Who hit the hardest - Tyson or Foreman?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Jetset78, Dec 29, 2007.


  1. Heavyrighthand

    Heavyrighthand Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,149
    1,044
    Jan 29, 2005
    Dead on correct. Well said, too.

    I think Tyson's power was more effective and devastating, cause Tyson could deliver it so well, and that makes all the difference.
     
  2. crippet

    crippet Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,377
    20
    Dec 1, 2007
    Tucker was on an 14 fight unbeaten run when he faced Lewis and got knocked down for the first 2 times in his career.

    Out of Biggs losses no one beat him as fast as Lewis, that includes Riddick Bowe too!

    Lewis beat Golota before Tyson fought him, you don't hear anyone saying that Lewis [or Grant for that matter] ruined Goloto before Tyson got to him. If Golota had been able to survive 3 rounds taking Lewis's shots he would have had a lot worse than a broken cheekbone. But the fact is he couldnt manage even one round of that punishment.

    Are we supposed to believe that Tyson Ruined Botha even though it took Wlad 8 rounds to dispose of Botha after Lewis.

    Or are we to believe mMichael Moorer ruined Botha??

    You can't change facts, however the pro-Tyson club spin it. Whoever Tyson beat Lewis did faster and more convincing.
     
  3. StWerburghs

    StWerburghs Active Member Full Member

    1,033
    14
    Mar 11, 2006

    Yes. There is also footage of this on "when we were kings". He used to leave a hole the size of a half melon in the bag.
     
  4. Punisher33

    Punisher33 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    17,407
    8
    Oct 8, 2007
    I cant believe how heavy handed Foreman was, it seemed as if he didnt even have to step into his punch to create a knockout blow. I feel if it wasnt for his power and determination, theres no way he could of made such a successful comeback to the ring in 87 and win the title 7 years later.
     
  5. brooklyn1550

    brooklyn1550 Roberto Duran Full Member

    24,017
    47
    Mar 4, 2006
    Nobody in the history of boxing had hands as heavy as Big George
     
  6. 2ironmt

    2ironmt Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,903
    1
    Jul 20, 2004
    i don't care if tucker realed off 14 wins, there's a difference between 30 and 36 with anyone especially a guy like tucker with substance abuse issues. about biggs, you can't tell me 3 previous kos didn't have an effect on the guy. i didn't mention botha and i don't beleive tyson ruined him at all and if the previous poster said so i'd disagree with him. but the fact remains, tyson fought like crap for 6 or 7 rounds than decimated him in brutal fashion with one punch. what you say about golota is all speculation, because the fact is tyson did break his cheekbone and who's cheekbone did lewis ever break? i'm not saying lewis isn't a devastating puncher in his own right my point was always that i think any objective person would agree that tyson beat better versions of tucker and biggs. golota and botha i'd say were about the same at the times lewis and tyson fought them.
     
  7. crippet

    crippet Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,377
    20
    Dec 1, 2007
    Thats very convenient for you...

    So you are [spinning] saying that it was more impressive for Tyson to take 3 rounds against Golota than for Lewis to take one??

    Well that certainly speaks volumes.
     
  8. 2ironmt

    2ironmt Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,903
    1
    Jul 20, 2004
    that's what you came up with???? why not adress the age issue with tucker?? obviously 14 wins is a good thing (and one was vs oliver mccall very good but whom else), but what i said about tucker's age (and outside right issues) is valid. you're "splitting hairs" about golota. i though tyson did the damage in round 2 with golota quitting in the next round but i could be wrong. regardless 3 round is still early. are we gonna next argue about whether tyson's 5th round ko of bruno is more significant than lewis 7 round ko of bruno?
     
  9. Mankind

    Mankind Super Moderator banned

    1,417
    2
    Jul 19, 2004
    Foreman no doubt.
    Foreman had tremendous strength behind his punches, which carried over quite well into his second career.

    Tysons power, although great too, was partially dependant on punch velocity (maybe the fastest hands of all heavyweights).
    As he aged and the velocity slowed, the knockouts went away.
     
  10. Mankind

    Mankind Super Moderator banned

    1,417
    2
    Jul 19, 2004
    Earnie Shavers?:think
     
  11. nighthunter

    nighthunter Active Member Full Member

    728
    0
    Apr 3, 2007
  12. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,595
    16,207
    Jul 19, 2004
    Foreman hit harder, but Tyson had sharper punching technique.
     
  13. Mankind

    Mankind Super Moderator banned

    1,417
    2
    Jul 19, 2004
    Although Tyson was trained to be a KO machine those were tomato cans he was knocking out cept for the Berbicks, Tubbs, Spinks ect.

    Once the opponents got better the Kos lessened.

    Watch Tyson Vs Tillis and you see a dress reheasal of Tyson-Douglas.
    Tillis didnt have the tools to damage Tyson but you can see Tillis hit Tyson alot.

    Tyson was overrated.
     
  14. lefthook31

    lefthook31 Obsessed with Boxing banned

    20,862
    138
    Jul 6, 2007
    Mcbride is a total bum. That was an old Tyson, not the young well conditioned fast Tyson. Tyson would have knocked Mcbride out in the first round in his prime. Tyson beat plenty of big men by KO. Ribalta, Ruddock, Holmes, Berbick, Stewart, Bruno, all pretty big guys. Mcbride is fat piece of crap with no skills. He won by smothering not by fighting.
     
  15. Mankind

    Mankind Super Moderator banned

    1,417
    2
    Jul 19, 2004
    whats up hippy you stoned?

    Watching UFC tonight?