Am I the only one of this thread who's saying "I dont know", "Could be a good fight", "Anything could happen" ? Two big-punching heavyweights in there, both with fairly obvious ways to go about getting the win, one with the speed and the youth, the older guy with physical size advantage and an age-old stylistic advantage. Both monster hitters, mean sonofabitches. And you guys are betting your houses on one or the other. Carry on.
I agree with you. Anyone who says that either man has no chance then that's just ridiculous. The fact is, if either guy lands a perfect shot, they're going to go down. It's so stupid to think that either man has NO chance. I'm sure Tyson would get hit a lot, and I'm sure Foreman would get hit a lot too. I don't understand why you don't think that Foreman could come back and land ONE good shot on Tyson, that would carry Big George for the rest of the fight. Personally, I think Tyson would take the first few rounds, but Foreman would slowly comeback, use his jab, and comeback after taking many hard shots. I just don't think Tyson can take every single Foreman shot and come back. It would've been a hell of a fight though
I do not think the 40 plus year old Foreman hit harder, was stronger or was better conditioned than Frank Bruno or Razor Ruddock, He was far slower than both. That George was exceptionally well matched. He fought very few big punchers. He never even considered fights against Bowe, Lewis or Mercer. Tyson's speed would have made George look in slow motion. Look at how many times Foreman was hit by Holyfield and Moorer. I hink it would have ben a massacre ...
I absolutely agree. If your Mike Tyson and you want your belts back which you've lost in Tokyo and your making your way up the ladder...who do you fight? Razor Ruddock arugubly the top heavyweight out there or George Foreman...an old fart trying to make noise?
why do a lot of people on here assume even a prime foreman would knock out a peak tyson the only thing frazier and tyson have in common is that there the same height other than that there styles were completely different tyson had far better lateral movement better defence he was also a lot quicker he could punch with both hands frazier couldnt frazier was a great swarmer peak tyson done everything behind a jab frazier never used his jab plus tyson was far more heavily built than frazier id have backed a peak tyson against foreman how anyone can think a 42 year old foreman could beat a 21 year old tyson is laughable
Comeback Foreman has my respect, he was amazing. But I wouldn't want to match him up with Tyson if I was his manager unless I was looking for a big payday. Foreman's power in his second career was over rated IMO, simply take a look over his record and see how many fighters with questionable durability lasted the distance with him. George won fights more on his brute strength, experience, jab, and durability. His reflexes weren't really there, and he did what he should of and fought the right opponents. Big punchers would of spelled doom for George and he knew it. Comeback George doesn't have the style to beat Tyson. I know more about Tyson than any other fighter and have watched him more than any other fighter so I'm pretty comfortable in threads about him, the main reason I usually post in Tyson threads. Here's how I see George winning. If I was advising Foreman here, I'd absolutely MAKE SURE that he keeps his weight on Tyson at all times and keep the jab and uppercut going. As soon as Tyson got in the danger zone, I'd want George to tie him up and move him backwards, the tactic Evander used. Foreman's certainly strong enough to do this and if he could keep it going I'd see him perhaps getting a late stoppage. I'd want him looking for the uppercut when Tyson lunges, as well. He's going to have to break Tyson down by moving him back in clinches, and making his jab and uppercut work as Tyson comes in. A late stoppage via attrition is how Big George would win. However, there's two things going here that work against George. One, you're not going to beat Tyson by one punch. It's not going to happen, Tyson takes single shots as well as almost anyone. So Foreman's not going to pull a Moorer here, he'll have to outfight Tyson over the duration which is hard to imagine. The other problem here is essentially reflexes. George got tagged by basically every fighter of note during his comeback, despite having an improved defense because his body simply wasn't always reacting fast enough. Against guys that weren't dynamite punchers, it didn't matter. But against Tyson? Foreman's going to be in serious, serious trouble. I see Big George simply getting overwhelmed, post prison Tyson lacked a lot of things but they weren't speed and power.
Hm, I think in the 80s Tyson would have murdered Foreman. In the 90s however I pick Foreman to get Tyson late.
This question has been flogged to death on the forums....I love it :yep Could be a damn good fight, nothing against big georges admirable comeback, but i think tysons speed & head movement is a huge factor here.....then again, if its past round 4-ish we all know mike had a tendancy to tire quickly, what happens then??? The best part of the Tyson Vs Foreman question is, we'll never know the answer atsch
How is there nothing to gain? Tysons status as a fighter, him taking down a big contender, and financially he would have certainly benefited. The main thing is, yes matchmaking is not that simple. But when two people want to fight each other, it will happen. Mike did not want to fight Foreman. And if you seriously think that Mike refused to fight Foreman because his name wasn't big enough, then your crazy. Well all know that if Tyson fought Foreman, we would all remember that fight more than Tyson Ruddock. If Tyson thought he could have run through Foreman, than he would of. And I don't think Tysons win against Holmes doesn't count for anything. I think it was a great win. Holmes was actually putting up a fight. Its only when people use that fight to try to define Holmes legacy, thats when I throw that fight out the window.