How would've George Foreman ('73-'74) fared against 80s and 90s heavyweights?

The idea of the Lyle fight was to get Foreman in with someone good & knock him out to make a statement that he was back. Ballsy move.

 

I can't for the life of me see this stylistic matchup going too many. Maybe it could get to 6 but it would be an ugly affair by then.

Regarding Tyson's defense, here's the thing - when other good fighters had the stones to punch when he punched his defense was a whole lot less "impregnable". He had so many fights where guys were timid coming back at him, backtracking jabbing or just covering up. He's virtually unbeatable via those scenario's. You almost have to take some risks, let your hands go more often, thwart his offensive efforts with your own, or if not thwart at least land some good punches yourself between his. This offset his defensive system, and it was often a system, and let you land some leather. Then you have him rushing in from standing starts or you can even back him up.

Can anyone do that? God no, historically not many at all. For me Foreman is just about the best suited ever.

 

A ballsy move that almost backfired.

 

Not just someone good, but the baddest f***er around who seemed to be Lyle after his KO of Shavers.

 

If we can come to some type of agreement as you know me John i don't like to drag out conversations and i know you're the same.

I agree Foreman is arguably the toughest match up for Tyson that i can think of but i just don't necessarily agree that Tyson gets stopped early. I think he's shown a very good chin and to beat Tyson you have to beat him up over multiple rounds to get the job done.

I know Foreman is a big puncher and for power he's up there with the best but i think Tyson has a good track record vs KO punchers. So i'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that if he gets stopped i think it's the middle rounds rather than very early.

Finally just have a quick overall reading of this fight because we end the discussion Foreman has good assets to deal with Tyson's bobbing and weaving style especially with his very good uppercut, pushing opponents with his immense strength to get punching room, and his stand out jab.

But the negatives for Foreman are his defence can be quite leaky, he's considerably slower than Tyson, and i do think there is a chance Tyson could stop Foreman.

Finally i do make Foreman a favourite i think he has a stylistic advantage but i just don't think this is Frazier 2.0. And i don't think Tyson is comparable to Frazier despite their similar dimensions they are quite different how they got about fighting with their offence and defence and style of fighting.

But good discussion it's been awhile since we've had a little back and forth debate take care.

 

That's what makes Tyson so difficult to beat. If you're not busy enough to keep him off of you, he'll run you over. But if you let your hands go, you leave yourself open to get counterpunched into oblivion.

I only favor three fighters for certain. Ali, Liston, and Foreman.

 

Those are my 3 aswell.

 

It's all good mate i'd fired my last wad and had nothing left. I don't go back and forth too much and we are at that fork in the road. My next post was going to be that we'd just have to disagree on this one, somewhat.

Have a good day mate.

 

Guys like Lewis I go back and forth on.

Holmes is a live underdog as well.

 

Exactly. When i say let your hands go i am muchly talking about when he throws, if you lead when he's charging he makes you pay. Let that ****er start firing and go with him or when you lead step in and keep hammering lol.

 

The biggest winners in history are always gamblers.

 

Well, you say Tyson took sustained beatings in all his losses, but Frazier took one of the severest sustained beatings against Ali in '71 and managed to win.

By the way, I didn't say Frazier had a "great chin". I just don't think Tyson's is "considerably better" than Frazier's.

What hurt Frazier against Foreman was the stylistic and tactical catastrophe that unfolded against one of the hardest punchers in history. That he was stopped on his feet having wanted to continue, after taking hellacious shots, indicates a solid enough chin, for mine.

And, sorry - I just think you're just massively overrating Ruddock's power. I'm not saying he didn't carry any kind of power but who did he actually knockout?

As for Tyson/Ruddock round-6, despite some momentary success, I couldn't say I witnessed from Ruddock anything like the power level of Foreman or even that of Ruddock's best punches from previous fights, for that matter. (And, certainly nothing that emulated Foreman/Frazier).

Tyson simply wasn't giving Ruddock the time or the space to harness the full leverage he required to maximize the delivery of his exaggerated 'Smash' punch, which had looked more effective against B- and C-level opponents, or once good fighters who had become old men and whose legs had left them.

Foreman could deliver more power in either hand from just about any range than could Ruddock, in my opinion.

 

Excellent post. I'd add to all of this, that Foreman landed, perhaps his hardest most flush, punches ever on Frazier, due to the stylistic match up.

 

Tyson also took considerable punishment vs Ruddock in their 2nd fight and he was a huge puncher and Tyson won that aswell.

I think Tyson is considerably more tested against KO artist's hence i think he takes a considerably better shot than Frazier in regards to single punches. If Frazier got hit by a flush uppercut from Ruddock he would be seriously troubled by it.

The thing is though say Norton for example wouldn't of fought the likes of Shavers, Cooney, late on his career would people say he has a solid chin for going 54 rounds vs Ali, Holmes, taking flush punches off them ?

Norton get's criticised for being suspect vs punchers but had Frazier fought those same punchers he may of come unstuck aswell. To be fair i do think Frazier has better survival instincts than Norton and he doesn't freeze as badly as Norton when hurt.

But as i said i do think there is a slight question mark in regards to Frazier vs KO punchers he has a solid chin but it can definitely be cracked.

I know some members here will get annoyed at me for saying that in regards to Frazier because he is such a likeable fighter and i like him alot aswell but i do honestly think that.

Dokes who had recently gone 10 rounds with Holyfield in arguably the best Heavyweight fight of the 80s, a KO win over Bonecrusher who is pretty durable and big being 6'4 230+ pounds is also a solid win.

Not ATG wins but regarding the eye test of the KO's you can see he was a very big puncher because they were single punch KO's. And let's put it this way Ruddock would probably stop Norton and he would be a live underdog against the out of shape Frazier in Jamaica.

Watch highlights of the 2nd fight Tyson fight he took solid flush uppercuts from Ruddock and he took them very well.

Well to be fair Tyson was a better H2H fighter than the version of Frazier in Jamaica and certainly better than Norton aswell even the 1991 version of Tyson would be favoured over both by a considerable amount.

So i don't think Ruddock having a competitive fight vs Tyson in a losing effort is too much of a negative. 90 percent of Heavyweights past/present would lose to even that version of Tyson.

 

@Man_Machine i'll let you have the last say as i said to @JohnThomas1 i don't really like to have long back and forth debates anymore. I've said what i've said it may not be the most popular opinion but that's my honest thoughts i have nothing against Frazier or Foreman that's just the way i see it.

But overall i do make Foreman a favourite over Tyson but not a huge one and i don't see a repeat of Foreman vs Frazier either. I'm going to bail out now and as i said to John always good to converse with you guys and share some thoughts, the main thing is we do agree Foreman being the favourite and in the end that's all the matters.