Why Prime Mike Tyson beats a 70s George Foreman

First of all Tyson should have been disqualified in the second Ruddock fight. He gets credit for beating a big strong puncher, but Mills Lane was scared to do more than deduct a point for all the low blows.

Second, no, Ruddock is not superior to Lyle in "everything". Lyle was a better boxer overall, had a better jab, and way better stamina and even his defense was better. Strength id say about even. Power Lyle might be a 7 or 8 with Ruddock being a 9 so he isnt "waaay" better there either. Ruddock also telegraphed his punches, winding them up, and he neglected his right hand (essentislly a one armed fighter). They were the same height. So in reality Ruddock only had a slight power and weight advantage but worse than Lyle in almost every other category.

Third, Tyson of 88 would obviously beat Lyle and is superior to him in most categories but that doesnt mean he effortlessly beats Lyle in 1 round 100% of the time. Lyle was bigger, taller, stronger, longer reach, pretty much the same dimensions as Foreman himself. He had better stamina than Tyson and a better jab. And i shouldnt have to explain this, but fighter A beating or losing to fighter B has nothing to do with how well fighter C would do against either of them.

Fourth, Foreman was coming off a loss, a 1 year layoff, and changed trainers. He lacked the unshakeable confidence pre zaire. That was probably his worst fight in his first career against a guy who had all the right tools, size, and strength plus a clash of styles to lead to a disaster. To use this as an example to somehow prove Tyson is better and ignore every other Foreman fight is dishonest. That would be like if I ONLY used the buster douglas fight to make a point about Mike Tyson as if it applied to every other instance in his prime. You have to be fair and look at the overall picture. If anything Foreman should be praised for being decked and getting off the floor to win after a long layoff, something Tyson NEVER did.

Fifth, Quarry was an excellent outside fighter and counter puncher who could fight on the inside as well as the outside. His style was closer to Jimmy Young although more aggressive and absolutely nothing like Tyson. Tyson could counter punch but his stance, height, technique, strategy, etc were all COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to Quarry. On top of that, Foreman never actually fought him so using the fact Foreman didnt want to as proof hed lose to Tyson or would avoid him is flawed logic at best.

Sixth, Lyle was not the only decent puncher Foreman faced. Nothing could be further from the truth:

Spoiler: List of punchers foreman faced

 

You obviously don't know stats because of course there's some probability that's far from zero in which Foreman could win. It likely ranges from 30-60%. It really depends if Foreman can hurt Tyson before Tyson hurts him l don't think it's more complicated than that. If Foreman catches him coming in and hurts him Tyson might either start backing up or go to plan B. Problem is there is no plan B. I read an article yesterday in which a reporter was interviewing Gil Clancy and he said he saw more than once that Teddy Atlas was practically begging Tyson to go out the next round after he was hurt and he basically described Tyson as a bully. That said l don't fully prescibe to that bully theory but neither do l think that he's unbeatable if he's fighting someone who is willing to actually fight him, and win or lose Foreman wouldn't be taking a step backwards.

As a general rule l find it a waste of time arguing about hypothetical fights with people who think only one outcome is possible so if l don't reply much after this post that's probably why. And l'm not sure of your age but l'm in my 50's and having been watching boxing since l was a child, and no way is this fight a sure pick for either fighter. There's a boxing historian named Monte Cox that has an excellent rebuttal to your analysis, might was to Google his name and read it.

 

It's not that simple. George has shown the ability to come back to win vs top competition in tough fights. Tyson has not. Tyson may hurt Foreman but that's a far cry from beating him. Foreman really hurts Tyson and the bout is over.

 

Then nikolay valuev must be the hardest puncher.
The second is marius wach.

& dont forget the third, Hugie Furi

 

I understand that it's become accepted as fact that Foreman would have destroyed Tyson if they had fought in the early 90's but I disagree strongly. Big George was incredibly easy to hit in his comeback - Holyfield, Moorer, Morrison, Alex Stewart and even Qawi were able to hit George almost at will, not a good omen for GF's chances against Tyson IMO.

 

A Tyson fighting off his back foot will be a very different Tyson. George would be manhandling Tyson from the opening bell.

 

The simple fact is that you can make a good case for both fighters here.

I'm personally not a big advocate of Foreman's skills, but one shouldn't get too hung up on the Ali fight. Ali was phenomenally tricky and had a knack for making fighters look bad. Just look at how he made Liston and Quarry look, two guys with actually solid allround skills.

Against Frazier, Foreman actually exhibited pretty nimble footwork in getting around Joe, and of course made great use of his size and strength.

Could he do something like that against such a skilled, fast and deadly puncher and counter puncher as Tyson? I think we do ourselves a disservice when trying to give a sure answer to that one. I just know I'd love to watch it.

 

Foreman wins, KO1 or KO2

 

Would Tyson lose to Jimmy young ? Even if he had 3 x the worst day when he fought Douglas? Just stop...lol


lets take it to reality.......


Foreman was too slow.that alone wins Tyson the fight.


Foreman was dropped by weaker LESS skilled guys.

Foreman feared Frazier until he saw what happened when Frazier was hit. ( showing he would surely bottle it mentally here)

Foreman defense was WIDE open.

Foreman struggled when guys fought back and if the fight went past ( IF ) 3 rnds then what?


Foreman would only be 3 pounds more than Prime tyson,foreman struggled with guys close to his weight. The ONE true HW puncher he fought was Lyle wasnt it?


Wouldnt Tyson have Cus Damato in the 70's if we were to actually compare the two in a right way( not that Tyson needs him ) ?? Even without Cus what could foreman actually have over Tyson...REALLY? Let me know?

Do the math. you have a guy ( Tyson) relying on counter punching /slipping punches vs a easy to hit slugger known /proven to get rocked by MUCh less talents...!

 

You better hope Tyson doesn't have Cus in his corner because they use to watch boxing matches together and they especially liked the Foreman Frazier fights and it was he who told Tyson that no swarmer could every beat George Foreman. Certainly if Tyson went into the fight with that mindsight he wouldn't win.

 

Tyson was no "swarmer," Tyson was a highly skilled aggressive boxer. A swarmer is a guy like Antuofermo who stays in front of the other guy, takes punches and usually throws a lot of arm type punches himself with little regard for defense. Swarmers can be a big problem for boxers who don't punch hard enough to get their respect. Nobody likes to be crowded for three minutes of every round.

Tyson had excellent defense, and he threw combinations of powerful punches. Tyson at his best had a unique combination of offense and defense along with his physical attributes. Joe Frazier was more than a "swarmer" too, but Frazier and Tyson had little in common other than their height.

 

All I know is Foreman isn't bouncing Tyson around the ring in round 1 like he did an out of shape Frazier, which is a theory lot of people seem to go with.