Why Prime Mike Tyson beats a 70s George Foreman

Foreman was champion in part due to good timing, essentially the fact that Fraizer didn't have his rematch with Ali first. Thats not saying Foreman wasn't powerful but there was at least one better heavyweight in the world even while he was champion.

Yeah and Fraizer, Roman and Norton weren't comparable in skill, speed, power, defense or chin as a young Tyson.

I guarantee you that Ruddock at his peak would be more dangerous to a 70s Foreman than anyone Foreman beat to an 80s Tyson. In fact, Foreman/Ruddock could go every bit like Lyle/Foreman........except Ruddock was bigger, likely hit harder than Lyle and at least at his best was just as durable, maybe more so. And could go 12 rounds without gassing.

True, Foreman had the subtle details more down pat than Ruddock and those details count for a lot. They can separate a contender from a champion.

But the issue here is can Tyson take Foremans power. Emphatically yes. Out of all the big punchers Tyson fought none blew him out quickly.

And, for the sake of the discussion, I'll buy the premise that Foreman hit harder than Ruddock, Bruno or Lennox Lewis. The question is.....how much harder?

Saying that a 225 pound Foreman hit so much harder than the above mentioned that he can just blow out a guy who took their best shots is really far fetched. I mean, we can compare knockouts on film. And I'm sorry, but I dont see where Foreman is just plastering opponents cold any more than they were to the point that we can say that Foreman hit MUCH HARDER. Maybe a little harder.

But anyone who insists that it was much harder has to show me evidence. Yes the Norton KO was devastating but Norton was also KOd by one Jose Garcia so obviously one doesnt have to be superhuman to KO Norton who didnt exactly have Mercers chin.

And it does nothing to suggest that he quickly stops a peak Tyson with a few uppercuts.

 

If Tyson landed repeatedly he'd hurt Foreman and Foreman aint repeatedly beating Tyson to the punch. A young Tyson was like a super or mega Floyd Patterson and while in some ways Foreman might have improved on Liston, he wasnt exactly a mega Liston.

 

The issues here are the massive gap in speed and skill and the ability to take a punch from a hard puncher. An overweight Fraizer isnt comparable to the best Tyson. I dont know why thats so difficult a concept to grasp. Tysons style was actually closer to Pattersons. But would Liston stop him in 1 or would Johannson floor him several times?

You have to factor in skills and physical characteristics too.

Furthermore if uppercutting Tyson was so simple, why didnt the big punchers he faced just wing uppercuts his way?

And if youre going to say they didnt hit as hard or close to as hard as Foreman ill need to see film evidence. Because to me, the punchers Tyson faced have KOs just as brutal over similar sized competition that Foreman fought. Theres no reason to think Tyson gets blasted out early.

If anything, history shows us that its likely to be Foreman stopped early as he was the one on numerous occassions hurt, badly staggered and dropped early and against lesser punchers. Not Mike Tyson.

 

No like Foreman was to Lyle....except Tyson keeps him down.

LOL because a 70s Foreman was a mobile, slick moving super heavy that punched in accurate combinations, right?

But dont let me say Tyson beats Foreman because light hitting Jimmy Young did it. Then its all about styles and what not.

 

Thank you! Its like talking to a wall. I dont know why its so difficult to understand that an overweight, seen better days who even at his best was floored by Bonavena and Mike Bruce is not comparable to the best version of Tyson.

The thing is that if they admit Tyson could take Foreman shots then they are admitting Tyson wins. Because if Foreman fails to asap blow Tyson out, he has no other options. He's doomed. If necessary, Tyson at least could win a decision