Why Prime Mike Tyson beats a 70s George Foreman

It still amazes me when I watch the Ruddock fights and see the flush shots Mike took. I'm not sure either Lewis or Bowe could have taken all those shots and remained standing. Especially Lewis...but hey, Lewis came out quick and got the job done before any of that really had to happen (it might have been his most impressive victory) so good on him.

 

He took some big shots in those fights and seemed pretty calm considering.

 

So are we still allowing Tyson's feats of durability taking bombs in the 90's and applying it to 80's Tyson but not allowing Foreman's feats of durability in the 90's taking bombs and applying it to the 70's Foreman?

 

Considering that they're talking about 1991 Tyson and you're alluding to a 1975 Foreman who never won a 12 round decision being the same as a 90s Foreman who avoided durable punchers, I would say the correct answer is yes.

 

I never brought the Foreman eats all swarmers theory. I always thought Frazier was less sturdy and more predictable, relying on speed and repeated patterns to set up the left hook that could be timed as Foreman did. Frazier was also overweight and had been looking lazy since FOTC. It's amazing how Fireman gets so much slack for his losses, but a clearly ill prepared Frazier is written off.

That said, I think Tyson could present similar problems that Frazier presented in his rematch with Foreman, where despite being in poor shape, showed more respect and used constant movement to make Big George miss more.

Still, I think Tyson himself despite being more dynamic than Frazier and just as quick if not faster, could still be predictable and with a slim margin of error, Foreman is bound to tag him. But unlike Frazier, Tyson is durable and hard to throw off with just one punch. Foreman is a brutal finisher, I can see him overwhelming Tyson....but I'm not going to set on the fence.

Okay, I'm going with Tyson by KO. But I stress I get why people pick Foreman here.

 

Tyson was compact and kept his chin tucked, he walked into lots of punishment throughout his career without flinching. Durability was never an issue for him.

 

The thread is about a prime Tyson in the 80's. He was not prime in 91 and especially not in 96 or 2003 when he fought Holyfield and Lennox which is what people often use to boost up Tyson's credentials in durability.

If Tyson's chin is considered good for getting knocked out by an old Holyfield, why not Foreman who went the distance with a prime Holyfield?

Foreman went 12 taking bombs from Stewart, Morrison, and Briggs when he was nearly 50, but by all means enlighten me on how his chin is overrated and not as good as Tyson who got stopped 5x.

Mental gymnastics and goal post shifting.

 

Tyson fans: he was past his prime at 23. He was only prime from 1987-1989. If you dare to bring up anything outside these three years, you're a hater.



Also Tyson fans: look at these fight from 1990, 1991, 1996, and 2002 where Tyson displays such an amazing chin getting nailed by bombs. How can you say prime Tyson gets stopped when he took bombs when he was way past his prime?

 

This is true...actually, I guess Mike was a bit like George in that his chin seemed better after his prime. Or at least his heart (the latter of which George had plenty of his entire career).

 

Or maybe both of them were so good at utterly destroying opponents early in their primes before their chins could really be tested.

Tyson's defense and head movement in the 80's were great and he didn't take a lot of clean shots.

Tyson never got off the floor to win and was stopped more times than George. 5x in fact compared to George's 1 KO loss which was largely due to him punching himself out in hot outdoor weather.

Nobody's chin gets better past 30 and especially not after 40. In Foreman's case he simply got better at pacing himself and improved his defense. Tyson did the opposite and had worse stamina with sloppy defense and worse head movement.

 

Why is Ron Lyle always mentioned as an argument that whoever has advantages over Foreman?

Foreman was mentally badly damaged after the Ali fight

But again , Foreman stil beat Lyle where Tyson crawled around on the floor looking for his mouthpiece.

I also disagree that Tyson is the harder Puncher. Lyle hits harder.

 

He took punches from Bonecrusher, Tucker, Bruno and others near his absolute peak. He ate bombs from Ruddock in 91, just after his peak.

Stewart, Briggs, and Morrison weren't exactly hitting Foreman with bombs. They were too busy gasping for air because Foreman hand picked them for their poor stamina.

 

No he doesn't.

 

Correction: bonecrusher hugged him for 12 rounds and barely threw anything. The fact you even brought this fight up tells me you're either a troll or you haven't watched it.

Tucker had a broken hand and was mostly boxing on the outside with jabs other than the occasional uppercut. Hardly a grueling affair.

Bruno wasn't known for his stamina either lol. And he mostly held and rabbit punched after getting hit by a big punch. It was almost as bad as the bonecrusher fight.

 

Fun facts:
1. They hugged because they were fighting Mike Tyson
2. Foreman made zero attempt at fighting any of them. He even dropped the heavyweight championship to avoid Tucker.