Tyson would have beaten George Foreman and heres why!

I understand where you are coming from, but accomplishment-wise Mike achieved a lot. He basically erased the division in the mid-to-late 80's. And I know it's fashionable to call the guys he beat old and past their prime, but in reality guys like Tucker, Tubbs, Berbick and Thomas were all around 30 years old, hardly ancient. So long as Cus, Rooney & Co. would harness his fantastic physical tools, Tyson was a tall order for any heavy ever. I am still amazed that anyone even dare compare Dempsey's quick slog through a depleted, all-white version of the heavyweight ranks to what Tyson achieved over a longer duration against bigger opponents with deeper pedigrees (i.e. most outside of Bonecrusher were trainer from youth in amateur hothouses...)

 

No shitting on what he did accomplishment; He established himself as the dominant heavyweight in the division for about 4 years. That's no mean feat, its an incredible accomplishment.

I've just never bought him as the super destroyer I see him revered as. You'd need to be on a certain level to have more than a prayer, but as Douglas showed, even fighters beneath that level have a chance.

Amazing fighter, great champion, but flawed like any other man who ever put on gloves.

 

So instead of Tyson, you see Foreman as this super destroyer? What the hell is George Foreman? He is a crude slugger with bad punching technique and bad stamina.

Seriously, does anyone think that Foreman had better defense than even a shot Larry Holmes? Watch the first Frazier fight - Frazier is landing on Foreman, the defensive genius. Tyson had better foot speed than Frazier and would start faster. I don't see Foreman being able to shove Tyson around the way he did to Frazier.

 

Just playing Devil's advocate here, but Tyson did extremely well against taller fighters!

 

George would utterly destroy Tyson prime vs prime

 

Just watch Frazier-Foreman and you'll see that Frazier is tagging Foreman easily, but he's throwing only single shots. Look at where Foreman's hands are and how little he moves his head. How is Tyson not going to hit him? I think Foreman would get hit flush with big shots, combinations. And then what? In the comic book world of 70s nuthuggers, Foreman just walks right through it and KOs Tyson like nothing happened. In reality, Foreman got roughed up by Jimmy Young.

The more I think about it, the only way Foreman can win is if he's able to push Tyson around the way he did to Frazier. Otherwise, Tyson's hand speed and combinations would take over. Foreman was able to push Frazier away and keep him where he wanted him. I don't think Foreman would be able to do that with Tyson, who typically has a wider base than Frazier, bends the knees more, and is much stronger than Frazier. Tyson also started much faster than Frazier.

 

Better chin LOL you must never have seen George in his prime

 

Prime Foreman was getting roughed up by guys like Ali and Young. Tyson would knock his head off. Remember that shot that chopped down Larry Holmes? Foreman would get that and then some.

 

At his peak? I do- He walked through most of the top heavyweights of his era, and unlike Mike, a few of them were greats at our near their peak.

I don't think Mike beat anybody all that good outside of Spinks and Tucker. But then, I see his win over a retired Holmes as a whole lot less impressive than many do.

 

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, but did Frazier have a really good win after his first Foreman encounter? A guy with his style and his frail physical assets, wasn't he done by 72, after starting his peak in about 66?

And Norton was born chinny... So how good really was Foreman, probably the most protect prospect I have seen in the modern era?

 

Foreman walked through Frazier and Norton, and that's it. He walked through Frazier because he was able to completely defuse Frazier's slow-starting one-handed style with his pushing and Frazier was unable to adjust once he was hurt. I think Foreman's chances against Tyson depend overwhelmingly on him being able to keep Tyson at his (Foreman's) range by shoving.

As for who beat who or didn't, I don't think it has any bearing on this. Most people who say Foreman beats Tyson say it's because of styles. But Tyson's style is different from Frazier's.

Look at how quickly Tyson closed the distance. From the opening bell, Tyson would dart in with explosive quickness, whereas Frazier moved forward slowly, bouncing around a lot. Tyson also had two-handed power and two-handed hand speed.

If Tyson slips inside Foreman's jab, what happens? People talk about Foreman's uppercuts, Tyson had a good uppercut himself. How is Foreman going to neutralize Tyson's hand speed and overall quickness at mid range? Foreman isn't some master counterpuncher and with his poor defense, I can see Tyson strafing him with combinations.

 

He had good wins over Bugner and Quarry. He looked good against Quarry in `74. He looked awesome against Ali in a losing effort in 1975. So no he wasnt done by 72.

 

The bad news for Tyson here is that George Foreman`s uppercuts were where he had his best power. Down low, that was his wheelhouse.

Joe Frazier had a great chin too. Foreman moved him with glancing blows, he lifted him off the canvas with an uppercut. Foreman once broke a man`s forearm with a punch. And NO!!! Bonecrusher Smith had nowhere near the power that George Foreman possessed.

This is not the type of fighter to go charging into. He`s gonna take that jab full force and that alone may stun him and set up for those follow up Uppers.

Tyson could hit too so he may catch Foreman off balance after a missed punch.

No way it goes the distance.

 

Foreman is too slow to damage Tyson

Tyson is far too elusive to get hit consistently or cleanly by Foreman's arm punches

Tyson would make him miss and assault his body ... Foreman should've gotten DQ'ed from pushing Frazier away like he did