In Shape '70's Foreman vrs. Any Tyson

It about exactly what I thought. But it's the lack of respect offered to the great Buster Douglas that really gets my goat.

 

It's just not true that Tyson gets beat EVERY time someone stood up to him. Lots of guys tried fighting back but just wern't good enough.
He got beat when Buster Douglas stood up to him though, and Douglas was ordinary.
He got beaten up when Holyfield stood up to him.
Tyson's problem is he couldn't adapt in those fights, he became a lesser fighter when he was losing.
Sure, the Ruddock fights were wars, but Tyson was never actually losing. It was Ruddock who was taking all the trips to the canvas, and being driven back.

 

Douglas went out there and took the title in convincing fashion, beat the **** out of Tyson. He didn't leave it in the hands of the judges - who were actually trying their hardest to score the fight for Tyson !

I wouln't call Douglas "great" though, seriously. He was kind of ordinary. But he put together a proper effort for the championship, and we should see more of that from heavyweights. Some of these guys get a title shot and dont even try - like Akinwande, for extreme example.

 

I can't think of one example when he looked really good against someone who stood up to him, though. I suppose that's my main objection against Tyson, because he really was such a gifted fighter in many ways.

 

Well, Berbick tried. Pinklon tried. Bruno tried to some extent, (but held too much). Tillis tried and did a good job, he just needed to be a bit bigger and a better hitter IMO.

I cant accuse any of those guys of just trying to survive though. Tyson looked pretty good in those fight (esp. against Berbick) and got the job done.

His physical talent was tremendous.
He's tremendously overrated as a fighter though.
But he was very good still.

 

It's funny. There seems to be very little moderation in how Tyson is viewed. He really is tremedously overrated by some in this forum, but I think some underestimate him as well. Maybe that's just a reaction against the udulation some express towards him, I don't know.

Maybe you can say the same thing about Ali, but I'm such a fan of him myself that it takes a lot for me to think that he gets overrated. Always a quite enjoyable discussion, though.

 

As usual another solid post.

I should add however that most people when assesing this match up that seem to lean towards Foreman with thier mind set on what Foreman is going to do to Tyson and unfortunately not the other way around. Part of the reason Tyson's opponents didnt throw many punches was because they had a fear of getting countered. They felt it early and in trying to time Tyson they end up taking a quick and powerful counter. Look at Ali vs. Williams- Big Cat wasnt throwing many punches because he knew that anything he threw would only be wasteful and he'd be countered.

Anyway Tyson having the better delivery system and more proven chin than George has to considered here. This is probably one of the rare moments where Tyson is the better fighter after the mid rounds as his stamina was always superior to Foreman's. Mike also has an underrated heart; Nobody seems to question the fact that Foreman accepted defeat against Ali and was mentally beaten in his prime. He got up at the count of 9 against Ali and walked to his corner a beaten man. IMO Douglas dished out alot more to Tyson than Ali did to Foreman but Tyson faltered because physically he was beaten. Look at how they were at the end of the fights; Tyson had to be told that he was knocked out whereas Foreman knew. So I think their heart rates equal. For those who use the Lyle fight as a basis point, I should mention that Foreman getting off the floor to win has more to do with his chin than his heart. Yes he showed fortitude and resiliance against Lyle but Tyson's ability to take a punch means that unlike Foreman he is likely to go down far less in a fight than Foreman was. Had his Chin been lesser he may have tasted the Canvas against Bruno or Ruddock and got up to win.

This match up will be pretty close but IMO the favorite here should be Tyson on the basis of a better delivery system, chin

 

Clearly you aren't paying attention. I broached the possibility of Tyson both headbutting Foreman AND kneeing him in the groin, once Tyson realized the fight wasn't going to go his way.

 

First, Tyson is no small, chin-out, uselessly-hooking, 1973-Frazier.

Second, Tyson was as much a warrior of the ring as anyone else.

If a lion and tiger were to fight, the winner would be the first to mortally wound the other. That means power and speed, the "delivery system" Ironchamp mentions. This is why I believe Tyson wins, and nobody should be ashamed of picking him against Foreman.

Tyson was always used to fighting bigger and taller men and would approach Foreman as he did Berbick: fast on his feet, circling, leading with the jab, looking to smash Foreman cleanly on the head and then follow up devastatingly.

Foreman's best bet would be to try and smother and uppercut Tyson at close quarters, because his good, slow jab would not be effective against the fast-moving Tyson, his right cross is too poor and slow and his left hook would never get there at mid-range, either. He would have to try and disrupt Tyson's rhythm with clinches and hammer him then.

So even though Foreman has the reach advantage, it is of little avail because he is too slow and inaccurate on the outside to hit the flitting Tyson with great head movement cleanly. This should not be underestimated because, again, Foreman's hook and cross are relatively slow and/or poor; his best long-range punch is the jab but it alone cannot do the job. Foreman needs Tyson in front of him and Tyson will not pose for him.

Tyson has the mid-range advantage and can come with the left hook or overhand right; Foreman has the inside advantage with the uppercut. But mid-range trumps close range and greater variety trumps one sole trick.

Foreman was not much more durable than Berbick, if at all. Tyson strikes first and brutalizes Foreman early.

 

This content is protected

Interestingly, they would both be trying to bite their opponents to death as well.

 

Just Look at what a 38 yr old 2+ years retired Larry Holmes was able to do to Tyson with his jab in the first few rounds of there fight, a good hard jab always gave tyson problems from Holmes to Pinklon, to even Tony Tubbs for the 1st rd. w the culminatation being Buster destroying him w the jab......Big George had one of the heaviest jabs Ive seen from any heavyweight besides Sonny Liston....Tyson w head movement it would be closer for a few rounds until Foreman started catching him w 1,2's and TKO'd him in the later rds....Tyson after Douglass I think would have been reminscent of the first Foreman Frazier fight, a total blowout w Tyson just trying to bull his way in.

 

Holmes fought a survival fight. He wasn't there to win. And, Holmes' jab rarely landed cleanly. He'd flick it out, but most of the time he caught air with it. He was more interested in clinching, grabbing and holding. Any fighter that fights like that is going to last longer than a guy who opens up and fights!

 

George could fight mike never could. It would be fun while it lasted but the Brownsville Boy would end up bloodied, bruised and counting his brain cells. Other than Ali nobody put Foreman down for the 10 count in 30 years of boxing.

 

From a technical standpoint I can see why people want to pick Tyson.

His "delivery system" and ability to counter with speed, versus Foreman's brutish strength and crude clubbing haymakers - you can IMAGINE the guy who resembles a technical attacking machine besting the guy who just looks raw and reckless.

But that's ignoring everything we know about these guys as FLESH AND BLOOD FIGHTERS, as human beings. And it's ignoring everything we see in heavyweight boxing all the time.

Brutal, strong, rough monstrous guys can make a mockery of better "technical" fighters, esp. when they have size advantages.

Tyson was bothered by men who held, strong guys who leaned on him, guys who pushed him, walked him back in the clinches, even some of the crude slow guys. These tactics weren't technical, they were basic and desperate but they interrupt what he's trying to do. No degree of technical superiority will prevent a Frank Bruno or a Lennox Lewis pushing down on your head, if that's what they want to do.

Foreman brings his own messy tactics to the ring, and it's not holding or pushing around to survive, he's coming out to brutalize his man, by fair or foul means, and if Tyson brings enough to shake and hurt Foreman we have SEEN how much of a natural fighter Foreman is. This guy doesn't give up, he doesn't back down, he doesn't acknowledge pain, and he's strong to the last drop. Foreman was some kind of animal. His quality as a great fighter isn't as easily analysed, his quality is intangible, he's of proven character.

Under a certain analysis, Tyson might be "technically superior" but Tyson got beaten by guys who didn't have his "delivery system", guys who didn't even hit as hard as him, guys who didn't hit as fast as him, guys who had more analysable flaws in defense and technique. Tyson got beaten up badly and knocked out by these "inferior fighters". People forget that.

The only man who KO'd Foreman was Ali, and he would've KO'd Tyson too, believe it.

 

Everyone must stop using Joe Frazier as the measuring stick when making an assessment of a Tyson vs Foreman, prime vs prime matchup.

Need I remind everyone that Foreman never fought the best Frazier and KO'd an overweight, out of shape fighter that was a far cry from the 1967 - 1971 FOTC version. Frazier in shape, determined, and at his prime weight between 203lbs - 205lbs, would give prime Tyson and prime Foreman probably the roughest fights of their careers. Frazier was one of the best pressure fighters of all time and was known for punching off the angles and working the body early. He showed no angles, had no speed, showed very little pressure and showed no head movement against Foreman and foolishly tried to out-muscle him.

As for Tyson vs Foreman, prime vs prime, this is a hard fight to judge. First of all, what are considered the prime years of Mike Tyson? He was arguably robbed of the prime years of his career just like Ali when he spent time in jail. I think he was at his best when he won the heavyweight title but still a little green. He came back strong at 217lbs and fought two tough fights against Ruddock. In those fights, Tyson was the closest I saw to the champion that was dominant before losing to Buster Douglas. 1972 - 1973 George Foreman was a knockout specialist and harder hitter than the old George Foreman, 1990's, but I think the old George was a smarter boxer.

Both men have the ability to knock out the other man, and young Tyson could probably knock George out between rounds 7 and 9. I can see Foreman taking Tyson out around the same time and if he paces himself using his jab, he could win via decision. Young Foreman didn't have the jab that old Foreman developed in his second title reign and this could probably give him trouble trying to keep Tyson on the outide.