90's Foreman vs Peak Tyson ( Revisted )

Spoken like a true keyboard warrior. A word of advice junior. You may want to be careful about who you threaten, even on a chat forum.

P.S. The thought of breaking my foot off in your ass right now doesn't sound so bad either.

 

I don't see why you feel that way. There are many who feel that the early to mid 1990's, was one of the most competitve eras in heavyweight history, and Foreman was one of the best fighters among the bunch.

Please. He lost by a decision to a peak prime Holyfield, which is something Tyson couldn't manage to do, and on two occassions. Granted Mike was not in his prime when he fought Evander, but neither was Holyfield. The Morrison loss came when Tommy was at his very best at the age 26, and after accumulating enough experience. He changed his fighting style significantly to face George, by using the ring, giving angles and applying the jab. Name one fight where Tyson completely abandoned his signature style against an opponent. The Briggs fight is not even worth mentioning given that Goerge was in the last fight of his career and only a few months shy of his 50th birthday, yet many including myself felt he was robbed, adding what could be considered as a victory over another one of the era's top contenders.

Tyson's chin was definately not glass, and in fact, I credit him as having a solid one. It was not inpenetrable however. Tyson was rocked by Smith, Tucker, Bruno, and Ruddock, all of whom hit like trucks but probably no harder than Foreman, and who in fact were not as stylistically fit to beat him as Foreman was. By the way, Razor would have had a good chance had he stayed busier in the later rounds of the second fight.

I explained the Morrison fight earlier.

Tyson destroyed Stewart in one round, Stewart battered Foreman to one of the most horrible disformed faces i've seen. The same Stewart who has a rather weak chin, by the way.

THis requires a bit more explanation. First of all, Stewrt was arguably a better fighter against Foreman than he was against Holyfield or Tyson. Prior to facing those guys, he had never been in with a decent opponent, nor beyond 4 rounds for that matter. Against George, he was far better conditioned, as his physique clearly showed, and with more experience as well. in addition, Stewart was a 6'3" heavyweight who initiated the type of attack that made George more suseptible to getting hit. Tyson on the otherhand was significantly shorter, and would have had to get too close to George, only to punch upwards into the defense of Foreman. During this time, he would be very vulnerable to counter attack. It should also be noted that the Foreman fight, was probably by far, the best performance of Alex Stewarts career, as was Douglas's against Tyson. George also dropped Stewart twice in that fight if you recall.

George was never known for his speed. He wasn't much faster in his prime either, and look at how he managed to land on Frazier without being hit, and Joe utilized a lot more upper body movement than Tyson, and arguably had more handspeed or just as much. Can you really see Tyson standing right in front of George and not getting hit?

Well, he knocked out 26 guys in 31 comeback victories. It's also not like he struggled with tomato cans either. Rather he uttrely destroyed a lot of tough journeyman and trial hoarses, who other good fighters had trouble with or were even upset by. Not to mention, my whole argument is based on a styles matchup, rather than actual opponents. Tyson, even in the 80's didn't always have an easy time with mediocre fighters either.