Mike Tyson Vs. George Foreman

Janitor disagrees.

If Holyfield was cheating (and that is what it is -cheating), then the wins would not be legit in my eyes. I'd spit in his eye. I think it likely that "Evan Fields" was cheating, but only since ~ 2004.

Steroids are part of the reason I have no use for wasting my time watching baseball or football, or weightlifting and such. There are too many no-good cheaters.

Duo's believes that the increase in roids usage in boxing is yet another reason to increase the championship bouts to 15 rounds. I agree.

 

If two robots with Foreman's and Tyson's qualities were built to square off, I am confident physics would dictate a Tyson win: offensively, one with slower, wide blows that swing around the target, another with faster, more accurate blows that land in clusters; defensively, one is straight-up, wide-open, with nothing but an arm defense and backward lean, the other crouches tightly to seek the opening, hands up, and displays an effective, evasive head movement.

Frazier lost to Foreman because he had nothing to bother him with, save the predictable left hook; plus, he foolishly left that chin hanging out for the uppercut time and again. It was target practice for Big George. Let me be clear: Frazier is no Tyson, not in punch or attack variety (definitely naturally a factor), not in the chin department, not in aggression at the sound of the bell, not even in size and strength.

Tyson always fought at a height disadvantage, which he nullified as part of his development to challenge champion Holmes; sure, some big guys "wisely" preferred not to engage and these survived to lose lopsided decisions. And, for all this speculation about who is stronger, Snorlax is correct in pointing out that midget Tyson was actually heavier than Zaire Foreman; besides, Tyson intentionally subsided when held because he was a midrange fighter; he didn't need to go blow-to- blow on the inside, but rather waited for the ref's separation to begin his stalking anew. Pushing Tyson back means nothing, as Berbick found out. Tyson doesn't need to fight backing up; he studied you and blitzed you with an initiative capitalizing on a defensive deficiency or a disarming counterattack, both made possible by astonishing speed. Holmes said Tyson kept catching him by surprise.

If Foreman engages Tyson mano-a-mano in ring center, he will be blasted out. This doesn't mean a face-to-face clash a la Round 1 of Hagler/Hearns. It would be Foreman pawing around with the jab, Tyson circling and dipping, and when Foreman goes for the big guns, Tyson would capitalize with his superior boxing fundamentals and begin to crush Foreman's skull in as he did to Berbick and Holmes and Thomas once they decided to duke it out. Tyson had nearly 10 years of competitive experience when he fought for the title; Foreman was a relative novice, with hardly any amateur experience and mostly just a monster punch that took him to the top.

A couple more random points: As Ironchamp stated somewhere before, fear is not much of a factor here, as, in the end, Tyson's arrogant confidence in his ability was just as huge as Foreman's, and if any of these two showed shakiness and fear in the pro ring, it was Foreman (blinking, wincing, stumbling before Frazier and Ali), never Tyson. D'Amato's comment on Foreman's invincibility was regarding a straight-forward slugger, which does not describe Tyson and Tyson would know it.

Foreman's straight punches never delivered his greatest power. He had to have you within inside range (like Frazier always foolishly was) for those huge hooks and uppercuts Ali made fun of pre-Zaire as telegraphed, relatively easily avoidable blows. And, on the other hand, if Tyson could solve an extremely proven escape artist such as Spinks in one minute, I continue to see him figuring out and dismantling a relatively brutish Foreman as well.

 

You'd have to factor in a foot reach advantage, 5 inches in height, and superior strength. You'd have to factor in that Foreman's shots come faster than expected and in numbers -and any of them will knock Tyson off balance. You'd have to factor in that Foreman will not only knock him off balance, he will also put him at the distance where those punches will do the most damage.

Finally, Foreman threw short hooks and short uppercuts very well. Physics doesn't measure courage and character and recuperative abilities. Foreman will stand up to Tyson's shots more than vice versa.

Frazier had good speed and that hook wasn't quite as predictable as you argue. I myself have called Tyson a gamma-powered Frazier type, but when it comes to things like character and courage, Tyson is a comparative midget compared to Joe. There is no doubt about that. We have all seen numerous times how Tyson responds to real adversity in the ring --he either gets eventually stopped, he commits fouls to get himself disqualified, or he loses control of himself and turns it into a streetfight (Botha, Savarese, McBride). I for one, believe that Tyson would be a bit awed by Foreman and probably a bit worried as well. He may even concede that Foreman was boss. I think that he conceded this rather early against Holyfield I and II. Tyson strikes me as a man who regresses given a set of adverse circumstances.

These are good points, but not especially relevant here. Foreman was bigger and stronger than Tyson and those are real advantages. He would not disengage and he would not fight a survival fight.

Pushing Tyson back in and of itself is obviously not enough. Berbick was pushing Tyson back to get him away -he wasn't doing it to capitalize on Tyson being off balance and he sure as hell wasn't doing it for punching room. Foreman would be doing exactly that. Holyfield made it a point to walk Tyson back and bully him backwards --and it was highly effective. Foreman would do this naturally and more easily.

Now, of course Tyson has a punching chance. But it is an outside chance. Foreman was stopped once and it wasn't because of Ali's shot. It was exhaustion. Tyson won't be rope-a-doping. He'll fight him like everyone else did who got knocked out --aggressively.

This is a fantasy! You are woefully overestimating Tyson's strengths and completely glossing over his weaknesses. See my earlier posts...

Tyson's "arrogant confidence" was a mask for his adolescent insecurity. Foreman may have been nervy before facing two fighters who are unquestionable great's nearer to their prime than any great that Tyson ever beat. And Foreman never had the thug equivalent of nervous breakdowns like Tyson did -several times on film.

He wouldn't even look at Holyfield's eyes during the pre-fight instructions! And that was unlike him... so what was different? I submit that he knew that Holyfield had absolutely no fear of him and was looking right through him. I think he was intimidated and emotionally unprepared for a war with someone equal or better.

Here is what Cus said: "No swarming Heavyweight who ever lived would defeat George Foreman." He did not qualify that statement with anything about "sluggers" or "straight forwardness". I suspect that he would see that Mike avoided Foreman as much as he saw that Floyd avoided Liston.

Tyson didn't "solve" a damn thing about Spinks. There was no time -he rushed him and stomped all over the puzzle. I am sure that you don't see him clashing with a superior force who is coming straight at him with wider steps, do you?

Ali's jokes about Foreman's Mummy punches were funny, but not altogether true. Foreman threw wicked shots, long and short, and snapped his hip for torque like no one else anyone had seen. Dick Saddler, not a man prone to hyperbole, said that he honestly doesn't know how any man can take the shots that George threw -they shook the rafters. And incidentally, those uppercuts were patented for small swarmers like Mike. If you watch the films, you see that Foreman was quite good at finding or forcing the right distance to punch, threw a right hook that generates force like none other, and at least for 7 rounds threw consistently hard punches that few would stand up to. Tyson not being one of them.

...........
All in all, you present a good argument for Tyson.

 

a) Foreman's reach advantage could very well be nullified by a specialist in getting inside longer reaches, Tyson's bread and butter.
And Foreman's punches are comparatively slow and telegraphed, which spells trouble against the fast counterpunching Tyson. This was one reason why Ali was not afraid of Foreman; he knew he wouldn't be banged around because "his hands can't hit what his eyes can't see."

b) Yes, Foreman's fastest blows were those hook-and-uppercut series that required a stationary target like face-first Frazier, something Tyson is far from being.

c) Again, the fear factor to me is basically a nonfactor. Here are two great intimidating punchers with their own set of psychological flaws. These aspects basically cancel each other out. I see both men performing at their best at the sound of the bell. D'Amato never saw a peak Tyson, who was not merely a Marciano/Frazier, "swarmer"-"slugger"-wade-in type.

d) The seasoned Berbick tried everything: walking Tyson back, uppercutting, jabbing, pushing, crowding, running, clinching, blustering. To zilch avail. For the Holy fights, Tyson was 7 full years past his best, had been in jail for 3 years and fought a most-likely 'roided opponent. Just a little perspective. Besides, as I remember it, Holyfield won by moving in and out, using deft, minimal moves to either lead or counter, something I hardly see Foreman doing.

e) On the surface, what you say may sound pretty impressive: Foreman, "bigger, stronger, longer reach". But just how, frame by frame, do you see a Foreman victory in your mind's eye? What you call fantasy, I see as quite feasible: Tyson could circle faster than George could spin around and catch him with a sweeping left hook, right hook, overhand right or body-hook/uppercut combo. And once a blow lands, more will follow. George's defense is very limited. Reaction time is key here, and it is common knowledge that Tyson was blazing fast whereas Foreman proved he could be hit with impunity even from a distance in Round 1 against Ali. On the other hand, save repeated blows on a stationary target, I never saw George display an arsenal capable of catching a fleet, evasive, sturdy-chinned Tyson with enough repetitive firepower to stop him.

f) Foreman was felled by a great Ali right after receiving less punishment than Tyson did in Tokyo. And he was stunned and staggered since early on.

g) Whether Tyson completed or stomped on a puzzle in destroying Spinks is analogy distraction. My point was Tyson knew how to study and exploit weaknesses and openings extremely well, even in such successful fighters as Spinks (in 91 seconds), whereas Foreman failed miserably, woefully, as soon as he faced a fighter with top-level offensive and defensive capabilities.

Thanks for your input. I for one am here to learn and hopefully contribute.

 

Feasible, of course, but it was harder than hell to get close to prime Foreman without getting a concussion. There are a few posters out here who stereotype him as this plodding, slow monster throwing looping shots. Foreman could cut the ring off very well, was faster than his critics say he was, and had a wider array of punches in his arsenal.

I don't see Frazier as much less elusive than Tyson... he was constantly moving his head and weaving all around not only for defense, but for leverage.

Okay. As for me, I'm astounded still by Tyson's physicality -that speed and power, as well as by the technique that delivered these. I am unimpressed with his character and it is a great misfortune for him and for the sport that he was not stronger where it matters most for a man. Foreman, I strongly suspect, would exploit all the doubts and insecurities in Tyson. I see Foreman forcing Tyson to contend with adversity within 2 rounds.

Holyfield was neither strong as Foreman, tall as Foreman, not did he hit as hard as Foreman. It would be a different fight completely with Foreman and it would be a different fight completely than Berbick.

What I called fantasy is that idea that Tyson would simply make him miss and give him concussions. You would have to concede that Foreman is going to land several Ruddock-like shots early and in succession. Foreman will not lay off of Tyson.

Ali was as big as Foreman and had a comparable reach -it is no surprise that he would land on George because he'd land on anyone, ever.

I agree with you about George's disdainful defense, but I don't think it would make the difference here. George hits harder than Mike, takes a better shot than Mike, and shakes off shots better than Mike. Mike could conceivably connect at a harder rate, but every time he throws, he's at great risk. When Ruddock nailed him, he paused to clear the cobwebs. I see Foreman finishing what he started where Ruddock couldn't.

Stunned and staggered? I didn't see that. Foreman had undeniable stamina problems and trained for the fight almost exclusively on a heavy bag -which made it worse than it had to be.

"Analogy distraction"? Tyson's 'strategy' against Spinks was not Leonard-like, it was "Foremanesque". Tyson simply overwhelmed Spinks. There was nothin deliberative or analytical about it really. In other words, he didn't try to solve the puzzle, he stomped on it!

Well, you have already contributed the best defense for Tyson in this match-up that I've read!

 

I'm not so sure that Foreman hit harder than Tyson. Regardless, whomever ultimately hit harder, Tyson's punches had much more snap and explosiveness to them. If Foreman could nail Tyson like he did Frazier, Tyson would be saying goodnight. But I doubt it would be that easy and quick. And Tyson would have the speed and the explosiveness to hit George with something big much earlier in the fight. Maybe George would be able to smother Tyson and shut his offense down - that's a great possibility. But in terms of openings and finding clean shots, I think Tyson would have the advantage.

 

I have no doubt that Foreman hit harder than Tyson... however, I count Tyson as the most destructive puncher I've ever seen.

You are correct that Tyson would land more in a shoot out, but I see Foreman as taking more than Tyson could. But then I don't see Foreman as having to outshoot Tyson. He just has to land a few bombs. If Foreman hurts Tyson, history has shown that Tyson stays hurt. If Tyson hurts Foreman, history has shown that Foreman can shake it off and not lose one bit of effectiveness.

 

What are you basing your assumption that Foreman hit harder than Tyson on? You may be right, but I'm curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion. With an unbiased eye, and just watching the two fighters on tape, Tyson's punches seem to have more "shock" value to them. Tyson has dropped many fighters with one punch, and he never seemed to have to "club" or repeatedly hit a guy to hurt him or keep him down. Foreman, on the other hand, seemed to have a clubbing punch that was heavy and strong but wasn't snappy or explosive.

And in terms of chin and durability, I'm not sure Foreman has an advantage. You say Foreman could just shake off being hurt, but I'm not so sure I agree. Granted, he has shown an ability to rebound from being hurt, but you have to factor in who he was hurt against, and what the respective strengths of those fighters were. Ron Lyle severely hurt Foreman on more than one occasion, and Foreman was lucky to escape with a win. Lyle hurt Foreman with single punches. Tyson, even against a big hitter like Ruddock, was rarely severely hurt by single punches. He took a beating from Douglas and Lewis, both big heavyweights, and he didn't go down easy. He lost both of those fights after taking a beating first, and both of those guys had styles totally opposite to Foreman. It wasn't easy to hurt Tyson, and it was even harder to drop him for the count!

 

I tend to agree. George was a strong guy with a strong punch, but I don't think he ever had true one punch knockout power. He was a clubber, and most of his big KO's were the result of beating an opponent with a series of punches.

 

None of the above had "glass chins".

Foreman's shots were extremely hard -but they were of a different sort than say -Hearns' shots, because George wasn't fast enough to catch you in a blink. The shots you don't see are the ones that knock you out. But in terms of sheer power, he is in the top 2% of the HW heap.

Destroying one undefeated HW champion in your mid twenties and then destroying yet another undefeated HW champion -late in the fight- and while in your mid-forties is the stuff of legend.

"Above average power"? BAH!!

 

Did you not read what I wrote? Tyson is the most destructive puncher that I have ever seen. That is different from being the hardest puncher.

Granted it wasn't easy to hurt Tyson, he was a durable little spark plug. And forget the Foreman of the Lyle fight... I'm talking about the 1973 wrecking machine. After the Ali loss, that Foreman was never seen again.

I think that you should read the earlier posts. A hurt Tyson didn't recover like other greats. Once Tyson got hurt by Douglas he looked unsteady for the remainder of the fight. Once Tyson got hurt by Holyfield, he got amnesia and was fighting like Pavlov's dog by his own admission ("I don't remember anything after the third round"). Once Lewis got him hurt, it was a foregone conclusion. All of these guys boxed Tyson at least for a while. Steward was actually screaming at Lewis to stop boxing with him and finish him off. Foreman wouldn't offer the luxury of boxing Tyson because he would impose his will. And the fact is, Tyson didn't look so good if it wasn't his will that was imposed -thus his ineffectiveness when not moving forward.

 

How silly. He fought Foreman twice and was stopped twice. Getting stopped by Foreman of all men indicates a glass jaw? Your definition of "glass jaw" applies to ~67 HWs.

Not many other guys would have stood up to the early Foreman onslaught either. Even less would have eaten the shot that he did by Shavers (the hardest puncher ever in my opinion) -and Ken was 36. Cooney was also a puncher and Ken was 38 and in his last fight.

Silly. Moorer was never stopped in 35 fights going in against Foreman. He got shocked by Tua who was a banger and Holyfield caught him with a beauty of a combination... and Moorer got up about 4 times anyway.

-Frazier was stopped by Foreman and Futch in 37 fights.

-Norton was stopped 4 times, 3 times by top tier punchers in a total of 50 fights

-Moorer was stopped by 2 great puncher and 1 good puncher in 57 fights.

Tell me

Are these what constitute a glass jaw in your estimation?

 

This has been a fantastic debate and yes Iron Mike was a great puncher, tough etc but no-one has managed to explain why he didn't challenge Foreman when George was the World Heavyweight champ between 94 and 97. Maybe Don King knows a bit more about boxing than some of you Tyson fans and ralised that his main draw Mike Tyson might lose some of his lustre if he got pulverised by the 'Punching preacher'. Remember George was 46 back in 94 only four years older than Iron Mike is today, yet almost anyone in the current top ten would consider a Tyson fight an easy payday. So why did Foreman v Tyson never happen back in the 90's, George would have loved it.

 

Tyson couldn't stop Danny Williams (often knocked out) or Kevin McBride (utterly awful chin). While Foreman faced Morrison when he was, what, 43, Tyson was still near his prime at the sprightly age of 37.