Mike Tyson Vs. George Foreman

[C. M. Clay II]

Does anyone here believe that Tyson could put Foreman away early?

I've just heard it mentioned previously and I find the notion pretty ridiculous after seeing a prime Holyfield hit him with 25 punc combinations, or seeing the absolute mess Stewart turned Foreman's face into

As if Holyfield has the power of Tyson:roll:

[round15]

One post in this thread said it perfectly. Using Frazier vs Foreman (1973 or 1976), is not a blueprint for a fight between Tyson and Foreman.

First of all, to give Joe Frazier some respect that a lot of people on this forum don't, George Foreman never fought the very best Frazier. I've said it once before and I'll say it again. Prime Frazier 1967 - 1970, just before the FOTC would KO Foreman inside the distance. Countless posts on this forum continue to say Foreman will always destroy Frazier, and it will always be a bad match for Frazier. I completely disagree. Ali himself threw much quicker punches than Foreman and had a hard time hitting Frazier cleanly and consistently in their first fight. He even said that Joe Frazier from the FOTC would have KO'd Foreman. In Jamaica, Frazier went straight at Foreman with no head movement, keeping his hands low and trying to out-muscle Foreman. Also, Mercante was letting George push and shove off, which another referee would most likely warn George about for that illegal tactic. I know I'm probably still in the minority, but I could definitely envision a prime 205 lb Frazier, ripping double hooks to the head and body against Foreman, while at the say time making George miss with his bobbing and weaving. I'm not discrediting what Foreman did to Frazier in 1973 or 1976, but prime Frazier would have given Foreman a much tougher and competitive fight.

As for Tyson vs Foreman, I'd say either man has the potential to knock the other man out. Foreman would easily knock out the Tyson that fought Lennox Lewis probably in 3 rounds or less. If Foreman and Tyson fought when Cus D'amato, Kevin Rooney or Teddy Atlas was handling Tyson, Foreman would have a much tougher and quicker Tyson to deal with. This Tyson would probaby knock the young George out late. I don't think Tyson would be able to knock out the old George that KO'd Moorer, but Tyson probably would win a unanimous decision.

[ironchamp]

From JOHNBKelly
This has been a fantastic debate and yes Iron Mike was a great puncher, tough etc but no-one has managed to explain why he didn't challenge Foreman when George was the World Heavyweight champ between 94 and 97. Maybe Don King knows a bit more about boxing than some of you Tyson fans and ralised that his main draw Mike Tyson might lose some of his lustre if he got pulverised by the 'Punching preacher'. Remember George was 46 back in 94 only four years older than Iron Mike is today, yet almost anyone in the current top ten would consider a Tyson fight an easy payday. So why did Foreman v Tyson never happen back in the 90's, George would have loved it.


The only possible time a Tyson-Foreman fight could have taken place was in 1990-1992 after Tyson's loss to Douglas. Tyson's decision to to fight Foreman has little to do with being afraid or being protected from Foreman especially since after Douglas he took on:

Henry Tillman: Gimme fight.
Alex Stewart: A step up in class.
Donovan Razor Ruddock: The Number 2 contender (WBA, WBC, IBF) after Mike Tyson.
Donovan Razor Ruddock II: after a controversial stoppage, Tyson granted Razor a much deserved rematch and emerged victorious.

After that a fight with Holyfield was the next thing on the agenda. A Foreman fight would have been a circus distraction and he would have endured the criticism that Holyfield endured in fighting George Foreman.

1994: Tyson was in Jail.
1995: After a 4 year layoff there were far more lucrative fights on the Horizon.

1995
1. McNeeley fight: $25M- tune up fight.
2. Mathis fight: this fight was indicative that Tyson had ring rust.

1996
3. Bruno: for the WBC title and of course $20M.

Up until this point you couldnt argue Tyson's path after prison. Foreman was never part of the equation. The fighters that were part of the equation but the fights never materialized (some of them later on) were:

Bowe: Billed as the 100M fight. Things didnt work out.
Morrison: Diagnosed with HIV AIDS
Lewis: ended up fighting in 2002

1996
4. Seldon: Belt holder (WBA)
5. Holyfield: $20M

1997
6. Holyfield II: $35M (the rematch)

The opportunity and interest in a Tyson Foreman fight after Tyson came out of prison wasnt really there. It would have proved nothing.
The only time it would have meant anything is if they fought between 1990-1992 and during that time Tyson more credible opponents, and by credible I mean in foresight and not hindsight.


I have a similar view.

Basically, any fighter who fought in a semi-crouched stance, who was shorter and lowered their center of gravity got killed by Foreman. Of course, I acknowledge that there are noticable differences in style between Mike Tyson and men like Frazier and Norton, but not so different to the point where it would mean victory for Tyson, especially seeing how easily Foreman destroyed those men. Tyson never rose of the floor to win a fight, and never lost a fight via decision. Some criticize Foreman's stamina and effectiveness in the late rounds, but Tyson's may quite possibly be as bad or worse. A 45 year old Foreman was well behind and taking a beating From Michael Moorer, but managed to salvage enough of his heart and savy to win by knock out. Name one time that Tyson came back from such a deficet to win a big fight like that. Not to mention, I don't think that stamina would even be a factor here, given that this match would likely end long before it became an issue. I'm not saying that Foreman is an overall better fighter than Tyson, and in fact, Mike beat a longer list of rated opponents, but stylistically, this fight is all wrong for Tyson.

Tyson not getting off the floor to win a fight is really indicative of 2 things;

1. His fights are usually one sided- in his favor or his opponents favor.
2. His chin isn't susceptible to flash KD's.

Foreman's 1 punch KO over Moorer in Round 10 and Tyson's 1 punch KD over Douglas in Round 8 are no different if you are talking about it in terms of heart and savvy. Heart doesnt always translate into a win; its over coming your shortcomings or any adverse moments to the best of your God given ability. Whether you win or lose- has no relevance.

I give Tyson the edge because I think his sporadic bob and weave style coupled his offensive arsenal which offers a wide variety punches, a combintion of speed and power will undoutebly keep Foreman honest.

In addition, Tyson has always been regarded a great counter puncher so I can only envision that Foreman's advances would be thwarted by Tyson's counter punching which will inevitably dictate the pace of the fight.

[prime]

Anthony, there are also a few other questions you failed to answer:
Which HWs should be favored to beat Tyson?
Which HWs hit harder than Foreman? Than Tyson?

Prime, feel free to answer these as well...

1. Muhammad Ali and Jack Johnson, my one and two top head-to-head heavies of all time; both ring-wise, physically and mentally strong, skilled fighters with a great offense and excellent defensive capabilities. I don't see any puncher beating Tyson, on account of his superior combination of speed, power, fundamentals and chin, although I feel Dempsey and Louis would have the best shot.

2. Blow for blow, I believe Foreman is more heavy-handed, has more raw power than Tyson. And I would say the Earnie Shavers right is the most devastating blow I have seen in the ring.

I would also say the Lewis straight right and the Tua hook give any particular blow from these three guys a run for its money.

[Russell]

As if Holyfield has the power of Tyson:roll:

My EXACT point. :lol:

[Stonehands89]

1. Muhammad Ali and Jack Johnson, my one and two top head-to-head heavies of all time; both ring-wise, physically and mentally strong, skilled fighters with a great offense and excellent defensive capabilities. I don't see any puncher beating Tyson, on account of his superior combination of speed, power, fundamentals and chin, although I feel Dempsey and Louis would have the best shot.

2. Blow for blow, I believe Foreman is more heavy-handed, has more raw power than Tyson. And I would say the Earnie Shavers right is the most devastating blow I have seen in the ring.

I would also say the Lewis straight right and the Tua hook give any particular blow from these three guys a run for its money.
I would choose more historic greats to take prime Tyson, but your answers demonstrate a fair mind...

[Stonehands89]

I'm not sure about Tyson against many of the all-time greats in a head-to-head matchp. I think Ali would have beaten him. Joe Louis would have a definite shot. Larry Holmes might have but it would be tough.

As far as punching power, I think guys like Tommy Morrison, Gerry Cooney, Razor Ruddock, and maybe even someone like David Tua were all in a Foreman/Tyson power department. I think it's quite possible that someone like Ruddock or Morrison or Cooney could hit harder than Foreman or Tyson - punch for punch - but were not as physically strong and powerful as Foreman.
Okay, fair enough. Although you may be happy to know that I would choose Tyson over Holmes every time. I'd choose Tyson to have an excellent chance against Ali -the first time, and Louis would be at great risk early. Liston, Foreman, Johnson, Bowe, Holyfield, and perhaps Lewis shuold be favored... but especially the first two. And Holyfield.

[anon1]

If Foreman is allowed to shove Tyson like he did Frazier, then Tyson will be at a further disadvantage.

Tyson was durable, yes, but he was not resilient (physically or emotionally). Once hurt, I don't remember him ever fully recovering to win. Douglas and Holyfield proved this.
i too pick foreman and the uppercut will play a big role but...

foreman pushing tyson back is to tyson's advantage...

tyson is a bad infighter and most dangerous when COMING IN...

so foreman is actually positioning tyson at an optimal distance...

comparing foreman and berbick is ridiculous but i do recall berbick pushing tyson back and tyson just gets positioned to do more damage. sure this isn't comfortable to be pushed around - but tyson was athletic enough to handle that.

as for your comment on resilience...

i agree with the mental aspect (and this is the bottom line in a boxing match - but NOT in a physical brawl)

but physically, tyson had good recovery. see the fights where ruddock lands monster shots on tyson and tyson immediately counters with a punch that decks ruddock. at one point, ruddock even landed 2-3 heavy shots that snapped tyson's neck and tyson comes righ back. the key with the douglas / holy fight is that tyson was OUTMANEUVERED by skill and he couldn't think of a strategy against it. this is why he was ineffective, even physically. such was not the case in a slugfest with ruddock. and even in the douglas fight, tyson knocked down douglas after succumbing a beating (for the moment that douglas stopped fighting INTELLIGENTLY). and this is an important issue to address because you can't compare holy & douglas to the way foreman will beat or FRUSTRATE tyson. latter two did it mentally, foreman would have to do it physically (and he seems to have the tools). but one must consider that this raises hopes for tyson fans. because imo, from 1985 to 1998 (before his second break from fighting that left him never the same), tyson lost only when OUTTHOUGHT - but no one ever physically in a CRUDE, BRAWLING, SLUGFEST which is what foreman would bring.

[AnthonyJ74]

Okay, fair enough. Although you may be happy to know that I would choose Tyson over Holmes every time. I'd choose Tyson to have an excellent chance against Ali -the first time, and Louis would be at great risk early. Liston, Foreman, Johnson, Bowe, Holyfield, and perhaps Lewis shuold be favored... but especially the first two. And Holyfield.

I agree that Joe Louis would have to guard that chin of his early against Tyson. That would be a very dicey fight early, especially for Louis. Tyson's early rush and his aggressiveness would be tough for Joe in my opinion. But it would be a good fight. I wouldn't be surprised if Joe caught Mike early as well.

As far as Holmes, I might have to lean more towards Tyson being the favorite. Holmes definitely had the skill and the left jab to give Tyson fits, I'm not sure how Holmes would be able to handle Tyson's aggressiveness and pressure. As I mentioned in another post regarding the Douglas/Tyson fight, I don't think Holmes would have the tools to beat Tyson like Douglas did. Many people compared Buster Douglas that night to a prime Larry Holmes. But Douglas had more power and threw better combinations; he had the power to gain Tyson's respect in a way that Holmes wouldn't!

[AnthonyJ74]

i too pick foreman and the uppercut will play a big role but...

foreman pushing tyson back is to tyson's advantage...

tyson is a bad infighter and most dangerous when COMING IN...

so foreman is actually positioning tyson at an optimal distance...

comparing foreman and berbick is ridiculous but i do recall berbick pushing tyson back and tyson just gets positioned to do more damage. sure this isn't comfortable to be pushed around - but tyson was athletic enough to handle that.

as for your comment on resilience...

i agree with the mental aspect (and this is the bottom line in a boxing match - but NOT in a physical brawl)

but physically, tyson had good recovery. see the fights where ruddock lands monster shots on tyson and tyson immediately counters with a punch that decks ruddock. at one point, ruddock even landed 2-3 heavy shots that snapped tyson's neck and tyson comes righ back. the key with the douglas / holy fight is that tyson was OUTMANEUVERED by skill and he couldn't think of a strategy against it. this is why he was ineffective, even physically. such was not the case in a slugfest with ruddock. and even in the douglas fight, tyson knocked down douglas after succumbing a beating (for the moment that douglas stopped fighting INTELLIGENTLY). and this is an important issue to address because you can't compare holy & douglas to the way foreman will beat or FRUSTRATE tyson. latter two did it mentally, foreman would have to do it physically (and he seems to have the tools). but one must consider that this raises hopes for tyson fans. because imo, from 1985 to 1998 (before his second break from fighting that left him never the same), tyson lost only when OUTTHOUGHT - but no one ever physically in a CRUDE, BRAWLING, SLUGFEST which is what foreman would bring.

Great analysis! I agree with you, Douglas and Holyfield brought a style of fighting that Foreman would not. Foreman wouldn't come out and try to tie up or outbox Tyson; he'd come out and seek to obliterate Tyson like he tried to do to everyone else. The fight would be short and brutal!

[Stonehands89]

i too pick foreman and the uppercut will play a big role but...

foreman pushing tyson back is to tyson's advantage...

tyson is a bad infighter and most dangerous when COMING IN...

so foreman is actually positioning tyson at an optimal distance...

comparing foreman and berbick is ridiculous but i do recall berbick pushing tyson back and tyson just gets positioned to do more damage. sure this isn't comfortable to be pushed around - but tyson was athletic enough to handle that.

as for your comment on resilience...

i agree with the mental aspect (and this is the bottom line in a boxing match - but NOT in a physical brawl)

but physically, tyson had good recovery. see the fights where ruddock lands monster shots on tyson and tyson immediately counters with a punch that decks ruddock. at one point, ruddock even landed 2-3 heavy shots that snapped tyson's neck and tyson comes righ back. the key with the douglas / holy fight is that tyson was OUTMANEUVERED by skill and he couldn't think of a strategy against it. this is why he was ineffective, even physically. such was not the case in a slugfest with ruddock. and even in the douglas fight, tyson knocked down douglas after succumbing a beating (for the moment that douglas stopped fighting INTELLIGENTLY). and this is an important issue to address because you can't compare holy & douglas to the way foreman will beat or FRUSTRATE tyson. latter two did it mentally, foreman would have to do it physically (and he seems to have the tools). but one must consider that this raises hopes for tyson fans. because imo, from 1985 to 1998 (before his second break from fighting that left him never the same), tyson lost only when OUTTHOUGHT - but no one ever physically in a CRUDE, BRAWLING, SLUGFEST which is what foreman would bring.
I think we'd agree that Foreman is quite a different beast than Bruno, Ruddock, Bonecrusher, and the other big ones that faced Tyson.

I posted earlier thoughts on the difference between Berbick's "get off me" shoves and Foreman's "watch how easily I put you where I want to so that I can plant these bombs on your face" shoves. No fighter Tyson ever faced rushed him like a train launching heavy artillery. Tyson is no good off the back foot and Foreman, you'd agree, sure as hell isn't going backwards. I can't see Tyson recovering from the early onslaught and taking over the fight. He was durable, yes, but he was not resilient --and there is a difference.

Please see earlier posts on this -there are many that I contributed and I don't want to re-debate the same points.

[Stonehands89]

Great analysis! I agree with you, Douglas and Holyfield brought a style of fighting that Foreman would not. Foreman wouldn't come out and try to tie up or outbox Tyson; he'd come out and seek to obliterate Tyson like he tried to do to everyone else. The fight would be short and brutal!
I don't remember anyone out here arguing that Foreman would "outthink" Tyson.

You and anon agree that guys who tried to outbrawl Tyson didn't fare well. By the same token, no short pressure fighter ever survived many rounds against Foreman -old or young. You may see the former as a more cogent point here. I completely disagree.

Tyson was made for Foreman. Are you proposing that Foreman "was made" for Tyson?

[ironchamp]

Tyson was made for Foreman. Are you proposing that Foreman "was made" for Tyson?'

Actually I think Foreman was made for Tyson, I believe I posted my reasons earlier in this thread.

[Stonehands89]

'

Actually I think Foreman was made for Tyson, I believe I posted my reasons earlier in this thread.
I have to keep hearing it to believe it!

[anon1]

IPlease see earlier posts on this -there are many that I contributed and I don't want to re-debate the same points.

good idea. willl do.

[AnthonyJ74]

I don't remember anyone out here arguing that Foreman would "outthink" Tyson.

You and anon agree that guys who tried to outbrawl Tyson didn't fare well. By the same token, no short pressure fighter ever survived many rounds against Foreman -old or young. You may see the former as a more cogent point here. I completely disagree.

Tyson was made for Foreman. Are you proposing that Foreman "was made" for Tyson?

I wouldn't say that Foreman was made for Tyson, but I think he had a style that would enable Tyson to land some big shots on him early and cleanly. I concede that Foreman was physically stronger than Tyson - Tyson's not going to push George back or outwrestle the guy. Tyson would be landing clean, hard shots. Maybe Foreman could take them and weather the storm, but I have my doubts. Tyson was not that easy to hit, and Foreman tended to throw rather crude, looping punches, the types of punches that a guy like Tyson could easily evade.

And as far as Tyson being made for Foreman; I just don't see it. A quick-fisted boxer with devastating power in both hands and a tight defense would not be what I would call a fighter made to order for George. George looked awesome against stationary targets; guys who weren't the most mobile or elusive. Tyson would be hard to hit for George; he wouldn't come out straight up and stiff like Ken Norton or wide open and one dimensional like Joe Frazier. Big difference!

[Sonny's jab]

Tyson would be pushed off balance by Foreman, it's not about "pushing him out of range", he'd simply be shoved back, and off-balance, and Foreman would rain thunderous blows at him, he'd be bullied. Foreman would be holding-and-hitting, shoving, rabbit punching, he'd ruin Tyson.

Also, I dispute the idea that Holyfield purely out-maneveured and out-thought Tyson.
Look at the fight, it's just as much two guys slugging, wrestling and rough-housing each other as it is a "boxing display". Holyfield's strategy and tactics were a lot about brute strength and toughness, he's remarkably flat-footed and brutish in this fight.

[Stonehands89]

I wouldn't say that Foreman was made for Tyson, but I think he had a style that would enable Tyson to land some big shots on him early and cleanly. I concede that Foreman was physically stronger than Tyson - Tyson's not going to push George back or outwrestle the guy. Tyson would be landing clean, hard shots. Maybe Foreman could take them and weather the storm, but I have my doubts. Tyson was not that easy to hit, and Foreman tended to throw rather crude, looping punches, the types of punches that a guy like Tyson could easily evade.

And as far as Tyson being made for Foreman; I just don't see it. A quick-fisted boxer with devastating power in both hands and a tight defense would not be what I would call a fighter made to order for George. George looked awesome against stationary targets; guys who weren't the most mobile or elusive. Tyson would be hard to hit for George; he wouldn't come out straight up and stiff like Ken Norton or wide open and one dimensional like Joe Frazier. Big difference!
Foreman's shots are going to connect on Tyson. Tyson's head movement and weaving motions would not be as effective as you believe if he is off balance and if Foreman is throwing his typical unorthodox shots that are not easy to read.

There are few HWs as evasive as Ali -even at 32- and Foreman was connecting on him. In his prime and in a better ring, Ali would have tried to be mobile -which is the only real way to evade George's shots. Tyson would be both in range and bullied -he's gonna get hit.

Tyson wasn't Willie Pep!

[Stonehands89]

Tyson would be pushed off balance by Foreman, it's not about "pushing him out of range", he'd simply be shoved back, and off-balance, and Foreman would rain thunderous blows at him, he'd be bullied. Foreman would be holding-and-hitting, shoving, rabbit punching, he'd ruin Tyson.

Also, I dispute the idea that Holyfield purely out-maneveured and out-thought Tyson.
Look at the fight, it's just as much two guys slugging, wrestling and rough-housing each other as it is a "boxing display". Holyfield's strategy and tactics were a lot about brute strength and toughness, he's remarkably flat-footed and brutish in this fight.
Absolutely. In fact, it's fair to say that Holyfield "bullied" him.

[AnthonyJ74]

Foreman's shots are going to connect on Tyson. Tyson's head movement and weaving motions would not be as effective as you believe if he is off balance and if Foreman is throwing his typical unorthodox shots that are not easy to read.

There are few HWs as evasive as Ali -even at 32- and Foreman was connecting on him. In his prime and in a better ring, Ali would have tried to be mobile -which is the only real way to evade George's shots. Tyson would be both in range and bullied -he's gonna get hit.

Tyson wasn't Willie Pep!

Well, Ali wasn't a powerful puncher, so it would be much easier for George to simply walk forward against Ali than it would be for him to do that against Tyson. When you are not as concerned about the incoming punches, it's much easier for you to take liberties.

I still get this whole "George is just going to walk out and push Tyson around and bully him and take him out of his gameplan." It's as if Tyson is just going to walk out and run into this brick wall and then do nothing else. I think many people are underestimating Tyson's speed and delivery. Just as George threw unconventional shots as you say, Tyson threw punches from angles and the punches came in bunches. The perfect way to hit a guy like Foreman. And Foreman's punch was hard for sure, but was it any harder than a single punch thrown from Ruddock or Bonecrusher? Just as Tyson was no Willie Pep, George Foreman was not an outstanding combination puncher. I seriously doubt George would be able to land more than one punch at a time on Tyson; and Tyson have proven his chin against some heavy-handed fighters. You don't beat Tyson like Thomas Hearns did to Duran - with a single bomb!

And I'm not so sure how much of a bully Foreman would be against a fast, powerful fighter like tyson. Ron Lyle had Foreman backing up and even dancing a few times. Scott Ledoux was holding his own against George pretty good until he got bombed out. It's very possible that George might have been rendered gun shy when he realized how fast Tyson's punches were and how quickly Tyson could counterpunch.

[Vaile]

Well, Ali wasn't a powerful puncher, so it would be much easier for George to simply walk forward against Ali than it would be for him to do that against Tyson. When you are not as concerned about the incoming punches, it's much easier for you to take liberties.

I still get this whole "George is just going to walk out and push Tyson around and bully him and take him out of his gameplan." It's as if Tyson is just going to walk out and run into this brick wall and then do nothing else. I think many people are underestimating Tyson's speed and delivery. Just as George threw unconventional shots as you say, Tyson threw punches from angles and the punches came in bunches. The perfect way to hit a guy like Foreman. And Foreman's punch was hard for sure, but was it any harder than a single punch thrown from Ruddock or Bonecrusher? Just as Tyson was no Willie Pep, George Foreman was not an outstanding combination puncher. I seriously doubt George would be able to land more than one punch at a time on Tyson; and Tyson have proven his chin against some heavy-handed fighters. You don't beat Tyson like Thomas Hearns did to Duran - with a single bomb!

And I'm not so sure how much of a bully Foreman would be against a fast, powerful fighter like tyson. Ron Lyle had Foreman backing up and even dancing a few times. Scott Ledoux was holding his own against George pretty good until he got bombed out. It's very possible that George might have been rendered gun shy when he realized how fast Tyson's punc
hes were and how quickly Tyson could counterpunch.



I find the Hearns-Duran point strange, Duran had a very good chin. You get caught, you get caught. Especially against a puncher like Hearns, i would say the same of Foreman respective to his division.I don't see this fight seperated by a lot either way. But one obvious point is that Tyson was a bully and coming up against one of the most physically strong fighters in history, would have demoralizing effects on tyson in my view. There is an argument that Tyson's movement, combinations, defense were a lethal combination and would bamboozle George, but to me it's weaker than the other alternative. Tyson never brought that game against top fighters. Based on history i see Tyson getting bossed.

[MGUNZ48]

I find the Hearns-Duran point strange, Duran had a very good chin. You get caught, you get caught. Especially against a puncher like Hearns, i would say the same of Foreman respective to his division.I don't see this fight seperated by a lot either way. But one obvious point is that Tyson was a bully and coming up against one of the most physically strong fighters in history, would have demoralizing effects on tyson in my view. There is an argument that Tyson's movement, combinations, defense were a lethal combination and would bamboozle George, but to me it's weaker than the other alternative. Tyson never brought that game against top fighters. Based on history i see Tyson getting bossed.

I agree, Tyson was very weak mentally. Foreman would have him scared to death. So would Liston.

[Bokaj]

What's interesting with this match-up is that Tyson was at his best against straight-backed guys who stood right in front of him (Foreman did show some good movement against both Frazier and Chuvalo, though), and Foreman was VERY comfortable against smaller guys who came right at him (even though those he met didn't have Tysons's explosive hand-speed and combination punching). So to a certain degree it's something like the unmoveable object against the irresistable force.

What it comes down to IMO is wether Foreman would be able or be allowed to bully Tyson around like he did Frazier. In that case I think it would look very bleak for Tyson. Douglas, for example, vexed Tyson a lot by punching when in close and not letting him rest. Tyson quickly got uncomfortable when he wasn't allowed to dictate the pace of the fight. And Foreman was a master of pushing people around and using rough-house tactics in close, but on the other hand he got very frustrated when he wasn't able to do that. The fight against Ali was a clear example of this.

So, shortly put I would favour the one who could impose his tactics and will on the other, beacuse they were both basically bullies. The ref really comes into play here, if he comes down on Foreman's pushing and pulling Foreman would lose an important edge, and therefore very possibly the fight.

[Stonehands89]

Well, Ali wasn't a powerful puncher, so it would be much easier for George to simply walk forward against Ali than it would be for him to do that against Tyson. When you are not as concerned about the incoming punches, it's much easier for you to take liberties.

I still get this whole "George is just going to walk out and push Tyson around and bully him and take him out of his gameplan." It's as if Tyson is just going to walk out and run into this brick wall and then do nothing else. I think many people are underestimating Tyson's speed and delivery. Just as George threw unconventional shots as you say, Tyson threw punches from angles and the punches came in bunches. The perfect way to hit a guy like Foreman. And Foreman's punch was hard for sure, but was it any harder than a single punch thrown from Ruddock or Bonecrusher? Just as Tyson was no Willie Pep, George Foreman was not an outstanding combination puncher. I seriously doubt George would be able to land more than one punch at a time on Tyson; and Tyson have proven his chin against some heavy-handed fighters. You don't beat Tyson like Thomas Hearns did to Duran - with a single bomb!

And I'm not so sure how much of a bully Foreman would be against a fast, powerful fighter like tyson. Ron Lyle had Foreman backing up and even dancing a few times. Scott Ledoux was holding his own against George pretty good until he got bombed out. It's very possible that George might have been rendered gun shy when he realized how fast Tyson's punches were and how quickly Tyson could counterpunch.
What does Ali have to do with this?

Who said that Foreman would take out Tyson with one punch?

Who said that Foreman was a combination puncher?

It seems that you are resorting to a straw man set of arguments at this point.

Holyfield forced Tyson backwards and bullied him all night. You have doubts that Foreman could?

PS/ No one ever knocked out Duran period in over 80 fights. That was an anomaly that no bearing on this in any way.

[AnthonyJ74]

I find the Hearns-Duran point strange, Duran had a very good chin. You get caught, you get caught. Especially against a puncher like Hearns, i would say the same of Foreman respective to his division.I don't see this fight seperated by a lot either way. But one obvious point is that Tyson was a bully and coming up against one of the most physically strong fighters in history, would have demoralizing effects on tyson in my view. There is an argument that Tyson's movement, combinations, defense were a lethal combination and would bamboozle George, but to me it's weaker than the other alternative. Tyson never brought that game against top fighters. Based on history i see Tyson getting bossed.

The Hearns/Duran anaology was used as an example of a concussive knockout from a single blow - something that was unlikely ever to happen to Tyson.

Foreman was a bully as well, and it's also safe to say that Foreman never fought a fighter who had the combination of speed and power like Tyson did. So, the argument can go either way. Both fighters definitely brought their strengths.

As far as Tyson never proving himself against top fighters; I think that's a little harsh. The prime years Tyson - the guy under Rooney and Jacobs - never had a Holyfield or a Lewis or a Bowe to fight. But he cleaned out the division anyway. And what are you basing Foreman's "mettle" on? His KO's of Norton and Frazier? Lyle? Norton never had a chance to press Foreman. Frazier never had a chance to start smoking. And Lyle? How good was Lyle? Do you think Lyle was any more dangerous or skilled than Tony Tucker or Frank Bruno or Razor Ruddock? Lyle was good but he wasn't the cream of the crop. And he had Foreman in dire, dire straights. If Tyson had gotten dropped twice and seriously hurt by Tucker or Bruno only to battle back and stop them would he be elevated in your eyes? Does Tyson not get any credit for not having to battle back from the brink of disaster in order to win? He won - and most times he won easily! That should count for a lot. Maybe Foreman getting decked by Lyle says more about Foreman than you would like to know.

[AnthonyJ74]

What does Ali have to do with this?

Who said that Foreman would take out Tyson with one punch?

Who said that Foreman was a combination puncher?

It seems that you are resorting to a straw man set of arguments at this point.

Holyfield forced Tyson backwards and bullied him all night. You have doubts that Foreman could?

PS/ No one ever knocked out Duran period in over 80 fights. That was an anomaly that no bearing on this in any way.

My responses were directed at many of the responses on this topic so far. There are so many of them; when I respond, I try to cover as many as possible. I'm resorting to just answering back with logic. Make of it what you will.

Go watch Holyfield/Tyson I again. Holyfield didn't force Tyson backwards and bully him all night? Come on! Let's don't get carried away here. Holyfield did just as much clinching, mauling, and holding - and headbutting as he did punching and bullying.

My Duran response was used as an example as what a Foreman/Tyson fight wouldn't be: ended with a single concussive blow....Foreman had such awesome power. Many people here discount Mike's elusiveness and defense. Therefore, the assumption has been inferred that Foreman wouldn't have to land many punches to hurt and KO Tyson.....I rebutted that and used the Duran/Hearns fight as an example of what a Foreman/Tyson fight wouldn't be like: a one punch KO......

[AnthonyJ74]

Foreman's shots are going to connect on Tyson. Tyson's head movement and weaving motions would not be as effective as you believe if he is off balance and if Foreman is throwing his typical unorthodox shots that are not easy to read.

There are few HWs as evasive as Ali -even at 32- and Foreman was connecting on him. In his prime and in a better ring, Ali would have tried to be mobile -which is the only real way to evade George's shots. Tyson would be both in range and bullied -he's gonna get hit.

Tyson wasn't Willie Pep!

you brought up Ali as an example first. You even threw Willie Pep in for good measure. You were discounting Tyson's quickness and elusiveness, and you used the Ali example as to how Foreman could land on a fast and elusive fighter. You brought Ali into the equation, and I ran with it......Remember?

What's Willie pep have to do with anything? I dont see the connection? Tyson and Willie Pep????

haha....ok ok...I get it now....I see how you operate!

[Quick Cash]

My Duran response was used as an example as what a Foreman/Tyson fight wouldn't be: ended with a single concussive blow....Foreman had such awesome power. Many people here discount Mike's elusiveness and defense. Therefore, the assumption has been inferred that Foreman wouldn't have to land many punches to hurt and KO Tyson.....I rebutted that and used the Duran/Hearns fight as an example of what a Foreman/Tyson fight wouldn't be like: a one punch KO......

Bottom line is that Duran was a very durable fighter, and had he never faced a puncher like Hearns, you would not have the impetus to judge him so dismissively. Tyson, I'm sorry to say, never faced a puncher quite like George Foreman. That's the catch right there.

[AnthonyJ74]

Bottom line is that Duran was a very durable fighter, and had he never faced a puncher like Hearns, you would not have the impetus to judge him so dismissively. Tyson, I'm sorry to say, never faced a puncher quite like George Foreman. That's the catch right there.

I'm not judging Duran as a fighter, I'm just using one fight of his in which he was brutally knocked out as an example of a one punch knockout.

[Quick Cash]

I'm not judging Duran as a fighter, I'm just using one fight of his in which he was brutally knocked out as an example of a one punch knockout.

You also claim that Tyson would not succumb to a similar one-shot bomb. I, on the otherhand, say there are too many mitigating factors in the Hearns blowout you mentioned as to render the example itself functionally useless. There were facts like Duran being undertrained, fighting two weightclasses beyond peak.

The point I'm making, basically, is that you never know what will happen when two incredible punchers like Foreman and Tyson meet, and it is not completely beyond the realm of possibility for Foreman to land two or even three big bombs while trying to catch a shifty Tyson. I must say, however, that I agree most times Foreman will land just that one odd power punch. What happens next is anyone's guess because Foreman is Foreman, and Mike is Mike.

If you couldn't tell, I'm not actually saying George wins. I have my own thoughts about that, but I am still sitting on the fence.

[jaywilton]

Tyson didn't have Frazier's heart;Foreman would've kayoed him without having to hang around waiting for Frazier to get up from six knockdowns-that's the younger version or the 45 plus version of Foreman.

[Vaile]

The Hearns/Duran anaology was used as an example of a concussive knockout from a single blow - something that was unlikely ever to happen to Tyson.

Foreman was a bully as well, and it's also safe to say that Foreman never fought a fighter who had the combination of speed and power like Tyson did. So, the argument can go either way. Both fighters definitely brought their strengths.

As far as Tyson never proving himself against top fighters; I think that's a little harsh. The prime years Tyson - the guy under Rooney and Jacobs - never had a Holyfield or a Lewis or a Bowe to fight. But he cleaned out the division anyway. And what are you basing Foreman's "mettle" on? His KO's of Norton and Frazier? Lyle? Norton never had a chance to press Foreman. Frazier never had a chance to start smoking. And Lyle? How good was Lyle? Do you think Lyle was any more dangerous or skilled than Tony Tucker or Frank Bruno or Razor Ruddock? Lyle was good but he wasn't the cream of the crop. And he had Foreman in dire, dire straights. If Tyson had gotten dropped twice and seriously hurt by Tucker or Bruno only to battle back and stop them would he be elevated in your eyes? Does Tyson not get any credit for not having to battle back from the brink of disaster in order to win? He won - and most times he won easily! That should count for a lot. Maybe Foreman getting decked by Lyle says more about Foreman than you would like to know.


The Hearns-Duran knock out was hardly one punch in any event. Hearns found his range and was landing on Duran at will, the shot that put him down was probably the 30th clean shot to land. You get a puncher landing cleanly for a set period of time, the other guy is oing down i don't care how good there chin is, i mean tyson has not got a Mccall, chuvalo chin.

But in all honesty it's irrelevant because it goes both ways. Foreman was a bully too, but where he wins out is the fact that he was physicaly stronger than Tyson. The fighters you mentioned are pretty comparative in my opinion. Career wise Tyson had a lot more bad nights than Foreman, i think people forget that a young Foreman destroyed the division to. Both are knock out artists so i would never call it with any certainty, but take away the intangibles and i see Foreman having discernable advantages over Tyson. Tko round seven.

[AnthonyJ74]

You also claim that Tyson would not succumb to a similar one-shot bomb. I, on the otherhand, say there are too many mitigating factors in the Hearns blowout you mentioned as to render the example itself functionally useless. There were facts like Duran being undertrained, fighting two weightclasses beyond peak.

The point I'm making, basically, is that you never know what will happen when two incredible punchers like Foreman and Tyson meet, and it is not completely beyond the realm of possibility for Foreman to land two or even three big bombs while trying to catch a shifty Tyson. I must say, however, that I agree most times Foreman will land just that one odd power punch. What happens next is anyone's guess because Foreman is Foreman, and Mike is Mike.

If you couldn't tell, I'm not actually saying George wins. I have my own thoughts about that, but I am still sitting on the fence.

I was just using that fight as an example of a one punch knockout period! I could have used other fights with other fighters, but I just happened to use the Hearns/Duran fight. Nothing more. No judgment about Hearns or Duran or their capabilities; its was just an example. Nothing more. No offense to Duran. It was just a casual, off-the-cuff example.

[AnthonyJ74]

The Hearns-Duran knock out was hardly one punch in any event. Hearns found his range and was landing on Duran at will, the shot that put him down was probably the 30th clean shot to land. You get a puncher landing cleanly for a set period of time, the other guy is oing down i don't care how good there chin is, i mean tyson has not got a Mccall, chuvalo chin.

But in all honesty it's irrelevant because it goes both ways. Foreman was a bully too, but where he wins out is the fact that he was physicaly stronger than Tyson. The fighters you mentioned are pretty comparative in my opinion. Career wise Tyson had a lot more bad nights than Foreman, i think people forget that a young Foreman destroyed the division to. Both are knock out artists so i would never call it with any certainty, but take away the intangibles and i see Foreman having discernable advantages over Tyson. Tko round seven.

The shot from Hearns that dropped Duran was a single blow. But regardless, I used that fight as an example. Geesh, I didn't mean to imply that I was tarnishing Duran's legend. I could have used many other examples, but I used the Hearns/Duran fight. Period!

Foreman may have been stronger physically than Foreman, but Tyson was at least his equal in terms of punching power. And you can't deny that Tyson's delivery was far superior to Foreman. Tyson would be able to get his artillery launched and landed much better than Foreman could. Tyson was used to fighting guys 6'3 220lbs plus, so Foreman's size would not awe Tyson. And, as far as Tyson having more bad nights than Foreman, that's highly debatable. Tyson was champion a lot longer than Foreman was, and he had what, 9 defenses of the title compared to George's 2? Tyson had one bad night against Buster Douglas. The other bad nights came later in his career - after he went to jail for 3 years. Ali clearly went downhill after his 3 year absence, does that not apply to Tyson as well? And when clearly past his prime, Tyson abosrbed a beating from Lennox Lewis - all 6'5" and 249lbs of him - for eight rounds before being stopped.

Styles make fights, and just like so many poster on here think Tyson was made for Foreman, I think Tyson's style of fighting would cause Foreman huge problems.

[Quick Cash]

I was just using that fight as an example of a one punch knockout period! I could have used other fights with other fighters, but I just happened to use the Hearns/Duran fight. Nothing more. No judgment about Hearns or Duran or their capabilities; its was just an example. Nothing more. No offense to Duran. It was just a casual, off-the-cuff example.

It was a one-punch knockout that didn't happen to Mike Tyson. I agree Mike had a solid beard, but you obviously chose to highlight that fact by saying what you said. I mean why else whould you have said it?

You happened to need another tough fighter like Duran, who was felled by a single shot, to make the statement come full circle. I understand, but, in my opinion, it's a flop.

I didn't really take issue with your criticism of Roberto. Rather, it was your flawed analogy that I was responding to. If you still think it is an accurate analogy, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I personally believe it's far-fetched.

[housecat]

George Foreman would destroy Tyson with ease, he is made to order for big George. George had more power, a harder punch, a much better chin, way more size, better reach, and most of all a better mental state. Tyson would crumble mentally by the third round, George would KO Mike by 5....probably sooner.

[Stonehands89]

My responses were directed at many of the responses on this topic so far. There are so many of them; when I respond, I try to cover as many as possible. I'm resorting to just answering back with logic. Make of it what you will.

Go watch Holyfield/Tyson I again. Holyfield didn't force Tyson backwards and bully him all night? Come on! Let's don't get carried away here. Holyfield did just as much clinching, mauling, and holding - and headbutting as he did punching and bullying.

My Duran response was used as an example as what a Foreman/Tyson fight wouldn't be: ended with a single concussive blow....Foreman had such awesome power. Many people here discount Mike's elusiveness and defense. Therefore, the assumption has been inferred that Foreman wouldn't have to land many punches to hurt and KO Tyson.....I rebutted that and used the Duran/Hearns fight as an example of what a Foreman/Tyson fight wouldn't be like: a one punch KO......
Clinching, mauling, neutralizing the other's attack, etc. IS BULLYING. Tyson was simply not being allowed by Holyfield to do what he was familiar doing.

The Hearns/Duran analogy was a bad one. That's been noted numerous times here already. If anything it proved that ANYONE can get knocked out by a perfect punch. Including Tyson!

[Stonehands89]

you brought up Ali as an example first. You even threw Willie Pep in for good measure. You were discounting Tyson's quickness and elusiveness, and you used the Ali example as to how Foreman could land on a fast and elusive fighter. You brought Ali into the equation, and I ran with it......Remember?

What's Willie pep have to do with anything? I dont see the connection? Tyson and Willie Pep????

haha....ok ok...I get it now....I see how you operate!
Nice try. No dice.

I have never discounted Tyson's quickness and elusiveness -and have been celebrating it for years in print, on this site. It won't matter here because Tyson will be in range and prime Foreman was exceedingly aggressive early on. Tyson will surely evade one or two but not 10. And he won't take them as well as you think. Will Tyson land on Foreman? Yes, he will. But Foreman takes a better shot than Tyson -recovers better, and never loses heart. Tyson has. Many times.

I brought Ali in to demonstrate that even he realized Foreman's offensive ability to cut off the ring and land shots no matter how elusive the fighter is. And Ali is 6'3. You ran with it, alright. First you discount Foreman's ability to land on the "elusive Tyson":

George looked awesome against stationary targets; guys who weren't the most mobile or elusive. Tyson would be hard to hit for George; he wouldn't come out straight up and stiff like Ken Norton or wide open and one dimensional like Joe Frazier. Big difference!
Tyson was not a defensive specialist. Willie Pep was. Relevant? Yes, because your belief that he would be "hard to hit" for Foreman strikes me as wrong.

My retort was that Foreman would doubtlessly land on the small, squared body of Tyson easier than he would land on a longer more mobile fighter who stayed out of range (Ellis, Morrison, et al.). Instead of acknowledging that, you switch the argument to be about "punching power".

[AnthonyJ74]

It was a one-punch knockout that didn't happen to Mike Tyson. I agree Mike had a solid beard, but you obviously chose to highlight that fact by saying what you said. I mean why else whould you have said it?

You happened to need another tough fighter like Duran, who was felled by a single shot, to make the statement come full circle. I understand, but, in my opinion, it's a flop.

I didn't really take issue with your criticism of Roberto. Rather, it was your flawed analogy that I was responding to. If you still think it is an accurate analogy, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I personally believe it's far-fetched.

You still don't understand that it was just an example. I don't know how else to explain it. It could have been Joe Schmow knocking out Joe Blow with one punch, and then you'd take issue with me about what a flawed analogy it was due to each fighters' respective strengths and isues. I was highlighting just the punch itself that knocked out the other fighter; no judgment based on each fighter. If you think my anaology was a flop it's because you read so much more into the analogy that I used.

[AnthonyJ74]

Clinching, mauling, neutralizing the other's attack, etc. IS BULLYING. Tyson was simply not being allowed by Holyfield to do what he was familiar doing.

The Hearns/Duran analogy was a bad one. That's been noted numerous times here already. If anything it proved that ANYONE can get knocked out by a perfect punch. Including Tyson!

No it wasn't a bad analogy. It's just that you chose to read more into the analogy than I ever intended. I used that fight as an example of a fighter being knocked out by a single blow. I didn't use that fight as an example of an iron-chinned fighter getting knocked out by a single punch.

I disagree with your assessment of what bullying is. Bullying is not clinching or simply neutralizing the other guys' attack; it has more to do with overpowering and outmuscling. Big difference. Clinching and neutralizing the other fighters attack might be good strategy and effective strateg, but I wouldn't consider that bullying.

[AnthonyJ74]

Nice try. No dice.

I have never discounted Tyson's quickness and elusiveness -and have been celebrating it for years in print, on this site. It won't matter here because Tyson will be in range and prime Foreman was exceedingly aggressive early on. Tyson will surely evade one or two but not 10. And he won't take them as well as you think. Will Tyson land on Foreman? Yes, he will. But Foreman takes a better shot than Tyson -recovers better, and never loses heart. Tyson has. Many times.

I brought Ali in to demonstrate that even he realized Foreman's offensive ability to cut off the ring and land shots no matter how elusive the fighter is. And Ali is 6'3. You ran with it, alright. First you discount Foreman's ability to land on the "elusive Tyson":


Tyson was not a defensive specialist. Willie Pep was. Relevant? Yes, because your belief that he would be "hard to hit" for Foreman strikes me as wrong.

My retort was that Foreman would doubtlessly land on the small, squared body of Tyson easier than he would land on a longer more mobile fighter who stayed out of range (Ellis, Morrison, et al.). Instead of acknowledging that, you switch the argument to be about "punching power".

Are you sure Foreman takes a better punch than Tyson? How sure are you?

And I don't know why it's hard for you to believe Foreman would have a hard time hitting Tyson. Fighters who were much quicker than Foreman found Tyson difficult to hit. But you seem to think Foreman, who was never the fastest fighter in the world, is going to come out and land a fair number of punches on Tyson.

And, go back and read the prior posts. I didn't switch anything, but I added more fuel to the argument. I countered your point about Foreman landing on the elusive Ali by saying that punching power WAS a factor in Foreman being able to land on Ali in that fight. Remember that? You didn't mention that part of what I said. That must have been an oopsie on your part. That was the context. I countered your assertion by saying that Foreman was able to land on the "elusive Ali" in part due to the fact that Foreman wasn't too concerned with Ali's punching power. And, I added, that it's easier to walk forward and land punches on a guy when you are not too concerned about the incoming shots; it's easier to take liberties. So, once again, my response about punching power was relevant to the context of what you said about Ali's elusiveness. It fit the discussion. So, I didn't change anything...I added to.......Nice try!

[ironchamp]

Bottom line is that Duran was a very durable fighter, and had he never faced a puncher like Hearns, you would not have the impetus to judge him so dismissively. Tyson, I'm sorry to say, never faced a puncher quite like George Foreman. That's the catch right there.

Actually there is no catch.

Ruddock, Bruno, Lewis, Smith (Bonecrusher) all had crushing power whether or not you want to argue the extent of thier power compared to Foreman, is another story but given thier dimensions and thier respective delivery system its safe to say they are on the same level and the difference is marginal. Lets not make Foreman in to a mythical figure here. In any case all the above fighters at one point in thier fight, land a big punch on Tyson and with the exception of Lewis who Tyson really caved into more so from fatigue than anything else Tyson not only beat them but he never touched the canvas.

So Foreman's power is not going to be the deciding factor here. What is the deciding factor will be is Foreman's ability to land and keep Tyson from landing. Tyson has never lost a fight in which he was unable to land his punches with the same regularity of his opponents. So if Tyson is able to get his punches off first and is able to counter Foreman's wild and unorthodox punches then there is no question as to who the winner would be.

Douglas used lateral movement, outlanded him and outmanuvered him, and did not take punishment from Tyson save for the brief moment where he slipped up and Tyson, like the warrior he was back then took advantage and scored the KD.

Holyfield used some lateral movement, mostly clinched and countered him and did not take enough punishment from Tyson to succumb. He took some big shots but he pretty much blocked most of what Tyson threw which was a predictable left hook.

Lewis worked of his jab, occasionally used some lateral movement. He tied him up and kept him on the outside whilst taking very little from Tyson.

In this proposed match up, Foreman is not have the luxury of having an undertrained or docile Mike Tyson in front of him. His style as he approaches Mike would leave him open to counter's and even if he does land, he hasnt shown me anything in his first career that would suggest that he can keep Tyson from landing.

So with that being the case I see Tyson's handspeed and better fundamentals giving him the edge. Yes Foreman has the power to get the job done, so that isnt a question but his delivery system and defense suggests that he may have to take some fire from Tyson. Given Tyson's ability to go into a barrage mode when he has a guy hurt I'm not so sure that Foreman will be able to recover once Tyson hurts him.


Other variables to consider in this match up, who is the Champion? Who is the challenger? That makes a difference in thier mental make up.

[AnthonyJ74]

Actually there is no catch.

Ruddock, Bruno, Lewis, Smith (Bonecrusher) all had crushing power whether or not you want to argue the extent of thier power compared to Foreman, is another story but given thier dimensions and thier respective delivery system its safe to say they are on the same level and the difference is marginal. Lets not make Foreman in to a mythical figure here. In any case all the above fighters at one point in thier fight, land a big punch on Tyson and with the exception of Lewis who Tyson really caved into more so from fatigue than anything else Tyson not only beat them but he never touched the canvas.

So Foreman's power is not going to be the deciding factor here. What is the deciding factor will be is Foreman's ability to land and keep Tyson from landing. Tyson has never lost a fight in which he was unable to land his punches with the same regularity of his opponents. So if Tyson is able to get his punches off first and is able to counter Foreman's wild and unorthodox punches then there is no question as to who the winner would be.

Douglas used lateral movement, outlanded him and outmanuvered him, and did not take punishment from Tyson save for the brief moment where he slipped up and Tyson, like the warrior he was back then took advantage and scored the KD.

Holyfield used some lateral movement, mostly clinched and countered him and did not take enough punishment from Tyson to succumb. He took some big shots but he pretty much blocked most of what Tyson threw which was a predictable left hook.

Lewis worked of his jab, occasionally used some lateral movement. He tied him up and kept him on the outside whilst taking very little from Tyson.

In this proposed match up, Foreman is not have the luxury of having an undertrained or docile Mike Tyson in front of him. His style as he approaches Mike would leave him open to counter's and even if he does land, he hasnt shown me anything in his first career that would suggest that he can keep Tyson from landing.

So with that being the case I see Tyson's handspeed and better fundamentals giving him the edge. Yes Foreman has the power to get the job done, so that isnt a question but his delivery system and defense suggests that he may have to take some fire from Tyson. Given Tyson's ability to go into a barrage mode when he has a guy hurt I'm not so sure that Foreman will be able to recover once Tyson hurts him.


Other variables to consider in this match up, who is the Champion? Who is the challenger? That makes a difference in thier mental make up.

Great analysis. Just as you did, it's easier to analyze a fight between Foreman and Tyson when both fighters are looked at rationally and honestly. I agree with you about the difference in this fight being about the delivery system of both fighters. As I stated previously, I believe that Tyson would have the ability to land big and hurt George first. And once a guy was hurt, we all know what a finisher Mike Tyson was. Foreman was big and strong, but he didn't have the ability to land as quickly or as often as did Tyson.

[Quick Cash]

You still don't understand that it was just an example. I don't know how else to explain it. It could have been Joe Schmow knocking out Joe Blow with one punch, and then you'd take issue with me about what a flawed analogy it was due to each fighters' respective strengths and isues. I was highlighting just the punch itself that knocked out the other fighter; no judgment based on each fighter. If you think my anaology was a flop it's because you read so much more into the analogy that I used.

Like I said, I didn't take issue with your throw-around reference to Duran. Let me make that clear.

If, like you said, you used it strictly as an example of a person getting his clock cleaned with a single knockout punch, how is it then relevant to this thread at all? You used it because Tyson was not on the receiving end of that blow, and he's never been felled by just one punch, correct? Only then does the statement become a good point of argument, but it is still a flop because Tyson never faced the pound-for-pound equivalent of Tommy Hearns, nevermind being past his best, undertrained and overweight while doing so.

You said you were 'highlighting the punch itself that knocked out the other fighter'. That means you were highlighting the punch thrown by Tommy Hearns that knocked out Duran. Ok, I will also not comment on the circumstances surrounding each, but how is that now relevant to Tyson versus Foreman?

[Quick Cash]

Actually there is no catch.

Ruddock, Bruno, Lewis, Smith (Bonecrusher) all had crushing power whether or not you want to argue the extent of thier power compared to Foreman, is another story but given thier dimensions and thier respective delivery system its safe to say they are on the same level and the difference is marginal. Lets not make Foreman in to a mythical figure here. In any case all the above fighters at one point in thier fight, land a big punch on Tyson and with the exception of Lewis who Tyson really caved into more so from fatigue than anything else Tyson not only beat them but he never touched the canvas.

So Foreman's power is not going to be the deciding factor here. What is the deciding factor will be is Foreman's ability to land and keep Tyson from landing. Tyson has never lost a fight in which he was unable to land his punches with the same regularity of his opponents. So if Tyson is able to get his punches off first and is able to counter Foreman's wild and unorthodox punches then there is no question as to who the winner would be.

Douglas used lateral movement, outlanded him and outmanuvered him, and did not take punishment from Tyson save for the brief moment where he slipped up and Tyson, like the warrior he was back then took advantage and scored the KD.

Holyfield used some lateral movement, mostly clinched and countered him and did not take enough punishment from Tyson to succumb. He took some big shots but he pretty much blocked most of what Tyson threw which was a predictable left hook.

Lewis worked of his jab, occasionally used some lateral movement. He tied him up and kept him on the outside whilst taking very little from Tyson.

In this proposed match up, Foreman is not have the luxury of having an undertrained or docile Mike Tyson in front of him. His style as he approaches Mike would leave him open to counter's and even if he does land, he hasnt shown me anything in his first career that would suggest that he can keep Tyson from landing.

So with that being the case I see Tyson's handspeed and better fundamentals giving him the edge. Yes Foreman has the power to get the job done, so that isnt a question but his delivery system and defense suggests that he may have to take some fire from Tyson. Given Tyson's ability to go into a barrage mode when he has a guy hurt I'm not so sure that Foreman will be able to recover once Tyson hurts him.


Other variables to consider in this match up, who is the Champion? Who is the challenger? That makes a difference in thier mental make up.

That's a great post, but I didn't actually offer an opinion on who would win the proposed match so I don't know why you are quoting me as if to argue with me. The names you mentioned are good hitters, but not the caliber of fighter Foreman was. I would say that only Lewis approaches his power, but his was a deterrent more than a weapon so there is a difference in mindset there.

I think that this match will take a few rounds if Foreman's stamina allows it. I believe that, a good portion of the time, Tyson will land first, and will land often based on his style. However, I disagree when you imply that Foreman will not be able to retaliate in any significant fashion.

The two most likely outcomes for me is a decision win for Tyson (I think after Foreman stands up to his aggression he will cruise) or a knockout win between rounds five to eight for George (with a surprise combination that George is well capable of).

[Stonehands89]

No it wasn't a bad analogy. It's just that you chose to read more into the analogy than I ever intended. I used that fight as an example of a fighter being knocked out by a single blow. I didn't use that fight as an example of an iron-chinned fighter getting knocked out by a single punch.

I disagree with your assessment of what bullying is. Bullying is not clinching or simply neutralizing the other guys' attack; it has more to do with overpowering and outmuscling. Big difference. Clinching and neutralizing the other fighters attack might be good strategy and effective strateg, but I wouldn't consider that bullying.
...

Duran was stopped cold once in 120 fights. His chin was excellent and I'd argue that it was in fact better than Tyson's.

Holyfield was physically dominant in the fight against Tyson -clinching, mauling, overpowering, and outmuscling. I think it is accurat to say that he was in fact bullying Tyson. Holyfield was not as big as Foreman, as strong as Foreman, nor was he nearly as aggressive as Foreman.

[Stonehands89]

Are you sure Foreman takes a better punch than Tyson? How sure are you?
This is going around in circles. Look at their records. How often was each man stopped? Look at their ability to come back from adversity. There is no comparison.

Some make too much about Tyson taking beatings (ex. Lewis) and going down "later" rather than "sooner". Tyson is a durable fighter with a spark plug neck and shoulders like boulders -he can take a good shot. But emotionally, he doesn't respond well when hurt; and that is demonstrable. When has he ever come back from real adversity? He hasn't. When he is overmatched, it is clear that is durable but it is just as clear that he eventually lays down.

How sure am I? I'm absolutely convinced.

And I don't know why it's hard for you to believe Foreman would have a hard time hitting Tyson. Fighters who were much quicker than Foreman found Tyson difficult to hit. But you seem to think Foreman, who was never the fastest fighter in the world, is going to come out and land a fair number of punches on Tyson.
This is getting tiresome. See past posts on Foreman's aggression and Tyson's being in range.

And, go back and read the prior posts. I didn't switch anything, but I added more fuel to the argument. I countered your point about Foreman landing on the elusive Ali by saying that punching power WAS a factor in Foreman being able to land on Ali in that fight. Remember that? You didn't mention that part of what I said. That must have been an oopsie on your part.
You change the trajectory of your argument to suit your ends. Ali's punching power WAS NOT a factor in Foreman being able to land on Ali in that fight! Ali's comparative lack of punching power is not relevant to Foreman. Foreman was just as aggressive against him as he was against punchers. Prime Foreman did not give a damn about how hard anyone hit because he was convinced that he was the stronger man and the bigger puncher. Tyson was to him a "little rude guy" -and that was when he was 45.

That was the context. I countered your assertion by saying that Foreman was able to land on the "elusive Ali" in part due to the fact that Foreman wasn't too concerned with Ali's punching power. And, I added, that it's easier to walk forward and land punches on a guy when you are not too concerned about the incoming shots; it's easier to take liberties. So, once again, my response about punching power was relevant to the context of what you said about Ali's elusiveness. It fit the discussion. So, I didn't change anything...I added to.......Nice try!
...

Foreman wasn't too concerned about anyone's punching power, so your assertion is, in my opinion, irrelevant.

I think that you may not be changing your argument, per se, but you are twisting it into contortions to give Tyson a boost that's based more on myth than on the observable record.

Let me try to clarify what I think your argument is: you believe that Tyson was too elusive to be hit very often by Foreman. And you believe that Tyson's punching power would diminish the aggression that he would habitually use against smaller guys.

Fair?

[Mike South]

Yes, Tyson and Frazier are quite different fighters. Frazier was a swarmer, Tyson a puncher.
Some key differences between them:

-Tyson is probably the harder hitter punch for punch
-Tyson has less predictable head movement but was less consistent with it
-Tyson started extremely fast whereas Frazier needed rounds to get smoking
-Frazier has far better stamina and usually broke him opponents down untill they couldn't give anymore. Tyson usually finished his opponents with one or more combinations or even one punch. The only time he broke his opponent down was Biggs, but he was never really in the fight.
-Frazier was the better infighter whereas Tyson usually took a rest on the inside.
-Tyson had knockout power in both hands whereas Frazier relied mostly on the left hook. Also, Frazier didn't use the uppercut as often as Tyson seemed to. Tyson had better combinations.

Because of these differences in style, i think Tyson would do much better against Foreman because he's just as deadly early on as Foreman is. His head movement is also a bit less predictable early on and he has better quick combinations. That said, i still favor Foreman to beat Tyson, but Tyson has a decent to good chance of winning.

Good post.

[spion]

I see Amateur Hour has started.

:lol:

[Chinxkid]

Not usually my favorite kind of match-up, but this one would be irresistable. I have to agree with the posters that give the edge to Big George though, as I think his reach and his power keep Tyson out.

[Sardu]

I'd go with Foreman by 6th round kayo in a great slugfest.

[JIm Broughton]

The Foreman that crushed Frazier would beat Tyson as well. The fight wouldn't last long no matter who wins so stamina would be a non factor. This would be a pier 6 brawl between 2 ferocious punchers and I see George taking it in 2 or 3 rounds. Mike would be intimidated not George. Plus George had a good jab that he would use to set up his big bombs. The man punching down has the advantage and that would be George not Mike. I think Mike would discourage fast when his shots wouldn't stop Foreman and he feels Foreman's power in return. One hell of a brawl but I think Big George takes it.

[radianttwilight]

Infinitely better defence/combination punching, a chin that at the very least equals Foreman's, and power that certainly isn't far off the mark.

The winner is "Iron" Mike Tyson via TKO in 4.

[Holmes' Jab]

Infinitely better defence/combination punching, a chin that at the very least equals Foreman's, and power that certainly isn't far off the mark.

The winner is "Iron" Mike Tyson via TKO in 4.


A bit later than that, but I'd otherwise agree with a Tyson win. Good reasoning.

[la-califa]

2 very powerful fighters who both had stamina problems. Tyson was faster and more precise, and would have caught Foreman more frequently. But Tyson would have to be the one charging in. Wouldn't he be more prone to get caought coming in? If Tyson stuck to the outside, Foreman's longer arms would do alot of damage.

[JIm Broughton]

Angelo Dundee in his book "I only talk winning" claimed that George was most effective punching down and hooking which is why he thought Ali would beat him. Against Tyson George would certainly be punching down and hooking since he was the taller man and had the longer reach. A good barometer for how these two would do in a head to head matchup is to look at thier one common opponent, Evander Holyfield. George took hundreds of clean shots in his fight with Evander and never stopped trying, even stunning Evander on a couple of ocassions before losing a 12 round decision. Tyson on the other hand was psychologically beaten when he realised that Evander wasn't afraid of him and fired right back at him when tagged by Mike. This gives us valuable insight into the minds of both men and how they react when faced with adversity which is why I think Foreman would win in this matchup between rounds 3 and 5. Mike would become discouraged after tasting Foreman's power and would quit, psycholgically speaking before succumbing to George's power in a physical sense. Another factor in this fight would be Foreman's jab. It would back Mike up and set him up for those sweeping down to up hook/uppercuts ala Frazier. Even Tyson's solid chin could'nt take too many of those. Styles make fights as we've heard a million times in the world of boxing and George's style is all wrong for Tyson period.

[pugilist_boyd]

Do To Tysons Lack Of Heart ,and Somewhat Shakeble Chin It Could Go Either Way But I Belive Tysons Superb Slipping And Bobbing ,like His Itle DempSey Would Come Into Play And His Counterpunches Would Shake George ,causing A 3 Knockdown Tko Within Rounds 6-8

[slicksouthpaw16]

Tyson wouldn't even fight Foreman, let alone beat him. He ducked an old George becuase he knew he would lose even at that stage in his career. Foreman is too big and strong and Tyson didn't react to being pushed back by bigger and stronger fighters.He has also never came back from a lossing position to win a fight, but folded like news paper instead. Thats where some of your assestments are flawed. You guys are imagining shit happening that Tyson has never showed or done. There are 5 things that Tyson would need in order to beat peak Foreman, funny how they are 5 things that he never had.

1. Weathering an early storm
2. Reacing well to being pushed backward
3. Coming back from a lossing position
4. Keeping a consisant pace for an entire fight
5. Having Heart

Unlike you all. I actually go by things that i have actually seen. Foreman is the hardest hitter of all time IMO, on top of him being a bully. Tyson would simply be caught cold early and put away. Style match up favors Foreman. You have to give him lateral movement in order to beat becuase he is the bigger guy, better chin, stronger and tougher, not walk directly into fire. Which is what Tyson would do becuase he has no other way of fighting. Foreman TKO 4.

[slicksouthpaw16]

Infinitely better defence/combination punching, a chin that at the very least equals Foreman's, and power that certainly isn't far off the mark.

The winner is "Iron" Mike Tyson via TKO in 4.

Its certainly far off the mark. Tyson knocked out tamota cans, Foreman knocked out greats and elite fighters that were in their primes. Funny how Evander looked his best when he was in his come back. Mercer even gave Holyfield a tougher fight than Tyson did. Tyson landed everything in his arsenal against Holyfield and didn't shake him up one time. Evander had previously been stopped by Bowe, that has to say something about Tyson's power. Hmmm, is it severly overrated? :D

[prime]

My view hasn't changed one iota: for the umpteenth time, Tyson will not simply mindlessly come forward like Jamaica Frazier. Tyson had much better tools: he was power, plus skills, plus speed, plus defense, plus a chin.

In challenging Berbick, Tyson employs speedy lateral movement and comes in from the sides with uncanny angle power shots that staggered the durable Jamaican within the first 2 minutes. Foreman's slo-mo Mummy-defense would be more porous than a Dutch dike.

On the other hand, Foreman's blows were too slow and predictable to catch the knowing Tyson by surprise. Tyson could mostly avoid the tree-trunk jab and sweeping uppercut. Of course, George could maul and push (Berbick's jabs, uppercut and pushing back were for naught), but, come engagement time, it could very well be a Foreman miss punished by a speedily shocking Tyson combo to the head. And if Ali could stun Foreman in Round 1, Tyson could do a Berbick on him quite feasibly.

This is not merely a slugfest, which is one scenario I believe has many picking Foreman. Foreman couldn't handle speed in Zaire and to me Tyson's unique skill set spells trouble for the defensively-challenged Big George.

[la-califa]

Did a prime Foreman fight other fighters with the size proportions of Tyson,Frazier & how did he do against them?

[Hatesrats]

Depends Which Era Mike Tyson as opposed to which Foreman..IMO

"Kid Dynamite" Tyson Vs. The Foreman's
Tyson by T.K.O. 8th RD. [Young] Foreman
Tyson by UD [Comeback] Foreman

"Iron" Mike Tyson Vs. The Foreman's
Tyson by K.O. 8th RD. [Young] Foreman
Tyson by UD [Comeback] Foreman

"Mighty" Mike Tyson Vs. The Foreman's
Tyson by K.O. 10th RD. [Young] Foreman
Tyson by UD [Comeback] Foreman

"World Tour" Mike Tyson Vs. The Foreman's
Foreman by K.O. 2nd RD. [Young] Foreman
Foreman by K.O. 1st RD. [Comeback] Foreman

[Russell]

Infinitely better defence/combination punching, a chin that at the very least equals Foreman's, and power that certainly isn't far off the mark.

The winner is "Iron" Mike Tyson via TKO in 4.

Tyson's chin better than Foreman's? :lol::lol::lol:

[JohnThomas1]

edit

[JohnThomas1]

Tyson wouldn't even fight Foreman, let alone beat him. He ducked an old George becuase he knew he would lose even at that stage in his career. Foreman is too big and strong and Tyson didn't react to being pushed back by bigger and stronger fighters.He has also never came back from a lossing position to win a fight, but folded like news paper instead. Thats where some of your assestments are flawed. You guys are imagining shit happening that Tyson has never showed or done. There are 5 things that Tyson would need in order to beat peak Foreman, funny how they are 5 things that he never had.

1. Weathering an early storm
2. Reacing well to being pushed backward
3. Coming back from a lossing position
4. Keeping a consisant pace for an entire fight
5. Having Heart

Unlike you all. I actually go by things that i have actually seen. Foreman is the hardest hitter of all time IMO, on top of him being a bully. Tyson would simply be caught cold early and put away. Style match up favors Foreman. You have to give him lateral movement in order to beat becuase he is the bigger guy, better chin, stronger and tougher, not walk directly into fire. Which is what Tyson would do becuase he has no other way of fighting. Foreman TKO 4.

Utter shyte. Tho i pick Foreman (1st career) myself this post is total one sided crapola from someone that would pick his grandma over Tyson. What in gods name did Tyson have to gain fighting an old man who hadn't beat a single contender up to the time people are claiming Tyson avoided him. The whole Tyson avoided Foreman thing is embarrassing.

[Bokaj]

Utter shyte. Tho i pick Foreman (1st career) myself this post is total one sided crapola from someone that would pick his grandma over Tyson. What in gods name did Tyson have to gain fighting an old man who hadn't beat a single contender up to the time people are claiming Tyson avoided him. The whole Tyson avoided Foreman thing is embarrassing.

Well, someone here posted a link to an article where the claim was made that Tyson refused a fight with Foreman. I was surprised myself, but the sources seemed to be pretty credible. Personally I always thought (back when they both were active) that Tyson would massacre old George, and was quite relieved that the fight never happened, considering how brave and game Foreman was then. I pictured him taking a brutal beating.

Of course, Foreman in his prime would be a totally different concept.

[Rumsfeld]

Alot of people are debating Tyson is a better fighter than Frazier. Could he have withstood the onslaught of a prime rampaging Foreman any better than Frazier?

Maybe a little better, but in the end, I think George knocks him out.

[JohnThomas1]

Well, someone here posted a link to an article where the claim was made that Tyson refused a fight with Foreman. I was surprised myself, but the sources seemed to be pretty credible. Personally I always thought (back when they both were active) that Tyson would massacre old George, and was quite relieved that the fight never happened, considering how brave and game Foreman was then. I pictured him taking a brutal beating.

Of course, Foreman in his prime would be a totally different concept.

Yes, but think of the real reasons he would have refused - if it indeed happened. Granted Cus ranted on about a Foreman he had no idea would be in the picture again (well sort of realistically) but that would only be scratching the surface.

[ChrisPontius]

First of all, i'd slightly favor Foreman, but there are a lot of misconceptions in this post:


1. Weathering an early storm

You say you go by the things you've actually seen, but i think you've only been watching Foreman's fights because Tyson has met this requirement several times. Bruno, while limited, still a very hard puncher, landed good shots on him early.. Tyson came back to stop him. Tucker wobbled Tyson in the first with an perfectly placed left uppercut.... Tyson took him apart. Berbick went all out early and found himself on the canvas soon after. Ruddock wasn't exactly a slow starter. Etc, etc.



2. Reacing well to being pushed backward

This is true. Foreman won't be able to shove Tyson back as easily as he did Frazier, though. Not because of any strength difference, but because Frazier was almost asleep early - very inactive. Tyson would be coming on with hard combinations... you don't wanna have your arms extended.

Watch Tyson vs Berbick; Berbick tried to push Tyson back after trading went wrong for him. He caught an awful lot of punches trying that and despite being a very durable fighter, got stopped in a mere two rounds.


3. Coming back from a lossing position

He lost all four rounds against Botha and stopped him nonetheless. Bruno got to him early but he came back and took control. Ruddock had him in trouble at times. Thomas was coming on strong until the 6th.

p.s. how often did Foreman come back from a losing position? Other than Moorer, i can't think of any. He didn't avenge his defeats, either. Neither did Tyson of course, but let's not pretend Foreman has a significant edge here.



4. Keeping a consisant pace for an entire fight

Why should he have to?

And even at that, i think we can agree that:

a) This fight will be determined within 6 rounds
b) Tyson, while he slows down after 6 rounds, has far superior stamina compared to Big George.


Tyson kept an excellent pace against Tucker, Ruddock and Smith (despite the holding) going 12 rounds against very durable, top contenders. Something Foreman never did in winning fashion.


5. Having Heart

Well he's no Holyfield, but saying he has no heart is exxagarating as well. Let's not forget he had war against Ruddock and never stopped coming. Douglas beat him from pillar to post but he kept trying and he even scored a late knockdown. Holyfield and Lewis battered him badly but he kept trying there as well.


Fast forward to Foreman, he pretty much gave up in the Ali fight. Now, i don't really think it would've mattered, but just saying he isn't clear here either.



Foreman is the hardest hitter of all time IMO, on top of him being a bully.

Maybe he has the heaviest hands, but Tyson has much more one-punch KO's and stopped more top contenders as well. At the very least, they're even.




Tyson would simply be caught cold early and put away.

Very unlikely. Tyson took incredibly hard punches from Lewis when he was old, from Ruddock, Bruno and many others and he went nowhere.

Now to turn things around again, how many big hits did a prime Foreman take?

Norton hardly landed and isn't that big of a puncher. Frazier isn't a one-punch guy either and starts very slow. The only puncher that landed on him was Lyle and despite having never stopped a contender outside of glass chinned Shavers, he had Foreman ready to go. Young put Foreman down. Ali stunned Foreman several times.

Put it this way, Tyson's chin is a lot more proven against big hitters than Foreman's is; talking a prime Foreman, unless you want to match up the older one.

Just watch the end of the 10th round of Holyfield-Tyson. Evander just tears him apart and rips him for 10 or so seconds with his entire arsenal and Tyson just walks calmly back to his corner. He had a fabulous chin.




I do agree that Foreman has a stylistic advantage, but on the other hand, Tyson is much more polished technically and Foreman's defence was very weak.

[SuzieQ49]

wow great rebuttal for tyson chris pontius. perfect counter arguements. too bad you think tyson still had alot left by 1996.

[TIGEREDGE]

Source?

I find that a horribly sweeping sort of statement to make by a topclass trainer.

i agree. hay may have said joe frazier style would never beat george but there were fundamental differences between joe and mikes style

[ironchamp]

Tyson's chin better than Foreman's? :lol::lol::lol:

Absolutely.

Lets examine this a little more:

In George Foreman's first career; Foreman faced:

2 Big punchers (3-0 3KOs)
Joe Frazier and Ronnie Lyle (though it should be noted that Frazier was never really a 1 punch guy but lets include him nonetheless).

He was down 4 times. Twice against Lyle, the biggest puncher he faced. Once against Ali in a KO loss where he was never really taking a beating and once against Jimmy Young.


Mike Tyson pre-prison faced 3 big punchers (4-0 2KOs)
Frank Bruno, Donovan Ruddock 2x, James Smith.

He was down once against Douglas who administered a prolonged beating that led to an inevitable stoppage taking more flush shots in that fight than Foreman has in any fight of his entire career. I should add that outside of Frazier and Lyle and possibly Norton; Douglas hit harder than anyone Foreman had faced in his first career.

[DamonD]

Ruddock wasn't exactly a slow starter. Etc, etc.
Actually, I'd say Ruddock was a notorious slow starter, including both fights with Tyson. Apart from that all agreed, and when Ruddock did get going he landed heavy but Tyson came back.

Watching both Tyson-Ruddock fights again, the single biggest difference to me is that when Tyson got hit he hit back; when Ruddock got hit he tended to cover up.

[scurlaruntings]

Source?

I find that a horribly sweeping sort of statement to make by a topclass trainer.Why? D`mato was one of the most learned boxing trainers in history. Almost all his fighters were historians of the sport who watched reels and reels of tape. His opinion is certainly more valuable than anybody here thats for dam sure. Both D`mato and Tyson knew that stylistically Foreman would cause Mike ALOT of problems and you can add a prime Larry Holmes to that list aswell.

[El Matador]

I still don't understand how anyone who actually looks at film of both fighters could ever pick a bum like foreman to beat an invincible pugilistic juggernaut like tyson.

Tyson holds every single advantage by a LARGE margin. Chris pontius and ironchamp have assraped every single poster in here and left their shit in ruins.

Tyson KO 1 Foreman.
WTF? :rofl

Mike Tyson was troubled by the strength of JAMES SMITH (aka "The Bonecrusher") in their fight, being extended the distance (for reference, Smith was stopped by Holmes on cuts later in their bout previously).

George Foreman would be too strong for Tyson. Tyson's speed would be apparent immediately, and he would throw like hell, panicking after being punked in the staredown (Foreman's staredown would have Mike Tyson scared, believe that). Foreman would push Tyson around, throw uppercuts and hooks, and have Mike Tyson stopped before the fourth round.

Because you have to assess these dream match-ups at the peak of both boxers potential, I will give Mike four rounds to survive, but he's not lasting any longer than that.

George Foreman TKO4 Mike Tyson

[scurlaruntings]

WTF? :rofl

Mike Tyson was troubled by the strength of JAMES SMITH (aka "The Bonecrusher") in their fight, being extended the distance (for reference, Smith was stopped by Holmes on cuts later in their bout previously).

George Foreman would be too strong for Tyson. Tyson's speed would be apparent immediately, and he would throw like hell, panicking after being punked in the staredown (Foreman's staredown would have Mike Tyson scared, believe that). Foreman would push Tyson around, throw uppercuts and hooks, and have Mike Tyson stopped before the fourth round.

Because you have to assess these dream match-ups at the peak of both boxers potential, I will give Mike four rounds to survive, but he's not lasting any longer than that.

George Foreman TKO4 Mike TysonThats garbage. What strength? Iv seen that fight a thousand times and all Smith did was come to survive. He was elusive and evasive and did very little to offer and resistance to Tyson when they fought. The maths that Holmes stopped Smith on cuts and Tyson struggled is severely flawed. If your going to use that same maths take into account Mikes 1 round annihilation of Spinks. The same Spinks that Holmes couldnt beat twice.

[El Matador]

Thats garbage. What strength? Iv seen that fight a thousand times and all Smith did was come to survive. He was elusive and evasive and did very little to offer and resistance to Tyson when they fought. The maths that Holmes stopped Smith on cuts and Tyson struggled is severely flawed. If your going to use that same maths take into account Mikes 1 round annihilation of Spinks. The same Spinks that Holmes couldnt beat twice.
1. Yes, Larry Holmes did stop James Smith.
2. Yes, Mike Tyson was frusterated all night long by Smith, Smith did come to survive, I will admit it (who didn't those days?), but Smith's clinching had Tyson bothered.
3. I mentioned this fight because we saw Tyson's weakness against a strong (not to mention tall) Heavyweight who took advantage of Tyson on the inside (don't believe me? why was Tyson not ripping Smith to the body? why couldn't he stop him? why was Tyson stunned by a right hand in round twelve?).
4. Did you notice the rapping around Michael Spinks knee? He couldn't MOVE - he came in, froze up, and was annihilated. Tyson was a real wrecking ball in his prime (speaking of Holmes - he stopped Larry in four rounds, albeit in '85).
5. I stand by George Foreman - Foreman's uppercut would lift Tyson ten feet in the air.

[scurlaruntings]

1. Yes, Larry Holmes did stop James Smith.
2. Yes, Mike Tyson was frusterated all night long by Smith, Smith did come to survive, I will admit it (who didn't those days?), but Smith's clinching had Tyson bothered.
3. I mentioned this fight because we saw Tyson's weakness against a strong (not to mention tall) Heavyweight who took advantage of Tyson on the inside (don't believe me? why was Tyson not ripping Smith to the body? why couldn't he stop him? why was Tyson stunned by a right hand in round twelve?).
4. Did you notice the rapping around Michael Spinks knee? He couldn't MOVE - he came in, froze up, and was annihilated. Tyson was a real wrecking ball in his prime (speaking of Holmes - he stopped Larry in four rounds, albeit in '85).
5. I stand by George Foreman - Foreman's uppercut would lift Tyson ten feet in the air.Infighting was NOT Tysons weakness. Mike is a fighter that was extremely dangerous in the pocket because of his fast hands and power. What Smith was doing is called "spoiling". Many back then thought the key to beating Mike was to tie him up on the inside and that was clearly because of his ferocious power, NOT because Mike couldnt infight. As for the wrapping on Spinks knee big deal? Is that an excuse?

When Spinks came into that fight his promoter Butch Lewis knew that Mike was punching holes in the wall next door. His team were completely pysched out before they came to ring and when he entered the ring. When Mike came out he didnt even choose music he had a rumbling eery baseline and his usual no socks no robe attire. There was no man that could have beaten Mike on that night and certainly not Micheal Spinks knee wrap or not.

Now as for Foremans uppercut lifting Tyson feet into there air lets just drop back to reality for a second. Foreman was a puncher full stop. All the great punchers like Shavers Foreman and Tyson would tire quickly as theres was a powerful and high energy style. Foreman COULD be hit and quite easily.Plus a prime Tyson was not a static target. Foreman would have had his hands full no question and it certainly wouldnt be one punch to KO Mike even from a serious banger like Foreman. Tough call for me as theres too many factors for and against.One thing is certain this fight doesnt last into the late rounds.

[la-califa]

Thats garbage. What strength? Iv seen that fight a thousand times and all Smith did was come to survive. He was elusive and evasive and did very little to offer and resistance to Tyson when they fought. The maths that Holmes stopped Smith on cuts and Tyson struggled is severely flawed. If your going to use that same maths take into account Mikes 1 round annihilation of Spinks. The same Spinks that Holmes couldnt beat twice. Holmes did beat Spinks & then beat him more convincingly in the second fight. Worst case of judging ever!

[ironchamp]

Holmes did beat Spinks & then beat him more convincingly in the second fight. Worst case of judging ever!

Even without the commentary.....Spinks took the first fight.

I thought he did more than Larry. He was busier and more accurate. Larry didnt seem to be able to get set the entire fight. He didnt really dictate the pace of the fight- Spinks fought his fight and beat Larry in that manner.

In addition, thier reactions after the final bell before the decision was announced was telling; Michael knew in his heart that he deserved the win; you could see it in his body language. Larry on the other hand looked uncomfortable making any celebratory gestures, he was looking down frequently unconvinced that he won but somewhat hopeful as a result of past experiences that he'd be on the winning end of another controversial decision.

[fists of fury]

4. Did you notice the rapping around Michael Spinks knee? He couldn't MOVE -

How did he pass the medical then?

[butler08]

imo tyson ko frazier in 4 because i think he was clearly supierior however foreman ko tyson 5 - 8

[MRBILL]

Crazy as it seems, I think the young version of George Foreman gets clocked and stopped by a peak Mike Tyson. The Foreman of the 70s only knew how to jab properly; everything else he threw was wide and telegraphed.. Dick & Sandy Sadler were lousy in their schooling of George Foreman, and they set George up with too many tomato cans & stiffs to feed on early on, in which George Foreman wasn't really learning anything...

George Foreman looked like crap in kayoing Jose Roman in Tokyo back in 1973. Roman was a bum, and Foreman threw the most amateurish punches I had ever seen a pro-fighter throw in that fight...

NOW! I think the older 40 to 42 year old George Foreman had more skills and began to have a real concept as to how to fight properly... The older Foreman might've gotten to Mike Tyson, since Tyson's willpower and psych was delicate as all hell... due to styles, the Foreman who fought Evander Holyfield in 1991, probably would've gotten to Mike Tyson... Tyson's will was NOWHERE near that of Holy's or Foreman's.....:nono

MR.BILL

EXTRA:

I can just see the 'Tyson' nuthuggers coming out of the woodwork in defense of their former moronic champion....:fire

[MAG1965]

Yes, Tyson and Frazier are quite different fighters. Frazier was a swarmer, Tyson a puncher.
Some key differences between them:

-Tyson is probably the harder hitter punch for punch
-Tyson has less predictable head movement but was less consistent with it
-Tyson started extremely fast whereas Frazier needed rounds to get smoking
-Frazier has far better stamina and usually broke him opponents down untill they couldn't give anymore. Tyson usually finished his opponents with one or more combinations or even one punch. The only time he broke his opponent down was Biggs, but he was never really in the fight.
-Frazier was the better infighter whereas Tyson usually took a rest on the inside.
-Tyson had knockout power in both hands whereas Frazier relied mostly on the left hook. Also, Frazier didn't use the uppercut as often as Tyson seemed to. Tyson had better combinations.

Because of these differences in style, i think Tyson would do much better against Foreman because he's just as deadly early on as Foreman is. His head movement is also a bit less predictable early on and he has better quick combinations. That said, i still favor Foreman to beat Tyson, but Tyson has a decent to good chance of winning. This is one of the best posts I have seen on this forum. Great job. :thumbsup:rasta

[MAG1965]

I wish Foreman-Tyson would have happened in the 1990's. Supposedly it never came off because Tyson said he wasnt fooled by Foreman's grandpa act that he was still a monster, and wasnt fighting him.
Tyson was smart. I think Foreman would have beaten him. George was too strong and had the style to push him off and land uppercuts. The style was a bad one for Mike.

[Russell]

How did he pass the medical then?

You think it'd be difficult for a fighter (Who's getting 20 million dollars for a fight, and that's ONLY his earnings, a small amount of the total money being made) would have a difficult time getting through a physical? :lol::lol::lol:

Come on fists, don't be naive. This is boxing.

How many years was Ali beginning to suffer from Parkinson's, and he still kept going on? Guy could have staged a comeback post 1980 like was talked about up until the middle 80's.

Money runs the world.

[RockyJim]

Who ever gets really tagged....goes...

[fists of fury]

You think it'd be difficult for a fighter (Who's getting 20 million dollars for a fight, and that's ONLY his earnings, a small amount of the total money being made) would have a difficult time getting through a physical? :lol::lol::lol:

Come on fists, don't be naive. This is boxing.



:D Hey, what can I say?

[heehoo]

In all the simulation games I have played, Tyson is TKO'd by Foreman in the third round. His power was too much for Tyson to handle. Not sure if that means anything, but that's the result I get and that is what I felt would have happened had they ever fought.

[Permy]

George was a monster in the ring he would kill Tyson

[la-califa]

This is one of the best posts I have seen on this forum. Great job. :thumbsup:rasta Yes but two more key differences are, Frazier is much busier, always throwing punches, never letting down. Tyson would follow an opponent & throw combinations, but was nowhere as busy as Frazier. Also Fraziers constant movement, bobbing & weaving always throwing punches, made him a little more elusive target to hit than Mike. With Fraziers better defense. When punches would com in on Tyson he usually got caught by most. His best defense was a great offense.

[sauhund II]

Yes but two more key differences are, Frazier is much busier, always throwing punches, never letting down. Tyson would follow an opponent & throw combinations, but was nowhere as busy as Frazier. Also Fraziers constant movement, bobbing & weaving always throwing punches, made him a little more elusive target to hit than Mike. With Fraziers better defense. When punches would com in on Tyson he usually got caught by most. His best defense was a great offense.
Dude....................that is one of the most uninformed posts of the decade, "when punches would come in on Tyson he usually got caught by most " , I almost feel sorry for you...............1425 posts don't equal knowledge.