Mike Tyson vs George Foreman 1988

Frazier was NEVER counted out. He was always stopped on his feet in his stoppage losses (and even then only by quite probably the hardest hitting boxer of all time and the goat). Tyson was knocked tf out 5 times including once in his prime to a bum.

 

No. But picking him to beat everyone in history bar one boxer is a bit much for someone who LOST IN HIS PRIME to a bum, and always quit when things weren't going his ways.

 

Tyson got up from every KO loss. He was never "Knocked the f*ck out" like you claim. Against Douglas he was up at 9 after finding his mouth piece. He was stopped on his feet against Holyfield. Against Lennox he was coherent and trying to rise. Against Danny Williams he bowed out from his knee. And he just plain quit against McBride.

So no, Tyson was never out cold in his KO losses.

 

besides fraziers record after FOTC is both patchy and slim. who else did he fight apart from Foreman and Ali?.

yes, old foreman has a punchers chance against a peak tyson BUT Tysons chin was pretty solid.

you need to ask yourself who was the best fighter that old Foreman beat and compare that to a peak whirlwind Tyson.

 

So is this thread are we matching 1988 Tyson against 1988 Foreman?

 

He was not up at 9 against Douglas. If so, it would've been ruled a KO not TKO. Correct on Holyfield forgot about that. With Lewis, he was not trying to raise. He was done.

 

Why did Tyson get dominated by Buster Douglas? Why couldn`t Mike go the distance with Holyfield? Foreman did.

You keep going in circles around the same question when it has been answered since page 1. Answer that question and you have your answer.

 

Yea because I guess in `90 Tyson wasnt in his prime anymore. A built in excuse for every loss.

 

He was definitely not in his prime anymore at this point of the career. Read my post https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/mike-tyson-vs-george-foreman-1988.605508/page-12#post-19132446

 

Dude, he was up at 9...

This content is protected

 

he was up at nine, you can see the refs count clearly.

Nevermind that,I'm interested to know what makes you unable to see the refs clear count. Let me know, thx.

 

1) The Douglas loss was a fluke; Buster did very well against an unprepared Tyson. To be fair Tyson almost turned the tides against Douglas but came up a bit short. Now with all respect to Buster, I call it a fluke because I don't believe it was a performance that could be replicated by Douglas if a rematch was granted.

2) The version of Holyfield that Foreman went the distance with would have been stopped by Mike Tyson in 1991. The 1996 version of Holyfield was better equipped to dealing with the 1996 version of Mike Tyson.

Here's the thing, take a look at Holyfield that fought Bowe the 1st time vs the Holyfield that fought Ray Mercer. They are both great, but only one of them can be called a blown-up Cruiserweight. There is a reason why the Holyfield that fought Bowe the 3rd time was able to drop Bowe whereas the previous ones couldn't despite landing a tremendous amount punches. Evander Holyfield grew into a bonafide Heavyweight; he was a different fighter. Foreman would not have gone the distance with that guy.

3) I find it almost laughable that this is actually a thing; that people actually think Old George Foreman would have beaten a young Mike Tyson. While I appreciate what Foreman accomplished especially in his second career I also feel as though he has become far too overrated in terms of his second career's perceived ability. The Foreman mystique wouldn't have existed if Mike Tyson had the opportunity to beat him up.

On a large measure it was Evander Holyfield that legitimized him. I look at this in one of two ways, either Evander Holyfield had the tendency to either fight up or down to his level of competition, or he was just simply a great fighter but at the time they fought, a limited Heavyweight.

After winning the title from an unmotivated Buster Douglas in 3 rounds; Evander struggled with Old Foreman going the distance, was dropped by journeyman Bert Cooper before redeeming himself, struggled with Old Holmes again going the distance and when he finally faced a young undefeated heavyweight contender, he lost. This isn't meant to disparage Holyfield its how his career was viewed at the time it was happening. He was criticize for fighting both Foreman and Holmes and failing to put them away. The win over Bowe in the rematch vindicated him and the Tyson wins is what completely changed the perspective on Holyfield's, rightfully so.

When Tommy Morrison changed his style when he fought George Foreman it added to the Foreman mystique. What should be taken into account was that after the savage knockout loss to Ray Mercer, Morrison went life and death and got his jaw broken by Joe Hipp and he also went life and death with Carl the truth Williams surviving what could have been 2 potential knockout losses. By the time he faced Foreman, he was a bit gun shy and weary of punchers. If he fought Foreman in '91 instead of Ray Mercer, I'm certain he wouldn't have adopted the stick and move tactics he did in '93. Given his chin he would probably taste the canvas at some point but he would've beaten Foreman using his original style.

George Foreman's second career was carefully matched; when he took a risk there was almost always a title involved. His win over Michael Moorer was significant and worthy of the highest praise, however without regaining the title his second career would be a valiant effort but ultimately anticlimactic. Was he good in his second career? He was decent but not good enough to beat the elite fighters, especially not Mike Tyson.

 

Lol so apparently the shopworn holyfield who fought tyson was better than the prime, shredded holyfield who fought foreman and had the division by the balls.