Mike Tyson Vs. George Foreman

Yes, but think of the real reasons he would have refused - if it indeed happened. Granted Cus ranted on about a Foreman he had no idea would be in the picture again (well sort of realistically) but that would only be scratching the surface.

 

First of all, i'd slightly favor Foreman, but there are a lot of misconceptions in this post:

You say you go by the things you've actually seen, but i think you've only been watching Foreman's fights because Tyson has met this requirement several times. Bruno, while limited, still a very hard puncher, landed good shots on him early.. Tyson came back to stop him. Tucker wobbled Tyson in the first with an perfectly placed left uppercut.... Tyson took him apart. Berbick went all out early and found himself on the canvas soon after. Ruddock wasn't exactly a slow starter. Etc, etc.

This is true. Foreman won't be able to shove Tyson back as easily as he did Frazier, though. Not because of any strength difference, but because Frazier was almost asleep early - very inactive. Tyson would be coming on with hard combinations... you don't wanna have your arms extended.

Watch Tyson vs Berbick; Berbick tried to push Tyson back after trading went wrong for him. He caught an awful lot of punches trying that and despite being a very durable fighter, got stopped in a mere two rounds.

He lost all four rounds against Botha and stopped him nonetheless. Bruno got to him early but he came back and took control. Ruddock had him in trouble at times. Thomas was coming on strong until the 6th.

p.s. how often did Foreman come back from a losing position? Other than Moorer, i can't think of any. He didn't avenge his defeats, either. Neither did Tyson of course, but let's not pretend Foreman has a significant edge here.

Why should he have to?

And even at that, i think we can agree that:

a) This fight will be determined within 6 rounds
b) Tyson, while he slows down after 6 rounds, has far superior stamina compared to Big George.


Tyson kept an excellent pace against Tucker, Ruddock and Smith (despite the holding) going 12 rounds against very durable, top contenders. Something Foreman never did in winning fashion.

Well he's no Holyfield, but saying he has no heart is exxagarating as well. Let's not forget he had war against Ruddock and never stopped coming. Douglas beat him from pillar to post but he kept trying and he even scored a late knockdown. Holyfield and Lewis battered him badly but he kept trying there as well.


Fast forward to Foreman, he pretty much gave up in the Ali fight. Now, i don't really think it would've mattered, but just saying he isn't clear here either.

Maybe he has the heaviest hands, but Tyson has much more one-punch KO's and stopped more top contenders as well. At the very least, they're even.

Very unlikely. Tyson took incredibly hard punches from Lewis when he was old, from Ruddock, Bruno and many others and he went nowhere.

Now to turn things around again, how many big hits did a prime Foreman take?

Norton hardly landed and isn't that big of a puncher. Frazier isn't a one-punch guy either and starts very slow. The only puncher that landed on him was Lyle and despite having never stopped a contender outside of glass chinned Shavers, he had Foreman ready to go. Young put Foreman down. Ali stunned Foreman several times.

Put it this way, Tyson's chin is a lot more proven against big hitters than Foreman's is; talking a prime Foreman, unless you want to match up the older one.

Just watch the end of the 10th round of Holyfield-Tyson. Evander just tears him apart and rips him for 10 or so seconds with his entire arsenal and Tyson just walks calmly back to his corner. He had a fabulous chin.




I do agree that Foreman has a stylistic advantage, but on the other hand, Tyson is much more polished technically and Foreman's defence was very weak.

 

wow great rebuttal for tyson chris pontius. perfect counter arguements. too bad you think tyson still had alot left by 1996.

 

i agree. hay may have said joe frazier style would never beat george but there were fundamental differences between joe and mikes style

 

Absolutely.

Lets examine this a little more:

In George Foreman's first career; Foreman faced:

2 Big punchers (3-0 3KOs)
Joe Frazier and Ronnie Lyle (though it should be noted that Frazier was never really a 1 punch guy but lets include him nonetheless).

He was down 4 times. Twice against Lyle, the biggest puncher he faced. Once against Ali in a KO loss where he was never really taking a beating and once against Jimmy Young.


Mike Tyson pre-prison faced 3 big punchers (4-0 2KOs)
Frank Bruno, Donovan Ruddock 2x, James Smith.

He was down once against Douglas who administered a prolonged beating that led to an inevitable stoppage taking more flush shots in that fight than Foreman has in any fight of his entire career. I should add that outside of Frazier and Lyle and possibly Norton; Douglas hit harder than anyone Foreman had faced in his first career.

 

Actually, I'd say Ruddock was a notorious slow starter, including both fights with Tyson. Apart from that all agreed, and when Ruddock did get going he landed heavy but Tyson came back.

Watching both Tyson-Ruddock fights again, the single biggest difference to me is that when Tyson got hit he hit back; when Ruddock got hit he tended to cover up.

 

Why? D`mato was one of the most learned boxing trainers in history. Almost all his fighters were historians of the sport who watched reels and reels of tape. His opinion is certainly more valuable than anybody here thats for dam sure. Both D`mato and Tyson knew that stylistically Foreman would cause Mike ALOT of problems and you can add a prime Larry Holmes to that list aswell.

 

WTF? :rofl

Mike Tyson was troubled by the strength of JAMES SMITH (aka "The Bonecrusher") in their fight, being extended the distance (for reference, Smith was stopped by Holmes on cuts later in their bout previously).

George Foreman would be too strong for Tyson. Tyson's speed would be apparent immediately, and he would throw like hell, panicking after being punked in the staredown (Foreman's staredown would have Mike Tyson scared, believe that). Foreman would push Tyson around, throw uppercuts and hooks, and have Mike Tyson stopped before the fourth round.

Because you have to assess these dream match-ups at the peak of both boxers potential, I will give Mike four rounds to survive, but he's not lasting any longer than that.

George Foreman TKO4 Mike Tyson

 

Thats garbage. What strength? Iv seen that fight a thousand times and all Smith did was come to survive. He was elusive and evasive and did very little to offer and resistance to Tyson when they fought. The maths that Holmes stopped Smith on cuts and Tyson struggled is severely flawed. If your going to use that same maths take into account Mikes 1 round annihilation of Spinks. The same Spinks that Holmes couldnt beat twice.

 

1. Yes, Larry Holmes did stop James Smith.
2. Yes, Mike Tyson was frusterated all night long by Smith, Smith did come to survive, I will admit it (who didn't those days?), but Smith's clinching had Tyson bothered.
3. I mentioned this fight because we saw Tyson's weakness against a strong (not to mention tall) Heavyweight who took advantage of Tyson on the inside (don't believe me? why was Tyson not ripping Smith to the body? why couldn't he stop him? why was Tyson stunned by a right hand in round twelve?).
4. Did you notice the rapping around Michael Spinks knee? He couldn't MOVE - he came in, froze up, and was annihilated. Tyson was a real wrecking ball in his prime (speaking of Holmes - he stopped Larry in four rounds, albeit in '85).
5. I stand by George Foreman - Foreman's uppercut would lift Tyson ten feet in the air.

 

Infighting was NOT Tysons weakness. Mike is a fighter that was extremely dangerous in the pocket because of his fast hands and power. What Smith was doing is called "spoiling". Many back then thought the key to beating Mike was to tie him up on the inside and that was clearly because of his ferocious power, NOT because Mike couldnt infight. As for the wrapping on Spinks knee big deal? Is that an excuse?

When Spinks came into that fight his promoter Butch Lewis knew that Mike was punching holes in the wall next door. His team were completely pysched out before they came to ring and when he entered the ring. When Mike came out he didnt even choose music he had a rumbling eery baseline and his usual no socks no robe attire. There was no man that could have beaten Mike on that night and certainly not Micheal Spinks knee wrap or not.

Now as for Foremans uppercut lifting Tyson feet into there air lets just drop back to reality for a second. Foreman was a puncher full stop. All the great punchers like Shavers Foreman and Tyson would tire quickly as theres was a powerful and high energy style. Foreman COULD be hit and quite easily.Plus a prime Tyson was not a static target. Foreman would have had his hands full no question and it certainly wouldnt be one punch to KO Mike even from a serious banger like Foreman. Tough call for me as theres too many factors for and against.One thing is certain this fight doesnt last into the late rounds.

 

Even without the commentary.....Spinks took the first fight.

I thought he did more than Larry. He was busier and more accurate. Larry didnt seem to be able to get set the entire fight. He didnt really dictate the pace of the fight- Spinks fought his fight and beat Larry in that manner.

In addition, thier reactions after the final bell before the decision was announced was telling; Michael knew in his heart that he deserved the win; you could see it in his body language. Larry on the other hand looked uncomfortable making any celebratory gestures, he was looking down frequently unconvinced that he won but somewhat hopeful as a result of past experiences that he'd be on the winning end of another controversial decision.

 

How did he pass the medical then?