Prime Mike Tyson ('88.) VS Prime George Foreman ('73.)

No. A different Foreman

 

This is interesting, Mike might be able to make him do that.

I just keep seeing how George kept pushing Joe off him (and yeah, there are parallels between Joe and Mike, anyone can see that), leading/manipulating him into the big punches.

Mike was straight forward practically all the time, granted he had a really good defense. But I just can't see him taking those shots, the uppercuts in particular. George would get rattled in the first, in the second Mike would end up out for the count of 10 imo.

And this is coming from a fan of Mike.

 

Yeah right

 

Single shots never stopped Mike. You had to hit him with combinations over many rounds.

 

Yup.

 

I think if Foreman shoves Tyson off him then he's leaving himself open for a counter puncher with power rivaling his own. That's why I think Foreman fights off the back foot, fights at a measured pace and like every opponent Tyson fought would tie Tyson up and hope to tire him late.

Foreman wishes he could do what Holyfield did and even if he tried that would be his first time adapting his style until his comeback. And even comeback Foreman rarely tied anyone up. Unfortunately Foreman's stamina issues are far worse than Tyson's!!

But there's no quit in Foreman so he'd be there until the very end.

I disagree that Tyson came straight forward. There's a reason he's not considered a slugger like Earnie Shavers. He's a technical brawler that exploits his opponent's offensive weaknesses.

Foreman didn't do well against guys who beat him to the punch. Guys who were quick like Ali in Zaire. And that was a 32 year old Ali whose best days were behind him. Now Tyson didn't have the range Ali had but his quickness and movement would prove troublesome.

So either Foreman gets Berbick'd or Tyson get's Frazier'd. I think Foreman gets Berbick'd by the 5th round.

 

'88 Mike. As much as some people like to say Tyson was "mentally weak", 70s Foreman has Tyson beat in that regard.

Foreman was technically more powerful punch for punch, but the speed coming from Mike would have made Big George dizzy.

 

I agree. Tyson wasn't mentally weak like some armchair pistoleros here claim. It's another way of finding something that really isn't there and justifying it because Teddy Atlas said so 37 years ago about a teenage Tyson.

Tyson doesn't have many weaknesses so they latch on to an irrelevant one and roll with it despite it being miniscule. Then they magnify it and make something out of nothing. Like Tyson's work rate on the inside. I guess in their eyes Mike Tyson needs to be a perfect fighting machine at 100% capacity 100% of the time!!

Tyson's weakness was a lack of discipline and getting bored & fed up with the fight game. As he started cutting corners those perceived weaknesses became more pronounced where things like his inside game and stamina were neglected. And even then he was never really mentally weak until after prison where he became a spoiled brat and began cutting corners again before trying, or lack thereof, to getting back to full form.

Being mentally weak is something made up. It's misinformation. Or even disinformation because it's most likely done on purpose.

 

Its too bad the poll closed, my vote would have been for Tyson. Tyson was bigger than Foreman in almost every aspect of the tale of the tape other than reach and height. In this case Tysons speed and accuracy would win the fight for him. I know it says 73 Foreman but still.. if Ron Lyle could knock 76 Foreman down a couple of times then Tyson would have taken his head off.

 

Never understood how 76 Lyle fight is ok to bring up, but the Buster Douglas fight is just not up for discussion. Douglas didn't just knock Tyson down, he knocked him out and he doesn't have half of Foreman's power.

 

If Octavio Meyran had gifted Tyson with a 13 count the way he gifted Douglas a 13 count previously then Tyson would have beaten the 13 count. Tyson wasn't knocked out clean, he was on his feet and on the threshold of 8 to 9 on the count.

 

This is my point..the only difference inbetween Lyle vs Foreman and Tyson vs Douglas was the referee.
When Foreman went down the second time going limp and face planting on the canvas That by itself could have been called a knockout but the referee let the fight continue.
Tyson was in the exact same situation but the referee stopped the fight.

 

He was counted out. These are some LeBron level excuses. It's a 10 count not a 10 second count.

Fun fact: Tyson never got off the floor to win. Foreman did.

the excuses never end.

Now you're claiming Foreman got help when the ref "could've" ended the Foreman fight without a count instead of just giving him credit for peeling himself off the canvas to win. Tyson had plenty of time to get up and he couldn't, that isn't anyone's fault but his own.

The fact is the ref didn't declare it a knockout and Foreman won in the most sensational brawl of all time showing tremendous heart. Tyson lost by knockout in one of the most sensational upsets of all time to a guy who isn't even rated as a puncher by anyone (except Tyson fans).

This is probably why people like Sangria and White Bomber call me a hater for simply stating the facts. It's a fact Tyson was counted out losing by KO to a 1 hit wonder. It's a fact Tyson never got off the floor to win. It's a fact Tyson was short and couldn't fight backing up and it's a fact Foreman had the perfect answer for that: a devastating uppercut and roughhouse tactics.

Now enough with the excuses. Actually address what I wrote: if we're discussing prime vs prime, why is it ok to use the Lyle fight but it isn't ok to use the Douglas fight?

 

I believe Foreman was saved by the bell. I don't think the ref bothered to count, did he? Had that knockdown occurred 10-15 years later the ref most likely stops the fight.

Foreman looked dead. Or close to it. Any way you slice it he didn't look good on that canvas.

 

It's not man vs boy by any means, more like man vs teenager.

No-one ever beat Foreman coming to him. Even as a fossil a decade and a half after winning the title he had that newer generation fighting cautiously be necessity, some even completely abandoning their normal style as it simply couldn't cut it.

There's no chance Tyson puts him on the back foot with any consistency at all, or possibly even at all. We all know a Tyson not moving forward is vulnerable. He only has a plan A, there's no plan B. If plan A fails the fat lady sings. Now to be fair not many in history are going to thwart that plan A, but Foreman sure is exhibit A. Just about everyone clammed up under Tyson's incredible first round assaults and clamming up is the worst thing you can do....unless you can tie him up. You either need to drain that early rage fighting negatively or you need to punch back hard. Not many blokes are going to win that battle but again, Foreman is the man too. Holyfield straddled the line between negative and punching back brilliantly but that was admittedly an older Tyson.

We did see Bruno and Tucker nail him in the 1st round when they got punches off. He's actually quite open when blazing away early and Foremans going to go right with him. Simply put Tyson has to knock Foreman out before Foreman knocks him out and given Foreman will be the man moving forward with Tyson planting and lunging it's Foreman early. Tyson's hands won't be such blurs on the back foot.