Mike Tyson Vs. George Foreman

[la-califa]

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?

[Sizzle]

Yes. Much better chin and defense.

[ChrisPontius]

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.

[My dinner with Conteh]

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.


Excellent post. :bbb

[mcvey]

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 ,Isee George winning early say ko 3rds,but Tyson would be dangerous all the time,he had more tools than Frazierbut wasnt as effective inside,his hand speed and two fisted power make him a risk for anyone imo.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I think it'd last around 6. Tyson has a chance of a late stoppage if he doesn't trade. But I think he will, his solid chin would take him to the middle rounds.

[McGrain]

I don't see why Tyson couldn't knock Foreman out.

His punching is a bit sharper and his combo puncing is crackling. If Tyson is the first to score big (good chance), I think he could finish his man.

I personally would make Tyson the favourite here.

[JohnThomas1]

D'Amato told Tyson no fighter of his style in history would beat Foreman and i tend to agree. Foreman by stoppage around the time dinner says.

[PowerPuncher]

Whoever forces the other back and whoever gets their shots off first (ie beats the opponent to the punch) wins. Could be a real back and forth fight

[Stonehands89]

Tyson has glaring disadvantages that would make it a fairly easy stompage win. Foreman was too strong and would force Tyson backwards without even having to think strategically like Holyfield did. If Foreman is allowed to shove Tyson like he did Frazier, then Tyson will be at a further disadvantage.

Tyson does hit harder than Frazier, has a greater repertoire of punches, starts more explosively and has less predictable head movement... but it wouldn't really make much of a difference. Foreman's early rush was overwhelming and Tyson would have no chance outside of puncher's chance.

I see Tyson slipping the telephone polls that Foreman will throw and stepping closer at an angle to land nice shots to Foreman's sides. Foreman will not wilt under this and will instead manhandle Tyson -by shoving him off balance and coming inexorably in behind monster shots.
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. His effectiveness plummeted although he was still dangerous. Against Holyfield, he couldn't remember anything after about the 3rd round. Foreman would make it so he couldn't remember anything after that 1st minute of the first round.

If Tyson were bigger and were not so reliant on forward motion, he'd have more of a chance. But considering Foreman's iron chin, physical strength, and power, Tyson wouldn't hear the 9th round bell... and that only because he was durable.

[robert ungurean]

Foreman by early KO

[Bad_Intentions]

D'Amato told Tyson no fighter of his style in history would beat Foreman and i tend to agree. Foreman by stoppage around the time dinner says.i agree too. no way in hell would tyson beat a prime foreman. 1 punch from foreman would leave tyson wobbly, and thats where foreman attacks with those combinations that he landed to frazier, tyson will be KO'd.

[MoneyPunch]

You lot are deluded.
Foreman was beaten to the punch easily every time by a faded Ali, and so Tysons lightning fast hand speed and foot speed is a nightmare for Foreman.
Tyson would stop Foreman, make, no mistake about that.

[My dinner with Conteh]

You lot are deluded.
Foreman was beaten to the punch easily every time by a faded Ali, and so Tysons lightning fast hand speed and foot speed is a nightmare for Foreman.
Tyson would stop Foreman, make, no mistake about that.




I see Amateur Hour has started.

[Sizzle]

D'Amato told Tyson no fighter of his style in history would beat Foreman and i tend to agree. Foreman by stoppage around the time dinner says.

Source?

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

[la-califa]

Hard toi pick a strategy for Tyson in this one. If he goes all out on the attack, he might get caught with an upercut or a wild punch. But if he curbs his attack Foreman would the start to tee off & throw alot more punches. If Tyson survives the onslaught he could do most of his damage late. Foreman expended way to much energy throwing those roundhouse punches & could barely stand after about the seventh or eighth round. Tyson didn't have the greatest stamina either but he should have more energy then Foreman. And do the most damage. especially if it went fifteen rounds. Would've been interesting to see how Tyson responded in rounds 13 thru 15.

[bigjake]

I see Amateur Hour has started.

lol

[MachineGunMitch]

Forman would do some serious damage to tyson imo.....
I couldent pick the round but I invision tyson reaching for his mouthpiece
ala tokyo

[Duodenum]

It never occurred to D'Amato that Tyson might one day be challenged by Foreman. George knew that Mike was as terrified of him as George claimed to be by Joe Frazier before dethroning him. (Tyson: "There's no way I'm getting into the ring with that animal!")

Foreman is a hell of a lot stronger than Bonecrusher Smith, who completely strangled Tyson into total impotence in the clinches. With George's shoving of Tyson, he'd make Mike look like a welterweight. Tyson had an even shorter reach than Frazier, and might not even lay a glove on George, if Foreman chose to keep Mike at arms length.

At some point though, Mike's handspeed might allow him to land the hardest punch he can ever connect, just like Cooney did. As happened with Hearns against Hagler, the impact of Tyson's most perfect right will break his hand, and make George mad, as he tears in after Mike in retaliation.

If George loses his sense of mercy and human compassion, then a coroner will be needed at ringside for Mike, not a physician. (How many seconds would Tyson's heart remain beating if he bit off Foreman's ear? Ten seconds, five seconds, or two seconds?) George still talks about making another match, if he gets his weight under 225. If Tyson agrees to be his opponent, we'll know he's suicidal, and has decided to end his life quickly before a large audience.

[Stonehands89]

I see Amateur Hour has started.

Damn right, MDWC.

We got these guest appearance -make that "trespasses" by young guys from the GF who think Tyson was the best ever, or Jones was the best ever. Most of them never saw Gavilan or Monzon and never heard of Billy Conn.

I don't know about Moneypunch but I'd assume he's under 22 years old just by the name.

It's a metaphysical fact that they don't bother reading the previous posts.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I know, it's funny when a Tyson thread appears, lots of new names crop up in this section. I say 'fine, how about sticking around here, see what else you know'. But they seldom do. :roll:

[JohnBKelly]

Foreman beats Tyson any day of the week. If Mike Tyson believed he could beat George as easily as some of you guys think then old Iron Mike would have have jumped into the ring with the old guy some time between 1990 and 1997 when Foreman was active. How did we miss out on a Foreman v Tyson clash for the linear title between 1994 and 1997? Maybe George was too scared! I just don't understand why Mike Tyson "the greatest heavyweight puncher in history" didn't seize the chance of a mega bucks match with the Fighting Fossil. Can any of you Tyson fans explain it, because from what I read you guys seem to think Mike would flatten a peak George in no time.

[hobgoblin]

At some point though, Mike's handspeed might allow him to land the hardest punch he can ever connect, just like Cooney did. As happened with Hearns against Hagler, the impact of Tyson's most perfect right will break his hand, and make George mad, as he tears in after Mike in retaliation.

I don't think Tyson ever broke his hand in the ring (or not that I recall). And he landed some of his best punches too. I particularly think of the opening FIVE SECONDS against Holyfield I - where he lands a monster right hand from a great distance with such great speed. A single one of those punches can potentially change the tides of the fight - as Foreman himself was vulnerable to getting shaken by FAST PUNCHES and young Tyson's handspeed was comparable to Ali's (not quite as fast but still). The speed of the punch would wobble Foreman - but Foreman's chin is even better than Tyson's.

My money (and yes, I'll put money) goes to Foreman, but Tyson's chances are better than Fraziers. I will even say that Tyson wins round 1. Don't know about 2 and 3. I think Foreman stops him in 3 rounds by TKO but Tyson wins round 1 and he is an even faster starter than Foreman and will land some wicked punches.

[hobgoblin]

Foreman beats Tyson any day of the week. If Mike Tyson believed he could beat George as easily as some of you guys think then old Iron Mike would have have jumped into the ring with the old guy some time between 1990 and 1997 when Foreman was active. How did we miss out on a Foreman v Tyson clash for the linear title between 1994 and 1997? Maybe George was too scared! I just don't understand why Mike Tyson "the greatest heavyweight puncher in history" didn't seize the chance of a mega bucks match with the Fighting Fossil. Can any of you Tyson fans explain it, because from what I read you guys seem to think Mike would flatten a peak George in no time.

#1 I agree with your general thought. I do believe that Mike Tyson was strongly against the idea of fighting ANY version of Foreman. The reason is this: Tyson had very little gain at that time - but the risk was very high. Reward/Risk ratio is too small as he knew that Foreman was dangerous (and we look back see what Foreman did and realize that Tyson was very shrewd!) and so the natural decision is to avoid such a fight.

#2 Even if Tyson was afraid of OLD Foreman (as Foreman was afraid of Frazier before the fight in Jamaica) - and I do think it is true - it still does not mean that Tyson would not beat an OLD Foreman. I think he'd destroy OLD Foreman (forget styles. common sense says that a 42 year old man with slowed reflexes and work rate isn't in a good position against a great, fast, durable puncher like Tyson). Young Foreman is a completely different story.

[JohnThomas1]

Tyson has glaring disadvantages that would make it a fairly easy stompage win. Foreman was too strong and would force Tyson backwards without even having to think strategically like Holyfield did. If Foreman is allowed to shove Tyson like he did Frazier, then Tyson will be at a further disadvantage.

Tyson does hit harder than Frazier, has a greater repertoire of punches, starts more explosively and has less predictable head movement... but it wouldn't really make much of a difference. Foreman's early rush was overwhelming and Tyson would have no chance outside of puncher's chance.

I see Tyson slipping the telephone polls that Foreman will throw and stepping closer at an angle to land nice shots to Foreman's sides. Foreman will not wilt under this and will instead manhandle Tyson -by shoving him off balance and coming inexorably in behind monster shots.
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. His effectiveness plummeted although he was still dangerous. Against Holyfield, he couldn't remember anything after about the 3rd round. Foreman would make it so he couldn't remember anything after that 1st minute of the first round.

If Tyson were bigger and were not so reliant on forward motion, he'd have more of a chance. But considering Foreman's iron chin, physical strength, and power, Tyson wouldn't hear the 9th round bell... and that only because he was durable.

Fantastic post. Eddie Futch himself said if Tyson can't come forward he loses effectiveness. Not many in history are coming forward vs peak Big Daddy.

[JohnThomas1]

Source?

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

It was all over the place. I read it in one of the top boxing mags and have since seen it brought up by various people. I think it surfaced around the time Foreman was sniffing for a title shot in the second phase due to the obvious irony.

[JohnThomas1]

Source?

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

This article has it mentioned for one


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Stonehands89]

Source?

I find that a horribly sweeping sort of statement to make by a topclass trainer.
... just read the article referenced by JT.

It sounds alot like Cus and it is not a horribly sweeping statement -it is based on a premise that rings with truth: Styles make fights.

Where I doubt the veracity of the article is where Tyson is quoted as saying that he was afraid of Foreman because Foreman's "a fucking animal".

"Fucking animal"?! This will sound ridiculous to some but over here on the east coast of the US, black men don't say 'he's a fucking animal' -white guys who drink alot of beer do. Like the author. I smell hyperbole.

Tyson was probably not enthusiastic about fighting Foreman, but was he quaking in his boots in public? I just can't see it. Thugs don't show/talk about their fear, even though they are often riddled with it.

[Holmes' Jab]

I think it'd last around 6. Tyson has a chance of a late stoppage if he doesn't trade. But I think he will, his solid chin would take him to the middle rounds.

Fair point, though I don't think he'd get drawn into an out-and-out brawl. I think Mikey (respectful of Foremans power) would bide his time, stay on the outside and stop Foreman lat on after he gases out.

[Senya13]

Prime Tyson stops prime Foreman inside of 3 rounds. George was too predictable and easy to hit.

[fists of fury]

For me, it's 50/50.

We all know that Foreman was devasting against Frazier, but he looked less great against Lyle who almost knocked him cold.
In a wild shootout (which this could very well become) I always pull for the guy with the faster hands. In this case, much faster hands.

Foreman will get his bombs off, but how many will connect? He tended to miss an awful lot with those huge haymakers. Factor in Tyson's razor sharp reflexes and excellent counter-attacking skills (due in part to his phenomenal hand speed) and I'd say you have in Foreman a guy who will provide plenty of opportunities for Tyson to hit him.

I can mentally picture the sort of fight many envisage - Foreman lumbers forward and keeps Tyson off-balance with that telephone pole jab and perhaps by pushing him backward. He then starts landing the big rights and lefts against a befuddled Tyson. Fair enough.

However, first we must assume that the referee will actually allow the pushing (which technically is illegal) and we must then assume that this somehow impacts negatively on Tyson.
We all know that inside, Tyson was nothing special. However, if he had room to punch, he was deadly. Pushing Tyson away could actually be counter-productive for Foreman because Tyson was no Frazier who put his head on your chest and slammed punches in close. Joe had to be in close, Tyson did not. In fact, in close is where Tyson does not want to be.

Foreman's jab was a key weapon for him, but what was Tyson if not the master of slipping a good jab and countering with a hard shot? He made a habitual habit out of it during his career.

Foreman was not a combination puncher. Not really. He threw a ton of punches at you sure, but they weren't canned combo's. if you will. He threw whatever came to mind. By contrast, Tyson was a true combination puncher in every sense of the word, and he could let rip with a three punch combo often before the other fellow could react.

The only reason I make this 50/50 is because I'm not sure how Tyson reacts if Foreman starts to reach him. Does he mentally start to cower? Does he fight back like he did vs. Ruddock? Who knows for sure?

Physically, Tyson is on another planet but he had that mental frailty which makes this an interesting fight.

[ironchamp]

For me, it's 50/50.

We all know that Foreman was devasting against Frazier, but he looked less great against Lyle who almost knocked him cold.
In a wild shootout (which this could very well become) I always pull for the guy with the faster hands. In this case, much faster hands.

Foreman will get his bombs off, but how many will connect? He tended to miss an awful lot with those huge haymakers. Factor in Tyson's razor sharp reflexes and excellent counter-attacking skills (due in part to his phenomenal hand speed) and I'd say you have in Foreman a guy who will provide plenty of opportunities for Tyson to hit him.

I can mentally picture the sort of fight many envisage - Foreman lumbers forward and keeps Tyson off-balance with that telephone pole jab and perhaps by pushing him backward. He then starts landing the big rights and lefts against a befuddled Tyson. Fair enough.

However, first we must assume that the referee will actually allow the pushing (which technically is illegal) and we must then assume that this somehow impacts negatively on Tyson.
We all know that inside, Tyson was nothing special. However, if he had room to punch, he was deadly. Pushing Tyson away could actually be counter-productive for Foreman because Tyson was no Frazier who put his head on your chest and slammed punches in close. Joe had to be in close, Tyson did not. In fact, in close is where Tyson does not want to be.

Foreman's jab was a key weapon for him, but what was Tyson if not the master of slipping a good jab and countering with a hard shot? He made a habitual habit out of it during his career.

Foreman was not a combination puncher. Not really. He threw a ton of punches at you sure, but they weren't canned combo's. if you will. He threw whatever came to mind. By contrast, Tyson was a true combination puncher in every sense of the word, and he could let rip with a three punch combo often before the other fellow could react.

The only reason I make this 50/50 is because I'm not sure how Tyson reacts if Foreman starts to reach him. Does he mentally start to cower? Does he fight back like he did vs. Ruddock? Who knows for sure?

Physically, Tyson is on another planet but he had that mental frailty which makes this an interesting fight.

Great post, especially the fact that you pointed out that Tyson unlike Frazier doesnt need to be in as close to be effective whereas Frazier needs to be inside to do damage.

[booradley]

Tyson has glaring disadvantages that would make it a fairly easy stompage win. Foreman was too strong and would force Tyson backwards without even having to think strategically like Holyfield did. If Foreman is allowed to shove Tyson like he did Frazier, then Tyson will be at a further disadvantage.

Tyson does hit harder than Frazier, has a greater repertoire of punches, starts more explosively and has less predictable head movement... but it wouldn't really make much of a difference. Foreman's early rush was overwhelming and Tyson would have no chance outside of puncher's chance.

I see Tyson slipping the telephone polls that Foreman will throw and stepping closer at an angle to land nice shots to Foreman's sides. Foreman will not wilt under this and will instead manhandle Tyson -by shoving him off balance and coming inexorably in behind monster shots.
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. His effectiveness plummeted although he was still dangerous. Against Holyfield, he couldn't remember anything after about the 3rd round. Foreman would make it so he couldn't remember anything after that 1st minute of the first round.

If Tyson were bigger and were not so reliant on forward motion, he'd have more of a chance. But considering Foreman's iron chin, physical strength, and power, Tyson wouldn't hear the 9th round bell... and that only because he was durable.

Great post. I agree on all points except I think Tyson either quits on the stool or gets KOed before the 9th; maybe between 5th and 7th. His lack of heart would cost him the fight more than the physical disadavantages.

[ironchamp]

Great post. I agree on all points except I think Tyson either quits on the stool or gets KOed before the 9th; maybe between 5th and 7th. His lack of heart would cost him the fight more than the physical disadavantages.

Tyson had heart....and in his prime he was resiliant and showed courage in his fights....


If you are using the Tyson from 1995-onwards then maybe but the Tyson from 86-88 there is simply no way he quits.

[MoneyPunch]

Prime Tyson beats the daylights out of Foreman.
He'd be in tremendous shape, and would be first to the punch everytime, as Ali was.

You dont beat Prime Tyson with no defence, and Foremans defence was his face.

Yes Foreman was an awesome puncher, but I think he threat of that stops Mike getting lazy, and because of that, I think he boxes beautifully, and stops Foreman around 8.

[My dinner with Conteh]

For me, it's 50/50.

We all know that Foreman was devasting against Frazier, but he looked less great against Lyle who almost knocked him cold.
In a wild shootout (which this could very well become) I always pull for the guy with the faster hands. In this case, much faster hands.


I a shoot-out I'd go for the fighter with the bigger heart and stronger chin any day. If I had much faster hands than my opponent, the last thing I'd opt for is a straight shoot-out. Foreman would accept being hit with good shots, Tyson less so. He spat his dummy out when he was hit solidly, then shortly after would usually complain to the ref about something or other.

[Stonehands89]

Great post. I agree on all points except I think Tyson either quits on the stool or gets KOed before the 9th; maybe between 5th and 7th. His lack of heart would cost him the fight more than the physical disadavantages.

I think that his lack of heart was more apparant after the last true vestige of Cus was excluded (that would be Rooney). Tyson showed heart, but did he have heart? -I don't think so. He was a true fighter with great physical powers and a studious mind for the sport and for the history of the sport... but as a man, he was propped up. King has a criminal mind. Tyson became a thug. Thugs are almost universally fraudulant when it comes to tests of character.

The long and the short of it is that I don't believe he'd quit on George during his prime Cus/Rooney years. He might afterwards. Either way, his resilience when hurt has to be questioned.

[Joe E]

Foreman Via Early K.o. Tyson Always Had Problems With Bigger Men.tyson Was A Programed Fighter Who Did Not Know What To Do When His Man Did Not Fall Within 5 Or 6 Rounds.he Also Had Very Little Heart.

[McGrain]

Wrong again, idiot.


Why've you got to call him names?

For the people saying Foreman, let's say for arguments sake that Tyson catches Foreman first and he catches him early, 45 seconds into the first round.

Does Foreman get out of the round? If so, how?

[My dinner with Conteh]

Why've you got to call him names?

For the people saying Foreman, let's say for arguments sake that Tyson catches Foreman first and he catches him early, 45 seconds into the first round.

Does Foreman get out of the round? If so, how?



Maybe like he did vs Lyle- trade punch for punch when he was hurt. In fact, there moments in that fight were he seems to be deliberately giving lyle free shots.

[McGrain]

Maybe like he did vs Lyle- trade punch for punch when he was hurt. In fact, there moments in that fight were he seems to be deliberately giving lyle free shots.

Sure. And who'd be on the recieving end of that if they had a choice? But I don't know if a groggy Foreman is going to catch prime Tyson. I think a fresh and alert Foreman probably could but how I think the Tyson can get the best of the exchanges if he's doing it having hurt the bigger man. What do you think?

[My dinner with Conteh]

Sure. And who'd be on the recieving end of that if they had a choice? But I don't know if a groggy Foreman is going to catch prime Tyson. I think a fresh and alert Foreman probably could but how I think the Tyson can get the best of the exchanges if he's doing it having hurt the bigger man. What do you think?


It won't get to the groggy stage. Tyson will be mashed before that. Remember, despite Tyson's supposed great chin (it was good of course) he was stunned when hit cleanly a fair few times. In Holy I, his legs go funny after a short right, which is nothing special, his instinct was to then fight back and he got nailed with a clean shot- again he was stunned. The Lewis uppercut early on totally took the fight out of him. That's not prime Tyson people say, but prime Tyson didn't have the quality of 'Vander and Lennox in the other corner, just a load of woefully out of shape lemons. This sounds a bit harsh on him because he was a fine fighter. I just really don't think he'd win a shoot-out with Foreman- and the thing is, he'd definitely become embroiled in one (in my book). If he could avoid it, he'd have a good chance.

[Duodenum]

Why've you got to call him names?

For the people saying Foreman, let's say for arguments sake that Tyson catches Foreman first and he catches him early, 45 seconds into the first round.

Does Foreman get out of the round? If so, how?Same way he did when Cooney nailed him with that massive hook of his. I don't believe Mike had the kind of firepower Gerry could generate on his hook with his substantial height and build. Mike wasn't able to drop Green, Smith or Tucker, none of whom were particularly mobile cuties, and all of whom I think George could have taken out. If Mike managed to catch George, he'd wake up the sleeping giant, rather than sending him to dreamworld. Once Foreman was roused into a sense of urgency by a slugging confrontation, his opponent's number of seconds in an upright position declined precipitiously. Tyson had outstanding speed, which he would need to use in trying to keep George in a defensive shell. That might become problematic once Foreman places his mitts on Mike's broad low shoulders, then shoves down and away. (This is one area where Joe Louis would have an enormous advantage over Mike, when it came to neutralizing George's shoving tactics. When facing his opponent, the Bomber could seemingly narrow himself enough to squeeze through a needle. He could have managed to slip through Foreman's paws on the way in.)

[brooklyn1550]

Foreman TKO

[McGrain]

It won't get to the groggy stage.

If Tyson catches Foreman properly, clean?


he'd definitely become embroiled in one (in my book). If he could avoid it, he'd have a good chance.

I agree with yoou that it will become a shoot out, sooner rather than later.

But I don't agree that Tyson can't win a shoot out. I think he could win with speed. I think he could get of first and hurt Foreman. I think Tyson is perhaps the best finisher in the divisions history and I think he would be right after his man.

You don't think so?

[My dinner with Conteh]

If Tyson catches Foreman properly, clean?




I agree with yoou that it will become a shoot out, sooner rather than later.

But I don't agree that Tyson can't win a shoot out. I think he could win with speed. I think he could get of first and hurt Foreman. I think Tyson is perhaps the best finisher in the divisions history and I think he would be right after his man.

You don't think so?



No. He's not that effective when he tastes his opponents power. Foreman rose from the deck to win, Tyson didn't. If he went down- game over, of course he never finished a fight (even to lose) once he was floored.

[Duodenum]

absolutely not. his windmill swings were pathetically obvious and ludicrously easy to dodge, Tyson's slip/duck rates would be absolutely through the roof in this fight and quite frankly, foremans power is VASTLY overrated. His entire reputation for power comes on beating 3 known china chins. Norton, Frazier, and Moorer. Tyson has atleast top 3 of all time heavyweight handspeed, foreman almosts cracks the top 200. when foreman fought Ali, another top 3, he was consistently beaten to the punch and was pretty much raped with right hands over the course of the fight. Tyson is going to be slipping everything thrown at him while countering with titantic shots, foreman has an approximate 0% chance of winning.I think George's punching power was somewhat overrated, but he still left Ali urinating blood for three days. His physical strength on the other hand, is only paralelled by Jim Jeffries among ATG HW boxers. How's Tyson going to evade being manhandled like a rag doll by an adversary who never took a backwards step against Holyfield? Bear in mind, that the immediate trigger which set off Tyson's earbiting episode was a powerful shove backwards by Evander. It was in response to that act of physical dominance that Tyson angrily beckoned Holyfield to "come on!," right before tearing in to take out that chunk of Holy's flesh. If Evander could push Mike around with that level of ease, what's going to happen if he confronts Foreman? How's somebody with Tyson's height and reach going to win a retreating battle?

[My dinner with Conteh]

I think this thread tells its own story. Quality posters like StoneHands, JT, Chris P and Duo, etc favour Foreman, mongs like I Am Nobody and Senya, who are quite likely two of the three lowest rated posters that regularly appear in the Classic Section (the other being Bill) go with Tyson.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Foreman was also battered and abused by ron lyle, who was not a huge puncher like tyson and was barely a 1/3 as good as tyson.


Abused, but won. Therein lies the difference.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Are you joking? foremans shoves, if allowed by the referee, are just going to by pushing tyson right back into the midrange where he will lay down a righetous beating, foreman wont be do anything of the things needed to beat tyson, he's just going to get his ass demolished.






in otherwords, people who are afraid to break the status quo support foreman, those who watch boxing with a degree of objectivity realise tyson will have foreman dead before he hits the ground.



Or people who have more than a water-biscuit sized knowledge and think more logically than those who thinks Tyson walks on water, and are sold by that video that did the rounds in the early 90s. Great puncher, tiny little heart, about the same size as a salted peanut (but a bit less salty).

[My dinner with Conteh]

so he barely escaped a shootout with the relatively moderate punching mediocre lyle, yet he beats ATG Puncher in tyson in the same shootout?


ATG puncher not ATG heart. That's why he loses. It's not rocket science.

[My dinner with Conteh]

You don't need heart when you have top 10 power combined with top 3 handspeed with a top 10 chin. Foreman has ZERO chance. Tyson obliterates him.


You do need heart if you're going to ever rate as the best, which he never is- unless by his dumb gormless embarrassing knicker-wetting fans, who endlessly watch the Sammy Scaff fight saying "Wow".

[My dinner with Conteh]

He even avoided the fat old version of Foreman. Looks like Mike took on the 1990s mantle of:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[My dinner with Conteh]

"Mallard" Mike Tyson. It is rather catchy. :D

[Duodenum]

Or people who have more than a water-biscuit sized knowledge and think more logically than those who thinks Tyson walks on water, and are sold by that video that did the rounds in the early 90s. Great puncher, tiny little heart, about the same size as a salted peanut (but a bit less salty).Uh MDWC, would that water Mike would be walking on against George happen to be his own pee?

[Robbi]

Interesting fight. I favour Foreman to win, but he'd have his hands full. While Foreman recieves credit for having a solid jab, it was not a particularly blinding. Certainly nothing like the jolting the jab of Holmes and Ali. Foreman did have a heavy jab, the kind which sends opponents back a few steps. I'm not too sure his left hand had the authority to keep Tyson under control from distance. His clubbing hooks and booming right hands would the key punches from long range.

Foreman's uppercut was an awesome weapon inside, just ask Frazier. He also had the strength to force Tyson back and make him ineffective. He'd no doubt use the same tactics as Holyfield did when he fought Tyson the first time. Tyson was a bully at his very best, but Foreman probably punches harder than anyone Tyson has shared a ring with, including Lewis.

Foreman TKO10

[Duodenum]

unlike super greg page and pinklon thomas, foreman had done nothing to deserve a title shot. larry holmes will always be the true mallard.

But props on using the original picture.By the way, did you realize that mallards feed on toads?

[Duodenum]

thats pretty weird. I thought ducks subsisted on bread thrown to them by old people.No, my friend, ducks cannot live on bread alone!

[hobgoblin]

It is silly to compare Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson when it one says that the two would similarly beat George Foreman to the punch with superior handspeed. While Tyson did have the handspeed - he did not have the 82" reach of Muhammad Ali that allowed Ali to stand at a safe distance from Foreman and land the right hand lead.

I'm not sure how Mike Tyson would react when he gets hurt from George Foreman. He showed heart in Tokyo - yes. No one questions his chin - his chin alone is what let him take hard punches from Ruddock and come right back. I'm not saying that he doesn't have heart (he does) but I'm not sure if he has the heart of say Arthuro Gatti or Evander Holyfield to fight back hard when he is hurt. This becomes very important when expecting Mike Tyson to remain effective once Foreman tags him with a hammerlike uppercut.

Very true that George Foreman's shoving of Mike Tyson would be counter productive. As to being able to push around Tyson - the bottom line is that you could do it easily. However, I'd like to explain and say that Tyson was just passive with this regard - he let himself get pushed around and move around - he let himself easily get clinched and you see almost 0 effort to undo any of that. It was more about Tyson being passive (I don't know why) than about him not having the strength to resist. The only time I remember an inconsistency is when Tyson pushes around Razor Ruddock (and Ruddock was a strong guy).

He bit Holyfield's ears out of frustration for being outboxed, outfoxed, and headbutted repeatedly - the shoving was marginal in comparison to those three. In any case, pushing around and such isn't very important for me - Tyson's best asset would be pouncing on Foreman with his superior speed from midrange - remember - Tyson had such speed that Holyfield was almost helpless to stop Tyson in round 1 of fight 1 - watch it again on youtube and observe the right hand leads land even before Holyfield sees them (granted, Holy was also 34 years old at the time).

Conventional wisdom says to pick Foreman and I'll go by that. Don't expect me to put money though. It would be an interesting fight to see and I even think Tyson would win round 1.

[hobgoblin]

As for avoiding Foreman - you should keep your risk / reward ratio as low as possible. In the case of Foreman - the ratio was low. If anyone knows something about styles and boxings and match ups - it is Tyson. I think he knew beforehand that Holyfield and Lewis were either going to win or were very dangerous - he knowingly took that when seeing a loss. So it isn't that he is trying to avoid fights where he knows he has little chance (it is the ratio that counts - for Holy the ratio was higher as he expected Holy to be washed up, for Lewis the reward was a necessity (not IMO - just go to debter's prison or bankrupt and go to Switzerland).

[Joe E]

easy to call someone an idiot on the computer isn't it legend? just like your boy tyson no balls, no brains.get a life.

[Joe E]

call me on the phone?send me a picture?pay for you?you must be used to insulting people long distance.a real pro.come on down to chalmers ave.in the big D sometime.coward,get a job,get off welfare socialist.you should worry about the people blowing up cars in your country and start giving them the finger instead of insulting people long distance.get a life coward.

[Joe E]

mcgrain,you and conteh seem like reasoned men who make reasoned arguments.no insults, just reason.i enjoy talking boxing with the likes of you two.

[Joe E]

what time is it in england right now?don't you anything better to do?thats right your rich.i guess you got nothing better to do.get a life creep and quit sucking around the crown.

[Joe E]

i live in detroit,mi.looks we got off on the wrong foot.i thought you lived in england because of the proper english you write with.my mistake if you are'nt. you should'nt insult people legend.actually my i am a fairly decent fellow as am sure you are.long time fight fan as i go back to the mid 60s.we simply have a difference of opinion.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Chin: Foreman actually. Power, probably Foreman. But close enough to call even. It doesn't matter, in shoot outs, 'heart' always wins. :good

[cuchulain]

Fanboy insanity? no. I just realise how fucking disgustingly shitty foreman was. Foreman can't hit tyson, his looping windmill shots were so slow, its horrifying that frazier sucked so much to lose to him. Tyson slipped far better and faster shots. what's to say foreman won't go into his shell after he tastes tyson's power? foreman's power is vastly overrated, his entire reputation is beating up people with known china chins ( frazier, norton, moorer) whereas tyson was obliterating everyone including larry holmes.
lets look at it objectively

Handspeed- Tyson by several parsecs

You're probably right there (a parsec is a unit of distance, not speed)


Skill- Tyson by several hundred trillion gigaparsecs

Right again. ( a gigaparsec is a BIGGER unit, but still of distance)


Chin- Tyson again.

You're dead wrong


Power- Tyson

You couldn't be wronger !


heart- foreman

Right again , parsecs bigger.


Foreman is fucked.

Maybe.

Later, at home.

By Mrs. Foreman.

After the fight, which he wins by BRUTAL KO !


.

[cuchulain]

chin, yeah right. He was KTFO'd by Ali and Floored by Young.

I believe Tyson was , as you phrase it, KTFO by little Holy, not to mention Williams and McBride.

Let's see if he can emulate Foreman's postmenopausal glory and recapture a title.

(Anyone who brings up Tyson's victory over an ancient Holmes is grasping in the credibility department.)

[cuchulain]

chin, yeah right. He was KTFO'd by Ali and Floored by Young.


Is that the same Ali who was the GOAT?

[cuchulain]

the distance between tyson and foreman in terms of handspeed is beyond infinity.

Hand speed is still SPEED and is still not measured in distance.

[fists of fury]

Let's clear up some issues here.

Firstly, why it is assumed Foreman is so much stronger than Tyson? What is the basis of the claim? Ruddock (a much bigger man than Tyson) complained bitterly that Tyson was unnaturally strong at 216. He even went so far as to accuse Tyson of Steroid use.
As has been said, Tyson often offered no resistance to being tied up. Heck, he often initiated clinches. But what if he did resist? Look at the way Tyson is built - short, thick arms and legs and that massive neck. His centre of gravity is low. If he wanted to, he'd be a damn hard guy to push around, especially as 'big George' would be maybe only 5 lbs. heavier. Let's not forget that the added height adds a lot to George's (slight) mass advantage, so cubic inch for cubic inch, Tyson is actually 'bigger.'

Secondly, it's almost become a 'fact' that Tyson lacked heart. One thing I always found contradictory to that is that Tyson fought back when hurt. Bruno clobbered him with the mother of all counter hooks in the first round (1st fight) and clearly wobbled Tyson briefly. However, Tyson fought back in a slightly groggy state.
In Ruddock fight 1, Donovan landed some big consecutive shots in the 6th round and felt confident enough to push Tyson into the ropes at the bell. What happens in the 7th? Tyson stops him.
If he truly lacked heart, the momentum of those fights could have turned then and there. They didn't, and both men were stopped later. Let's not forget the one-sided beatings he took from Douglas and Lewis. He went out on his shield. Same with the Holyfield fight. A bully with no heart would have quit on his stool, like (ironically) George's mentor, Liston.

What's different to those fighters Tyson lost to and George was that they weren't there to be hit. Tyson had fleeting success against those chaps, but not sustained success. A Tyson who can find the target consistently is a happy Tyson, and there is no reason for me to think other than that he will find the target against George and often.

Another thing is that Tyson not only boasts much quicker hands and far superior overall defence, but he was so explosive and quick getting in there that his opponents often could not get off in time. Bruno and a number of others remarked just how quick Tyson was getting inside, and that they could not get off before being clobbered. Where was Bruno's great jab in their fights? Why didn't he use it more?
Because Tyson was too damn quick getting in, that's why.
Sorry, but those slow, lumbering punchers like Bruno, Ruddock and - yes - Foreman never posed a problem for Tyson. Never.
Tyson was beaten either by guys employing a clever strategy (Holyfield) who had the chin and determination to carry it out, or by boxing him and not allowing him to get set, like Douglas and Lennox did. (And either version of Tyson then was hardly vintage Tyson in any case)
To beat Tyson, you needed to drag him into deep water, and that takes courage, intelligence, patience and discipline.
Goerge had courage sure, but he was wild and indisciplined. His 'strategy' was to hit the other guy, and that's as far as his cognitive process went.
His stamina (I believe) was pretty good but he didn't pace himself, and he often gassed later in a fight.

Chin? Foreman's chin was very good, but he could be knocked out and hurt. Lyle had Foreman in all sorts of trouble early on, and I believe that the bell in the 4th saved Foreman from a knockout.
Evander wobbled George badly with a single, hard shot in the 9th round (or was it the 10th) and Big Goerge was in all kinds of trouble at the bell. I'd say Tyson's chin was at least as good. He lost by KO after sustaining some monster shots or being worn down. Even after taking Lewis' best shots, Tyson was still coherent when counted out. He wasn't on queer street like he was against Douglas, who hit him with 5 pinpoint power shots for the KO late in the fight.
For me, a good three punch pinpoint combo is far more discombobulating than a single, hard power shot from anybody, including Foreman. George had immense power but the delivery wasn't there. Punches werent timed well or elivered with any real accuracy. That's why so many fighters repeatedly got up after being knocked down by Foreman.
For me, Tyson's rapier combinations were far more destructive overall, but that's not to say he wasn't heavy-handed. He most certainly was.

But, all Foreman has to do is walk through Tyson and 'push him around.' Right?

[fists of fury]

Chin.

Mike Tyson was knocked the fuck out by Evander Holyfield.

George Foreman absorbed Holyfield's best bombs without even being seriously wobbled, and he was forty-two years old when he did it.

Yeah, that's all for that.

Oh c'mon.
Firstly you're comparing Foreman in the 90's here. Apples and oranges to 70's Foreman mate. 90's Foreman was a totally different (and better fighter to 70's version. Besides, Foreman's forearms took a lot of the heat off Holyfield's combos. Many of his shots also landed high on Foreman's head.
When Holy caught him clean on the button in the 9th, Foreman's legs went in different directions.
You were saying?

[JohnThomas1]

chin, yeah right. He was KTFO'd by Ali and Floored by Young.

He wasn't KTFO vs Ali, he possibly could have got up. Exhaustion defeated him not his chin.

[cuchulain]

Let's clear up some issues here.

Firstly, why it is assumed Foreman is so much stronger than Tyson? What is the basis of the claim? Ruddock (a much bigger man than Tyson) complained bitterly that Tyson was unnaturally strong at 216. He even went so far as to accuse Tyson of Steroid use.
As has been said, Tyson often offered no resistance to being tied up. Heck, he often initiated clinches. But what if he did resist? Look at the way Tyson is built - short, thick arms and legs and that massive neck. His centre of gravity is low. If he wanted to, he'd be a damn hard guy to push around, especially as 'big George' would be maybe only 5 lbs. heavier. Let's not forget that the added height adds a lot to George's (slight) mass advantage, so cubic inch for cubic inch, Tyson is actually 'bigger.'

Tua, by that reasoning would be bigger than Lewis, but he was unable to impose himself there.

Secondly, it's almost become a 'fact' that Tyson lacked heart. One thing I always found contradictory to that is that Tyson fought back when hurt. Bruno clobbered him with the mother of all counter hooks in the first round (1st fight) and clearly wobbled Tyson briefly. However, Tyson fought back in a slightly groggy state.
In Ruddock fight 1, Donovan landed some big consecutive shots in the 6th round and felt confident enough to push Tyson into the ropes at the bell. What happens in the 7th? Tyson stops him.
If he truly lacked heart, the momentum of those fights could have turned then and there. They didn't, and both men were stopped later. Let's not forget the one-sided beatings he took from Douglas and Lewis. He went out on his shield. Same with the Holyfield fight. A bully with no heart would have quit on his stool, like (ironically) George's mentor, Liston.

Went out on his shield ??

He went out on a munch fest against Holy, and tried to put a hickey on McBride's nipple.

Very dignified !



What's different to those fighters Tyson lost to and George was that they weren't there to be hit. Tyson had fleeting success against those chaps, but not sustained success. A Tyson who can find the target consistently is a happy Tyson, and there is no reason for me to think other than that he will find the target against George and often.

And George did OK against the swarming Frazier, almost launching him into orbit. (IMO, a blueprint of a potential Foreman Tyson bout. Cus D'amato, Tyson's mentor, wisely told him how this thing would go)

Another thing is that Tyson not only boasts much quicker hands and far superior overall defence, but he was so explosive and quick getting in there that his opponents often could not get off in time. Bruno and a number of others remarked just how quick Tyson was getting inside, and that they could not get off before being clobbered. Where was Bruno's great jab in their fights? Why didn't he use it more?
Because Tyson was too damn quick getting in, that's why.
Sorry, but those slow, lumbering punchers like Bruno, Ruddock and - yes - Foreman never posed a problem for Tyson. Never.

None of those guys HIT like George. Watch the Frazier or Roman fights.


Tyson was beaten either by guys employing a clever strategy (Holyfield) who had the chin and determination to carry it out, or by boxing him and not allowing him to get set, like Douglas and Lennox did. (And either version of Tyson then was hardly vintage Tyson in any case)

The Tyson who fought Douglas was at his peak prime.

To beat Tyson, you needed to drag him into deep water, and that takes courage, intelligence, patience and discipline.
Goerge had courage sure, but he was wild and indisciplined. His 'strategy' was to hit the other guy, and that's as far as his cognitive process went.
His stamina (I believe) was pretty good but he didn't pace himself, and he often gassed later in a fight.

Chin? Foreman's chin was very good, but he could be knocked out and hurt. Lyle had Foreman in all sorts of trouble early on, and I believe that the bell in the 4th saved Foreman from a knockout.

Evander wobbled George badly with a single, hard shot in the 9th round (or was it the 10th) and Big Goerge was in all kinds of trouble at the bell.

Now you're REALLY grasping. That was a postmenopausal George in his second career. Match that George with a similarly aged Tyson (He'll get there on Oct 9, next year), and you'll get a first round annhialation of Mike.

I'd say Tyson's chin was at least as good. He lost by KO after sustaining some monster shots or being worn down. Even after taking Lewis' best shots, Tyson was still coherent when counted out.
He wasn't on queer street like he was against Douglas, who hit him with 5 pinpoint power shots for the KO late in the fight.

Mike never tasted Lennox's best shots. Watch the fight.

For me, a good three punch pinpoint combo is far more discombobulating than a single, hard power shot from anybody, including Foreman.

Tell that to Joe Frazier, Ken Norton and the 23 other dudes who never heard the bell to end round 2 in Foreman's prime days before his rumble.

George had immense power but the delivery wasn't there.

See blue comment two lines up, again !


Punches werent timed well or elivered with any real accuracy. That's why so many fighters repeatedly got up after being knocked down by Foreman.
For me, Tyson's rapier combinations were far more destructive overall, but that's not to say he wasn't heavy-handed. He most certainly was.

But, all Foreman has to do is walk through Tyson and 'push him around.' Right?

Yep.

Watch the Frazier fight.

Don't take my word for it.

Heed Cus.

[fists of fury]

1) Dude , what do Tua and Lewis have to do with this? Lewis did not wade into Tua. This is so irrelevant.

2) The Frazier fight is not a blueprint for beating Tyson.

3) You're missing the point. HITTING means nothing unless you land. I bet Tyson initiates most of the exchanges due to getting inside quickly and landing.

4) Fine, I'll leave 90's George out of this. But the pro-George brigade must do the same.

5) Tyson took a number of hard, flush shots in his career. Ruddock, Bruno, Lewis etc. He absorbed sustained beatings from Douglas and Evander who are at least respectable hitters. If Douglas landed that often on George, the same result happens as what happened to Tyson.
How do you know Foreman's shots were any harder than Ruddock's 'smash'?

6) Why did so many of George's opponents get up after getting knocked down? Frazier got up SIX times. By comparison, Tyson floored a guy 3 times with one punch. How many times did George do that?

7) I stand by my claim that Foreman was a big hitter that lacked accuracy and timing to a large degree. He didn't use proper leverage sometimes, and would 'arm punch' often.
Tyson, in the same league as Foreman for power, has vastly superior timing and accuracy as well as speed.

8) Would you mind using another colour? That light blue is hard to read...
(I'm using default style)

[My dinner with Conteh]

2) The Frazier fight is not a blueprint for beating Tyson.


Oh, but Ruddock and Bruno is the blueprint for beating foreman. I get it now. :good

[My dinner with Conteh]

5) Tyson took a number of hard, flush shots in his career. Ruddock, Bruno, Lewis etc. He absorbed sustained beatings from Douglas and Evander who are at least respectable hitters. If Douglas landed that often on George, the same result happens as what happened to Tyson.


He totally gave up against Lewis after about round two. It's one thing taking shots that you've anticipated because you're standing still like a punch bag, it's another to actually risk all by going for broke and risking walking into an unexpected bomb. He quit winning the fight very early vs Lewis- and gave up winning after the first knockdown against Evander.

[Robbi]

He wasn't KTFO vs Ali, he possibly could have got up. Exhaustion defeated him not his chin.

Foreman never hit the canvas due to exhaustion. Even though he may well have been tired, Ali's four punch combination was the main reason he hit the canvas, not tiredness. Exhaustion?. This is boxing afterall. Physically and mentally probably the toughest sport on the planet.

His chin defeated him, as it was punches that put him on the canvas. Exhaustion played a part in his inability taking the punches, and obviously getting up. But thats all what having a good chin and recovery powers are all about. Many fighters get knocked down while exhausted, and many stay up.

I'm not saying Foreman had a glass jaw, not by any means. But his chin let in down in Zaire that night.

[JohnThomas1]

Foreman never hit the canvas due to exhaustion. Even though he may well have been tired, Ali's four punch combination was the main reason he hit the canvas, not tiredness. Exhaustion?. This is boxing afterall. Physically and mentally probably the toughest sport on the planet.

His chin defeated him, as it was punches that put him on the canvas. Exhaustion played a part in his inability taking the punches, and obviously getting up. But thats all what having a good chin and recovery powers are all about. Many fighters get knocked down while exhausted, and many stay up.

I'm not saying Foreman had a glass jaw, not by any means. But his chin let in down in Zaire that night.

I don't agree Foreman's chin defeated him. The man was totally stuffed by the end due to many factors, including Ali's brilliance that night. However Ali could have hit Foreman with the same volley of punches early on and George would never have been out of there. Foreman took some great hooks from Frazier including numerous bombs in his old age comeback. The man has an A class chin IMO. Regardless of Foreman's chin, Ali was up on points and always going to dominate from then on. It wasn't George's chin, it was Ali's class.

[JohnThomas1]

George's stamina and tactics in hindsight is what helped him to defeat. Hindsight is wonderful tho, most of the world predicted a Foreman blowout. Personally i don't think this fight was going to be George's no matter what his gameplan. This was Ali's night.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Foreman was beaten by an Ali mind-fuck. Tyson didn't posses such skills. :D

[Robbi]

I don't agree Foreman's chin defeated him. The man was totally stuffed by the end due to many factors, including Ali's brilliance that night. However Ali could have hit Foreman with the same volley of punches early on and George would never have been out of there. Foreman took some great hooks from Frazier including numerous bombs in his old age comeback. The man has an A class chin IMO. Regardless of Foreman's chin, Ali was up on points and always going to dominate from then on. It wasn't George's chin, it was Ali's class.

It was not a lightning strike from the Zaire sky that put Foreman on the canvas. I do agree throughout his career that Foreman's chin was solid, but it let him down against Ali. You could say many fighters can take punches better during the early rounds rather than the late rounds. Thats obvious. I'm afraid it was Ali's class and Foreman's chin.

As I said in my earlier post, having a great chin is not all about absorbing shots when fresh during early rounds, but the mid-late rounds as well when exhausted. Foreman never showed any recovery powers whatsoever either, as he never got up.

If Foreman's chin never defeated him, how did he hit the canvas?. The bottom line here is clean power punches put him on the canvas, yet you claim his chin never defeated him.

The points you make regarding Foreman being defeated against Ali are part and parcel of the game. Exhaustion and an opponents class.

You totally disregard his chin against Ali, not sure why. Quote "It wasn't George's chin".

[Stonehands89]

mcgrain,you and conteh seem like reasoned men who make reasoned arguments.no insults, just reason.i enjoy talking boxing with the likes of you two.

Joeezzard, this forum has a surplus of reasonable posters who craft good arguments. I'd list them but there are too many to remember. Most of the newer posters make an effort to contribute something worthwhile too... there are only a few dimwits out here who try to step on others to look bigger. They reveal themselves for who they are.

I love the knowledge and the great debates that erupt out here, but another highlight is when the two-bit hecklers and dimwits get what's coming to them. (Conteh just gave us a show at the expense of one of them.) Their attempts to get up from such bombs are reminiscent of Trevor Berbeck circa 1986.

[fists of fury]

Oh, but Ruddock and Bruno is the blueprint for beating foreman. I get it now. :good

No, I didn't say that at all. I used those two as examples of fighters who were similarly built to George, with some similar characteristics. Bruno could not get off against Tyson and Ruddock found Tyson unbelievably strong.
You must admit though, that people always see Frazier as the blueprint for beating Tyson. That tells me they haven't been paying attention.

[My dinner with Conteh]

No, I didn't say that at all. I used those two as examples of fighters who were similarly built to George, with some similar characteristics. Bruno could not get off against Tyson and Ruddock found Tyson unbelievably strong.
You must admit though, that people always see Frazier as the blueprint for beating Tyson. That tells me they haven't been paying attention.


Fair enough, they do. But I, like they, fancy George to beat up a guy 5 ft 10 or so, especially if it's a trade off- and that's that. But Bruno was absolutely petrified of Tyson- totally shit his pants. Bad example. Ruddock had a go- but he ended up being beaten by virtually all the top level fighters he fought.

[JohnThomas1]

It was not a lightning strike from the Zaire sky that put Foreman on the canvas. I do agree throughout his career that Foreman's chin was solid, but it let him down against Ali.

Foreman survived much bigger shots than Ali hit him with. It was mental and physical exhaustion as much as anything that derailed him in Zaire.

You could say many fighters can take punches better during the early rounds rather than the late rounds. Thats obvious. I'm afraid it was Ali's class and Foreman's chin.

You can also say quite confidently that Foreman tired easier than most great fighters. Take it to the bank. Ali let him pound away round after round for a reason, then when the time was right, bam.

As I said in my earlier post, having a great chin is not all about absorbing shots when fresh during early rounds, but the mid-late rounds as well when exhausted.

So if a guy just collapses from utter exhaustion after his opponent misses and can't get up he has a weak chin, right? SRR's chin let him down vs Maxim when he was reeling all over the ring right? You do realise the conditions Foreman and Ali fought under?

Foreman never showed any recovery powers whatsoever either, as he never got up.

From memory Foreman suggested he could have got up but had nothing left to give basically, but you might be able to enlighten me. He sure showed plenty of recuperative powers when getting up vs Ron Lyle, incidently a harder hitter than Ali. The difference? Foreman wasn't anywhere near as tired

;)

If Foreman's chin never defeated him, how did he hit the canvas?. The bottom line here is clean power punches put him on the canvas, yet you claim his chin never defeated him.

Clean power punches and mental and physical exhaustion put him on the canvas. Factor in the conditions and George's tendancies and it is all too clear.

The points you make regarding Foreman being defeated against Ali are part and parcel of the game. Exhaustion and an opponents class.

The points i make as well as the new ones above are also very relevant here. George didn't suddenly have a one night stand with a weak chin.

You totally disregard his chin against Ali, not sure why. Quote "It wasn't George's chin".

Fair go Robbi. That might be the most blatant effort at selective quoting i have ever seen mate.

[Robbi]

Foreman survived much bigger shots than Ali hit him with. It was mental and physical exhaustion as much as anything that derailed him in Zaire.



You can also say quite confidently that Foreman tired easier than most great fighters. Take it to the bank. Ali let him pound away round after round for a reason, then when the time was right, bam.



So if a guy just collapses from utter exhaustion after his opponent misses and can't get up he has a weak chin, right? SRR's chin let him down vs Maxim when he was reeling all over the ring right? You do realise the conditions Foreman and Ali fought under?



From memory Foreman suggested he could have got up but had nothing left to give basically, but you might be able to enlighten me. He sure showed plenty of recuperative powers when getting up vs Ron Lyle, incidently a harder hitter than Ali. The difference? Foreman wasn't anywhere near as tired

;)



Clean power punches and mental and physical exhaustion put him on the canvas. Factor in the conditions and George's tendancies and it is all too clear.



The points i make as well as the new ones above are also very relevant here. George didn't suddenly have a one night stand with a weak chin.



Fair go Robbi. That might be the most blatant effort at selective quoting i have ever seen mate.

If a fighter misses punches and collapses due to exhaustion, then obviously he doesn't have a weak chin. Punches need to hit someones chin for anyones chin to be rated.

I'm not saying Foreman never survived bigger shots than Ali hit him with, as Lyle and Frazier among others clearly hit harder than Ali did. I did state in my earlier post that it was a combination of Foreman being physically exhausted combined with Ali's class which resulted in the knockout.

But my point is showing a good chin on any given night is about taking punches throughtout a fight, whether it be the early rounds or late rounds when not as fresh.

My whole point JT, you seem to think "it wasn't Georges chin", it was due to fatigue. Being exhausted is part of the game I'm afraid.

[JohnThomas1]

My whole point JT, you seem to think "it wasn't Georges chin", it was due to fatigue. Being exhausted is part of the game I'm afraid.

Were the conditions that night different to Foreman's other fights would you say? Was it just an average night to slug it out on, or was it different from the norm?

[Robbi]

Were the conditions that night different to Foreman's other fights would you say? Was it just an average night to slug it out on, or was it different from the norm?

Lets just say a world heavyweight champion from the USA fights in Manilla or Zaire during the 1970's. Over 100 degrees mostly every fight. He losses his title by knockout during the 8th round of a high paced fight, then tries to regain it 6 months later and losses again by knockout during the 10th. He becomes a journeyman and decides to resume his career in the same country he previously lost both fights. He suffers knockout defeats yet again.

You honestly think people would say "well he never had a bad chin, it was due to being exhausted in the heat".

Because Foreman showed a great chin throughout his career, you can't solely put his knockout defeat against Ali down to conditions and being exhausted. His chin let him down that night.


Gok2z-mWaeM

[fists of fury]

Just to interject here, I don't think Foreman's stamina was as bad as people think it was. He threw 125 punches in the 7th round alone, in that awful, oppressive heat. Those are big numbers.
George's problem was that he lacked the discipline to pace himself. Personally, I think the conditions (and George's lack of foresight) played a big role in the KO, although Ali's punches obviously has something to do with it too.
On a cooler evening, Ali would be hard-pressed to repeat the trick, although it's not impossible.

[Robbi]

JT. We both make good points. I'll call its evens with you.

[fists of fury]

Quitter. :hey

[JohnThomas1]

Because Foreman showed a great chin throughout his career, you can't solely put his knockout defeat against Ali down to conditions and being exhausted. His chin let him down that night.
Gok2z-mWaeM

The comparison was a little lame. Not even ballpark.

But, tell me when George fought any other time under the same oppressive conditions. Let alone vs the class of a fired up Ali. Didn't happen.

I'll also let you in on a secret. A VERY prominent authority stated that in training for Ali all George wanted to do was chop wood and hit the heavy bag. This authority said that tho his punches got to the point where they were almost bursting the bag (and the sound apparently was awe inspiring) they were never going to hit an Ali. His punches got harder, but also slower and wider. There was a bit of dissention in the Foreman camp they say. Such a training regimen, allied to George's average stamina, the heat and humidity, and Ali's class, spelt D-O-O-M.

[Robbi]

Quitter. :hey

Conditions, exhaustion, and other factors like taking punches are all part of the game. It would be great if everyone's chin was judged on a particular night when air conditioning and slow paced fights were the only factors taking in the equation.

Foreman's chin aint up for debate in Zaire it seems.

[Robbi]

JT. Talking about Ali v Foreman. What do you think about this recent nonsense coming out through the press that George was drugged before the fight?.

Maybe thats another point you could use to go along with heat and exhaustion. I'm pretty sure a large gust of wind from the South Atlantic Ocean was sweeping across the Congo around the same time as the 8th round. If you watch the youtube video a few hats are being blown of peoples heads in the crowd. What i will concede however, being drugged certainly ain't part of the game.

[JohnThomas1]

JT. Talking about Ali v Foreman. What do you think about this recent nonsense coming out through the press that George was drugged before the fight?.

Maybe thats another point you could use to go along with heat and exhaustion. I'm pretty sure a large gust of wind from the South Atlantic Ocean was sweeping across the Congo around the same time as the 8th round. If you watch the youtube video a few hats are being blown of peoples heads in the crowd. What i will concede however, being drugged certainly ain't part of the game.

Hahahaha, i'm not that desperate Robbi. I think George is fulla shit on this one. However the severe heat and humidity is factual. As is Ali's undeniable greatness. As is the the steel in George's chin.

[Joe E]

thanks stone hands!!!!

[Robbi]

Hahahaha, i'm not that desperate Robbi. I think George is fulla shit on this one. However the severe heat and humidity is factual. As is Ali's undeniable greatness. As is the the steel in George's chin.

The severe heat and humidity is factual. Ali's undeniable greatness comes under the same context, however the steel of Foreman's chin turned to copper in Zaire. Not quite plastic or balsa wood, but copper.

Exhaustion being part of the game is factual as well. And when matches are staged outdoors, expect all kinds of weather. Factual. Humidity obviously plays a part in fighters becoming tired sooner rather than later, but I'm not one for excuses. Especially after a fighter gets smacked with a four punch combination and doesn't rise from the canvas.

If Ali and Foreman fought indoors at the Mandalay Bay and the same result happened, would you concede the Mummys chin let him down?.

[My dinner with Conteh]

How would you describe Ali's chin?

[Robbi]

How would you describe Ali's chin?

Throughout his career he showed a great chin. He was never knocked out. Every time he hit the canavas, he got back up to resume combat. Three times out of four he got up to win inside the distance. Banks, Cooper, and Wepner. Combine that with taking the bombs of Foreman, Shavers and Norton, and you have chin worthy of praise.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Throughout his career he showed a great chin. He was never knocked out. Every time he hit the canavas, he got back up to resume combat. Three times out of four he got up to win inside the distance. Banks, Cooper, and Wepner. Combine that with taking the bombs of Foreman, Shavers and Norton, and you have chin worthy of praise.


His chin wasn't steel the night of the Cooper fight, he didn't know where he was. He was certainly more separated from his senses than Foreman was (who was clearly looking towards his corner and he/they mis-timed the count). Clay was badly stunned vs Cooper, the bell gave him 70 seconds rest and he got up of his stool at one stage, to put a bit of life back into his legs no doubt. Dundee pushes him down onto his stool as if to say 'the round's only just ended'.

[Mike South]

D'Amato told Tyson no fighter of his style in history would beat Foreman and i tend to agree. Foreman by stoppage around the time dinner says.

I agree with both Cus and Mike Tyson and (John Thomas). Tyson can swarm all he wants, Foreman will push his 218 lbs butt back to arms length and knock him out exactly one round after Tyson realises he's going to lose.

[Robbi]

His chin wasn't steel the night of the Cooper fight, he didn't know where he was. He was certainly more separated from his senses than Foreman was (who was clearly looking towards his corner and he/they mis-timed the count). Clay was badly stunned vs Cooper, the bell gave him 70 seconds rest and he got up of his stool at one stage, to put a bit of life back into his legs no doubt. Dundee pushes him down onto his stool as if to say 'the round's only just ended'.

And Dundee tore part of his glove to get more time. Even though Ali got up reasonably fast, he was on queer street for sure. Sweeping left hook clean as a whistle. Dundee also broke open an ammonia capsule to try and bring Ali around again. If you watch the video, you can clearly see Ali come to life again after Dundee held it under his nose. His eyes went from from being glared to alert within seconds.

Being seperated from your senses is one thing, getting up and coming back to win is another. Getting up and coming back to win does as well as it possibly can when papering over the cracks.

[JohnThomas1]

Getting up and coming back to win does as well as it possibly can when papering over the cracks.

Foreman - Lyle, minus the exhaustion

:D

[Robbi]

Foreman - Lyle, minus the exhaustion

:D

That would have been some fight. Possibily a 15 rounder with Foreman taking everything Lyle threw at him, depending how Lyle's chin held up of course it would be a bomb for bomb fest over the distance. I'm pretty sure Foreman's chin was as solid as the rock of gibraltar that night as well, although his chin never let him down it was exhaustion and the humidity.

[Joe E]

ali took a good shot.i remember watching the shavers fight.earnie hit him with a right hand flush on the jaw,spun his head 90 degrees.alis' legs buckled slightly then he moved out of range.yeah,i would say he took a good shot.

[JohnThomas1]

That would have been some fight. Possibily a 15 rounder with Foreman taking everything Lyle threw at him, depending how Lyle's chin held up of course it would be a bomb for bomb fest over the distance. I'm pretty sure Foreman's chin was as solid as the rock of gibraltar that night as well, although his chin never let him down it was exhaustion and the humidity.

Well at least Big George finally came clean very recently and told us he was actually drugged befor the fight. Little wonder he tired so fast and fell over at the end!!!

[My dinner with Conteh]

Well at least Big George finally came clean very recently and told us he was actually drugged befor the fight. Little wonder he tired so fast and fell over at the end!!!


It's true, Bundini did the old "Look up there" trick and Moore and Sadler immediately looked around and Drew poured some Muhammad Ali Cologne in Foreman's bottle, and George, being a guy that couldn't take his ale, was drunk on the alcohol content.*




* This is true. I only deal with truth nuggets as you know. :p

[JohnThomas1]

It's true, Bundini did the old "Look up there" trick and Moore and Sadler immediately looked around and Drew poured some Muhammad Ali Cologne in Foreman's bottle, and George, being a guy that couldn't take his ale, was drunk on the alcohol content.*




* This is true. I only deal with truth nuggets as you know. :p

Exactly! dinner - a man who tells it like it is! Didn't Ali do the witchdoctor thing too? I mean how is Big Daddy's granite chin going to be up to it's normal sterling (hardened, of course) self when some buggers been sticking pins in it!

[My dinner with Conteh]

Exactly! dinner - a man who tells it like it is! Didn't Ali do the witchdoctor thing too? I mean how is Big Daddy's granite chin going to be up to it's normal sterling (hardened, of course) self when some buggers been sticking pins in it!


Ha ha Poor George. The fight was delayed by a month too as we know, because of a cut- in reality it was a series of cuts.



[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Poor Georgie. :-(

[JohnThomas1]

Ha ha Poor George. The fight was delayed by a month too as we know, because of a cut- in reality it was a series of cuts.



[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Poor Georgie. :-(

LMGFAO!!!!!!

[Robbi]

Foreman - Lyle, minus the exhaustion

:D
Guess what fight I watched last night. Foreman v Lyle. After his loss in Zaire, and this being his very next fight around 15 months later, he done well to come back from two knockdowns to stop Lyle. The second knockdown, Foreman was flat on his face and looked as if he'd been shot from a masked sniper in the crowd. This sure was a legalised streetfight. Foreman's legs turned to jelly when Lyle smacked him at long range with a right hand during the first round.

[JIm Broughton]

Big George in 3. Tyson discouraged easily and a few haymakers from Forerman would Have Mike reaching for the antidepressants and his corner the smelling salts.

[ironchamp]

Big George in 3. Tyson discouraged easily and a few haymakers from Forerman would Have Mike reaching for the antidepressants and his corner the smelling salts.

Tyson was never in any fight in his career discouraged by his oppnent landing big on him. Tyson loved to fight. If he was ever discouraged in his career it was because he was unable to land his shots and he was subsequently outmanuvered and therefore beaten.

Foreman had a lesser chin.

Foreman's power was equal to Tyson in terms of effectiveness. Tyson was a better composite puncher, no if ands or buts.

Tyson's handspeed combination punching will ensure that he gets to Foreman early and often and because of that I dont see George surviving.

Tyson was as complacent as his opponent allowed him to be; when pressed or caught with a big punch Tyson came back swinging and landing eventually breaking his opponents down.

Look at Tyson Ruddock I round 6. Tyson smiled after taking a combination from Razor, and he waved his hand signaling for more. Considering Ruddock's power, especially in his smash I have a very difficult time believing that Tyson would falter just because Foreman landed a big punch.

[josak]

win or lose Foreman would take a lot of punches to the noggin before the fight was over.

[Kampioni]

Tyson.

[josak]

Tyson was never in any fight in his career discouraged by his oppnent landing big on him. Tyson loved to fight. If he was ever discouraged in his career it was because he was unable to land his shots and he was subsequently outmanuvered and therefore beaten.

Foreman had a lesser chin.

Foreman's power was equal to Tyson in terms of effectiveness. Tyson was a better composite puncher, no if ands or buts.

Tyson's handspeed combination punching will ensure that he gets to Foreman early and often and because of that I dont see George surviving.

Tyson was as complacent as his opponent allowed him to be; when pressed or caught with a big punch Tyson came back swinging and landing eventually breaking his opponents down.

Look at Tyson Ruddock I round 6. Tyson smiled after taking a combination from Razor, and he waved his hand signaling for more. Considering Ruddock's power, especially in his smash I have a very difficult time believing that Tyson would falter just because Foreman landed a big punch.
yes I remember that, Ruddock hit Tyson with a huge shot. Tyson said "hit me again" . Similiar thing happened when he took a right hand from Larry Holmes. I've seen prime Tyson take a lot of punches, but he ALWAYS walked right through them without even flinching. He had an iron jaw.

Foreman may possibly overpower and take out tyson as he did frazier, but he'd take a lot of punches in the process. Tyson's speed and countering punching ability would be a problem for him.

[AnthonyJ74]

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?

I think so. Tyson was much better defensively than Frazier, and I don't think Foreman would be able to hit Tyson the same way he did Frazier.

[SteveO]

Foreman by late KO in a closely scored fight.

[AnthonyJ74]

Foreman beats Tyson any day of the week. If Mike Tyson believed he could beat George as easily as some of you guys think then old Iron Mike would have have jumped into the ring with the old guy some time between 1990 and 1997 when Foreman was active. How did we miss out on a Foreman v Tyson clash for the linear title between 1994 and 1997? Maybe George was too scared! I just don't understand why Mike Tyson "the greatest heavyweight puncher in history" didn't seize the chance of a mega bucks match with the Fighting Fossil. Can any of you Tyson fans explain it, because from what I read you guys seem to think Mike would flatten a peak George in no time.

Fighting Foreman wouldn't have proved anything for Tyson. I think Tyson proved more by fighting someone like Razor Ruddock, a guy who practically everybody in the division was avoiding at the time, including Foreman!

[AnthonyJ74]

Same way he did when Cooney nailed him with that massive hook of his. I don't believe Mike had the kind of firepower Gerry could generate on his hook with his substantial height and build. Mike wasn't able to drop Green, Smith or Tucker, none of whom were particularly mobile cuties, and all of whom I think George could have taken out. If Mike managed to catch George, he'd wake up the sleeping giant, rather than sending him to dreamworld. Once Foreman was roused into a sense of urgency by a slugging confrontation, his opponent's number of seconds in an upright position declined precipitiously. Tyson had outstanding speed, which he would need to use in trying to keep George in a defensive shell. That might become problematic once Foreman places his mitts on Mike's broad low shoulders, then shoves down and away. (This is one area where Joe Louis would have an enormous advantage over Mike, when it came to neutralizing George's shoving tactics. When facing his opponent, the Bomber could seemingly narrow himself enough to squeeze through a needle. He could have managed to slip through Foreman's paws on the way in.)

Cooney never hit Foreman with a massive hook. He landed a short left hook in close that looked like half an arm punch. George had a good chin, but he could be hurt. And not many fighters were better "effective punchers" than was Tyson.

[anut]

foreman by tko.........in 7 rds.///// bad style 4 tyson

[Guido]

Source?

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

"The type of opponent who gives Tyson at his peak the most trouble are the bigger sized sluggers like Sonny Liston and George Foreman, or an exceptional quick handed out-boxer like Muhammad Ali. Foreman, in particular, is a bad match up for Tyson. Foreman was at his best against short, stocky pressure fighters who came to him. Although Tyson had superior, speed and power as compared to Joe Frazier he would still be right in front of George and few men in history would be able to stand up to Foreman in a slugfest and hope to survive.

Writer Frank Lotierzo was told by Ronnie Lott that Tyson used to watch the film of Frazier-Foreman (I) with his mentor Cus D'Amato, who had no idea Foreman could one day be a Tyson opponent. Cus used to tell Tyson that no heavyweight who ever lived could beat Foreman by going to him, and swarmers like Dempsey, Marciano, and Frazier couldn't beat him in a million years. Tyson never forgot it and when the opportunity came for them to fight in 1991 Tyson was not interested. Liston matches up similarly to Tyson and Mike once said that the only great heavyweight he ever saw that would intimidate him is “Sonny Liston.” With the mental battle already won there is little doubt as to the outcome of a Tyson-Liston match up."


Source: Monte D. Cox ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[ripcity]

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?
I think a better question is could Foreman survive Tyson;s onslaught? I beleve that Tyson would win within the first 3 rounds. Foreman was an outstanding puncher but from the videos I have seen of him he lacks defence. I think the old man version of Foreman with his peekaboo style defence would last longer with Tyson at his best and might even hear the bell that ends round 12 but I still think Tyson would win. I think eaither verson of Foreman has a very good chance to beat a post prison Tyson.

[janitor]

I think so. Tyson was much better defensively than Frazier,

I dont agree.

Frazier was faster and more active with his head movment if not as refined.

[janitor]

Please, anyone with a pulse could time frazier, he was a predictable as the tides.

He also sliped punches faster than Roberto Duran and he was a heavyweight.

[janitor]

Bullshit. Frazier is about as fast as molasses.

Compare the number of punches slipped per round between Frazier and Duran.

Frazier slipped an average of 23 per round in the FOTC.

Tyson and Durans best performences were at around 12 per round.

Dont underestimat Frazier.

[rodney]

Young George agains young Mike.
Forman too big and too strong.
Tyson eats Formans jabs till the end.
Forman also the harder hitter.
Tyson is no Muhammed Ali.

[janitor]

Tyson and Duran also had offences that discouraged their opponents from throwing. Frazier had a left hook.

More a left tommy gun.

He actualy had a right hand as well.

[rodney]

He also sliped punches faster than Roberto Duran and he was a heavyweight.

Slipping punches better than Duran ????
Now you need an education.
Duran slipped, bopped, weaved, and rolled with punches effortlessly.
Very smooth.
He slipped and changed weight , making his opponent miss by hairs and inches.
Tyson would make his opponent with by a foot.
Not very efficient.
Tyson, although very quick, never did do it right.
Used way to much energy, very stiff, and way too exagerated.
Got away with it only because he was very quick and most of his opponents were very slow.

[janitor]

Slipping punches better than Duran ????
Now you need an education.
Duran slipped, bopped, weaved, and rolled with punches effortlessly.
Very smooth.
He slipped and changed weight , making his opponent miss by hairs and inches.
Tyson would make his opponent with by a foot.
Not very efficient.
Tyson, although very quick, never did do it right.
Used way to much energy, very stiff, and way too exagerated.
Got away with it only because he was very quick and most of his opponents were very slow.

I was comparing Frazier to Duran.

Now I dont dispute that Durans technique was better but Frazier was more active at slipping and did it against some fast oponents.

[radianttwilight]

Prime Tyson would shut out comeback Foreman with ease - he was far slower, lacked the killer instinct, and lacked the workrate to win rounds. 90s Tyson against 90s Foreman would be a good brawl, though. 86-88 Tyson is surely a live underdog vs. prime Foreman.

Tyson's defence, IMO, was far superior to Frazier's. Especially if we're talking about a fight with Big George.

Tyson has a better chin + more durability overall.

Tyson was a MUCH faster starter than Frazier - faster than Foreman, even.

Tyson has better two-fisted power (one could argue the left hook was better, but if we cede that), a better combination puncher, and faster of both hand and feet.

Tyson's stamina, in his prime, was above average. Talking rubbish about "Green and Smith taking him the distance" is just that...any big man who comes into a fight looking to hug and smother has a good chance of surviving. All of those men lost blowout UD's to Tyson when they fought to survive. You didn't beat Tyson by "drawing him into the late rounds", you beat him by manhandling him early (Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis). Stamina was most definately not his problem.

If Foreman wants to KO Tyson, he puts himself in danger of being KO'd himself (see Lyle).

[Bokaj]

If, as it seems, Tyson was scared of even old Foreman he would have lost for sure. Can't EVER see Tyson beating an opponent he was scared of. He himself relied on intimidation and often had a hard time against opponents who wasn't scared of him, so I don't think he would have handled that kind of fear very well himself.

I also have to say that I think it's strange that people say that Foreman's loss against Ali shows that his chin wasn't that great. It seems that people doesn't want to accept how devastating that combination (and especially the right hand that ended it) was. Maybe because they underestimate Ali's punching power. That Foreman almost beat the count after taking those punches at that stage in the fight says a lot about how great his chin was IMO.

[ironchamp]

If, as it seems, Tyson was scared of even old Foreman he would have lost for sure. Can't EVER see Tyson beating an opponent he was scared of. He himself relied on intimidation and often had a hard time against opponents who wasn't scared of him, so I don't think he would have handled that kind of fear very well himself.

I also have to say that I think it's strange that people say that Foreman's loss against Ali shows that his chin wasn't that great. It seems that people doesn't want to accept how devastating that combination (and especially the right hand that ended it) was. Maybe because they underestimate Ali's punching power. That Foreman almost beat the count after taking those punches at that stage in the fight says a lot about how great his chin was IMO.

Foreman's chin wasnt bad, but its not granite either. Its a solid chin. Personally I think Tyson has the better chin, he's taken a lot of flush shots in his losses. I would go as far as to say that Buster Douglas hit harder than Ali,Tyson took them flush, early and often. Ruddock, Bruno, Bonecrusher and Lewis at one point all landed pretty big punches on Tyson. With the exception of Lewis, Tyson was able to retaliate with his own punches and was able to dictate the pace of the fight. As long as he has the ability to do that he's not going to lose. Its really a matter of time before his opponent is broken down and knocked out. Foreman's inability to keep Tyson from landing is what will lose him the fight here. He doesnt have an elusive style but his size and strength will at the very least neutralize Tyson just enough that he lasts the distance in a one-sided points loss where Foreman lands a big shot sporadically ala the Ruddock fights. Should Foreman decide to trade, he will leave himself open and consequently make the job easier for Tyson.

At the top of thier game/absolute peak, Tyson relied on intimidation as much as Ali relied on pre-fight psychological warfare; it didnt matter if either tactic worked because they were good enough to get the job done without intimidation or psychological warfare. As for being afraid of George, fear does not matter. Foreman was afraid of Frazier and subsequently battered him in two one-sided rounds. Tyson also fought more big punchers than George and was proven against them.

[Bokaj]

At the top of thier game/absolute peak, Tyson relied on intimidation as much as Ali relied on pre-fight psychological warfare; it didnt matter if either tactic worked because they were good enough to get the job done without intimidation or psychological warfare. As for being afraid of George, fear does not matter. Foreman was afraid of Frazier and subsequently battered him in two one-sided rounds. Tyson also fought more big punchers than George and was proven against them.

I don't agree. Guys like Tucker and Douglas did well respectively very well, and P. Thomas reasonably well, against Tyson because they wasn't intimidated and stuck to their gameplan (well, Tucker more or less abandoned his gameplan for pure survival after busting his hand - but before that he looked aces to me). Of course, Tyson was by no means a walk-over for those who wasn't afraid of him, but he was more reliant on his intimidation than Ali was on his pre-fight psyche IMO, and I think their records bear this out.

Concerning how "frightened" Foreman was of Frazier, that's hard do say really. He seems to have a fondness nowadays to be magnimonuos to the guys he beat, but he evidently still have a hard time admitting Ali beat him fair and square (that re-occuring bit with him being drugged before the fight). I'm sure he was very tense and nervous before meeting Frazier, but I'm decidedly less convinced that he feared him as much as Tyson seemed to fear Foreman.

[AnthonyJ74]

Foreman's chin wasnt bad, but its not granite either. Its a solid chin. Personally I think Tyson has the better chin, he's taken a lot of flush shots in his losses. I would go as far as to say that Buster Douglas hit harder than Ali,Tyson took them flush, early and often. Ruddock, Bruno, Bonecrusher and Lewis at one point all landed pretty big punches on Tyson. With the exception of Lewis, Tyson was able to retaliate with his own punches and was able to dictate the pace of the fight. As long as he has the ability to do that he's not going to lose. Its really a matter of time before his opponent is broken down and knocked out. Foreman's inability to keep Tyson from landing is what will lose him the fight here. He doesnt have an elusive style but his size and strength will at the very least neutralize Tyson just enough that he lasts the distance in a one-sided points loss where Foreman lands a big shot sporadically ala the Ruddock fights. Should Foreman decide to trade, he will leave himself open and consequently make the job easier for Tyson.

At the top of thier game/absolute peak, Tyson relied on intimidation as much as Ali relied on pre-fight psychological warfare; it didnt matter if either tactic worked because they were good enough to get the job done without intimidation or psychological warfare. As for being afraid of George, fear does not matter. Foreman was afraid of Frazier and subsequently battered him in two one-sided rounds. Tyson also fought more big punchers than George and was proven against them.

Excellent post! You make some very good and rationale observations, and I agree with you totally!

I agree that Buster Douglas probably hit harder than Ali, and I also agree that Tyson's chin was very good. Tyson never got stopped by one or two punches. Both his stoppages to Lewis and Douglas came after he absorbed a hellacious amount of punishment. And Holyfield stopped Tyson in their first fight after landing how many solid, unanswered shots? Tyson had a chin!

And the fear factor I think is being overblown by many just as you point out. I think that most fighters go into the ring fearful of their opponent. I think a guy would have to be made of stone not to feel fear or to be afraid. But for some reason if a fighter admits his fear or is afraid all of a sudden it's some big crime. Fear is a normal human emotion, and fighters aren't immune from it.

[OBCboxer]

Foreman wins in 5 by T.K.O. It wold be a shootout until Tyson becomes discouraged because he can't get to Foreman, and eventually gets caught and knocked out.

[OBCboxer]

Tyson had too short of reach and he wouldn't be able to hit Foreman with those explosive combonations. Foreman would swing away and while Tyson moves side to side he'll get hit by one of his cinderblocks. Tyson had a great chin, but has never tasted the power of Foreman in his prime. With a steady dose of punishment Tyson finally crumples in 5 and the Ref stops it.

[Bummy Davis]

I can see Tyson getting off in an exchange and I think he has a chance at getting to George early on because of his 2 fisted power and speed but I think I still give Foreman the edge here because of mental strength. Both men can ko the other but if it comes down to the trenches, I like George

[ironchamp]

I don't agree. Guys like Tucker and Douglas did well respectively very well, and P. Thomas reasonably well, against Tyson because they wasn't intimidated and stuck to their gameplan (well, Tucker more or less abandoned his gameplan for pure survival after busting his hand - but before that he looked aces to me). Of course, Tyson was by no means a walk-over for those who wasn't afraid of him, but he was more reliant on his intimidation than Ali was on his pre-fight psyche IMO, and I think their records bear this out.

Concerning how "frightened" Foreman was of Frazier, that's hard do say really. He seems to have a fondness nowadays to be magnimonuos to the guys he beat, but he evidently still have a hard time admitting Ali beat him fair and square (that re-occuring bit with him being drugged before the fight). I'm sure he was very tense and nervous before meeting Frazier, but I'm decidedly less convinced that he feared him as much as Tyson seemed to fear Foreman.

I think my post is reflective of thier records.

Tyson was never reliant on intimidation until he felt his physical ability diminish. Just like Ali wasnt never reliant on his pre-fight hype until he lost his legs and couldnt win on talent alone.

Look at the Foreman fight where Ali is talking trash. Sure he talked trash against Earnie Terrell, but at that time he didn't need that edge in the Terrell fight against Foreman, every little thing when assessing this fight is taken into consideration from the tempature to the pro-Ali crowd, to the ropes, etc. Ali needed that edge, that psychological advantage. Look at the Lyle fight where he's clowning around hoping Lyle falls for a trap, Lyle didnt but was caught in the 11th round which was heaven sent. If you watch that fight, you cannot deny that judging the pace of the fight, it was clear that Ron Lyle was going to pull of a clear UD. Look at Shavers, that right hand that Ali took imo was one of most powerful blows that he ever took in his career and IMO he resorted to mocking Shavers and play possum to make him tentative so he would think twice about going for the Kill. Had Shavers been a better finisher, Ali wouldnt have made that 10 count. But his savvy and psychological warfare prevailed.

With Tyson there is nothing in his pre-prison career to suggest that he relied on intimidation alone. His unwavering belief in his ability and uber confidence is what won him fights when he showed up half assed. Bruno and Williams being clear examples. Now with Douglas, he didnt try to scare him or cower when he was getting beat. He took his beating all while trying to figure out a way to close the show. If you watch the fight, there is not a moment in that fight where you see any look of discouragement on his face. His blank expression was the same one that he had in the first round up until the 10th round. If you watched that fight live, and it was the middle of the 8th round, most of us had our mouths wide open almost in disbelief that Douglas can pull this off even though it was becoming more and more realistic that Tyson clearly needs a KO to win. When Tyson landed that Right uppercut dropping Douglas, I'm sure that you didnt have to be an ardent supporter to feel validated that we are blessed with Tyson who is a champion in the mold of Marciano, Louis, Ali and Holmes who overcame deficeits in unexpected challenges. Though his effort in trying to change the tide was late you can't call his determination and self belief in question.

After prison, when his body started to slow down and he was unable to pull off some of the combinations he could have done years earlier that was when intimidation became part of his game. Look at the second fight with Ruddock and you'll see foul after foul from both fighters with point deductions galore. "Funny Mathematics...." (for those who recall), Tyson never once complained or cared. Why? Because he still believed in his ability. Fight I against Ruddock, 6th Round, he gets caught with a flush smash, he didnt falter he came back with his own and in "Mayorga like" fashion offered his chin to Donovan taking another flush right in the process to close out the round. In the very next round, he stopped Ruddock.

Now, look at the first fight with Holyfield where there was lots of fouling involved but Tyson complained towards the end of round 6. It wasnt because he was losing, it was because and he knew that he is not as good as he once was and he is unable to perform like he once performed. Hell Douglas hit him on the break several times and you didnt see him going to the ref in Toyko even when he was coherent.

Thing is the Tyson mystique had finally outlived the Tyson talent and Tyson was the first to know that but to perpetuate that Tyson bandwagon he took on a persona that tried to scare opponents. Think about it, Tyson's popularity never waned in terms of PPV marketability until the public finally believed that he's no longer the guy they thought he was. Until that moment happened, his ability to draw a crowd was better than anybody in the sport. Even after Holyfield II, hell even after Lewis his ability draw was still there. There was a time Tyson was supposed to fight Oleg Maskaev in 2003 on the undercard of Lewis-Johnson (Kirk). But politics, Tyson and drama happened and Tyson had pulled out of the fight. At the time the fight was proposed ringside seats were $2600. After Tyson pulled out the ringside seats dropped to $990 even though Lewis was champ and had alraedy beaten Tyson. It wasnt until the loss to Danny Williams that his marketability faltered. Once he lost relevance as an elite fighter and was unable to carry the belief he stopped being the mean Mike Tyson. He became the tentative, babbling and to some degree eccentric man. Calling Kevin Mcbride cute, looking like a happy go lucky type at press conferences. He no longer had that intimidation thing. He dropped the persona.

Now with regards to Foreman, regardless of whether or not Tyson was actually afraid of him. It woudlnt matter, because when he was at his best, he had a level of self beilef that that wouldnt waver as a result of what his opponent is doing to him or what he thought his opponent would be able to do to him. He only cowered or resorted to dubious tactics when he felt his body is not responding, which is why his in the ring credibilty was intact pre-prison. And became sketchy post prison when he was a shell.

By the way Foreman quit against Ali not because he was incoherent, from Ali's punching but because he was mentally beaten and he didnt feel as though he had any left to offer. So Foreman isnt exactly off the hook when it comes to mental fortitude.

[AnthonyJ74]

Tyson had too short of reach and he wouldn't be able to hit Foreman with those explosive combonations. Foreman would swing away and while Tyson moves side to side he'll get hit by one of his cinderblocks. Tyson had a great chin, but has never tasted the power of Foreman in his prime. With a steady dose of punishment Tyson finally crumples in 5 and the Ref stops it.

I'm not so sure that George Foreman hit any harder than Razor Ruddock, and Mike took some mighty big wallops from him. And I think Razor has a longer reach than Foreman.

[Bokaj]

Wow, Ironchamp that was some post. Always nice to discuss with people who are backing their opinions with ambitious arguments as opposed to ambitious mudslinging. Probably we'll never agree to 100 per cent about this, but you do have som interesting points.

With that said I believe that Ali beat Foreman in the ring, not outside it. Foreman was extremely confident and looked foused and balanced enough, but he just came against someone with too much skill and guts.

I also have a different take on the Lyle fight. Yes, Lyle was slightly ahead, but he only won the rounds Ali 'gave' to him. When Ali started fighting he seemed to be able to get to Lyle every time. Yes, he played a risky game by giving away so many rounds, but he was rarely hit with any authority and when he went down to business he succesfully ended it. Even if he hadn't he would probably have taken the remaining rounds (because it was clear he had to) and walked away with the decision.

BUT you're right when saying that he relied heavier on his psychgames later in his career. The fight against Shavers is probably the best example of that.

Anyway, it would be something to see a fight between Tyson and Foreman n their respective primes. I've always tended to give Tyson the edge in that match-up earlier, but knowing D'Amato's take on it and Tyson's own feelings about it have changed my viewpoint somewhat. It still makes for a good discussion, though.

[Sardu]

Although Foreman could be vulnerable as we saw against Ali and Lyle I still would favor him slightly here. But it would not surprise me if Tyson kayoed Big George either. My gut tells me Foreman in about 5 rounds.

[ironchamp]

Wow, Ironchamp that was some post. Always nice to discuss with people who are backing their opinions with ambitious arguments as opposed to ambitious mudslinging. Probably we'll never agree to 100 per cent about this, but you do have som interesting points.

With that said I believe that Ali beat Foreman in the ring, not outside it. Foreman was extremely confident and looked foused and balanced enough, but he just came against someone with too much skill and guts.

I also have a different take on the Lyle fight. Yes, Lyle was slightly ahead, but he only won the rounds Ali 'gave' to him. When Ali started fighting he seemed to be able to get to Lyle every time. Yes, he played a risky game by giving away so many rounds, but he was rarely hit with any authority and when he went down to business he succesfully ended it. Even if he hadn't he would probably have taken the remaining rounds (because it was clear he had to) and walked away with the decision.

BUT you're right when saying that he relied heavier on his psychgames later in his career. The fight against Shavers is probably the best example of that.

Anyway, it would be something to see a fight between Tyson and Foreman n their respective primes. I've always tended to give Tyson the edge in that match-up earlier, but knowing D'Amato's take on it and Tyson's own feelings about it have changed my viewpoint somewhat. It still makes for a good discussion, though.

Thank you. Yes it does make for a great discussion.

It would make for a very entertaining fight, I think biggest thing about this fight people are taking too much stock about what D'mato said about the Foreman.

[benhazin]

If Tyson does'nt trade power shots with Foreman he would have to stay outside and box. This means Tyson would have to out jab Foreman or eat a lot of heavy leather bombs from Foreman. This is not a recipe for success for Tyson.

[mr. magoo]

If Tyson does'nt trade power shots with Foreman he would have to stay outside and box. This means Tyson would have to out jab Foreman or eat a lot of heavy leather bombs from Foreman. This is not a recipe for success for Tyson.

Agreed,

and I'll also ad that Foreman had the strength to push Tyson back, as he often tended to do with smaller fighters. This would move Tyson right into midrange where George did most of his best work.

[MGUNZ48]

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?

Interesting fight. Keep in mind a few things.

As a young man Foreman was very very fast.
Shorter, crouching, bobbing and weaving fighters were his meat. Not just Frazier. but Norton, Chuvalo, etc. He only had trouble with tall fast boxers.
The key to beating Tyson (at any age) was a heavy jab. It threw his timing off. See this in his fights with Tucker, Douglas, Lewis, and even Ruddick.
Foreman also had a very fast, and very hard upper cut. Bad news for Tyson.
Plus Tyson was knocked out but much lesser punchers than Foreman.
Tyson does not have the heart that George does. Name me one fight that Tyson came off the canvas to win?

An exciting fight, Foreman wins in 2-3 rounds, with probably both on the deck.

[AnthonyJ74]

Interesting fight. Keep in mind a few things.

As a young man Foreman was very very fast.
Shorter, crouching, bobbing and weaving fighters were his meat. Not just Frazier. but Norton, Chuvalo, etc. He only had trouble with tall fast boxers.
The key to beating Tyson (at any age) was a heavy jab. It threw his timing off. See this in his fights with Tucker, Douglas, Lewis, and even Ruddick.
Foreman also had a very fast, and very hard upper cut. Bad news for Tyson.
Plus Tyson was knocked out but much lesser punchers than Foreman.
Tyson does not have the heart that George does. Name me one fight that Tyson came off the canvas to win?

An exciting fight, Foreman wins in 2-3 rounds, with probably both on the deck.

I think it's a bit unfair to question Tyson's heart. Sure, he never got up off the canvas to win a fight, but that doesn't mean the guy didn't have heart. He absorbed a beating from Buster Douglas before being knocked out late in the fight. He was pounded by the heavy hands of Lennox Lewis before finally being KO'd late in the fight. He fought a rough and tumble series of fights with Razor Ruddock, taking some punches along the way that would have felled lesser fighters, but Tyson came out on top. And George Foreman could have just as easily been KO'd by Ron Lyle if only one more punch had landed along the way. And that wouldn't mean George had no heart, either.

George Foreman may well have beaten Tyson. I don't think he would have, but I can't fault those who think he would. George was a monster, and he would have beaten alot of great fighters. But I still think people are underestimating Tyson's quickness, speed, and boxing skill. Tyson would have the capacity to hit and hurt Foreman in ways that Joe Frazier didn't. Just as you say Foreman was at his best against short, come forward sluggers, I also think Tyson was at his best when fighting big, strong, lumbering guys who weren't the best boxers. And Foreman wouldn't hold like Bonecrusher did.

[MGUNZ48]

LOL at that retard painting george as someone with any semblence of speed. Foreman was slow. reallllllll slow. He has absolutely nothing on tyson in terms of speed.

I've been called a retard before, haha . however jackass you obviously don't know much about Foreman, or his early career. Joe Frazier said "It was Foremans speed that surprized me, especially his jab"
George Chavalo said "Foremans biggest assest is the speed of his hook off the jab". Read a few books, watch a few films and you'll see what i'm talking about genius.

[Holmes' Jab]

Tyson TKO9. :good

[mr. magoo]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

A real speed demon!

Nice tactic.

Of all the clips you could have shown, you pick the 8th round of a grueling fight, in which he was thoroughly exhausted.

[mr. magoo]

He was dominated throughout the entire fight. Ali was so old he had actually been dead for 12 years before fighting foreman, and still dominated every single second of every single round, basically raping foreman with with what little speed he had left.


Foreman is an embarassment.


[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[mr. magoo]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Nice to see you have variety..

First a youtube clip, then a photo of the exact same round.

[Bigcat]

Foreman had a very deliberate but hard to beat style when he was young.. The only way he lost to Ali was because he was ignorant enough to think he could get by without a contingency plan. He took it lightly and wound up in big trouble too late when he had the craftiest bastard on the planet stood over him when he was dog tired deep into the fight.. Tyson would offer serious troubles, but George (if he took Mike seriously) would get the win .. probably on points after a slugfest war..Not without knockdowns...

[Bokaj]

I think Foreman has gotten a bad rap because of the fight against Ali. Yes, Ali made Foreman look slow and clumsy, even before he tired, on many occassions, but Ali did the same with a lot of good fighters, even in the latter part of his career. He made Quarry look like an absolute amateur and Ellis look decidedly ordinary, and they were both fine fighters. Against Frazier Foreman looked absolutely deadly, combining extraordinary power with good speed and accuracy. He also used his jab very effectively.

And don't give me that crap about Frazier being shot. He wasn't on top of his game that night for sure, but he wasn't shot anymore than Tyson was shot against Douglas. The FOTC version probably would have given Foreman at least a little bit more trouble, but I don't think even that version of Frazier could have survived three rounds against Foreman.

I'm not a huge Foreman fan, but I think that he was quite an awesome fighter in his prime. Yes, Ali managed to make him look ordinary, but even that version of Ali could do that to many a fine fighter. I'm pretty sure that he would have made Tyson look pretty impotent on occassions as well.

[janitor]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

A real speed demon!

The hypnotoad shall behave itself or I will let my cat eat it.

[Stonehands89]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Snorlaxative's posts about Foreman are among the worst on the Classic forum. They are redundant, full of worthless invectives, and laughably biased. I suspect that they betray an insecurity about his imaginary man-lover, whose poster is taped to his ceiling just above his bed: Mike Tyson.

Mike Tyson, I am sure, would turn his back to the stuttering overtures of Snorlaxative -and not as an invitation either.

Mike Tyson, however, would not turn back the challenge of Foreman. It is very likely that Tyson would not see the final bell against the very Foreman you are seeing in the picture above. Because Mike Tyson would be knocked silly.

[Stonehands89]

You're pathetic. Go pray to your nonexistant god.
What's the matter funny boy, are you upset? Did I hurt your feelings? Are you going to cry like your hero?

Be smart like "MegaTyson (TM)", who wasn't so eager to fight Big George --don't provoke people who hit harder than you.

[MrSmall]

I can't see Foreman KOing Tyson in any fashion.

[Stonehands89]

I see by the (tm) that alt codes are just a little bit beyond you. How quaint.
In haste to return to you the scorn you heap on others, I did two things: exposed my ignorance of alt codes (which I admit I just googled) and bought myself a trip to confession during Holy Week ("bless me father for I have sinned, I wrote a vindictive post on an online boxing forum.")

[MGUNZ48]

He was dominated throughout the entire fight. Ali was so old he had actually been dead for 12 years before fighting foreman, and still dominated every single second of every single round, basically raping foreman with with what little speed he had left.


Foreman is an embarassment.


Simple question? I have now read a bunch of your foolish posts. Do you know anything about boxing? I mean other than you can see highlights of old fights on YouTube? You sound like all the bar room experts I used to meet when i was fighting? The guys who never really watched a fight, or stepped in a gym and put the gloves on themselves? But know everything?

[Mendoza]

If we are talking primes here, I side with Tyson.

Foreman was slower, had less defense, and less stamina. Tyson was more skilled on offense….by a mile. The facts about Foreman’s chin is a good puncher could floor him. Tyson harder than Ali, Young and Lyle. If Lyle was a bit more durable, he could have beaten Foreman. Tyson is not likely to be taken out early, or go down early. I’ve seen guys like Bruno, and Ruddock land hard stuff on Tyson

In boxing when two big punchers meet each other, anything can happen, but I’ll go with theguy who is most likely to land his bombs first, and most likely not to be hit by bombs.

Another thing to consider is who is likely to be in better working condition after round 6? I think Tyson.

Gimme Tyson here.

[AnthonyJ74]

If we are talking primes here, I side with Tyson.

Foreman was slower, had less defense, and less stamina. Tyson was more skilled on offense….by a mile. The facts about Foreman’s chin is a good puncher could floor him. Tyson harder than Ali, Young and Lyle. If Lyle was a bit more durable, he could have beaten Foreman. Tyson is not likely to be taken out early, or go down early. I’ve seen guys like Bruno, and Ruddock land hard stuff on Tyson

In boxing when two big punchers meet each other, anything can happen, but I’ll go with theguy who is most likely to land his bombs first, and most likely not to be hit by bombs.

Another thing to consider is who is likely to be in better working condition after round 6? I think Tyson.

Gimme Tyson here.

Very good analysis. Tyson's speed and his defensive ability would pose a big problem for Foreman. Foreman would crush Tyson if he could nail him in the exact same way that he nailed Frazier. Foreman was awesome against stationary and immobile targets, but that wouldn't be Tyson. Tyson would be too elusive, and his delivery - his speed and combination punching - would surprise George. George's punches were long and somewhat telegraphed; Tyson's punches were shorter and more compact. I think Tyson could avoid more of Foreman's punches than Foreman could avoid of Tyson's punches!

[SteveO]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

A real speed demon!

As long as we're analyzing fighters based on one round:

AVcGGq04GYM

[joe the great]

Being that Foreman was devastating against shorter guys and Tyson was decked in the sixth by Holyfield and that Holyfield couldn't put down Foreman. I look for Foreman's toughness to prevail. Young Foreman ko 6 Tyson. Old Foreman ko 8 Tyson.

[mr. magoo]

that douglas would have beaten the shit out of both foreman AND old ali.

Sure,

Of course, we're not talking about the Douglas who decisioned a 14-2 Oliver McCall 6 months earlier, nor the Douglas who lost to Holyfield 8 months afterwards, but just the one inbetween, right?

[BlackWater]

Tyson stops foreman in 3

[mr. magoo]

I'd take any douglas over foreman.

I wouldn't.

[prime]

In a lion vs. tiger fight, the beast that can mortally wound the other first wins.

Tyson had the upper body movement, versatile repertoire and speed to devastatingly counter the clumsy, slow, wide-open Foreman early on and make it stick.

I see Tyson getting to Foreman first, hurting him and closing the show before Foreman can impose his clubbing style.

In their respective title challenges, Tyson is perfectly composed and effective against an unafraid Berbick, immediately seizing the reins of the fight. In the first minute in Jamaica, Foreman against Frazier looks scared, shaky and vulnerable. It's just that Frazier had nothing to bother Foreman with but that predictable left hook that would connect once and never again. Foreman quickly learned he could uppercut "here's-my-chin" Frazier to death, but Tyson would not pose but counter with the left hook, overhand right and uppercut up the middle.

Foreman's power required a stationary target, which Tyson was not. Tyson's arsenal only needs a counter opening which Foreman would offer in abundance.

And Foreman had a chin (as did Tyson), but Tyson's repetitively swift powerpunches brought down many strong men early, with astonishing efficiency, and this is what I see happening to Foreman.

[mr. magoo]

Then you are blind sir, blind.

Well, then at least I can still hear the commentary of the fights that I'm actually paying attention to, before I spew verbal vomit on a chat forum.

[MGUNZ48]

that douglas would have beaten the shit out of both foreman AND old ali.


Your insane, or blind or both. This my last repsonse to any post of yours. I don't know what bizzarro world your living in , but your welcome to it.

[joe the great]

In a lion vs. tiger fight, the beast that can mortally wound the other first wins.

Tyson had the upper body movement, versatile repertoire and speed to devastatingly counter the clumsy, slow, wide-open Foreman early on and make it stick.

I see Tyson getting to Foreman first, hurting him and closing the show before Foreman can impose his clubbing style.

In their respective title challenges, Tyson is perfectly composed and effective against an unafraid Berbick, immediately seizing the reins of the fight. In the first minute in Jamaica, Foreman against Frazier looks scared, shaky and vulnerable. It's just that Frazier had nothing to bother Foreman with but that predictable left hook that would connect once and never again. Foreman quickly learned he could uppercut "here's-my-chin" Frazier to death, but Tyson would not pose but counter with the left hook, overhand right and uppercut up the middle.

Foreman's power required a stationary target, which Tyson was not. Tyson's arsenal only needs a counter opening which Foreman would offer in abundance.

And Foreman had a chin (as did Tyson), but Tyson's repetitively swift powerpunches brought down many strong men early, with astonishing efficiency, and this is what I see happening to Foreman. Tyson did not fight well going backwards and Foreman would've backed him up. Foreman would take Tyson out. A 42 year old Foreman went the distance with a younger version of Holyfield. An older version of Holyfield decked Mike on the canvas in round six and later stopped him in round 11.

[josak]

Tyson did not fight well going backwards and Foreman would've backed him up. Foreman would take Tyson out. A 42 year old Foreman went the distance with a younger version of Holyfield. An older version of Holyfield decked Mike on the canvas in round six and later stopped him in round 11.
That was actually more of a slip in round 6, but whatever.

As I said , i think even if Foreman wins this fight, he's going to get beat up pretty bad. Mike's speed and excellcent combinations would wear him down badly, especially in the first couple rounds. If Foreman's chin held up, he could possibly start turning the fight around. Either way, George is gonna take a beating win or lose.

[C. M. Clay II]

A 42 year old Foreman went the distance with a younger version of Holyfield. An older version of Holyfield decked Mike on the canvas in round six and later stopped him in round 11.

It works both ways. Foreman struggled to beat Alex Stewart via 10 round decision and got his face smashed in in the process. Tyson utterly destroyed Stewart inside of a round.

[joe the great]

It works both ways. Foreman struggled to beat Alex Stewart via 10 round decision and got his face smashed in in the process. Tyson utterly destroyed Stewart inside of a round.
Stewart gave Holyfield two tough fights. Foreman almost had Steward out in the second. Tyson would not have the lateral movement of Steward. Tyson is great when he is coming forward bobbing and weaving but when he gets backed up like he did against Holyfield he is not great. That is why George would beat him. He'd have Mike on his heels.

[C. M. Clay II]

Stewart gave Holyfield two tough fights. Foreman almost had Steward out in the second. Tyson would not have the lateral movement of Steward. Tyson is great when he is coming forward bobbing and weaving but when he gets backed up like he did against Holyfield he is not great. That is why George would beat him. He'd have Mike on his heels.

He didn't get backed up against Holyfield. He got butted and outboxed, and then tired.

[Stonehands89]

He didn't get backed up against Holyfield. He got butted and outboxed, and then tired.
Wrong.

Holyfield's whole plan revolved around two things: Move him backwards, and counter him with mirror-image shots. Tyson getting butted by Holyfield is not accurate. Watch the film again. Tyson rushes in and Holyfield does what any fighter is trained to do, get into a small package and dip inside the incoming shot. Tyson rammed his own head into Holyfield's head. It was his own damn fault. Holyfield got comfortable using his head later, but in this bout it was Tyson who was rushing straight in like it was a street fight.

[Stonehands89]

Tyson did not fight well going backwards and Foreman would've backed him up.
That is precisely the reason why Tyson would, outside of a puncher's chance, always lose against Foreman.

The detractors here are hung up on Foreman's technical deficiencies and are dismissing the immense physical size and strength of Foreman -not to mention that wrecking ball power. Hell, those technical deficiencies may play in his favor against the machine-like Mike.*

Foreman could throw from long range and the shots were devestating -straight rights, and yes, a serious jab that went through you. When Tyson closes the distance, and he will, Foreman could spin him by taking his shoulders and pushing him sideways like he did on Frazier. Or he would spread his legs, tag him on the corners with hooks to the ribs and push him off the shoulders off balance. Then he'd tee off.

Tyson will land, but Foreman would either turn with the shot or take it. Tyson's problem is that he will be in there with a man who had no fear of him and who is stronger than him, hits harder than him, and takes monster shots.

*Foreman was also awkward... that changes the equations that Mike was trained to solve with all of those drills. Tyson was a machine -he was trained in a Pavlovian manner: if A, then throw 1,5,7. If B, then throw 3,5,7,3, etc. The problem here is that Foreman's style was built around power and disdain. He fought in his own way. He was awkward and would make it hard for Tyson to figure out how to respond. Foreman looped shots, threw relatively rare right hooks, and such. Bonecrusher fought awkwardly against Mike and there was some confusion about how to respond. When Smith held on, Mike just relaxed. Smith was also able to shove Tyson 4 feet backwards when he felt like it.

Foreman would have the size and style that would be reminiscent of Smith, but with greater strength and with an eye on throwing "kill you" shots, whereas Smith was throwing "get off me" shots while turning his head in anticipation of incoming shots. Foreman would never be so timid. And he's gonna catch Tyson.

Frankly, I think it's just nutty to think that Tyson will be able to implement what he needs to in order to survive, never mind win.

[mr. magoo]

lol immense physical size of foreman. Who was about a pound lighter than a peak tyson.

Foreman was the better fighter though.

[Stonehands89]

lol immense physical size of foreman. Who was about a pound lighter than a peak tyson.
That's all you got?

Foreman is over 6'3 and is built like a fortress. His reach is almost a foot longer than Tyson's. Are you kidding me?

Tell me you won't argue about who'd be the stronger man in there.

[Stonehands89]

... and if you are going to engage in a debate, then address the points made -don't allow yourself to be reduced to heckling.

[p4p1]

tyson would be to scared of foreman he was scared of foreman when foreman was in his 40's

[Stonehands89]

6'3 and built like a fortress, yet he's a pound lighter than 5'11 1/2 fighter.

His reach is longer, but he doesn't use it. He's no boxer.
You have a pretty skewed understanding of Foreman. There are many fighters who are not as technically orthodox or as technically sound as you'd expect and yet they excel. Hamed. Pryor. Locche. Burley. Jones. Ali. Foreman. All of these fighters compensated with fast hands, timing, power, instincts, etc. Foreman takes his place among them.

Answer these:

1. Who's stronger, Foreman or Tyson?

2. Does Tyson fight well when he is not in forward motion or when he is going backwards?

3. Does Foreman have the strength and inclination to move his opponent backwards?

[joe the great]

He didn't get backed up against Holyfield. He got butted and outboxed, and then tired.
Holyfield moved forward and lateral against Tyson. Tyson wasn't rushing up on him like he did against Berbick and Spinks and such.

[ironchamp]

That is precisely the reason why Tyson would, outside of a puncher's chance, always lose against Foreman.

The detractors here are hung up on Foreman's technical deficiencies and are dismissing the immense physical size and strength of Foreman -not to mention that wrecking ball power. Hell, those technical deficiencies may play in his favor against the machine-like Mike.*

Foreman could throw from long range and the shots were devestating -straight rights, and yes, a serious jab that went through you. When Tyson closes the distance, and he will, Foreman could spin him by taking his shoulders and pushing him sideways like he did on Frazier. Or he would spread his legs, tag him on the corners with hooks to the ribs and push him off the shoulders off balance. Then he'd tee off.

Tyson will land, but Foreman would either turn with the shot or take it. Tyson's problem is that he will be in there with a man who had no fear of him and who is stronger than him, hits harder than him, and takes monster shots.

*Foreman was also awkward... that changes the equations that Mike was trained to solve with all of those drills. Tyson was a machine -he was trained in a Pavlovian manner: if A, then throw 1,5,7. If B, then throw 3,5,7,3, etc. The problem here is that Foreman's style was built around power and disdain. He fought in his own way. He was awkward and would make it hard for Tyson to figure out how to respond. Foreman looped shots, threw relatively rare right hooks, and such. Bonecrusher fought awkwardly against Mike and there was some confusion about how to respond. When Smith held on, Mike just relaxed. Smith was also able to shove Tyson 4 feet backwards when he felt like it.

Foreman would have the size and style that would be reminiscent of Smith, but with greater strength and with an eye on throwing "kill you" shots, whereas Smith was throwing "get off me" shots while turning his head in anticipation of incoming shots. Foreman would never be so timid. And he's gonna catch Tyson.

Frankly, I think it's just nutty to think that Tyson will be able to implement what he needs to in order to survive, never mind win.

Conversly, I think Foreman is more vunerable to Tyson than the other way around. The more and more I think about it and the more and more I watch Foreman Frazier I-II, Tyson Smith to try to draw some type of comparisions. The more I realize that the peek a book style employed by a swarmer actually has an advantage over the more brutish style employed by the puncher, particularly the unskilled puncher.

Frazier's loss to Foreman can be attributed to two key things:

1. His offensive approach was limited; Joe didnt utilize a variety of punches and more importantly he was far too reliant on the left hook. In either fight, almost everything he did whether it was jabbing the body, jabbing upstairs, etc...everything was almost a prelude to his patented left hook.

2. Joe Frazier had a second tier Chin. My favorite type of fighters are swarmers, Dempsey, Marciano, Patterson, Torres, Frazier, Tyson etc. So I have no bias towards Joe but his chin was not a Tier 1 Chin on the level of Tyson, Foreman, Holyfield, Mercer, Chuvalo, Tua, or McCall...Because of this hinderance, Joe's chances drop.

Joe just needed to use a better variety of punches because his head movement would have been sufficient enough to counter and dictate the pace of the fight. His power was adequate but his chin would have IMO always let him down which is why I'd always pick Foreman over Frazier but I think at thier absolute bests Frazier would always make it competitive while it lasted. Very competitve.

Tyson on the other hand brings a new element to this. The three reasons why I think Tyson wins:

1. Better punch selection; Tyson's arsenal epitomizes the word variety. Not to many orthodox HW fighters I know throw the right hook as frequently and as fluidly as Tyson. He is also renowned for his uppercuts, good jab, left hook, right cross he throws almost every punch in the book when he sees an opportunity. His style doesnt seem as limited and heavily reliant on a certain punch the way Frazier was.

2. Tier 1 Chin; this is where Tyson's durability comes into play. Tyson has never been let down by his chin in any fight even post prison. He's been let down by his stamina in fights where he clearly undertrained. He's been let down by his defense when he lacked a coherent fight plan, but never by his chin. Tyson's record vs the biggest punchers he's faced is 5-1 (Smith, Bruno 2x, Ruddock 2x, Lewis).

3. Power and Speed. It doesnt take a puncher with Tyson's power to beat Foreman, but it certainly doesnt hurt. Now having Tyson's speed and the ability to beat him to the punch helps tremendously. I have seen fights where the difference was determined simply because of handspeed. This is another case of that. Tyson's combination of the two attributes will give Foreman something pretty substantial to think about. There is a reason why Bonecrusher Smith held; he felt disadvataged by Tyson's speed. He may have seen his advantage as the bigger man to use his size to neutralize Tyson but unfortunately for him he was unable to do that whilst mounting an offense.

Its like being chased by a Lion or Tiger. You get to a small shed or room where there is an unloaded shotgun on one side of the room and on the opposite side there is the ammunition. The Lion follows you and almost bursts through the door and while you're holding the door you come to the realization that if you let go of the door to get the shotgun load it and kill the lion there is a good chance you'll be killed in the process especiallly if you arent as quick as that lion. Now, as you hold on to that door while you try to come up with a strategy you begin to realize more and more that by holding on to the door you remain alive and you DING!!! The final bell. That's what alot of Tyson's opponents did in lasting the distance and that is what Bonecrusher Smith did.

Now Foreman is a different breed than Bonecrusher. He won't be afraid to bring it but when he does he will find himself in position where he is being countered by sharp punches. I do believe Foreman's belief in his own power will probably prompt a few fierce exchanges which as a direct result of Tyson's superior handspeed, power and sporadic headmovement would give him the upperhand in each exchange. This will likely prompt Foreman to fight in a more conventional manner because he will soon realize that each time he goes over all willy nilly he gets nailed by a puncher as big as him even if he is getting with some big shots in. This transition by Foreman will work to Tyson's advantage because he can adopt or rather revert to his Pavlovian approach. Foreman would never submit to any fighter but if you offer substantial resistance he will be tentative, just like any fighter would. Now given Foreman's dimensions and Tyson's dimensions Big George's adjustments would likely include a more measured pace, cross arm defense and more prudence in picking his shots on the outside while intermittingly pressing forward to try to land bigger shots. Given his unpolished technique it would keep him out of his natural element of consistently advancing to his foe and would inevitably lead to a Tyson victory as Mike not only dictates the pace of the fight but he capitalizes on his primary advantages that I mentioned above to enlist a stoppage victory anywhere from round 6-8

[Stonehands89]

1. Tyson easily
2. No
3. Forcing tyson backwards simply gives him room to begin another attack run.
1. I think that you are alone in the boxing world with this answer.
2. Fair enough.
3. I assume that you are agreeing that Foreman would and could back up Tyson.

One more question:

Which past HW champs should be favored against Tyson?

[ChrisPontius]

Stonehands, i want to ask you something.


During our long discussions you always maintained that Liston is much stronger than Lewis, among others, because he has a short stocky frame (6'0" or 6'1" opposed to Lewis' 6'5", four-five inches shorter).


Now, Tyson has an even more stocky build than Liston, is an inch shorter and about 5-10 pounds heavier when both in peak shape.
And Foreman is 6'3", although 6'4" seems more accurate to me (he looked taller than Ali). So Foreman has four or five inches on Tyson.

So why is Liston stronger than Lewis because of his stocky build yet Tyson is not stronger than Foreman despite the same stocky build?

[MGUNZ48]

1. I think that you are alone in the boxing world with this answer.
2. Fair enough.
3. I assume that you are agreeing that Foreman would and could back up Tyson.

One more question:

Which past HW champs should be favored against Tyson?

I have to say as a young man I boxed in the same area as Tyson. I saw him when he first came up. He was extremely fast, and a very hard puncher for a stocky guy. Even when he was 16 years old. However it was evident to everyone at that time. and became more so later that the key to beat him was the jab. A hard jab, not a range finder. Tyson and all shorter peek-a-boo fighters (myself included) rely on timing more so then other styles. Nothing will screw up your timing more than a hard jab. Foreman had long arms, and an extremely hard jab, so did Liston. Tyson always had trouble with bigger Guys with a decent Jab. Lewis, Douglas, Tucker, Bone crusher (not as much), Mitch Green,
Holmes would have beaten Tyson (in my view) as a young man. The Holmes who beat Ken Norton would have stopped Tyson. But that is another forum. I have to say I am always surprized at how people seem to think Tyson was unbeatable in his prime. He barely makes my top ten?

[PowerPuncher]

That's all you got?

Foreman is over 6'3 and is built like a fortress. His reach is almost a foot longer than Tyson's. Are you kidding me?

Tell me you won't argue about who'd be the stronger man in there.

Yes but Tyson was nearly always fighting men of these size and in Bruno/Rudduck fought similar styled men who possibly hit as hard as Foreman.

Actually a PSI test taken in the 80s had Bruno scoring higher than Foreman and Tyson

[mr. magoo]

Yes but Tyson was nearly always fighting men of these size and in Bruno/Rudduck fought similar styled men who possibly hit as hard as Foreman.

Actually a PSI test taken in the 80s had Bruno scoring higher than Foreman and Tyson

I don't think the issue in this matchup would come down to who hit harder, but rather their styles. Foreman typically ate up fighters who fought in a crouching position or with a lower center of gravity. Sure, I think Tyson would be a very dangerous fight for George, and one that Mike could possibly win, but I'd have to give the edge to Foreman here for stylistic reasons.

[PowerPuncher]

The key points in Tyson's favour:

1. Tyson was near impossible to hit during his prime and when you missed you got hurt. Why is it assumed Foreman will land on Tyson?

2. Tyson is an excellent counter puncher when you missed. He's not thought of as a counter puncher but when you miss you get hurt

3. Tyson is 1 of the fastest HW fighters ever and would beat Foreman to the punch every time.

I used to think Foreman would smash Tyson coming in but Tyson didn't walk into punches or leave openings. Even in a toe to toe exchange Tyson's power, speed and combos may do more damage than Foreman's shots

[PowerPuncher]

I don't think the issue in this matchup would come down to who hit harder, but rather their styles. Foreman typically ate up fighters who fought in a crouching position or with a lower center of gravity. Sure, I think Tyson would be a very dangerous fight for George, and one that Mike could possibly win, but I'd have to give the edge to Foreman here for stylistic reasons.

He ate up Frazier who had a predictable defense and had a eat a punch 1 to land a punch style. Tyson's defense is much better so Foreman would not land easily like he did on Frazier and he got inside far faster than Frazier and hit harder

[mr. magoo]

He ate up Frazier who had a predictable defense and had a eat a punch 1 to land a punch style. Tyson's defense is much better so Foreman would not land easily like he did on Frazier and he got inside far faster than Frazier and hit harder

True, but I never said that it was going to be easy for Foreman to land on Tyson and I also acknowledge the fact that Mike could win it. I just wouldn't favor Tyson is all I'm saying.

[PowerPuncher]

Delete

[PowerPuncher]

True, but I never said that it was going to be easy for Foreman to land on Tyson and I also acknowledge the fact that Mike could win it. I just wouldn't favor Tyson is all I'm saying.

Fair enough I didn't used to either but I changed stand point on this fight after looking more at Tyson's skill/defense/speed advantages.

The Lyle fight is also telling, Tyson would be allot better than Lyle at catching Foreman and would hit harder

[Stonehands89]

Conversly, I think Foreman is more vunerable to Tyson than the other way around. The more and more I think about it and the more and more I watch Foreman Frazier I-II, Tyson Smith to try to draw some type of comparisions. The more I realize that the peek a book style employed by a swarmer actually has an advantage over the more brutish style employed by the puncher, particularly the unskilled puncher.

Frazier's loss to Foreman can be attributed to two key things:

1. His offensive approach was limited; Joe didnt utilize a variety of punches and more importantly he was far too reliant on the left hook. In either fight, almost everything he did whether it was jabbing the body, jabbing upstairs, etc...everything was almost a prelude to his patented left hook.

2. Joe Frazier had a second tier Chin. My favorite type of fighters are swarmers, Dempsey, Marciano, Patterson, Torres, Frazier, Tyson etc. So I have no bias towards Joe but his chin was not a Tier 1 Chin on the level of Tyson, Foreman, Holyfield, Mercer, Chuvalo, Tua, or McCall...Because of this hinderance, Joe's chances drop.

Joe just needed to use a better variety of punches because his head movement would have been sufficient enough to counter and dictate the pace of the fight. His power was adequate but his chin would have IMO always let him down which is why I'd always pick Foreman over Frazier but I think at thier absolute bests Frazier would always make it competitive while it lasted. Very competitve.
Good stuff in this post. Systematic and feasible, even if I do disagree...

I don't see Frazier doing any better had he had a wider repertoire of punches. Frazier lost because of unchangable disadvantages: size and strength. Frazier lost because what Foreman brought -even in 76, after Zaire, when Foreman was not what he was before Ali emasculated him. Frazier could never be expected to last 7 rounds against Foreman.

You are correct, in my opinion, about Frazier having a second-tier chin. This doesn't mean he had a weak chin, but that he couldn't take big shots as well as the elite chin. You do however, put Tyson in the first tier. I would not, unless I created a higher category ("elite"). Now, don't mistake this. Tyson is a durable guy with a shock absorber neck. He took good shots from monster punchers like Bruno, like Ruddock. But when he got hurt, he didn't have first rate recuperative powers like say Holyfield or Marciano or Louis or Ali or Holmes. When Buster hurt him, he tended to stay hurt. He fought on, but the vulnerability was palpable. When Holyfield hurt him in the third round, he asserted that he couldn't even remember the rest of the fight after that.

Neither Bruno nor Ruddock convince me that Tyson would be able to stand with Foreman. Neither would even approach the aggression that Foreman brought.

Tyson on the other hand brings a new element to this. The three reasons why I think Tyson wins:

1. Better punch selection; Tyson's arsenal epitomizes the word variety. Not to many orthodox HW fighters I know throw the right hook as frequently and as fluidly as Tyson. He is also renowned for his uppercuts, good jab, left hook, right cross he throws almost every punch in the book when he sees an opportunity. His style doesnt seem as limited and heavily reliant on a certain punch the way Frazier was.
Tyson had problems doing what he wanted with 6'4 Bonecrusher. 6'5 Tucker did better than most. 6'4 Douglas beat him. It is not insignificant that big, strong guys gave a 5'11 Tyson some degree of problems. Foreman was among them. Holyfield was demonstrably stronger than Tyson and his height gave him an advantage as well. Tyson would be forced to punch up from his comfort range, which was mid-range. This works far better against guys who are 6' than it does against bigger guys.

Again, I don't see the offensive variety making the difference here. It's a size and strength problem... and power and chin (as in Foreman's) problem.

2. Tier 1 Chin; this is where Tyson's durability comes into play. Tyson has never been let down by his chin in any fight even post prison. He's been let down by his stamina in fights where he clearly undertrained. He's been let down by his defense when he lacked a coherent fight plan, but never by his chin. Tyson's record vs the biggest punchers he's faced is 5-1 (Smith, Bruno 2x, Ruddock 2x, Lewis).
See above. I think it is very likely that one of Foreman's big shots are going to connect early and Tyson is going to be hurt... and he is going to stay hurt. He may fight on, but Foreman won't be timid like Smith, scared like Bruno, or reliant on one shot thrown between 5 breaths like Ruddock. Lewis imposed his will and was actively punching. Foreman will do the same.

3. Power and Speed. It doesnt take a puncher with Tyson's power to beat Foreman, but it certainly doesnt hurt. Now having Tyson's speed and the ability to beat him to the punch helps tremendously. I have seen fights where the difference was determined simply because of handspeed. This is another case of that. Tyson's combination of the two attributes will give Foreman something pretty substantial to think about. There is a reason why Bonecrusher Smith held; he felt disadvataged by Tyson's speed. He may have seen his advantage as the bigger man to use his size to neutralize Tyson but unfortunately for him he was unable to do that whilst mounting an offense.
Smith was more unwilling than unable. Handspeed and power certainly help Tyson but it isn't enough. Foreman eats smaller aggressive guys. He eats them, even with his geritol, and Cooper and Qawi demonstrate this. Tyson is simply an amped up version of the style that is made for Foreman.

Its like being chased by a Lion or Tiger. You get to a small shed or room where there is an unloaded shotgun on one side of the room and on the opposite side there is the ammunition. The Lion follows you and almost bursts through the door and while you're holding the door you come to the realization that if you let go of the door to get the shotgun load it and kill the lion there is a good chance you'll be killed in the process especiallly if you arent as quick as that lion. Now, as you hold on to that door while you try to come up with a strategy you begin to realize more and more that by holding on to the door you remain alive and you DING!!! The final bell. That's what alot of Tyson's opponents did in lasting the distance and that is what Bonecrusher Smith did.
Let's say a guy loves spicy peppers. He eats Red Chilis and Bahamians like nothing. Would you bet that he couldn't handle the Habanero? I wouldn't. Why would you? He habitually eats spicy peppers!

Now Foreman is a different breed than Bonecrusher. He won't be afraid to bring it but when he does he will find himself in position where he is being countered by sharp punches. I do believe Foreman's belief in his own power will probably prompt a few fierce exchanges which as a direct result of Tyson's superior handspeed, power and sporadic headmovement would give him the upperhand in each exchange. This will likely prompt Foreman to fight in a more conventional manner because he will soon realize that each time he goes over all willy nilly he gets nailed by a puncher as big as him even if he is getting with some big shots in. This transition by Foreman will work to Tyson's advantage because he can adopt or rather revert to his Pavlovian approach. Foreman would never submit to any fighter but if you offer substantial resistance he will be tentative, just like any fighter would. Now given Foreman's dimensions and Tyson's dimensions Big George's adjustments would likely include a more measured pace, cross arm defense and more prudence in picking his shots on the outside while intermittingly pressing forward to try to land bigger shots. Given his unpolished technique it would keep him out of his natural element of consistently advancing to his foe and would inevitably lead to a Tyson victory as Mike not only dictates the pace of the fight but he capitalizes on his primary advantages that I mentioned above to enlist a stoppage victory anywhere from round 6-8
We part ways even further here. If two punchers exchange blows, you favor the guy with the better chin and the bigger heart. That's Foreman. You can't discount a one foot reach advantage either. To be sure, Tyson was trained to get inside, but as things turned out, most of the guys he looked so good against were not eager to fight him so much as survive. Foreman had an underestimated jab and he was known to extend his arms at the smaller man to stop his rush or to put him off balance. Tyson is not going to push him back to overcome this.

I am not sure that Foreman will have to consider standing off or getting tentative against Tyson, because he will go right at him, move him backwards, and hurt him early.

--When that happens, the conclusion will be timely. Tyson's durability will help him survive, but Tyson can't be counted on to overcome real adversity like Chico Corrales... that just isn't in him. He'll go down eventually, heroically perhaps, but he is not going to win a contest of testicular fortitude with Foreman. No way.

[Stonehands89]

Stonehands, i want to ask you something.

During our long discussions you always maintained that Liston is much stronger than Lewis, among others, because he has a short stocky frame (6'0" or 6'1" opposed to Lewis' 6'5", four-five inches shorter).

Now, Tyson has an even more stocky build than Liston, is an inch shorter and about 5-10 pounds heavier when both in peak shape.
And Foreman is 6'3", although 6'4" seems more accurate to me (he looked taller than Ali). So Foreman has four or five inches on Tyson.

So why is Liston stronger than Lewis because of his stocky build yet Tyson is not stronger than Foreman despite the same stocky build?
What's this? Are you trying to pull my pants down over here?

Good question.

First off, recall that I made the point that the strength of "long" guys is going to be more distributed across more distance. Shorter guys have more of a concentration of strength. Think about cannonballs. Power lifters. Bench pressing. But it ain't always so. It's not a strict if/then.

Secondly, I consider shapes. "Squares", if you will, are stronger than V's. Liston and Foreman are squares. They are built like brick houses -not like body builders. A bigger square (like Foreman) can usually be expected to be more powerful than a smaller square (like Qawi or Tyson).

Thirdly, there is the matter of example. I saw Holyfield imposing his strength on Tyson. He couldn't quite do the same so easily with Dokes. He couldn't budge Foreman (albeit a heavier version). Tyson looks like a juggernaut but he is not... perhaps it is tactical because he was trained to rely on torque punching and had to conserve energy, but whatever the reason, he did not exhibit the kind of imposing physicality that Liston did (and not all those opponents were "CWs").

[Stonehands89]

None of them.
Well, your entitled to your opinion, but so aren't I: and I say that your objectivity may be a fly that the toad on your avatar just ate.

[Raging B(_)LL]

Can`t add much to this disscussion that hasn`t already been said, good debate so far. Myself I would go with the version of Foreman who stopped George Chuvalo in three to get Tyson out of there before 7 rounds. He used his jab very effectively in that fight and Tyson`s upper body movement can be nullified by George`s uppercuts which is a punch that Tyson has shown to be susceptible too even in his prime.

And lets not forget that Mike was useless on the inside and could be tied up with ease by anyone, and Foreman would have handled him like a baby in clinches before shoving him back into his punching range. And Mike looked anything like a million dollars if you made him go backwards, and George with his size and strenght would have been the boss in there in my opinion. I like Tyson but this is one fight that has loss written all over it for him.

[janitor]

What's this? Are you trying to pull my pants down over here?

Good question.

First off, recall that I made the point that the strength of "long" guys is going to be more distributed across more distance. Shorter guys have more of a concentration of strength. Think about cannonballs. Power lifters. Bench pressing. But it ain't always so. It's not a strict if/then.

Secondly, I consider shapes. "Squares", if you will, are stronger than V's. Liston and Foreman are squares. They are built like brick houses -not like body builders. A bigger square (like Foreman) can usually be expected to be more powerful than a smaller square (like Qawi or Tyson).


As a weightlifter myself I have to say that looks can be verry deceiving in terms of sombodys actual strength.

I know this skinny little Chineese guy who is 5' 8'' with arms like pipes who hapily benches 300lbs and more. He is stronger than some weightlifters I know who are 6' 3'' natural heavyweights.

[Stonehands89]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Well, damn. I hope not. If it is confirmed that Holyfield was on the roids during his great conquests, then they should be discounted completely. I'd rank him down around Sharkey or Carnera.

[janitor]

Well, damn. I hope not. If it is confirmed that Holyfield was on the roids during his great conquests, then they should be discounted completely. I'd rank him down around Sharkey or Carnera.

I would consider that a fairly prestigious place to be ranked.

[PowerPuncher]

Tyson had problems doing what he wanted with 6'4 Bonecrusher. 6'5 Tucker did better than most. 6'4 Douglas beat him. It is not insignificant that big, strong guys gave a 5'11 Tyson some degree of problems. Foreman was among them. Holyfield was demonstrably stronger than Tyson and his height gave him an advantage as well. Tyson would be forced to punch up from his comfort range, which was mid-range. This works far better against guys who are 6' than it does against bigger guys.
.

Height is not a factor at all in this match up

Golota (6'4), Berbick (6'3), Bruno (6'3), Tubbs (6'3), Savarase (6'5), Ruddock (6'3), Holmes (6'3). The only reason Smith (6'4) and Tucker (6'5) didn't get ko'd was because of their negativity

Foreman is only 6'3 so height isn't a factor, Tyson is happy punching upwards against bigger stronger men.

Height isn't a factor its whos punches land and who doesn't. Tyson was a great defense fighter and amazing at beating his opponent to the punch and countering. Foreman is a punching machine who sees a target and punches continually accurate but slower punches.

Can Foreman land as many punches as Tyson?

Can Tyson slip Foreman's punches and counter?

Can Tyson beat Foreman to the punch with his speed and head movement or will Foremans reach do it for him?

If Tyson lands 50% of his shots and Foreman only lands 20% how is the fight scewed and does Foreman get broken down?

I pick Tyson to get the better of Foreman because he'll land more and Foreman will miss too much

[PowerPuncher]

Foreman eats smaller aggressive guys. He eats them, even with his geritol, and Cooper and Qawi demonstrate this. Tyson is simply an amped up version of the style that is made for Foreman.
.

So Tyson defense and head movement is comparable to Cooper and Qawi?

Is Tysons jab is comparable to Cooper and Qawi

Is Tysons countering comparable to Cooper and Qawi?

Is Tysons brutal power, speed of hand and foot and systematic combinations comparable to Cooper and Qawi?

Is Tysons footwork/technique/skill/timing/movement comparable to Cooper and Qawi?

Talk about over simplification :roll:

[Stonehands89]

As a weightlifter myself I have to say that looks can be verry deceiving in terms of sombodys actual strength.

I know this skinny little Chineese guy who is 5' 8'' with arms like pipes who hapily benches 300lbs and more. He is stronger than some weightlifters I know who are 6' 3'' natural heavyweights.
Yes, yes, and you just reminded of the other part of my original argument. I admit that it is theoretical but I've observed it many times: Some guys just have a preternatural strength. I sparred with a pro many times out here in Boston and he's one of them. I swear he had the strength of ten men --just solid, hard to move, and could lift guys twice his size while laughing. We were from the same projects and I remember that 4 or 5 cops couldn't put him down or even separate his arms to cuff him. He was laughing. He's 5'9 and 167.

I think that Liston was one of these freakishly strong guys and he had size to boot. I get the same impression from Foreman... but not really from Lewis. Watch the Ruddock fight in the first round. Rahman handles him too at the press conference. Lewis was a strong man, no doubt about that, but I can't see his strength matching Liston or Foreman.

[Stonehands89]

Height is not a factor at all in this match up

Golota (6'4), Berbick (6'3), Bruno (6'3), Tubbs (6'3), Savarase (6'5), Ruddock (6'3), Holmes (6'3). The only reason Smith (6'4) and Tucker (6'5) didn't get ko'd was because of their negativity

Foreman is only 6'3 so height isn't a factor, Tyson is happy punching upwards against bigger stronger men.

Height isn't a factor its whos punches land and who doesn't. Tyson was a great defense fighter and amazing at beating his opponent to the punch and countering. Foreman is a punching machine who sees a target and punches continually accurate but slower punches.

Can Foreman land as many punches as Tyson?

Can Tyson slip Foreman's punches and counter?

Can Tyson beat Foreman to the punch with his speed and head movement or will Foremans reach do it for him?

If Tyson lands 50% of his shots and Foreman only lands 20% how is the fight scewed and does Foreman get broken down?

I pick Tyson to get the better of Foreman because he'll land more and Foreman will miss too much
Height most certainly can be a factor. And at over 6'3, Foreman is going to use that height and that reach.

I've already stated why Foreman should be -heavily- favored here and I think it is the superior one.

[Stonehands89]

So Tyson defense and head movement is comparable to Cooper and Qawi?

Is Tysons jab is comparable to Cooper and Qawi

Is Tysons countering comparable to Cooper and Qawi?

Is Tysons brutal power, speed of hand and foot and systematic combinations comparable to Cooper and Qawi?

Is Tysons footwork/technique/skill/timing/movement comparable to Cooper and Qawi?

Talk about over simplification :roll:
Talk about lack of sophistication [insert emoticon with dunce cap here].

...the answer to each of your questions is no. But that wasn't the point.

[janitor]

I think that Liston was one of these freakishly strong guys and he had size to boot. I get the same impression from Foreman... but not really from Lewis. Watch the Ruddock fight in the first round. Rahman handles him too at the press conference. Lewis was a strong man, no doubt about that, but I can't see his strength matching Liston or Foreman.

I will suggest a couple more.

Barbados Joe Walcott.

I have read newspaper reports of him handeling and shoving about big heavyweights in the clinches. That man was one hideous little 5' 1'' troll.

Mickey Walker.

He went toe to toe with a lot of heavyweights and managed to hold his ground. Against Jack Sharkey for example.

Jack Johnson.

He seems to have been able to bend anybodys arms however big. His party trick was to strap a horse to each bicep and haul them backward. This is a guy who was never more than a pumped up cruiserweight.

[Stonehands89]

I will suggest a couple more.

Barbados Joe Walcott.

I have read newspaper reports of him handeling and shoving about big heavyweights in the clinches. That man was one hideous little 5' 1'' troll.

Mickey Walker.

He went toe to toe with a lot of heavyweights and managed to hold his ground. Against Jack Sharkey for example.

Jack Johnson.

He seems to have been able to bend anybodys arms however big. His party trick was to strap a horse to each bicep and haul them backward. This is a guy who was never more than a pumped up cruiserweight.
If that "hideous little troll" (that was funny) is anything like his press, then he would take his place at the top of the "preternatural strength" category.

All good examples. Jim Jeffries seemed to be as strong as 6 or 7 bulls himself.

[janitor]

If that "hideous little troll" (that was funny) is anything like his press, then he would take his place at the top of the "preternatural strength" category.


This is some of his press.

"Joe Walcott, the welter-weight champion, and Fred Russell, of Minneapolis, went six rounds to a draw here tonight. Russell, who is a heavy-weight and big at that, was unable to do anything with Wolcott, and it certainly appeared as though the latter was entitled to the verdict, having forced the fighting throughout. When the men shaped up for action, there was so much disparity in their sizes and the affair looked ridiculous. Walcott's head just reached Russell's waist line. The men fought but 2 minutes, however, when it was plainly evident that the little negro was perfectly able to cope with his big opponent and rather enjoyed holding up Russel's 215 pounds when they clinched. Before the round ended Walcott dropped Russell with a right to the jaw. In order to land the blow Walcott had to jump off his feet fully six inches. Russell took the count of nine and rose to his feet groggy. He appeared timid during the next four rounds and kept well covered, but managed to land several hard swings on Walcott's head to which the latter payed little attention. In the last round Walcott reached Russell's stomach with a number of hard swings and had the big fellow so weak, that although weighing nearly a hundred pounds less he was able to push Russell all over the ring when they came to a clinch." (Durango Democrat)

Hideous little troll was a compliment by the way.

[Stonehands89]

This is some of his press.

"Joe Walcott, the welter-weight champion, and Fred Russell, of Minneapolis, went six rounds to a draw here tonight. Russell, who is a heavy-weight and big at that, was unable to do anything with Wolcott, and it certainly appeared as though the latter was entitled to the verdict, having forced the fighting throughout. When the men shaped up for action, there was so much disparity in their sizes and the affair looked ridiculous. Walcott's head just reached Russell's waist line. The men fought but 2 minutes, however, when it was plainly evident that the little negro was perfectly able to cope with his big opponent and rather enjoyed holding up Russel's 215 pounds when they clinched. Before the round ended Walcott dropped Russell with a right to the jaw. In order to land the blow Walcott had to jump off his feet fully six inches. Russell took the count of nine and rose to his feet groggy. He appeared timid during the next four rounds and kept well covered, but managed to land several hard swings on Walcott's head to which the latter payed little attention. In the last round Walcott reached Russell's stomach with a number of hard swings and had the big fellow so weak, that although weighing nearly a hundred pounds less he was able to push Russell all over the ring when they came to a clinch." (Durango Democrat)

Hideous little troll was a compliment by the way.
I'm aware of that article and am more than aware of your affection for this man and that era. I'm from Boston, Massachusetts, which is where Walcott fought out of after all -and I went to high school about 2 miles from the site of his fight in Walpole.

Fred Russell was also listed as 6'2. And he was nothing much. In fact, his record is a bit mysterious as well as spotty. He fought at least 3 fights that are "reported, but not confirmed", at least one fight was stopped by the police, and he fought several local talent which suggests that these may have been not much more than exhibitions. He was fodder.

However, I am impressed by the possibility that Walcott handled him as reported.

[Stonehands89]

That's pretty harsh, it'd knock him down, but not that low.
Janitor disagrees.

If Holyfield was cheating (and that is what it is -cheating), then the wins would not be legit in my eyes. I'd spit in his eye. I think it likely that "Evan Fields" was cheating, but only since ~ 2004.

Steroids are part of the reason I have no use for wasting my time watching baseball or football, or weightlifting and such. There are too many no-good cheaters.

Duo's believes that the increase in roids usage in boxing is yet another reason to increase the championship bouts to 15 rounds. I agree.

[prime]

I don't see Frazier doing any better had he had a wider repertoire of punches. Frazier lost because of unchangable disadvantages: size and strength.

It is not insignificant that big, strong guys gave a 5'11 Tyson some degree of problems. Foreman was among them. Tyson would be forced to punch up from his comfort range, which was mid-range. This works far better against guys who are 6' than it does against bigger guys.

Again, I don't see the offensive variety making the difference here. It's a size and strength problem... and power and chin (as in Foreman's) problem.

I think it is very likely that one of Foreman's big shots are going to connect early and Tyson is going to be hurt... and he is going to stay hurt. He may fight on, but Foreman won't be timid like Smith, scared like Bruno, or reliant on one shot thrown between 5 breaths like Ruddock. Lewis imposed his will and was actively punching. Foreman will do the same.

I am not sure that Foreman will have to consider standing off or getting tentative against Tyson, because he will go right at him, move him backwards, and hurt him early. When that happens, the conclusion will be timely. Tyson's durability will help him survive, but Tyson can't be counted on to overcome real adversity like Chico Corrales... that just isn't in him. He'll go down eventually, heroically perhaps, but he is not going to win a contest of testicular fortitude with Foreman. No way.

If two robots with Foreman's and Tyson's qualities were built to square off, I am confident physics would dictate a Tyson win: offensively, one with slower, wide blows that swing around the target, another with faster, more accurate blows that land in clusters; defensively, one is straight-up, wide-open, with nothing but an arm defense and backward lean, the other crouches tightly to seek the opening, hands up, and displays an effective, evasive head movement.

Frazier lost to Foreman because he had nothing to bother him with, save the predictable left hook; plus, he foolishly left that chin hanging out for the uppercut time and again. It was target practice for Big George. Let me be clear: Frazier is no Tyson, not in punch or attack variety (definitely naturally a factor), not in the chin department, not in aggression at the sound of the bell, not even in size and strength.

Tyson always fought at a height disadvantage, which he nullified as part of his development to challenge champion Holmes; sure, some big guys "wisely" preferred not to engage and these survived to lose lopsided decisions. And, for all this speculation about who is stronger, Snorlax is correct in pointing out that midget Tyson was actually heavier than Zaire Foreman; besides, Tyson intentionally subsided when held because he was a midrange fighter; he didn't need to go blow-to- blow on the inside, but rather waited for the ref's separation to begin his stalking anew. Pushing Tyson back means nothing, as Berbick found out. Tyson doesn't need to fight backing up; he studied you and blitzed you with an initiative capitalizing on a defensive deficiency or a disarming counterattack, both made possible by astonishing speed. Holmes said Tyson kept catching him by surprise.

If Foreman engages Tyson mano-a-mano in ring center, he will be blasted out. This doesn't mean a face-to-face clash a la Round 1 of Hagler/Hearns. It would be Foreman pawing around with the jab, Tyson circling and dipping, and when Foreman goes for the big guns, Tyson would capitalize with his superior boxing fundamentals and begin to crush Foreman's skull in as he did to Berbick and Holmes and Thomas once they decided to duke it out. Tyson had nearly 10 years of competitive experience when he fought for the title; Foreman was a relative novice, with hardly any amateur experience and mostly just a monster punch that took him to the top.

A couple more random points: As Ironchamp stated somewhere before, fear is not much of a factor here, as, in the end, Tyson's arrogant confidence in his ability was just as huge as Foreman's, and if any of these two showed shakiness and fear in the pro ring, it was Foreman (blinking, wincing, stumbling before Frazier and Ali), never Tyson. D'Amato's comment on Foreman's invincibility was regarding a straight-forward slugger, which does not describe Tyson and Tyson would know it.

Foreman's straight punches never delivered his greatest power. He had to have you within inside range (like Frazier always foolishly was) for those huge hooks and uppercuts Ali made fun of pre-Zaire as telegraphed, relatively easily avoidable blows. And, on the other hand, if Tyson could solve an extremely proven escape artist such as Spinks in one minute, I continue to see him figuring out and dismantling a relatively brutish Foreman as well.

[la-califa]

All those were valid points, but then again styles make fights! It's true Ali had a rpretty easy time of it with Foreman. But again George did blast Norton & Frazier out early. Who both gave Ali fits. Tyson couldn't hold back & outbox Foreman as Ali did. Would Tyson want to get inside & trade with Foreman? Good question, Foreman had a devistating reputation, no one wanted to trade with him. And the crushing blow against Mike was the upercut, just before Tyson went down. Hard to say on this one, Tyson could get on the inside & use his speed to inflict major damage. But one crushing blow could ruin the whole game plan. & George had a strong chin, He could absorb a Tyson shot to deliver one of his own. IMO an early Tyson with the proper cornermen could possibly devise a succesful gameplan to defeat Foreman. But the Don King era Tyson would be dead meat & suffer the same fate as Frazier, or worse!

[Stonehands89]

If two robots with Foreman's and Tyson's qualities were built to square off, I am confident physics would dictate a Tyson win: offensively, one with slower, wide blows that swing around the target, another with faster, more accurate blows that land in clusters; defensively, one is straight-up, wide-open, with nothing but an arm defense and backward lean, the other crouches tightly to seek the opening, hands up, and displays an effective, evasive head movement.
You'd have to factor in a foot reach advantage, 5 inches in height, and superior strength. You'd have to factor in that Foreman's shots come faster than expected and in numbers -and any of them will knock Tyson off balance. You'd have to factor in that Foreman will not only knock him off balance, he will also put him at the distance where those punches will do the most damage.

Finally, Foreman threw short hooks and short uppercuts very well. Physics doesn't measure courage and character and recuperative abilities. Foreman will stand up to Tyson's shots more than vice versa.

Frazier lost to Foreman because he had nothing to bother him with, save the predictable left hook; plus, he foolishly left that chin hanging out for the uppercut time and again. It was target practice for Big George. Let me be clear: Frazier is no Tyson, not in punch or attack variety (definitely naturally a factor), not in the chin department, not in aggression at the sound of the bell, not even in size and strength.
Frazier had good speed and that hook wasn't quite as predictable as you argue. I myself have called Tyson a gamma-powered Frazier type, but when it comes to things like character and courage, Tyson is a comparative midget compared to Joe. There is no doubt about that. We have all seen numerous times how Tyson responds to real adversity in the ring --he either gets eventually stopped, he commits fouls to get himself disqualified, or he loses control of himself and turns it into a streetfight (Botha, Savarese, McBride). I for one, believe that Tyson would be a bit awed by Foreman and probably a bit worried as well. He may even concede that Foreman was boss. I think that he conceded this rather early against Holyfield I and II. Tyson strikes me as a man who regresses given a set of adverse circumstances.

Tyson always fought at a height disadvantage, which he nullified as part of his development to challenge champion Holmes; sure, some big guys "wisely" preferred not to engage and these survived to lose lopsided decisions. And, for all this speculation about who is stronger, Snorlax is correct in pointing out that midget Tyson was actually heavier than Zaire Foreman; besides, Tyson intentionally subsided when held because he was a midrange fighter; he didn't need to go blow-to- blow on the inside, but rather waited for the ref's separation to begin his stalking anew. Pushing Tyson back means nothing, as Berbick found out. Tyson doesn't need to fight backing up; he studied you and blitzed you with an initiative capitalizing on a defensive deficiency or a disarming counterattack, both made possible by astonishing speed. Holmes said Tyson kept catching him by surprise.
These are good points, but not especially relevant here. Foreman was bigger and stronger than Tyson and those are real advantages. He would not disengage and he would not fight a survival fight.

Pushing Tyson back in and of itself is obviously not enough. Berbick was pushing Tyson back to get him away -he wasn't doing it to capitalize on Tyson being off balance and he sure as hell wasn't doing it for punching room. Foreman would be doing exactly that. Holyfield made it a point to walk Tyson back and bully him backwards --and it was highly effective. Foreman would do this naturally and more easily.

Now, of course Tyson has a punching chance. But it is an outside chance. Foreman was stopped once and it wasn't because of Ali's shot. It was exhaustion. Tyson won't be rope-a-doping. He'll fight him like everyone else did who got knocked out --aggressively.

If Foreman engages Tyson mano-a-mano in ring center, he will be blasted out. This doesn't mean a face-to-face clash a la Round 1 of Hagler/Hearns. It would be Foreman pawing around with the jab, Tyson circling and dipping, and when Foreman goes for the big guns, Tyson would capitalize with his superior boxing fundamentals and begin to crush Foreman's skull in as he did to Berbick and Holmes and Thomas once they decided to duke it out. Tyson had nearly 10 years of competitive experience when he fought for the title; Foreman was a relative novice, with hardly any amateur experience and mostly just a monster punch that took him to the top.
This is a fantasy! You are woefully overestimating Tyson's strengths and completely glossing over his weaknesses. See my earlier posts...

A couple more random points: As Ironchamp stated somewhere before, fear is not much of a factor here, as, in the end, Tyson's arrogant confidence in his ability was just as huge as Foreman's, and if any of these two showed shakiness and fear in the pro ring, it was Foreman (blinking, wincing, stumbling before Frazier and Ali), never Tyson. D'Amato's comment on Foreman's invincibility was regarding a straight-forward slugger, which does not describe Tyson and Tyson would know it.
Tyson's "arrogant confidence" was a mask for his adolescent insecurity. Foreman may have been nervy before facing two fighters who are unquestionable great's nearer to their prime than any great that Tyson ever beat. And Foreman never had the thug equivalent of nervous breakdowns like Tyson did -several times on film.

He wouldn't even look at Holyfield's eyes during the pre-fight instructions! And that was unlike him... so what was different? I submit that he knew that Holyfield had absolutely no fear of him and was looking right through him. I think he was intimidated and emotionally unprepared for a war with someone equal or better.

Here is what Cus said: "No swarming Heavyweight who ever lived would defeat George Foreman." He did not qualify that statement with anything about "sluggers" or "straight forwardness". I suspect that he would see that Mike avoided Foreman as much as he saw that Floyd avoided Liston.

Foreman's straight punches never delivered his greatest power. He had to have you within inside range (like Frazier always foolishly was) for those huge hooks and uppercuts Ali made fun of pre-Zaire as telegraphed, relatively easily avoidable blows. And, on the other hand, if Tyson could solve an extremely proven escape artist such as Spinks in one minute, I continue to see him figuring out and dismantling a relatively brutish Foreman as well.
Tyson didn't "solve" a damn thing about Spinks. There was no time -he rushed him and stomped all over the puzzle. I am sure that you don't see him clashing with a superior force who is coming straight at him with wider steps, do you?

Ali's jokes about Foreman's Mummy punches were funny, but not altogether true. Foreman threw wicked shots, long and short, and snapped his hip for torque like no one else anyone had seen. Dick Saddler, not a man prone to hyperbole, said that he honestly doesn't know how any man can take the shots that George threw -they shook the rafters. And incidentally, those uppercuts were patented for small swarmers like Mike. If you watch the films, you see that Foreman was quite good at finding or forcing the right distance to punch, threw a right hook that generates force like none other, and at least for 7 rounds threw consistently hard punches that few would stand up to. Tyson not being one of them.

...........
All in all, you present a good argument for Tyson.

[prime]

You'd have to factor in a foot reach advantage, 5 inches in height, and superior strength. You'd have to factor in that Foreman's shots come faster than expected and in numbers -and any of them will knock Tyson off balance. You'd have to factor in that Foreman will not only knock him off balance, he will also put him at the distance where those punches will do the most damage.

Finally, Foreman threw short hooks and short uppercuts very well. Physics doesn't measure courage and character and recuperative abilities. Foreman will stand up to Tyson's shots more than vice versa.

Frazier had good speed and that hook wasn't quite as predictable as you argue. I myself have called Tyson a gamma-powered Frazier type, but when it comes to things like character and courage, Tyson is a comparative midget compared to Joe. There is no doubt about that. We have all seen numerous times how Tyson responds to real adversity in the ring --he either gets eventually stopped, he commits fouls to get himself disqualified, or he loses control of himself and turns it into a streetfight (Botha, Savarese, McBride). I for one, believe that Tyson would be a bit awed by Foreman and probably a bit worried as well. He may even concede that Foreman was boss. I think that he conceded this rather early against Holyfield I and II. Tyson strikes me as a man who regresses given a set of adverse circumstances.

These are good points, but not especially relevant here. Foreman was bigger and stronger than Tyson and those are real advantages. He would not disengage and he would not fight a survival fight.

Pushing Tyson back in and of itself is obviously not enough. Berbick was pushing Tyson back to get him away -he wasn't doing it to capitalize on Tyson being off balance and he sure as hell wasn't doing it for punching room. Foreman would be doing exactly that. Holyfield made it a point to walk Tyson back and bully him backwards --and it was highly effective. Foreman would do this naturally and more easily.

Now, of course Tyson has a punching chance. But it is an outside chance. Foreman was stopped once and it wasn't because of Ali's shot. It was exhaustion. Tyson won't be rope-a-doping. He'll fight him like everyone else did who got knocked out --aggressively.


This is a fantasy! You are woefully overestimating Tyson's strengths and completely glossing over his weaknesses. See my earlier posts...


Tyson's "arrogant confidence" was a mask for his adolescent insecurity. Foreman may have been nervy before facing two fighters who are unquestionable great's nearer to their prime than any great that Tyson ever beat. And Foreman never had the thug equivalent of nervous breakdowns like Tyson did -several times on film.

He wouldn't even look at Holyfield's eyes during the pre-fight instructions! And that was unlike him... so what was different? I submit that he knew that Holyfield had absolutely no fear of him and was looking right through him. I think he was intimidated and emotionally unprepared for a war with someone equal or better.

Here is what Cus said: "No swarming Heavyweight who ever lived would defeat George Foreman." He did not qualify that statement with anything about "sluggers" or "straight forwardness". I suspect that he would see that Mike avoided Foreman as much as he saw that Floyd avoided Liston.

Tyson didn't "solve" a damn thing about Spinks. There was no time -he rushed him and stomped all over the puzzle. I am sure that you don't see him clashing with a superior force who is coming straight at him with wider steps, do you?

Ali's jokes about Foreman's Mummy punches were funny, but not altogether true. Foreman threw wicked shots, long and short, and snapped his hip for torque like no one else anyone had seen. Dick Saddler, not a man prone to hyperbole, said that he honestly doesn't know how any man can take the shots that George threw -they shook the rafters. And incidentally, those uppercuts were patented for small swarmers like Mike. If you watch the films, you see that Foreman was quite good at finding or forcing the right distance to punch, threw a right hook that generates force like none other, and at least for 7 rounds threw consistently hard punches that few would stand up to. Tyson not being one of them.

...........
All in all, you present a good argument for Tyson.

a) Foreman's reach advantage could very well be nullified by a specialist in getting inside longer reaches, Tyson's bread and butter.
And Foreman's punches are comparatively slow and telegraphed, which spells trouble against the fast counterpunching Tyson. This was one reason why Ali was not afraid of Foreman; he knew he wouldn't be banged around because "his hands can't hit what his eyes can't see."

b) Yes, Foreman's fastest blows were those hook-and-uppercut series that required a stationary target like face-first Frazier, something Tyson is far from being.

c) Again, the fear factor to me is basically a nonfactor. Here are two great intimidating punchers with their own set of psychological flaws. These aspects basically cancel each other out. I see both men performing at their best at the sound of the bell. D'Amato never saw a peak Tyson, who was not merely a Marciano/Frazier, "swarmer"-"slugger"-wade-in type.

d) The seasoned Berbick tried everything: walking Tyson back, uppercutting, jabbing, pushing, crowding, running, clinching, blustering. To zilch avail. For the Holy fights, Tyson was 7 full years past his best, had been in jail for 3 years and fought a most-likely 'roided opponent. Just a little perspective. Besides, as I remember it, Holyfield won by moving in and out, using deft, minimal moves to either lead or counter, something I hardly see Foreman doing.

e) On the surface, what you say may sound pretty impressive: Foreman, "bigger, stronger, longer reach". But just how, frame by frame, do you see a Foreman victory in your mind's eye? What you call fantasy, I see as quite feasible: Tyson could circle faster than George could spin around and catch him with a sweeping left hook, right hook, overhand right or body-hook/uppercut combo. And once a blow lands, more will follow. George's defense is very limited. Reaction time is key here, and it is common knowledge that Tyson was blazing fast whereas Foreman proved he could be hit with impunity even from a distance in Round 1 against Ali. On the other hand, save repeated blows on a stationary target, I never saw George display an arsenal capable of catching a fleet, evasive, sturdy-chinned Tyson with enough repetitive firepower to stop him.

f) Foreman was felled by a great Ali right after receiving less punishment than Tyson did in Tokyo. And he was stunned and staggered since early on.

g) Whether Tyson completed or stomped on a puzzle in destroying Spinks is analogy distraction. My point was Tyson knew how to study and exploit weaknesses and openings extremely well, even in such successful fighters as Spinks (in 91 seconds), whereas Foreman failed miserably, woefully, as soon as he faced a fighter with top-level offensive and defensive capabilities.

Thanks for your input. I for one am here to learn and hopefully contribute.

[Stonehands89]

a) Foreman's reach advantage could very well be nullified by a specialist in getting inside longer reaches, Tyson's bread and butter.
And Foreman's punches are comparatively slow and telegraphed, which spells trouble against the fast counterpunching Tyson. This was one reason why Ali was not afraid of Foreman; he knew he wouldn't be banged around because "his hands can't hit what his eyes can't see."
Feasible, of course, but it was harder than hell to get close to prime Foreman without getting a concussion. There are a few posters out here who stereotype him as this plodding, slow monster throwing looping shots. Foreman could cut the ring off very well, was faster than his critics say he was, and had a wider array of punches in his arsenal.

b) Yes, Foreman's fastest blows were those hook-and-uppercut series that required a stationary target like face-first Frazier, something Tyson is far from being.
I don't see Frazier as much less elusive than Tyson... he was constantly moving his head and weaving all around not only for defense, but for leverage.

c) Again, the fear factor to me is basically a nonfactor. Here are two great intimidating punchers with their own set of psychological flaws. These aspects basically cancel each other out. I see both men performing at their best at the sound of the bell. D'Amato never saw a peak Tyson, who was not merely a Marciano/Frazier, "swarmer"-"slugger"-wade-in type.
Okay. As for me, I'm astounded still by Tyson's physicality -that speed and power, as well as by the technique that delivered these. I am unimpressed with his character and it is a great misfortune for him and for the sport that he was not stronger where it matters most for a man. Foreman, I strongly suspect, would exploit all the doubts and insecurities in Tyson. I see Foreman forcing Tyson to contend with adversity within 2 rounds.

d) The seasoned Berbick tried everything: walking Tyson back, uppercutting, jabbing, pushing, crowding, running, clinching, blustering. To zilch avail. For the Holy fights, Tyson was 7 full years past his best, had been in jail for 3 years and fought a most-likely 'roided opponent. Just a little perspective. Besides, as I remember it, Holyfield won by moving in and out, using deft, minimal moves to either lead or counter, something I hardly see Foreman doing.
Holyfield was neither strong as Foreman, tall as Foreman, not did he hit as hard as Foreman. It would be a different fight completely with Foreman and it would be a different fight completely than Berbick.

e) On the surface, what you say may sound pretty impressive: Foreman, "bigger, stronger, longer reach". But just how, frame by frame, do you see a Foreman victory in your mind's eye? What you call fantasy, I see as quite feasible: Tyson could circle faster than George could spin around and catch him with a sweeping left hook, right hook, overhand right or body-hook/uppercut combo. And once a blow lands, more will follow. George's defense is very limited. Reaction time is key here, and it is common knowledge that Tyson was blazing fast whereas Foreman proved he could be hit with impunity even from a distance in Round 1 against Ali. On the other hand, save repeated blows on a stationary target, I never saw George display an arsenal capable of catching a fleet, evasive, sturdy-chinned Tyson with enough repetitive firepower to stop him.
What I called fantasy is that idea that Tyson would simply make him miss and give him concussions. You would have to concede that Foreman is going to land several Ruddock-like shots early and in succession. Foreman will not lay off of Tyson.

Ali was as big as Foreman and had a comparable reach -it is no surprise that he would land on George because he'd land on anyone, ever.

I agree with you about George's disdainful defense, but I don't think it would make the difference here. George hits harder than Mike, takes a better shot than Mike, and shakes off shots better than Mike. Mike could conceivably connect at a harder rate, but every time he throws, he's at great risk. When Ruddock nailed him, he paused to clear the cobwebs. I see Foreman finishing what he started where Ruddock couldn't.

f) Foreman was felled by a great Ali right after receiving less punishment than Tyson did in Tokyo. And he was stunned and staggered since early on.
Stunned and staggered? I didn't see that. Foreman had undeniable stamina problems and trained for the fight almost exclusively on a heavy bag -which made it worse than it had to be.

g) Whether Tyson completed or stomped on a puzzle in destroying Spinks is analogy distraction. My point was Tyson knew how to study and exploit weaknesses and openings extremely well, even in such successful fighters as Spinks (in 91 seconds), whereas Foreman failed miserably, woefully, as soon as he faced a fighter with top-level offensive and defensive capabilities.
"Analogy distraction"? Tyson's 'strategy' against Spinks was not Leonard-like, it was "Foremanesque". Tyson simply overwhelmed Spinks. There was nothin deliberative or analytical about it really. In other words, he didn't try to solve the puzzle, he stomped on it!

Thanks for your input. I for one am here to learn and hopefully contribute.
Well, you have already contributed the best defense for Tyson in this match-up that I've read!

[AnthonyJ74]

I'm not so sure that Foreman hit harder than Tyson. Regardless, whomever ultimately hit harder, Tyson's punches had much more snap and explosiveness to them. If Foreman could nail Tyson like he did Frazier, Tyson would be saying goodnight. But I doubt it would be that easy and quick. And Tyson would have the speed and the explosiveness to hit George with something big much earlier in the fight. Maybe George would be able to smother Tyson and shut his offense down - that's a great possibility. But in terms of openings and finding clean shots, I think Tyson would have the advantage.

[Stonehands89]

I'm not so sure that Foreman hit harder than Tyson. Regardless, whomever ultimately hit harder, Tyson's punches had much more snap and explosiveness to them. If Foreman could nail Tyson like he did Frazier, Tyson would be saying goodnight. But I doubt it would be that easy and quick. And Tyson would have the speed and the explosiveness to hit George with something big much earlier in the fight. Maybe George would be able to smother Tyson and shut his offense down - that's a great possibility. But in terms of openings and finding clean shots, I think Tyson would have the advantage.
I have no doubt that Foreman hit harder than Tyson... however, I count Tyson as the most destructive puncher I've ever seen.

You are correct that Tyson would land more in a shoot out, but I see Foreman as taking more than Tyson could. But then I don't see Foreman as having to outshoot Tyson. He just has to land a few bombs. If Foreman hurts Tyson, history has shown that Tyson stays hurt. If Tyson hurts Foreman, history has shown that Foreman can shake it off and not lose one bit of effectiveness.

[AnthonyJ74]

I have no doubt that Foreman hit harder than Tyson... however, I count Tyson as the most destructive puncher I've ever seen.

You are correct that Tyson would land more in a shoot out, but I see Foreman as taking more than Tyson could. But then I don't see Foreman as having to outshoot Tyson. He just has to land a few bombs. If Foreman hurts Tyson, history has shown that Tyson stays hurt. If Tyson hurts Foreman, history has shown that Foreman can shake it off and not lose one bit of effectiveness.

What are you basing your assumption that Foreman hit harder than Tyson on? You may be right, but I'm curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion. With an unbiased eye, and just watching the two fighters on tape, Tyson's punches seem to have more "shock" value to them. Tyson has dropped many fighters with one punch, and he never seemed to have to "club" or repeatedly hit a guy to hurt him or keep him down. Foreman, on the other hand, seemed to have a clubbing punch that was heavy and strong but wasn't snappy or explosive.

And in terms of chin and durability, I'm not sure Foreman has an advantage. You say Foreman could just shake off being hurt, but I'm not so sure I agree. Granted, he has shown an ability to rebound from being hurt, but you have to factor in who he was hurt against, and what the respective strengths of those fighters were. Ron Lyle severely hurt Foreman on more than one occasion, and Foreman was lucky to escape with a win. Lyle hurt Foreman with single punches. Tyson, even against a big hitter like Ruddock, was rarely severely hurt by single punches. He took a beating from Douglas and Lewis, both big heavyweights, and he didn't go down easy. He lost both of those fights after taking a beating first, and both of those guys had styles totally opposite to Foreman. It wasn't easy to hurt Tyson, and it was even harder to drop him for the count!

[AnthonyJ74]

Foreman's reputation as a puncher relies soley on the destruction of 3 glass chinned fighters. Frazier, Norton, and Moorer.

How many one puch knockouts did he score in his career? 1? maybe 3? Tyson ICED people with one shot. Foreman had to club them into the ground because he lacked skill and had above average power at best.

I tend to agree. George was a strong guy with a strong punch, but I don't think he ever had true one punch knockout power. He was a clubber, and most of his big KO's were the result of beating an opponent with a series of punches.

[Stonehands89]

Foreman's reputation as a puncher relies soley on the destruction of 3 glass chinned fighters. Frazier, Norton, and Moorer.
None of the above had "glass chins".

How many one puch knockouts did he score in his career? 1? maybe 3? Tyson ICED people with one shot. Foreman had to club them into the ground because he lacked skill and had above average power at best.
Foreman's shots were extremely hard -but they were of a different sort than say -Hearns' shots, because George wasn't fast enough to catch you in a blink. The shots you don't see are the ones that knock you out. But in terms of sheer power, he is in the top 2% of the HW heap.

Destroying one undefeated HW champion in your mid twenties and then destroying yet another undefeated HW champion -late in the fight- and while in your mid-forties is the stuff of legend.

"Above average power"? BAH!!

[Stonehands89]

What are you basing your assumption that Foreman hit harder than Tyson on? You may be right, but I'm curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion. With an unbiased eye, and just watching the two fighters on tape, Tyson's punches seem to have more "shock" value to them. Tyson has dropped many fighters with one punch, and he never seemed to have to "club" or repeatedly hit a guy to hurt him or keep him down. Foreman, on the other hand, seemed to have a clubbing punch that was heavy and strong but wasn't snappy or explosive.
Did you not read what I wrote? Tyson is the most destructive puncher that I have ever seen. That is different from being the hardest puncher.

And in terms of chin and durability, I'm not sure Foreman has an advantage. You say Foreman could just shake off being hurt, but I'm not so sure I agree. Granted, he has shown an ability to rebound from being hurt, but you have to factor in who he was hurt against, and what the respective strengths of those fighters were. Ron Lyle severely hurt Foreman on more than one occasion, and Foreman was lucky to escape with a win. Lyle hurt Foreman with single punches. Tyson, even against a big hitter like Ruddock, was rarely severely hurt by single punches. He took a beating from Douglas and Lewis, both big heavyweights, and he didn't go down easy. He lost both of those fights after taking a beating first, and both of those guys had styles totally opposite to Foreman. It wasn't easy to hurt Tyson, and it was even harder to drop him for the count!
Granted it wasn't easy to hurt Tyson, he was a durable little spark plug. And forget the Foreman of the Lyle fight... I'm talking about the 1973 wrecking machine. After the Ali loss, that Foreman was never seen again.

I think that you should read the earlier posts. A hurt Tyson didn't recover like other greats. Once Tyson got hurt by Douglas he looked unsteady for the remainder of the fight. Once Tyson got hurt by Holyfield, he got amnesia and was fighting like Pavlov's dog by his own admission ("I don't remember anything after the third round"). Once Lewis got him hurt, it was a foregone conclusion. All of these guys boxed Tyson at least for a while. Steward was actually screaming at Lewis to stop boxing with him and finish him off. Foreman wouldn't offer the luxury of boxing Tyson because he would impose his will. And the fact is, Tyson didn't look so good if it wasn't his will that was imposed -thus his ineffectiveness when not moving forward.

[Stonehands89]

Tell me.

What are the records of Frazier, norton and moorer against top-flight punchers?

Frazier
0-2 ( plus a bad scare against bonavena)
How silly. He fought Foreman twice and was stopped twice. Getting stopped by Foreman of all men indicates a glass jaw? Your definition of "glass jaw" applies to ~67 HWs.

Norton
0-3 (Plus a knockout loss to garcia)
Not many other guys would have stood up to the early Foreman onslaught either. Even less would have eaten the shot that he did by Shavers (the hardest puncher ever in my opinion) -and Ken was 36. Cooney was also a puncher and Ken was 38 and in his last fight.

Moorer
1-3 ( Knocked down in win against holyfield)
Silly. Moorer was never stopped in 35 fights going in against Foreman. He got shocked by Tua who was a banger and Holyfield caught him with a beauty of a combination... and Moorer got up about 4 times anyway.

-Frazier was stopped by Foreman and Futch in 37 fights.

-Norton was stopped 4 times, 3 times by top tier punchers in a total of 50 fights

-Moorer was stopped by 2 great puncher and 1 good puncher in 57 fights.

Tell me

Are these what constitute a glass jaw in your estimation?

[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 Kurgan]

Yes.


Foreman was also unable to stop glass jawed morrison.

Tyson couldn't stop Danny Williams (often knocked out) or Kevin McBride (utterly awful chin). While Foreman faced Morrison when he was, what, 43, Tyson was still near his prime at the sprightly age of 37.

[Russell]

I think that you should read the earlier posts. A hurt Tyson didn't recover like other greats. Once Tyson got hurt by Douglas he looked unsteady for the remainder of the fight. Once Tyson got hurt by Holyfield, he got amnesia and was fighting like Pavlov's dog by his own admission ("I don't remember anything after the third round").

Same exact thing happened against Danny Williams.

[Russell]

Yes.


Foreman was also unable to stop glass jawed morrison.
Snorlaaaaaaaaaaaaaaax!

[The Kurgan]

Foreman was arguably a BETTER fighter in his 40's. His chin had improved as well as his stamina.

Do you think a 1973 Foreman would have KO'd a 1993 Morrison?

Tyson disloacated a knee and was 13 years past his best against williams. and completely imploded against mcbride.

He was only 13 years from his prime? Foreman was 20 years removed from his peak performance. Plus, Foreman didn't get knocked out by Morrison, despite the fact that Morrison was a much better hitter (and overall boxer) than either Williams and McBride.

Foreman, when 20 years past his best prime and grossly overweight, lost a 12 round decision against a very underrated boxer. He didn't land a big shot all night and consequentely didn't knock Morrison out. Nothing Morrison (a seriously hard puncher) landed on this ancient fat old Foreman came close to knocking him down.

If you're going to hold the Morrison fight against Foreman, I cannot see how you can avoid holding the McBride and Williams fights against Tyson. Personally, I don't hold either against either man, which is the sensible perspective.

[Stonehands89]

Yes.


Foreman was also unable to stop glass jawed morrison.
...Your next avatar should be thus:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Silly rabbit. Trix are for kids.

[AnthonyJ74]

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.

Yeah, George really showed how good he was at 46 when he "beat" Schultz! And George was not the world heavyweight champ from 94-97. He was champ from November of '94 until he was stripped the following year for refusing to give Axel Schultz - the handpicked patsie that George chose to fight in order not to risk losing his title and jeopardize a Tyson fight - a rematch!

[AnthonyJ74]

Did you not read what I wrote? Tyson is the most destructive puncher that I have ever seen. That is different from being the hardest puncher.


Granted it wasn't easy to hurt Tyson, he was a durable little spark plug. And forget the Foreman of the Lyle fight... I'm talking about the 1973 wrecking machine. After the Ali loss, that Foreman was never seen again.

I think that you should read the earlier posts. A hurt Tyson didn't recover like other greats. Once Tyson got hurt by Douglas he looked unsteady for the remainder of the fight. Once Tyson got hurt by Holyfield, he got amnesia and was fighting like Pavlov's dog by his own admission ("I don't remember anything after the third round"). Once Lewis got him hurt, it was a foregone conclusion. All of these guys boxed Tyson at least for a while. Steward was actually screaming at Lewis to stop boxing with him and finish him off. Foreman wouldn't offer the luxury of boxing Tyson because he would impose his will. And the fact is, Tyson didn't look so good if it wasn't his will that was imposed -thus his ineffectiveness when not moving forward.

You didn't answer my question. What "proof" or "evidence" do you have that leads you to believe that Foreman hit harder than Tyson.

And, as far as Tyson not recovering like other greats, who do you mean? Joe Louis was hurt early and ultimately knocked out by Max Schmelling. Cassius Clay got saved by Angelo Dundee after Henry Cooper sent him into orbit! Tyson was never surprised and beaten leading up to his first title shot. And, saying that Tyson didn't recover after being hurt like other greats is a double-edged sword. Mabye a lot of that has to do with the fact that Tyson never got hurt against the guys that he fought up until Douglas. He blew through his title challengers. If you want to say that Tony Tucker and Frank Bruno hurt Tyson briefly, I won't argue. But Tyson's skill and defensive ability had a lot to do with him never having to battle back after being hurt. It might be better to hold the guy who never gets hurt in the first place above the guy who does get hurt. Boxing skill and defense means a lot!

[Stonehands89]

You didn't answer my question. What "proof" or "evidence" do you have that leads you to believe that Foreman hit harder than Tyson.
Must someone's opinion be predicated on evidence? That would be an awful burden on us all. I didn't summon both into a lab to measure the PSI of their shots if that is what you mean. What I do have is observation that Foreman's shots were thunderous. I have the testimony of his opponents, like Ali and Chuvalo, who said that he hit enormously hard. I have a crazy KO percentage and I have film like this:

SvDKYYpCkZ0

And, as far as Tyson not recovering like other greats, who do you mean? Joe Louis was hurt early and ultimately knocked out by Max Schmelling. Cassius Clay got saved by Angelo Dundee after Henry Cooper sent him into orbit! Tyson was never surprised and beaten leading up to his first title shot. And, saying that Tyson didn't recover after being hurt like other greats is a double-edged sword. Mabye a lot of that has to do with the fact that Tyson never got hurt against the guys that he fought up until Douglas. He blew through his title challengers. If you want to say that Tony Tucker and Frank Bruno hurt Tyson briefly, I won't argue. But Tyson's skill and defensive ability had a lot to do with him never having to battle back after being hurt. It might be better to hold the guy who never gets hurt in the first place above the guy who does get hurt. Boxing skill and defense means a lot!
The evidence is staring you in the face. I have already posted facts about Tyson's losses. He never went down and got up and won. Louis did. Ali did. They faced real adversity and overcame it. Tyson may have been stunned by a Bruno or a Ruddock shot, but was allowed to recover. What is hard to understand about the argument?

Answer these, please:
Which HWs should be favored to beat Tyson?
Which HWs hit harder than Foreman? Than Tyson?

[AnthonyJ74]

Must someone's opinion be predicated on evidence? That would be an awful burden on us all. I didn't summon both into a lab to measure the PSI of their shots if that is what you mean. What I do have is observation that Foreman's shots were thunderous. I have the testimony of his opponents, like Ali and Chuvalo, who said that he hit enormously hard. I have a crazy KO percentage and I have film like this:

SvDKYYpCkZ0


The evidence is staring you in the face. I have already posted facts about Tyson's losses. He never went down and got up and won. Louis did. Ali did. They faced real adversity and overcame it. Tyson may have been stunned by a Bruno or a Ruddock shot, but was allowed to recover. What is hard to understand about the argument?

Answer these, please:
Which HWs should be favored to beat Tyson?
Which HWs hit harder than Foreman? Than Tyson?

Maybe Tyson was so much better than his opponents that he didn't have to face adversity from them. Maybe Tyson deserves some credit for not getting hurt and dropped by opponents until well into his title reign. Buster Douglas was whipping Tyson pretty good well before that eighth round uppercut sent Douglas to the canvas. Tyson was tasting adversity during the course of that fight and still managed to "fight back" and nearly stop Douglas. And, after getting brutalized by a Douglas combination that sent Tyson to the canvas, Tyson was still trying to get up; he was half coherent and shoving his mouthpiece in backwards into his mouth. That doesn't fit the stereotype of a lay down Sally or a guy with no heart!

[Stonehands89]

Maybe Tyson was so much better than his opponents that he didn't have to face adversity from them. Maybe Tyson deserves some credit for not getting hurt and dropped by opponents until well into his title reign. Buster Douglas was whipping Tyson pretty good well before that eighth round uppercut sent Douglas to the canvas. Tyson was tasting adversity during the course of that fight and still managed to "fight back" and nearly stop Douglas. And, after getting brutalized by a Douglas combination that sent Tyson to the canvas, Tyson was still trying to get up; he was half coherent and shoving his mouthpiece in backwards into his mouth. That doesn't fit the stereotype of a lay down Sally or a guy with no heart!
I would not say that Tyson had no heart, but he was not as secure and confident as you believe -never. Tyson the Myth was, but he is a figment of the wee ones' imagination.

If Tyson continued to roll over has-beens, never-where's, and stylistic meals, would you believe that he was indestructible? I wouldn't. Greatness untested is theoretical.

Tyson is great, in my opinion, but any other greats who could survive the early onslaught and who had the capability to hurt him and test his will has a good chance of beating him. I choose Holyfield, Foreman, & Liston as very likely to KO him, prime or no prime.

[Irish Steel]

Foreman kos him within 7

[AnthonyJ74]

I would not say that Tyson had no heart, but he was not as secure and confident as you believe -never. Tyson the Myth was, but he is a figment of the wee ones' imagination.

If Tyson continued to roll over has-beens, never-where's, and stylistic meals, would you believe that he was indestructible? I wouldn't. Greatness untested is theoretical.

Tyson is great, in my opinion, but any other greats who could survive the early onslaught and who had the capability to hurt him and test his will has a good chance of beating him. I choose Holyfield, Foreman, & Liston as very likely to KO him, prime or no prime.

Foreman has admitted to being a very insecure and fearful fighter during his first career. He faced Ken Norton only because he had to, and Foreman admitted to being consumed by fear prior to facing Joe Frazier. Foreman also admitted to avoiding Jerry Quarry as champion. And these are the things that Foreman willingly admits to; what other types of *****s in his armor might have Foreman possessed?

It's funny how many of Tyson's opponents are ridiculed for being has-beens and no-hopers simply because Tyson dispatched them so easily. Granted, Tyson never fought a Joe Louis or Muhammad Ali or Joe Frazier type of opponent, but those guys never fought a Mike Tyson type of opponent either. And, Tyson fought the best fighters available during his time. Unlike a guy like Holmes, Tyson willingly unified the title by fighting all of the other titlists. Tyson could only fight guys that were around during his "prime" years. And, Tyson dispatched guys in a way that few others could.

Foreman being tested against Ron Lye is one thing, but do you think Ron Lyle would have tested Tyson in the same way? I have a hard time imagining Lyle hurting Tyson like he hurt Foreman. So, the fact that Foreman was hurt and nearly stopped by Lyle only to battle back might not be the positive that many make it out to be.

[prime]

Granted it wasn't easy to hurt Tyson, he was a durable little spark plug.

A hurt Tyson didn't recover like other greats. Once Tyson got hurt by Douglas he looked unsteady for the remainder of the fight. Once Tyson got hurt by Holyfield, he got amnesia and was fighting like Pavlov's dog by his own admission ("I don't remember anything after the third round"). Once Lewis got him hurt, it was a foregone conclusion. All of these guys boxed Tyson at least for a while. Steward was actually screaming at Lewis to stop boxing with him and finish him off. Foreman wouldn't offer the luxury of boxing Tyson because he would impose his will. And the fact is, Tyson didn't look so good if it wasn't his will that was imposed -thus his ineffectiveness when not moving forward.

I think Anthony makes a good point: Foreman was hurt and dropped by single Lyle shots comparable to Ruddock and Thomas bombs that Tyson simply snorted off.

Regarding Tyson's ability to take shots, I have always been impressed with three exhibits:

a) the aforementioned Thomas in Round 1; Tyson savagely assails a tough Thomas from the first bell, but Thomas does not fall, instead letting his own hands go and managing to make Tyson relent a bit. Thomas unleashes a perfect straight right that lands right on the button; Tyson's square legs buckle, he composes himself, the bell rings and both fighters look challengingly at each other. Were Tyson not iron-chinned, this moment would have been one of those highlights for the ages when a challenger surprisingly takes the title with one punch, or at least drops the champion for a flash knockdown, or else gains the confidence to begin putting together an upset. Nothing of the sort happened, and this moment is totally overlooked because Tyson efficiently absorbed the blow, continued with his fight plan and proceeded to get the better of a defiant Thomas until he pulverizes him with a fantastic Round 6 brutal knockout flurry.

b) The first Bruno fight. Bruno, a guy with a 97% knockout rate, shamelessly rabbit punches Tyson tens of times within 2 minutes. Tyson never complains, but is naturally slowed a bit. Bruno unleashes a perfect tight left hook right on the button; Tyson goes into a crouch but then immediately keeps coming forward. A few seconds later, Bruno lands another solid left. Nothing. Tyson keeps up the pressure. Bruno manages to land a few more telling shots in an uneven fight for him until he is caught and savagely reduced to helplessness on the ropes in Round 5.

c) The Douglas fight. Tyson takes solid shot after solid shot for 8 full rounds from a very big man, without as much as staggering back (something Foreman clearly displayed early against Ali's single rights). I remember thinking then, as I do now, Tyson could definitely take it.

From the Holy fights on, let's just remember, as I have said before, that Tyson was 7 full years past his best, and had been in jail for 3 years. Getting hurt by Holy early to the point of amnesia clearly shows his deterioration by then.

[Stonehands89]

You put too much stake in what Foreman said when he was a middle-aged Christian preacher. On Champion's Forever, George was being gracious to two men who he absolutely destroyed easily. You shouldn't take that at face value.

I don't know if Tyson would roll over Lyle. The man was large, hit like hell and was an ex-con who had no fear. I wouldn't discount him so easily.

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...

[clark]

I think in the Lyle fight, the first shot Foreman got caught with
was picture perfect on George's temple. ANYONE who gets hit
a certain way, perfect timing, power, angle, placement, can get hurt.
George really wasn't with it 100% after that shot in round one.

[Stonehands89]

I think in the Lyle fight, the first shot Foreman got caught with
was picture perfect on George's temple. ANYONE who gets hit
a certain way, perfect timing, power, angle, placement, can get hurt.
George really wasn't with it 100% after that shot in round one.
Additionally, I do not consider the George in question here to be anywhere near as vulnerable as he was after Zaire. People discount how much damage Ali did to his psyche. The ghost of Zaire was exorcised from his life 20 years later when Moorer went down for the cound. I found it interesting that George had Dundee in his corner and was wearing the same, 20 year old red and blue trunks that he wore when he lost the title.

[AnthonyJ74]

You put too much stake in what Foreman said when he was a middle-aged Christian preacher. On Champion's Forever, George was being gracious to two men who he absolutely destroyed easily. You shouldn't take that at face value.

I don't know if Tyson would roll over Lyle. The man was large, hit like hell and was an ex-con who had no fear. I wouldn't discount him so easily.

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...

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.

[AnthonyJ74]

I think in the Lyle fight, the first shot Foreman got caught with
was picture perfect on George's temple. ANYONE who gets hit
a certain way, perfect timing, power, angle, placement, can get hurt.
George really wasn't with it 100% after that shot in round one.

Ron Lyle wasn't the fastest guy around. Someone like Tyson would be able to hit that temple of George's much better.

[AnthonyJ74]

You put too much stake in what Foreman said when he was a middle-aged Christian preacher. On Champion's Forever, George was being gracious to two men who he absolutely destroyed easily. You shouldn't take that at face value.

I don't know if Tyson would roll over Lyle. The man was large, hit like hell and was an ex-con who had no fear. I wouldn't discount him so easily.

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...

Tyson has beaten many guys bigger than Lyle, so I don't think Lyle's size would bother Tyson. Lyle was a strong guy who seemed to be fearless, but that in and of itself doesn't magically elevate your skill. And if you go by skill and punching ability, I don't see how Lyle could win a fight over tyson.

[Sonny's jab]

I still think Foreman inside 2 rounds, perhaps in the 1st.

[prime]

I still think Foreman inside 2 rounds, perhaps in the 1st.

How come?

[Sonny's jab]

How come?

Because he was bigger and badder, really nasty and brutish. Very very strong. And he stood his ground well. Tyson's footwork was all wrong, Foreman would push him back and beat him up. It would be short and brutal, ugly beating. Tyson was a bit of a cry-baby, easy to frustrate, esp. against fighters who fought with rough tactics. Foreman would kill him.

[mr. magoo]

Because he was bigger and badder, really nasty and brutish. Very very strong. And he stood his ground well. Tyson's footwork was all wrong, Foreman would push him back and beat him up. It would be short and brutal, ugly beating. Tyson was a bit of a cry-baby, easy to frustrate, esp. against fighters who fought with rough tactics. Foreman would kill him.

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.

[Russell]

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

[mr. magoo]

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

Anytime you have two all time great punchers in the same ring, anything is possible. What we have to go with however, is a certain degree of probability when doing fantasy matchups across eras. The styles of these two fighters clearly favors one over the other. Some would beg to differ with me on that, but I don't see this one going well for Tyson.