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

You mean his lack of mental strength that made him lose all those fights in the 80's....

 

And he juggled some helicopters, too.

 

This here. The fact of the matter is this:

1. Yes, a 70's Foreman did hit hard, but he didn't do anything that say Tyson or even another big HW puncher couldn't do if they land crisp, clean punches on the same opposition. I'm convinced that if you sent Tyson, Ruddock, Lewis, Wlad, Peter, Tua, Anthony Joshua, Wilder you name 'em back to the 70's in a time machine and they landed cleanly on Frazier and Norton and Roman and stopped them both just as quickly as Foreman did, many would still insist that Foreman hit's much harder....just because he's Foreman.

FFS, a 70's George Foreman was 217-225 pounds while in shape at 6'3. That may have been this massive mountain of a heavyweight in 1973, but by the time Tyson came along and going into the 1990's and into the present day, that's average sized for a heavyweight. What I don't get is why is it so far fetched or beyond the realm of all belief that 230, 240, 250 power punchers can hit anywhere near as hard as a 217-225 pound power puncher? Will there ever be a power puncher who can hit "anywhere near as hard" as 220 pound Foreman or 210 pound Earnie Shavers???

2. Foreman was rocked to and fro by the first puncher he ever met who was his size and had a very decent chin. 220 pound Lyle who, while a solid punching fighter for his size, but is not recognized per se as a HW power puncher and maybe that was because of his style, usually Lyle chose to box. Tyson's chin was at least on par with Lyle's and so was his punching power. At least. Tyson had his "Lyle" type fight against Ruddock. And please, don't tell me that a 230-240 pound power puncher in Ruddock didn't hit as hard as the smaller Lyle. He likely hit harder. Tyson clearly beat Ruddock both times, without having to get up off of the canvas.

The reason this is significant is because Lyle engaged Foreman in the type of fight that Foreman should have shined in. Just like Holmes or Ali should shine in a pure boxing match. And Lyle, for all of Foreman's power, didn't just immediately fall over when Foreman made a punching like motion. He took many solid shots from Foreman and only succumbed once he ran out of gas. Tyson engaged a comparable puncher in Ruddock in a brawl. A type of fight that wasn't Tyson's ideal fight. Tyson convincingly dominated the fight, even being 217 pouds against a 230-240 pound power hitter who was landing clean shots on Tyson's chin. The kind of shots that likely would've knocked any version of Foreman over if they landed clean.

3. The reason why Foreman's power is getting exaggerated is simple. If you take that away, Foreman has no hope in hell against a prime Tyson. None. If they conceded that SHW power punchers like Bruno or Ruddock or Lewis had anywhere close to Foreman's power, then it would blow out of the water the hypothesis that Foreman would just knock over Tyson with a couple uppercuts. So we have to come up with unfounded statements that a 217 or 220 pound Foreman could hit so much harder than the above super heavies that it's not even comparable.

4. Interestingly enough, a fighter by the name of Leroy Caldwell (I believe) who had the unenviable position of feeling punches from Shavers, Foreman and Bruno said that Bruno's power is comparable. If you're going to take Holyfield's say so that Foreman was the strongest fighter or heaviest hitter he ever faced, then why suddenly ignore Leroy's statement? But let's just ignore that statement.

5. Look at video evidence of Bruno's KO's and Foreman's KO's against similar opposition. You'll see that the effects of their punches on similar opposition are comparable. Plus, Bruno's came against more physically bigger men. This proves that Tyson could survive "Foreman like" power and still win.

This content is protected

This content is protected

6. No one is saying Ruddock or Bruno are "greater" fighters than Foreman. Lewis arguably might be, but for the sake of this discussion, lets just assume he's not. But you don't have to be a "greater" fighter to be able to pack approximately the same amount of force into a single shot.

Cliff notes for any one who doesn't want to read all of the above:

Tyson fought and beat men physically larger than a 70's Foreman who had comparable punching power. If coming in winging wide uppercuts was the way to beat Tyson, one of the SHW power punchers Tyson fought would've pulled it off.

 

When you factor in that the HW's of the 80s were the first generation of skilled SHW's, then they are arguably more formidable H2H than most era's of HW's because they have enough skill that whatever they didn't have in skill could be made up for with size and strength.

Plus, most champions, in any weight class, don't face ATG fighters in their prime. Frazier happened to be around in the right era for him to do so through no fault of his own. Same with Ali. If Ali had been born in 1982 or 1992 instead of 1942, he'd be fighting in today's HW division and not in the "golden era" of the 70's, because he wouldn't have been born yet. Those are things beyond anyone's control. On the other hand, did Frazier beat anyone, outside of Ali, that wasn't comparable to Tyson's competition, not just skill level but H2H when you factor in all things, including size? What about Holmes? Lewis? Dempsey? Liston? You can criticize anyone's resume.

 

If many of those guys count as punchers, then Alex Stewart, Tony Tucker, Pinklon Thomas, Michael Spinks, Andrew Golota, Lou Savarese get to count as punchers. And some on this list had their power tested against more 200+ pound modern heavies.

 

If we're talking about his reign of terror during the 80's, he was in the unique position to be so much better than his opponent, he didn't need to "dig deep". That's similar to the "get off the canvas to win" quip. It's better to never have been knocked down in the first place. That's the ideal position. It's better to easily win because your skill and power are so much above than to have to barely escape, maybe not burned but smelling like smoke.

 

Maybe Walcott was physically stronger, I'm not saying he wasn't, he maybe could've been. He certainly was about as powerfully built as a 196 pound man can naturally get. Despite being 7 years older, he seemed stronger physically than Ezzard Charles. I can say for myself, im in my early 30s and am physically stronger now than I was at any other time in life.

 

So you're denying that the above as I described it happened?

 

The fact that you aren't denying it means you know it did happen