Prime Foreman vs Prime Tyson

[ClivePatrickLyons]

Foreman blast Tyson out of it in a war round 4 its all over

[PredatorHayds]

Foreman beats Tyson around the 6-8 round mark via knockout.

[BoxBuzz]

after the forklift deposits the reluctant tyson into the ring and the first round starts formeman takes charge and never lets up. tysonl lands a couple of his hardest punches and foreman just blinks tyson mentally folds and soon goes down to stay. george's power, strength, chin and attitude are too much tyson. this is essentially a poorly
written summation of what boxbuzzy wrote ,which shows how rusty i am from being away the forum so long as buzzy usually reinterprets my posts.

It is fairly documented that indeed Tyson had a wariness about any fight with Foreman. So going in, he would be the one intimidated rather than the intimidator.

[Kalan]

A man that won't be beat

The man who would not be beaten wasn't Foreman. Mayweather didn't get beaten. Foreman was beaten few times.

[Kalan]

It is fairly documented that indeed Tyson had a wariness about any fight with Foreman

There was no documentation to that effect... There WAS documentation that Foreman fought weak cherry picked challengers like Crawford Grimsley.. Axel Schulz.. and Lou Saverese -- and refused all suggestions to fight: Oliver McCall.. Ray Mercer.. David Tua.. Razor Ruddock.. Riddick Bowe.. Mike Tyson.. and Lennox Lewis -- There was a fight that was almost signed for George to fight Larry Holmes... George pulled out of that one

[Cutman Scabbers]

1973 Foreman knocks out 1988 Tyson in 4 rounds.

This, Foreman would brutalize Tyson who did want to fight an old version

Did NOT want to fight an old version -- right?

[dr_devious]

Yes it was a typo, thanks

[Kalan]

Foreman was Cherry-Picking all the way except when HE got a title shot, which an old Foreman got THREE (3) of those. Once he got the title he picked the worst title challengers he could get away with - and even worse than that.. Lewis said "He's fighting WHO??? Lou Savereasy???" ... And obviously everyone had heard about the notoriously dangerous Crawford Grimsley and Axel Schulz...

But white guys were the minority in Boxing in those days... I guess George had an Affirmative Action program going.

Remember Mike Tyson CRUSHED Alex Stewart in a couple minutes without breaking a sweat...it was a setup for Mike to get back into it.. A year later Stewart beat Foreman's head in and somehow lost the decision

[IKSRTFO]

Foreman was Cherry-Picking all the way except when HE got a title shot, which an old Foreman got THREE (3) of those. Once he got the title he picked the worst title challengers he could get away with - and even worse than that.. Lewis said "He's fighting WHO??? Lou Savereasy???" ... And obviously everyone had heard about the notoriously dangerous Crawford Grimsley and Axel Schulz...

But white guys were the minority in Boxing in those days... I guess George had an Affirmative Action program going.

Remember Mike Tyson CRUSHED Alex Stewart in a couple minutes without breaking a sweat...it was a setup for Mike to get back into it.. A year later Stewart beat Foreman's head in and somehow lost the decision

And Foreman took everything Holyfield had to offer and kept coming while Tyson was stopped on his feet the first time and quit the second.

Foreman was only stopped in 1 of his losses.

Tyson was stopped or quit in ALL of his losses.

[Kalan]

Yeah, well Holyfield let up on old George... Holy weighed only 208 and was basically still a Cruiserweight... When he fought Tyson he weighed 215 and 218, a full blown Heavyweight... He was as big and solid as Foreman was the night of the 1st Frazier fight, when George was at his best.

But Foreman and Tyson have 3 opponents in common... Tyson blew Stewart and Saverese out in 1 round each.. Foreman couldn't get anybody out.

[BoxBuzz]

It is fairly documented that indeed Tyson had a wariness about any fight with Foreman

There was no documentation to that effect... There WAS documentation that Foreman fought weak cherry picked challengers like Crawford Grimsley.. Axel Schulz.. and Lou Saverese -- and refused all suggestions to fight: Oliver McCall.. Ray Mercer.. David Tua.. Razor Ruddock.. Riddick Bowe.. Mike Tyson.. and Lennox Lewis -- There was a fight that was almost signed for George to fight Larry Holmes... George pulled out of that one

Well pro prize fighters like to make money, and manage risk, no argument on Foremans choices.

As to your statement about Mike's wariness of Foreman, you probably know that's baloney, but your chosen response fits your current talking points I guess.

[Kalan]

It is fairly documented that indeed Tyson had a wariness about any fight with Foreman

There was no documentation to that effect... There WAS documentation that Foreman fought weak cherry picked challengers like Crawford Grimsley.. Axel Schulz.. and Lou Saverese -- and refused all suggestions to fight: Oliver McCall.. Ray Mercer.. David Tua.. Razor Ruddock.. Riddick Bowe.. Mike Tyson.. and Lennox Lewis -- There was a fight that was almost signed for George to fight Larry Holmes... George pulled out of that one

Well pro prize fighters like to make money, and manage risk, no argument on Foremans choices.

As to your statement about Mike's wariness of Foreman, you probably know that's baloney, but your chosen response fits your current talking points I guess.

Your chosen response is disingenuous... Foreman was the guy you ADMIT was limiting risk by fighting cherries.. Tyson murdered slow assed Alex Stewart in the 1st round.. One year later Stewart beat the holy crap out of George Foreman and gave him a double head.. Somehow George won a doubtful decision.. George was old and slow, and not even getting people like Alex Stewart knocked out.. What possible “wariness” would Mike Tyson have of slow old GF.. George was made for him.. Mike would hit him 3 times before one lumbering Foreman swing missed him by a foot.

[jaclem3]

kalan...for..documentation , read my post, which i modestly submitted as opinion.

[Kalan]

Yes I read it... You forgot that a 208-pound Holyfield showed ZERO fear of Foreman and beat him up real good... You forgot that Alex Stewart showed REAL fear of Tyson in their 2-minute fight where he got knocked out incredibly easily and quickly...but NO fear of Foreman a year later when he went the distance and handed out a brutal beating to Foreman.

So Tyson can destroy Stewart and Foreman CAN'T... And Tyson is just as big a man as a slender Foreman... (Foreman was 217 for his peak fight with Joe Frazier and Tyson was 218 for his peak fight with Michael Spinks) ... Tyson had no trouble dealing with toughness and power.. He outsped big strong guys: Bonecrusher Smith, Razor Ruddock, and Frank Bruno... Tyson had trouble with great, big, tall, fast, skilled, smart, and very well conditioned and prepared big men like Buster Douglas and Lennox Lewis... But not big, slow guys like George who you can punch right in the face.

Ask Jimmy Young who knocked Foreman down... Do you think Young was any faster than Tyson??? ... or punched one third as hard???

[gilgamesh]

Prime Foreman always destroys Alex Stewart. Jimmy Young had pretty good defense, but more importantly the Foreman that fought Jimmy Young was mentally not the man he was when he was destroying Frazier and Norton. He had to go away for a long while to get his confidence back. The fights he had after the Ali loss show he just wasn't the same man, and was a lot more vulnerable for a time.

When people say Prime Foreman vs Prime Tyson...they're talking about the Foreman that ran through Frazier and Norton like a hot knife through Butter.

[gilgamesh]

Tyson was quicker, but had the same defensive flaws of Joe Frazier. I think Foreman would have had a much harder time hitting Tyson clean due to Tyson's significant speed, but he would've been able to connect with him pretty regularly.

[Kalan]

Foreman was big and slow... and open for jabs and straight rights to the face from crafty boxers like Young and Ali who used footwork.

Frazier and Norton were head-first swingers... The style worked against Young and Ali because Norton would slip a jab and drive his own jab.. or slip and duck a hook and swing with his own hook and right hand.. Inside they would generally grab Norton, or try to grab instead of punch.. Norton could work more inside because he was a little stronger... Frazier did the same thing with Ali. He would duck punches, throw hooks and short rights until had was grabbed. Frazier wasn't as strong as big Heavyweights and would wait for the referee to physically break the boxers. I hate to see referees putting up with clinching and physical breaking the fighters 5 to 15 times in a round. After breaking 3 or 4 clinches in a round issuing warnings... After that say "No holding.. Let go of him.. Let go.. Let go.. let go.. fight out of there... punch when your hands are free punch." If clinching persists take points.. Ali held Foreman 20 times in the first round, a record -- and really illegal wrestling and pushing down to go with the excessive holding.

Norton and Frazier's head first style was perfect for Foreman. He teed off on them, getting close, throwing from underneath, and from every angle.

[gilgamesh]

Foreman was big and slow... and open for jabs and straight rights to the face from crafty boxers like Young and Ali who used footwork.

Frazier and Norton were head-first swingers... The style worked against Young and Ali because Norton would slip a jab and drive his own jab.. or slip and duck a hook and swing with his own hook and right hand.. Inside they would generally grab Norton, or try to grab instead of punch.. Norton could work more inside because he was a little stronger... Frazier did the same thing with Ali. He would duck punches, throw hooks and short rights until had was grabbed. Frazier wasn't as strong as big Heavyweights and would wait for the referee to physically break the boxers. I hate to see referees putting up with clinching and physical breaking the fighters 5 to 15 times in a round. After breaking 3 or 4 clinches in a round issuing warnings... After that say "No holding.. Let go of him.. Let go.. Let go.. let go.. fight out of there... punch when your hands are free punch." If clinching persists take points.. Ali held Foreman 20 times in the first round, a record -- and really illegal wrestling and pushing down to go with the excessive holding.

Norton and Frazier's head first style was perfect for Foreman. He teed off on them, getting close, throwing from underneath, and from every angle.

Tyson had a head first style very similar to Frazier's. He was faster, and started quicker, but he was similar to Frazier in his approach. Frazier had better stamina, and was mentally tougher than Tyson but Tyson would've been more of a handful early in a fight than Frazier I would imagine.

[Kalan]

Frazier had lousy stamina... He was a fat shell. He sucked. He was nothing like Tyson. He had the cross armed defense and got hit a lot more. You could read his rhythm a lot better and rip him like Foreman did. But that's the next thing I expected out of you.

[BoxBuzz]

Frazier had lousy stamina... He was a fat shell. He sucked. He was nothing like Tyson. He had the cross armed defense and got hit a lot more. You could read his rhythm a lot better and rip him like Foreman did. But that's the next thing I expected out of you.

Kalan, seriously? I want to be sure I'm reading this correctly, and that I understand your thoughts here.

I will paraphrase, but you are saying "Joe Frazier was not a fighter who demonstrated good stamina" Is this your genuine opinion?
If it is, you are the first person who has ever shared that thought on this forum. I did a search, and as far as I can see, no one has ever put forth this opinion.

Is that your take? Joe Frazier=Not so good in the stamina dept?

[jaclem3]

kalan.....i have near perfect recall, so i have not forgotten the fights you refer to. i say "near" perfect because, well, as the saying goes, i have forgotten more than you'll ever know.

gee, buzz, it's great to be back...

[BoxBuzz]

kalan.....i have near perfect recall, so i have not forgotten the fights you refer to. i say "near" perfect because, well, as the saying goes, i have forgotten more than you'll ever know.

gee, buzz, it's great to be back...

Good to have you back!

In that same contribution where he's questioning the readerships memory (that would be you, I, and others) , I believe that Kalan also spoke about "fear". H seemed to completely miss a commonality that his own words displayed. Did you catch that? People that were "psyched" by others were appearing to be at a disadvantage somehow. As if psyche could play a role in a sport like boxing. It may have one of the most revealing paragraphs of one demonstrating a blind spot in public view, that I have read in some time. I found myself experiencing a feeling of disbelief to find those words all bunched up in the same sentence, with no apparent recognition by the author, as to what they might mean.

But it also could just be something that I had for Dinner I suppose.

[gilgamesh]

Frazier didn't have good stamina is an opinion only an idiot would have. He was a slow starter often, but he had a hell of an engine once he got going. Watch the 15th round of the FOTC and tell me Frazier had poor stamina.

Tyson would've already mentally folded by that point in the fight. Frazier was still blasting away with full force.

Frazier had his flaws as a fighter like anyone else, but his stamina damn sure wasn't one of 'em. It was one of his greatest strengths.

[BoxBuzz]

Honestly? An "Idiot" rates around 30-40(max) on the french IQ scale. Pretty sure that person would not be carrying around something as mentally sophisticated as "an opinion" in his/her matrix.
So an Idiot would not likely be inclined to be suckered into such a errant viewpoint. Neither would an imbecile in my opinion.

Now a Moron.....that's another thing. Quite possible in that case.

[keithmoonhangover]

Honestly? An "Idiot" rates around 30-40(max) on the french IQ scale. Pretty sure that person would not be carrying around something as mentally sophisticated as "an opinion" in his/her matrix.
So an Idiot would not likely be inclined to be suckered into such a errant viewpoint. Neither would an imbecile in my opinion.

Now a Moron.....that's another thing. Quite possible in that case.

In the UK. If you have an IQ of below 70, you are classed as having a Learning Disability.