Mike Tyson ''88 vs Foreman ''73 I know most us,including me pick George, but

Foreman's career high in the 70's was 231. I don't think 7 lbs is a "significant" size difference.

But if we take average weights for their best fights, Ruddock would end up heavier. Not sure how that's even an argument, it's just basic math.

Foreman was the significantly greater threat than Ruddock h2h. Better defense, chin, timing, accuracy, body punching, 2-fisted threat, way better finisher, didn't abandon his jab like Ruddock. The only thing the Ruddock fight tells us in regards to Foreman vs Tyson is that Tyson can handle the odd occasional single bomb from a tall strong guy, but it wouldn't go like that at all. Ruddock looked lost and was very repetitive lacking in so many areas.

 

Ironically, you seem to have made the entire thing up other than that a blackout occurred and aren’t providing any evidence of anything. You seem quick to believe that Tyson blacked out but slow to believe it was from a headbutt, which I find very interesting.

Tyson told the story of the headbutt+blackout in one of the preflight interviews (that’s why I knew it) and repeated it in his autobiography.

Even if it were true, you’d be hoping that a seven years past peak Tyson getting concussed proved that he’d lose to Foreman.

 

This is from the Sports Illustrated coverage of the fight. As usual you are like the barbers cat, full of **** and wind. Foreman's name comes up and your eyes spin around like slot machine wheels.

The points i brought up about Tyson being hurt early in various fights were factual, and pertinent to the discussion. You've fixated on the side bar like an absolute mental midget. Smoke and mirrors buddy

In the second round Holyfield, who is not known as a big puncher, hit Tyson with a left hand that seemed to stagger him. At the end of the round Tyson paused on his way to his corner and looked at Holyfield as if puzzled. In fact he was, as he admitted later, "blacked out." The fight went eight more rounds, until referee Mitch Halpern stopped it less than a minute into the 11th, but afterward Tyson could recall none of them.

 

Which doesn’t defuse the fact he was almost killed by Ron Lyle… thus if Tyson hits him, a bigger, stronger, faster HW with incredible Louis like finishing ability… lights out, George’s speciality was heavy footed attrition puncher types Chuvalo, Norton, Frazier. The Lyle bout showed a stylistic vulnerability of GF’s to come forward put it on the line punchers, Lyle could box a bit to land those shots but he wasn’t IRON MIKE.

 

I’ve already shown that this contradicts Tyson’s words. They’re using his words about blacking out from a headbutt early in the fight in misappropriated context. And you knew that already.

 

Tyson was hurt by punches early in the fight. Would you like to dispute that?

 

Tyson would knock Foreman out. I’m not doing a second by second review of a post prime fight of his for you against a dirty fighter. It’s not like with Foreman where you just turn on Lyle fight and see him getting rocked in his prime.

 

You run around saying Briggs beat Foreman, such is your hatred. You are irrelevant.

 

Please don’t derail this thread with personal attacks and off topic comments. I’d like an apology.
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/foreman-briggs-the-robbery-that-wasnt.663374/

 

It’s pretty apparent that Tyson had the better chin in and around his prime, MT faced… Williams, Douglas, Bruno, Ruddock x2, Stewart, Bonecrusher, Pinklon, Tillis, Tubbs, Holmes, Biggs, Tucker, Berbick… etc and in all those fights the hours of footage not minutes in the case of “prime” GF he never looked as hurt and vulnerable as GF was against Lyle who was literally the only puncher he fought in the 70s now that should say something… Lyle landed one right hand, the first one that landed and GF was almost out, bleeding from the ear and in a very bad way. GF showed a lot of heart and determination in said bout but not durability - it proves in his prime his chin wasn’t iron end of Ali was bashing his brains in with right hands too and he ain’t exactly Dempsey.

 

So you didn't score it for Briggs? LOL

 

I think the best young Mike beats the best young Foreman. Old Foreman I'm not so sure, styles making fights and all, but young George does not have a massive size advantage, is slower, is crude, yes he has big power but Tyson's attributes at his peak take away George's. Tyson at his peak had a better chin, better defense, perpetual motion, cracking, underrated jab that kept men off balance and susceptible to his lightening quick offensive onslaught and he was a better more efficient finisher. I'm gonna take Tyson before halfway here, yes, really I said it... Foreman gets stopped after being down several times...

 

I did. You can take it to the correct thread.

 

The Foreman that demolished Frazier and Norton would be too much for peak Tyson. Foreman was even stronger than Mike and would have a 7" inch reach advantage. He would use that strength and reach to keep Tyson at distance a la the 1st Frazier fight. If Mike tried to aggressively charge and swarm George he would have been greeted by that ramrod jab and pulverizing right hand.

And Foreman would not be intimidated by Tyson one bit--which takes away a psychological edge that was a Tyson trademark.

Bottom line- the 73' version of Foreman would simply have too much size and power for the 88' version of Tyson. KO or stoppage for George in roughly 5 rounds.

 

Foreman is certainly taller but he and Mike would be around the same weight I think? I also think people forget, Tyson was used to fighting taller, longer opponents whereas bigger fighters rarely fought someone with Tyson's attributes. This is a fascinating question because I've always felt Frazier would beat Tyson, but Tyson would beat Foreman and Ali would whup 'em all, but as I age I am considering Mike as a much sterner head to head test than I ever have previously. I honestly thing George's perceived physical advantages and style of fighting are his downfall versus Tyson...