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

Spot on.

People used to say that Frazier and Tyson stand no chance against Foreman because he had that killer of an uppercut and great punching power. In a rare rush of inspiration they would mention his jab. Those and other various stylistic intricacies which make Foreman vs Small Boys such a nightmare aside though: it's George's insane control game that makes me believe the story about D'Amato telling Mike no short fighter can beat Foreman whilst they watched the Sunshine Showdown. It's simply a daunting task to get inside when all Foreman had to do is: shove you, clinch and reposition (he also hit you with that rib-cracking right hand of his along the way) or simply put one of his hands on your shoulder/neck as you come in, which could serve as a leverage guards against hooks as well. His extended Sandy Saddler stance worked especially well here (and gave him a really good defense against looping punches in general; hence you have Ali screaming to Norton about throwing right cross.)

 

Yup. They called Ali a matador, but that's what Foreman was against the aggressive short guys. There was subtlety in his brutality.

All the shoving, framing, pivoting, and guard manipulation looked like a big bully just being rough from a distance, but it was actually really smart. At one point he essentially walked Frazier right into an uppercut that he took flush to the face because poor Frazier kept getting redirected and had no clue what was going on. With Foreman's insane arm strength combined with the tricks he learned from Sadler and Moorer, he was a nightmare for short, aggressive, come forward opponens.

 

Here I is...

I favored Tyson in the 90's as a teen/young adult then swung over to favoring Foreman in the 2000's in my 20's...until Youtube arrived and we were able to watch more videos on Foreman instead of only his fights shown on ABC's Wide World of Sports and ESPN Classic.

Now I favor Tyson. He's better than Foreman and he ain't a small swarmer, Tyson's a technical brawler.

Anyways, this has been done to death. So I'm trying to add something new and I think I accomplished that above.

 

Excellent points and well said.

The shoving, manhandling wouldn’t amount to so much if GF didn’t also then have that jab to set and keep them back, keep them off balance and the uppercut, as well just causing sheer damage could be become a warn off punch in potential after it has already landed effectively several times.

You’re right also that Mike still might get inside to wreak some havoc but the required strategy, as compared to GF’s, is that much more complicated and requiring near perfect execution as you also said.

Hell, given his natural attributes and skill set, GF’s required master plan is as simple as it gets.

Kinda hard to screw up and he could afford to be that much less than perfect without it necessarily being fatal to his end game.

Mike, on the other hand, would be the guy walking the tight rope, having to get it all near perfect, otherwise one or several false moves could see him off in quick and dramatic fashion.

 

I lean towards Tyson, but Foreman has the tools to win it. I just see Tyson landing more often and Foreman eventually wilting by the mid rounds. This fight would be like a big, powerful but slower grizzly bear vs an agile, explosive lion with killer instinct. Anything could happen.

 

Moorer??

 

The problem is that Tyson had a pretty solid chin. You had to hit him with combinations over a long period of time to get to him. I don't think there's any such thing as seriously hurting him with a single shot no matter how hard you hit.

 

At best I think Mike had a chin that was, if not great, very close to it. He took more power shots from Douglas than any man had a right to.

It’s just that Foreman’s power was truly off the scale, enough to bring the best chins undone IF George could reasonably land on his opponent. With that power factored, I think George has the tools otherwise to sufficiently land on Mike to get him going.

I have seen Mike stunned by single shots but the follow ups were inadequate or Mike reasonably extricated himself from further trouble.

Not often referenced but Bone Crusher, for all his hugging otherwise, actually hit Mike with a right hand in the 12th and final rd that
nearly saw Mike go down. At the least. Mike was clearly hurt.

Just IMO of course.

 

I would favor foreman for stylistic reasons but I think this would actually be a very exciting fight and in truth Mike could potentially win.

 

An obvious typo.

A grizzly bear would beat a lion 8/10 medium difficulty. This actually happened a few times during illegal animal fights in California back in the day.

Tyson puts himself in the danger zone everytime he wants to land. He'd need to fight the perfect fight and not get caught, which is incredibly difficult given his short arms, height, and inability to fight backing up. Just like the lion, which has speed and explosiveness over the bear, but anytime it lunges might run into a powerful swipe that could severely damage it.

The same thing applies to Foreman's chin, except for Tyson he is facing a guy whose not only more durable than himself, but who showed more heart getting off the floor to win a fight and was stopped once compared to Tysons 5.

The guys who stopped Tyson needed several combinations over several rounds because they were not power punchers. Holyfield and Douglas were above average at best. Many of the bigger punchers Tyson faced did not land a lot, and when they did land there was rarely a follow up or combination (Bruno, Smith, etc). Not only that, but they fought very cautiously and were scared to open up. Ruddock was the only big hitter that actually brought things to Tyson, and he was basically a 1 armed fighter like a Cooney.

 

I read about a lion who killed a grizzly bear in a brutal fight for both creatures. Happened in Mexico in the 1800s.

That said, I won't dismiss a Foreman victory, but was he really as durable as a young man as he was as an old man? The one time we saw him tested by a big hitter, he was flailing all over the ring from single shots. I would rate a prime Tyson as being at least equal in durability to Lyle. At the very least. And I'd rate him at least Lyles equal in punching power, but a much skillful fighter overall.

I think Holyfields punching power is underrated and he was a solid heavyweight puncher who had the power to keep many a heavyweight honest. Douglas was a 230 pound top level heavyweight who was sitting down on his punches. Could a young Foreman have taken a hammering from Douglas for 10 rounds without being felled? Could he have taken those smashes from Ruddock without having to climb off the canvas to win? I don't know, but I have a hunch that he would have fallen at some point. I really can't say if young Foreman was more durable than Tyson.

 

Foreman had a new trainer, a new style, and lost a lot of his confidence. He was coming off a loss and a 1 year layoff against Lyle and still got off the floor to win.

I've boxed and your chin has as much to do with mental confidence as it does biology. Foreman shrugged off blows from Frazier, Norton, and Chuvalo before the Ali loss damaged his psyche.

Your chin does not suddenly get better with age past 40. Foreman in the 90's had better defense and paced himself well to avoid gassing like his younger self who had issues like hypertension and the blood lust to always try to KO the opponent.

Douglas has zero KOs over any rated or name opponents outside of Tyson himself. He was not a puncher by any stretch of the imagination. He simply had a very good game plan and KOd an arrogant young champion who didn't take Douglas seriously. I like how Douglas gets elevated and assumed to have power while Ali remains feather fisted to some people even though Ali stopped way more rated and ranked opponents than Douglas. It's not even close.

Hoylfield...how many actual knockouts did he have? Besides Douglas, very few heavyweights even visited the canvas against Hoylfield, let alone got knocked down. Couldn't drop Ruiz in 3 fights, nor Rahman or Byrd. Only 1 knockdown over a careless Bowe in 3 fights who got right back up and was more surprised than hurt. Couldn't floor Dokes. Did not floor Stewart in two fights. Couldn't even floor journeymen like Tillis or Cooper despite landing flush bombs. No, Hoylfield was no a puncher. Hoylfield's own trainer Lou Duva said he needed to land 2-3 shots just to match 1 hit from a power punching heavyweight. He hit hard enough to get your respect, and could do damage with combinations or sharp counters, but that's about it. For the record, Foreman stated Hoylfield and Ali hit about the same.

Even if for the sake of argument you want to claim Tyson could take a shot better than young Foreman...what exactly is Tyson going to do with this ugly clash of styles? Frazier landed maybe 5 clean power punches in the first fight with Foreman a d was constantly being repositioned, rag dolled, made to walk into shots, pivoted, shoved back, etc. What is Tyson going to do about all that and the heavy telephone pole jab and brutal uppercuts that lifted Frazier off the canvas? Tyson was known for allowing himself to get clinched and pushed around. Could he even adjust to all that roughhousing and being forced into the back foot over and over? Tyson needed room, rhythm, and momentum to use his fancy head movement--and Foreman would constantly disrupt his momentum. Tyson was a well oiled machine that needed things to go smoothly for his style to work, Foreman would be the downpouring rain that doesn't mix well with his oil.

 

You'd have to be a moron to think Foreman honestly.

This one has always been a no brainer for anybody without a strong bit of fantasy about either of them.

 

What great chinned fighter did Foreman KO? And don't say Chuvalo...

 

I overwhelmingly agree. Except for individual shots, I think it is very unlikely Tyson hit as hard as Lyle.
Foreman said he Williams & Cooney hit the hardest among those he faced.