Foreman (1994) vs Tyson (1996)

i agree.....i dont think tyson would have troubled big georges chin, his defence and ring savvy would have been to much....i think he would have wore tyson down with big powerful jabs and exhausted him in the clinches by his sheer bulk pressing down...a relentless charge in rounds 7 thru 10 see foreman winning by ko in the tenth with mikey eating big uppercuts on the inside....in my opinion, tysons style and size were made for big george and george wins 9 times out of ten.......

 

A '96 version Tyson give Holyfield (a better 'boxer' than Foreman) trouble early on (a vintage fifth round) before his lack of proper fitness preparation told (he was basically tired, just past the mid-rounds).

Evander weathered the initial onslaught and took over with a boxing masterclass, but I have definite doubts whether the older, more pondorous, snail-slow Foreman would. A short time ago I picked a peak Tyson to beat a peak Foreman, I'll also pick Tyson to take this one. If a shakey chinned Moorer could outbox mid 90's Foreman (before getting suckered), then Mikey certainly could.

Tyson by clear decision. :good

 

Agreed. Foreman in his second career isnt the fighter some are making him out to be. The best fighter he beat was Micheal Moorer and that was a fighter who was right in front of him and beating him up for 9 rounds before he got caught and stopped. In fact during the fight Larry Merchant and Jim Lampley went as far as questioning his power because Michael Moorer fought with little regard for it. He didnt move around use lateral movement to get out of the way he fought him like he was an average puncher and his overconfidence allowed George to win that fight. Tyson's physicalities and athleticism would overwhelm George. Tyson stops in pretty dominating fashion.

 

1996 Tyson may not have been as a good of a boxer as his vintage self, but he was still a force to be wreckoned with and a amazing puncher with his speed intact (he lost that after second lay off). You're speaking as if Foreman has the speed of 73 - he doesn't. Landing uppercuts left and right (or punches in general) against someone as FAST as Tyson isn't going to be easy for the OLD MAN. He's too slow to catch up to Tyson's reflexes. 73' Landing rights repeatedly? Are you kidding - Foreman could hit with him with but Tyson would be escape quickly. Tyson could get tagged against MASTER BOXERS with SPEED like Douglas (yep) or Holy who used those two to win.

Foreman would be too slow to avoid the lunging right hands of Mike Tyson. Amazing hand speed. The Old Man would take a bad beating against the greatest puncher he ever faced, would not be able to land a lucky punch against granite chinned Tyson, his old age despite stylistic advantage would not allow him to evade Tyson's punches. Larry Holmes was never stopped either - but if you're going to take ANCIENT Foreman and put him in with Tyson - he's in trouble. It'd be humiliating for Foreman.

Tyson would be too fast and Old George wouldn't have the speed or vigor to keep up with it. Don't kid yourself. Since when did Foreman get this reputation for being so good against swarmers? The slow starting, one armed blind Joe Frazier? Tyson was completely different for the worse and for the better.

Foreman has his moments but gets humilated against a fierce Mike Tyson. This is not necessarily a great achievment for Tyson - as this fight should not take place. What a pathetic myth - since when did Foreman beat top fighters in his comeback? This would be no different. You guys talk about beating Tyson mentally - that can help but the beating takes place in the ring. Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis had to do it in the ring! Douglas and Holyfield had to sustain monster punches from Tyson to win - it wasn't so easy as "mentally" beating him, even though Holy had Tyson intimidated in fight 2.

 

Foreman in his second career was pretty average who, in my opinion, was somewhat lucky to become linear heavyweight champion again. His record against ranked opposition is average and he had very close fights against average fighters like Schulz, Stewart and Savarese. Foremans chin and heart did stand out, though.

While Tyson was past his best in 1996, contrary to most, i think he was still one hell of a fighter. And i see nothing on Foremans second career record or ability on film that suggests he could beat Tyson. He is simply too slow and Tyson won't go down as easily as Moorer. I expect him to lose a lopsided decision just like he did against Holyfield.

 

That doesnt meant that he cannot be stopped. Especially at the age of 45. Put it this way if Larry Holmes never fought Mike Tyson there would be people who would go to thier graves saying that Larry Holmes could never be Knocked out. The reality is of course that its possible.

Foreman could have and would have been KO'd had he fought, Tyson, Lewis and possibly Bowe in 1994

 

yes formeman was slow, yes, a bit predictable...but i honestly dont think tyson would have hurt him......i dont think THAT incarnation of tyson, who, as you rightly say, was still one hell of a fighter, had the workrate or work ethic that holyfield did.....i reckon after a pretty brutal and succesful 3 or 4 rounds, tyson slows down when he realises that the he aint gonna stop the old geezer from trundling forward....once his perpetual motion offence slows down, big george would control the pace of the fight...and the style of the fight...it would become a war of attrition with the immensley powerful george manhandling tyson around thru rounds 5-10 with the real possibility of an upset ko in that very round....tyson has always been susceptible to the big honey punch upercut and george rarely missed when he threw these.....i aint sayin its a walk in the park for either man, but i really do think AT THAT POINT big george would have burst tysons bubble....

 

Tyson would win in my opinion. The Mike Tyson that fought Bruno in my opinion was the

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I agree with your assessment of this fight. To me, Foreman would just be too slow and ponderous to beat Tyson at any stage. The Tyson of 1996 was still a very good fighter; he wasn't as good as the 1988 version, but good he still was. I think Foreman would have trouble landing cleanly on Tyson; he'd pop Tyson with the jab periodically, and I'm sure he'd tag Tyson with a big shot or two down the stretch, but George wouldn't be fast enough or busy enough to seriously threaten Tyson. At best George would land one punch at a time, but Tyson's chin was much more solid than was Moorer's chin, so I doubt that we'd see a quick, out of nowhere punch that would put Tyson on the mat. Tyson was much faster than George, probably had the punching power edge at that point, and would definately be a rough assignment for George Foreman. Tyson by unanimous decison or late rounds stoppage.

 

True, but if two rounds in the Holyfield/Foreman fight were a little longer, that statistic might need revising.

 

Foreman fought Joe Lewis 30 years ago?

 

tyson would be the best puncher foreman ever faced ; the combination of speed and power at which the punches came would really wobble foreman - muhammad ali's speed alone wobbled foreman (i do believe this comparison is valid) and tyson's lunging right like the one he landed on holyfield in 1996 had that description. foreman can handle raw power but i'm not sure about raw power with blinding speed. tyson's straight right would be better than lyle's punches.

you notice that fighters react differently to different kinds of punches. ali has always been dropped by the left hook despite taking right hands more powerful ; foreman wouldn't not react as well to tyson's right as he did with frazier.

can't compare holy to tyson - holy's punches are not powerful enough - you can't handle 25 straight punches of tyson's as you can of holy. just 3 or 4 brutal rounds will be enough to end it. has larry holmes EVER been stopped in FOUR rounds?