tyson v foreman

What historical evidence is there for this?

In his career he fought the sluggers: Lyle, Cooney, Morrison and Briggs.
Counting the Briggs fights as a win, his record is 3-1. However, Cooney was coked up and hadn't been active for 3 years and even back then lost to a light heavyweight, Lyle was a big struggle as he was down twice and arguably saved by the bell, and the very limited Morrison boxed his ears off. I would hardly say his record against sluggers is awesome. In fact, he's less proven against them than Tyson is. Tyson twice defeated Ruddock, slugged it out with Berbick, had no trouble beating Bruno who's KO record is far above Lyle nor showed problems with Witherspoon (who had a one-punch KO over Weaver) and Tucker.

 

Comparing the threat of peak Tyson to Morrison and Cooney is about as good as comparing Chuck Wepner to peak Foreman.

 

Oh come on, I think Wepner would have enough class to carry Foreman at least six rounds.

 

Ummm,

I believe you're leaving out a couple of the best performances of his career in Frazier and Norton. The Frazier fight gives us a lot of insite as to how Foreman would match up to Tyson stylistically. Secondly, Gerry Cooney wasn't coked up at the time he fought Foreman. He was clean for the first time in years and training with Gil Clancy, who formerly trained George and knew more about him than most people. Foreman lost to Morrison, but that was mainly due to a fighter drastically changing his style for one fight. Tyson would never abandon his slugger style to use the ring and box, so the Morrison loss is immaterial when looking at a Tyson-Foreman matchup. Tyson indeed beat Razor Ruddock, but I don't think Ruddock's style even remotely resembled Foreman's, and whoever said Berbick was a slugger?

 

I think Chris is staying more in the 90's version of Foreman vs Tyson train of thought. The Foreman from the first era and second era are two totally different fighters. Me, i think the 70's version beats Tyson, but i'm far from convinced the 90's version does.

 

As JT said, i was talking about the 70's Foreman.

Second, Cooney was addicted to coke like most 80's fighters and he hadn't had a fight in 3 years, he was washed up and got knocked out like a washed up fighter. He didn't exactly look impressive against Spinks either, save the 3rd or 4th round.

Also, Norton and Frazier are nothing like Tyson. Norton basically got knocked out by every puncher he faced (except maybe Bobick who never accounted to much when facing top opposition and an old Quarry). Frazier was a pressure fighter in the sense that he started slow, did not score one-punch knockouts but broke you down, down the stretch. Tyson on the contrary may well be the fastest starter in history, is capable of scoring one-punch knockouts, is not as easily dropped as Frazier but is not really capable of wearing an opponent down as it goes past 6 like Frazier could.

 

Could be the case, except I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility of even a 43 year old Foreman taking that one. Also keep in mind, that if Foreman and Tyson had met in the 90's, it wouldn't exactly be a prime Tyson either. We're not talking about the Tyson who Ko'd Pinklon Thomas in 1987, but rather a less focussed and less disciplined version.

 

Yeah i'm trying to work the timeline. I was looking at say the Foreman who beat Cooper fighting what would have been peak Tyson. Foreman was 18 fights into his second career. I wonder if he was rated top 10 by any of the organisations so as to enable a shot.

 

Foreman didn't breach the top 10 ratings until around February of 1990, following his knockout of Cooney. After that, he rose very quickley through the top ten, probably by means of both public interest as well as elimination of other fighters beating each other. The Rodriguez win boosted him from the lower parts of the top 10 to the top 5. I probably still have a stack of 1990 issues of ring magazines somewhere in the basement back at mom and dad's house.

 

I think the Tyson that fought Holyfield in '96/'97 still had too much speed and ability for Foreman to overcome. When he declined after that, the comebacking Foreman would've a much better chance. But since Foreman more or less retired in '98, i don't think Foreman could've ever beaten Tyson in his second career.

 

I will add that i have also read the stories about Tyson not wanting to face Foreman. It could be true, who knows. Maybe d'Amato's words kept resounding in Tyson's head. But based on film and performances around that period, i don't think Mike had much to fear.

He didn't have much to gain from it either, by the way. Up to that point, Foreman had only beaten washed up ex-contenders and journeymen and it would take untill 1995 for him to have a win of big significance. Many people sympathised with Foreman but after losing rather one-sided fights to Holyfield and Morrison. When Stewart (who Tyson knocked out in 1 round) turned Foreman into a zombie with a hamburger face, they wanted him to retire.
Ruddock posed a much larger threat and reward, so he fought him. Tyson cannot be blamed for not fighting Foreman (although i'm not suggesting that you do).

 

Not at all,

In fact, I never felt that Tyson ducked Foreman. I simply think however that in 1995-96, Foreman would have given a returning Tyson problems, but opinions vary on this subject.