George Foreman "Tyson Is Ducking Me"

Because no one has done anything similar before or since.
TEN YEARS retirement, living at about 80 or 100 pounds over his former fighting weight. And then starting at scratch to come back.
Even to achieve what he did, going 24-0 against nobodies then going the full 12 rounds against Holyfield at 42 years old, is remarkable.

 

It is remarkable, make no mistake about it. But to suggest that he was going to somehow be a threat to an undefeated/once beaten Mike Tyson who was a helluva fighter in his day is utter nonsense. I think if the fight had been competitive (scoring wise) between Foreman and Tyson then it would have been a moral victory for George.

There is not a single book maker or credible sportswriter back then between 1989-1992 that would have given Foreman the edge. Not one.

This reminds of very much of the situation between Hasim Rahman vs. Vitaly Klitschko. If we are not careful in 10 years time some nobody is going to pretend that while he was part of the negotiationss and Vitaly was **** scared of Hasim Rahman, cancelling fights with bogus injuries and once Rahman secured a fight with Barrett he somehow got better. They are literally going to say that Rahman scared Klitschko into retirement when at this point in time, we know better. Lets not pretend that Rahman would have offered nothing more to Vitaly that some resistance that would have made Vitaly get a full workout.

 

True, nobody gave Foreman much of a chance against Tyson at that time, and didn't really earn his shot against Holyfield because he didn't face any of the ranked fighters. The consensus was that Tyson would kill him.

But personally I always felt that Foreman and Tyson's styles would make it interesting enough. Tyson would come forward and that greatly increases Foreman's chances too. There's no doubt that Foreman would use roughhouse tactic, pushing Tyson back and trying to tee off a big shot. At heavyweight it only takes one big shot to turn a fight around. I'm not saying I'd favour Foreman but I understood why he'd fancy his chances. I didn't think it a foregone conclusion as the consensus had it.

Tyson might have been greatly skilled and very fast and powerful but he was still a short, short-armed, come-forward aggressive fighter, and those ingredients do play into Foreman's strength somewhat.

Hopefully such damp squibs as Vitali and Rahman will never get the kind of attention and speculation that we afford to true icons like Tyson and Foreman, deservedly.

 

Holmes had two consecutive defeats on his record, followed by an 18 month layoff at 38 years of age, and Mike's legacy hardly appears to have suffered because of it. Holyfield's legacy doesn't seem to have been harmed much by giving both Foreman and Holmes title shots. (In Larry's case though, he earned it this time by schooling Mercer.) Nor has blasting out a skinny and outgunned former light heavyweight champion seem to have hindered his reputation much.

If Tyson believed he could floor and take out the steel chinned strongman Foreman, that certainly would have enhance Mike's legacy, as nobody else was able to do this during George's second career. Professional boxing is a business, and Foreman had the salesmanship to make a match with Tyson the most lucrative payoff of Mike's career.

Many members of the press (in particular Al Bernstein), described the buildup to Holyfield-Foreman and their match itself as one of the most enjoyable experiences in their careers. The resulting favorable coverage could have been shared by Tyson, but he opted for a lower profile alternative in Ruddock.

Foreman would have been shoving him backwards and keeping him at arm's length, and many believed that Mike could not outbox him from long range on the back foot. (Tyson: 5'11-1/2," 71" reach. Foreman: 6'4," 82" reach, armored chin, and perhaps the physically strongest championship caliber heavyweight in history. Watch how the similarly sized but still physically weaker Bonecrusher Smith neutralizes and frustrates Mike with his size and strength, then do the tape math. How does Tyson win without his opponent taking a backwards step?)

 

The bottom line is that, while Tyson was still champion, comebacking, fat, jolly, old Foreman had won a bunch of fights against noncontenders, was an extraordinary makeover from his erstwhile menacing presence, but simply had not qualified himself in the ring for a title shot -just with his mouth.

A SI article at the time exemplified the folly of the Jim Palmers and Dennis Leonards still trying for a last day in the sun at old-timers ball games saying, "Isn't it sweeter to imagine Tyson vs. Foreman than to actually watch it?"

George would eventually prove he carried a unique punch in kayoing young Moorer, but at the time he was just making noise. Regardless of the fascinating stories of Cus' expressing awe of Foreman against small brawlers to a teenage Mike, to say champion Tyson was ducking Foreman is to say a champion is ducking a guy who has yet to beat anyone in the Top Ten.

 

Scurrrrrrred

 

:happy

 

Wow. What total and absolute garbage.

Bonecrusher "neutralized" Tyson??? Tyson forced Bonecrusher to fight probably the most embarrassing and lopsided survival fight in championship history. Period. Anyone can survive fighting like that. Giving the credit to Bonecrusher in that fight simply proves that you hate Tyson.

You embarrass yourself in your posts.

 

Foreman showed some stuff hanging in there with an equally quick Evander Holyfield, but he was often hit cleanly and rattled a few times. To suggest Tyson couldnt KO Foreman and Foreman would wear Tyson out and stop him is silly. Foreman would hang in there for a few rounds, but he would be badly beaten up and stopped by mid fight in 91 in my opinion.
Tyson was too quick had an excellent chin, had taken far harder bombs from Razor Ruddock that didnt budge him, and was still an active real fighter at that time.
Post prison the fight is a lot closer.
Again if we were discussing Foreman Morrison on this board had it not happened, Foreman would be the conensus favorite for an early KO.
Foreman was just too slow and too easy to offset by a quick fighter like Tyson, and it showed by far more limited fighters that made it the distance in close or winning fights.

 

Here's the thing, Ruddock was the number 2 ranked contender in the world right after Mike Tyson who was ranked #1 with Holyfield as champion. Tyson was supposed to have fought Ruddock after Frank Bruno but opted to fight Williams then Douglas. If he deferred the Ruddock fight any longer then his credibility would have suffered for taking on the marketable but unheralded former champion George Foreman.

And lets not forget, Ruddock was a better fighter than 1990s Foreman and he was also considered a threat to the title. Incidentally, Tyson Ruddock outsold Holyfield Foreman in live gate and PPVs.

Based on your reply you seem to be shorting Tyson's victory vs. Holmes a victory in which Tyson was able to do to Holmes what no one else was able to do. Win by KO. Say what you want about Michael Spinks but Spinks was the lineal Champion and he was undefeated. His relevance to the division was far more compelling at the time Tyson faced him than Foreman was at the time Tyson could have faced him.

Would it have been great for Tyson to have faced Foreman? Yes. The fans would have been given a treat.

Was it necessary for his legacy? No. Nor was George Foreman a priority. Ruddock was the more credible fight and after Ruddock, Tyson wanted Holyfield for the title. Had he beaten Holyfield then maybe George would have gotten a voluntary defense and treated to a payday.

 

In past posts, I've also stated that Smith should have been disqualified for not trying in both his loss to Tyson, and earlier in his final round knockout win over Bruno. (Having an opponent like Frank do all the work for nine rounds is a cheap way to try winning a fight, and I'm on record as agreeing with Mike that Smith's purse should have been withheld following their match. Tyson-Smith revealed Smith-Bruno as a pattern of behavior, not an anomaly due to "tightness" on Smith's part.)

Now, I merely cite Tyson-Smith as evidence that Foreman's liberal use of his size and physical strength would have presented serious logistical obstacles. He wouldn't be running or clutching to survive, but shoving Mike back and around. Morrison had height and reach Tyson lacked, and he demonstrated surprising mobility and stamina when George took his best shots and responded by casually pushing him away. (Tommy also took far better shots in that one than fans had come to expect.)

No, I'm not a member of the Tyson fan club. He did boxing no great favors by cannibalizing Holyfield, and disrespected the paying public with antics like quitting against McBride (making him a hypocrite for criticizing Smith). As a historian, he knew full well how important he was to the salvation of boxing as a front page entity, and many casual fans hold him responsible for the fact it has become a niche interest. (Incidentally, this is not a view I share. To me, the removal of boxing from network television and the abolition of the championship distance have been far more devastating to the professional sport.)

 

Ever see Smiths quit job against Butler, Duodenum?