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

Not even close imo..Major gulf in natural strength..Thing is, Tyson always got tied up by anyone that wanted to clinch him, I don't think he was savvy at all with it, and looked to me like the majority of the time he come off second best.

 

You're certainly not doing your fanboy brethren any favors with this post.

 

Thanks for the laugh

 

The Tyson onezee clan are in full effect today.

 

Next we will hear he hits harder too.

 

Tyson needs to use angles and his jab to win rounds while avoiding too much punishment until Foreman gasses, then he can stop him.

He could probably get his lateral movement back to what it was in the amateurs if he focuses on it for the entire training camp.

Even if he attacks foreman straight ahead he would probably outland him 2 to 1 with his speed and defense but given foremans strength and power, a more cautious gameplan including movement and counters would be more recommended.

 

Have you ever taken a look at the punch-stats for Lewis/Tyson? It was a slow drubbing.

Foreman was capable of throwing in two rounds, the number of power punches that Lewis did against Tyson.

And, Yeah - if Lyle had held on... ... ... ...But he didn't.

 

Uh foreman picked up a young cow with just his arms. And this was a young 70's foreman who didnt even lift weights. In the amateurs he weighed as much as 230 lbs. Holyfield was a natural light heavyweight with a lanky frame who had to eat big meals and lift tons of weights just to get over the 200 mark.

Foreman was clearly much stronger and was pushing grown men around like dolls and making guys back off him with just jabs and stumbling around from glancing blows. Holyfield neither had the punching power nor the natural stocky, brute "country boy" strength of foreman (easily in the top 5 in terms of just pure overall body strength).

Why are we having this conversation again?

As for the thread, tyson was hurt and stopped by lesser punchers than foreman so lets not open up that discussion about how foreman was hurt by lyle and ali when tyson never got off the floor to win. You dont get credit for "taking a beating" and lasting so many rounds if you get stopped more times than the opponent (5 stoppage losses to foremans 1).

And if you really want to press the issue and give a PRIME Mike Tyson credit for something his past his prime self did (absorbing bombs from holyfield, lewis, etc) then young foreman gets all the durability and endurance feats of his older self (taking bombs from cooney, morrison, stewart, holyfield, etc). Your chin doesnt get better with age.

See what happens when you try to have it both ways...?

 

Yeah, only boxing fans would laugh at the idea that a smaller man who packed on 30 pounds of high-quality muscle might surpass in strength a naturally bigger man who doesn't do any lifting.

Most of the strength-related discussions in this forum resemble little kids comparing their father's muscles to your father's muscles. Their favorite heavyweights are always naturally extremely strong and so much stronger than they look, while other heavyweights are just musclebound weaklings.

It's probably easier to see strength in fighters who illegally shove opponents around like Foreman did from time to time than it is in other boxers who don't use such brute tactics. Doesn't mean that Foreman's actually stronger than them though. Why does strength matter so much anyway?

 

Can holyfield do this...?

https://i.imgur.com/UJBp7ZH.jpg

 

I have no idea. Maybe?

 

Accurately enough.

The above is, in all aspects, a steaming pile.