Mike Tyson vs George Foreman (1991)

Smith held and played it safe. But he did in fact crack Tyson a few times and he had less to bring to the table than Foreman did. Tony Tubbs, Michael Spinks and Tyrell biggs about **** their trousers in the stair down against Tyson. Foreman wouldn't. George was good at tying up smaller men who tried to take him apart up close and gave them a good gut check in the clinches, before pushing there shoulder into mid range, setting them up for an overhand right. His defense was vastly improved in the 90's and could still hit with both hands.. Even a 1987 Tyson would have trouble with George. 1991 Tyson struggles and either gets the decsion, late stoppage, or even gets knocked out himself.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

 

Come on dude, i'm the biggest Tyson fan here and Tyson was not elusive in '91, he actually walked into many of Ruddocks punches and at one time took one on the chin and smiled at Ruddock and pointed to his chin.

and then theres the 2nd or 3rd round where Tyson takes 3 on the chin to land one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUAG1bjht40

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

 

Doesn't matter how Foreman viewed Tyson his will could have been infinite it wouldn't make a difference becuase his skill and speed is so inferior. Tyson would land on Foreman and the minute he has him hurt he would finish him its a non-sensical argument if your'e tallking 73 Foreman it should be more competitive.

 

A fighter doesn't just forget everything he knows overnight if he's not taking the same defensive precautions its simply laziness or complacency Ruddock was missing all night long so what he landed a few good shots its like Tyson is held to such a high standard that any small success an oponent has is blown way out of proportion.

 

have you even seen the fights?

Tyson was recklessly walking into ruddocks shots. This is exactly what cost him against Douglas and Holyfield, walking into shots over and over again hoping to the land the big one

 

Ruddock missed a a lot of shots because he was trying to land one big uppercut ....from the outside no less. The whole world knew that's what he was gonna throw and so did Tyson.

Foreman was slow but he had a skillset and he could time guys and most importantly set up his attack. He had enough smarts to keep his opponents honest.

 

Yep.. And being right in front of Foreman he'd get tagged plenty of times as well, and have trouble landing flush with Foreman's defense and ability to tie him up to neutralize some of those attacks. I'd still favor Tyson over Foreman in the 90's as would most, but this other idiot seems to think it'd be a walk in the park for Tyson.

 

It's not a walk in the park for Tyson but it would've been easier than the Ruddock fights.

 

Saying that Tyson might win via TKO around the 9th with Foreman taking maybe 3-4 of those rounds is reasonable.. Claiming that Tyson would walk in there and blast him out inside of 3 without even working up a sweat is ludicrous.

 

i rewatched those fights and although Tyson would win, i think Foreman had a better chance of beating Tyson than even Holyfield. If Foreman is still there in the later rounds this will get really interesting depending on what is left of either man

 

Foreman taking 3-4 rounds out of 9 sounds unreasonable to me. There are plenty of examples here where Foreman stepped up his competition and either A.) barely escaped with a win, ie. Stewart, or B.) lost by wide margins competitively, ie. Holyfield and Morrison. I put Tyson with the elite power punchers of the 90's, like Bowe and Lewis. Not sure Foreman would last to the 9th against Tyson, really. It's possible, but if he does, he'll look the worse for wear, far worse than the Stewart fight. I don't think he lasts that long against Ruddock even.

 

Having bad nights against Morrison and Stewart who fought him totally differently than Tyson would, doesn't mean that Tyson would have his way with him so easily. Those guys boxed against Foreman and had greater height and reach than Tyson did which aided them in that effort. Incidentally, those were two guys who could really crack too, and neither had him down. Comparing results against common or other opponents doesn't make for a very strong argument. if you want to do that, then you should mention that Foreman faired better in one night against a prime Holyfield than Tyson did in two nights against a past prime one.

 

Yeah, they stood toe to toe with George and jacked him up. They're certainly not on Tyson's level, that's for sure. Tyson would do a lot worse to your boy. A lot worse.

 

By that logic Holyfield should have murdered Foreman while Mike did Evander in. This comparing of performances against common opponents doesn't always work does it?

 

I think old Foreman survives a pounding to lose a 12-round decision. At this time, Tyson's one-punch approach is not going to bring him down for keeps.

That said, Foreman has his moments with a couple of sneaky powershots that briefly rock a stationary Tyson.

An interesting night with two very different versions of prime Foreman vs. Tyson.