Lets settle the did tyson duck foreman debate

I think it is possible to say Leon Spinks was “very limited at world level”. Like comeback George, Leon managed one magnificent win, but it was a one fight deal. Leon did not beat a good contender to get that shot but was able to win the championship anyway. George was able to win the championship anyway too. Perhaps like Leon, this precisely because they did not have to beat a top contender to get there. The champions they beat were ripe for the tanking. Two weak champions looking for an easy touch that backfired. Hence winning the title in that situation equals being limited at world level.

 

The article is very sketchy, though, with no named sources except George himself. And they're driving a kind of hard sell. I mean, Foreman is supposed to have wanted to fight Tyson over Holy in 1991? We're supposed to believe that fighting for the undisputed HW title and the possibility to make history would be Foreman's second choice? I need more substantial evidence to believe that.

In that case it seems more realistic in 1996, but Foreman's heart seems to have been even less in it than Tyson's at that stage. He did what he could to keep away from quality opponents. It would have been the biggest pay-day out there for him, though, so who knows...

 

,,, And if we look at it from Tyson's perspective in 1996 - why George? He held no belt and wasn't a legacy fight in any way, and while he still meant a good pay-day, Tyson could get those where he wanted. I mean, the guy could drop a belt rather than face Lewis and still make a ton of money facing an unknown and very mediocre belt holder in Seldon. So why would he be that keen a match-up which wouldn't yield any serious belt nor enhance his legacy (doesn't seem Tyson was that interested in his legacy anymore anyhow, though)?

 

Yeah that article is rumours after the event. It is most probable Holyfield selecting Foreman ahead of Tyson as a champion has more to do with Tyson and Foreman not happening.

Tyson blasting Stewart out in one round then TWICE beating the higher regarded Razor Ruddock surely eclipses any thoughts that Tyson was running from Foreman, the lower ranked challenger that Holyfield chose over Tyson?

At no point was Foreman seen as a greater threat to Holyfield than Razor Ruddock was.

 

First of all, he received a lot of money for the Holy fight. I'm not at all sure Tyson, without the title at stake, would have given more money. The story of a 41-year old having the chance to regain a title he had lost 17 years before was a very compelling one.

Second, if he had won the title Tyson would still have been there and the money would have been even better. Probably much better.

 

Foreman fought the corpse of Cooney.............Cooney was a absolute joke opponent at that point of his career but at least he made some money.

The Cus story that Tyson could never beat Foreman is pure internet folklore, it never happened
.........like you tell a lie often enough it eventually is believed to be true....

Conclusion: no man in his early 40's is EVER beating a fresh Mike Tyson who still fires on all cylinders..............and that includes the K brothers, the WK version AJ fought would be lucky to make it into the third..........the Sam Peter version of VK would be stopped late in a savage beating......but VK would never come out of retirement to face a prime Tyson, a man gots to know his limitations.

 

If there was any truth to it Tyson never would have fought Bonecrusher. He could have waited until Bonecrusher lost his title to somebody else. He was still young, there was no real rush to secure these unification fights if there really was a believed flaw that Tyson always had against “Foreman types”.

What a silly risk it must have been, Bonecrusher just thrilling everyone with such a Foreman type destruction over one of the better champions of the time...

 

Correct.

Tyson put those big guys in a shell because of his speed of foot and hand, they got gun shy because they were unable to time him and got countered hard the moment they opened up.....and that were PRIME fighters in their 20's not Grandpa's in their 40's.....even a cagey old fighter like Holmes got parked because of the speed but out hustled Mercer easily because he always knew what was coming from Mercer, against Tyson he was in full survival mode and the moment he opened up he was laid out......Tyson is not invinceable but he would do a nasty number on the Old Man and the Old man was not dumb , he understood marketing very well.

Foreman went 20 rounds with Holyfield/Moorer and barely won a round until he touched Moorers glass............we do not even have to go i nto the Morrison debacle, he simply could not pull the trigger despite The Duke is easy to hit and aint no defense wizard and ate every punch in the book from Morrison.....

The thought that old Foreman would trouble a prime Tyson is pure fantasy, early 70's version , sure, comeback version , not a chance.

 

Exactly the way I see it.

It’s just laughable that a champion that good is not going to flatten a former champion.

 

And a past prime Holyfield kicked Tyson's ass twice. Foreman looked much better vs Prime Holyfield

 

Nobody debunked anything I said.

Obviously George Foreman overall was different to Bonecrusher but in many respects he represented many similar traits of Smit ..at least of the very old one that really lost more times than people realise.

Really and truly people need to see George only of his comeback, a period that included seven fighters rated above him by ring magazine whilst he was still regarded linear champion.

It is to rewrite history to suggest people in boxing ever regarded Foreman a serious threat to Tyson. An embarrassment even.

The loose comparison between Tyson and Frazier is no stronger than a comparison between Smith and Foreman. Yet this whole myth that the version of old George that was exposed by Alex Stewart and Tommy Morrison after peaking during a loss to Holyfield, would beat Tyson cannot stand up without resting on the 1973 version of George Foreman? This is absolutely laughable.

But i have been debunked?

 

Actually there's more to the Frazier and Tyson comparisons than you seem to think. Their strategy, hand speed, best punch the hook, always trying to come forward. Even their defense wasn't exactly, entirely dissimilar (though of course Mike was overall closer to Norton/Patterson's style from that perspective).

As a side note, anyone whom truly believes Joe didn't have a right hand, watch his shattering blows in the second Quarry fight.

As far as the Smith-Foreman comparison...Smith most certainly did NOT have the heavy touch of Foreman. The only real comparision I can think of is Bonecrusher's amazing first round ko of the excellent Witherspoon, which could in a way be likened to George's greatest wins (first time around). The problem is, it sure wasn't like during Tim and James' first time around! Neither Frazier nor Norton came anywhere near beating George (though Joe did show flashes of his great hook in their second fight, it mostly served to **** Foreman off).

Foreman (along with Shavers) could also at times be one of the most terrifying finishers in the history of the sport. As he himself put it, this is to a degree a sign of experience and savvy (finishing). Smith wasn't very consistent overall and certainly let opportunities go (who knows what James was thinking the last round of that Tyson fight...imo he had Mike cold and bizarrely let him off the hook). George would bring the mutha-humpin' THUN-der!

 

Tyson against 70s George gets bashed in the head like a nail by a hammer and stopped by the end of the first round (though it's conceivable Mike barely makes it and pulls a Liston/Clay in the corner...or bites or fouls him in some way). Comeback George (and I have to admit, this would be the George who was fighting before Mike got out of jail) has more trouble (especially in the first round) and might even be knocked down ala Lyle (hard for me to imagine Big George getting knocked down though as Chokie said he didn't fight a Tyson-level puncher in his comeback). But George often just had to warm up his jab, and it usually didn't take too much more than a round.

After making George stagger with a couple of shots in the first, the second round features Mike gets pole-axed again and again by the jab. George waits for him to come in, then the uppercut starts landing. Bye Mike!

Interestingly, I see Bowe-Tyson being pretty much the same way, except Bowe was a much better boxer and generally more cautious. Mike would get aggravated badly by the jab and the inability to clinch (Bowe keeps knocking the crap out of him on both the inside and outside). Bowe's uppercut might only have been second to Foreman's in terms of power and beauty....it would spell the end for Mike within five. Of course, this is the Holyfield-smashing Bowe of their first fight. I think Mike would have taken the Golota-era Bowe (Lewis and Foreman would have taken out that latter-era Bowe too imo).

I guess it's just fun debating this for a lot of us, as this thread has survived about six pages longer than I ever would have dreamed lol.

George simply proved his champion's heart during his comeback more than he ever did in his original run. He left the 70s looking the way a lot of people look at Tyson...like a fighter with a limited amount of heart. His comeback completely dispelled that... even the Cooney fight (along with Holyfield, Moorer, et al) featured George taking a couple of shots that would have ruined 95% of the heavies of the day...and yeah, Cooney still had a fantastic shot even at that stage, people). George came back and knocked the dog poo out of him. Even in defeat George obviously tried his hardest and just plain looked better in that regard.

Mike could take a pretty damn powerful shot (Ruddock) but Ruddock wasn't even post-Moorer Foreman, baby. He certainly didn't have George's (comeback) chin...EVER.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

​