Mike Tyson vs George Foreman 1988

This content is protected

When you get to 2:10 Larry Holmes is asked and addresses the layoff. And Holmes may have been "weak" to big right hands but only Tyson's put him away.

Foreman was fighting guys without pulses; he even laughed at his level of competition but claimed that it was purely to shake off the rust and stay active. Holmes was fighting championship calibercontenders prior to the Tyson fight. I think Holmes had the better chin, his level of competition was far better overall than Foreman's.

Mentality motivates, but only ability change outcomes. Everyone had a plan against Mike Tyson until they got punched in the face. Larry Holmes had the mentality and tried to fight Mike the best way he knew how but he got knocked out in the process.

George Foreman isn't going to fare any better; I don't even think this fight would be competitive. You seem to think he'd be moving forward non stop throwing power punches as if he's fighting a heavy bag. What elite fighter did Foreman stop early during his second career? None. Even Micheal Moorer was backing him up and was doing fairly well until he got caught. Tyson would back him up and close the show inside 5 punishing rounds.

Foreman being older and slower is precisely why he couldn't beat Tyson.

Stewart went life and death with Foreman. With Stewart, he just went death.

Holmes did admit that he wasn't ready in the 70s. In the 90s however Foreman seemed reluctant to take the fight. He wasn't a risk taker in the same way as Holmes; Larry knew he lacked the star power that Foreman had to get an undeserved title shot at Evander Holyfield so he had to earn it the old fashioned way by beating the top rated contender.

Foreman was dropped by Jimmy Young and knocked out by Muhammad Ali. If its a question of power I'd wager that Holmes power was comparable to both.

 

This content is protected

For your viewing pleasure.

 

I've viewed it, jackass. Try reading the entire sentence next time, if you can manage. Read a word, then take a break, then continue, rest again when needed, and soldier on till you reach the little dot.

 

Calm down

There is alot of proof for fighters in their 30s to get more durable, as a lot of fans think for Holyfield beeing better suited against punchers as he was in his early days. The same for George Foreman, I don´t see him stumble around against Lyle, which of course also depends on style. And I agree with you, he was maybe more durable than Holmes and could be a tougher fight for a peak Tyson.

But we are talking about Holyfield beeing "shopworn" which I think is absolutely exaggerated. Once again, he could deal with a prime Lennox Lewis three years later and stopped Michael Moorer in bewteen! Ali was not shopworn at 32, Holmes was very good at 34, Lewis and Wladimir were at their peak at 34, Louis knocked out Walcott at 34 and I don´t see Holyfield beeing relevant past his best at 34. He was even more bulky and therefore better suited against heavy man. To tell it with your words: He even became a experienced tough veteran, no kindergarden brawling anymore.

If you want to call someone rusty its Tyson. He looked sloppy and unsharp vs Mathis, even hitting him once on the thigh. Citation by the commentators: "Mike Tyson is not sharp, look at all this misses from him!" There is a miss, strike one, strike two..." He still had power which led him beat both Mathis and a freezing Bruno, who was maybe a bid too heavy and unmobile.
Tyson was a product of seasoning and periodic training as well a fighting. What does that tell you for a man who was sealed from boxing for three years in jail? He just could not get to his earlier level by far, which is no surprise with this ciscumstances. If you want to call someone shopworn or rusty, its Tyson, not Holyfield.

This content is protected

 

I haven't been in the forum for a while didn't realize you were one of the trolls.

 

Young george defintly beats tyson, but if they fought back in 88 Tyson might beat him, then again, Morrison even refused to go toe to toe with George and had to outbox him. So this would be a interesting bout where a unstoppable force meets an immovable object.

 

Stewart took a dive against Tyson?

He did. Three times

 

Before we continue, do you think holyfields chin and overall endurance was better in 1996 onward than in previous years, YES or NO? Pick an answer and stick with it.

 

Ali was consistently dropped by left hooks just like larry was consistently dropped by big right hands. Or quarry getting cut easily. Its a valid weakness, get over it. Tyson pulled it off because 1) he was an amazing finisher (which is a SKILL and completely different from simply having power) and 2) larry was nearly 40 and coming off a loss and layoff.

Holmes fought a skinny light heavyweight with no hw experience in his last two fights and lost. They were absutely devastating to him and he gave his infamous rant about the judges and networks. It affected him psychologically to the point he basically retired and don king cpuld only lure him back with the promise of million dollar paydays and he had gotten flabby and was enjoying his family and businesses.

Even before spinx holmes wasnt exactly cleaning out the division and taking on the biggest threats. He was criticized. You are acting like holmes was demolishing elite prime fighters right before the tyson fight. Stop with the revisionist nonsense to boost tysons resume, it was no different from louis vs marciano or joshua vs wladmir.

First of all, foreman alwats had a great jab but would sometimes abandon it when he was younger. In his comeback he always operated behind a jab and felt out his opponent. He stuck it out there even if he wasnt in range as an actice threat and was willing to trade.

Second, no i dont think hed just carelessly throw power punches. He knew not to make that mistake after zaire. But foreman was a HEAVY puncher and evem glancing blows hurt guys and pushed them away. He might have had the strongesr arms in the divisoon and ridiculous clubbing power. You might be forgetting tyson is giving up 4 inches in height, 8 inches in reach, and 40-50 lbs in weight.

Add all the stats up and it doesnt matter how fast or skilled tyson is, he has no choice but to come forward and press the action. He NEVER got on his toes or stayed at long range slipping, weaving, and outboxing/countering with the intention of winning on points so je HAS to get within foremans punching range to land anything meaningful and carry out his peak a boo game plan, PERIOD.

Now consider that tyson was relatively easy to tie up and shove around on the inside by holyfield, smith, etc, consider he didnt fight well on the inside and...that foreman was an absolute monster at fighting on the inside with heavy uppercuts and clubbing shots... are you getting the picture here?

Tyson is good at mid range slipping and landing beautiful combos and landing vicious shots "on his way in" but once he "got in" he kind of just stood there and had to reset. He didnt continue grinding the opponent down like a true swarmer the way frazier, chaves, etc did. This could spell do for tyson because foreman is NOT going to just oblige and let him reset or catch a breath. In fact, he might just shove tyson back and tee off for daring to press his way inside and execting foreman would go down from his combination.

Point being unless tyson stops him with a big combination, hes not winning. His style and short height and lack of outside fighting ability means he will have a vert hard time getting the decision. And i doubt foreman is going anywhere. Its not just the power, speed, and skill and raw stats, you have to factor the mentalities and the style matchup.

When you have height, reach, weight, power, chin, and a style that cancels many of the opponents attributes he absolutely could.

Tyson was dropped by douglas and holyfield whose power id rate at 6-7/10 at best. Old ass foreman walked through holyfields best shots. He walkes through alex stewarts punches who had a 90% ko ratio. Briggs, morrison, cooler, cooney, none of them could put a dent in foreman.

Neither tyson and especially not an old ass larry holmes could stop foreman without unloading everything but the kitchen sink after waiting for foreman to gas out.

In his prime, Foreman only ever went down due to exhaustion in the late rounds. And he was always conscious and got back up. He actually suffered from hypertension and literally couldnt relax but he overcame this problem in his exile.

 

His chin was probably better, hard to say. You had to check his early fights. The question is irrelevant, since Holyfields chin hasn´t been the question here. It did never look shyte or something.
His endurance was absolutely fine to fight the distance, like he did with Lewis twice even three years later than Tyson.

Before we continue: Was Holyfield "shopworn" and visibly out of shape vs Tyson? Yes or No?

 

What on earth makes you think holyfields chin was "better" in 96? If anything itd be the same or slightly worse. In his prime, his chin held up against qawi, cooper, foreman, 3 fights with bowe, michael moore, and alex stewart. Those are all deadly championship/top contender level punchers, what more do you want?

To answer your question, i NEVER said he was "out of shape" against tyson. When i say "shopworn" i mean the mileage and wear and tear from brutal fights+a long amateur and pro career. He was past his prime at 34 with 35 bouts and had been in three wars with Bowe along with all the punchers and ex champions i mentioned above. And it didnt help he was willing to brawl and often abandoned his defense. To deny this means you obviously havent seen him fight or followed his career timeline. Theres a big difference between past prime and "washed up".

Once again, you can be "past your prime" and still be effective at the world level and have a good chin. Floyd was still p4p #1 at 40 and could still take a punch. Same with Ali and Holmes. Even wladmir who had a weak chin still had most of the belts and beat men half his age. Mosley was the #1 contender, knocking guys out and had an iron chin at 40. They arent mutually exclusive and i feel like youre missing the point on purpose.

 

You can read?

We could have spared words much earlier.....I unterstand something more my beeing shopworn:

Synonyme for shopworn: faded, tarnished, stale
Synonymes for worn: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/worn

And again, to come back to what is the meaning all about, the comment by @ironchamp "2) The 1996 version of Holyfield was better equipped to dealing with the 1996 version of Mike Tyson." is not wrong. Especially if we both agree
- Holyfield not beeing visibly out of shape or relevant past it
- by your own words! become "experienced tough veteran due to mileage and wear and tear from brutal fights"
- fighting bulkier with more fuctional muscle

can indeed make you better equipped to deal with Mike Tyson than beeing young and 205/208lb.

Again: Holyfield was in no therms to "shopworn" to deal with Tyson.

 

Damn, great to see you back in these parts. It's been a while.

Your presence is always welcome Ironchamp.

 

Yes he had more "experience".

However, more "mileage, wear and tear" means youre LESS equiped to deal with a dangerous atg puncher! Being 34 and past your prime means youre LESS equiped to deal with a younger, stronger, more talented fighter!

And adding 8-10 lbs isnt going to suddenly give you a better chin...if that was the case i guess all Amir Khan has to do is move up to super middle weight and hed be a beast according to your dumbass logic.

 

It's been a while indeed. Glad to be back!