Not against Tyson he wouldn't be. And you can argue that he wasn't much better, if at all, than Trevor Berbick.
Read the post again. I said he lacked the defense to stay on the outside and outpoint foreman. He lacks the height and reach to out slick Foreman. Whenever he tries to get within range to counter Foreman would push him back or rag doll him, thus negating his hand speed and head movement. He had much longer arms, was far stronger physically, and was an expert at making a guy stay at his preferred range. Lol you have never seen a foreman fight if you think he "flicks" his jab. Toledo Ohio.
I disagree very much here. Lyle was a very good fighter who just was in a division of monsters. I don't see berbick ever being able to put Foreman on his back
He would need to fight going backwards because foreman would literally push smaller opponents back before they even got in range to punch
Lyle may hit harder than Berbick but wasn't necessarily a better fighter. If Berbick was in Lyle's era, he would have accomplished similar
So what is prime Foreman...? Zaire? Gun to head I would choose Foreman but Tyson should beat him. What a fascinating match up
The 80s era was about comparable to the 70s era if you exclude the Big 3. If you just compare the top contenders, they are about equivalent. Also, Berbick was the WBC champion, so it is probable that he'd have been a top 10 contender in Lyle's era. That's all Lyle accomplished, which was to be a top 10 contender. Berbick could accomplish the same.
Tyson wasn't necessarily smaller than a prime Foreman. Shorter, yes. But a prime Tyson was 218-220 muscular pounds. Just because he pushed back Frazier doesn't necessarily translate into him being able to push back Tyson so easily. Only Henry Cooper would stand a chance.
I wouldn't even say that, besides the obvious exception. Other than him, Frazier's rougues gallery was pretty much equivalent to Tyson's.