I don't get why people think a 70's Foreman beats a prime Tyson

70s Foreman carried the same fear factor as 80s Mike, maybe even more so.

 

Not at all, i can show you some masterful defending from Tyson in that bout.

 

tyson fans due forget that tyson WAS taken the distance early on. james tillis, mitch green, james smith, tony tucker, and of course, ruddock. NONE of these men compares with foreman's power or chin. but they all were much taller with a long reach. just like foreman.

 

You are 100 per cent correct
He doesn't.
End of debate.
Spend your energy debating some matter of doubt because there's none here !

 

Not at all.

 

Awesome. Do one better and stop posting.

 

Yep.

 

Below is a well formed argument from member IRONCHAMP regarding a potential Tyson-Foreman Super Bout:


"1. To beat Tyson, you need to go after him very early, but you have to be elusive throughout the fight. Foreman can go after him but he won't keep him from landing. You don't outgun Tyson; you outmaneuver him. Tyson has never been frustrated in a fight where he's getting hit, only in fights where he can't respond.

Douglas kept him away with lateral movement, speed and long jab and right hand leads. He'd tie him up rinse and repeat. Douglas was never really flush throughout the fight but he did finally get tagged in the 8th round and down he went. Tyson was clearly spent at that time but better preparation would have meant that Tyson would have had the energy to close the show in the 9th round.

Holyfield fought him different but he essentially blocked, wrestled, used lateral movement and timed him in ways Foreman simply couldn't replicate. Everything Tyson threw was thrwarted, blocked or simply hit air. Tyson occasionally landed some pretty telling blows but not enough to neutralize Holyfield's planned. He was outworked, and out maneuvered but not outgunned.

Lewis fought a shell of Tyson but still maintained a very strict game plan, he went after Tyson early to get his respect. He kept his distance throughout the fight and dominated behind a purposeful jab throwing mammoth right hands that in all probability rival Foreman's power over and over again until Jim Lampley was just amazed at Tyson's durability. Then he dropped the boom when Tyson had nothing left.

None of those guys stayed in range for Tyson to get his shots in, and those guys were able to avoid Tyson's onslaught. Let me be clear. They didn't survive his onslaught, they avoided it and they did this using lateral movement, a competent jab and technical savvy. Foreman doesn't resemble this at all. His jab in his first career was competent but still very mundane. His power was top notch but his durability and stamina was even more questionable than Tyson's as the rounds progressed. He can be dropped by single hard shots early in fights (Lyle) and his stamina can sometimes let him down (Ali) and his focus, like Tyson sometimes wanders (Young). Tyson only loses to guys who get to him early and beat him over the course of the fight and need the later rounds to finish the job. He doesn't go down early and has had experience in 12 round fights. He's twice trained for 15 round fights (Tubbs/Biggs) and has maintain a steady punch output in the later rounds showing that he can go the rounds and still be dangerous. In effect, Tyson's shortcomings aren't going to be exploited by Foreman simply because the only way Foreman is going to win is by out-muscling him and out firing him.

2. Foreman lost to Muhammad Ali primarily because his inability to deal with Ali's hand speed. Tyson at 20-22 has faster hands than Ali at 32. Tyson's ability to rip off combinations made him pretty difficult to beat. I envision Tyson beating Foreman to the punch consistently and keeping George on the defensive in each encounter. Will Foreman land his own bombs? Yes. Will he land enough in succession? No, he'd be countered frequently enough with power that rivals his own that it won't be the balls to wall fight that everyone thinks it would. It would be fought at a surprisingly measured pace. Both Foreman and Tyson would apply pressure but the fight would be a scenario where Tyson is stalking-not Foreman. Foreman would fight on the back foot occasionally pressing forward similar to the Lyle fight. He'll provide resistance with his aggression but he won't be able to elude Tyson's retaliation and or onslaught nor will he beat him to the punch.

His shortcomings all favor Tyson and If I had to lay down a bet I'd pick Mike to stop him in 6 rounds with 1 knockdown to his credit while being ahead on cards at the time of stoppage.

Anyone who tells you different without taking into account what I've said, is someone who has already made up their minds, with other people's ideas."

 

I see you did a while back. Hopefully next time it will be permanent.

 

Quite the little *****, aren't we? GO cry to the mods some more.

 

Ahh yes Foreman maybe could juggle two cows ..but could he eat em as fast as Tyson ??mmm that's got you stumped now hasn't it !

 

I've never complained to the mods in my life. Well except for 10 odd years ago when a guy was getting around sending people goatse or whatever it was. First i saw of your banning was the red in your name and i had no idea what you were banned for.

You mostly only come here to wax lyrical about Tyson being the best ever and rigidly support everything around that ideology.

When people oppose anything to do with that you get all huffy like a petulant little child and have pithy little hissy fits.

You are one the worst Tyson fanatics imaginable and do him more harm than good.

 

Stop this nonsense. Even Tysons trainer admitted that Mike wouldnt stand a chance. I give Cus D'Amato more credit that some random fanboys on a forum. Hes to small, less powerfull and doesnt have the backbone like Ali that is needed to beat Foreman.

 

There have been a [very] few fair-minded appraisals, explaining why Tyson could win a fight with Foreman. Your post of someone else's post is not one of them, because it is flawed on several key levels.

The flawed reasoning can be summed up like this...

1. There's only one way to beat Tyson and it involves conducting an early offense and being evasive at the same time.

2. Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis, were the only fighters seemingly able to achieve this combination of factors (but, in quite different ways, at their different times).

3. Foreman is not Douglas, Holyfield or Lewis. Therefore, we can't draw on the implications of Tyson's losses in Foreman’s favor, because Foreman doesn't fight like the opponents that beat Tyson.

4. However, we can draw on Foreman’s losses to Ali, Lyle and Young, so as to form a number of assumptive and/or inaccurately identified failings in his game.

5. These weaknesses naturally play into Tyson's hands.

6. Foreman only has strength and power in his armory and, therefore, only one way to win.

7. Tyson has more speed than Ali and Ali primarily beat Foreman, because of his superior speed.

In essence, while the points are put together well, in order to give the impression of a well though-out argument, to be taken into consideration (briefly), I don't find the overall position particularly convincing, due to its vague, presumptive, one-sided and somewhat unfair nature.

Only an avid, dogmatic Tyson 'Believer' would consider this a reliable enough analysis to re-post.

 

70s Foreman didnt always use his jab as much as he should have or could have. Especially when facing somebody that is gonna move. Except when facing a guy who is gonna come to him like Frazier did. Foreman lays that jab out there consistently against a shorter aggressive fighter. It was a tough jab, a heavy jab. It will stun a fighter if he walks into it. Ofcourse George is looking to drop the hammer with the power behind it. Interesting to see if he would be able to push Mike Tyson back 3 or 4 steps like he did Frazier. Also depends on the referee. He pushed Frazier back then caught him trying to get back inside. Tyson is stronger than Joe.

If Foreman fights behind the jab he would be tough to beat even by Tyson. The uppercut is also his most brutal punch. Tyson had some good head movement so I wouldnt be suprised if Foreman zeroed in on the body of Tyson early. Besides having to deal with that telephone pole jab he`s got these wrecking ball body shots to deal with. Punches that move you even if they dont land clean.

I think Tyson does have the power and speed to beat him but he has to do it early IMO. Not because of conditioning but I think he would start to have those doubts creep in the longer he had to deal with Foreman. Tyson wouldnt throw up his hands and quit but you would see Tyson throw one punch at a time. He would tighten up, start leaning. Now the head movement is gone. Once he starts biting his gloves its all over.

Tyson would have to let his hands go the entire fight even if he gets rocked. If he is punching fluid and in combination then he can beat anybody. That`s the question I have. I`ve seen Foreman lose but I never saw him shut down his offense because he was getting hit.