Why didn't Mike Tyson and George Foreman ever fight?

What Foreman did was unprecedented, returning to a savage sport after a decade of eating cheeseburgers to hang tough with men 20 years younger than him AND regain the title 20 years after losing it. Like I said above, I rate George but I'm not blind to the obvious limitations he had in his comeback which IMO would have doomed him against a young Tyson.

 

No comparison? Tysons best kos were an inactive 38 year old holmes and a glass jawed light heavy spinx who was terrified before the bell rang. Bruno was an ok B level guy but that was a stoppage on his on feet and Bruno fought an ugly fight just trying to survive. Thomas was a coke head. Tubbs clearly took a dive and made zero effort to get up. Tucker, smith and Ruddock went 12. The rest of his highlight reel kos were mostly tomato cans and c level fighters.

I mean stopping holmes is impressive (even if he was old and inactive) and spinx was undedeated so that has merit but lets be honest here. Tyson did not demonstrate anything that indicates he was a way better puncher than old foreman. What he did show was that he was very, very good at finishing mediocre fighters and bums and applying enough pressure and intimidation to make food fighters scared and go into survival mode.

It means Foreman was the heavier puncher of the two. Holyfield would know, he faced practically everyone and beat both of them so why would he lie? Holyfield is one of the most honest hws and has a very keen understanding of the sport. Youd think hed change his story but he has repeated that its foreman multiple times without hesitating. Chuck wepner also said foreman.

He was a coke head and said so in an interview. I could pull it up.

It doesnt really matter what holmes would go on to do, although it does prove he had a lot left in the tank. What matters is the FACT Holmes was inactive and 38 WHEN Tyson beat him.

TKO and KO are 2 different things. He was on his feet. So foreman is either >/= Tyson in carrying late round power since neither guy has more than 1 example of it.

I never said height and reach are the end all be all, its the COMBINATION of foremans height/reach+the stylistic matchup that would make it difficult.

Tyson beat guys who were the same height or taller than Douglas and holyfield yet they beat the crap out of him. Maybe its because....styles are important?

Foreman fought plenty of fast punchers. You just said it yourself, almost everyone managed to tag him and were faster than him. How come his comeback record wasnt 8-24? Because he knew he was slow and a big and made adjustments.

Tyson isnt gonna land 5 punches before foremans lands 1, this isnt a video game. Foremans height and cross arm block means Tyson isnt going to get through his defense easily in the first few rounds where foreman will have plenty of energy and ready to hit back with bad intentions. The fact you even wrote something so ridiculous tells me how far removed from reality some Tyson fans are.

Or he prevents tyson from getting off by bullying the bully. He makes it an ugly fight and sets traps to bomb him out. Tyson cant fight backing up. Address this.

For the 3rd time now stewart ran once foreman had him hurt. Tyson was a great finisher and had the youth and speed to close the show. Against Tyson stewart kept going after him which made things even easier.

Louis vs baer is a terrible example. Baer was only half an inch taller and 10 lbs heavier than louis. Foreman is a full 5 inches taller with 8 inch reach and 30-40 lbs over Tyson.

All 4 of them were taller than Tyson and fought a defensive fight staying away from foreman. Whenever holyfield and moore tried to mix it up and become aggressive they paid for it...moore go kod and holyfield asked his corner if he still had all his teeth.

Did I say Tyson wont be able to land anything? Of course not, why would i concede that he is faster and more accurate then say he wont land anything? I think that it inevitably becomes a slug fest at some point and that would favor foreman. Tyson cant make adjustments and its easy to goad him into mixing it up. If he had more patience and fought smart he'd win every time but we have to go with what we know about tysons behavior and habits. You cant overlook the mental aspect.

Do we need to break down the fact:

-Tyson was kod 5x, foreman only 1x after punching himself out against a fast iron chinned atg and never made that mistake again. Foreman faces more punchers than tyson. Foreman has the better chin

-Tyson never, ever got off the floor to win a fight. Tyson never, ever came back and won a decision he waa losing or made a miraculous comeback ko. Foreman did both. Foreman has more heart.

-foreman made adjustments in his style and could change his game plan. Tyson only fought 1 way his whole career.

-foreman was a master of intimidation and had imposing strength and will power and was a monster on the inside. Tyson had confidence issues and needed cus to convince him he could do things. He was terrible on the inside and surprisingly easy to clinch or outmuscle.

-foreman hit harder and had an ugly clubbing style that would neutralize tysons offense more often than not if Tyson became aggressive.

All this **** is obvious if you watch both mens careers but Tyson fans cant be objective. I like both guys and enjoy their fights, but there are sooo many factors that make it blatantly obvious tyson will have a hell of a hard time surviving, let alone winning.

When Tyson gets easily pushed back and outmuscled by Smith, green, and former cruiserweight holyfield there really isnt much of a debate here.

I give it 25-30% tops if tyson is in shape, doesnt get intimidated, isnt banging prostitutes/getting drunk, keeps his cool, avoids gettingt into a slug fest, and listens to his corner. In other words, almost impossible in reality! Tysons a front runner. All the potential in the world and he blows it.

To be fair neither guy fought one Who was exactly like the other but the closest was foreman vs frazier and that was a disaster.

The point is tyson was always weak to a guy with a long powerful jab and uppercut even in fights he won. He struggled to get past Thomas's battering jab and was stopped dead in his tracks. Tucker and Ruddock hurt him bad with uppercuts.

 

WTF are you talking about now MARk? My picture is of the late R. P. McMURPHY. It even says so you goof. Its great that yr 14 but jeez, get yr **** right.

 

What a load of rot. Holyfield was the lineal heavyweight champion! He held ALL the titles. In case you forgot Holyfield demolished the guy that had just whipped the living bejesus out of Tyson. Holyfield was the MAN.

 

A bit of revisionism going on here .. in Foreman's second career the thought of putting George in the ring with a pre-prison Tyson was considered a farce. Even when George went the twelve w Evander and earned credit and respect it was overwhelmingly believed that Tyson was a far different match up for Old George. Post prison it was simply all about timing.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/24/sports/foreman-circles-closer-to-tyson.html

 

John these are all fluff pieces .. Foreman was considered a well packaged circus act till he fought Cooney who was a wreck. Then he was packaged to a Holyfield fight where he showed lots of heart and hung in but pretty much lost a lopsided decision to what was considered at the time a blown up cruiserweight short term champ. I remember when Foreman knocked out Jimmy Ellis right after the Holyfield fight when they were actually considering a Tyson match up and Tyson laughed and said "can you imagine the BS I'd get if I even signed to fight Jimmy Ellis ?" and he was right ..

Foreman became an icon thru brilliant marketing, courage and super carefully selected opposition. He never fought the best of the big punchers. He never considered getting in the ring w Bowe, Lewis, Mercer, Ruddock .. to his credit he did fight the dangerous but vulnerable Morrison. The best thing that happened to George long term is that he never fought Tyson pre-prison because he would have been destroyed and a huge part of George's legacy today is that he never was dropped or counted out as an elder statesman.

 

George against pre-prison Mike, I wouldn't like to put money on the outcome. However, any version of comeback George would easily beat the Tyson that fought Danny Williams. For any doubters, watch the fight on youtube.

 

Wow....more heat in here than a Dempsey/Marciano thread.

 

Didn't Holmes at age 42 beat Mercer and go 12 rounds with Holy? Neither came close to stopping him. Do you think Holmes was a better and more durable fighter when he was four years older?

Since when was Spinks "glass jawed"? That's just nonsense. Spinks had never been stopped. He'd never been beaten. He'd only been down once and that was a flash knockdown when Qawi trod on his foot. Tyson did KO Ruddock by the way and gave him a hellish beating second time around. Thomas was not a coke head and he had a cast iron jaw. I don't know where you're getting that from. So yeah, I'll take Tyson's highlight reel over Michael Moorer.

You mean good at finishing mediocre fighters like Stewart and Savarese? You know, guys that Foreman failed to KO. Apart from KO'ing a slew of champs and other rated contenders, like Holmes (never KO'd before or after), Spinks (never KO'd before), Thomas (never KO'd or KD'd before), Ruddock (never KO'd before), Tubbs (never KO'd before) etc etc. So yeah, I'd say that trumps Foreman. Remind me of all the champs and top contenders old Foreman KO'd? Oh yes, Moorer and that's it. If Tyson beat Moorer he'd be another of your "glass jawed" bums.

It means that's Holyfield's opinion when plenty of evidence suggests otherwise, as stated above. Do you think Geraldo hit harder than Duran, Hagler and Hearns because Leonard said so? How about Ken Norton hitting harder than Tyson like Holmes claimed.

If matters if your argument is that KO'ing Holmes should be discounted because he was old, yet an even older Holmes was still hanging tough with top 90s heavies.

KO and TKO amount to the same thing. It's not like Ribalta was stopped on a cut or broke his leg. So Tyson had a late stoppage then, when you claimed he didn't.

And as I've said, Foreman's style is not a good match for him against Tyson.

Look at George's record against RATED contenders and it's not great. Which punchers did old Foreman face who had Tyson's speed, power and accuracy?

You are aware that that cross arm style of Foreman's leaves a fighter open to body punches? Against someone who happened to be a deadly body puncher? Throughout their fight Holyfield landed multiple combinations before George even had time to react. George was so slow that by the time he'd thrown one back Holy had moved. Holy also wobbled him a few times. So yes if he could, so could Tyson, only Tyson's would hurt a lot more.

How is he going to "bully" Tyson and stop him getting off? Pray tell exactly how he would do this? When was old George ever able to do this against a decent opponent? Your template for a Foreman victory involves him somehow avoiding or walking through the hundreds of quick, powerful punches that Tyson would throw at him.

Stewart backed up when Tyson hurt him. Tyson finished him off, whereas Foreman on the other hand couldn't stop Stewart and seemed to punch himself out trying. While running away, Stewart somehow rearranged his features. Who was the better finisher and harder puncher again? Yes Tyson had youth and speed, two things George lacked, which almost cost him against Stewart and would here.

So Baer was bigger than Louis, with height, reach, chin (and possibly power) advantages agreed or not? Bear in mind that most of that 30-40bs with Tyson and Foreman difference was flab...

Foreman paid for it too, as he shipped 10x as much punishment as his opponent, was wobbled by Holy a few times, had his eye closed by Moorer and was well behind on the cards. And he wasn't being punched by Mike Tyson.

I'm glad you've conceded that Tyson will land something. How does Foreman deal with those Tyson punches that land, bearing in mind he's never been hit that hard and the follow up punches are coming two seconds later? So there's a slugfest involving someone who is 22 years old, far quicker, more accurate, throws combinations, is harder to nail etc against someone who is 40 years old, slow, throws one punch at a time, easy to hit and you're picking the second guy?

It's funny you saying all that because people said similar about Foreman prior to his comeback. Bully, no heart, no stamina, one-dimensional, yada yada. Lost 2 of the 3 fights he was knocked down in, never came from behind to win, and so on and so forth. I'm surprised you didn't also mention that Tyson never avenged a loss. But then Foreman never did that either, so I suppose not.

You could make the same case for Larry Holmes against Tyson. Go and watch how his fight with Tyson turned out. All this is irrelevant to a one off fight which is decided by styles and individual strengths and weaknesses.

Only with Tyson is being knocked down or behind in a fight considered a string to your bow. If Tyson had been knocked down a couple of times by Carl Williams or Frank Bruno before beating them, would you be more impressed? How about losing every round to Michael Spinks before saving himself with a Hail Mary shot in the 10th?

Tyson could blast opponents out and he could out point them over the distance. How is that fighting only one way?