Its now round 6 of their bout. The previous rounds have all been closely competitive with no clear winner, both men have been rocked but came on strong later in the round, there have been no knockdowns or point deductions. The question is....who do you feel takes over in the second half of the fight and why?
Definitely Foreman, his physical strength and punching power would take it's toll on Tyson. Tyson seldom finished a fighter after going past the middle rounds, Foreman won the title in his 40's after scoring a devastating knockout in the 10th round against Moorer... Foreman knockout without a doubt.
I don't believe in a competitive fight. I can imagine a very easy Tyson win. Foreman was very easy and slow target. The peak Foreman's chin (lyle) and stamina (Ali,Young) weren't so good . What was the eighties Tyson's biggest problem ? He couldn't knock the reigning champion Smith(who destroyed a reigning champion Witherspoon in the first r.) out. The best/eighties Tyson's defense were great. The Moorer example is ridicolous. Moorer was a glass-chinned "girl". Funny but i think some Foreman's fan brings this lame Moorer example again and again. It was a lucky punch. Foreman was **** against Stewart who humiliated his face. The Moorer ko was the old version George father's only one remarkable ko win. I don't know only one remarkable one punch ko by Foreman. His power is overrated these good oponions are based on his popularity.
Tyson turns into a one punch stalker after round 5. Less combos and his KO% goes way down. Foreman has two tenth round stoppages. One 8th round stoppage. Three 7th round stoppages. Foreman had more power late than Tyson and a great chin. I say Foreman by 9th round ref stoppage TKO
VVMM, I have no problem with anyone picking Tyson. His skills + the speed differential could well be the difference, though i would favor Foreman. But instead of making the argument (again) here, I want to dissect how your post is a classic example of extreme bias. Much of what you say is between very unbalanced, not striving to be as fair & banaced as possible, & unhinged from reality. 1) Foreman was "very easy & slow". That is a joke. How can a man in the Golden Age of HWs become a 40-0 (37 KOS) HW champion, including beating Frazier & prime Norton, if he is "very easy & slow"? You can point to strengths & deficits with all, but that is an insane belief. Also, his jab was not slow, neither was he slow cutting off the ring very well-he did throw many looping slow hooks. Which still were effective. 2) You MUST know he was not peak in any of the fights you mentioned! Neither would it be fair to use Tyson's many failures later, or even when he SHOULD have been peak, against Douglas, as examples of his skills, or even chin. His chin was excellent. You gave ONE example, after he had only had one freak exhibition a good 15 months before. Where he got off the canvas twice to KO Lyle. Tyson did this...When? 3) It is intellectually dishonest to use dates that are not '72-'74 for him, or the same time range 14 years later for Tyson. because you know better. 4) Foreman did not have the best endurance, but Ali was masterful in getting him to punch himself out in great heat, also pulling down on his neck with all his weight repeatedly. Would that normally be allowed/ And Tyson could not even reach him there. 5) Morroer was not a lucky punch. He moved him over with the left into the right. He described this & Moorer could not handle the truth. 6) Foreman was a bludgeoner who had an extraordinary KO rate despite many fights bein from late 30's-almost 49. That he did not do it much with a single clean punch does not mean his power was not top nothc-epic. Who that fought him said anything else? 5) You use Stewart as an example WHY? You could argue that he either deserved a close decision, yet it has NOTHING to do with prime for prime. At Foreman's age vs. Stewart, who could Tyson beat, Stephen Hawking? ;-) C'mon, at least TRY to be rational. Just for the sake of your credibility... Your kind of "logic" HURTS your position.
Foreman had like 50 fights in his first career and got tired in 2 fights. That means he has bad stamina? No. In fact George went 10 rounds and scored a 10th round tko in his first career but for some reason his detractors dont site that as an example of good stamina! The peak Foreman chin wasnt good? Because he was floored by one of the hardest punchers in the division? (no one mention the fact that Foreman survived and took Lyle out!) Moorer was average chin at best but to say a picture perfect 1-2 shot was lucky is ridiculous! A 45 year old shouldnt be able to beat a 26 year old! Very rare occurrence,especially at that level. Foreman's power is overrated? No. We clearly saw what he did to a heavy bag. We have heard Holyfield say Foreman hit harder punch for punch "than any fighter." I believe it was Roy Jones who once said "I once saw George knock a guy out with a punch to the back!" lol Ali told about George having him "out on his feet.." in his autobiography. Must have been a grazing punch. "After his destruction of Norton, he (Foreman) was 40-0 with 37 knockouts, for a knockout percentage of 92.50. In his career Foreman had 15 first round knockouts and 18 second round knockouts. That's 33 knockouts inside of the first 2 rounds!"
I'd have to favour Foreman as the thread says after round 6, but from the start I'd say he would be no more than even money, and I am NO TYSON FAN. I've always believed the " push off " by Foreman as his sole defensive tactic would work, but thinking about it Tyson was a mid range fighter, so I don't know if that would be so effective.
Tyson has 5 kos in round 6 and above. He did drop Douglas and Ruddock in the later rounds so Tyson also carries his power late.
Thanks Cobra! As a child that was my very favorite scene in Yellow Submarine, an early inchoate sense of Wonder & primeval Surrealism. That is, I appreciate your putative hometown region...
