Mike Tyson 1987 vs. George Foreman 1973

I would like to comment on this one portion of your response to PrivateJoker.

While Holyfield and Foreman were two totally different animals, I do see some similarities in the fashion by which Evander beat Tyson and the manner in which George may fight him. Holy certainly used angles and did a fair amount of boxing -something that George would not likely do, however he also used his upper body strength and ability to tie Tyson up to neutralize his attacks. I could see Foreman doing this as well. No way does Tyson posses Foreman's strength and he certainly isn't going to win in the clinches. George is also notorious for giving men a nasty little gut check while holding, and make no mistake, these things take a huge toll. Couple this with the likelyhood that Foreman will have the right foundation to push on Mike's broad shoulders to shove him back into mid range, and now you have the ideal firing zone for Foreman. Tyson won't do himself any favors either by trying to come in low or sneaking in any of those infamous elbows either. Electing to employ this stance will leave him a sitting duck for those vicous hookercuts that George lifted Frazier off the canvas with.. Only difference is, Joe was a man who got off the floor from time to time. Tyson wasn't.

 

This was the biggest factor in Holyfield beating Tyson! Without this, comparison between Holy & Foreman is pointless. Holyfield timed and beat Tyson to the punch. He cleverly ducked or sidestepped, made Tyson miss, and countered with his own heavy shots. This is very different from just slugging it out.

Yes, it slowed down Tyson. More importantly, it also allowed Holyfield to hit Tyson with combinations on the inside and as the two were separating. This is what allowed him to cumulatively frustrate and concuss Tyson. Again, Foreman isn't going to fight as skillfully as Holyfield. He's going to slug it out if the fight is midrange.

This actually helps Tyson

because Tyson was at his best fighting mid range.

I hope Foreman isn't dumb enough to follow this strategy in the first 5 rounds. Why give up his big reach advantage? He's better off fighting long range. He should switch to mid range only after hurting Tyson from long and going for the kill.

If Foreman does fight midrange in the early rounds then Tyson gets the better of him. At this point...Tyson's speed, reflexes, and counter punching actually become relevant. At long range, those things don't matter and Foreman pummels Tyson.

 

To simplify things, as opposed to responding to a lot of mostly opinionated rhetoric, Cus D'Amato said himself that Foreman would never lose to a swarmer. While Tyson certainly has noticable differences from the likes of Marciano, Patterson and Frazier, this is still the general category of fighter that Mike falls into and that George eats right up - the type of fighter who lowers his center of gravity, uses a peak o boo type of defense, is generally shorter in height, is vulnerable to hooks and uppercuts, and typically likes to fight in close. Neither man ever defeated a fighter who was EXACTLY like the other, but Foreman at least has claim to having beaten something that's at least SIMILAR. In addition, he has the testimony of an all time great trainer as someone who would not be beaten by fighters' of very similar discription to Tyson. Funny how it just so happens that this testimony comes from the very trainer who raised, trained, and essentially built Tyson from the ground up....... When matching fighters across eras, THESE are the types of factors that need to paid most attention to.

 

If you feel that my assertion of Holyfield beating Tyson mainly because of his intelligent boxing is opinion or rhetoric...then that's fine. I think it's more than just opinion.

Despite popular belief, Tyson was not exactly a swarmer and he is not similar in fighting style to Dempsey, Frazier or even Marciano. His is a hybrid of a swarmer and a mid range slugger. So your comparisons don't exactly correspond IMO.

My guess is that D' Amato wanted to train Tyson like Patterson (along with Tyson's improvements like better punching ability, chin, aggression, etc.). Well the product after D' Amato's death was very different from Patterson. I will agree that D' Amato would have wanted to keep Tyson away from Foreman and would agree that Foreman is not a good style for Tyson. But I'm not sure if he'd compare Tyson exactly to Frazier against Foreman.

Look - I'm also picking Foreman to KO Tyson. However, these things are contingent on what game plan the fighters take. Just for fun I'm bringing out the other possibility. I don't want to repeat myself ad nauseum but there are two ways this fight can shape up: long range fight or mid range slugfest. I expect the former and therefore a Foreman KO. But the mid range is also a possibility. Foreman is not invincible he can get hit and hurt. Tyson is very much capable of doing that. I pick Foreman but anything goes in boxing.

That's the point of debating. Of course we don't know what course the fight will take until it actually happens. But we explore the different avenues for a fight.

 

I emphasize - I'm also picking Foreman by KO 4 if its just a matter of highest probability of the outcome.

 

Fair enough..

I would also like to clearify that I am not categorizing Tyson as the clone of Joe Frazier. All I'm saying is that Tyson had similarities to some of the guys who D'Amato felt came up short against Foreman.

 

So, if Cus D'Amato says something it has to be taken as the God's honest truth? Come on! Do you think Cus ever made a bad prediction or lost a bet on a fight? He purportedly said that no swarmer would ever beat George Foreman so that makes it so? Foreman may well have beat Tyson in a fight, but I wouldn't base a large part of any prediction on the outcome of a Foreman/Tyson fight on the words of Cus. He was human after all and fallible.

 

Id go for the Foreman that beat Frazier to win by KO

 

I don't think Joe Frazier or Mike Tyson are anything similar in fighting styles. Even physical traits - they are different. Just a single difference in trait e.g. chin make make such a big impact between characteristics of two fighters.

I would be curious to know with whom D' Amato would agree (you or or me) if he watched Tyson ***from 1986 to 1997. He'd probably be biased towards his original vision but the the reality of the outcome was different IMO.

 

A case can be made that Tyson beat fighters who were at least similar to Foreman in size, build, and strenth. Big, strong guys with big punches: Bruno, Ruddock, Smith, Tucker, etc. It's debatable as to whether or not prime Foreman punched much harder than some of these guys, and he wasn't any bigger and didn't have a longer reach. So, Tyson has been in the ring with guys who were similar to George Foreman, just as so many say that Foreman has beaten guys similar in style and size to Tyson. It goes both ways.

 

Coming from the man who trained at least two fighters who fought that very style and was well familar with a lot of others who incorporated it as well? Yes, it is gospel..

This content is protected

 

I think that to say that Tyson and Frazier are nothing alike is a stretch and applying a little wishful thinking to distance Tyson from a very possible Foreman loss. Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson from a physical standpoint are higly comparable. Both stood exactly 5'11", and in their primes weighed between 205-215, with Tyson being the slightly heavier of the two. Their body types bore some resemblance as well. Both seemed to have a cross between a mesomorphic frame and one that was endomorphic in tendency, meaning that for the most part, they were fairly muscular when well conditioned, but more in the form of a bulky physique as opposed to being ripped. As for who had the greater chin, I'd say it was debatable. Frazier did not fight as many big punchers as Tyson, but the only man who ever KO'd him was a far greater puncher than any man Tyson had faced either. Joe also rose off the canvas to win fights whereas Tyson never did. I think we'll leave the chin issue alone.

 

It's not an wishful thinking or a desire to distance from Frazier. One can only wish Tyson was anything like Frazier but he wasn't. Joe Frazier would pummel Buster Douglas. He'd beat on and decision Evander Holyfield. The greatest relevant similarity between Frazier & Tyson is that both have short reach. I've already acknowledged the significance of this in the fight.

Yes, both preferred to fight forward. However, Frazier preferred to get close, get really inside, and unleash the body attack and the left hook over the course of rounds. Tyson didn't like being as close as Frazier and preferred to stay at midrange where he could attack coming in with not just cumulation shots but KO punches. That to me is a big difference. That is the difference between Frazier beating Douglas & Holyfield and Tyson not being able. That is the difference between Frazier failing against Foreman and Tyson having a much better and different chance. We can agree to disagree.

 

Let me ask you this...do you think Cus wanted to train Tyson to *box* like Patterson? Would you consider Patterson a swarmer? These questions are relevant to your linking of Tyson, Cus, and swarmers.

If Tyson had Patterson's boxing skills - he would not have been schooled on the inside as badly as he was against Holyfield & Douglas. Tyson was such a **** inside fighter it's pathetic. Is this what D' Amato had in mind? I don't think so. I don't buy the mentality excuse (or it certainly does not change the results which is all that matters).

 

Tyson's loss to Douglas was attributed to one man fighting the very best fight of his career while the other fought his very worst. I have posted my reasoning in great depth numerous time and if you'd like to see it again I can run a search and retrieve it for you. It had nothing to do with his inability to fight on the inside.

on a different note, here is a link to a boxing website and halfway down the page, there is a list of what the author categorizes as swarmers. How good is the site? I don't know....

http://how-to-box.com/boxing/boxing_styles