Would Foreman and Liston really blast out Tyson in two rounds

WHAT THE HELL? Holy ****!:yikes Have magazines gotten THAT bad since I stopped reading them? I know the entertainment industry sucks, television, newspapers (and news in general), but if magazines have gotten that bad since I refused to pay more than a dollar for them, then I should retreat further into my cave with classic literature and wait for the world to end.

Christ, JT! You have around 16,500 posts on ESB alone. (As JohnThomas anyway. Maybe you use other names as well.) Chris has over 7,000 here on ESB. In my various guises, I haven't even reached 2,000 total posts. The day I do not allow emotions to influence the content of my drivel, I might actually start to produce a semblance of readable commentary, but to suggest that what I've come up with could be written for magazines (at least the magazines of my childhood) is akin to suggesting that Tyson could read books on tape for a new career, or be a radio announcer. I haven't anywhere near the experience to have something like that suggested for my posts. (Why the hell do you think I vote for you and Chris, instead of one of my pseudonyms, whenever somebody puts one or more of them up on one of these polls listing a bunch of our names?)

 

Liston's main "slow" jab was a power jab, off the forward step. It's slower but is like getting by a pole. A battering ram, not a rapier.

Odd, twenty years ago, Liston would not have been mentioned by anyone.
No one would have given him a single chance vs a Prime Forman, much less a Prime Tyson.
But since DVD's have come out fights can be seen and done in slow motion. If you took your eyes off the TV in his time, you missed it.

I had expected Tucker to beat Tyson.....
The main thing is Forman nor Liston would not have feared Tyson, respected perhaps but feared, no.
I favore Liston over Tyson more than Forman.

 

Jeez, how many names you got??? hahahaha

I post in one, tho a second could be fun :smoke

I was close to serious, your posts on many a topic are simply required reading. I've seen many heavily compliment them, and it's not hard to see why.

 

Liston has always been highly rated, tho yes many say in this forum now have plenty of him to actually see in action. Big Book of Boxing picked Liston ever Foreman in an expanded article in about 1982'ish.

 

1. I never said Tyson would repeat what Ali did, nor did I come close to suggesting it.

2. I never said Tyson would win an "endurance contest".

3. Liston did it, I think Tyson would, for portions at least. Considering he put EVERYONE he fought in his prime on the backfoot suggests its a possibility.

4. My arguments? All you did in your last post was invent points I never even came close to suggesting like "Tyson would fight Foreman the same way Ali did in Zaire!", and then you threw lame insults around like a petty adolescent. You remind me of a five year old being told Santa Claus doesn't exist, and then covering his ears screaming and banging his feet on the ground. Grow up!

 

You certainly did. You said that "Foreman was worn down by Ali. Tyson would wear him down also."

How else are we to interpret that "Tyson would knock Foreman out late?"

You're a new boxing fan, aren't you? Liston did it in sparring, according to Foreman -who claimed that no one could move him back except for Liston. Liston was about the strongest HW, with Foreman second in my opinion. That is merely subjective, but I am comfortable with it.

Anyway, your fantasy of Tyson moving Foreman backwards is silly. The dearth of supporters out here agreeing with you should tell you something.

You're alone in the world, or close to it.

--But then, you strike me as the kind of young man who thinks that college has merely complemented his natural brilliance -and so is quite comfortable shaking his fist in defiance of the whole world. This may shock and amaze you but the world can be counted on to reduce a proud, wrong, and stubborn upstart like you into a fetal position. Now as you go through life and get your just deserts, don't say you weren't warned.

It's clear to me that you have been running from the clear lines of your own reasoning and twisting your arguments to fight off criticism. I appreciate good argument, whether or not it is agreeable to how I see it, but yours have ...fizzled. And you got called on it.

I am deeply, deeply hurt that you would call my insults "lame". If nothing else, my insults have been well-crafted and specifically applicable to flaws in your argument, your presentation, and in your unfortunate personality.


You fly away now little starling. Fly fly fly fly fly

 

That story has been around on the underground mob circuit since it was supposed to have happened. It strikes me as more than probably given Liston's personality, sensitivity, brutishness, fearlessness, and where he was known to hang out. Hell, if Crusher was there, Joe Louis (who was friends with Liston during the 60s) may have been too, and there would have been two KOs!

Hahaha. Poor Mitch, slapped like a b---.

Well, I think that Tyson was Tyson and the years with Cus, he still was... Cus alternatively won his loyalty and protected him even when he did get into trouble. But the boxing lessons were far more in depth than the life lessons that the boy needed.

By childish, I mean the way Tyson was when he got older, all that trashtalking and self-pitying. He strikes me as painfully self-conscious and not very sure of who he was, never mind how a man is supposed to act. There's an old saying "the loudest one in the room is usually the weakest."

--this is not to say that Tyson was a coward, no, no... he was just one of those guys that talked and fought because he had something to prove, whereas a guy like Liston was just something else altogether.

Liston was a thug and he was illiterate, but even still, he had alot more dignity than Tyson ever did. Perhaps it was just the more polite era that Liston lived in.

I have a barber that I go to in Plymouth, MA. He's as old as dirt but he told me that Liston came in there one day in the early to mid 60s. Now, I know my Liston history. Liston was training for the Ali rematch which ended up in Portland, Maine (just north of Massachusetts) and was training at White Cliffs off of Rt. 3A. I used to run the same hills he did just for the nostalgia until this giant dog came out of nowhere and chased that nostalgia right outa me. Anyway, Manny the Barber said that Liston was polite as can be and said very little. Manny asked him for a picture and Liston was very gracious. Afterwards, Manny says to him "now you go knock him out!" And Liston said "oh I will."

That may have been before the fight got postponed when Liston was actually training hard... I'll research that in the old newspaper archives.

 

A good read. Thanks.

Did Gorgeous George say "I'll moida the bum?" If so, he must of got it from none other than Tony Galento. Hmmm... it was Moe Howard's line too. I wonder who said it foist... my money's on Galento.

Tyson was indeed more dignified at first... but I see that as the influence of the old man. As early as Biggs he was talking about hearing him yelp like a woman. The pushing the cartilege in the nose into the brain was pretty early too.

Tyson's propped-up personality seemed to decompose at about the same rate as Cus's body in the grave.

 

No I did not. This is what I said, word by word.

"I'm not saying Tyson will "spring to life" in the tenth round after sustaining a massive beating, I'm saying he will wear Foreman down in the early rounds, with bodywork and by surviving his tirade of punches"

Knocking out an opponent late doesn't mean you "survive an endurance contest", not in the modern fight game anyway. Mayweather didn't beat Hatton because he was better conditioned. I'm sure they were both set to go the distance, but Mayweather landed better harder punchers against an inferior opponent and knocked him out late. That's how boxing works.

I then pointed out that Foreman punched himself out against Ali, so it was possible. I never suggested in any way shape or form Tyson would rope-a-dope or use the same strategies as Ali.

Frankly, I can't believe I'm bothering to argue something with someone who invents counter-arguments and argues against them because he can't deal with the original ones put forth.

How patronizing, a "new boxing fan", not surprising though since your posts have been full of condescending close-mindedness. I have been a boxing fan for years, I have been a poster on eastside for years, I have debated in all topics ranging from Bob Fitzsimmons to Floyd Mayweather, I have read countless books, watched countless fights, and fight myself!

And yes I'm aware Liston did it in sparring, thanks for enlightening me with your infinite wisdom, can I ask you another question, what year did Rocky Balboa win the World title when he knocked out Appollo Creed?

You want a bet? I will happily start a thread asking the posters of this board if they believe Tyson is capable of moving Foreman back for portions of their fight. I think you'll find you're alone, or close to it. Saying everyone agrees with you doesn't make it so.

So I'm trying to argue that Tyson could defeat Foreman (something countless others on this forum have also suggested) and you come forward, Sigmund Freud-like, with some scathing psychological diatribe/analysis with NO basis whatsoever! Then you give me tips on how to live my life and how life is going to crush me, when you don't know me, or anything about me, or my life. You really need to get off your intellectual highhorse, because you just pinned the donkeys tail on your mothers left buttcheek.

And aren't you the same poster that claimed you could keep Barbados Jo Walcott on the end of your jab all night long?? If this is the case you have as much right to call me delusional as Adolf Hitler has the right to call someone racist or powercrazy.

Your insults were not only lame, they were uncalled for and unneccessary, particularly for a supposed cross between Sigmund Freud and Terry McGovern in a BOXING DEBATE. If you recall the origins of this discussion, I wrote a single sentence saying I'd favour Liston against Tyson, and Tyson against Foreman although I wasn't confident of the outcome.

You single handedly picked out my post, even though many favoured Tyson against both, not just Foreman. I explained my point of view, and then in frustration you decided to hurl childish insults my way, condescend me as if you were the Queen of England, and worst of all, you actually INVENTED arguments which I never made, such as Tyson would fight Foreman the same way Ali did, even though it's blatantly obvious to everyone on this board that I neither explicitly nor implicitly suggested it.

Your adolescent antics have caused me to lose a great deal of respect for you as a poster, as you usually seemed wellspoken and polite at least, but you have just gone off the deep end here. I'm here to discuss boxing, not to exchange insults like I'm in Kingergarten and act like the father of psychoanalysis.

Grow the **** up!

 

“I'll moider da bum.”
Galento, when asked what he thought of William Shakespeare. (FamousQuotes.com)

Ali, in "The Soul of a Butterfly" (p. 71):

"I never took the verbal sparring seriously. It was all showmanship, which I learned from one of the best, champion wrestler Gorgeous George. Not that I was ever really modest or humble, but when I was new to boxing, I did a radio program and Gorgeous George was on before me. That's when I learned how self-promotion and colorful controversy could draw in the crowds.

When the radio host asked me about an upcoming fight, my response was pretty tame compared to the one George gave about a wrestling match he was going to have in the same arena. George said, "I'll kill him; I'll tear his arm off. If this bum beats me, I'll crawl across the ring and cut off my hair, but it's not gonna happen because I'm the greatest wrestler in the world!"

That really made an impression on me because I couldn't wait to see that match. I didn't care if he won or lost. I just wanted to be there to see what happened.

Me, and a thousand other people."

 

I knew about Gorgeous George's influence on Ali, but never got such details. Thanks alot for that!

 

I think that you are distorting my counter-arguments to your arguments and the clear implications thereof --but ultimately I don't care. If you can't take criticism, then don't post here.

I don't see Tyson and Foreman engaging in anything more than mutual aggression for as long as it lasts. If it goes late it's going to settle down into a contest of durability and resiliency. I trust that Foreman wins that. You don't. I confronted you on what I saw as flaws in your line of reasoning. You got personally offended. That's your problem.

Now, let's look at your analogy. Mayweather and Hatton are nothing like Tyson and Foreman no matter how you cut it. Mayweather is content to rely on finesse and defense and is not known as a banger. Hatton, while aggressive, has not carried much power in the WW division. It's a BAD ANALOGY. Now, are you going to accuse me of making things up and lying?

Apollo has one "p".

Are you trying to be tricky or are you engaging in precisely what you accuse me of -namely distortion of my argument?

Here's what you wrote:

I responded by saying "and now we have Sizzle arguing that it will be Tyson moving Foreman backwards!"

...and suddenly your position has suddenly morphed into "Tyson is capable of moving Foreman back for portions of their fight." (emphasis mine).

--And that is what you have been doing for the length of this debate.

This reads like a nervous breakdown in print.

Let's remain composed and see what happened that so offended Sizzle.

I confronted your line of reasoning because that is a large part of what we do on a forum and in a debate. I wasn't the least bit offended by the idea that Tyson could beat Foreman and did not discount it, although I only give him a puncher's chance. What I got on you about was how Tyson would win. It didn't strike me as sensible and I told you why.

You got personally offended and began the personal stuff with this line:

I don't take kindly to having my arguments called "crap", and so you got as good as you gave. And then you got worse from there with your next little tantrum, to wit:

And I responded with "no need to get upset."

Then we went back and forth with argumentation and nothing really personal, until you felt the need to be sarcastic:

So you got countered again with this: "You're either sophomoric or surrounded by pink elephants. Either way, you should change your name to Fizzle, because that's what your arguments did."

Then you start in with the "petty adolescent" and "five year old/santa claus" nonsense, as it if it wasn't you that got stupid in the first place. Additionally, you're questioning anyone's maturity when you write things like "you pinned the donkey's tail on your mother's left buttcheek" -is confusing to say the least. I don't think I even swore in our exchanges.

I can at times come off a little stronger than I intend to, but gladly apologize or back off if someone calls me on it or I realize it. Here, I'd have been perfectly content to stay within the merits of the argument, but because you got insulting, then swore, then got sarcastic, you got countered and evidently couldn't take it. I box too, by the way and thoroughly enjoy countering most of all... and I rarely "hit first" out here, but if hit or if I feel as though someone's getting stupid, I make them pay. Yes, it's a character flaw, but it is at once easy to justify and fun.

Next time, just watch your manners and things will be fine.

 

Look at Foreman's first career.
Look as Tyson's first career.

What exactly in those fights lead you to believe that Foreman is more durable and more resiliant?

Big Punchers faced.

Tyson faced Smith, Bruno and Ruddock twice. And his record against those big punchers was 4-0 with 2KO's and he never once hit the deck.

Foreman only faced Lyle and was dropped twice. Once in the first round.

Frazier is more strong puncher but if you would like to include him then fine; its 3-0 2KO's.

Durability/Resiliance

Judging by thier first career's there is nothing to indicate that Foreman had the better Chin. Tyson took far more punishment against Buster Douglas than Foreman did against Ali. I'd give Buster the edge in punching power over Ali. Foreman was coherent when he got up, but he was also tired and mentally beaten. He was complacent. Tyson was incoherent but instinctively tried to put his mouthpiece on to resume battle.

Endurance

Tyson's record in his first career in fights which lasted 10 rounds or more is 6-1 1KO.

Foreman's record is 3-1 1KO.

Just to recap:

My argument is that Tyson fought more punchers than Foreman and hit the deck less frequently.

In Tyson's first career Mike was on the canvas once against Douglas and that was after being on the wrong end of a prolonged beating. After hitting the canvas he tries to collect his mouthpiece to continue fighting like all warrior's do.

Foreman in contrast, was down against Ali in a KO loss where he seemingly accepted defeat, He was down twice against Lyle (the biggest puncher he faced- at least in his first career) and once against Young for a grand total of 4 times. At no point in his first career did he absorb a beating similar to what Tyson absorbed in the Douglas fight.

Tyson's endurance was tested better as he ventured past 10 rounds more frequently than Foreman did.

Overall I guess it becomes difficult to argue that Foreman was more durable and more resiliant than Tyson when you scrutinize their first career records.

 

That's some pretty good work there.

Do me a favor -read my earlier posts on this thread. I don't want to bore everyone with regurgitation. If you would still like to exchange ideas or duel or what have you, then feel free to punch holes in my argument.

 

Tyson's inability to stop fighters late is attributed to two things:

1. He gets rid of most of his opponents early.

2. He gets complacent as the fight wears on; His power is still there but most guys who he's been in the ring with that have lasted into the late rounds have held or have done very little to make a fight of it. At best you can fault Tyson for being complacent because he usually accepted a wide decision win instead of pushing harder for the KO. To Mike's defense, his opponents seldom pushed the envelope and rarely forced him to fight harder during the late stages of the fight because by that point his early round work has usually deterred most of his opponents from pushing the envelope.

Foreman stopping Michael Moorer was an incredible feat in a historic sense. The Foreman that I presumed we were using was 1st career Foreman. In any case, lets just for good measure compare the 10th round of Tyson-Ribalta and the 10th round of Foreman-Moorer and then decide who the more formidable fighter was.

Frazier stopped them late because quite frankly he wasnt capable of stopping them as early as Tyson, or Foreman. He was an attrition puncher, he wore you down and stopped you later.

Disagree.

Pre-Zaire Foreman was brimming with confidence because he was the undefeated HW Champion. Foreman was eventually stopped with punches, Muhammad Ali's punches. I should add that Foreman didnt really take a beating in that fight. Ali did land but not enough to suggest that Foreman was taking a beating that nite.

Tyson never got up to win because it took a hell of a lot more to get him down than it did to get Foreman down. Foreman in his first career was dropped more frequently than Tyson. And was also stopped, like Tyson. The difference being that everytime Foreman was dropped he was in a much better state than Tyson was when he was dropped. When Mike was fumbling on the floor, incoherent, trying to instinctively put back his mouthpiece he didnt look like a fighter trying to quit. Look at Tyson's body language after he hits the canvas for the first time in his career and look at Foreman's. Foreman seemed mentally beaten, the same cannot be said about Mike.

Tyson's record in fights past 10 rounds is 6-1 1KO (pre-prison)
Foreman's record in fights past 10 rounds is 3-1 1KO (first career)

When you look at the records it becomes immediately clear who has the late round experience.

Advantage: Tyson

Foreman unlike Tyson has been dropped early. In fact Lyle had him hurt badly in the first round of thier fight when he landed a big right hand sending him to the canvas. That has never happened to Mike Tyson. And when you look at thier first careers; Tyson fought more punchers.

Advantage: Tyson

Given your scenario's, I take the former. Big George Foreman simply does not have the endurance to out last Mike Tyson. His stamina was inferior. In addition, Tyson has never shown the same vunerability that early in a fight that Foreman has shown. Ruddock IMO is a bigger puncher than Ronnie Lyle. Ruddock caught Tyson clean several times in thier fights and not once did Tyson go down.

With regards to durability its established that Tyson has shown better durability than Foreman.

Funny I was thinking the same about George Foreman. Foreman was never really scientific in his approach, he simply imposed his size, strength and will on his opponents and he clubbed them to the canvas. Most of them faltered because they didnt have enough to keep George off. Lyle did but Foreman overcame. Trouble is Tyson also will have enough to keep Foreman off him. Given Mike's delivery system, ability to absorb punishment and the fact that the fight will most likely be fought at mid range it becomes more and more difficult to give Foreman anything more than a puncher's chance. They will both taste leather but I don't see Foreman landing more on Mike than the other way around. Tyson is more likely going to land more and because of that he's going to win via KO.