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

Cus said no swarmer could beat Foreman coming to him.....and when he said it, at the time, there was likely no chance of a Tyson/Foreman bout ever happening. Tyson wasn't pro and Foreman had retired and as far as anyone knew, had no plans for a comeback. Cus was speaking more about the Marciano's, Frazier's and Dempsey's of the world. No one had ever seen a defensive type swarmer in the mold that a young Mike Tyson would later become. So let's keep that quote in context.

Cus never said "Mike, yes you Mike Tyson.... no matter how good you get, you'll never, ever be able to beat Foreman in a million years". whilst pointing at him.

 

Well I've seen posts about Riddick Bowe having no chance against Max Baer and being worse than Primo Carnera so this fits the mold.

 

Using Douglas and Holyfield as an example of Tyson's punch resistance to single shots is like me using Jimmy Young as an example of Foreman's chin. If I said "Young dropped Foreman, so Tyson would slaughter him" you'd have a nervous breakdown. BTW, Holyfield and Douglas were bigger men and harder punchers than Young anyway.

 

What gets me is in this match up people seem to think Foreman would be the only ATG power puncher in the ring. He wouldn't. He'd have an objectively better skilled ATG power puncher standing in the other corner. FFS, Ted Gullick, who was 215 pounds and approximately the same height as Tyson stood directly in front of Foreman, a pre Ali Foreman and didn't just fall over when he was hit and came back with his own shots. Except Gullick wasn't an ATG puncher and certainly wasn't as skilled as a young Tyson.

I think people know this, but just don't want to admit it. Imagine if Ruddock floored Tyson in round 3 or 4? Or if he had to get off the deck twice to beat Bruno or Smith? It'd be used as concrete, indisputable proof that Foreman would just blitz Tyson. Foreman struggles greatly with Ron Lyle, who was 220 pounds as compared to Tyson's best weight of 217-218 pounds, didn't hit as hard and wasn't as skilled or fast but that's supposed to count for nothing in a Tyson/Foreman match up? Really?

 

Sure....

 

Foreman turned down offers to fight Tyson, one at least, for 30 million dollars.

 

If Tyson had to get up 2x off the canvas to beat Bruno or Ruddock, that'd be considered proof positive that Tyson would be wrecked by Foreman. Foreman actually did have to get up off the canvas 2x to beat Lyle and that doesn't count for anything?

 

I know boxing doesn't always work like that, but still, it's very likely that people picking Foreman would give Tyson zero chance at all if he had gotten floored by Bruno, Ruddock or Smith. While at the same time, completely discounting the Lyle fight when it counts against Foreman, especially since a Foreman/Tyson (especially the 90-91 Tyson) would be much more likely to be in the mold of Lyle/Foreman than Ali/Foreman because it's likely to be a fire fight.

 

I'd wager that if Douglas hit Foreman as much as he did Tyson, Foreman goes down, but sooner.

Tyson lasted 10 rounds against Douglas while giving away about 15 pounds. Foreman lasted 8 rounds against Ali while having a 4 pound weight advantage. Douglas was a harder puncher than Ali. So on the flip side, ifTokyo Tyson lost to Ali, he'd probably last longer than Foreman.