Who would win? Foreman of 1-22-73 Or Tyson of 2-11-90?

[Evander]

... ,Jones Jr was damn near unbeatable in all weight classes ...

the only thing in your post that i find questionable.
just imagine jones versus ... tyson ... no, m'me, john
ruiz was the upper limit in terms of hws for rjj ... up
to cruiser i agree. above that ... ney ...

I understand what you are saying.
Perhaps I should take a moment to explain what I mean in reference to Roy Jones Jr and being almost unbeatable in any weight class.
Unbeatable just prior and post the John Ruiz fight.

Firstly I'm of the opinion that Jones could have beaten anyone from Cruiserweight all the way down at the time of the John Ruiz bout.

As for Heavyweights.

Lennox Lewis had two fights between June 2002 [Mike Tyson] and June 2003 [Vitali Klitschko].
Lennox clearly won the Tyson bout and struggled with Klitschko.

Evander Holyfield had two fights between December 2002 [Chris Byrd] and October 2003 [James Toney].
He lost both,one by stoppage.

Chris Byrd fought twice between December 2002 [Evander Holyfield] and September 2003 [Fres Oquendo].
Chris beat Evander quite handily but was given a run for his money against Fres as I remember it even though the scorecards didn't suggest so.


Others
David Tua and Hasim Rahman fought one another to a draw and Wladimir Klitschko was knocked out by Corrie Sanders both in the same month Roy Jones beat John Ruiz.

There were a number of boxers around at that time,some on the way up and some on the way down.


Weights

Look at the weights of the potential Roy Jones Heavyweight competition between 2002 - March of 2003 and slightly beyond.
This is a give or take in pounds on average between the above dates and not entirely accurate.

Lennox Lewis - 253
Evander Holyfield - 220
Chris Byrd - 212
Mike Tyson - 230
Vitali Klitschko - 247
David Tua - 248
Hasim Rahman - Tough Call,Weight Varied
James Toney - 190
Wladimir Klitschko - 247
Corrie Sanders - 230

All of the above boxers could have been considered as opponents for Roy Jones at Heavyweight be it for a belt or not.
The obvious question persists.
Why did Roy not fight one of the bigger challengers ?

For one thing Roy Jones was barely a decent size Light Heavyweight,you saw some of the monsters he was fighting at 175 most of whom made Jones look very small.
A Cruiserweight would have dwarfed Roy let alone a small Heavyweight.
It's boxing not suicide.
I believe Roy Jones had a higher skill level than almost all of the boxers listed above,but punch resistance is another thing.
When you can barely put your chin out against big Light Heavyweights,how you are going to get away with it against 230 pounders and up is beyond even me.
One shot will put you in intensive care no matter how many slick rounds you boxed previously.
I think Jones went as far as he could possibly go without seriously endangering his life,I believe Roy could have challenged the bigger weights and done very well.
Still the power was too great between himself and the opponents,a 175 guy taking shots from natural 230's is a 55 pound weight advantage.

Those are among the reasons I said " Jones Jr was damn NEAR unbeatable in all weight classes".

[man]

BroughtonRulesRefuge
i have a lot of sympathy for opinions against the
main stream, but please, you must give ali some
credit for koing the guy that was supposed to be
invincible and who knocked out ali's nightmare
joe frazier as if he was a middleweight. please.

regarding the score cards. i saw the so called
documentary "when we were kings" before i saw
the full fight for the first time and when i then
watched the fight in full it was a very different
picture. ali was definitely not a punching bag in
that fight. in fact he had foreman one or two times
in big trouble before the ko ... and, yes, george
had got him with some shots but i do not
remember ali to be anywhere near to be out of
it - besides the astonishing fact that he leaned
intentionally against the ropes. how ali's middle
section could handle foreman's aggression still
amazes me to this day.

my point is: watch the fight in full and you do not
need to look at any scorecards to know that this
was at least an even fight - not typically what you
expect from a punching bag to achieve against the
undefeated heavyweight champ ... unless you have
a really remarkable supplier of punching bags ...

[man]

... ,Jones Jr was damn near unbeatable in all weight classes ...

the only thing in your post that i find questionable.
just imagine jones versus ... tyson ... no, m'me, john
ruiz was the upper limit in terms of hws for rjj ... up
to cruiser i agree. above that ... ney ...

I understand what you are saying.
Perhaps I should take a moment to explain ...
Those are among the reasons I said " Jones Jr was damn NEAR unbeatable in all weight classes".

i completely agree that rjj was in his own league,
including the hws if that is your point. and i love
the way you make your argument ...

just one thing if i may. roy always ran a lot of risk
in a way by relying more on his reflexes to see the
shots instead of blocking them. but he was so good
in that, that it seemed impossible to catch him. add
the intimidation by his strength and his record to this
display of confidence and you have a combination that
takes out 95% of all opponents at any time. now my
point is that his losses might be less a question of him
fading, but may simply reflect that once in a while the
best defense based on reflexes alone runs into a shot.
to jones it just - maybe out of luck - happened very
late in his career.

and do not get me wrong. i am a fan of his. an all time
great and wonderful to watch. unorthodox exciting style.
i personally do not like show boating especially if it is
done against obviously weaker opponents. it ridicules
them and they are in their risking their health as well ...
nevertheless jones was the man who had a style full of
surprise and one could see that he enjoyed his game
very much.

the only thing i really dislike is when he tries to imitate
human language ... this is not his thing. singing yes.
talking no.

[observer1]

Ali plain schooled Foreman. He was on the floor like a schoolboy bully.

'nuff said.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

my point is: watch the fight in full and you do not
need to look at any scorecards to know that this
was at least an even fight - not typically what you
expect from a punching bag to achieve against the
undefeated heavyweight champ ...

- OK, now you're starting to come 'round. Since the fight's conclusion I've had to deal with all these years of Ali nutcases big up how he always had George's number, barely had to show up in the ring for a little dance, some ropa dope whilst winking to the crowd, a few taps, and then ascend in a golden cloud back to Mount Olympus to await his next call to greatness.

However, what part of "He out-toughed George in a fight of attrition, big big difference" is not ample credit to Ali's victory? Need I start the 100 millionth temple to Ali before proper credit is due?

You don't know how many times I've watched the fight in full, and that's your best recommendation? Unlike you, I was not polluted by the When We Were Kings doc before viewing the fight. The mainstream press generally dropped the ball describing the fight, perhaps due to the lateness of the dispatches and the need for major editing to squeeze it in the morning run of the presses. Already indicated my displeasure with the scoring, nor am I convinced the scores listed in boxrec are correct since I've seen them change.

My first impressions remain to this day. George starts off looking incredibly clumsy, even worse than a clubfighter, and Ali starts off with some flurries and then disappears in a shell for most of the fight, poking his noggin out for some more bursts and then disappearing again. Not a flattering fight for either, but strangely compelling since I already knew the ending and the fight not going to the previously reported script.

Add in that this was King's first fiasco that could best be described as a disaster avoided promotion that turned into his lucrative lifelong modis operandi, why I ask for no forgiveness for my failure to suspend my disbelief. A prompt rematch in the states would've done much to set the record straight, but the richest fight in it's day unbelievably would never come off.

Now, that alone permanently set off my red flags to waving given that Ali admits to a 10 million 50/50 offer for the rematch in Indonesia just weeks later in his Playboy interview.

[Costa Rico]

I heard something about Jones-Buster Douglas at one point

Anyway, I believe Jones would beat the Foreman of the 90's, because of his lack of speed

He wouldn't have beaten Tyson, or Foreman in their primes

He would also lose to Lewis, the Klitschko's, Rachman, and maybe Tua

For the first 4 (Lewis, Klitschko's, Rachman) they are simply too big and strong

Tua, he could maybe outbox

But I personally think Jones was out of his depth against the big men, and Ruiz, although he's a very good fighter, is a small (height wise) heavyweight, and was tailor made for Jones

[BoxBuzz]

Ali plain schooled Foreman. He was on the floor like a schoolboy bully.

'nuff said.

Clearly stated and factually supported by the emprical evidence.

[man]

- OK, now you're starting to come 'round. Since the fight's conclusion I've had to deal with all these years of Ali nutcases big up how he always had George's number, barely had to show up in the ring for a little dance, some ropa dope whilst winking to the crowd, a few taps, and then ascend in a golden cloud back to Mount Olympus to await his next call to greatness.

However, what part of "He out-toughed George in a fight of attrition, big big difference" is not ample credit to Ali's victory? Need I start the 100 millionth temple to Ali before proper credit is due?...

calm down a little. you're clearly shooting over the
top in whatever crusade your marching in ... and for
your question: the difference is that i call the successful
plan of winning "a fight of attrition" to outsmart
and not to out-tough. in that ring there was only
one guy out of breath ... and before we have an argument
about ali's breath: ali frazier III that was an attrition battle,
with both near to collapsing ... ali foreman was not.

[yiddo14]

Boring, long winded, draw

Seriously though, a Prime Tyson, even on his baddest day is not looking any version of Foreman in the eye.
For that reason alone I make Foreman warm favourite in a prime for prime match up.
A large percentage of Boxing in mental and once Tyson knows he isn't the baddest or toughest man in the ring come fight night, he loses.

Is there a more potentially destructive fight in history than a prime Tyson v prime Foreman?

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

calm down a little. you're clearly shooting over the
top in whatever crusade your marching in ... and for
your question: the difference is that i call the successful
plan of winning "a fight of attrition" to outsmart
and not to out-tough. in that ring there was only
one guy out of breath ... and before we have an argument
about ali's breath: ali frazier III that was an attrition battle,
with both near to collapsing ... ali foreman was not.

- They were both battles of attrition with Ali visibly and in personal testimony almost falling out of the battle.

Both featured fighters stronger than Ali with more prolific work rates that he could never keep off him for any extended period of time. Tough, tough, underrated tough, but ring intelligence had nothing to do with it any more than goodness had to do with Mae West.

Ali out-toughed them and outfought them down the stretch when it counted in the Foreman fight and the last Frazier fight. As it turns out, Ali getting beat up and making the distance against Frazier helped down the road against Foreman. Without the Frazier fight as experience, Ali would've folded by the 4th against Foreman. Same deal with Leonard and Duran. Without Duran to push him beyond his best, he never would've had the experience to overcome Hearns.

[man]

foreman final round
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10ZIxV9KWgY

frazier III final round(s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJucwJRpb68

shall everybody interpret this in his own way.
to me two (very) different stories ...

[Syntax Error]

Boring, long winded, draw

Seriously though, a Prime Tyson, even on his baddest day is not looking any version of Foreman in the eye.
For that reason alone I make Foreman warm favourite in a prime for prime match up.
A large percentage of Boxing in mental and once Tyson knows he isn't the baddest or toughest man in the ring come fight night, he loses.

Is there a more potentially destructive fight in history than a prime Tyson v prime Foreman?

Dempsey -v- Marciano.