Mike Tyson 1987 vs. George Foreman 1973

No, he was a conqueror, he was Alexander, he was Sonny Liston and he was Jack Dempsey.

 

Tyson is made to order for Foreman.

 

Smart money is on Foreman but for this particular fight I'll emphasize the adage..."anything can happen in boxing".

 

I think Foreman takes this, but it would be a damned war before any of them decided to go down and out. If Tyson and Foreman are in they're right states of mind, I personally think that it's too close to call. But I'm leaning toward Foreman.

 

I say smart money is on Tyson.

He had the better chin, which would be important in this fight. He had the better defense, better technique and he was overall a better composite puncher. Some can even argue that he had better power.

In boxing anything is possible but not necessarily probable.

 

Tyson makes Foreman box the air and then unloads truck fulls of heavy shots and puts him out of his misery in the 6th

 

One thing that bothers me about Tyson is that he never won a fight coming off the canvas. Against Big George there is a really good chance this may be a requisite.

Also, if you look at a fighter like Bonecrusher Smith, who basically was able to completely neutralize Tyson via his size and strength. George would have a similar advantage but combine it with absurd power.

This fight is all wrong for Tyson. George by KO in 7.

Goldn

 

I agree with this guy, Foreman's power was really absurd. He was built for power, and just over all crushing people. George KO in the 7-9.

 

:good

 

Big George KO 7. Tyson is tailor-made for Foreman. You have to figure that Foreman is going to land something big that can back Tyson up, and when Tyson backs up, he usually loses the fight........by KO.

 

Its not so much the power thing that makes me apt to picking Foreman so much as it is style. Tyson survived the artillary of several huge hitters, ie. Frank Bruno, Razor Ruddock, Bonecrusher Smith, Andrew Golata, Tony Tucker, etc.

The key here is that none of those guys hooked to the side nor uppercutted the way that Foreman did. George's tendency to throw those looping "hookercuts" could potentially result in sneaking in under that peak a boo defense of Tyson's and really snapping the head back hard. George also had the tendency to give his foes a nasty little gut check while in the clinches.. Referees never seemed to have a problem with it either. I've also never seen George fail to fight back against a man he was intimidated by. In numerous interviews over the last three decades, Foreman has consistantly stated that he was " petrified " of both Norton and Frazier.. If you look at his face during the staredown, he does a masterful job of hiding it and his fear seemed to have boosted his fighting instinct as seen by what he did to both of those men. Without the element of intimidation on his side, Tyson may really find himself short of tricks up his sleeve.

Basically any fighter who lowered their center of gravity and fought in a couching stance was a sitting duck for Big George. Tyson, Patterson, Marciano, and Frazier are guys that I would never lay money down to beat him. Just doesn't seem to be in the cards.

 

Uh, come again?

 

How does a guy who was either stopped or knocked out on 5 occasions in 58 fights and who never rose off the canvas to win a match, have a better chin than a man who was stopped only once in 81 bouts and who in fact came off the floor to win one of the most exciting heavyweight fights of all time?

You made some good points in the following sentences of your post about better composite punching and some other things, but this claim to being more durable isn't really well supported in my opinion.

 

Styles make fights, and this is just another case of the big slugger beating the little slugger. It would be more interesting than foreman-frazier because tyson was skill wise than "smokin joe". He was a two handed bomber who threw fast and unorthodox combos. He could conceivably give big george some scary moments but the fact remains that he would have to come to foreman. When this happened he would get hit by those uppercuts which effects would be magnified by him running into them. Foreman by ko inside of 5.

 

A comeback Foreman against champion Tyson would have been brutal; Tyson way too fast, too powerful, and too elusive for George to nail. Foreman, in my humble opinion, would have taken quite a nasty beating for as long as the fight went on. 1973 Foreman vs. 1988 Tyson? Tyson by KO. Tyson still too fast, too explosive, and too elusive. Foreman would have been beaten to the punch and outmanuevered; Tyson wouldn't just walk straight in like Frazier did; he'd attack from all angles and with better firepower.