Mike Tyson Vs. George Foreman

call me on the phone?send me a picture?pay for you?you must be used to insulting people long distance.a real pro.come on down to chalmers ave.in the big D sometime.coward,get a job,get off welfare socialist.you should worry about the people blowing up cars in your country and start giving them the finger instead of insulting people long distance.get a life coward.

 

mcgrain,you and conteh seem like reasoned men who make reasoned arguments.no insults, just reason.i enjoy talking boxing with the likes of you two.

 

what time is it in england right now?don't you anything better to do?thats right your rich.i guess you got nothing better to do.get a life creep and quit sucking around the crown.

 

i live in detroit,mi.looks we got off on the wrong foot.i thought you lived in england because of the proper english you write with.my mistake if you are'nt. you should'nt insult people legend.actually my i am a fairly decent fellow as am sure you are.long time fight fan as i go back to the mid 60s.we simply have a difference of opinion.

 

Chin: Foreman actually. Power, probably Foreman. But close enough to call even. It doesn't matter, in shoot outs, 'heart' always wins. :good

 

.

 

I believe Tyson was , as you phrase it, KTFO by little Holy, not to mention Williams and McBride.

Let's see if he can emulate Foreman's postmenopausal glory and recapture a title.

(Anyone who brings up Tyson's victory over an ancient Holmes is grasping in the credibility department.)

 

Is that the same Ali who was the GOAT?

 

Hand speed is still SPEED and is still not measured in distance.

 

Let's clear up some issues here.

Firstly, why it is assumed Foreman is so much stronger than Tyson? What is the basis of the claim? Ruddock (a much bigger man than Tyson) complained bitterly that Tyson was unnaturally strong at 216. He even went so far as to accuse Tyson of Steroid use.
As has been said, Tyson often offered no resistance to being tied up. Heck, he often initiated clinches. But what if he did resist? Look at the way Tyson is built - short, thick arms and legs and that massive neck. His centre of gravity is low. If he wanted to, he'd be a damn hard guy to push around, especially as 'big George' would be maybe only 5 lbs. heavier. Let's not forget that the added height adds a lot to George's (slight) mass advantage, so cubic inch for cubic inch, Tyson is actually 'bigger.'

Secondly, it's almost become a 'fact' that Tyson lacked heart. One thing I always found contradictory to that is that Tyson fought back when hurt. Bruno clobbered him with the mother of all counter hooks in the first round (1st fight) and clearly wobbled Tyson briefly. However, Tyson fought back in a slightly groggy state.
In Ruddock fight 1, Donovan landed some big consecutive shots in the 6th round and felt confident enough to push Tyson into the ropes at the bell. What happens in the 7th? Tyson stops him.
If he truly lacked heart, the momentum of those fights could have turned then and there. They didn't, and both men were stopped later. Let's not forget the one-sided beatings he took from Douglas and Lewis. He went out on his shield. Same with the Holyfield fight. A bully with no heart would have quit on his stool, like (ironically) George's mentor, Liston.

What's different to those fighters Tyson lost to and George was that they weren't there to be hit. Tyson had fleeting success against those chaps, but not sustained success. A Tyson who can find the target consistently is a happy Tyson, and there is no reason for me to think other than that he will find the target against George and often.

Another thing is that Tyson not only boasts much quicker hands and far superior overall defence, but he was so explosive and quick getting in there that his opponents often could not get off in time. Bruno and a number of others remarked just how quick Tyson was getting inside, and that they could not get off before being clobbered. Where was Bruno's great jab in their fights? Why didn't he use it more?
Because Tyson was too damn quick getting in, that's why.
Sorry, but those slow, lumbering punchers like Bruno, Ruddock and - yes - Foreman never posed a problem for Tyson. Never.
Tyson was beaten either by guys employing a clever strategy (Holyfield) who had the chin and determination to carry it out, or by boxing him and not allowing him to get set, like Douglas and Lennox did. (And either version of Tyson then was hardly vintage Tyson in any case)
To beat Tyson, you needed to drag him into deep water, and that takes courage, intelligence, patience and discipline.
Goerge had courage sure, but he was wild and indisciplined. His 'strategy' was to hit the other guy, and that's as far as his cognitive process went.
His stamina (I believe) was pretty good but he didn't pace himself, and he often gassed later in a fight.

Chin? Foreman's chin was very good, but he could be knocked out and hurt. Lyle had Foreman in all sorts of trouble early on, and I believe that the bell in the 4th saved Foreman from a knockout.
Evander wobbled George badly with a single, hard shot in the 9th round (or was it the 10th) and Big Goerge was in all kinds of trouble at the bell. I'd say Tyson's chin was at least as good. He lost by KO after sustaining some monster shots or being worn down. Even after taking Lewis' best shots, Tyson was still coherent when counted out. He wasn't on ***** street like he was against Douglas, who hit him with 5 pinpoint power shots for the KO late in the fight.
For me, a good three punch pinpoint combo is far more discombobulating than a single, hard power shot from anybody, including Foreman. George had immense power but the delivery wasn't there. Punches werent timed well or elivered with any real accuracy. That's why so many fighters repeatedly got up after being knocked down by Foreman.
For me, Tyson's rapier combinations were far more destructive overall, but that's not to say he wasn't heavy-handed. He most certainly was.

But, all Foreman has to do is walk through Tyson and 'push him around.' Right?

 

Oh c'mon.
Firstly you're comparing Foreman in the 90's here. Apples and oranges to 70's Foreman mate. 90's Foreman was a totally different (and better fighter to 70's version. Besides, Foreman's forearms took a lot of the heat off Holyfield's combos. Many of his shots also landed high on Foreman's head.
When Holy caught him clean on the button in the 9th, Foreman's legs went in different directions.
You were saying?

 

He wasn't KTFO vs Ali, he possibly could have got up. Exhaustion defeated him not his chin.

 

This content is protected

 

1) Dude , what do Tua and Lewis have to do with this? Lewis did not wade into Tua. This is so irrelevant.

2) The Frazier fight is not a blueprint for beating Tyson.

3) You're missing the point. HITTING means nothing unless you land. I bet Tyson initiates most of the exchanges due to getting inside quickly and landing.

4) Fine, I'll leave 90's George out of this. But the pro-George brigade must do the same.

5) Tyson took a number of hard, flush shots in his career. Ruddock, Bruno, Lewis etc. He absorbed sustained beatings from Douglas and Evander who are at least respectable hitters. If Douglas landed that often on George, the same result happens as what happened to Tyson.
How do you know Foreman's shots were any harder than Ruddock's 'smash'?

6) Why did so many of George's opponents get up after getting knocked down? Frazier got up SIX times. By comparison, Tyson floored a guy 3 times with one punch. How many times did George do that?

7) I stand by my claim that Foreman was a big hitter that lacked accuracy and timing to a large degree. He didn't use proper leverage sometimes, and would 'arm punch' often.
Tyson, in the same league as Foreman for power, has vastly superior timing and accuracy as well as speed.

8) Would you mind using another colour? That light blue is hard to read...
(I'm using default style)

 

Oh, but Ruddock and Bruno is the blueprint for beating foreman. I get it now. :good