George Foreman vs Mike Tyson

Okay, I can't let you do this. Tear down Foreman's mentality and fortitude while boosting up Tyson's.

What I will admit is that the Ruddock fight shows Tyson was tough and could handle a good puncher. Although I don't quite see Ruddock and Foreman in the same league for what it's worth.

Now, people are confusing 2 things here. Toughness, and a fortitude and will to win. Tyson may have been tough to take a battering but at what expense? So he took an accumulation of punches from Douglas, Lewis, and Holyfield before going down. He had toughness, he didn't jump out of the ring. He took it like a man... and didn't dive when he could of. But he never showed that hunger to win, that will to take a battering to come out victorious. Taking your beating and giving your chance to win are two different things. One takes an abudence of mental strength, focus, and heart to keep willing yourself into punches. Just standing up to punches before be finishing and deciding not to get up is not showing a fortitude to win. It shows some toughness, yeah, but that won't win you a fight.

Another thing that I think gets completely exaggerated as how Tyson was such an incredibly different fighter from 1988 to 1991. THat's what annoys me a little. It gets completely over-stated and it's a way to bolster how invincible and unbelievable Tyson was in his prime. It narrows his prime when he was shown to have less fight and shown that a good gameplan and fighting back could beat him. Tyson of the Ruddock fight puts up a great performance. His whole gameplan before the fight was "A good defensive is a good offense" and he praticed on the slip-bag constantly in training. What I will say is he didn't use the jab a lot back then and sometimes had a tendency of looking for 1 punch rather than throwing combos. But his head movement and all his physical tools where there. And Tyson looked for the 1 big punch against Bruno/Spinks in almost the same light I think. I actually think a Tyson in 1991 was incredibly determined and almost wanted to prove that he was the champ.

Everyone talks about 1988. It's the famous peak Tyson. What was he doing so brilliant in that fight? His timing was terrific but he was running into Spinks shots with zero respect for his power. Just bulling through.

Foreman is mentally tougher. Can come back with adversity, is durable with a great chin and has the power and range and that uppercut that will doom Tyson.

No other fighter in history has such a contrast from their prime to just a few years later. Even physically when that fighter is close to his best he's not "Tyson" he's not even close to the man of 1988. Why? Maybe it's just the opponents and how they fought. If we're going to make excuses for Tyson's toughness or ability to overcome adversity than every other champion are tenfolds better than.

And you call Foreman a bully and not Tyson?

And when Foreman was humbled by Ali, at least he actually got before the 10 count (In reality he did). Tyson never did so except for against Holyfield in which the fight was lost in that exact moment.

Also, Foreman's stamina defiencies are there but also exaggerated. The two times he had stamina issues were in the heat in Africa with constant bombing on Ali for rounds while being duped and the next time was against Jimmy Young in Puerto Rico.

 

Gone were the reflexes? The jab was underused at that point. But it was hardly used for his ultimate 1988 peak against Spinks either. Mike threw combos and moved his head. He didn't move his head to the same level, I suppose I can't deny. It wasn't a great performance by Tyson... fighters are allowed to be over-confident and give bad performances. Ali was over-confident against Frazier and admitted to not train enough as he should of. Do we give him that excuse? No. But Tyson gets 1000 because his ultimate destruction in comparison to his losses were pitiful. Douglas neutralized Tyson, and I pick that verison of Douglas over any Tyson. Not afraid to say it.

Teddy Atlas, "When Tyson was beating on this kid and bloodied his nose and saw this guy didn't want to quit, Tyson almost wanted to quit."

 

Lennox Lewis filled in about 15 pounds of muscle from 93 to 96. He also developed his skills, improved, and gained experience. Tyson had a lot of experience at a young age (Not one in defeat though). I'm not saying Tyson improved his skills, I'm just saying Tyson didn't go as backwards as people make it out to be. Fighters usually move forward and improve in a few years when they're in their 20's. But Tyson doesn't falter into the wind. Are you saying that Lennox Lewis from 93 to 96 made move of a noticably improvement over the decline that Tyson had from 1988 to 1991? Please don't tell me you're saying that.

 

I get you. Steward was a big thing for Lewis.

People talk highly of Rooney and I used to think he was very important to Tyson. I do think he helped Tyson stay straight for as much as he could. However, who else has Rooney trained? Why has nobody knocked on his door? What made Rooney so great other than teaching the Cus system? Teddy Atlas on the other hand trained many great fighters and champs. And Tyson was always confident, over if anything. That made have been part of his problem.

 

Fair enough.

 

It's Tyson who is up against a huge strong force that proves he can take punishment and is possibly the greatest puncher of all time. Foreman has range, a jab, and Tyson has to come to the storm to get inside. Most guys fight Tyson on the back foot. How does he fair against someone who is right there to bomb at him. It's just a question of how Tyson takes and if Tyson is downed how he recovers or reacts. That's the risk involved.

Like PbP said too many "ifs" for Tyson. Tyson has to overcome a lot. I can just say Foreman banging him out of there. I can't say Tyson being able to trade and not become unscathed. And once he gets a little hurt he might be doomed for the bigger shots. What's Tyson to do, run? Stylistically I don't like this fight for him at all.