After watching Foreman-Morrison and Foreman-Stewart......

I agree. George goes the distance though.

 

How do You explain Tyson - Buster 'Journyman' Douglas,

 

tyson had to much self doubt to beat foreman, and secondly a 40 year old grandad wouldnt be scared of tysons bs mind games, athleticly tyson would steam roll him, but its not just an athletic thing.

 

Stuart and Morrison both adjusted their fighting styles to move, jab and sport more of an outside fighting game against Foreman, rather than trade with him at close range the way Tyson would have. Its easy to look at what Tyson did to stuart and surmise what he probably would have done to Morrison in an effort to ad 2 + 2, but that isn't exactly a formula that works for me in this instance.

At anyrate, I to would favor Mike Tyson over George Foreman in the early 90's, but I don't think it would be an easy fight. And the Morrison - Stuart comparisons are not what I use to draw my conclusions.

 

Never said that he couldn't.. We just never saw him do it.

When did Mike Tyson ever face a man with George's combination of size, power, chin, defense and style that was well suited for shorter puncher types?

Yes. As limited as he was, he managed to give a prime Holyfield a better showing than Tyson could against a faded one, and also captured the lineal title against a prime champion with a devastating KO.. Not to mention, surviving 34 comeback fights, without being stopped, only losing to 3 rated opponents ( including the champ ), and retiring at nearly the age of 50..... Yep, he was pretty limited...:good

 

The stuart fight wasn't a robbery. As for the other two, well one could just as easily say the same thing about getting your ass handed to you by James Douglas. These are not my feelings of course, but that seems to be the route you're opting to take.

Well the landscape of the division in late 1994, didn't exactly make for great selection. Your boy was in jail... Holyfield was in temporary retirement. Lewis had gotten KO'd by McCall a few months prior to Moorer fighting Foreman. Bowe had lost to Holyfield, and hadn't done much in the interim, besides nearly getting DQ'd against Mathis Jr. Morrison beat Foreman, but then got starched in one by Bentt. Foreman may not have been the best choice, but there sure as hell wasn't anyone else who was glaring as the most deserving. And incidentally Moorer had just lifted the title in his last fight, and the champ doesn't always fight the number one guy in his first defense, ( see your man Riddick Bowe. )In either case, Foreman made much better use of that shot than Tyson did against Holyfield and Lewis.

No need for luck.. Foreman wasn't known for stopping his opponents with one shot anyway.

P.S. You seem to have forgotten that I mentioned Tyson should be favored.

 

It's not like Stewart ran from Foreman. He stood in the pocket and traded at times, planted his feet and landed some monster shots to a stationary target. Stewart pretty much boxed like he always did with a little added movement. Nothing spectacular there.

What Foreman did in his comeback was amazing, at least against the competition he faced. He was more durable than Ruddock but was he as dangerous? Ruddock gets **** on a lot here but he was the most dangerous heavyweight since, well, Tyson. Nobody wanted a piece of him. A big heavyweight with a 10 fight KO streak and confidence up to here.

This was a Foreman thread, right?

 

Which is ultimately why it was never made ...

 

Q, Sir Lards A Lot aka Big George learned how to hypnotize people in his ten year retirement. That's how he managed to do this to people's minds and make them think he'd steamroll Mike Tyson. It's the only reason I can think of for otherwise intelligent people to think he wouldn't have his ginormous turds pushed in my Tyson.

 

George Foreman was extremely limited during his comeback. He handpicked his opponents to an almost laughable degree. The only time he went out on a limb and fought anyone good was when there was a title on the line. It's not hard to go undefeated in 34 fights if you fight tomato cans and has-beens. Sure, George was big, strong, and durable, but he was very limited. His competitiveness against Holyfield had more to do with his durability and tenacity than with any boxing skill or talent. Holyfield in 1991 was not a big puncher, and George being 257 pounds took a lot of punishment without being stopped or dropped. But the fight wasn't close!