Mike Tyson vs George Foreman (1991)

one thing is certain is

Tyson gets shitted on win or lose.

If he wins, he beat an old man, if he loses, he was always overrated

 

Sure, but it always balances out with Tyson.
There's always a sizeable group of fans who truly believe he was invincible in his prime, no matter what. A loss to Foreman would only confirm their belief.

 

Holyfield was in the same boat, and in fact, got some criticism for being taken the distance.

 

Holyfields first title reign consisted of 2 old men (Holmes and Foreman) and a crackhead (Cooper), then he loses to Bowe, who essentially was another Buster Douglas (but better managed and with much more heart/desire)

Theres alot of hypocrisy involved with Tyson though.

In the same sentence you'll read. "Tyson was a bum, he was overrated, he never beat a great fighter in his prime. Lewis is better because he beat xyz and Tyson." If your overrated, why should you be on anyones best wins?

"Tyson never got up off the floor to win a fight he was losing".
Well neither did Ali, nor Lewis, nor Holyfield, neither did Holmes, neither did Foreman (unless you count Lyle)

You always see Lewis getting credit for beating Botha, Golota, Bruno, Biggs, Tucker and Ruddock and then in the same sentence, Tyson gets criticised for fighting the same 'bums'.

Lewis performance over Rahman is highly praised, but Tysons over Berbicks gets swept under the carpet. Was Rahman really that much better than Berbick?

Shannon Briggs was just as qualifed a 'champ' as Bruce Seldon was

 

You mean a win?

 

Sure, but again, no one's saying Holyfield was invincible or even close to it. And no one's really making excuses for him. He got beaten by the better man.

Also, I do think even his losing fights with Bowe were noticeably more competitive than Tyson-Douglas. I mean, outside of that moment where Douglas was on the deck, it was really one-way traffic.

If we're gonna count anything to do with overcoming KDs at heavyweight, might as well start with Foreman-Lyle :good

Berbick was better.

Who are these imbeciles you've been listening to ?

 

No, I mean a loss.
Absurdly, perhaps, but for the people who hold that an invincible Tyson existed in the 1980s, a loss to Foreman would be interpreted as further proof that "post-Rooney" "Tokyo" Tyson wasn't even a resemblance of the vintage Iron Mike, and that the Douglas loss should be completely disregarded.

It's hurting my head thinking in that sort of logic though.

 

I hold Evander Holyfield in very high regard. But I must agree that his first heavyweight title reign was weak. He won the title from a man who looked exceptional on one night in his entire career before returning to his former self. Evander then defended his title on three occasions against two 40+ ex champions and of course, Burt Cooper, before losing the crown. I remember on the night he lost to Bowe, Jim Lampley said that Evander looked more like a champion in his galant losing effort than ever before. Nevertheless, Evander Holyfield was a unified two division champion, the only man to ever win a title on four occasions at heavyweight and fought the best of an exceptionally strong era.. He makes my top 10 and always will.

 

I think Foreman's punching power during his comeback was way overrated. He was basically trading off of his 1970s reputation as the hard-punching, mean-spiritied, cantankerous Superman heavyweight champion. During his comeback, Foreman was not even close to being the same fighter that he once was. And I think the long period of inactivity (10 years) had more to do with Foreman's regression than his age, because in all honesty, Foreman wasn't that old when he came back, just 38.
And if you watch a lot of Foreman's early comeback fights, he struggled to drop a lot of low-level guys that were not even close to being fringe contenders. Remember Rocky Sekorski? Foreman bludgeoned Sekorski with monstrous, full-power shots, and Sekorski never left his feet. It wasn't until George splattered china-chinned, fragile, post-rehab Gerry Cooney that all of a sudden "Big" George was this big-time knockout threat who had returned to recapture his former heavyweight champion glory.

I mean, George Foreman was a big, strong man, and he hit hard (even at the end of his comeback), but he was never the same puncher in the 1980s and 1990s that he was in the 1970s. And even in the 1970s, George was more of a clubbing, beat-you-down type of puncher than a crisp, one-shot, turn-out-the-lights type of puncher. Foreman was never a one-punch knockout artist. And during his comeback, his punches were weaker because they were slower; plus, his added bodyweight further reduced the velocity of his punches; he was stronger in an NFL lineman sort of way, but not in a punching way.

Anyways, against a guy like Tyson, I have doubts that Foreman would even be able to land anything cleanly. He might put some jabs in Mike's face and brush him a few times with some pawing, cuffing shots, but I doubt he'd have the speed or timing to hit Mike with anything hard and sneaky; maybe a solo punch, but he'd get countered before he could unhurt another shot.

Razor Ruddock was much faster and probably a harder hitter than Foreman, and Ruddock had difficulty hitting Tyson cleanly.

 

^
I agree with a lot of those points about George. I always felt old Foreman was a bit over rated. He obviously did well for an older fighter coming back but he was very slow and ponderous. I seriously believe Holyfield carried him the last few rounds of their fight and think he could have done more damage to George but chose not to, he could hit him at will but the old man wouldn't go down so just took the punishment. Just an opinion but I felt Evandar let him off the hook a bit.

Tyson had the chin to take old Forman punches and would be able to inflict his own damaging punches, its not like the old man was elusive, how is slow ponderous George going to avoid Tyson's offence? He was durable but there is only so much he could take, a 20 punch combo from Tyson could finish it.

Interesting thing is that if Tyson didn't fight Holmes you would probably hear a similar argument, that because Holmes did so well in his later come back he could possible out point Tyson or even do a Douglas on him, whether we are talking prime or 91. Its not impossible to believe Mike would blast Foreman out in a similar fashion. you do not want to be slow and old against Tyson, even the 91 version.

 

Thats true, with Tyson its one extreme to the other. Hes either a bum who gets ko'd by anyone who 'stands up to him' or Tyson is so great he would KO Ali in 1 round atsch (which could happen dont get me wrong)

I did mention in a different thread that i felt Tyson-Douglas was a very poor mans Bowe/Holyfield. I was more referring to that Bowe/Douglas were similar types of characters

Nothing impressive about getting up from a flash KD, i was referring more to taking a beating, in a fight you're losing, then getting up off the canvas to win a fight. None of the above ever did that. Sure they may have got up from a KD, but so did Tyson. He finished the Douglas and Holyfield fights on his feet, he also got up from KDs from Holyfield and Lewis

Take a trip down to General some time, you'll read all sorts

 

Even if Holyfield beat Tyson in 1991.....he didnt beat the 'Rooney' version of Tyson

 

I agree :good

Im not questioning Holyfields or anyone elses greatness, im just trying to answer the double standards involved with Tyson.

All the time, you will hear Tysons title reign was over a load of nobodies. Tysons prime only lasted a couple of years blah blah.

But then look at Holyfields reign? and it lasted just 2 years over 2 40+ year olds and a crackhead. And everytime Holyfield loses, theres always a medical excuse.

What about Lennoxs title reign? he beats Tyson left overs in Ruddock and Tucker, picks the belt from the bin and then loses it to Tysons sparring partner?

And what bout Riddick Bowe? his whole career is based on a win over Holyfield. Other than that he also made a career of beating and struggling with Tyson leftovers. If Bowe gets a free pass for the Golota fights, what about Tyson who also fought Golota? Tyson made Golota quit and Tyson was probably further past it than Bowe was.

I do believe Tyson is ranked under Holyfield and Lewis but above Bowe. But the gap between Lewis and Tysons resume isnt quite as far as people make it out to be.

 

Tyson and Lewis have almost equal level resumes. Holyfield has the better resume without that dominant reign. I like dominant reigns. That, for me, is the first thing I look at when comparing these greats. Did anyone even have a more dominant run than the Tyson reign of the late 80's? Now we have Wlad...I don't even want to get into that right now :dead.

 

I fully agree...That was ridiculous. One of worst punches i've ever seen ...