1973 Foreman vs 1988 Tyson

No of course you didn't.

 

Foreman is all wrong for Tyson and Tyson knew it, there's no way you fight Foreman coming head on and Mike couldn't fight on the backfoot to save his life. Foreman would stun and hurt Mike with those short uppercuts and take him out early on.

 

No doubt ForemanJab, ForeMansOneCup and any other allias' you have will post as well....

I pretty much agree with Wass1985's post, but mid-late rounds rather than early.

 

foreman by ko, but i would not pick 73 foreman as his peak, i think that it was the 74 version who fought norton.

 

Win or Lose, Tyson would perform much better than Frazier did

 

tyson in 6 .

 

Foreman ko 3. Foreman had the perfect style to beat Tyson. He's the only fighter I can think of that would give prime Tyson a terrible ass whooping and knock him out quick.

 

Tyson by murder. Way too fast, and Foreman doesn't know how to survive when in trouble.

 

Maybe so but Tyson would quit before Frazier, no way in hell would he keep getting up from repeated knockdowns.

 

I agree. Frazier's comparatively slow start would always spell a speedy end but Tyson was much quicker out of the blocks.


Foreman by tko within six - eight rounds.

 

but yes, i think that tyson would be more dangerous than frazier for foreman, because mike landed fast combinations, and he had a killer upper, simply his attack woould get frustrated because foreman would push him back , would put tyson in the perfect distance and then he would land tons of uppers, young foreman was very aggressive and a killer finisher whit a sturdy chin

 

jesus what a horrible comment, foreman was very strong in the clinch and he did pretty well against lyle, tyson was the man who never recovered or won a fight when he got hurt seriously, foreman got up after he got knocked down twice and he won by ko, no question about foreman was x 10 more proved than tyson when they were in trouble

 

The young George Foreman makes short work of a peak Tyson.