Ali's take on Foreman vs Tyson

And Tyson really wasn't asked to absorb often in his bouts. Most were one way efforts in his favor and not back and forth efforts. That's a lot of koby results for a guy that was usually on top. This is what most fans do not get with the "on top" fighters----just terrific when things go their way. But how is their game when they aren't on top?

 

Had to quote you like this @Glass City Cobra too many characters.

Frazier has more heart but Tyson has a better chin IMO.

Frazier wouldn't of took flush uppercuts from a massive puncher like Ruddock without visiting the canvas or being seriously hurt.

I'm not saying Frazier has a bad chin but Tyson took single punches better than most Heavyweights in history and he's more proven against KO artists than Frazier is.

Tyson had KO power in either hand, was a better combination puncher, and more varied offence.

I would say he has better offence yes.

I'm not discrediting Frazier in that regard but Tyson is significantly more explosive/faster than Frazier that's no disrespect to Frazier it's just Tyson was a freak in regards to genetics.

Frazier's most common peak weight was 205 pounds that's what he weighed for most of his peak years,

Tyson was often 220 pounds.

That's on average 15 pound weight disadvantage with Tyson being faster, stronger, more athletic.

Power ? debatable especially in regards to old Foreman against common opposition.

Tyson got rid of Stewart, Savarese, in 60 seconds.

Foreman went 22 rounds vs Stewart, Savarese.

Old Foreman has more raw power for sure but Tyson has more explosive power.

And if you pit Tyson against Foreman's opposition in his comeback outside of Holyfield he'd stop all of Foreman's opposition inside of 6 rounds including the likes of Morrison, Moorer.

Body shots ? again i would say that's debatable Tyson is one of the best body punchers in the Heavyweight division.

Endurance ? Foreman knew how to pace himself but i wouldn't say he necessarily has better endurance. Tyson's style requires alot of high energy and he still showed he could easily go 12 rounds when he needed to.

Morrison was never troubled vs Foreman in regards to being seriously hurt or even remotely close to being stopped.

Again though Tyson wouldn't need to move laterally because he has superior defence to Morrison when attacking. Tyson as i keep saying never had issues vs big imposing power punches because he was far too fast and his defence was too good.

If you look at Tyson's prime you can count on one hand how many clean punches Tyson took and for a fighter of his style that's quite incredible.

Tyson would constantly beat Foreman to punch with the immense speed difference and has the defence to stop Foreman consistently landing.

Old Foreman also has alot of flaws that's why on average he was getting hit with nigh on near enough 60 percent of his opponents punches when he stepped up in competition and lost numerous rounds.

If you look at the rounds Foreman lost vs notable opposition....

vs Stewart 5
vs Holyfield 9
vs Moorer 6
vs Morrison 9
vs Schultz 8

That's almost 40 rounds lost vs 5 opponents Tyson didn't even lose half that amount in his peak years.

The likes of Bruno, Bonecrusher, Ruddock, do combine some attributes Foreman had aswell.

Bruno had a good jab with considerable height, reach, advantages it didn't help him vs Tyson.

Ruddock had good uppercuts and as much power as Foreman yet he couldn't trouble Tyson with his power.

Bonecrusher tried to neutralize Tyson on the inside but didn't succeed in winning any rounds.

Tyson even outjabbed Tucker who was 6'5.

Here's the thing when are you matching up these fighters ? I'm guessing Foreman's best years was between 1989-1991 ? so it would be best to match them up then no ?

Tyson of 1996 vs Holyfield is a different proposition to the Tyson of 1988-1991 before he went to prison.

Tyson of 1996 was strictly a head hunter who was a 4 round fighter who looked for one shot at a time rather than punching in combinations with superb defence like in his prime

Holyfield is also much more savvy and a better inside fighter than Foreman he fought a perfect gameplan whilst totally shutting down Tyson's offence which i don't think an old Foreman could replicate.

And as i said that's a Tyson after his prison stint which is a different fighter unless you also want to pit a 1996 version of Foreman vs a 1996 version of Tyson ? but Foreman during that time was going the distance vs the likes of Briggs, Grimsley.

Foreman is too slow and that's what you're not taking into account the speed difference between the two fighters is almost laughable. Tyson would be lighting up old Foreman like a christmas tree big imposing punches who stood infront of Tyson never troubled Tyson in his entire career.

Foreman never laid down a prolonged beating to any notable fighter in his comeback so i have no idea how you would come to that conclusion.

The best opposition Foreman fought in his comeback he struggled immensely in all of those fights even in the fights he won.

Douglas beat up Tyson for 10 rounds it was a one sided fight forgetting whether or not Douglas doesn't hit as hard as Foreman. If a 230 pound Heavyweight is beating you up round after round you're going to go eventually no matter who you are.

Douglas fought the fight of his life fighting at range using his 83 inch reach jab against an under par with Tyson.

I don't think Foreman is capable of beating up a prime Tyson for numerous rounds as Foreman never showed he could do that against higher level competition in his comeback. Nor would Foreman be moving away from Tyson fighting at range using his jab he would be right infront of Tyson there to be hit and let's be real Foreman was hit ALOT in his comeback as the statistics show.

 

Tyson shipped some.very hard shots from Ruddock in a tough grueling fight over 12 rounds and certainly proved he could win a tough fight in a back and forth contest.

 

1 fight. name some more--he had lots of bouts in his career.

And how durable was Ruddock in his other big bouts anyway?

 

The fight with Douglas was bad for Mike but it showed that Tyson can take a beating and still be in the game. He loses every 7 round and then throws his opponent to the floor for 14 seconds in the next.

He loses every 4 round with Frans Botha and then in the 5th he hits him with the hardest punch Frans has ever received (according to Frans).

You can't punish someone for constantly dominating and his opponents are unable to give him a tough fight.

George almost lost to Stewart, Savarese, Grimsley in the 90s and lost badly to Morrison and should have lost to Schulz. I can agree that the fighting styles favored Foreman but I don't think the difference was as big as the difference between Grimsley's class and Tyson's. Besides, was Grimsley an outboxer with great footwork who could fight in many areas?

 

But why should that be a criticism ? I don't get it.

So Tyson should be criticised because he was able to beat most of his opponents easily ? That should be a positive not a negative.

As for how durable was Ruddock ? How durable was some of the opponents Foreman went the distance with in his comeback ?

Stewart took over 50 percent of Foreman’s punches and went the distance yet he was blown away in 60 seconds by Tyson and in 4 rounds by Moorer.

How durable was Savarese in other big fights ? He stood toe to toe with Foreman and comfortably went 12 rounds who was again stopped in 60 seconds by Tyson and stopped in 5 by Izon.

 

None of those guys have anything approaching Tysons credentials as a puncher so Foreman not getting kayoed doesn't prove much. Kayo ratios are meaningless when you fight poor opponents.
Morrison never kayoed a single top 10 heavyweight. Neither did Stewart or Moorer. Holyfield couldn't drop Holmes or Stewart but Tyson took both out quickly.

Fighting these guys gives us little insight into how Foreman does against a guy known for knocking our durable opponents like Berbick and Holmes.

 

Frazier was not in shape when he got knocked out by Foreman though and his prime weight on average was 205 pounds.

Tyson's prime weight on average was 220 pounds and sometimes slightly above.

So on average Tyson was atleast 15 pounds heavier than Frazier if we're talking strictly their prime years.

Old Foreman doesn't have relevance to what young Foreman did to Frazier.

Young Foreman was a menacing ultra aggressive KO artist.

Old Foreman was still a KO artist but he was much more measured in his approach.

I also believe Tyson is more proven against KO artists than Frazier is and i also believe Tyson takes a better shot than Frazier in regards to taking single punches but i'll concede Frazier has more heart which is a no brainer.

Well i'm glad we could find middle ground in regards to Tyson having better offense.

It's a challenging style match up but certainly not as challenging as what Young Foreman would bring to the table.

I think old Foreman's slower hand speed and more measured approach could actually be more of a detriment to him in this match up.

Ok for argument sake let's say my original comment may of been a bit of exaggeration but i think we can agree Tyson did have quicker hand speed than Frazier and was a better combination puncher.

I think Tyson could beat old Foreman though without needing to back off or move away because i think his superior defence and much quicker hand speed means he would be having the upper hand in most of the exchanges like Tyson often did vs any of the notable KO artists he fought.

And i believe that Tyson could ship single punches from Foreman as much lesser fighters than Tyson went the distance with Foreman taking numerous single punches from Foreman plus Tyson has a very good chin. So unless Foreman is really beating up Tyson round after round which i don't think an old Foreman is capable of doing i see Tyson being able to outpoint big George.

You brought up finishing abilities but that's an issue i believe for old Foreman against better opposition aswell because he was simply too old and too slow. Whilst he stopped Moorer with a single shot outside of that anytime he stepped up in competition he had issues stopping better opposition.

And that's my main issue here i find it hard to fathom that an old Foreman who hit fighters like Stewart with over 50 percent of his punches and failed to stop him is gonna go up a few levels and stop a prime Tyson i just don't see it.

That's fine but Qawi was a fat blown up Light Heavyweight way past his prime who had no business at Heavyweight being only 5'6.

From memory Qawi actually give Foreman a few problems with his defence before Foreman finally stopped him.

Qawi was able to go 7 rounds with Foreman using superb head movement he just wasn't a legit Heavyweight, now i'd imagine Tyson would do considerably better than Qawi.

But you're right that no one really went to Tyson's body although i do remember Tillis might of tried it ? can't remember exactly. But regardless Foreman could go to Tyson's body yes but what would be coming back at him that's what you gotta ask yourself. Qawi didn't really offer any danger in regards to his offence or power unlike Tyson.

I'm not sure i entirely agree with you on this though.

If you're saying Foreman knew how to pace himself better ? then i'll concede to that point.

But i don't think you can say Foreman has better stamina because Tyson's style as i said required high energy that was very taxing on the body.

Foreman had a more relaxed style hence he was using alot less energy than Tyson.

Tyson of 1996 is also as i said a different proposition to the Tyson prior to his prison stint because as we know Tyson was basically a good 4 round fighter after coming out of prison.

I just don't think we are going to agree on this honestly i just don't think as highly of old Foreman as you do.

Whilst i recognize old Foreman's size, power, physical strength, would present some problems.

I think old Foreman's poor defence, slow hand speed, would be an even bigger issue for him.

I know i keep repeating it but like i've said big imposing punchers who stood infront of Tyson historically never really troubled Tyson.

Either Tyson struggled against good jabbers with very long reaches who fought on the outside.

Or he had issues vs fighters who smothered his work on the inside neutralizing him.

I'll finally say i would agree with you that young Foreman would be a favourite over Tyson but not an old Foreman for me personally.

 

How about knocking out guys that are hard to stop? That's by far the best measure of power. Morrison and Stewart never kayoed anyone ranked in their entire careers.

Frankly these guys reputations seem to be heavily based on giving Foreman problems. People seem to be hyping them up in an attempt to save Foreman's reputation.

Morrison got bombed out by Michael Bentt and drew with Purrity was kayoed by Mercer and you are trying to hype him up as some formidable force which is silly. I don't know if Morrison could even beat Jesse Ferguson or David Izon and nobody is hyping those guys as anything special.

 

LOL

Ali stopped Jerry Quarry but Shavers didn't. Does Ali hit harder than Earnie?
Ali stopped Bonavena but Frazier and Lyle couldn't. Does Ali hit harder?
Holmes stopped Mike Weaver but Gerrie Coetzee didn't. Does Holmes hit harder?
Holmes stopped Bonecrusher Smith but prime Tyson didn't. Does Holmes hit harder than Tyson?

I could sit for days posting similar examples. You don't see the forest for the trees.

Rate the power of these guys out of 10.

Andy Ganigan
Eugene Hart
Tony Baltazar
Gerry Cooney