Mike Tyson vs George Foreman (1991)

It worked for him against Tyson.
I said he was a good boxer, not a perfect one.

 

I don't recall him throwing an uppercut as he was walking in against Tyson, but even if he did and I missed it, its still terrible misuse of basic fundamentals. The guy had skills but he was no master technician.

 

And George Benton had drilled Holyfield to capitalize on that very flaw, based upon Douglas in the Tyson fight.

Whatever way you slice it, Holyfield did the business.

 

More or less what Khan did against Prescott atsch

 

Oh holy definitely did.. But I was only addressing your appraisal of Douglas as a good boxer

 

But Mcall isnt Evander Holyfield :good

Thats the problem with boxing, for every win there is a loss and for every loss there is an excuse.

 

Well, good enough to beat Mike Tyson.

 

True.

 

Its a terrible thing to practice. Uppercuts are generally used while being on the inside or when an opponent is advancing towards you. Moving forward while throwing an uppercut, leaves you open to counter attack as Douglas found out after being hit with that vicious right from Vander.

13:32

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siheWCzIL90

 

He landed some good shots but not many clean shots Tyson was still very evasive in 1991 theres no question about it.

 

He could still bob, weave and duck shots. True. But he's not getting close to Foreman and making George miss every shot. He has to get in there and work the body and try to make Foreman drop his cross armed guard, and in so doing, he going to get tagged. George was also very good at fighting at mid range. For the record, I picked Tyson to win, but it isn't going to be an easy fight no matter how one spins it.

 

Bull****! Tyson made him lose his balance balance staying right on his chest look at the way he knocks Ruddock down with that powerful counter-jab its an awesome display besides I didn't say his defense hadn't slipped but it was still remarkable. Fighters don't just forget what they learned and harnessed in the ring for years overnight he was the exact same fighter if he's not slipping every punch he's simply being lazy. I watched the fights till they came out my ears the point is Ruddock had dynamite in his fists look at those shots he's winging they tell their own story but he couldn't catch Tyson clean becuase he was so hard to hit solidly.

 

It wouldn't even be a competitive fight for me Foreman is too slow and ponderous the worst possible trait for a Tyson opponent.

 

Bonecrusher Smith was slow as they come and doesn't have some of the tools Foreman had, yet he lingered in there for 12 rounds and even rocked him a few times. Mind you this was an 87' Tyson and not 1991. Ruddock was fairly one dimensional as well yet found Tyson plenty of times and took his best. Sorry, but tyson wasn't invincible. The types of guys who generally fell early against Tyson were ones who played right into his hands, had poor chins and were quite often afraid of him.. Tyson would have trouble against Foreman and might even get knocked out.

 

He rocked him a few times ? When did that happen? He did absolutely nothing throughout the fight but grab hold and prey that he survived the distance that punch he landed grazingly that everyone talks about at the end was nothing and can be counted for nothing he lost every round and he didn't try to win at all.
Ruddock could have fought differently he prepared differently but he fought Tysons fight cudos to Tyson for making him do that.
I haven't mentioned anything about invincibilty we're talking about this paticular fight.
Afraid of him?
Im sure they became more afraid when he landed his fists against their jaw.
What about the early opponents he flattened were they afraid too of a fighter they knew nothing about?
That fear argument is a load of bull**** for me the fear was realisitc if you're going in with a dynamite fighter like that you better be afraid your gonna need it.