Mike Tyson v George Foreman

Excellent post. I'm liking the different perspectives you bring to the table here. Stuff we like to think about but never really put down on paper. The comparison of post loss performances, for example, and who was more likely to regain the title before both took absences from the ring. Good stuff!

 

The trouble with you is you're not young enough to know everything.:nono

 

Tyson only Ko'd a man after 8 once and that was trial horse Ribalta that does not take down my stats it shows he was an early force but fizzled after 8rds, Foreman 1 may have fizzled before in a fast paced bout but both men in there fist career put there best foot forward early and fizzled, Foreman was far worse

 

Ever take a statistics or even basic mathematics class?

It's kinda difficult to KO your opponents after 8 when only 5 of your first 37 lasted long enough to be eligible for such a distinction.

Please do not try to argue that it is a strike against Tyson because he did not allow his opponents to last longer. That just hurts my brain.

 

Its called circular logic.

 

you love being a wiseguy dont you Seamus, Tyson did better against the slew of opponents he faced and dispatched them quicker than the sorry lot of his predecessors but what i was trying to articulate is when he lost it was usually in the later rounds Buster Douglas KO by in 10, Holyfield KO BY in 11, and as he got older he fizzled earlier Lewis KO BY in 8,Danny Williams KO By in 4, Kevin McBride KO'd by in 6 THESE PRIME LOSES ARE SUGGESTING THAT MIKE GOT WEAKER IN THE LATER ROUNDS

Tyson only once showed the late power to KO Jose Ribalta in 10 (a TKO) and he fizzled in his fight vs Tucker,Smith and Mitch Green and James Tillis (and Tillis was KO'd previously by Page,Thomas and Witherspoon

The point I am making is Mike was a quick starter but only had 1 KO after the 8th round and was KO'd 3 times after the 8th round bell

 

So defeats against Williams and McBride are prime losses?

 

I'm gonna speak for Seamus on this one...Why would that be a mark against Tyson? Wouldn't going the distance and getting a dominating win be just as good as getting a knockout no matter which round? If Tyson never won a decision and only had wins by knockout people would hold THAT against him. It's unreal. Now if he lost every time he went past the 8th, then and only then can we boxing fans hold that against him.

 

obviously you did not read my post I said Douglas and Holyfield were prime fights and his KO losses came after the 10th round suggesting a fizzle

 

when Tyson lost to Douglas and Holyfield by KO it was after the 8th round suggesting that he got weaker as the fight went on later on he fizzled earlier and was winded vs Lewis,Douglas,and McBride when he sat down for the count

 

Tyson was not prime for Holyfield. Any serious observer of his career knows he was a shadow of his former self after his time in the joint. He was just a little guy with a big rep and faded skills.

 

Agree. It took a roided Holy, 6 headbutts and the kitchen sink.
And if I may be a stickler, Mike got stopped on his feet, TKO.
Mike was dazed and confused but he wasn't knocked out like
the Douglass fight, Mike could have been hurt if that one was allowed
to continue. A former poster made a good point that post prison
MIke didnt have enough quality rounds going into the Holy fight.
On a side note Holy said he was very nervous the night before, got
maybe 3 hours of sleep, kept getting up and reading the bible!
Mike just might put on a defense clinic as well some brilliant moments
like in the Tillis fight, the footage right before the knockdown in that fight
always stuck with me.

 

Perhaps it was the travel past the 8th round that made Mike revisit the Douglas de ja vu, you say he was not prime but Holyfield had just struggled to stop former middleweight contender Bobby Cyz in his last fight. If you noticed in my first post I said this fight can go either way but I pointed out area's of weakness of both men

 

If I hadn't read it I wouldnt have commented on it would I?:huh
I read it ,even down to the spelling mistake in LOSSES.
Here it is, now you tell me how it should be interpreted before I jump on that plane.:yep

Buster Douglas KO by in 10, Holyfield KO BY in 11, and as he got older he fizzled earlier Lewis KO BY in 8,Danny Williams KO By in 4, Kevin McBride KO'd by in 6 THESE PRIME LOSES ARE SUGGESTING THAT MIKE GOT WEAKER IN THE LATER ROUNDS