Why Prime Mike Tyson beats a 70s George Foreman

Foreman actually fought a smarter fight in this one ( against young) ...its always a question WHAT IF foreman picked his shots vs Ali well? You cant have it both ways.Foreman simply was out worked with boxing IQ in both fights. Pweople just dont want to beleive foreman lost to such a weak puncher with less skills than Ali,Had he fought both in reverse...agrressive against young and patient with Ali MAYBE he wins?

somewhere HAD foreman developed ring smarts to adjust to opponents who relied to outside technical ability and can smother him he could have been that guy to beat than Ali,but he never surfaced.

foreman relied mainly on size and against such a refined fighter like Tyson who has by far the better delivery to get that punch to land well...again foreman would not be the favorite here.

 

Cus was talking to a then 15 year old Tyson...Cus knew Tyson wasnt a slugger nor close range fighter ...he was mid range one and calculaated from that distance to go in for explosive combos.. People are too oblivious to actually study fights on here... lol

 

I would say that the one variable that you have not compared is styles, which is arguably the most important one.

This is a showdown between a come forward pressure fighter, and a pure slugger, which hands Foreman the stylistic advantage.

I am not saying that Tyson would not win this, but he is up against a bit of a stylistic foil here.

 

What's 'defunked'? Is that when they threw James Brown out?

 

Size and strength:

Since were talking primes, its

Tyson 5'11, 71' reach 215-220 pound

vs

Foreman 6'3, 78' reach 217-225 pound

Foreman was not only taller, he was more robust and had the body of a farm or factory worker who moved heavy objects all day. He did in fact work at a warehouse at one point and frequently proved his physical strength by famously lifting a calf like a loaf of bread, pulling cars, etc. His muscles werent just for show. Foreman was never bullied or pushed back even when he was a developing young man, he dominated in the clinch and effortlessly shoved 200+ pound men around like kids.

Tyson was strong too, but his strength was more in short spurts, pouncing on his opponent and using erratic movement and explosive punching to damage his opponent. He did some weight lifting and neck exercises at some point. However, the irony is Tyson was not a good inside fighter. He frequently allowed other fighters to tie him up and had to reset whenever he got close and couldnt land a bomb. Look at the tucker, douglas, and even the holmes fight, he has to reset as he charges in.

So you have a bigger guy with the height and reach advantage who loved pushing and mauling people vs a shorter guy with short arms who lacked inside fighting and didnt do so well in the clinch.

Advantage: Foreman.

Chin:

Foreman faced more punchers than any other heavyweight. Dont believe me, look at boxrec, he faced more than 20 guys who had a 60% ko rate or higher. He was only stopped once, floored a total of 4 times in over 70 fights across more than 2 decades. Even as an old man he was walking through punches and stopping men half his age.

Tyson was stopped 5x, one of which was in his prime, like or not. And the men who stopped him, with the exception of Lennox Lewis, would not make anyones top 10 or even top 20 list of punchers.

I dont understand how one can get KOed 5 times and another guy KOed 1 time despite facing literally dozens of hard punchers and you make the case that the first guy had a better chin. Its nonsense.

Advantage: Foreman

Speed:

Neither had particularly fast feet, but Tyson had good shuffling ability. He could cut off the ring and didnt waste too much movement getting close and setting up shots.

Tyson had blindingly fast combinations in his prime. Definitely amongst the top ten if not top five. He had good head movement and reflexes.

Foreman had underrated walking and dashing speed. He could bounce on his toes and cover great distance when he felt like it. His hands were not very fast but he had underrated timing and would go for simultaneous hits to create openigs. His longer reach would also be a factor at long range as his jab will land before Tysons.

Advantage: Tyson

Stamina: Neither man had particularly great stamina in their primes. Tyson had zero KO's past the 7th round, his power faded very rapidly. His head movement became sluggish, he was tagged more frequently, and he often tried to rely on landing one bomb to bail himself out.

Foreman did not have great stamina but he did go 12 with young and 10 with Peralta (2x) and 10 with Levi Forte. When he gassed out against Young, it had more to do with the heat in additon to youngs frustrating style. Foreman also tried changing his own style and had a new trainer. Even when he was behind on the scorecards and tires Foreman launched Young across the ring like a bowling ball with a single punch. Likewise against Ali he fought a reckless, crazy fight throwing non stop bombs for 8 rounds in a hot humid outdoor environment.

If the fight takes place indoors with cool temperatures, i dont see stamina being an issue for Foreman. Tyson was no elusive outside fighter bouncing on his toes, i dont see a repeat of zaire or puerto rico. Unless Tyson manages to do serious damage early or gets a knockdown within the first few rounds, he would get frustrated, discouraged, and fade very quickly.

However, Tyson did look impressive in his slug fest with Ruddock going all 12 and he proved he knew how to win rounds and win a decision against Tillis (although it was close and one could argue it should have went the other way). While Tysons power faded, hs ring iq and technique usually didnt. Foremans power was always there but he got wilder and sloppier. Apples and oranges.

Avdantage: slight avantage to Tyson.

Technique:

Tyson had better combinations, but he wasnt very innovative inside the ring. His gameplan, stance, and technique were all enineered by hos trainers. When encountering something unusual, Tyson grew hesitent, confused, and unsure what to do (see pinklon thomas, tillis, or the smith fights). Regardless, he had some of the best punching ability and technique since Joe Louis and made very few mistakes.

Foreman was a master at controlling distances, smothering his opponents punches, and forcing his own pace and style on the opponent. He didnt have the greatest technique, but he could think on his feet and drag opponents down to his level (which is actually a skill). He could get very wild when angered or going for the kill.

Advantage: Tyson

Courage:

In a fight between punchers this is a huge factor. Tyson never got off the floor to win, and chose to bite or elbow opponents when things werent going his way. Foreman wasnt a saint either, but he never showed an ounce of fear, backed off, or gave up mentally.

Advantage: Foreman

Punch selection:

Tyson had great body shots, sneaky sharp uppercuts that could send heads flying back, and a leathal lealing left hook. His jab was actually good he neglected it. Hos right cross was also powerful but there were several heavyweights who had better right hands.

Foreman had a devastating telephone pole jab. Right up there with Liston, Lewis, and Wladmir klitschko. He had vicous body shots, hooks that could decapitate, and uppercuts like grenades. Anything he hit you with would hurt, clean shot or not, blocked or not. He also had a devastating right hand.

Tyson had more finesse and technoiue, but Foreman could get you out of there with lterally anything in his toolbox. Styles make fights and against certain opponents Tysons punch selection would be more useful but in this matchup (swarmer vs slugger), it goes to foreman

Advantage: Foreman.

Defense:

Should be pretty obvious it goes to Tyson, even in the 90's. Foreman did have underrated parries and could smother punches with hid "mummy" stance.

Advantage: Tyson

Punching power:

Two different kinds of power. Tyson relied on explosiveness, timing, speed, proper leverage, etc. Foreman threw a lot of arm punches but even glancing blows could push men around like bowling pins.

In a matchup between two elite punchers, the bigger man with the better chin, longer arms, and brute physical strength will have the advantage in a slug fest punch-for-punch.

Advantage: Foreman.

Killer instinct:

Both man pounced when they smelled blood. They were both good finishers and tried to intimidate and rough up their opponents.

Advantage: even.

Overall:

-Foreman has the advantage in 5 categories.

-Tyson has the advantage in 3 categories with one slight advantage.

-one category even.

This would be a very close fight either way. They are evenly matched in some ways and were both aggressive and vicious. Tysons speed, technique, and slight stamina advantage means he will have the advantage in the first 3 rounds. As long as he is focused, sticks to the gameplan, and stays alert and defensively responsible there is no reason why he shouldnt win at least 2/3 rounds.

However, unless Tyson manages to seriously hurt, drop, or stop Foreman things would only go downhill from there. As stated above, Foreman was more courageous, was the bigger man, had the better chin, and Tyson power faded rather quickly after the first few rounds. Additonally, their styles would clash very quickly. Tyson is a short who ironically couldnt fight very well on the inside. Foreman would be mauling and pushing and slugging if tyson kept coming right at him. Neither man could fight backing up, so if they both keep colliding and the smaller man is the worse of the two up close, foreman would quickly turn things around.

Tysons crouching and weaving means he will be susceptible to uppercuts, one of Foremans most powerful tools. Foreman would not let him off the hook and he would not stop punching. Even if tyson uss his superior defense and had movement, he cant win rounds or mount an offense if hes constantly facing a barrage of punches. Counter punching would be suicide. If he can patiently wait for Foreman to gas himself out, he could come back and stop him sometime in the middle rounds (5-7). However, Tyson was never the most patient fighter and would be more than willing to trade and take one to land one as seen in the thomas and ruddock fights.

Basically, it boils down to who can establish the pace of the fight with the first big bomb or combination. if Tyson plays it smart and doesnt blow his gas tank early, he can either stop foreman at the halfway point or win a decision. But if he gets wild or brawls with foreman it lilely doesnt end well for him.

In Foremans case, if he can keep Tyson at long range, busting him up with the jab and setting up his uppercut as Tyson charges in, he'll be in for an early night. If he can roughhouse and slow tyson down with body blows and ripping hooks on the inside, he will severely discourage him and eventually get the ko by the 4th round.

Overall, Foreman wins 6/10. Too strong, immense willpower, bad style matchup. Tyson has a very good chance and many tools to win, however he will more often than not lose the mental edge and miss the chance to use them. I could easily see him fighting foremans fight and losing despite being the better technician and defensive fighter.

 

You could easily say 'uninformed posters' are claiming Foreman beat a great fighter in Frazier. He (Joe) had been but overweight, overconfident, unmotivated and with serious health problems, he wasn't anywhere near great in 1973. And Norton was never a great fighter. Very good, maybe but never anywhere near a bonafide all time great.

 

Tyson was too quick, too powerful, too skilled, and had too much stamina, for a robotic 6-3,217 pound fighter. Everybody Tyson fought from Berbeck to Bruno was bigger than the Foreman of the Frazier fight with the exception of Michael Spinks (6-2.5,212). Tyson's defense would frustrate Foreman, GF would tire even quicker while throwing wide punches that missed, his already suspect stamina would be even worse with Tyson hitting him to the body and head.

Foreman was not elusive, he fought tight, and tired quickly, he doesn't bring any size or strength to the fight that Tyson was not used to seeing. I don't see any advantages for 73 Foreman against prime Tyson. As I wrote earlier, if Foreman had faced prime Tyson he would just be remembered as another Tyson victim.

 

There was an article in Boxing Illustrated in 1989 on how to beat Tyson and several great trainers were asked how it could be done. They looked at the chances of Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali and the no1 contender at the time, Holyfield.

Nowhere was the name George Foreman mentioned. There is so much talk on this board of how Foreman would 'obliterate Tyson in two,' 'depacapitate him with an uppercut', 'bully him in a man v boy scenario'. Yet when Tyson was unbeaten after three years and 9 defences and names from the past were being suggested, Foreman's never came up.

It begs the question, if it is such a given that Foreman would have won against prime Tyson, what was the point of the article? It should have just said, 'be George Foreman'. The fact is that Foreman wasn't that highly regarded after his first career. He was a yardstick for untapped potential and the greatness of Ali.

Since then, it seems to me, that overall Foreman's rating benefits from the best bits of both careers. You can combine the best bits of both careers in judging his overall greatness - the youthful ferocity and (relative) speed of Mark1 and the ring IQ, strength and control of Mark2 . But you can't conveniently add the best bits of one version to the other while retaining the original advantages, when judging how either version, be it Mark1 or Mark2, does H2H.

 

LMAO!!

Daft Punk are no longer allowed to play at Holmes restaurant apparently.

 

Tyson might win but l highly doubt Foreman would ever be relagated to just another Tyson victim. That's just bandwagon talk. There are several scenarios in which this fight could play put and certainly a few of them result in Foreman winning. I'm a year or two older than Tyson so l was around when he was in his prime and trust me everyone thought he was indestructible up until the time he wasn't. So boxing is hard to predict and a lot of it is mental and l have no idea how he would react if this fight turned into a war but l did predict that Holyfield would beat him before they fought, mostly based on this lack of rounds and the quality of his opponents leading up to the fight.

 

Good on yer, cobber. You can always be relied on for a sensible, articulate opinion. But the best thing about you is that you are among that rarest of breeds that get my jokes.