Tysons Punching Power vs Foremans power

The only fight where more heart could have gotten him a win was the Holyfield rematch.
He Just got beat up by the better fighter on that night in the Douglas Holy 1 and Lewis fights. There was never any way he could have pulled those fights out with the condition he showed up in thlse nights.

He was losing round after round against diuglas, by the time he started hitting Douglas it was round 8 and his eye was completely closed and he had just taken too much punishment. 0 lack of heart there.
Holyfield was the better fighter in the first fight. Tyson could have complained less and fought more in rounds 6-8 when he got cut and knocked down but in the end he got knocked out(on his feet) by that counter right hand exactly because he was fighting back when hurt in the end of round 10.

Tyson of the Lewis fight was all around useless. Would have never won that fight in 2002.



The bite fight was the only time where you can objectively shake Our head and think "dammit he could have pulled this one out if he tried harder"

 

He did not win fights too often when he was beaten up and came back. Except maybe Ruddock.

 

What's your point?
He's maybe THE fastest starter in history, why would he get beaten up early and come back? Nobody started faster than him.

My point is given his style and the style of his opponents, barely any of the fights he lost were really winnable that night.
McBride and Holyfield 2. That's it.

 

The point is these guys were too good on the night. He was never winning Holyfield 2, not a chance.

 

Holy actually started better in the rematch than in the first one, so it's not hard to believe Tyson was looking for a way out. I think he's said as much himself. On the other hand, he was starting to have some success just when he completely lost it...

 

As for the thread question... Very little between them if they punched a stationary object. I really don't know. But I would probably give Tyson a greater chance of knocking out other ATGs due to his superior speed and precision.

 

Learn some respect before quoting me again.

 

There'in lay the problem. Tyson came out blazing in the third and gave everything he had and Holyfield soaked it up with aplomb. Even the bites did not overly deter Holyfield. He never once looked for a definite way out of the fracas via DQ. He fought on after one bite and would have after the second if need be. Tyson knew there was only going to be one winner at this point and it definitely wasn't him.

He never overly bothered Holyfield in either fight. It was unbelievable really especially given how Holyfield had been performing prior.

 

Yep. I think he had Tyson's number and would have won in 1990 or 1991 as well.

 

There were times when he relied on blasting guys out. He had a great style. Bob and weave get inside work the body and then come upstairs. But if that did not work he was out of solutions, and it usually worked because he was so fast and dominant. But when he fought someone who had some skills also they would start to fight back and he didn't have an answer. Some fights would have been more winnable had Mike had better skills when the fight got tougher to land body punches and then go to the head. Some people accuse Hearns of the same thing. Starting early and then losing stamina, but Hearns won more fights changing tactics and outboxing. He had more options than Mike against top fighters. Both were fast starters and hard punchers.

 

This. Well done. Ed. As per ...

 

I agree but his body type and height in relation to his opponents didn't leave him that many options in terms of style. He couldn't move away and use his legs to recover when hurt or gassing because he was too short.
Yeah he could have gone to the body more in his later years but that really wasn't a problem in his prime.
I just think that his height limited his options and his explosive speed, power and chin cultivated lazy training habits and sloppy defense over time because he often just blew pretty decent fighters out that other guys struggled with and could still win early against 90% of guys even if he doesn't bother to be patient or move his head.

 

Foreman was stronger. Shots landed sounded like a thud. Tyson was more dynamic. His shots had more snap to them.

 

That is true, but I was surprised that a guy with such great skills to avoid punches could not have answers when he got tired to still avoid punches and win the fight down the stretch. That he really had only one way to fight and if that did not work, he could fall apart. I remember Mike saying, he didn't like how Starling fought because he likes to see punches avoided by inches, not blocked.

 

Tyson could have learned how to fight on the inside/maneuver in the clinch, etc because up close he couldnt fight worth a damn. Tired of hearing the height excuse because frazier was the same size and was possibly the greatest hw swarmer. He feasted on outboxers/stick and move guys whole tyson basically got his head jabbed off until he got stopped or finally managed to land a bomb and win.

Tyson was surprisingly 1 dimensional if u survived the first couple rounds.

Rocky was a better brawler, had better stamina, knew how to use his small size to his advantage to dip and generate power and leverage with his stocky legs. He also carried his power late and could volume punch very effectively. Oh, and he retired undefeated.

I dont understand why tyson always gets a pass when rocky and frazier were leagues ahead of him in certain areas despite being the same height and having less natural talent and athleticism.