Popular Opinion Time

I always like a guy who is willing to put forward a controversial opinion and defend it! But comeback Foreman against prime Tyson? Would love to hear more on that.

Personally I think if comeback Foreman fought Tyson the way he fought Qawi, for example, then Tyson would have blown him out pretty emphatically.

Peak Foreman is another matter entirely, of course....

 

Indeed, I find there tends to be a 'Prime Age' point of view taken a lot of the time, as definitive. But there's no simple formula, for sure. Age is an obvious factor of course, but it's a rough starting point, with other factors shaping individual fighters' Prime years, on a case-by-case basis.

Other public-facing factors are things like the number of professional bouts, number of professional rounds, rate of professional bouts fought, over a period. Then there's the more qualitative aspects of the same, such as the fights themselves, the form of the given fights, how they went, punishment taken, injuries sustained.

Slightly cloudier effects on a boxer's prime are things like training regimen, lifestyle choices, personal events in boxers' lives - as well as underlying injuries (long-term or even permanent), which are masked through medical treatment.

The truly nebulous exists in the boxers' heads. The mental state of boxers is a huge factor but really hard to get to. We can only speculate, in most cases and, even then, the scope of mental states is wide and varied - from totally resolute to scatter-brained.

Ultimately, we can only look at the performances themselves and observe what we perceive as changes in a boxers condition over time; seek relative consistency in the aspects of performance, whilst trying to capture and explain any curveballs, one-off factors or surprises, along the way.

There's certainly no 'one-size-fits-all' method of determination. So, yes, even if on its face, a boxer's Prime is a simple determinant to gauge, it is actually quite tricky.

 

Excellent, and very complex, points. Guys like Lewis, Hopkins, Moore, Tyson, Walcott and countless others can be quite complex and debatable subjects.

 

Yes, I saw a post today, about how Lewis rounded-ness as a boxer was often underestimated (which I agree with) and was reminded that the guy clearly had, to my mind, two primes - one physical, the other technical. That they overlap is what I think causes confusion. Even then, this simplifies the debate to its most basic view.

Then you have phenoms like Hopkins and Moore, who seemingly defied biology and broke the mould; whereas, on the opposite end of the scale, you have the often described 'peaked early' Tyson.

Walcott can be a bit of a strange debate. He's quite likely a guy who improved technically, post-war, while his physical peak had past him by, during those war years. Walcott's case could be similar to Lewis' in that respect, although he does invite contention, due to allusions to the depth of the division, late 40s/early 50s.

As you say, countless other examples, which not only speaks to why each case needs to be looked at individually, but also the considerable dimensions of boxing as a sport. Most complex.

 

Good stuff. I knocked up a lengthy post ages ago as to why Walcott's best form was late in age and past his probable physical prime. Almost everyone accepted it as it was pretty easy to comprehend.

 

Lemme guess. You really think Tyson would lose both of these matchups?

 

The best we have is a poor man's version of Foreman in Bonecrusher Smith who fought Tyson him fresh off a 1 round TKO win over the highly regarded Tim Witherspoon. Despite his size and punching power Smith cowered at the possibility of ending up as a highlight reel and robbed us of what should have been a great fight.

Foreman is a different breed, but stylistically he would face Tyson at mid range, which is where he fought Frazier. This fight will be decided by hand speed. Both have crushing power. Both have solid chins. Foreman is bigger and stronger while Tyson is faster and better technically. At their respective best, they both have an unwavering belief in their own ability and a strong fighting spirit.

Thing is Foreman is there to be hit. He's not going to play "keep away" or dance or use lateral movement. He's not going to be elusive either. He's gonna stand right in front of him and try to take his head off. Anytime where two big punchers face off, smart money is on the fighter with the better speed, better reflexes and better fundamentals. Unless Foreman tries something new or uses lateral movement he doesn't see the end of the 4th round.

 

Tyson in your thread title will at least double the responses.

 

Yes, but he would probably give both of them tough fights.

 

Although I don't agree with you, I actually think this is the soundest argument I've ever heard for why Tyson would beat Foreman. Bravo, and I mean that.

 

Good analysis

But what about Foreman's pushing and shoving?

I think that's what makes the difference

 

Very interesting assertion, but imo just as often the deciding vote between two heavy punchers is the heavier puncher
Foreman Lyle, Foreman Frazier, Weaver Coetzee...

 

Completely agree, If Foreman's fight against Qawi is the litmus, then George would get battered by Mike imo. Not so sure about the George who fought Holy, specifically if it's the post- Ruddock Tyson...

 

Just read the post I think you're referring to (Jan 2020 ring any bells?).

Actually, I read the thread. A quite plausible reasoning for Walcott's better showings, post-war, which made sense to me, despite his age - Followed by an interesting Classic debate.

 

Bingo. Foreman would have him backing up and not coming forward. This is the difference.