Prime Foreman vs. Prime Tyson

Tucker was an olympic cyclist compared to Foreman, so was Douglas.. Tyson did not have bad balance in fact he had excellent balance. If he had bad balance he would have hit the canvas a lot more the way he fought. He committed to his shots and threw power shots in combination and fought in a somewhat squared stance. Being pushed back is not a sign of bad balance. The holding tatics against Tyson were nothing more than survival tactics by his opposition noone used it to win a fight until he was washed up, and lot of guys got countered coming out of it. If the opponents were holding and doing something to win the fight I would agree with you but they werent they were smothering to keep Tyson off of them but in all the fights the opponent was losing badly. Yes Tyson allowed himself to be held, but it didnt mean anything other than creating a boring fight.
George wouldnt do that, he would stand in front of Tyson and fight with him. George wouldnt hold Tyson, he wouldnt pop his jab and move side to side. He would stand in front of Tyson try and push him back and slug with him just like he did with everyone, only he would be facing a faster harder puncher than he ever faced. Yes its a perfect style for a puncher to win, but Foreman showed the kinks in his chin early that Tyson did not. Tyson proved he could take sustained punishment by bigger punchers, Douglas, Ruddock, Lewis. Foreman didnt have the boxing skills to fall back on in the late rounds, he would always be coming forward. I dont think Foreman would have any chance of pushing Tyson around like a ragdoll like you think.
As much as you think Tyson was a crude brawler, he was more advanced stylstically, technically and defensively than the raw Foreman who had such a massive physical advantage over the majority of his opposition during his prime. Tyson would also represent something Foreman had never seen before. Thats all I got on this one.

 

A guy that was my friend fought Lyle his name was jerry Quarry...Quarry told me Joe Alexander hit him hard but he was past his best. He said he was not impressed with Lyles power but said Frazier hit hard and he felt some of the body shots. He said Shavers could hit but nothing hurt him. He said Mac Foster hit harder than Lyle but Mac broke down from a body/head assault. Quarry really wanted to fight Foreman because he saw a lot of flaws and felt he would KO Foreman in about the 5-th 6th rd.

 

The footage does not bear that out. If Foreman was as slow and plodding as made out he would not have been able to close on Ali as he did.
He was no Willie Pep but he bounced and he side-stepped enough when he needed not, and usually with his arms smothering and pulling and spinning his opponent.
Tucker was an ordinary heavyweight. Just because he moved against Tyson doesn't mean he was more agile than Foreman.

That last statement is one that just about every trainer of boxers and self-defence and martial arts would disagree with. Being pushed back IS a sign of bad balance. Good balance means you should not be pushed back. If you stand square on you weaken your stance, you weaken your balance. There is nothing advantageous in being pushed back.
To argue otherwise is flat-earth society stuff.

You fail to see that Foreman used his arms to hold his opponent's in place or turn them in just about every fight. Against fighters who rushed forward he used their own momentum against them.
It's not that I'm saying that Foreman adopts Mitch Green tactics and magically wins the fight like that .... I'm not saying that at all. But the fact that Tyson could be smothered and stalled by big guys who used the size of their arms simply to survive strongly suggests that he could be controlled by Foreman's offensive smothering and manhandling tactics.

I think you completely misrepresent Foreman's style, or fail to see what he does.
Firstly, to say that Foreman wouldn't hold is crazy - heavyweights hold, and when a come-forward fighter like Tyson is in the ring they will close regularly and there will be clinches and wrestle. And Foreman's style features a lot of that, and he did it well to push and pull his opponents off balance. That's why he's fighting with open gloves a lot of the time.
I'm repeating myself I know.
But you seem to think Foreman would just stand there with his feet glued to the canvas and would suddenly lose his ability and tendency to manhandle.

I don't think Tyson's a crude brawler at all. He certainly wasn't the complete finished article that you portray him as, BUT he was technically very good clearly, and more correct in much of his technique than was Foreman.
You go overboard in praising his skills though, while at the same time blatantly ignoring a lot of Foreman's tools or denying they exist ..... tools that incidentally are the some of those that Tyson would be vulnerable too.

Tyson gets inflated "skills" credit for looking more aesthetic and correct, and Foreman gets disregarded because his style was so ugly and raw.
But it worked for a reason, not just because Foreman was big. Foreman had his own method.

If Foreman was like what some of the postors here think he was, Frazier would have eaten him for breakfast, and Ali would kept him glued to the centre of the ring.

 

When he bobs up out of his crouch with his feet and shoulders square-on to his opponent he's off balance. And the straighter and higher he bobs up the more off balance he is. That's why he becomes weak in a clinch. He's gettimg walked backwards because he's not in a strong well-balanced stance.
Also, when he throws some of his power shots his feet get muddled. He often does a little jig now and then to correct his own confused stance. Very good fighters would exploit it.

Smith-Tyson, at 0:50, that's not good balance, or is it ?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewHs5oh8qjI[/ame]

Tyson-Holyfield, the whole fight, frankly, but 4:20 in particular :

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb_IenOmK20[/ame]

Those are just two examples, cases that are way too obvious for even the biggest deniers to ignore.
And with honest unbiased eyes you will be able to pick up the same trend and flaw in almost every fight. Watch his feet. It's muddled. He got away with it against outgunned mediocre fighters.

 

There is no stance that is applicable across all of the martial arts, Square stance is actually utilized in wrestling. Tyson didn't distribute his weight properly to deal with being pushed back, probably because it is not conducive to throwing punches in an optimal manner, or perhaps he just wasn't good at changing his centre of balance.

 

Its not at all. I would say Tyson was one of the most well balanced sluggers in heavyweight history. 90% of his punches were thrown with full commitment and perpetual movement when in combination. You cant have poor balance and fight like that you would be on your ass.

 

I don't understand the Tyson-Frazier comparisons, Tyson was very hard to hit clean at all, nearly everyone hit Frazier hard and clean early, that in itself makes it a very different fight everything else aside

 

Ali was old and clearly having difficulty dealing with Foremans size, thats what most expected in that fight. I think a young Ali would box circles around Foreman.

You are the only one who sees that way man. Tyson was not a big man, and he was fighting big guys with long reaches. They could smother him and grapple with him easier because of his short stubby arms, but it didnt win fights for them, it helped them survive. Funny you mention martial arts. Most martial artists train in a squared stance when utilizing upper body movements.

I think your underestimating what Tyson could do in return. Everyone assumes Tyson was the weaker man, but he was very strong himself. I just think theres a huge difference between negating someone offense by holding and doing nothing as opposed to pushing some off and fighting with them. Thats the difference here. Foreman would not be looking to hold and survive it would be a fight. Tyson showed how he could move in angles and box with bigger guys in many of his fights.

I dont think that at all, but you keep referring to fights where opponents were in pure surival mode and really accomplished nothing more than giving Tyson an easy victory. Foreman would create more openings, he would be more offensive than Tucker or Smith.

Tyson was closer to being the less flawed heavyweight at his respective best, yes I believe that. I do think Foreman was somewhat raw and I think he had a massive advantage over his opponents in the size and strength department that allowed him to offset a lot of his own weaknesses. Its kind of how I see a fighter like Felix Trinidad for example. He was a big strong powerful guy, and that allowed him to accomplish a lot in his career at welterweight, but the flaws were glaring since day one, he was knocked down a lot and hit cleanly. Eventually those flaws were exposed by physically bigger men. I dont believe Foreman was an ordinary fighter at all, he was great, but I think you are underestimating the size speed and power of Tyson in this one.

 

Well, I don't want to be in disagreement with you if it's purely a difference in definition of terms, a case of semantics.

Tyson's stance was very often weak, when he came up out of his bob. If your stance is weak - ie. you can be walked and pushed back, you are off-balance.
Meaning, Tyson was OFTEN off-balance.
A fighter who is often off-balance doesn't have great balance. To me, anyway.

But if you say his punching and attacking style requires exceptional balance, okay, but we're talking about different things. That still doesn't contradict what I'm specifically talking about regarding Foreman and Tyson. I've explained what Tyson does and I've explained what Foreman does.
Foreman routinely used his great strength and his half-stretched arms, plus the momentum of his opponent, to smother, pull and spin his opponent off balance. That's one of the things he does, regularly.
Tyson was not only susceptible to being marched backwards in a wrestle, but was often off balance when he finishes up a rushing attack.

This is the context in which I've been discussing Tyson's "bad balance", and if you want to call it something else, that's fine. Whatever you call it, Foreman's going to exploit it, and his manhandling will be extremely effective in throwing Tyson out of rhythm and making him a sitting duck for Foreman's brutal bombs.
Not to mention Foreman's other obvious advantages.

 

How can it not be ?
If I'm standing in a square-on stance and someone pushes me on my ass, I know for a fact that I was off balance.
If I'm in a standing clinch with someone who is no stronger or heavier than I am, and they push me back, I know I was off balance.

You want to say Tyson just "allowed it" and "didn't give a ****", like he could have and knew how to resist it. But Tyson was all about intimidation and bullying his opponent and imposing his will. Obviously, the man had flawed balance.

Anyway, he'd be a fool to "allow it" with Foreman.
There are so many horrible things Foreman could do to him at close quarters, based on styles and physical attributes, Tyson's "laissez-faire" attitude to be pushed around would be the end of him.

 

As I've said, many times already, I think Foreman USED momentary holding as an offensive weapon. He simply did.
And it would work as an offensive weapon against Tyson.
If Tyson was vulnerable to Smith's defensive holding, what would make him immune to Foreman's offensive hold-and-spin-and-maul tactics ?

And when you add that to all Foreman's other tools and advantages I fail to see anything other than a devastating and likely early win for Foreman.
That's my take.

If you really think Tyson was that good and that strong, then that's your opinion. Fair enough.
If you fail to see that Tyson's defeats too exposed some flaws that were always present, I think that's quite blinkered and biased.

As for the styles match-up, I think it's strongly in favour of Foreman.

BTW, who would you firmly favour over a peak prime Tyson ?