Prime Mike Tyson ('88.) VS Prime George Foreman ('73.)

I do not know if you are old enough to remember, I do, but George Foreman used to tell everyone that he used to sneak out the window behind his mother's back, running the streets with his Gang, he had no father or mentor like Mike Tyson had to explain the dangers of the streets. Mike though talented was no Gang Leader, he was shielded by his mentor Cus D Amato, and later by Kevin Rooney. George was not the fun loving bald headed grill selling fighter that you see in the television commercials, he was a smug mean angry young man walking with his mean canines back in 1973, one of his dogs had almost bit a reporter. Also this edition of Foreman did not have a glass jaw, he had not lost to Muhammad Ali yet and had not fought Ron Lyle, that was in Jan 1976, after he was knocked out by Ali. George's style would be all wrong for Tyson as Mike was a lot smaller, George would be shoving him around, looking to decapitate him with every blow, Take a look at the George Foreman vs Joe Frazier title bout on Jan 22 1973 in Kingston, Jamaica and the fight against Ken Norton on March 26 1974, this Norton was not the fighter who was a runaway from the Nursing Home whom Gerry Cooney was beaming after he knocked out Norton, this was a peak Norton in 1974. 1973 George Foreman is no scared to death Michael Spinks who could not crack an egg at heavyweight. These fights can be seen on You Tube.

 

Foreman in 3.

 

Foreman by mid to late rounds if I had to pick a winner


But both men wreck each other for sure and it's not like Tyson cannot win this ... Both Tyson and Foreman are the types who always have that chance of winning due to their KO ability and power

 

Used to be solidly in the Foreman camp but I've shifted to about even and now i actually favor Tyson slightly. I wouldn't bet on it though.

 

The fight would be uglier than you think. Neither guy can fight backing up, and both could be very rough. Foreman in particular was a very physical fighter and used lots of shoving, grappling, pivoting, and guard manipulation which Tyson wasn't really used to. On the other hand, Foreman had never seen such blistering scientific combinations and head movement.

The fact Tyson had to often reset once he got inside means that the pace would be a little bit weird and not as explosive as you'd think in the 1st round. It would be very wild and ugly at first with only glancing blows and wrestling in many spots. Tyson was very good at dodging shots and stepping in, not so great once he got there and was by no means some sort of expert phone booth fighter like a Frazier, Duran, etc. This would cost him. Foreman would not agree to ant silent agreements to just stand there clinching waiting for the ref to break them up. Neither guy is used to the opponent being brave enough to actually go for body shots and it would be interesting seeing their reactions to getting hit there.

It boils down to if Tyson can consistently get his shots off first and chip away at Foreman's oak tree like presence. You couldn't just land one flashy combo or heavy blow and then back off thinking that would earn Foreman's respect, you had to nail him consistently over many rounds. The problem for Tyson is that he'd be in the danger zone for that telephone pole jab and the heavy uppercut if he kept stepping in, and that's all Tyson knew how to do. Plus Foreman might shove him back if he couldn't time him and would throw off Tyson's rhythm with his rough house tactics. Tyson needed space to and needed the pace to be in his favor to make full use of the peak a boo style.

For Foreman, it boils down to if he can control the range and if he can neutralize the speed difference by making full use of his much longer arms and strength to keep Tyson at the end of his heavy punches. He would also need to be patient picking his shots well and not being too eager going for the KO or he'd run out of stamina. Tyson also had a solid chin and wouldn't crumble from just 1 big shot either.

Foreman stopped durable/high stamina high work rate opponents such as Chuvalo and Frazier without getting too wild or reckless and picked them apart. Tyson beat bigger stronger guys such as Bruno and Ruddock without abandoning his speed and technique.

I'd say it's a 60/40 fight slightly in favor of Foreman due to the clash of styles. I think it's a bad matchup in some ways due to Foremans wide arsenal of abilities for dealing with shorter aggressive guys. Tyson does have some tools and some methods to win, but he'd need to fight the perfect fight. If it breaks out into a slug fest, Foreman stops him fairly early.

 

Foreman was always adamant that he had the beating of Tyson and I tend to agree. I can't imagine Mike being able to get set with George constantly shoving him backwards and off balance.
I know Tyson is not Frazier and I do think the comparison is a lazy one but there are so many common aspects in this fight and Kingston '73 that I can only favour George.

 

Foreman would back Tyson up

Just throwing this out there to those who think otherwise

And I don't see Tyson getting KOed early ... Tyson has top tier durability

 

I'm just saying while Tyson did have Cus I don't think Foreman was as bad as Tyson from a street perspective. Yes Foreman was out there as I believe a guy called Lester Hayes who was an NFL player has talked about knowing Foreman back then and having some not so pleasant encounters with him as a child but Tyson was also in a gang as mentioned in a book and he mentions how he was still robbing people when he was a professional at the start of his career. I can't find the quote but he did also mention he had done about "Five to seven" Things worse than what he was accused of by Desiree Washington...

Anyway as for the fight, I don't believe the whole Foreman would be "Way bigger" Than Tyson at all, yes Foreman would be taller and have a longer reach but Foreman of the 70's whose best performance was the first Frazier fight weighed 218 pounds while Tyson of the Biggs/Spinks fight weight 216 and 218 pounds, Foreman also weighed 220 pounds against Ali so there wasn't that big of difference in size at all but in physical strength Foreman I believe yes would be stronger. The problem with this fight is it can go either way as Foreman never fought a guy with a combination of hand speed, power and aggressiveness like Tyson while Tyson in his prime never fought a guy as physically strong or hard hitting as Foreman who would not be willing to take a backstep. I feel you need brains to beat both of these guys but it would end up being a war so it could go either way but for a safe bet I'm 60-40 on Foreman winning by mid to late stoppage.

 

God knows. This is one of these titanic 'what if' fights. Both sides of the argument are convincing.

 

I swear i've seen him barking at someone in the comment section of THIS video, because his YouTube account's name is "cmoneytheman". Oh and he talked the same way our favorite troll used to!!
Check this out!
"the young george def was weaker then his old ver u can see he had no real def in his young days dwight fought like a better def version of dwight used head movement and angles so if joe used that same style he could have put down george dumb followers got mutiple points which was shown to be flawed george height is advantage pushes means he dominates his power was to much uppercuts and iabs keep take a person out fast swammers lose fast dwight showed if joe used the same defense he would have beat george cause I told u young george couldnt take damage even close to the old ver and dwight was a better swammer then joe didnt used his block good u have to use angles to make George wide punches miss and he made him miss often and dwight blocked often joe didnt show these same def skills they never bring up dwight and act like the match never happened heshowed that dumb flawed quote of all swammers lose is crap and folks still say it I dont know why dwight only lost cause he was tired he did better then joes both matches dwight only lost cause he was tired he was winning rounds george said for dwight he said he had trouble hittin him even tho george was taller then him and used the jabs another advantage yall say works for george dwight showed height and coming in like joe did didnt matter tom showed punches wide like tyson and hitting quick punches would show a effect on George so u dumb then."
That must be him!

 

Have we got an English version of his text?

Ha!

That guy needs a perma ban.

 

Reading over his post...need a translator. Yeah, it's him lol.

 

He moves under many disguises and cleverly employs varied forms of vernacular but I think you’ve weeded him out. LOL.

His argument style was heavily accented on DISCOMBOBULATION…and in that regard he had no peer.

The irony was never lost that he spoke of the evolution in boxing while, in his very expressions, he was indirectly advertising a
clear regression in language and effective communication.

 

More seriously….In its OWN right, I think it’s fair to argue that the analogy to Frazier in terms of style is a bit oversimplified and not quite on point.

However, in broader terms and for the intents and purposes of the analogy it still may be apt to compare Mike to Joe as they measure up against George in so far as there being some stylistic similarities, aggressive accent and perhaps most importantly, the limitations of their similar physical dimensions.

Its possibly more about Foreman’s own simplistic answers to Joe’ style and size utilising his extraordinary strength and power - manhandling and pushing the opponent out of their ideal range and into George’s own kill zone - and when Foreman succeeds in same, his power, with his range already preset, will likely see his man off in 2 -5 rds.

IMO, while similarly dimensioned Quarry would present with a different style again it would still be mooted in much the same way- George’s method being kinda akin to playfully holding a smaller child off by the top of their heads - but in this case George is belting the bejesus out of them at the same time.

 

Yeah, this is why I always say it doesn't matter if Tyson isn't "exactly" like Frazier. They're both 5'10 guys with short arms who can only fighting coming forward. It's basic physics. Anything can happen in this matchup, and Tyson could potentially turn things around with his dynamic power. The problem is that despite Tyson's hand speed and power, anytime he wants to press the issue and get in range to land that power, he might get shoved back, have his head snapped back by a heavy jab, mauled, or nailed by an uppercut. Things that happened to Tyson several times even in his prime when he had to get close.

Due to simple anatomy, it's a stylistic nightmare. He isn't taking Foreman out with one shot or one combination, he'd need to land dozens and dozens. And there's no guarantee because even if he fights the perfect fight with responsible defense and elusiveness, he will have to get within Foremans killing field every time.