did hear that Tyson said 'Fuck no' to a fight with the older Foreman, and that he loved watching Frazier-Foreman. Let's say Tyson isn't in awe of Big George, I say he wins.

If he's worried going in (like Spinks was against him) and he's too worried about what happened to Frazier, then maybe he loses. If he keeps his head on, bobs and weaves and comes in with counters, then I'd say he knocks Foreman out.

A far harder fight to predict than Ali-Tyson, which would end in an extreme; Tyson crushes Ali or Ali boxes his head off. This fight is so unpredictable due to the K.O power involved. I can imagine Tyson coming from down low and knocking Foreman's block off as much as I can see Foreman catching Tyson as he comes in with a big hook.

Two good chins, two big hitters. Who knows, maybe it goes the distance?

My prediction (god I've gone mad on this one!!!) I'm sitting on the fence.

[dezbeast]

I was personally more impressed with the Foreman who slugged it out with Lyle in 76. But in this matchup I imagine Tyson winning 6 times out of 10, 4 or 5 by decision. It's hard for me to invision Tyson knocking him out.

[Primadonna Kool]

Mike Tyson was no swarmer..!!!!

[jaffay]

Mike Tyson was no swarmer..!!!!

No, he was a conqueror, he was Alexander, he was Sonny Liston and he was Jack Dempsey.

[MrMarvel]

Tyson is made to order for Foreman.

[anon1]

Smart money is on Foreman but for this particular fight I'll emphasize the adage..."anything can happen in boxing".

[Tyson 2005]

I think Foreman takes this, but it would be a damned war before any of them decided to go down and out. If Tyson and Foreman are in they're right states of mind, I personally think that it's too close to call. But I'm leaning toward Foreman.

[ironchamp]

I say smart money is on Tyson.

He had the better chin, which would be important in this fight. He had the better defense, better technique and he was overall a better composite puncher. Some can even argue that he had better power.

In boxing anything is possible but not necessarily probable.

[BlackWater]

Tyson makes Foreman box the air and then unloads truck fulls of heavy shots and puts him out of his misery in the 6th

[goldnarms]

I say smart money is on Tyson.

He had the better chin, which would be important in this fight. He had the better defense, better technique and he was overall a better composite puncher. Some can even argue that he had better power.

In boxing anything is possible but not necessarily probable.

One thing that bothers me about Tyson is that he never won a fight coming off the canvas. Against Big George there is a really good chance this may be a requisite.

Also, if you look at a fighter like Bonecrusher Smith, who basically was able to completely neutralize Tyson via his size and strength. George would have a similar advantage but combine it with absurd power.

This fight is all wrong for Tyson. George by KO in 7.

Goldn

[Tyson 2005]

One thing that bothers me about Tyson is that he never won a fight coming off the canvas. Against Big George there is a really good chance this may be a requisite.

Also, if you look at a fighter like Bonecrusher Smith, who basically was able to completely neutralize Tyson via his size and strength. George would have a similar advantage but combine it with absurd power.

This fight is all wrong for Tyson. George by KO in 7.

Goldn

I agree with this guy, Foreman's power was really absurd. He was built for power, and just over all crushing people. George KO in the 7-9.

[OBCboxer]

No, he was a conqueror, he was Alexander, he was Sonny Liston and he was Jack Dempsey.

:good

[OBCboxer]

Big George KO 7. Tyson is tailor-made for Foreman. You have to figure that Foreman is going to land something big that can back Tyson up, and when Tyson backs up, he usually loses the fight........by KO.

[mr. magoo]

Its not so much the power thing that makes me apt to picking Foreman so much as it is style. Tyson survived the artillary of several huge hitters, ie. Frank Bruno, Razor Ruddock, Bonecrusher Smith, Andrew Golata, Tony Tucker, etc.

The key here is that none of those guys hooked to the side nor uppercutted the way that Foreman did. George's tendency to throw those looping "hookercuts" could potentially result in sneaking in under that peak a boo defense of Tyson's and really snapping the head back hard. George also had the tendency to give his foes a nasty little gut check while in the clinches.. Referees never seemed to have a problem with it either. I've also never seen George fail to fight back against a man he was intimidated by. In numerous interviews over the last three decades, Foreman has consistantly stated that he was " petrified " of both Norton and Frazier.. If you look at his face during the staredown, he does a masterful job of hiding it and his fear seemed to have boosted his fighting instinct as seen by what he did to both of those men. Without the element of intimidation on his side, Tyson may really find himself short of tricks up his sleeve.

Basically any fighter who lowered their center of gravity and fought in a couching stance was a sitting duck for Big George. Tyson, Patterson, Marciano, and Frazier are guys that I would never lay money down to beat him. Just doesn't seem to be in the cards.

[Russell]

He had the better chin, which would be important in this fight.

Uh, come again?

[mr. magoo]

I say smart money is on Tyson.

He had the better chin, which would be important in this fight.


How does a guy who was either stopped or knocked out on 5 occasions in 58 fights and who never rose off the canvas to win a match, have a better chin than a man who was stopped only once in 81 bouts and who in fact came off the floor to win one of the most exciting heavyweight fights of all time?

You made some good points in the following sentences of your post about better composite punching and some other things, but this claim to being more durable isn't really well supported in my opinion.

[leverage]

Styles make fights, and this is just another case of the big slugger beating the little slugger. It would be more interesting than foreman-frazier because tyson was skill wise than "smokin joe". He was a two handed bomber who threw fast and unorthodox combos. He could conceivably give big george some scary moments but the fact remains that he would have to come to foreman. When this happened he would get hit by those uppercuts which effects would be magnified by him running into them. Foreman by ko inside of 5.

[AnthonyJ74]

I will go with Mr Magoo on this one. The style matchup is terrible for Tyson, even when George was fighting his comeback I thought this would be bad for Tyson.

A comeback Foreman against champion Tyson would have been brutal; Tyson way too fast, too powerful, and too elusive for George to nail. Foreman, in my humble opinion, would have taken quite a nasty beating for as long as the fight went on. 1973 Foreman vs. 1988 Tyson? Tyson by KO. Tyson still too fast, too explosive, and too elusive. Foreman would have been beaten to the punch and outmanuevered; Tyson wouldn't just walk straight in like Frazier did; he'd attack from all angles and with better firepower.

[AnthonyJ74]

Tyson is made to order for Foreman.

Made to order for Foreman if he's looking to get beat! A fighter as fast and quick as Tyson with the awesome defense and mega-power in either hand is hardly made to order for a slower, lumbering fighter like Foreman.

[AnthonyJ74]

Styles make fights, and this is just another case of the big slugger beating the little slugger. It would be more interesting than foreman-frazier because tyson was skill wise than "smokin joe". He was a two handed bomber who threw fast and unorthodox combos. He could conceivably give big george some scary moments but the fact remains that he would have to come to foreman. When this happened he would get hit by those uppercuts which effects would be magnified by him running into them. Foreman by ko inside of 5.

Tyson weighed just as much as Foreman did at prime weight. Hardly a physical mismatch. Foreman was taller; Tyson was thicker.

[Flea Man]

Its not so much the power thing that makes me apt to picking Foreman so much as it is style. Tyson survived the artillary of several huge hitters, ie. Frank Bruno, Razor Ruddock, Bonecrusher Smith, Andrew Golata, Tony Tucker, etc.

The key here is that none of those guys hooked to the side nor uppercutted the way that Foreman did. George's tendency to throw those looping "hookercuts" could potentially result in sneaking in under that peak a boo defense of Tyson's and really snapping the head back hard. George also had the tendency to give his foes a nasty little gut check while in the clinches.. Referees never seemed to have a problem with it either. I've also never seen George fail to fight back against a man he was intimidated by. In numerous interviews over the last three decades, Foreman has consistantly stated that he was " petrified " of both Norton and Frazier.. If you look at his face during the staredown, he does a masterful job of hiding it and his fear seemed to have boosted his fighting instinct as seen by what he did to both of those men. Without the element of intimidation on his side, Tyson may really find himself short of tricks up his sleeve.

Basically any fighter who lowered their center of gravity and fought in a couching stance was a sitting duck for Big George. Tyson, Patterson, Marciano, and Frazier are guys that I would never lay money down to beat him. Just doesn't seem to be in the cards.

:good you've swayed me, I've now made my decision, Foreman via K.O good post!

[mcvey]

Who wins this matchup of knockout artists?

Big George ,EARLY!

[MAG1965]

A comeback Foreman against champion Tyson would have been brutal; Tyson way too fast, too powerful, and too elusive for George to nail. Foreman, in my humble opinion, would have taken quite a nasty beating for as long as the fight went on. 1973 Foreman vs. 1988 Tyson? Tyson by KO. Tyson still too fast, too explosive, and too elusive. Foreman would have been beaten to the punch and outmanuevered; Tyson wouldn't just walk straight in like Frazier did; he'd attack from all angles and with better firepower.
I am not sure. I see Foreman beating up Tyson when Tyson walked in and when Mike leaned in George does his push and punch. Worked well with Frazier and Cooper and would work well with Tyson. I think he would really knockout Tyson badly. And it would not be because he was better than Tyson, I think Tyson all time is greater than George, but stylewise George's power would work well vs. a Tyson style. Why do you think George came back in 1987? Some might say money, but he knew he could beat the Tyson style. Problem is someone in Tyson's camp knew the same thing and wouldn't fight George.

[abraq]

I know everyone thinks "Frazier" in this match-up. But Tyson was not exactly like Frazier. As noted by many here, he was quicker (but carefully watch Frazier in his prime, I am sure that his speed will surprise you), was more elusive, had more strength and had much more power. What he did not have was Frazier's determination, inside fighting skills and stamina.

But the point is, was he sufficiently different from Frazier to present an entirely different script to 'Big George'? I don't think so. He would still have to get inside and come close to Foreman to do his stuff. Foreman's swinging punches and huge uppercuts would be effective against any short, crouching fighter looking to get in.

This is not to say that Tyson wouldn't have a chance to get in and do serious damage to Foreman. But again I would like to think of Foreman's chin and ability to get up from the canvas and fight back.

It would not be as cut and dried as a Frazier fight for Foreman. Actually, any one can win. It is only just that I think the chances of a Foreman win is more of a probability than a win for Mike.

[sauhund II]

I am not sure. I see Foreman beating up Tyson when Tyson walked in and when Mike leaned in George does his push and punch. Worked well with Frazier and Cooper and would work well with Tyson. I think he would really knockout Tyson badly. And it would not be because he was better than Tyson, I think Tyson all time is greater than George, but stylewise George's power would work well vs. a Tyson style. Why do you think George came back in 1987? Some might say money, but he knew he could beat the Tyson style. Problem is someone in Tyson's camp knew the same thing and wouldn't fight George.
Complete BS.

Foreman was never in the position to force or gather enough momentum for a Tyson fight. Period. His comeback was pure emotion with very little substance and everything was aimed at making the most dough possible. Make no mistake, $ and only $ was Georges main motivation for his entire comeback, win or loose, he did not care as long , lol, he made the dough.

Some more food for thought and I have posted this over and over before...

Tyson "afraid" of George but fighting Razor Ruddock with less than a month of training ? LMAO. During his entire comeback he fought one guy worth a lick, Holyfield and by his own admission the reasoning to fight him was that he did not believe he was a true heavyweigth.........anyway he took a immense beating plus imagine if Holy could rip 10-20 shot combinations on him what a Tyson with his much greater power would have done to Foreman.

For reference, they have two opponents in common, Stewart and Saverese, while George struggled with both of them and went the distance looking like hit by a mack truck a declining/washed up Tyson took care of those two clowns IN LESS THAN ONE ROUND COMBINED.

Prime vs prime,(not Douglas or Young ) speed kills and Tyson was never not even totally shot like in the Lewis fight hit by countless lead right hands like Foreman ( and was even buckled by some of those single shots mainly because of the speed and he could not brace himself for it) was against Ali. That is the insult to any pro to get hit like that..................George is wide open, uses his chin as a defense,does not clinch, has a powerful but very slow jab and punches even wider and comes right at you asking for punishment with no angles or true fightplan, he is going to be in for a long nite against Mike, guaranteed and Tyson hits a lot harder/faster than Lyle, Ali or Holyfield. Everbody talks about his uppercut but what about Tyson uppercut or body/uppercut combo ? = pain.

BTW, why do you think Ali called him the Mummy ? LOL, because he fancied Pryamids ? No Einstein, slo[Only registered and activated users can see links] as a Mummy........

I don't have a problem anyone picking Foreman in this Fantasy match up, everybody is entitled to their opinion or gut feelings but some of the reasoning in this thread WHY Foreman would win is simply wishful thinking.

[MAG1965]

Complete BS.

Foreman was never in the position to force or gather enough momentum for a Tyson fight. Period. His comeback was pure emotion with very little substance and everything was aimed at making the most dough possible. Make no mistake, $ and only $ was Georges main motivation for his entire comeback, win or loose, he did not care as long , lol, he made the dough.

Some more food for thought and I have posted this over and over before...

Tyson "afraid" of George but fighting Razor Ruddock with less than a month of training ? LMAO. During his entire comeback he fought one guy worth a lick, Holyfield and by his own admission the reasoning to fight him was that he did not believe he was a true heavyweigth.........anyway he took a immense beating plus imagine if Holy could rip 10-20 shot combinations on him what a Tyson with his much greater power would have done to Foreman.

For reference, they have two opponents in common, Stewart and Saverese, while George struggled with both of them and went the distance looking like hit by a mack truck a declining/washed up Tyson took care of those two clowns IN LESS THAN ONE ROUND COMBINED.

Prime vs prime,(not Douglas or Young ) speed kills and Tyson was never not even totally shot like in the Lewis fight hit by countless lead right hands like Foreman ( and was even buckled by some of those single shots mainly because of the speed and he could not brace himself for it) was against Ali. That is the insult to any pro to get hit like that..................George is wide open, uses his chin as a defense,does not clinch, has a powerful but very slow jab and punches even wider and comes right at you asking for punishment with no angles or true fightplan, he is going to be in for a long nite against Mike, guaranteed and Tyson hits a lot harder/faster than Lyle, Ali or Holyfield. Everbody talks about his uppercut but what about Tyson uppercut or body/uppercut combo ? = pain.

BTW, why do you think Ali called him the Mummy ? LOL, because he fancied Pryamids ? No Einstein, slo[Only registered and activated users can see links] as a Mummy........

I don't have a problem anyone picking Foreman in this Fantasy match up, everybody is entitled to their opinion or gut feelings but some of the reasoning in this thread WHY Foreman would win is simply wishful thinking.
Stylewise Foreman would have been tough for Tyson, even the old Foreman. He was 256 pounds to Tyson's 218 or so. Foreman was 6-3 and Tyson 5-10. Foreman would be getting full leverage on his punches with Mike. So if the fight goes 2 rounds Mike is getting hit with big punches by George. It is the style, and I doubt Mike could have stopped George in 2 rounds. Maybe later, but not in 2 rounds. I think George could have stopped Mike early enough just on the style. He was strong and the style makes George's punches devastating and full force. I am not saying Mike was scared, but that fight could have happened had Mike not lost to Douglas. At least with Douglas we know it was because Mike was diminished. Had he fought George I think he would have gone out quicker than Douglas. One hard uppercut from George and Mike is wobbling all over. George did wipe out guys who normally were tough. Mike was the higher ATG rating, but George was a bad style for him. George was stronger than Mike because he was so much bigger.

[leverage]

Tyson weighed just as much as Foreman did at prime weight. Hardly a physical mismatch. Foreman was taller; Tyson was thicker.
When a fighter is going up against an opponent who is 4 inches taller, has a reach advantage of 8 inches and was physically as strong as foreman, then it is a physical mismatch. Combine this with the fact that styles make fights and it spells a foreman ko.

[mcvey]

Its not so much the power thing that makes me apt to picking Foreman so much as it is style. Tyson survived the artillary of several huge hitters, ie. Frank Bruno, Razor Ruddock, Bonecrusher Smith, Andrew Golata, Tony Tucker, etc.

The key here is that none of those guys hooked to the side nor uppercutted the way that Foreman did. George's tendency to throw those looping "hookercuts" could potentially result in sneaking in under that peak a boo defense of Tyson's and really snapping the head back hard. George also had the tendency to give his foes a nasty little gut check while in the clinches.. Referees never seemed to have a problem with it either. I've also never seen George fail to fight back against a man he was intimidated by. In numerous interviews over the last three decades, Foreman has consistantly stated that he was " petrified " of both Norton and Frazier.. If you look at his face during the staredown, he does a masterful job of hiding it and his fear seemed to have boosted his fighting instinct as seen by what he did to both of those men. Without the element of intimidation on his side, Tyson may really find himself short of tricks up his sleeve.

Basically any fighter who lowered their center of gravity and fought in a couching stance was a sitting duck for Big George. Tyson, Patterson, Marciano, and Frazier are guys that I would never lay money down to beat him. Just doesn't seem to be in the cards.

Golota and Tucker huge hitters?
I dont think Foreman was petrified by either Frazier or Norton ,he was being gracious ,imo.Norton ,on the other hand looked petrified against him.

Tyson would come to George, George would push him back to his optimum punching range ala Frazier ,and start to unload ,Foreman had a mighty uppercut and either this ora booming hook catches Tyson and up ends him ,after that its all one way traffic Tyson was a great "on top fighter".
After a couple of knockdowns Tyson stays down.

[Primadonna Kool]

Foreman is there to get hit, big mistake against Mike Tyson. It would be a short fight and 3 rounds of hell, i will go with Mike Tyson vire TKO.

[mr. magoo]

Golota and Tucker huge hitters?
I dont think Foreman was petrified by either Frazier or Norton ,he was being gracious ,imo.Norton ,on the other hand looked petrified against him.

.

Tucker and Golata may not have been huge hitters in the same sense that Foreman was, but they were definately bigger than average heavyweights who could certainly crack.

Foreman has said numerous times that he was intimidated before the Frazier and Norton fight. While he may have been gracious, we have no idea what his true feelings on the matter were. Only what he told us.

My point was that stylistically Foreman was a bad match for Tyson.....

[AnthonyJ74]

I am not sure. I see Foreman beating up Tyson when Tyson walked in and when Mike leaned in George does his push and punch. Worked well with Frazier and Cooper and would work well with Tyson. I think he would really knockout Tyson badly. And it would not be because he was better than Tyson, I think Tyson all time is greater than George, but stylewise George's power would work well vs. a Tyson style. Why do you think George came back in 1987? Some might say money, but he knew he could beat the Tyson style. Problem is someone in Tyson's camp knew the same thing and wouldn't fight George.

George was broke and had no other choice but to make a comeback to make the millions he craved. When he first came back, he said his comeback was based on financing his church and youth center; George said that he personally still had enough money and wasn't broke. It wasn't until many years later, after he made gazillions of dollars, that he admitted that he was "broke as a goat" when he came back in 1987 and had no money....Thus, his comeback was predicated on his being broke, not on the fact that Tyson was champion.

The "styles make fights" argument can be tilted in Tyson's favor just as easily in this matchup. Foreman wasn't a Larry Holmes or Buster Douglas type of fighter, a fighter that used lateral movement, crisp combinations, and solid boxing skills to beat fighters. He was a powerhouse who relied on strength and punching power to beat guys; he wasn't all that mobile, quick, or hard to hit. This type of fighter would play into Tyson's hands. Big, strong guys who were not overly elusive or fast of hand or foot would have been made to order for Tyson.

[AnthonyJ74]

Complete BS.

Foreman was never in the position to force or gather enough momentum for a Tyson fight. Period. His comeback was pure emotion with very little substance and everything was aimed at making the most dough possible. Make no mistake, $ and only $ was Georges main motivation for his entire comeback, win or loose, he did not care as long , lol, he made the dough.

Some more food for thought and I have posted this over and over before...

Tyson "afraid" of George but fighting Razor Ruddock with less than a month of training ? LMAO. During his entire comeback he fought one guy worth a lick, Holyfield and by his own admission the reasoning to fight him was that he did not believe he was a true heavyweigth.........anyway he took a immense beating plus imagine if Holy could rip 10-20 shot combinations on him what a Tyson with his much greater power would have done to Foreman.

For reference, they have two opponents in common, Stewart and Saverese, while George struggled with both of them and went the distance looking like hit by a mack truck a declining/washed up Tyson took care of those two clowns IN LESS THAN ONE ROUND COMBINED.

Prime vs prime,(not Douglas or Young ) speed kills and Tyson was never not even totally shot like in the Lewis fight hit by countless lead right hands like Foreman ( and was even buckled by some of those single shots mainly because of the speed and he could not brace himself for it) was against Ali. That is the insult to any pro to get hit like that..................George is wide open, uses his chin as a defense,does not clinch, has a powerful but very slow jab and punches even wider and comes right at you asking for punishment with no angles or true fightplan, he is going to be in for a long nite against Mike, guaranteed and Tyson hits a lot harder/faster than Lyle, Ali or Holyfield. Everbody talks about his uppercut but what about Tyson uppercut or body/uppercut combo ? = pain.

BTW, why do you think Ali called him the Mummy ? LOL, because he fancied Pryamids ? No Einstein, slo[Only registered and activated users can see links] as a Mummy........

I don't have a problem anyone picking Foreman in this Fantasy match up, everybody is entitled to their opinion or gut feelings but some of the reasoning in this thread WHY Foreman would win is simply wishful thinking.

LOL...I couldn't have said it better myself.....Excellent!

[AnthonyJ74]

Stylewise Foreman would have been tough for Tyson, even the old Foreman. He was 256 pounds to Tyson's 218 or so. Foreman was 6-3 and Tyson 5-10. Foreman would be getting full leverage on his punches with Mike. So if the fight goes 2 rounds Mike is getting hit with big punches by George. It is the style, and I doubt Mike could have stopped George in 2 rounds. Maybe later, but not in 2 rounds. I think George could have stopped Mike early enough just on the style. He was strong and the style makes George's punches devastating and full force. I am not saying Mike was scared, but that fight could have happened had Mike not lost to Douglas. At least with Douglas we know it was because Mike was diminished. Had he fought George I think he would have gone out quicker than Douglas. One hard uppercut from George and Mike is wobbling all over. George did wipe out guys who normally were tough. Mike was the higher ATG rating, but George was a bad style for him. George was stronger than Mike because he was so much bigger.

Foreman would not have been able to hit Tyson like Douglas did. Douglas was much quicker and threw more accurate punches and combinations. And I'm not convinced that Foreman hit harder than Tyson, punch for punch. Either way, Tyson would be able to hit Foreman faster and more often than Foreman would do to him. And if George swings and misses one of his clubs, the counter punches from Tyson would be quick and brutal. Heck, I'm not sure Foreman hit harder than Razor Ruddock, who despite his many shortcomings could definitely crack. One punch at a time from Foreman ain't gonna work against Tyson, and I can't see him getting more than one punch at a time off on Tyson.

[djanders]

George Foreman against Mike Tyson is an interesting matchup. If I had to bet, I would bet on Big George.

[JIm Broughton]

With two big bangers like Mike and George anything could happen but I lean toward George. Foreman's worst moments came against boxers like Ali and Young. Against a fellow banger George is in his own element. He didn't look all that slow by the way against Frazier. He went right at it from the opening bell and attacked pretty fast for a big man. Ther was nothing slow about him that night. Like Angelo Dundee said in his book "I only talk Winning", "George was built for punching down and hooking" which is what he would do against the shorter Tyson. Now don't get me wrong. This would be no walk in the park...far from it. Either man is capable of taking the other one out but when you have two bombers in there the edge almost always goes to the bigger man and George was bigger. Tyson has to punch up while George has the luxury of punching down and I think that tips the odds in favor of Foreman.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=AnthonyJ74;3565400]Foreman would not have been able to hit Tyson like Douglas did. quote]


He wouldn't have to hit him " like Douglas did. " Buster jabbed away at a halfass half motivated Tyson, whereas Foreman would have had the luxury of even a fully motivated Tyson playing right into his hands.

I don't know if a 90's Foreman would have beaten a 90's Tyson, but I can sure as hell think of quite a few contenders from that perioed who were a hell of a lot less dangerous than a 42 year old Foreman.

[Longhhorn71]

Holyfield slugged with Tyson and won.

The '73 George feared no one...and Tyson fed off of intimidation.

Plus George had a good jab when he wanted to use it.

Archie Moore, Dick & Sandy Saddler in George's corner.

George in 2.

[PhillyPhan69]

Big George by KO in 5 maybe 6

[mcvey]

Tucker and Golata may not have been huge hitters in the same sense that Foreman was, but they were definately bigger than average heavyweights who could certainly crack.

Foreman has said numerous times that he was intimidated before the Frazier and Norton fight. While he may have been gracious, we have no idea what his true feelings on the matter were. Only what he told us.

My point was that stylistically Foreman was a bad match for Tyson.....

On that we agree

[ChrisPontius]

Holyfield slugged with Tyson and won.



I think that's a rather crude simplification of the gameplan Holyfield had. He didn't slug with him. He was very aware defensively (something Foreman never was during his prime), covered up when Tyson came, then threw one or two counter punches and immediately tied Mike up, about 16 times a round, and again something that Foreman never does. Evander Holyfield is tremendously skilled and has an iron jaw, which is why he was able to pull that off. Foreman could never do it that way.

Indeed, he'd probably slug it out with Mike, but i wouldn't like his chances there, considering the only time he did that against someone who packed a punch (Lyle), he was a hair away from being stopped.

[groove]

1973 foreman was in better fighting shape than the one who fought lyle. foreman would enjoy this fight more than tyson would. i think it would end within 3 as a slugfest with foreman being the one still standing. i don't give old foreman any chance against peak tyson btw.

[ChrisPontius]

Foreman has said numerous times that he was intimidated before the Frazier and Norton fight. While he may have been gracious, we have no idea what his true feelings on the matter were. Only what he told us.



Foreman talks a lot of shit, but i think he must have been somewhat intimidated before fighting Frazier. The man was undefeated, had beaten Ali in a grueling war and usually left his opponents a shell of what they used to be. On top of that, he hadn't been knocked down or hurt for several years, so the scenario that we saw in reality was not a very likely one, either. Plus, Foreman's a smart guy, he must have known that his competition going into the fight wasn't that great. However, if he was intimidated, he did not let it affect his performance one bit.



One more comment on the "Tyson is tailor made for Foreman, style-wise": this may appear so at first sight, but i disagree completely. Frazier WAS tailor made, for the following reasons. To clarify why Tyson is not, i've made Tyson's description in red when it contradicts the stylistic entity:


1. Frazier is a very slow starter, arguably the slowest starter of all heavyweight champions. Tyson, along with Dempsey and Foreman, is one of the fastest starters of all heavyweights in history. Just look at the Spinks or Williams bouts to see this.

2. Frazier's defence is designed to take a few hits to come in, in a somewhat predictable way. The advantage of this is that while he gets hit, against non-big punchers, he can afford to take those. He applies this for 15 rounds, and because of that, he can apply great pressure that made even Ali cave in. It's a long term, 15 round strategy that works great against good hitters, but not so much against a huge puncher, as we saw against Foreman. Tyson, however, is less predictable in his upper body movement and rarely got hit flush during his prime. However, past the 6th round, his defence deteriorated and he became more hittable. The likes of Tucker and Smith were already in a survival-shell by then and couldn't take advantage of it, but Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis sure did. To summarize, Frazier's defence is built around winning a long, grueling war, whereas Tyson is harder to hit early but breaks down late on. Needless to say which one is going to be more useful against Foreman.

3. Frazier is not a big one-punch hitter. He always has to wear his opponents down. He still is heavy handed and can surely demotivate a fighter rather quickly once he starts "smoking", but he had to land that hook over and over and over until the stoppage came. Tyson, on the other hand, could end the fight with one punch at any time. Williams was stopped by one left hook. Botha by one right hand, as was Tillman. Tubbs, also just one left hook. Tyson did not wear you down, he simply knocked out. Again, i think it goes without saying which of the two is favorable against Foreman.

4. Frazier is as much a one-handed fighter as you'll see. Sure, he had a decent right hand, but it was always the left hook that did the damage. And that left hook was very hard to consistently get out of the way of, but along with the defence part mentioned earlier, it makes Frazier somewhat predictable. Now if we look at Tyson, he can get you out of there with an overhand right, straight right, left hook or a left/right uppercut. He threw every punch in the book and every one of them left a trail of destruction. He couldn't apply his punches as consistent as Frazier did his left hook, but he has a lot more weapons to reply to Foreman's early onslaught with.

5. Frazier cames forward with upper body movement and often takes a few to land his own. He does this for 15 rounds and never gives you room to breath. All of his opponents except for Foreman crumbled under this pressure, although Ali managed to beat him in both rematches. This is probably the reason why people say "Foreman beat Frazier, so he beats Tyson", but it is deceptive. Tyson does came forward most of the time, but in a different way. Frazier moves forward slowly until there's nowhere left to go and you have to cover up or clinch, wearing you down. Mike comes in with very fast footwork, looking to slip the jab and then bomb you with big shots, not wearing you down but looking to put your lights out. He attacks in explosive bursts, whereas Frazier is a smaller, but constant combustion. Although relatively rare, Tyson also knew how to take a step back when necessary, to re-assert himself, while Frazier just keeps coming forward and takes shots if that comes with the job.

6. Frazier is almost impervious to taking accumulative, "light" punishment. Even though he was the decisive victor during the fight of the century, he still took a horrific amount of punches from Ali, but that never bothered him one bit during the fight. This is even more evidently during their epic third battle when he was virtually blind and dead tired, yet kept pressing forward. However, his chin is not impervious to shipping big bombs like the ones Foreman threw. He knocked him down six times and Bonavena decked him several times as well. If we look at Tyson, then we see that he is exactly the opposite of this. He is not good at taking accumulative punishment. Douglas and Holyfield kept landing good, but not huge, shots on him and both stopped him within 10 rounds. He was perhaps not in the best shape during those fights, but neither was Frazier against Foreman. Whether Tyson could take what Frazier took against Ali in their first fight, and continue, is highly questionable. What is not questionable however, is Mike's ability to take a single big punch and keep on going. He absorbed tremendous hits from Lewis, Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker and others, yet never seemed to be slowed down until the amount started adding up when he entered the late rounds. In short, there is no doubt that he can take heavy shots and continue. The same cannot be said about Frazier.



In addition to the former reasons and given that Foreman's defence was pretty much non-existant and that he nearly got stopped in the only slug-out he had against Lyle, i'd go with Tyson. Better chin, better defence, better combinations, faster, and more one-punch knockouts.

[AnthonyJ74]

I think that's a rather crude simplification of the gameplan Holyfield had. He didn't slug with him. He was very aware defensively (something Foreman never was during his prime), covered up when Tyson came, then threw one or two counter punches and immediately tied Mike up, about 16 times a round, and again something that Foreman never does. Evander Holyfield is tremendously skilled and has an iron jaw, which is why he was able to pull that off. Foreman could never do it that way.

Indeed, he'd probably slug it out with Mike, but i wouldn't like his chances there, considering the only time he did that against someone who packed a punch (Lyle), he was a hair away from being stopped.

Exactly! Holyfield fought a very tactical and measured fight; he didn't just stand and blindly trade with Tyson in a punch for punch manner. Holyfield was on a different planet in terms of skill and strategy compared to Foreman.

[mrbassie]

Foreman by ko for me. Strip away all other considerations and what is left is that it is a fight between two guys who only fight going forwards. Stylistically they're as different as chalk and cheese but the approach is the same, force the fight forwards and knock the other guy out as quickly as you can. Inevitably they're going to meet in the middle and in that case it seems only logical to go with the bigger, stronger, harder punching man.

Both huge punchers with rock solid chins but I really can see Foreman thrwing Tyson around the ring like a ragdoll, like he did to Frazier and yes, Frazier isn't Tyson and didn't have all his tools but he was around the same size which is really the only valid comparison. Liston v Patterson is nearer the mark.
I think Foreman would dominate it really and stop Tyson in about 6. I don't see Tyson trading like Lyle did, Tyson's always been very quick to complain when things got rough, I think he'd crumble.

[Privatejoker]

I pick George by TKO.

People keep going on about George's destruction of Frazier without mentioning that George had a JAB.

Look at the fight again and you will see that George set up his punches by using his jab.

Everytime he landed he was able to make Frazier wince.

Tyson don't like jabbers, especially jabbers that had a jab that was harder than Lennox Lewis.

Lewis pawed with his jab even against a shot Tyson until he knew Mike had nothing left.

As another poster said, Holyfield slugged with Tyson and won. I know it was a post-prison Mike, but he was still the heavier man and a bigger puncher and got bullied.

A 28 year old prime Holyfield landed more punches on a 42 year old George than he did a 30 year old Tyson and never stopped him. He couldn't even bully him.

In my opinion no version of Evander beats a young George.

George proved his heart and chin v Lyle. He got up to win.

He could do that v Tyson. But can you say the same for Mike?

[TIGEREDGE]

Mike Tyson was no swarmer..!!!!


in his amateur days he had a swarming like style but improved his boxing in later years

[mr. magoo]

Foreman talks a lot of shit, but i think he must have been somewhat intimidated before fighting Frazier. The man was undefeated, had beaten Ali in a grueling war and usually left his opponents a shell of what they used to be. On top of that, he hadn't been knocked down or hurt for several years, so the scenario that we saw in reality was not a very likely one, either. Plus, Foreman's a smart guy, he must have known that his competition going into the fight wasn't that great. However, if he was intimidated, he did not let it affect his performance one bit.



One more comment on the "Tyson is tailor made for Foreman, style-wise": this may appear so at first sight, but i disagree completely. Frazier WAS tailor made, for the following reasons. To clarify why Tyson is not, i've made Tyson's description in red when it contradicts the stylistic entity:


1. Frazier is a very slow starter, arguably the slowest starter of all heavyweight champions. Tyson, along with Dempsey and Foreman, is one of the fastest starters of all heavyweights in history. Just look at the Spinks or Williams bouts to see this.

2. Frazier's defence is designed to take a few hits to come in, in a somewhat predictable way. The advantage of this is that while he gets hit, against non-big punchers, he can afford to take those. He applies this for 15 rounds, and because of that, he can apply great pressure that made even Ali cave in. It's a long term, 15 round strategy that works great against good hitters, but not so much against a huge puncher, as we saw against Foreman. Tyson, however, is less predictable in his upper body movement and rarely got hit flush during his prime. However, past the 6th round, his defence deteriorated and he became more hittable. The likes of Tucker and Smith were already in a survival-shell by then and couldn't take advantage of it, but Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis sure did. To summarize, Frazier's defence is built around winning a long, grueling war, whereas Tyson is harder to hit early but breaks down late on. Needless to say which one is going to be more useful against Foreman.

3. Frazier is not a big one-punch hitter. He always has to wear his opponents down. He still is heavy handed and can surely demotivate a fighter rather quickly once he starts "smoking", but he had to land that hook over and over and over until the stoppage came. Tyson, on the other hand, could end the fight with one punch at any time. Williams was stopped by one left hook. Botha by one right hand, as was Tillman. Tubbs, also just one left hook. Tyson did not wear you down, he simply knocked out. Again, i think it goes without saying which of the two is favorable against Foreman.

4. Frazier is as much a one-handed fighter as you'll see. Sure, he had a decent right hand, but it was always the left hook that did the damage. And that left hook was very hard to consistently get out of the way of, but along with the defence part mentioned earlier, it makes Frazier somewhat predictable. Now if we look at Tyson, he can get you out of there with an overhand right, straight right, left hook or a left/right uppercut. He threw every punch in the book and every one of them left a trail of destruction. He couldn't apply his punches as consistent as Frazier did his left hook, but he has a lot more weapons to reply to Foreman's early onslaught with.

5. Frazier cames forward with upper body movement and often takes a few to land his own. He does this for 15 rounds and never gives you room to breath. All of his opponents except for Foreman crumbled under this pressure, although Ali managed to beat him in both rematches. This is probably the reason why people say "Foreman beat Frazier, so he beats Tyson", but it is deceptive. Tyson does came forward most of the time, but in a different way. Frazier moves forward slowly until there's nowhere left to go and you have to cover up or clinch, wearing you down. Mike comes in with very fast footwork, looking to slip the jab and then bomb you with big shots, not wearing you down but looking to put your lights out. He attacks in explosive bursts, whereas Frazier is a smaller, but constant combustion. Although relatively rare, Tyson also knew how to take a step back when necessary, to re-assert himself, while Frazier just keeps coming forward and takes shots if that comes with the job.

6. Frazier is almost impervious to taking accumulative, "light" punishment. Even though he was the decisive victor during the fight of the century, he still took a horrific amount of punches from Ali, but that never bothered him one bit during the fight. This is even more evidently during their epic third battle when he was virtually blind and dead tired, yet kept pressing forward. However, his chin is not impervious to shipping big bombs like the ones Foreman threw. He knocked him down six times and Bonavena decked him several times as well. If we look at Tyson, then we see that he is exactly the opposite of this. He is not good at taking accumulative punishment. Douglas and Holyfield kept landing good, but not huge, shots on him and both stopped him within 10 rounds. He was perhaps not in the best shape during those fights, but neither was Frazier against Foreman. Whether Tyson could take what Frazier took against Ali in their first fight, and continue, is highly questionable. What is not questionable however, is Mike's ability to take a single big punch and keep on going. He absorbed tremendous hits from Lewis, Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker and others, yet never seemed to be slowed down until the amount started adding up when he entered the late rounds. In short, there is no doubt that he can take heavy shots and continue. The same cannot be said about Frazier.



In addition to the former reasons and given that Foreman's defence was pretty much non-existant and that he nearly got stopped in the only slug-out he had against Lyle, i'd go with Tyson. Better chin, better defence, better combinations, faster, and more one-punch knockouts.


Thanks for the indepth analysis Chris. Just want to clearify that I acknowledged some of these things at the very start of this thread. Here is what I said.

Yes there are some differences between Tyson and Frazier. I have no doubt that someone is bound to jump all over this post by saying that the comparison is non-congruent. But you have my vote.

[anon1]

The problem is Foreman only needs to land a small fraction of his punches to gain Tyson's respect. Foreman doesn't need to land like Ali or Holyfield. He can push Tyson back to maintain distance and then keep pounding away from a distance. Even if he is sloppy and misses a lot - that's OK. He was pretty sloppy against Frazier too if you ask me. Foreman just needs to keep sloppily punching and landing by sheer probability. This will make Tyson ineffective.

Tyson's speed or skills were great but they won't help him much if he can't get in range against Foreman. When he does get in range he's busy against Foreman's heavy shots or gets pushed back.

Tyson's best chance is to use his speed, power, mid range style and carefully time / place his shots on Foreman. Hopefully land a few shots like he did aganst Holy AND FOLLOW UP (like Lyle did). Foreman doesn't have to be as elaborate or careful. Push and keep throwing punches against the shorter armed fighter!

[leverage]

The problem is Foreman only needs to land a small fraction of his punches to gain Tyson's respect. Foreman doesn't need to land like Ali or Holyfield. He can push Tyson back to maintain distance and then keep pounding away from a distance. Even if he is sloppy and misses a lot - that's OK. He was pretty sloppy against Frazier too if you ask me. Foreman just needs to keep sloppily punching and landing by sheer probability. This will make Tyson ineffective.

Tyson's speed or skills were great but they won't help him much if he can't get in range against Foreman. When he does get in range he's busy against Foreman's heavy shots or gets pushed back.

Tyson's best chance is to use his speed, power, mid range style and carefully time / place his shots on Foreman. Hopefully land a few shots like he did aganst Holy AND FOLLOW UP (like Lyle did). Foreman doesn't have to be as elaborate or careful. Push and keep throwing punches against the shorter armed fighter!
Excellent point made. To be effective against foreman tyson would have to close the distance and george wouldn't let him. Also, foreman wouldn't have to hit tyson as many times as other fighters would because of his power. Just 2 or 3 punches went a long way with him.

[sauhund II]

He hit Saverese and Stewart with his best punches and they did not go anywhere, as a matter of fact, he could not finish Stewart off after the knock down. Remember, power and strengh are the last thing to go, so what happened with "monster" George ?...... He also did not "throw" those guys around, far from it. A washed up Tyson literally "threw" them around like a ragdoll before tranfering them into la la land.

Funny thing , he did not "throw" glass chinned Moorer around either, he prefered to block punches with his face while waiting to get the lucky shot in.

Foremans punching power and overall strengh are waayyyyyyyyy over rated but his chin is not. I also had the privilege to attend some sparing sessions with him and , I sound like a broken record, lol, he is slo[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Foreman was the "big" guy in the seventies. In his comeback he was no longer the "big" guy, he was simply average sized in comparison to the rest of the contenders and the results speak for itself....above the can level he did not get a lot of respect, avoided ANY skilled big guy with a punch like the plague but had HBO hype him into glory. (The funny thing is that he probably was more skilled and disciplined in his second career and not so exorbitantly crude anymore.)

Well, it worked as this thread prooves that the majority of posters are unable to seperate fact from fiction.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Foreman was never in the position to force or gather enough momentum for a Tyson fight. Period.

Yes, he was. The fight was much-talked about and was pencilled in to be the biggest moneyspinner of them all, late 1990 after Tyson's mandatory vs Holyfield, scheduled for that summer. But someone didn't keep their part of the bargain. Foreman actively sought a Tyson fight in 89/90. Champions don't get ducked. When the titles were split, he could be more choosy (just like Tyson's team picked Berbick for instance).

[ChrisPontius]

Thanks for the indepth analysis Chris. Just want to clearify that I acknowledged some of these things at the very start of this thread. Here is what I said.

I know, even if i quoted you, it was more of a general response to the many comparisons to Frazier that are being made.

I also think that Foreman's jab will be non-factor in this fight. His jab was heavy, but relatively slow, and Tyson showed to have no trouble getting past it. It wasn't Douglas/Holyfield's jabs that were bothering him, it was the whole package of not being able to hit them. Foreman is not going to dance and jab and stay out of range. He is going to be there to hit, and be hit.

[Big N Bad]

they both could hurt each other. stylistically the advantage is to big george.
but imo tyson is more of a one shot ko artist whereas big george had slightly more heavier hands.

i say tyson will win, simply too skilled and too explosive. round 8-10

i say it goes this late becos they both had solid chins.

[mrbassie]

He hit Saverese and Stewart with his best punches and they did not go anywhere, as a matter of fact, he could not finish Stewart off after the knock down. Remember, power and strengh are the last thing to go, so what happened with "monster" George ?...... He also did not "throw" those guys around, far from it. A washed up Tyson literally "threw" them around like a ragdoll before tranfering them into la la land.

Funny thing , he did not "throw" glass chinned Moorer around either, he prefered to block punches with his face while waiting to get the lucky shot in.

Foremans punching power and overall strengh are waayyyyyyyyy over rated but his chin is not. I also had the privilege to attend some sparing sessions with him and , I sound like a broken record, lol, he is slo[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Foreman was the "big" guy in the seventies. In his comeback he was no longer the "big" guy, he was simply average sized in comparison to the rest of the contenders and the results speak for itself....above the can level he did not get a lot of respect, avoided ANY skilled big guy with a punch like the plague but had HBO hype him into glory. (The funny thing is that he probably was more skilled and disciplined in his second career and not so exorbitantly crude anymore.)

Well, it worked as this thread prooves that the majority of posters are unable to seperate fact from fiction.

The thread title says the Foreman of '73, not the 40+ fat man. Ok you can say power is the last thing to go but it does go, we saw that with Tyson himself in his fights with Williams and McBride and he was less than 40 there.
You think either of those guys would have got out of the first round with a young Tyson?

[mr. magoo]

I know, even if i quoted you, it was more of a general response to the many comparisons to Frazier that are being made.

I also think that Foreman's jab will be non-factor in this fight. His jab was heavy, but relatively slow, and Tyson showed to have no trouble getting past it. It wasn't Douglas/Holyfield's jabs that were bothering him, it was the whole package of not being able to hit them. Foreman is not going to dance and jab and stay out of range. He is going to be there to hit, and be hit.


I think when Tyson lunges forward to take a shot, it might place him in a very vulnerable position.

[Bing]

Big George wins this one for me. When matched h2h with other great fighters no one ever seems to mention Tysons fragile mental make up. when he couldnt intimidate is opponents he always seemed to crumble. He's overatted h2h imo

[sam1222]

Big George by KO early.

[Privatejoker]

sauhund II.

How can you claim that Foreman hit Stewart and Saverse with his best punches and couldn't put them away so his power is way overrated?

How old was Foreman in those fights?

Tyson was 38 and got dropped and KO'd by Williams while hitting him with everything but the kitchen sink.

It's that a good judge of Tyson's power?

What about the McBride fight? Who has a worse chin? Mcbride or Stewart, Moorer, Briggs? Mike couldn't even Dent a glass chinned McBride at 38-39, not only that, HE QUIT.

How was Foreman's strength overrated?

Who ever pushed an old Foreman backwards? Or even a young Foreman (except the damaged goods version that fought Lyle?)

Tyson was pushed back by McNeeley for godsake and Evander, who never came close to pushing back George.

Foreman at 45 KO'd the undefeated lineal Champ in Moorer at 45, while Mike couldn't KO McBride at 38-39, and he bloody quit.

DO YOU REMEMBER THAT FOREMAN TOOK TEN YEARS OFF?

Foreman was never dropped in his comeback and faced Holyfield, Stewart, Morrison, Moorer and Briggs. Imagine the Tyson that lost to McBride facing the versions of those at 38-39.

Tyson takes 4 years off and nuthuggers claim he was shot, while George who won his fight with Stewart at 43, took a hammering and still won against a puncher.

Foreman was "an average sized heavy in the 90's"? The guy was huge even then.

[teeto]

I wont have it, Tyson wins.

No in seriousness i was watching the young Tyson today, and the thing that jumps to mind is that most outboxers are going to be beaten by him, he countered too well, and with that great footwork he was too much for someone with that style. But when i think about Foreman's style against Tyson it increasingly makes me think it's Foreman's win. Constantly beating him up and not giving him an inch is the way, matching him etc. But there are the other things to make the case for Mike, like Foreman's weakness is maybe the stamina and the defense, not good against maybe the best offense in terms of switching to body and head.

I like Tyson a lot.

[Danny]

If Foreman doesn't get Tyson out of there within three rounds, then the fight swings dramatically in Tyson's favour. Foreman was a formidable puncher but Tyson had a solid chin.

In terms of skills, stamina, etc, there's no comparison in my view. Tyson had way more variety than Foreman ever had, better footwork, threw more combinations, better head movement. Tyson was a more complete fighter than Foreman ever was!

I understand why people feel would pick Foreman because of styles but for me Tyson would work the body & head. Foreman had a solid chin also, but Tyson would hit him & often. Foreman would know where the punches were coming from.

Tyson by TKO 8.

[Canibus81]

Complete BS.

Foreman was never in the position to force or gather enough momentum for a Tyson fight. Period. His comeback was pure emotion with very little substance and everything was aimed at making the most dough possible. Make no mistake, $ and only $ was Georges main motivation for his entire comeback, win or loose, he did not care as long , lol, he made the dough.

Some more food for thought and I have posted this over and over before...

Tyson "afraid" of George but fighting Razor Ruddock with less than a month of training ? LMAO. During his entire comeback he fought one guy worth a lick, Holyfield and by his own admission the reasoning to fight him was that he did not believe he was a true heavyweigth.........anyway he took a immense beating plus imagine if Holy could rip 10-20 shot combinations on him what a Tyson with his much greater power would have done to Foreman.

For reference, they have two opponents in common, Stewart and Saverese, while George struggled with both of them and went the distance looking like hit by a mack truck a declining/washed up Tyson took care of those two clowns IN LESS THAN ONE ROUND COMBINED.

Prime vs prime,(not Douglas or Young ) speed kills and Tyson was never not even totally shot like in the Lewis fight hit by countless lead right hands like Foreman ( and was even buckled by some of those single shots mainly because of the speed and he could not brace himself for it) was against Ali. That is the insult to any pro to get hit like that..................George is wide open, uses his chin as a defense,does not clinch, has a powerful but very slow jab and punches even wider and comes right at you asking for punishment with no angles or true fightplan, he is going to be in for a long nite against Mike, guaranteed and Tyson hits a lot harder/faster than Lyle, Ali or Holyfield. Everbody talks about his uppercut but what about Tyson uppercut or body/uppercut combo ? = pain.

BTW, why do you think Ali called him the Mummy ? LOL, because he fancied Pryamids ? No Einstein, slo[Only registered and activated users can see links] as a Mummy........

I don't have a problem anyone picking Foreman in this Fantasy match up, everybody is entitled to their opinion or gut feelings but some of the reasoning in this thread WHY Foreman would win is simply wishful thinking.

I agree LOL. Tyson knocks him out 3. Foremans slow ass wouldn't land a handful of rocks on Tyson.

[anon1]

while hitting him with everything but the kitchen sink.

It's that a good judge of Tyson's power?

It is relevant. It shows that while prime Tyson was an ATG puncher no doubt, it wasn't because of his raw power alone but his overall qualities as a puncher (speed, accuracy, and power combined). When he lost 2 out of 3, you saw the McBride fight.

Who ever pushed an old Foreman backwards? Or even a young Foreman (except the damaged goods version that fought Lyle?)

Sorry, I don't buy the damaged goods sympathy. Getting pushed back is mostly a physical thing. Foreman was in his physical prime when fighting Lyle.

Tyson was pushed back by McNeeley for godsake

Thank you for bringing this up. I'll admit I'm somewhat contradicting my above line but here it goes: Tyson allowed himself to be pushed back. Just like the way he was a sleeping baby when clinched. It was more of mental passiveness during those events. Don't ask me why. I've never been able to that out. Surely you're not going to tell me that McNeeley was stronger than Tyson? Also, Tyson did make one big exception to this by pushing back the big, strong Razor Ruddock. So if Holyfield or McNeeley pushed back Tyson, I myself will not say that it because those two were stronger than Tyson. Maybe they were (Holyfield) but maybe they weren't (Tyson was just passive). Nevertheless, this point still works in favor with Big George. Bottom line is Tyson is easy to push back and if Foreman is up to the task (and doesn't just negligently slug it out alone with Tyson) then this aspect helps him.

DO YOU REMEMBER THAT FOREMAN TOOK TEN YEARS OFF?

That rest helped him in his comeback big time! Had he been fighting from 1977 (whenever he retired) until 1987...he'd probably never regained the title. I recall some members here having met George and commenting on Foreman losing his legs because in the worlds of Foreman, "30 years of boxing". This has little relevance to this thread but I wanted to mention it anyway. :good

[anon1]

I pick a 73 Foreman to beat Tyson. However, suggesting the 90's Foreman beats Tyson is defying common sense. Foreman may have had the style but he was too old in the 90s for a fighter like Tyson. Period. No if's or buts. I do suspect that Tyson was afraid of Foreman. That's natural given that Foreman was an icon, inspiration, and hero for a young Tyson. Foreman had the aura over Tyson. Much like the way Frazier had an aura over Foreman in Jamaica. Tyson would be afraid of Old Foreman but that would not stop him from destroying old Foreman. Old Foreman was still faster than given credit for (see the Cooney KO - brutal speed & power) but this is Mike Tyson we're talking here.

[djanders]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[anon1]

Too bad Foreman isn't dumb enough to fight like above. That'd be a Tyson fan's dream come true. In the above fight he's not using his reach. Is there any indication of the big reach advantage those two have? No. Simulated Foreman is not clinching the very easy to clinch Tyson. I agree that Foreman's jab would not be used like Douglas' nor would it be as successful but it won't have to do much. All Foreman needs to do is stick that jab (land or not) to keep at a range that Foreman can still reach but Tyson cannot. That simulated Foreman is fighting like Ruddock.

If the fight were toe to toe like the above - I'm going for Tyson. He had better reflexes than Foreman and was faster. However, if Foreman pounds away from a distance and smothers Tyson whenever Tyson gets in range, he wins. More likely it'll be the latter scenario.

[Privatejoker]

anon1.

"Tyson allowed himself to be pushed back."

You don't really believe this do you?

Tyson can't fight backwards. He never could. Why would he allow himself to be pushed back when he is crap going backwards?

Name me one fight when Tyson put on a boxing masterclass while on the back foot against a big guy?

I will tell you when. NEVER.

Foreman was damaged goods mentally v Lyle. He had not fought for 16 months after being beaten mentally by Ali.

Yes the ten years off gave Foreman rest. But imagine if Mike took ten years off from 1991-2001 then came back, you certainly wouldn't be claiming the lay off helped him when nuthuggers claim that the 4 years out made Mike shot.

[anon1]

Private Joker,


You don't really believe this do you?

Tyson can't fight backwards. He never could. Why would he allow himself to be pushed back when he is crap going backwards?

Name me one fight when Tyson put on a boxing masterclass while on the back foot against a big guy?

I will tell you when. NEVER.I agree with you that it was a big disadvantage for Tyson to get pushed back. I never said that Tyson strategically allowed himself to be pushed back. I said it was PASSIVE. You can't put sensible reason behind it. Just like the way Tyson did nothing to avoid being clinched and when he was clinched he'd do nothing and pathetically look at the referee to break it up. Sure he had poor inside fighting skills but was it really out of his ability to throw a few body punches in the clinch? No. He was passive. If you don't buy this argument I don't blame you. Maybe I'll have to rewatch the Ruddock fight and show the instance where Tyson makes an exception and forces Ruddock back. This is one of the few times I've seen Tyson even ATTEMPT i.e. not be passive when it came to pushing back an opponent (the Holyfield II drama doesn't count :P). One thing for sure: McNeeley was not stronger than Tyson. That example does support my notion of passiveness on Tyson's part. I don't doubt in anyway that the outcome will be Foreman pushes Tyson back. I'm arguing for the heck of it but also to emphasize the passive angle.

Foreman was damaged goods mentally v Lyle. He had not fought for 16 months after being beaten mentally by Ali.It's true that Foreman was a different fighter after Zaire. He tried to box and pace himself some more. However, the Lyle fight was purely about brute power, chin, heart, and strength and nothing else. Boxing or pacing were both thrown out of the window. That's why the Ali fight has no relevance to Foreman - Lyle unlike Foreman-Young. It's not like Foreman lost his physical strength after Ali. You could argue that he lost some confidence or aggresson but I'm not going to link that to getting pushed back. Lyle had the fighting style (unlike Frazier) and the talent needed to stand up to Foreman and challenge him. Needless to say, Foreman passed the test admirably but his strength was challenged.

Ali's mental warfare against Foreman was definitely something but it wasn't the reason for his victory. Not even close. It was the right hand leads & lightning fast combinations and excellent timing that knocked out Foreman. Mentally and physically, Foreman did 100% of what he could do and did in his best fights up to that point. Ali was just too much for Foreman. In the staredown, Ali's taunts just made Foreman even angrier and punch harder. That's what Foreman was supposed to do and did best. He was no Sugar Ray. In Foreman's case, the harder & more frequent you punch - the better you are. If he gassed himself out - that's too bad. Of course, I don't buy that argument either. He was simply outclassed for at least 6/8 rounds. I'm sick of all the excuses made for Foreman in the 70s. Saying Foremn was damaged goods after Ali is just as ridiculous as saying Tyson was damaged goods when fighting Douglas. Especially when you consider how fragile Tyson's mind was compared to Foreman's (boo hoo!).

Yes the ten years off gave Foreman rest. But imagine if Mike took ten years off from 1991-2001 then came back, you certainly wouldn't be claiming the lay off helped him when nuthuggers claim that the 4 years out made Mike shot.This is completely irrelevant. Tyson relied on his speed & youthful energy (first things to leave a fighter). Foreman relied on his power, strength, and size (last things to leave a fighter). 10 yrs layoff is going to have very different effect on someone like Tyson than it will for Foreman. No matter how you dice it, that 10 yr layoff was beneficial to Foreman's comeback.

[Privatejoker]

It's some of those Foreman attributes you mention at the bottom of your post which is why i believe George beats Mike.

Power.

Strength.

Size.


Other guys Mike fought might have had some of those attributes. But they weren't Foreman.

At least Foreman had a jab, look at Ruddock, no jab what so ever.

There were so many moments in the Razor v Tyson fights that made you scream for Ruddock to THROW A JAB! You have a 82 inch reach but don't even use it. You just throw wild left hook uppercuts.

Ruddock had power but he was a one handed fighter who everytime he threw a right hand the commentators would always act surprised.

[Vanboxingfan]

I'd pick Foreman. In the fight ended early it could go either way, but if went longer I don't really understand what Tyson could do. The longer the fight lasted, the more likely it is that Foreman is impossing his will, hard for me to envision it being the other way around.

In a short fight where they both go at it, as would undoubtedly be the case, either Foreman catches Tyson, continues to push him back and hurts him, which is certainly possible, or Tyson gets inside and landes his devastating combinations and takes Foreman out.


In terms of one punch power many say they're close, I disagree, I think Foreman's punches are significantly harder than Tyson's but that Tyson's combinations make up for it and they do get the job done. Absent Tyson hurting Foreman early, it seems to me Foreman would be the one backing Tyson up. Not in the traditional sense of Tyson retreating, more along the lines of him simply pushing him back to the range he favours and letting haymakers go. I think the key punch in the fight would be Foreman's uppercut, I personally think Tyson would probably walk right into this in a way that basically uses his agression against himself in the sense the punch lands flusher and harder due to Tyson's own momentum of moving forward into the punch. This would likely happen just after Foreman pushed him off and Tyson being the ultra aggressive fighter he is would want to immediately rush Foreman and throw combo's, but as he's coming in focused on that, he'd in my opinion end up eating an uppercut. At the very least this would likely stop Tyson in his tracks and may even buckle him. Then Foreman would immediately become the aggressor and finish him off.

Over the course of a longer fight I think the only way it turns into a long fight is if Tyson can't impose his will and/or land combo's with any kind of consistentcy and that would tell me that Foreman's either hurt him and/or frustrated him and it likely turns into a prolonged beat down, as one thing Tyson can do as well as almost anyone not named Ali, is take a punch.

[anon1]

I'd pick Foreman.

So would I.

or Tyson gets inside and landes his devastating combinationsNot happening. Tyson was a poor inside fighter. He had the talent for it but he either didn't have the skillset or desire to fight on the inside. He got schooled by Douglas & Holyfield on the inside.

I think Foreman's punches are significantly harder than Tyson'sI agree. Although I think it's a matter of styles. Tyson focused on throwing quick shots in succession rather than loading up on one punch. Yes he committed himself 100% but he didn't always load up. There's a difference. He didn't sit down on his punches. Foreman on the other hand, sat down and clubbed. When Tyson sat down and loaded up and punched straight - you saw the Botha fight. That's a display of his full, hidden power. Overall I agree with you.

Absent Tyson hurting Foreman early, it seems to me Foreman would be the one backing Tyson up. I agree with this too but the keyword absent should not be forgotten :D

I think the key punch in the fight would be Foreman's uppercut, I personally think Tyson would probably walk right into this in a way that basically uses his agression against himself in the sense the punch lands flusher and harder due to Tyson's own momentum of moving forward into the punch. This would likely happen just after Foreman pushed him off and Tyson being the ultra aggressive fighter he is would want to immediately rush Foreman and throw combo's, but as he's coming in focused on that, he'd in my opinion end up eating an uppercut.Here's were we've skipped an important aspect. What if Tyson lands one of his famous right hands while rushing in? He has very fast hands and Foreman's reflexes were average at best. Remember the first punch Tyson ever threw at Holyfied? Furthermore, Foreman particularly doesn't react well to very fast punches landed on him. He gets shaken & staggered. If Tyson lands the rights he did against Holyfield, Foreman will be in trouble. Yes, Tyson was a sucker for uppercuts and Foreman was very sneaky and devastating with his uppercuts (think the Cooney knockout - even though we're talking about young Foreman). However, Tyson has just as good of a chance of landing his clubbing right hand. It's staggering speed and power will shake up Foreman too.


At the very least this would likely stop Tyson in his tracks and may even buckle him. This description reminds me of the Lewis fight. I'm not sure if that belongs here. Conditioning and being active go a very long way in fights. The Tyson against Lewis was very poorly conditioned. Therefore he couldn't recover from punches very quickly like he did against Ruddock (many times) or Tucker (big uppercut). Of course Tucker was no Foreman but he's along the same lines in landing a very good uppercut. Tyson has always been beaten when he's outboxed or outmaneuvered. He's never been outslugged. I think Foreman's the man to do it because as you said - he'll push back Tyson and pound away from a comfortable range. That's the key of the fight. However, if Foreman just tries to trade with Tyson like he did with Lyle - he's in trouble. Even though Foreman hits harder than Tyson, I think Foreman particularly will react worse to Tyson's combination of speed and power in the right hand than brute Tyson will to Foreman's shots. I'm thinking Foreman - Lyle here. But like I said, I expect better from Foreman and avoid a Foreman - Lyle but more of a Foreman - Frazier generalship. I just won't underestimate Tyson's chances of landing that awesome right hand. Foreman's key punch will be the uppercut and Tyson's key punch will be the right hand assisted by a follow up left.

[anon1]

Power.

Strength.

Size.

What about speed? Reflexes? *OLD* Foreman did not have enough of either *against* Tyson. Here's how I see it. Foreman throws a jab or a right and this isn't at the same speed as Douglas or Holyfield. Tyson dodges it and counters with his own hook or right hand. *OLD* Foreman doesn't have particularly good reflexes and will get hit. He will be staggered by Tyson's signature speed & power.

Yes, Foreman had devastating power and will land but young Tyson was very well conditioned and could take a big shot and come right back. What he wasn't good with is if like Douglas or Holyfield you kept countering him again and again relentlessly or kept hitting him with speedy combinations. Yes Foreman threw combinations and had good workrate but he didn't have the speed to land consistently like Holyfield or Douglas as he would need to do to stop Tyson. Foreman was no Holyfield or Douglas. He isn't going to outbox Tyson.

Although I can see your viewpoint. Just watched the Foreman - Cooper fight. Foreman gave a bad beating to the younger man - even shook him around with a body blow! :shock:

But Tyson was a tough SOB, well conditioned, had fast hands and reflexes, and was more game than given credit for. A combination of those things is more than an Old Foreman can handle.

[JimmyShimmy]

Foreman does not just slug, he smothers and this is where the problems start for Mike.

[ripcity]

Forman will have the early advntage. Tyson's mentor Cus D'Mato has goten it in to Tyson's head that Forman is imposible for him to beat. I think the first 3 to 5 rounds will go to Forman. If Tyson who has a pretty solid chin can get past those 5 rounds I think he will find the room he needs to start landing effictive punches. Forman probbly hit a bit harder than Tyson. However Forman has one of the worst defences I have seen on a world class boxer. On the other hand Tyson's defence was one of the best.
I see this going two ways. either Forman by ko within 5 rounds or Tyson by ko late in the fight from round 8 and on.

[Privatejoker]

Tyson had speed advantages over everyone he fought, he was faster than the 34 year old Evander and still got beaten.

It takes more than speed to beat Foreman.

It takes guts, will and determination.

Tyson was not exactly Gatti in that department.

Even though George was not the same fighter v Young and was poor, he had young on queer street several times.

Two men beat Foreman in his twenties, and both of them are not comparable to Tyson.

Those two men men were tricky slick crafty quick guys who can go backwards.

Mike ain't slick and tricky or crafty, we all know he can't fight backwards.

He comes to destroy his fighters and so does George, Tyson is faster, better footwork, but he ain't no runner or mover, he will be right there to be hit despite the early head movement.

He can't fight inside well, that helps Foreman.

Bonecrusher stopped Mike from doing really anything by clinching, i think George would do the same except he would hit Mike. He wouldn't be there to survrive like Smith and pick up a paycheck.

And lets forget about the old Foreman now shall we?

Lets pair a unbeaten 1973 Foreman who had a sledge hammer jab against Mike.

In a slug out George wins. Has George ever lost a slug out? NO.

Has Mike Tyson? Yes.

Tyson never beat one guy in his career you can truly say was on Foreman's league in their prime.

[mr. magoo]

Tyson had speed advantages over everyone he fought, he was faster than the 34 year old Evander and still got beaten.

It takes more than speed to beat Foreman.

It takes guts, will and determination.

Tyson was not exactly Gatti in that department.

Even though George was not the same fighter v Young and was poor, he had young on queer street several times.

Two men beat Foreman in his twenties, and both of them are not comparable to Tyson.

Those two men men were tricky slick crafty quick guys who can go backwards.

Mike ain't slick and tricky or crafty, we all know he can't fight backwards.

He comes to destroy his fighters and so does George, Tyson is faster, better footwork, but he ain't no runner or mover, he will be right there to be hit despite the early head movement.

He can't fight inside well, that helps Foreman.

Bonecrusher stopped Mike from doing really anything by clinching, i think George would do the same except he would hit Mike. He wouldn't be there to survrive like Smith and pick up a paycheck.

And lets forget about the old Foreman now shall we?

Lets pair a unbeaten 1973 Foreman who had a sledge hammer jab against Mike.

In a slug out George wins. Has George ever lost a slug out? NO.

Has Mike Tyson? Yes.

Tyson never beat one guy in his career you can truly say was on Foreman's league in their prime.


A truly solid post my good man. :good

[Boilermaker]

I think that if Tyson wins, he wins early. He needs to land hard and often on George because once the slower foreman starts landing he is in trouble. The problem for tyson is that as good as he was at knocking out good fighters, Foreman just had such a good chin. I can t see him being stopped early.

[Holmes' Jab]

Tyson doesn't need an early knockout, there's every chance he'll win late. His best bet is to force the lumbering Foreman to come after him, keep moving on the outside, look for openings and move to mid-range when he sense them, unloading combinations and then moving out once again. Foreman will be done by the mid-rounds and Tyson will have more and more success til the ref stops Foreman around the 8th or 9th round. Accumulation and speed kills.

[anon1]

Tyson had speed advantages over everyone he fought, he was faster than the 34 year old Evander and still got beaten.

Holyfield was a very strategic skilled BOXER who brilliantly timed & picked his shots to beat Tyson to the punch. You cannot compare Holyfield to Foreman.


It takes guts, will and determination.

Tyson was not exactly Gatti in that department.Tyson was discouraged when outmaneuvered or outboxed. Foreman can do that with his superior reach & strength. However, if this is a slugfest where the two trade blows - Tyson is not going to lose heart. He could take a big punch and come right back to fight. He has shown this several times in his career.



Even though George was not the same fighter v Young and was poor, he had young on queer street several times.This has as much substance as saying "Even though Tyson was not the same fighter v Douglas and was poor, he had Douglas on queer street".

Two men beat Foreman in his twenties, and both of them are not comparable to Tyson.I'd rather compare Lyle & Tyson.

better footworkNah. Tyson had poor footwork. Holyfield round 6 KD indicates that.

he will be right there to be hit despite the early head movement.He will be but he will also have an easier time dodging Foreman's wide punches which are coming at average handspeed.

He can't fight inside well, that helps Foreman.Big time.

Bonecrusher stopped Mike from doing really anything by clinching, i think George would do the same except he would hit MikeThe essence of the fight will be at midrange (Tyson's favor) or long range (Foreman's favor).

Lets pair a unbeaten 1973 Foreman who had a sledge hammer jab against Mike.
In a slug out George wins. Has George ever lost a slug out? NOHe was an inch away from KO against Lyle. He was dropped after a few clean shots. Tyson was never close to getting KO'd even by heavy punchers until after several rounds of getting pummeled. He was still game against Douglas till 8 rounds, still game against Holyfield for the first 7 rounds (yes even after round 6 - although admittedly it's been a while since I've seen the fight). This favors Tyson over Foreman in a slugfest. Tyson lands a few clean shots against the slow reflex Foreman and Foreman just might get knocked down as he did against Lyle. Foreman lands some of his shots on Tyson and Tyson comes right back to counter Foreman. Foreman may taste success only after a few rounds whereas Tyson can get results after a few punches.

If it's going to be a slugfest like Lyle-Foreman, my money is on Tyson and for good reason. Foreman is no boxer like Holyfield.

Has Mike Tyson? Yes.I am not familiar with any such example prior to the second layoff after Holyfield II. Any version of Tyson after that period was indeed shot. Holy & Douglas both outboxed Tyson.

Tyson never beat one guy in his career you can truly say was on Foreman's league in their prime.

True.

[mr. magoo]

Holyfield was a very strategic skilled BOXER who brilliantly timed & picked his shots to beat Tyson to the punch. You cannot compare Holyfield to Foreman.






I would like to comment on this one portion of your response to PrivateJoker.

While Holyfield and Foreman were two totally different animals, I do see some similarities in the fashion by which Evander beat Tyson and the manner in which George may fight him. Holy certainly used angles and did a fair amount of boxing -something that George would not likely do, however he also used his upper body strength and ability to tie Tyson up to neutralize his attacks. I could see Foreman doing this as well. No way does Tyson posses Foreman's strength and he certainly isn't going to win in the clinches. George is also notorious for giving men a nasty little gut check while holding, and make no mistake, these things take a huge toll. Couple this with the likelyhood that Foreman will have the right foundation to push on Mike's broad shoulders to shove him back into mid range, and now you have the ideal firing zone for Foreman. Tyson won't do himself any favors either by trying to come in low or sneaking in any of those infamous elbows either. Electing to employ this stance will leave him a sitting duck for those vicous hookercuts that George lifted Frazier off the canvas with.. Only difference is, Joe was a man who got off the floor from time to time. Tyson wasn't.

[anon1]

Holy certainly used angles and did a fair amount of boxing -something that George would not likely do

This was the biggest factor in Holyfield beating Tyson! Without this, comparison between Holy & Foreman is pointless. Holyfield timed and beat Tyson to the punch. He cleverly ducked or sidestepped, made Tyson miss, and countered with his own heavy shots. This is very different from just slugging it out.

however he also used his upper body strength and ability to tie Tyson up to neutralize his attacks. Yes, it slowed down Tyson. More importantly, it also allowed Holyfield to hit Tyson with combinations on the inside and as the two were separating. This is what allowed him to cumulatively frustrate and concuss Tyson. Again, Foreman isn't going to fight as skillfully as Holyfield. He's going to slug it out if the fight is midrange.


Foreman will have the right foundation to push on Mike's broad shoulders to shove him back into mid range This actually helps Tyson :lol:

because Tyson was at his best fighting mid range.

now you have the ideal firing zone for Foreman. I hope Foreman isn't dumb enough to follow this strategy in the first 5 rounds. Why give up his big reach advantage? He's better off fighting long range. He should switch to mid range only after hurting Tyson from long and going for the kill.

If Foreman does fight midrange in the early rounds then Tyson gets the better of him. At this point...Tyson's speed, reflexes, and counter punching actually become relevant. At long range, those things don't matter and Foreman pummels Tyson.

[mr. magoo]

This was the biggest factor in Holyfield beating Tyson! Without this, comparison between Holy & Foreman is pointless. Holyfield timed and beat Tyson to the punch. He cleverly ducked or sidestepped, made Tyson miss, and countered with his own heavy shots. This is very different from just slugging it out.

Yes, it slowed down Tyson. More importantly, it also allowed Holyfield to hit Tyson with combinations on the inside and as the two were separating. This is what allowed him to cumulatively frustrate and concuss Tyson. Again, Foreman isn't going to fight as skillfully as Holyfield. He's going to slug it out if the fight is midrange.

This actually helps Tyson :lol:

because Tyson was at his best fighting mid range.

I hope Foreman isn't dumb enough to follow this strategy in the first 5 rounds. Why give up his big reach advantage? He's better off fighting long range. He should switch to mid range only after hurting Tyson from long and going for the kill.

If Foreman does fight midrange in the early rounds then Tyson gets the better of him. At this point...Tyson's speed, reflexes, and counter punching actually become relevant. At long range, those things don't matter and Foreman pummels Tyson.

To simplify things, as opposed to responding to a lot of mostly opinionated rhetoric, Cus D'Amato said himself that Foreman would never lose to a swarmer. While Tyson certainly has noticable differences from the likes of Marciano, Patterson and Frazier, this is still the general category of fighter that Mike falls into and that George eats right up - the type of fighter who lowers his center of gravity, uses a peak o boo type of defense, is generally shorter in height, is vulnerable to hooks and uppercuts, and typically likes to fight in close. Neither man ever defeated a fighter who was EXACTLY like the other, but Foreman at least has claim to having beaten something that's at least SIMILAR. In addition, he has the testimony of an all time great trainer as someone who would not be beaten by fighters' of very similar discription to Tyson. Funny how it just so happens that this testimony comes from the very trainer who raised, trained, and essentially built Tyson from the ground up....... When matching fighters across eras, THESE are the types of factors that need to paid most attention to.

[anon1]

If you feel that my assertion of Holyfield beating Tyson mainly because of his intelligent boxing is opinion or rhetoric...then that's fine. I think it's more than just opinion.

Despite popular belief, Tyson was not exactly a swarmer and he is not similar in fighting style to Dempsey, Frazier or even Marciano. His is a hybrid of a swarmer and a mid range slugger. So your comparisons don't exactly correspond IMO.

My guess is that D' Amato wanted to train Tyson like Patterson (along with Tyson's improvements like better punching ability, chin, aggression, etc.). Well the product after D' Amato's death was very different from Patterson. I will agree that D' Amato would have wanted to keep Tyson away from Foreman and would agree that Foreman is not a good style for Tyson. But I'm not sure if he'd compare Tyson exactly to Frazier against Foreman.

Look - I'm also picking Foreman to KO Tyson. However, these things are contingent on what game plan the fighters take. Just for fun I'm bringing out the other possibility. I don't want to repeat myself ad nauseum but there are two ways this fight can shape up: long range fight or mid range slugfest. I expect the former and therefore a Foreman KO. But the mid range is also a possibility. Foreman is not invincible he can get hit and hurt. Tyson is very much capable of doing that. I pick Foreman but anything goes in boxing.

That's the point of debating. Of course we don't know what course the fight will take until it actually happens. But we explore the different avenues for a fight.

[anon1]

I emphasize - I'm also picking Foreman by KO 4 if its just a matter of highest probability of the outcome.

[mr. magoo]

Fair enough..

I would also like to clearify that I am not categorizing Tyson as the clone of Joe Frazier. All I'm saying is that Tyson had similarities to some of the guys who D'Amato felt came up short against Foreman.

[AnthonyJ74]

To simplify things, as opposed to responding to a lot of mostly opinionated rhetoric, Cus D'Amato said himself that Foreman would never lose to a swarmer. While Tyson certainly has noticable differences from the likes of Marciano, Patterson and Frazier, this is still the general category of fighter that Mike falls into and that George eats right up - the type of fighter who lowers his center of gravity, uses a peak o boo type of defense, is generally shorter in height, is vulnerable to hooks and uppercuts, and typically likes to fight in close. Neither man ever defeated a fighter who was EXACTLY like the other, but Foreman at least has claim to having beaten something that's at least SIMILAR. In addition, he has the testimony of an all time great trainer as someone who would not be beaten by fighters' of very similar discription to Tyson. Funny how it just so happens that this testimony comes from the very trainer who raised, trained, and essentially built Tyson from the ground up....... When matching fighters across eras, THESE are the types of factors that need to paid most attention to.

So, if Cus D'Amato says something it has to be taken as the God's honest truth? Come on! Do you think Cus ever made a bad prediction or lost a bet on a fight? He purportedly said that no swarmer would ever beat George Foreman so that makes it so? Foreman may well have beat Tyson in a fight, but I wouldn't base a large part of any prediction on the outcome of a Foreman/Tyson fight on the words of Cus. He was human after all and fallible.

[Boxing Gloves]

Id go for the Foreman that beat Frazier to win by KO

[anon1]

Fair enough..

I would also like to clearify that I am not categorizing Tyson as the clone of Joe Frazier. All I'm saying is that Tyson had similarities to some of the guys who D'Amato felt came up short against Foreman.

I don't think Joe Frazier or Mike Tyson are anything similar in fighting styles. Even physical traits - they are different. Just a single difference in trait e.g. chin make make such a big impact between characteristics of two fighters.

I would be curious to know with whom D' Amato would agree (you or or me) if he watched Tyson ***from 1986 to 1997. He'd probably be biased towards his original vision but the the reality of the outcome was different IMO.

[AnthonyJ74]

A case can be made that Tyson beat fighters who were at least similar to Foreman in size, build, and strenth. Big, strong guys with big punches: Bruno, Ruddock, Smith, Tucker, etc. It's debatable as to whether or not prime Foreman punched much harder than some of these guys, and he wasn't any bigger and didn't have a longer reach. So, Tyson has been in the ring with guys who were similar to George Foreman, just as so many say that Foreman has beaten guys similar in style and size to Tyson. It goes both ways.

[mr. magoo]

So, if Cus D'Amato says something it has to be taken as the God's honest truth?

Coming from the man who trained at least two fighters who fought that very style and was well familar with a lot of others who incorporated it as well? Yes, it is gospel..


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[mr. magoo]

I don't think Joe Frazier or Mike Tyson are anything similar in fighting styles. Even physical traits - they are different. Just a single difference in trait e.g. chin make make such a big impact between characteristics of two fighters.



I think that to say that Tyson and Frazier are nothing alike is a stretch and applying a little wishful thinking to distance Tyson from a very possible Foreman loss. Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson from a physical standpoint are higly comparable. Both stood exactly 5'11", and in their primes weighed between 205-215, with Tyson being the slightly heavier of the two. Their body types bore some resemblance as well. Both seemed to have a cross between a mesomorphic frame and one that was endomorphic in tendency, meaning that for the most part, they were fairly muscular when well conditioned, but more in the form of a bulky physique as opposed to being ripped. As for who had the greater chin, I'd say it was debatable. Frazier did not fight as many big punchers as Tyson, but the only man who ever KO'd him was a far greater puncher than any man Tyson had faced either. Joe also rose off the canvas to win fights whereas Tyson never did. I think we'll leave the chin issue alone.

[anon1]

I think that to say that Tyson and Frazier are nothing alike is a stretch and applying a little wishful thinking to distance Tyson from a very possible Foreman loss. Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson from a physical standpoint are higly comparable

It's not an wishful thinking or a desire to distance from Frazier. One can only wish Tyson was anything like Frazier but he wasn't. Joe Frazier would pummel Buster Douglas. He'd beat on and decision Evander Holyfield. The greatest relevant similarity between Frazier & Tyson is that both have short reach. I've already acknowledged the significance of this in the fight.

Yes, both preferred to fight forward. However, Frazier preferred to get close, get really inside, and unleash the body attack and the left hook over the course of rounds. Tyson didn't like being as close as Frazier and preferred to stay at midrange where he could attack coming in with not just cumulation shots but KO punches. That to me is a big difference. That is the difference between Frazier beating Douglas & Holyfield and Tyson not being able. That is the difference between Frazier failing against Foreman and Tyson having a much better and different chance. We can agree to disagree.

[anon1]

Let me ask you this...do you think Cus wanted to train Tyson to *box* like Patterson? Would you consider Patterson a swarmer? These questions are relevant to your linking of Tyson, Cus, and swarmers.

If Tyson had Patterson's boxing skills - he would not have been schooled on the inside as badly as he was against Holyfield & Douglas. Tyson was such a shit inside fighter it's pathetic. Is this what D' Amato had in mind? I don't think so. I don't buy the mentality excuse (or it certainly does not change the results which is all that matters).

[mr. magoo]

Let me ask you this...do you think Cus wanted to train Tyson to *box* like Patterson? Would you consider Patterson a swarmer? These questions are relevant to your linking of Tyson, Cus, and swarmers.

If Tyson had Patterson's boxing skills - he would not have been schooled on the inside as badly as he was against Holyfield & Douglas. Tyson was such a shit inside fighter it's pathetic. Is this what D' Amato had in mind? I don't think so. I don't buy the mentality excuse (or it certainly does not change the results which is all that matters).


Tyson's loss to Douglas was attributed to one man fighting the very best fight of his career while the other fought his very worst. I have posted my reasoning in great depth numerous time and if you'd like to see it again I can run a search and retrieve it for you. It had nothing to do with his inability to fight on the inside.

on a different note, here is a link to a boxing website and halfway down the page, there is a list of what the author categorizes as swarmers. How good is the site? I don't know....

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[anon1]

Tyson's loss to Douglas was attributed to one man fighting the very best fight of his career while the other fought his very worst. I have posted my reasoning in great depth numerous time and if you'd like to see it again I can run a search and retrieve it for you. It had nothing to do with his inability to fight on the inside.

I've seen it before. And with respect to you, it's just a bunch of apologetic excuses for Tyson. He got his ass kicked plain and simple. It's tough to look good when the other guy keeps relentlessly punching you and keeping you engaged from distance. It's much easier to look good if you're facing a shriveled, scared light weight in Michael Spinks. Tyson was MADE to fight his worst game BY Douglas. The Toyko Tyson would have destroyed every fighter he faced save for Evander Holyfield and perhaps Lennox Lewis. He'd have looked just as devastating in Tokyo against other opponents like Spinks. Maybe sometime I'll dissect your big post but I don't think you'd like nor care for that :lol:

This would NEVER have happened to Frazier. The Frazier against Foreman would have destroyed Buster, nevermind FOTC.

on a different note, here is a link to a boxing website and halfway down the page, there is a list of what the author categorizes as swarmers. How good is the site? I don't know....

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Are you kidding me? How-to-box.com :lol:

I asked for YOUR OPINION vis a vis Tyson, Cus, and Patterson. I asked you to compare the two fighters and also speculate on Cus' intent. If you haven't watched enough of Patterson that's OK just revisit him on youtube. You still haven't answered the question.

[mr. magoo]

Oh for fuck sakes I give up. If you don't want to believe that Frazier had anything in common with Mike Tyson, that Cus D'Amato's opinion has any weight on the issue, that Tyson vs Douglas was not the best rendition of Tyson, or that Tyson's style was made for Foreman then all the more power to you..

Good day sir.

[anon1]

:lol:

Good day to you too.

[AnthonyJ74]

Coming from the man who trained at least two fighters who fought that very style and was well familar with a lot of others who incorporated it as well? Yes, it is gospel..


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

It was the opinion of one man. I'm sure there are countless boxing trainers, experts, and even other fighters who would pick Tyson to beat any version of Foreman. But since Cus plucked Tyson out of reform school and helped to mold him - at least the early Tyson - his evaluation of a Tyson/Foreman fight carries more weight than others'? I don't buy that.

[AnthonyJ74]

I think that to say that Tyson and Frazier are nothing alike is a stretch and applying a little wishful thinking to distance Tyson from a very possible Foreman loss. Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson from a physical standpoint are higly comparable. Both stood exactly 5'11", and in their primes weighed between 205-215, with Tyson being the slightly heavier of the two. Their body types bore some resemblance as well. Both seemed to have a cross between a mesomorphic frame and one that was endomorphic in tendency, meaning that for the most part, they were fairly muscular when well conditioned, but more in the form of a bulky physique as opposed to being ripped. As for who had the greater chin, I'd say it was debatable. Frazier did not fight as many big punchers as Tyson, but the only man who ever KO'd him was a far greater puncher than any man Tyson had faced either. Joe also rose off the canvas to win fights whereas Tyson never did. I think we'll leave the chin issue alone.

I think saying that Foreman was a far greater puncher than any puncher that Tyson ever faced is more than just a stretch. I don't see how Foreman hit all that much harder(if at all) than Lennox Lewis, Razor Ruddock, and even Frank Bruno in a shot for shot basis. I'd have to rate Tyson's chin at least one notch above Frazier's chin. Frazier suffered some flash knockdowns against guys who were not regarded as huge punchers, and he was more than a little shaken up by the crude Bonavena and Ramos. He also got staggered more than once against the ordinary power of Ali. Tyson never hit the deck from a flash knockdown or succumbed from one punch unless it was after an accumulation of punishment.

[round15]

First of all, let's strongly refrain from using the Joe Frazier vs George Foreman fight in Jamaica 1973 as the platform for discussing Tyson 87 vs Foreman 73.

Frazier was out of shape, overconfident, half blind, and didn't pay Foreman the same respect he did to Ali. If he did, the fight could have very well ended differently. The Joe Frazier just prior to the FOTC would arguably get past the early rounds against Foreman, wear him down to the body and stop him before the 10th. Lots of people on this forum believe Foreman destroys any version of Frazier, but I strongly beg to differ. Frazier circa 1967 - 1970 was a much quicker fighter, hand and foot, and was much harder to hit with his head movement than the fighter who showed up to fight Foreman in 1973. To not give prime Frazier a chance against 1973 Foreman is wrong. There's no reason not to believe that Frazier could make Foreman miss just like he did against Ali in 1971.

As for 87 Tyson vs 73 Foreman, it's quite possible that Tyson could KO this version of Foreman because he'd use his right hand against George, which Frazier could have and should have used, but didn't against Foreman. Another thing to consider, is the fact that Mercante let Foreman get away with some illegal tactics against Frazier. Pushing, shoving, grabbing Frazier's shoulders, holding underneath and hitting are wrestling tactics that should have been penalized. Tyson had more upper body strength than Frazier, but I'd argue less leg strength. Foreman's wrestling tactics probably wouldn't be much of a factor, unless Tyson gets dirty too, which is quite possible. Still, it's doubtful Foreman would be able to push Tyson off as easy as he did with Frazier.

Tyson and Frazier are similar in terms of their objectives in a fight which is to pound the body in close and work the head when the opponent's guard drops. There's no denying the fact that both are pressure fighters that like to come forward. Both men could fight moving backwards and circuling the opponent as they have both displayed that in their careers. Too many people say Frazier is a one-dimentional left hook fighter that just moves forward and takes punishment to land his own shots which is false.

The main difference between the two, Frazier prefered to bob and weave with some slipping of punches by the shoulders, whereas Tyson prefered to slip and drop his shoulders to the left side to double up his hook. Tyson is the only heavyweight that I've seen use a double shoulder slip, finishing on either the left or right, landing the hook after the slips. Tyson didn't bob and weave as much as Frazier but this wasn't absent from his offensive attack. Tyson would bob and weave when he had his opponent in trouble on the ropes. Both men also threw jabs to set up the right hand, moreso Tyson, but many on this forum say Frazier didn't have a jab which is wrong. He landed some good jabs against Ali, Bugner, Quarry, Chuvalo and Mathis.

As for the fight, I'd be more inclined to lean towards Foreman winning because his performance against Frazier, regardless of Frazier's condition was an awesome destruction. If Tyson doesn't get out of the fourth round with his head on straight, he gets knocked out. If he makes it to the middle rounds, he has a very good chance of beating Foreman. Stamina and conditioning would be a factor in this fight, and I'd favour Tyson over Foreman in this regard.

[MAG1965]

I emphasize - I'm also picking Foreman by KO 4 if its just a matter of highest probability of the outcome.The fight does work in George's favor. Mike would get nailed by the punches of George coming in, and when George pushed Mike back, George would come back with uppercuts and left hooks. It would be terrible for Mike. I am not saying Mike is a worse fighter, probably the opposite, but with George it is a bad style matchup.

[AnthonyJ74]

A fighter who has average foot and handspeed and who tends to stand straight up and throw wide, looping shots is tailor-made for a guy like Mike Tyson. I don't see how anyone could disagree with this. A strong case can be made that Foreman is tailor-made for Tyson.

[Slothrop]

Tyson with surprising ease. George's balance would do him in. He'd eat a few hard counters and be out. Round three.

[Privatejoker]

George.

[Privatejoker]

Big George.