Mike Tyson Vs. George Foreman

I agree, Tyson was very weak mentally. Foreman would have him scared to death. So would Liston.

 

What's interesting with this match-up is that Tyson was at his best against straight-backed guys who stood right in front of him (Foreman did show some good movement against both Frazier and Chuvalo, though), and Foreman was VERY comfortable against smaller guys who came right at him (even though those he met didn't have Tysons's explosive hand-speed and combination punching). So to a certain degree it's something like the unmoveable object against the irresistable force.

What it comes down to IMO is wether Foreman would be able or be allowed to bully Tyson around like he did Frazier. In that case I think it would look very bleak for Tyson. Douglas, for example, vexed Tyson a lot by punching when in close and not letting him rest. Tyson quickly got uncomfortable when he wasn't allowed to dictate the pace of the fight. And Foreman was a master of pushing people around and using rough-house tactics in close, but on the other hand he got very frustrated when he wasn't able to do that. The fight against Ali was a clear example of this.

So, shortly put I would favour the one who could impose his tactics and will on the other, beacuse they were both basically bullies. The ref really comes into play here, if he comes down on Foreman's pushing and pulling Foreman would lose an important edge, and therefore very possibly the fight.

 

What does Ali have to do with this?

Who said that Foreman would take out Tyson with one punch?

Who said that Foreman was a combination puncher?

It seems that you are resorting to a straw man set of arguments at this point.

Holyfield forced Tyson backwards and bullied him all night. You have doubts that Foreman could?

PS/ No one ever knocked out Duran period in over 80 fights. That was an anomaly that no bearing on this in any way.

 

The Hearns/Duran anaology was used as an example of a concussive knockout from a single blow - something that was unlikely ever to happen to Tyson.

Foreman was a bully as well, and it's also safe to say that Foreman never fought a fighter who had the combination of speed and power like Tyson did. So, the argument can go either way. Both fighters definitely brought their strengths.

As far as Tyson never proving himself against top fighters; I think that's a little harsh. The prime years Tyson - the guy under Rooney and Jacobs - never had a Holyfield or a Lewis or a Bowe to fight. But he cleaned out the division anyway. And what are you basing Foreman's "mettle" on? His KO's of Norton and Frazier? Lyle? Norton never had a chance to press Foreman. Frazier never had a chance to start smoking. And Lyle? How good was Lyle? Do you think Lyle was any more dangerous or skilled than Tony Tucker or Frank Bruno or Razor Ruddock? Lyle was good but he wasn't the cream of the crop. And he had Foreman in dire, dire straights. If Tyson had gotten dropped twice and seriously hurt by Tucker or Bruno only to battle back and stop them would he be elevated in your eyes? Does Tyson not get any credit for not having to battle back from the brink of disaster in order to win? He won - and most times he won easily! That should count for a lot. Maybe Foreman getting decked by Lyle says more about Foreman than you would like to know.

 

My responses were directed at many of the responses on this topic so far. There are so many of them; when I respond, I try to cover as many as possible. I'm resorting to just answering back with logic. Make of it what you will.

Go watch Holyfield/Tyson I again. Holyfield didn't force Tyson backwards and bully him all night? Come on! Let's don't get carried away here. Holyfield did just as much clinching, mauling, and holding - and headbutting as he did punching and bullying.

My Duran response was used as an example as what a Foreman/Tyson fight wouldn't be: ended with a single concussive blow....Foreman had such awesome power. Many people here discount Mike's elusiveness and defense. Therefore, the assumption has been inferred that Foreman wouldn't have to land many punches to hurt and KO Tyson.....I rebutted that and used the Duran/Hearns fight as an example of what a Foreman/Tyson fight wouldn't be like: a one punch KO......

 

you brought up Ali as an example first. You even threw Willie Pep in for good measure. You were discounting Tyson's quickness and elusiveness, and you used the Ali example as to how Foreman could land on a fast and elusive fighter. You brought Ali into the equation, and I ran with it......Remember?

What's Willie pep have to do with anything? I dont see the connection? Tyson and Willie Pep????

haha....ok ok...I get it now....I see how you operate!

 

Bottom line is that Duran was a very durable fighter, and had he never faced a puncher like Hearns, you would not have the impetus to judge him so dismissively. Tyson, I'm sorry to say, never faced a puncher quite like George Foreman. That's the catch right there.

 

I'm not judging Duran as a fighter, I'm just using one fight of his in which he was brutally knocked out as an example of a one punch knockout.

 

You also claim that Tyson would not succumb to a similar one-shot bomb. I, on the otherhand, say there are too many mitigating factors in the Hearns blowout you mentioned as to render the example itself functionally useless. There were facts like Duran being undertrained, fighting two weightclasses beyond peak.

The point I'm making, basically, is that you never know what will happen when two incredible punchers like Foreman and Tyson meet, and it is not completely beyond the realm of possibility for Foreman to land two or even three big bombs while trying to catch a shifty Tyson. I must say, however, that I agree most times Foreman will land just that one odd power punch. What happens next is anyone's guess because Foreman is Foreman, and Mike is Mike.

If you couldn't tell, I'm not actually saying George wins. I have my own thoughts about that, but I am still sitting on the fence.

 

Tyson didn't have Frazier's heart;Foreman would've kayoed him without having to hang around waiting for Frazier to get up from six knockdowns-that's the younger version or the 45 plus version of Foreman.

 

The Hearns-Duran knock out was hardly one punch in any event. Hearns found his range and was landing on Duran at will, the shot that put him down was probably the 30th clean shot to land. You get a puncher landing cleanly for a set period of time, the other guy is oing down i don't care how good there chin is, i mean tyson has not got a Mccall, chuvalo chin.

But in all honesty it's irrelevant because it goes both ways. Foreman was a bully too, but where he wins out is the fact that he was physicaly stronger than Tyson. The fighters you mentioned are pretty comparative in my opinion. Career wise Tyson had a lot more bad nights than Foreman, i think people forget that a young Foreman destroyed the division to. Both are knock out artists so i would never call it with any certainty, but take away the intangibles and i see Foreman having discernable advantages over Tyson. Tko round seven.

 

I was just using that fight as an example of a one punch knockout period! I could have used other fights with other fighters, but I just happened to use the Hearns/Duran fight. Nothing more. No judgment about Hearns or Duran or their capabilities; its was just an example. Nothing more. No offense to Duran. It was just a casual, off-the-cuff example.

 

The shot from Hearns that dropped Duran was a single blow. But regardless, I used that fight as an example. Geesh, I didn't mean to imply that I was tarnishing Duran's legend. I could have used many other examples, but I used the Hearns/Duran fight. Period!

Foreman may have been stronger physically than Foreman, but Tyson was at least his equal in terms of punching power. And you can't deny that Tyson's delivery was far superior to Foreman. Tyson would be able to get his artillery launched and landed much better than Foreman could. Tyson was used to fighting guys 6'3 220lbs plus, so Foreman's size would not awe Tyson. And, as far as Tyson having more bad nights than Foreman, that's highly debatable. Tyson was champion a lot longer than Foreman was, and he had what, 9 defenses of the title compared to George's 2? Tyson had one bad night against Buster Douglas. The other bad nights came later in his career - after he went to jail for 3 years. Ali clearly went downhill after his 3 year absence, does that not apply to Tyson as well? And when clearly past his prime, Tyson abosrbed a beating from Lennox Lewis - all 6'5" and 249lbs of him - for eight rounds before being stopped.

Styles make fights, and just like so many poster on here think Tyson was made for Foreman, I think Tyson's style of fighting would cause Foreman huge problems.

 

It was a one-punch knockout that didn't happen to Mike Tyson. I agree Mike had a solid beard, but you obviously chose to highlight that fact by saying what you said. I mean why else whould you have said it?

You happened to need another tough fighter like Duran, who was felled by a single shot, to make the statement come full circle. I understand, but, in my opinion, it's a flop.

I didn't really take issue with your criticism of Roberto. Rather, it was your flawed analogy that I was responding to. If you still think it is an accurate analogy, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I personally believe it's far-fetched.

 

George Foreman would destroy Tyson with ease, he is made to order for big George. George had more power, a harder punch, a much better chin, way more size, better reach, and most of all a better mental state. Tyson would crumble mentally by the third round, George would KO Mike by 5....probably sooner.