Mike Tyson Vs. George Foreman

What's this? Are you trying to pull my pants down over here?

Good question.

First off, recall that I made the point that the strength of "long" guys is going to be more distributed across more distance. Shorter guys have more of a concentration of strength. Think about cannonballs. Power lifters. Bench pressing. But it ain't always so. It's not a strict if/then.

Secondly, I consider shapes. "Squares", if you will, are stronger than V's. Liston and Foreman are squares. They are built like brick houses -not like body builders. A bigger square (like Foreman) can usually be expected to be more powerful than a smaller square (like Qawi or Tyson).

Thirdly, there is the matter of example. I saw Holyfield imposing his strength on Tyson. He couldn't quite do the same so easily with Dokes. He couldn't budge Foreman (albeit a heavier version). Tyson looks like a juggernaut but he is not... perhaps it is tactical because he was trained to rely on torque punching and had to conserve energy, but whatever the reason, he did not exhibit the kind of imposing physicality that Liston did (and not all those opponents were "CWs").

 

Well, your entitled to your opinion, but so aren't I: and I say that your objectivity may be a fly that the toad on your avatar just ate.

 

Can`t add much to this disscussion that hasn`t already been said, good debate so far. Myself I would go with the version of Foreman who stopped George Chuvalo in three to get Tyson out of there before 7 rounds. He used his jab very effectively in that fight and Tyson`s upper body movement can be nullified by George`s uppercuts which is a punch that Tyson has shown to be susceptible too even in his prime.

And lets not forget that Mike was useless on the inside and could be tied up with ease by anyone, and Foreman would have handled him like a baby in clinches before shoving him back into his punching range. And Mike looked anything like a million dollars if you made him go backwards, and George with his size and strenght would have been the boss in there in my opinion. I like Tyson but this is one fight that has loss written all over it for him.

 

As a weightlifter myself I have to say that looks can be verry deceiving in terms of sombodys actual strength.

I know this skinny little Chineese guy who is 5' 8'' with arms like pipes who hapily benches 300lbs and more. He is stronger than some weightlifters I know who are 6' 3'' natural heavyweights.

 

Well, damn. I hope not. If it is confirmed that Holyfield was on the roids during his great conquests, then they should be discounted completely. I'd rank him down around Sharkey or Carnera.

 

I would consider that a fairly prestigious place to be ranked.

 

Height is not a factor at all in this match up

Golota (6'4), Berbick (6'3), Bruno (6'3), Tubbs (6'3), Savarase (6'5), Ruddock (6'3), Holmes (6'3). The only reason Smith (6'4) and Tucker (6'5) didn't get ko'd was because of their negativity

Foreman is only 6'3 so height isn't a factor, Tyson is happy punching upwards against bigger stronger men.

Height isn't a factor its whos punches land and who doesn't. Tyson was a great defense fighter and amazing at beating his opponent to the punch and countering. Foreman is a punching machine who sees a target and punches continually accurate but slower punches.

Can Foreman land as many punches as Tyson?

Can Tyson slip Foreman's punches and counter?

Can Tyson beat Foreman to the punch with his speed and head movement or will Foremans reach do it for him?

If Tyson lands 50% of his shots and Foreman only lands 20% how is the fight scewed and does Foreman get broken down?

I pick Tyson to get the better of Foreman because he'll land more and Foreman will miss too much

 

So Tyson defense and head movement is comparable to Cooper and Qawi?

Is Tysons jab is comparable to Cooper and Qawi

Is Tysons countering comparable to Cooper and Qawi?

Is Tysons brutal power, speed of hand and foot and systematic combinations comparable to Cooper and Qawi?

Is Tysons footwork/technique/skill/timing/movement comparable to Cooper and Qawi?

Talk about over simplification :roll:

 

Yes, yes, and you just reminded of the other part of my original argument. I admit that it is theoretical but I've observed it many times: Some guys just have a preternatural strength. I sparred with a pro many times out here in Boston and he's one of them. I swear he had the strength of ten men --just solid, hard to move, and could lift guys twice his size while laughing. We were from the same projects and I remember that 4 or 5 cops couldn't put him down or even separate his arms to cuff him. He was laughing. He's 5'9 and 167.

I think that Liston was one of these freakishly strong guys and he had size to boot. I get the same impression from Foreman... but not really from Lewis. Watch the Ruddock fight in the first round. Rahman handles him too at the press conference. Lewis was a strong man, no doubt about that, but I can't see his strength matching Liston or Foreman.

 

Height most certainly can be a factor. And at over 6'3, Foreman is going to use that height and that reach.

I've already stated why Foreman should be -heavily- favored here and I think it is the superior one.

 

Talk about lack of sophistication [insert emoticon with dunce cap here].

...the answer to each of your questions is no. But that wasn't the point.

 

I will suggest a couple more.

Barbados Joe Walcott.

I have read newspaper reports of him handeling and shoving about big heavyweights in the clinches. That man was one hideous little 5' 1'' troll.

Mickey Walker.

He went toe to toe with a lot of heavyweights and managed to hold his ground. Against Jack Sharkey for example.

Jack Johnson.

He seems to have been able to bend anybodys arms however big. His party trick was to strap a horse to each bicep and haul them backward. This is a guy who was never more than a pumped up cruiserweight.

 

If that "hideous little troll" (that was funny) is anything like his press, then he would take his place at the top of the "preternatural strength" category.

All good examples. Jim Jeffries seemed to be as strong as 6 or 7 bulls himself.

 

This is some of his press.

"Joe Walcott, the welter-weight champion, and Fred Russell, of Minneapolis, went six rounds to a draw here tonight. Russell, who is a heavy-weight and big at that, was unable to do anything with Wolcott, and it certainly appeared as though the latter was entitled to the verdict, having forced the fighting throughout. When the men shaped up for action, there was so much disparity in their sizes and the affair looked ridiculous. Walcott's head just reached Russell's waist line. The men fought but 2 minutes, however, when it was plainly evident that the little negro was perfectly able to cope with his big opponent and rather enjoyed holding up Russel's 215 pounds when they clinched. Before the round ended Walcott dropped Russell with a right to the jaw. In order to land the blow Walcott had to jump off his feet fully six inches. Russell took the count of nine and rose to his feet groggy. He appeared timid during the next four rounds and kept well covered, but managed to land several hard swings on Walcott's head to which the latter payed little attention. In the last round Walcott reached Russell's stomach with a number of hard swings and had the big fellow so weak, that although weighing nearly a hundred pounds less he was able to push Russell all over the ring when they came to a clinch." (Durango Democrat)

Hideous little troll was a compliment by the way.

 

I'm aware of that article and am more than aware of your affection for this man and that era. I'm from Boston, Massachusetts, which is where Walcott fought out of after all -and I went to high school about 2 miles from the site of his fight in Walpole.

Fred Russell was also listed as 6'2. And he was nothing much. In fact, his record is a bit mysterious as well as spotty. He fought at least 3 fights that are "reported, but not confirmed", at least one fight was stopped by the police, and he fought several local talent which suggests that these may have been not much more than exhibitions. He was fodder.

However, I am impressed by the possibility that Walcott handled him as reported.