Tyson statistically proven to punch harder than Foreman

I referred to old Foreman who was 10 kg heavier than Tyson and to what Holyfield said on the two opponents.

 

Maybe so. But was it because the actual power of the punch, or the fact of Tyson could land from unexpected angles and his speed? Ali's one punch stoppage of Liston is more impressive than either fighters one punch Ko's does that mean Ali punched harder than Tyson or Foreman? Their are other factors to Ko's other than just power, maybe you don't know that fact. And the fact that you would use the term "Know it All's" too describe folks who's opinions just happened to be different than yours exposes your arrogance in my opinion.

 

Well, Evander fought them both and he says Foreman hit harder.
I would say he is more qualified to speak on it than anyone else

 

You can certainly disagree. There are tons of flaws with this video.

First of all you cant make a huge deal out of KO percentages but then do oddly specific categories like "opponents who didnt lose 1/4 or more of their fights". What about opponents who lost 9? What if a Tyson opponent was 40-9 but the foreman opponent is 100-25? Whose better? We would have to then look at the quality of the opponents' wins, not just the number of losses.

Then he splits up opponents between guys who weigh 215+ or less than 215. Again, why this oddly specific number of 215? None of the major sanctioning bodies recognize this number as a good cut off point, it came out the video maker's ass. Again, we would have to look at the quality of the opponents as well. Georges ko% may be lower for the opponents under 215 category but what if they're all better than the guys tyson beat in that weight range? That heavily skews the numbers!

And George won the category for opponents who weigh more than 215+ so doesnt that kind of nullify tysons point? Isnt it a bigger indication of punching power to stop a bigger opponent if we're ignoring the skill level or ranking of said opponents and we're just focusing on their size?

The category for common opponents is also stupid because foreman essentially had 2 careers with a 10 year gap and was essentially a completely different fighter. He improved in some areas but he was definitely slower, had worse reflexes, wasnt as explosive, etc. This is like comparing the teams michael jordan faced while on the wizards and comparing his win/loss ratio to Kobe Bryant when facing those same teams and then saying "Ha! See, Kobe is better than Jordan" ignoring that Jordan was way past his prime with totally different teammates/coaches. And if we're talking about common opponents Holyfield already said Foreman was the harder hitter. Larry Holmes and several opponents and sparring partners said Tyson's power came from the speed and odd angles and that other oppoennts actually hit harder than Tyson shot for shot (shavers for instance, comparing tyson to a speeding ferrari vs a moderately fast mack truck for shavers). This makes sense as tyson was not a lumbering boom boom heavy arm puncher or use every ounce of body weight slugger like foreman. So any comparison is going to be a bit off even with better categories.

It seems like the video creator just come up with very specific arbitrary categories and ignored several factors to help make his case for Tyson.

Statistically if we look at quality opponents Foreman has 2 ATG's in their prime in Frazier and Norton. He has moore who was an undefeated prime champion. He also has decent ranked fighters like Lyle, Rodriguez, Chuvalo, etc. Tyson has 2 atgs as well in Holmes and spinks but Holmes was inactive, coming off a loss and past his prime. Spinks had like what, 4 freaking fights at HW and had to lift weights just to become a heavyweight? He has several good Ko's like belt holders like Bruno, berbick, etc. Then he has former/future champs thomas, seldon, etc. So foreman has quality (stopped more younger prime opponents who major notoriety in overall historical rankings) while Tyson has quantity (cleaned out his division of decent or moderately good wins over decent or good opponents).

Also statistically we see foreman is arguably the better finisher. Other than Alex Stewart, no one Foreman dropped or had badly hurt was able to hear the final bell. Ruddock was dropped twice by Tyson and went the distance. So did James Quick Tillis. Buster Douglas actually got off the floor to win against Tyson. Tyson had danny williams badly hurt early (by his own admission) but he was able to rally back and stop Tyson.

If you want to complain and bring up Tyson was washed up against Williams fine. Separate foremans career from his prime to his comeback. Statistically im career 1 Foreman's KO% was 91%, which would be the highest in history if he retired at that time. Tyson had an 87%. Still impressive but we're only looking at numbers right?

Before you try to respond and break down all this paragraphs point by point, my whole reasoning isnt to argue one way or the other with this format. Im actually showing the flaw in ONLY looking at numbers and not looking at context. The video has a good premise but the way it goes about it is vert flawed.

This statement is not only wrong, its almost as bad as the video.

Tyson did not fave better competition. Foreman's first era had 2 other gold medalists (Ali and Frazier) as well as several excellent boxers and sluggers (Norton,Young, Lyle, etc) and a few game contenders/journeyman (Chuvalo, ledoux, etc). He stopped all these opponents except Ali and Young 5/7 or 6/8 if we include the frazier rematch

in his 2nd era his best opponents were holyfield, Moore, roddrigues, Stewart, Morrison, Briggs, Cooney, cooper. He stopped 4/8 of these opponents.

The best opponents Tyson faced (Lennox and holyfield) beat his ass. Tyson's best wins were larry Holmes (inactive and old), spinks (a blown up light heavy with less than 7 fights at heavy and was terrified of tyson) Tucker, Tubbs (intentionally showed up out of shape out of spite), Berbick, Bruno, Ruddock, and Douglas. Douglas beat him. Tyson had a premature stoppage in the first fight and several fouls for low blows in the second fight that went the distance. He couldn't stop Tucker.

So out of also his best opponents, the only ones Tyson KO'd who weren't out of shape and/or unmotivated or old were Berbick, Bruno and a terrified blown up LHW spinks. That means Tyson Kod only 4/10 of his best opponents (counting Bruno 2x). If we ignore all that and include ruddock, Holmes, and Tubbs despite their lacl of motivation/age or premature stoppages) that gives Tyson 7/10. Statistically he is better than career 2 foreman but worse than career 1 (especially if we look at quality of opposition and the factors).

Also 1 punch KO's are a myth and a very misleading statistic. We had a thread about it a few weeks ago. Outside of tomato cans, what actual 1 punch KO's did tyson score over an opponent no one remembers the name of?

Anyway, Tyson most certainly did not have the better opposition. His era was average at best in the 80's full of unmotivated men with drug or lazyness problems. In the 90's he lost to the 2 best fighters of that era and most of his wins in the 90's were "ok" or nothing to make note of.

 

You can't possibly know that as Foreman, like Shavers, has a truckload of ko's that aren't on film. Basically everything of Tyson is readily available.

 

This page has excellent analyses, especially Flash & Glass City Cobra.
Why can't soooo many-some who are not even boxing newbies-stop using the false equivalency of punchng power with ease or percentage of knockouts?
Sure, you hit hard you are likely to do well there.
But it isd a very foolish & undiscerning simnplification to equate that directy with force of blows.

Anyone with any sophistication should know that skills, speed, combinations, surprise, accuracy, finishing ability, sometimes even endurance & chin PLUS other factors go into how good of a KO artist anyone is.

So it is "riding the short school bus" to believe that how soon & often you get guys outta there = exactly how hard you hit!

 

Great read!

 

You can still draw incorrect conclusions from logically valid arguments, if one or more of their premises is false.

The video is based on a kind of collective false premise.

 

"Foreman is an arm puncher and lacks defense he was sheer brute strength and power"

Such a lazy cliche damn post watch Foreman hit a bag it ZOOMS up on his footwork for Christ sake he even walks with his hooks to get momentum his "lack of decence" in the 70s "Mummy" stance is the same stance Saddler used to beat some bum with no skills named Willie pep three out of four times.

"Prime Tyson would wreck them cuz he had Rooney"

"Tyson was mentally weak bully brain would collapse against a real fighter who wasn't intimated"

"After Cus died he had that loss soooo"

All other posts that I think need to stop just while I'm at it ranting.

 

Well I wouldn't fancy a shot from either man.. Even a glancing blow!!

 

Ok, that makes sense. I think Forman in his prime hit harder though.

 

I agree. Foreman was the heavier puncher... He was more about strength than cracking power (which Mike was all about).

 

All in all, this post was a wonderful read, logically argued, well written and made a bad morning just a bit better. Thank you for that.

The only minor quibble I have with it is that I think the 80s were a tremendous decade for HW boxing, with an incredibly deep talent pool, that on their best day, I'd say would be trouble for any other time period, but alas, they're collectively known as the "Lost Generation" for a reason, and the criminal degree of underachievement by so many for various reasons robbed us of what could have been so much more.

Fully agreed here, both guys were historically fearsome in their own right. Based off the eye test and anecdotal evidence, I'd say Foreman hit harder, punch for punch.

 

No arrogance. I just don't think most posters here understand a ****in thing about boxing. I agree with your assertion. It was Tyson's form and ability to hit with speed.

Lennox Lewis was getting tossed around and flipped like crazy when sparring Jeremy Williams. Despite Williams being a banger himself, he's hardly on the level of LL's power. Rahman was stronger than Lewis. Doesn't matter how strong you are when you're able to put punches together better.

 

I've read some reports as well. And still by watching Foreman's knockouts, Tyson obliterated his opposition with more single shots. So do some research and you'll be amazed at what you find.

Also, that was a retort to those saying "Foreman KO'd men with glancing blows and broke bones with single uppercuts!!!"

See what I mean...