I don't get why people think a 70's Foreman beats a prime Tyson

LMFAO! Yes your smugness! Typical Tyson Hater reply. Ironchamp's post slaps your post above silly. Only a Foreman worshipping armchair pistolero would consider your post as solid.

And Foreman is not DOuglas, Holyfield or Lewis and only WISHES he had their skill set. Because the only ting Foreman has going for him against Tyson is his brute strength, something Tyson could handle and showed against various fighters who were bigger than Foreman. But that's already been addressed by reasonable posters like Inmemoryofjakelamotta and Kevin. They put together a structured argument based on factual evidence, not some wishful thinking comic book scenario where Foreman is compared to Superman with no kryptonite.

This place is laughable.

 

Typical delusional reply. You like to pump your ego on these threads, don't you? How dare anyone say anything good about Tyson, especially when pitting him against the 70's Golden Era of overrated heavyweights.

I admit I come to Tyson's defense, ****, all the time these days. But this all stems from your reply stating Tyson couldn't possibly KO Ali in the 9th round because Tyson never KO'd anyone in the 9th before? Dude, Tyson never fought Ali so how can predict when either fighter will win accurately? Ok, I change my pick to Tyson KO 10 Ali because Tyson beat Ribalta in the 10th. Better?

Quit your crying you little baby.

 

I say good things about Tyson all the time you low life little grub - it's just that i rein them in to the common sense middle ground.

That's not good enough for a Tyson preaching scum like you tho.

Go and troll elsewhere you are ruining a half decent thread with your pitiful little sulking and posturing.

 

You’re quite laughable.

My post addresses key weaknesses in the argument you put forward. I assure you it is quite solid. Particularly, my highlighting its reeking bias. Hence why you haven’t addressed even one of the points I raised.

Instead, you’ve just whined on with your tired old mantra. Because, you’re a fanatic, who either can’t accept points made in opposition to your own beliefs. Or, you are just too stupid to understand the case being made against your argument.

I genuinely don’t know which category you fall into. Although, it is quite likely one leads to the appearance of the other.

The factual evidence put forward in favor of Foreman is available in abundance. If you don’t want to acknowledge the evidence, it’s your problem. But, continuously dribbling about Foreman having only brute strength at his disposal, because you think he is bereft of any skills whatsoever, just makes you look ignorant for one or other of the reasons described above.

As stated previously, I think there have been a few fair-minded arguments put forward in favor of Tyson. I’m more than happy to read them and take on board some of the very useful observations contained within.

But, your perspective is highly and resolutely prejudiced and cannot be taken seriously.

 

What a pompous POS you are. You and JT can both eat a dick.

Sincerely yours.

 

If you were comparing a 19 year old alis chin to a prime 27 year old ali after years of training and reaching his full physical maturity and growth as a man, youd have a point.

But nobodys chin gets better after a ten year layoff and returning to the ring in their 40's. Go ask your grandpa if hes been in fights or ask any former boxer/martial artist if they ever felt they could take a punch better at 40. Youd give them one hell of a good laugh.

But lets say youre right.

Ali was 29 when he first fought frazier. He was dropped by a single left hook. Foreman landed dozens of bombs and couldnt drop a 32 year old ali. We know foreman hits a hell of a lot harder than frazier.

Do you see where im going with this? Do you expext me to believe alis body was still growing and "adapting" to taking punches in the 3 years between the frazier and foreman fights even though hed been boxing since he was like 14???

Styles make fights and ali was weak to swarming pressure and left hooks. It is downright hilarious for you to claim the 70's ali was somehow more durable when he was already showing signs of parkinsons and slurred speech.

As for shin resistence/martial arts, no thats terrible. If youre talking about karate and muy thai fighters conditioning themselves by striking wood, bricks, etc, those are BONES healing and repairing over and over. Knuckles, shins, elbows, etc. Your JAW is very sensitive and the bone isnt nearly as tough or durable. Nor is it meant to be struck anywhere near as frequently. When humans develop, its expected youll bang your hands, legs, shoulders, etc on things like trees/walls/rocks/etc as you grow and develop motor skills and every day life. They interact with the physical world way more than your face does (i cant believe i have to explain this to a grown man and so called natural science student).

Nobody in strike based competition bangs boards on their face to condition it. The more you take flush, the more it breaks down over time. Thats why some fighters are told to take layoffs or are banned after frequent knockouts. The idea is hit without getting hit as much as poissible.

Yes you can get "used to the pain" or know what its like to take a good right hand, left hook, etc and brace yourself after years of competition and sparring but thats mental toughness and not your face literally getting stronger. There are tons of sensitive organs (eyes, nose), clusters of nerves near the jaw (which if pressed in certain ways cause knockouts in the first place), the surface area is very squishy and lopsided which means the fist connecting is like a battering ram to a chunk of silly putty. The nose is flimsy cartilige, the lips are juicy slabs of fat. The only thing solid that offers any protection are the jaw bones (relatively weak and easy to break), cheek bones (very small), and the forehead.

You have absolutely no clue what youre talking about. Youre wrong in terms of biology, physics, and martial arts.

So you want to convince me chins can get better with age, even in youre late 30's and 40's, but wont acknowledge "power is the last thing to go"?

Cooney absolutely hit hard. Foreman even said in an interview with david letterman he was one of the hardest punchers be faced and said his "whole body shook" and that his left hook was more powerful than fraziers.

This content is protected

Are you gonna shift the goal posts again?

Stewart had a goddam. 90% ko rate. No one had ever marked foreman up like that. He obviously hit hard. He obvioisly wasnt in sonny liston/lennox lewis territory but to dismiss him is blatant bias on your part. THERES LEVELS TO PUNCHING POWER DOOFUS.

morrison is also praised for his power, in fact his left hook is guarranteed to be brought up in power punching discussions.

My point was foreman AS AN OLD MAN couldnt be dropped, stopped, or even hurt by morrison, moore, cooney, briggs. Tyson was only ever in their with one banger who actually fought back in ruddock.

As for performance, foreman was clearly robbed against briggs. Even the state government invesitigated it, and he was 50 years old. He koed moore. He was not prepared for morrison changinf strategy and running. Ill grant you that tyson finished stewart early and foreman couldnt, but foreman DID have him down and in serious trouble early and stewart got on his bike to avoid danger the rest of the fight. This tells me a prime foreman would have hunted him down and finished the job.

Both lost to holyfield, but foreman went the distance and tyson was stopped. Holyfield also said foreman hit harder! So if youre gonna compare common opponents you have to accept all info.

This content is protected

Oops!

I never said smith didnt hard, nor was i saying he was shot. Are you even reading what i post?

I guess you think the experts were dumb in thinking smith wasnt trying to win:

-first of all, smith only landed 51/233, thats only 22%

• "When I was trying to put the punches together he grabbed. This hurts boxing. This is show business, people expect a performance. I won every round and it was an easy fight. In the last round, he hit me with a good shot, but it didn't hurt me, it just took my legs away." - Mike Tyson after the fight

^"he grabbed whenever i tried to punch" "it was easy" "i won every round" "didnt throw a good shot until the last round", does that sound like smith made a serious effort???

"He didn't want to fight. He didn't want to win." --mike tyson

• Referee Mills Lane deducted points from Smith for excessive holding in rounds two and eight.

Stop using smith as proof of tyson being able to take a punch. Youre embarrasing yourself.

I was never, not once, talking about styles and how they fared against movers. YOURE the one who keep shifting the goalposts and making weird categorizations for fighters so that you can discount who hits hard, which ive literally never seen anyone do.

As for who got hit more, we have punch stats for tyson but not for the rumble in the jungle. We dont know for sure who got hit more, but we do know who got off the floor to win a fight and that was foreman.

 

Oh you mean I should run to the mods and tattle like a proper ****face? Or should I act like a know-it-all jack-ass like you and the rest of the Tyson Hater Brigade?

Reverend Sangria has a good ring to it. Yes I preach the gospel on Mike Tyson.

 

That only supports my argument dude, tucker not only had an injured hand, he fought to survive or hustle a points win. We both agree he wasnt throwing with bad intentions and trying his hardest to stop tyson and thats been my main point.

Anyone who wasnt scared and came to fight and hit with decent power made tyson strugle or beat him. The ruddock win is noteworthy because he was a fellow prime hard hitting heavgweight who wasnt afraid to let his hands go. Its tainted by the fact tyson fouled him dozens of times and got points deducted.

Outside of that, tyson was stopped by guys who werent even elite punchers (except lewis). Holmes wasnt scared but he was old, coming off a loss and layoff, and his punches werent nearly as sharp and explosive as before.

 

Someone mentioned it earlier, not only would Foreman be throwing brutal head shots he would also be landing devastating body shots on Tyson. Something Mike was not accustomed to, Tyson has stated that Tillis was hurting him badly to the body, Foreman would fold him in half.

 

Because a) the mythology around George is that he was a huge strong unstoppable (for any human) juggernaut and b) the book on Mike, for many, is that he was physically and mentally fragile if you had the stature, fortitude and demeanor to bully him.

I'm not sure either of those assumptions are altogether as accurate as many believe.

 

The flip-side of that mythology is that Foreman is nothing but a crude slugger, bereft of any skills or stamina. Tyson, on the other hand is seen as having faced Foreman's 'type' before and prevailed with ease, due to his speed, combinations and all-round superior skills.

I would suggest that these perspectives are far from accurate.