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

stylistically. the way he beat Frazier with his style. People assume he would beat Mike with that same style advantage. Push and punch, which worked well with Frazier.

 

I don’t know about 70s foreman but comeback foreman beats him.

 

interesting fight. I can almost see it in my head. Whoever lands first is who gets the advantage. Could become a clinching Bonecrusher kind of fight. I can see Mike swinging to get inside and George trying to land uppercuts and then clinching. Whoever lands clean first could possible try and stop the other one right there. Who knows.

 

Foreman’s jab was 10 fold compared to what it was in the 70s. He fought a lot smarter in the comeback.

 

maybe so. now I will say the 1988 Tyson would slip that jab and come over with a right hand. The one later slipped punches les. so how knows

 

Ok thats it.
I really have no time to correct your nonsensical confused wisdoms of science, which is pouring down in crowds. If you believe in strong Foreman lifting cows, or mechanoreceptory potentials causing unconsciousness, do it then.

I´m not the only one anticipating 90s Foreman could take a better punch. But I´m certain Shavers-Ali took one of the most vicious beatings in the history of boxing without going down.

If you are still interested in comparing both Tysons and Foremans performances against punchers, just post a list and i´ll open a new thread, which is less work + others evaluating the topic, costing me less time going round in circles about your farfetched imbecile debauchery.

The core principle here is Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands (SAID principle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAID_principle

Of course there are tons of papers out there measuring different endpoints of consussion or traumatic brain injury (TBI). One should keep in mind that TBI in therms of boxing is in the lower end of impact generated to the head, which is often called mild TBI or repetitive TBI (< 200G). For example, Rugby and other sports are suggested having higher risks of TBI, needless to say all sorts of accidents. Alot of papers focusing on the endpint memory, which is not of major interest here. What i wanted to say: You will rarely find voluntary test persons undergoing TBI of comparable endpoints in therms of "goondess of taking a punch". You have to conclude from small scale to physiology.
So what is actually happenning whilst knockouts? Since the brain is floating in cerebrospinal fluid, an acceleration of the head causes the brain to accelerate/decelerate as well as bump into the skull. These differences in gravity disturbs the potentials of Na, K, Ca, Cl via change of plasma membrane, their channels, pumps etc. leading to uncoordinated action potentials --> black out.
Therefore, a resistance against those disturbance should be achieved through a better damping of the brain and/or the neurons. Some targets come to mind:

• Differences on cerebrospinal fluid
• Differences in morphology of the head (form, skull etc.)
• Differences in damping via the neck and muscles
• Differences of damping of neurons via changes in tissue

According to https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02477111 damping of the neck when beeing punched is negligible. The science behind (1975) might not be up to date, as well as beeing very dependend on the test setup.

The thickness of the human skull is highly variable. The risk of fractures decreases with skull thickness. According to https://www.researchgate.net/profil...ns-on-human-head-dynamic-impact-responses.pdf there is no relevant decrease of head aceleration with increase of skull thickness. There are some rumors about a study claiming the human skull has been evolved to take a punch, which would actually make sense. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27720617

Most relevant evidences (for me) out there is damping of the nervous system. Here are some papers:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9002514
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586307/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1693820/

They are focusing on neuroglia and asserting, beside "gluing" the network together, activation of astroglial after repetitive concussion: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5386435/

 

There's quite a bit of information there. A lot of it quite fascinating.

However, most of it, at an initial glance, is to do with how the brain manages (or might theoretically manage) TBI and rcTBI at a neurological level, at the point of trauma (or soon after). At the same time, nothing at all jumped out at me to support a position that continued rcTBI, over a period of time - no matter how mild - will lead to a reduction in the immediately adverse effects of a concussive impact.


To go back to the statement you objected to:

With the above in mind, I am genuinely interested in what it was, within the results of the studies you have referenced, that led you to form a strong position, such as the following:

The idea, I assume, being that the reaction to a stimulus - such as repetitive, concussive, Traumatic Brain Injury - would be for the subject to "strengthen against it"?

 

The only reason this fight didn't happen in the 90s is because of Foreman.

Mike Tyson in the Mike Marley interview "After I've defeated the winner of Douglas-Holyfield, I want Ruddock next and then that other guy George Foreman before hes dies of rigor mortis.

George Foreman: I didn't sign on the dotted line because I was more scared of Don King than Tyson.

Foreman is full of ****, he called out Tyson for years and then when the opportunity came knocking he pussied out.

But, its nice to see his façade still has people fooled all these years.

 

I disagree that Foreman was mentally tougher than Tyson.

Id say a pre prison Tyson was mentally a lot tougher than Foreman. After their respective exiles, I believe there was a role reversal. Foreman came back mature, smarter and more focused, Tyson came back a broken man.

Was it not Foreman who made every excuse under the sun for what happened in Zaire and was it not Foreman who was running around naked in the changing rooms after Young?

 

Tyson mentally A LOT tougher than Foreman... LOL. Thanks for the Friday morning humor.

 

Putting words in Foreman's mouth yet again i see Azzer.....

He said he was more scared of the dotted line and Don King than i was of Tyson.

It's at 1.30, get your facts write Azzer before you write your tripe please......

This content is protected

 

Is it April Fools day......

No, just a typical Azzer being a fool day i guess......

 

Ill sit here and await a valid reason why Foreman was deemed mentally tougher.

 

Because he never quit you idiot.......