Mike Tyson Vs. George Foreman

Clinching, mauling, neutralizing the other's attack, etc. IS BULLYING. Tyson was simply not being allowed by Holyfield to do what he was familiar doing.

The Hearns/Duran analogy was a bad one. That's been noted numerous times here already. If anything it proved that ANYONE can get knocked out by a perfect punch. Including Tyson!

 

Nice try. No dice.

I have never discounted Tyson's quickness and elusiveness -and have been celebrating it for years in print, on this site. It won't matter here because Tyson will be in range and prime Foreman was exceedingly aggressive early on. Tyson will surely evade one or two but not 10. And he won't take them as well as you think. Will Tyson land on Foreman? Yes, he will. But Foreman takes a better shot than Tyson -recovers better, and never loses heart. Tyson has. Many times.

I brought Ali in to demonstrate that even he realized Foreman's offensive ability to cut off the ring and land shots no matter how elusive the fighter is. And Ali is 6'3. You ran with it, alright. First you discount Foreman's ability to land on the "elusive Tyson":

Tyson was not a defensive specialist. Willie Pep was. Relevant? Yes, because your belief that he would be "hard to hit" for Foreman strikes me as wrong.

My retort was that Foreman would doubtlessly land on the small, squared body of Tyson easier than he would land on a longer more mobile fighter who stayed out of range (Ellis, Morrison, et al.). Instead of acknowledging that, you switch the argument to be about "punching power".

 

You still don't understand that it was just an example. I don't know how else to explain it. It could have been Joe Schmow knocking out Joe Blow with one punch, and then you'd take issue with me about what a flawed analogy it was due to each fighters' respective strengths and isues. I was highlighting just the punch itself that knocked out the other fighter; no judgment based on each fighter. If you think my anaology was a flop it's because you read so much more into the analogy that I used.

 

No it wasn't a bad analogy. It's just that you chose to read more into the analogy than I ever intended. I used that fight as an example of a fighter being knocked out by a single blow. I didn't use that fight as an example of an iron-chinned fighter getting knocked out by a single punch.

I disagree with your assessment of what bullying is. Bullying is not clinching or simply neutralizing the other guys' attack; it has more to do with overpowering and outmuscling. Big difference. Clinching and neutralizing the other fighters attack might be good strategy and effective strateg, but I wouldn't consider that bullying.

 

Are you sure Foreman takes a better punch than Tyson? How sure are you?

And I don't know why it's hard for you to believe Foreman would have a hard time hitting Tyson. Fighters who were much quicker than Foreman found Tyson difficult to hit. But you seem to think Foreman, who was never the fastest fighter in the world, is going to come out and land a fair number of punches on Tyson.

And, go back and read the prior posts. I didn't switch anything, but I added more fuel to the argument. I countered your point about Foreman landing on the elusive Ali by saying that punching power WAS a factor in Foreman being able to land on Ali in that fight. Remember that? You didn't mention that part of what I said. That must have been an oopsie on your part. That was the context. I countered your assertion by saying that Foreman was able to land on the "elusive Ali" in part due to the fact that Foreman wasn't too concerned with Ali's punching power. And, I added, that it's easier to walk forward and land punches on a guy when you are not too concerned about the incoming shots; it's easier to take liberties. So, once again, my response about punching power was relevant to the context of what you said about Ali's elusiveness. It fit the discussion. So, I didn't change anything...I added to.......Nice try!

 

Actually there is no catch.

Ruddock, Bruno, Lewis, Smith (Bonecrusher) all had crushing power whether or not you want to argue the extent of thier power compared to Foreman, is another story but given thier dimensions and thier respective delivery system its safe to say they are on the same level and the difference is marginal. Lets not make Foreman in to a mythical figure here. In any case all the above fighters at one point in thier fight, land a big punch on Tyson and with the exception of Lewis who Tyson really caved into more so from fatigue than anything else Tyson not only beat them but he never touched the canvas.

So Foreman's power is not going to be the deciding factor here. What is the deciding factor will be is Foreman's ability to land and keep Tyson from landing. Tyson has never lost a fight in which he was unable to land his punches with the same regularity of his opponents. So if Tyson is able to get his punches off first and is able to counter Foreman's wild and unorthodox punches then there is no question as to who the winner would be.

Douglas used lateral movement, outlanded him and outmanuvered him, and did not take punishment from Tyson save for the brief moment where he slipped up and Tyson, like the warrior he was back then took advantage and scored the KD.

Holyfield used some lateral movement, mostly clinched and countered him and did not take enough punishment from Tyson to succumb. He took some big shots but he pretty much blocked most of what Tyson threw which was a predictable left hook.

Lewis worked of his jab, occasionally used some lateral movement. He tied him up and kept him on the outside whilst taking very little from Tyson.

In this proposed match up, Foreman is not have the luxury of having an undertrained or docile Mike Tyson in front of him. His style as he approaches Mike would leave him open to counter's and even if he does land, he hasnt shown me anything in his first career that would suggest that he can keep Tyson from landing.

So with that being the case I see Tyson's handspeed and better fundamentals giving him the edge. Yes Foreman has the power to get the job done, so that isnt a question but his delivery system and defense suggests that he may have to take some fire from Tyson. Given Tyson's ability to go into a barrage mode when he has a guy hurt I'm not so sure that Foreman will be able to recover once Tyson hurts him.


Other variables to consider in this match up, who is the Champion? Who is the challenger? That makes a difference in thier mental make up.

 

Great analysis. Just as you did, it's easier to analyze a fight between Foreman and Tyson when both fighters are looked at rationally and honestly. I agree with you about the difference in this fight being about the delivery system of both fighters. As I stated previously, I believe that Tyson would have the ability to land big and hurt George first. And once a guy was hurt, we all know what a finisher Mike Tyson was. Foreman was big and strong, but he didn't have the ability to land as quickly or as often as did Tyson.

 

Like I said, I didn't take issue with your throw-around reference to Duran. Let me make that clear.

If, like you said, you used it strictly as an example of a person getting his clock cleaned with a single knockout punch, how is it then relevant to this thread at all? You used it because Tyson was not on the receiving end of that blow, and he's never been felled by just one punch, correct? Only then does the statement become a good point of argument, but it is still a flop because Tyson never faced the pound-for-pound equivalent of Tommy Hearns, nevermind being past his best, undertrained and overweight while doing so.

You said you were 'highlighting the punch itself that knocked out the other fighter'. That means you were highlighting the punch thrown by Tommy Hearns that knocked out Duran. Ok, I will also not comment on the circumstances surrounding each, but how is that now relevant to Tyson versus Foreman?

 

That's a great post, but I didn't actually offer an opinion on who would win the proposed match so I don't know why you are quoting me as if to argue with me. The names you mentioned are good hitters, but not the caliber of fighter Foreman was. I would say that only Lewis approaches his power, but his was a deterrent more than a weapon so there is a difference in mindset there.

I think that this match will take a few rounds if Foreman's stamina allows it. I believe that, a good portion of the time, Tyson will land first, and will land often based on his style. However, I disagree when you imply that Foreman will not be able to retaliate in any significant fashion.

The two most likely outcomes for me is a decision win for Tyson (I think after Foreman stands up to his aggression he will cruise) or a knockout win between rounds five to eight for George (with a surprise combination that George is well capable of).

 

...

Duran was stopped cold once in 120 fights. His chin was excellent and I'd argue that it was in fact better than Tyson's.

Holyfield was physically dominant in the fight against Tyson -clinching, mauling, overpowering, and outmuscling. I think it is accurat to say that he was in fact bullying Tyson. Holyfield was not as big as Foreman, as strong as Foreman, nor was he nearly as aggressive as Foreman.

 

This is going around in circles. Look at their records. How often was each man stopped? Look at their ability to come back from adversity. There is no comparison.

Some make too much about Tyson taking beatings (ex. Lewis) and going down "later" rather than "sooner". Tyson is a durable fighter with a spark plug neck and shoulders like boulders -he can take a good shot. But emotionally, he doesn't respond well when hurt; and that is demonstrable. When has he ever come back from real adversity? He hasn't. When he is overmatched, it is clear that is durable but it is just as clear that he eventually lays down.

How sure am I? I'm absolutely convinced.

This is getting tiresome. See past posts on Foreman's aggression and Tyson's being in range.

You change the trajectory of your argument to suit your ends. Ali's punching power WAS NOT a factor in Foreman being able to land on Ali in that fight! Ali's comparative lack of punching power is not relevant to Foreman. Foreman was just as aggressive against him as he was against punchers. Prime Foreman did not give a damn about how hard anyone hit because he was convinced that he was the stronger man and the bigger puncher. Tyson was to him a "little rude guy" -and that was when he was 45.

...

Foreman wasn't too concerned about anyone's punching power, so your assertion is, in my opinion, irrelevant.

I think that you may not be changing your argument, per se, but you are twisting it into contortions to give Tyson a boost that's based more on myth than on the observable record.

Let me try to clarify what I think your argument is: you believe that Tyson was too elusive to be hit very often by Foreman. And you believe that Tyson's punching power would diminish the aggression that he would habitually use against smaller guys.

Fair?

 

Good post.

 

Not usually my favorite kind of match-up, but this one would be irresistable. I have to agree with the posters that give the edge to Big George though, as I think his reach and his power keep Tyson out.

 

I'd go with Foreman by 6th round kayo in a great slugfest.