I think Foreman's apparent technical inadequacies should serve as a clue to how much of a force of nature and a phenomenally strong brute he was. He was abnormally strong. His raw technique shouldn't have met with much success - but it did. Also, he was methodical is his very ugly way.
None of which bodes well against Foreman, who would hold him in place, push him around, and brutalize him in whatever manner he pleases. When Foreman wants to hold him by the shoulders as he comes in, and push the back of his neck down and spin and bludgeon him with his heavy hands, Tyson's going to be in "passive clinch mode" or whatever it is. Whatever way you slice it, it's to Foreman's advantage. But Tyson was no Joe Louis type stalker, he was a pressure fighter, he rushed in quick and early hoping to create the openings. Foreman would do what he needed to do. Tyson would take punches and would get smothered. Of course he can hurt and rock Foreman, and he's bound to land some shots. But realistically Foreman would keep him at range and hammer him into his place. They are both taking shots early, and Foreman is best suited to capitalize. If Foreman gets rocked he's got the arms and the strength and the proven grit to rally, he can hold and lean and wrestle. If Tyson gets rocked he has no escape route, he's just a 5'10 short-armed guy who is weak in the clinches with the man who destroyed Joe Frazier right in front of him. Foreman is too ugly for Tyson.
Yeah, at close range Foreman has the advantage. That's undeniable. I think probably every fighter he ever fought enjoyed the same advantage. Foreman didn't tend to land massive knockout punches at this range though. You talk about him somehow "bludgeoning" Tyson with heavy hands after pushing the back of his neck down. Foreman didn't really do a lot of that. In fact, he tried to catch guys with pushes on their way in. Foreman fought two men with offence comparible to Tyson in Ali and Frazier. Against Ali this strategy was a disaster and Foreman looked a fool. Against Frazier it worked well. I think it's a good strategy for Tyson. But he needs to do very well at it because when he was at his best Tyson was fast and mobile, and although non-arbitrary, I don't think just because he is using a weapon (pushing and handling) that doesn't have to be accurate (Which his punches would) to automatiacally land behind. Tyson, of course, can miss too, but at his best he hit very very well, as well as anyone i've seen in terms of accuracy at speed. Plenty has to happen before Foreman gets to his "manhandling" phase, and that as often as not is going to include Foreman getting punched really hard in the head by combinations. It's a tough night for Foreman whatever old Cus might have said. Add the right referee and I think George has a total disaster on his hands, frankly. I think it's very unlikely that Foreman will be able to consistently keep Tyson at range. Is this something Foreman would even want to do with all the beastly mauling you have planned for him on the inside? Foreman's style is wide open. Tyson's is succinct. Both have good chins, both show mental weakness. Anything could happen which is why I don't find your Foreman KO1 pick particularly funny. Sticking to it like glue seems strange though.
Pretty much what Ive been saying all along, but he wouldnt have that massive advantage with Tyson. Tyson was also abnormally strong thats why he could get in there and grapple with big men. As for your question, I wouldnt flat out favor any heavyweight in history to be a lock to beat Tyson at his best. There are plenty that would represent competitive fights and have a chance though, Foreman being one of them, albeit a smaller one of my list..
This is Tyson at his brilliant best, unloading combinations really hard into a man's head : [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt2waqpyEHw[/ame] I look at Tyson-Thomas, and honestly I can't see Tyson having much success with that approach against Foreman. I truly believe Foreman was significantly stronger than Thomas, much more powerful, moved just as much and just as well, and utlized all the rough stuff that Thomas had no clue about. And in fact, Thomas has nothing on Foreman, because George had the telegraph pole jab too - and more so. Thomas didn't hold to survive Tyson's onslaught, and he didn't have that much trouble hitting Tyson. His problem was he couldn't hurt Tyson. Foreman would hurt Tyson early, I have no doubts, and like I say, Tyson has no escape route. I don't mean he'll keep him at long range, I mean at whatever range he keeps him at ! Foreman uses his arms to hold and maneuver his opponent, and to stifle his opponent's attack while he sets himself to punch. It's a feeling arms thing, he feels where the man is coming from or where he's at, and shoves the man here or there to upset his rhythm and unloads his own stuff as and when he cares to. Of course he ****s Tyson up on the outside, on the inside and anywhere in between. Tyson would get in some licks too, but the advantages lie heavily with Foreman, IMO. Well, at least twice on this thread I've made the caveat that Tyson could land a perfect KO punch before Foreman's style gets to him. It's a puncher's chance, and a real one because Foreman does get hit, and would get hit because Tyson came to fight. But I think it far more likely Foreman would beat him early, like within 2 rounds.
[quote="Marvelous";9618419]Kind of like Foreman vs Frazier just spread out over 8 round.[/quote] Could be, but I don't see Tyson getting up 6 times. He might be harder to put down than Frazier but I guess he's easier to keep there. I suspect Foreman would hurt him early, follow up and hammer him to the canvas, and if Tyson gets up once he won't last long after that.
Fair assessment although I do believe Tysons style isn't as horrific as Fraziers(although still very bad) and his chin is a little better.
i still think "Patterson couldn't crack an egg" ranks as the dumbest **** i've ever read from a legitimate poster on this site in a while.
It was meant more as a comparison to Tysons power. Easy Tyson haters. Comparing Foreman to Berbick is as bad as comparing Tyson to Bert Cooper. Some of you guys need to read more into the discussion before you make a condescending post.
Thats the beauty of our sport, we can argue about fantasy matchups until the end of time...some great posts here, with excellent arguments for both sides, thanks everyone for putting up very insightful meaning..
Poor comparison though, seeing as how Patterson knocked more than his fair share stiff. I'm not a hater.
Yes,he was stopped by them......through accumalated punishment dished out over a long period of time.We're not talking about a man that was stopped inside of just two rounds here. No,it isn't.It shows just how much it took to drop the man,let alone stop him.This isn't a fighter that was dropped half a dozen times and stopped inside of two rounds.This is a man that is capable of absorbing a great deal of punishment without even being knocked off of his feet. Unlike Bowe and Foreman,Tyson did not hold tremendous physical advantages over Holyfield.Bowe was always thirty pounds heavier than Holy,and Foreman was over fifty pounds heavier.And in addition to his counter punching,Holyfield was able to wear an unconditioned Tyson down the stretch in the clinches.He man-handled Tyson,and that had as much to do with the stoppage as Holyfield's punching ability did. Stopped by a much better puncher,and a far better conditioned athlete,you mean? Douglas most certainly would have stopped Frazier.