Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-29-2012, 02:06 PM   #46
MagnaNasakki
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,829
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tyson would have beaten George Foreman and heres why!

Quote:
Originally Posted by salty trunks View Post
Unforgiven under yet another screename.
I have no aliases.

I've never been awed by Mike. Maybe it's because we came up in the same time frame, in the same system, and in the same climate, but I never saw the invincible monster everybody else did.

I saw a beast of a kid, an athletic wunderkind, taking out his anger at the world behind the standard Cus D'Amato style that sometimes held, and something didn't. Who went in to hit and hurt, and didn't care much about what hit him back. A guy like George Foreman would MAKE him care. His own trainer didn't have confidence in the match up, and Cus was a pretty frank, honest guy, I'll give him that much.

Mike was much, much more fighter than boxer.
MagnaNasakki is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-29-2012, 02:43 PM   #47
hookfromhell
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,305
vCash: 427
Default Re: Tyson would have beaten George Foreman and heres why!

Look at the bombs that a shot Mike took from Lennox Lewis. I believe
when it comes to right hands Foremans is only marginally more powerful
than Lennox. Aside from Frazier, Foreman was largely an accumulation
puncher who had some trouble with Peralta. Tysons chin was iron, I
see his defense being too tight for Foreman. Big George sneaks in some
monster hooks and uppercuts, Mike survives and batters George's body
and hurts George with uppercuts. Couldnt get much different than Georges
wide looping punches that were actually quick and Tyson's short,
lightning quick bombs. George never faced power like this. Epic slugfest
of a war, Tyson KO 5.
hookfromhell is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 03:17 PM   #48
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,644
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tyson would have beaten George Foreman and heres why!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki View Post
I have no aliases.

I've never been awed by Mike. Maybe it's because we came up in the same time frame, in the same system, and in the same climate, but I never saw the invincible monster everybody else did.

I saw a beast of a kid, an athletic wunderkind, taking out his anger at the world behind the standard Cus D'Amato style that sometimes held, and something didn't. Who went in to hit and hurt, and didn't care much about what hit him back. A guy like George Foreman would MAKE him care. His own trainer didn't have confidence in the match up, and Cus was a pretty frank, honest guy, I'll give him that much.

Mike was much, much more fighter than boxer.
I understand where you are coming from, but accomplishment-wise Mike achieved a lot. He basically erased the division in the mid-to-late 80's. And I know it's fashionable to call the guys he beat old and past their prime, but in reality guys like Tucker, Tubbs, Berbick and Thomas were all around 30 years old, hardly ancient. So long as Cus, Rooney & Co. would harness his fantastic physical tools, Tyson was a tall order for any heavy ever. I am still amazed that anyone even dare compare Dempsey's quick slog through a depleted, all-white version of the heavyweight ranks to what Tyson achieved over a longer duration against bigger opponents with deeper pedigrees (i.e. most outside of Bonecrusher were trainer from youth in amateur hothouses...)
Seamus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 03:29 PM   #49
MagnaNasakki
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,829
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tyson would have beaten George Foreman and heres why!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
I understand where you are coming from, but accomplishment-wise Mike achieved a lot. He basically erased the division in the mid-to-late 80's. And I know it's fashionable to call the guys he beat old and past their prime, but in reality guys like Tucker, Tubbs, Berbick and Thomas were all around 30 years old, hardly ancient. So long as Cus, Rooney & Co. would harness his fantastic physical tools, Tyson was a tall order for any heavy ever. I am still amazed that anyone even dare compare Dempsey's quick slog through a depleted, all-white version of the heavyweight ranks to what Tyson achieved over a longer duration against bigger opponents with deeper pedigrees (i.e. most outside of Bonecrusher were trainer from youth in amateur hothouses...)

No shitting on what he did accomplishment; He established himself as the dominant heavyweight in the division for about 4 years. That's no mean feat, its an incredible accomplishment.

I've just never bought him as the super destroyer I see him revered as. You'd need to be on a certain level to have more than a prayer, but as Douglas showed, even fighters beneath that level have a chance.

Amazing fighter, great champion, but flawed like any other man who ever put on gloves.
MagnaNasakki is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 03:48 PM   #50
rusak
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 947
vCash: 500
Default Re: Tyson would have beaten George Foreman and heres why!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki View Post
No shitting on what he did accomplishment; He established himself as the dominant heavyweight in the division for about 4 years. That's no mean feat, its an incredible accomplishment.

I've just never bought him as the super destroyer I see him revered as. You'd need to be on a certain level to have more than a prayer, but as Douglas showed, even fighters beneath that level have a chance.

Amazing fighter, great champion, but flawed like any other man who ever put on gloves.
So instead of Tyson, you see Foreman as this super destroyer? What the hell is George Foreman? He is a crude slugger with bad punching technique and bad stamina.

Seriously, does anyone think that Foreman had better defense than even a shot Larry Holmes? Watch the first Frazier fight - Frazier is landing on Foreman, the defensive genius. Tyson had better foot speed than Frazier and would start faster. I don't see Foreman being able to shove Tyson around the way he did to Frazier.
rusak is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 07:02 PM   #51
AnthonyJ74
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,574
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tyson would have beaten George Foreman and heres why!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadcapMaxie View Post
Foreman's swings weren't slow and for the most part he threw shorter punches, it was only when he had his man in trouble that he winged them because he got too excited. Tyson fought mid range and usually bob and weaved in very rythmic fashion and was susceptible to uppercuts. All these three things wouldn't bode well against Foreman because he fought at longer range, and was accurate with his punching and would almost certainly catch Tyson coming in, his head movement although quick was very 1-2-3, 3-2-1. Also even if Tyson did get past Foreman's punches and landed his own Foreman would be able to take alot of his shots with his chin and would in any case shove him back. Foreman did extremely well against shorter fighters.
Just playing Devil's advocate here, but Tyson did extremely well against taller fighters!
AnthonyJ74 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 07:19 PM   #52
OMGWTF
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 353
vCash: 535
Default Re: Tyson would have beaten George Foreman and heres why!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brownies View Post
Following the OP's logic, Frazier should've beaten Foreman. Like what's been said before, it's not a video game : Foreman's style would trouble Tyson without a doubt. He'd catch him with an uppercut I'd say.
Thats the best counter argument ive heard so far.

Tyson was much better the smoking Joe fraizier at nearly everything, he was a different animal, better chin, better at getting inside, better defence, better offencive defence, bigger, faster, stronger puncher, smarter tactics, more skil, more effective against bigger stronger taller guysl etc

Remember how low Tyson used to get I think vs berbick, too low for the uppercut, I think he could have gotten inside.
OMGWTF is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 09:08 PM   #53
BUDW
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,093
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tyson would have beaten George Foreman and heres why!

George would utterly destroy Tyson prime vs prime
BUDW is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 09:09 PM   #54
rusak
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 947
vCash: 500
Default Re: Tyson would have beaten George Foreman and heres why!

Just watch Frazier-Foreman and you'll see that Frazier is tagging Foreman easily, but he's throwing only single shots. Look at where Foreman's hands are and how little he moves his head. How is Tyson not going to hit him? I think Foreman would get hit flush with big shots, combinations. And then what? In the comic book world of 70s nuthuggers, Foreman just walks right through it and KOs Tyson like nothing happened. In reality, Foreman got roughed up by Jimmy Young.

The more I think about it, the only way Foreman can win is if he's able to push Tyson around the way he did to Frazier. Otherwise, Tyson's hand speed and combinations would take over. Foreman was able to push Frazier away and keep him where he wanted him. I don't think Foreman would be able to do that with Tyson, who typically has a wider base than Frazier, bends the knees more, and is much stronger than Frazier. Tyson also started much faster than Frazier.
rusak is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 09:11 PM   #55
BUDW
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,093
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tyson would have beaten George Foreman and heres why!

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMGWTF View Post
Thats the best counter argument ive heard so far.

Tyson was much better the smoking Joe fraizier at nearly everything, he was a different animal, better chin, better at getting inside, better defence, better offencive defence, bigger, faster, stronger puncher, smarter tactics, more skil, more effective against bigger stronger taller guysl etc

Remember how low Tyson used to get I think vs berbick, too low for the uppercut, I think he could have gotten inside.
Better chin LOL you must never have seen George in his prime
BUDW is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 09:15 PM   #56
rusak
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 947
vCash: 500
Default Re: Tyson would have beaten George Foreman and heres why!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BUDW View Post
Better chin LOL you must never have seen George in his prime
Prime Foreman was getting roughed up by guys like Ali and Young. Tyson would knock his head off. Remember that shot that chopped down Larry Holmes? Foreman would get that and then some.
rusak is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 11:22 PM   #57
MagnaNasakki
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,829
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tyson would have beaten George Foreman and heres why!

Quote:
Originally Posted by rusak View Post
So instead of Tyson, you see Foreman as this super destroyer? What the hell is George Foreman? He is a crude slugger with bad punching technique and bad stamina.

Seriously, does anyone think that Foreman had better defense than even a shot Larry Holmes? Watch the first Frazier fight - Frazier is landing on Foreman, the defensive genius. Tyson had better foot speed than Frazier and would start faster. I don't see Foreman being able to shove Tyson around the way he did to Frazier.
At his peak? I do- He walked through most of the top heavyweights of his era, and unlike Mike, a few of them were greats at our near their peak.

I don't think Mike beat anybody all that good outside of Spinks and Tucker. But then, I see his win over a retired Holmes as a whole lot less impressive than many do.
MagnaNasakki is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 11:29 PM   #58
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,644
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tyson would have beaten George Foreman and heres why!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki View Post
At his peak? I do- He walked through most of the top heavyweights of his era, and unlike Mike, a few of them were greats at our near their peak.

I don't think Mike beat anybody all that good outside of Spinks and Tucker. But then, I see his win over a retired Holmes as a whole lot less impressive than many do.
Just to play Devil's Advocate here, but did Frazier have a really good win after his first Foreman encounter? A guy with his style and his frail physical assets, wasn't he done by 72, after starting his peak in about 66?

And Norton was born chinny... So how good really was Foreman, probably the most protect prospect I have seen in the modern era?
Seamus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 01:01 AM   #59
rusak
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 947
vCash: 500
Default Re: Tyson would have beaten George Foreman and heres why!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki View Post
At his peak? I do- He walked through most of the top heavyweights of his era, and unlike Mike, a few of them were greats at our near their peak.

I don't think Mike beat anybody all that good outside of Spinks and Tucker. But then, I see his win over a retired Holmes as a whole lot less impressive than many do.
Foreman walked through Frazier and Norton, and that's it. He walked through Frazier because he was able to completely defuse Frazier's slow-starting one-handed style with his pushing and Frazier was unable to adjust once he was hurt. I think Foreman's chances against Tyson depend overwhelmingly on him being able to keep Tyson at his (Foreman's) range by shoving.

As for who beat who or didn't, I don't think it has any bearing on this. Most people who say Foreman beats Tyson say it's because of styles. But Tyson's style is different from Frazier's.

Look at how quickly Tyson closed the distance. From the opening bell, Tyson would dart in with explosive quickness, whereas Frazier moved forward slowly, bouncing around a lot. Tyson also had two-handed power and two-handed hand speed.

If Tyson slips inside Foreman's jab, what happens? People talk about Foreman's uppercuts, Tyson had a good uppercut himself. How is Foreman going to neutralize Tyson's hand speed and overall quickness at mid range? Foreman isn't some master counterpuncher and with his poor defense, I can see Tyson strafing him with combinations.
rusak is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 01:12 AM   #60
ETM
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,755
vCash: 500
Default Re: Tyson would have beaten George Foreman and heres why!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
Just to play Devil's Advocate here, but did Frazier have a really good win after his first Foreman encounter? A guy with his style and his frail physical assets, wasn't he done by 72, after starting his peak in about 66?
He had good wins over Bugner and Quarry. He looked good against Quarry in `74. He looked awesome against Ali in a losing effort in 1975. So no he wasnt done by 72.
ETM is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013