Peak Foreman Vs Peak Tyson??

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 25 Aug 2006, 05:32

DaveV17 wrote:I don't consider Foreman a great fighter . He was big and strong for the 1970s (6-3, 217-26) and he knocked out an overweight, and past his best, Joe Frazier and Ken Norton who could not fight in retreat. Against Ali, Foreman had his legs buckled in the second round. Ali was not a big hitter. Ali also dominated Foreman in the clinches. Jimmy Young beat Foreman convincingly, Ron Lyle nearly knocked him out, the Foreman vs. Five men debacle also exposed Foreman's lack of skills. I see nothing about Foreman in the 70s that would make him an all time great.

The 1970s Foreman had little skill, little endurance, and could be hurt. Tyson would be hitting him harder and faster than anything he had ever seen. After watching Foreman on video in the 70s recently, I can not see him troubling the prime Tyson.

IMO, the older Foreman was better than the young one. He could pace himself, he took a punch better and he had some defense. By the way, he was 42 when he fought Holyfield, not 46. Holyfield beat him easily, but Foreman did last the distance.

The post prison Tyson was only in boxing for the money, he didn't care about boxing and it showed. All fights after the M. Spinks figth were post prime for Tyson. He was still formidible in the Williams, Bruno, Douglas, and Ruddock fights, but he was not the same as he was before the split with Rooney.

i don't really agree with that

but ifyou could combined the young foreman with the older one's skills, that would be something to see

however, i can't see the 70s foreman needing help from the judges to beat Alex Stewart (great fight, btw) & Axel Schultz!

sockdolager · Post by **sockdolager** » 25 Aug 2006, 06:09

ringsider wrote:Tyson was made to order for Big George, just like Joe Frazier and Michael Moore were made for Foreman. They have to come to him....Foreman by KO. It is a no brainer.

Moore was winning that fight w/ Foreman easily and if he didnt try to trade with him he would have walked away w/ the win. Moore was not made for Foreman, he was just to cocky and got caught.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 25 Aug 2006, 07:10

viciousmaussa wrote:however, i can't see the 70s foreman needing help from the judges to beat Alex Stewart (great fight, btw) & Axel Schultz!

Great point, and I won't even mention Shannon Briggs.

kovit · Post by **kovit** » 25 Aug 2006, 08:23

It's Michael Moorer not Moore.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 25 Aug 2006, 09:00

Foreman by savage KO in the first 3 rounds

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 25 Aug 2006, 09:03

This topic has been brought up before, but I guess it’s still fun.

I think peak Foreman would have bounced Tyson around the ring the same way that he did Frazier. Except that Tyson probably wouldn’t get up 6 times like Frazier!

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 25 Aug 2006, 09:19

RScarf1 wrote:Peak Foreman vs. Peak Tyson: Foreman wins
Old Foreman vs. Lazy Tyson: Foreman wins
Old Foreman vs. Peak Tyson: Tyson wins

Why did Tyson never choose to fight Foreman in the '90s? The opportunity was there. Some people say that Donovan "Razor" Ruddock was not that good, but Ruddock was the last decent opponent that Tyson has defeated. Ruddock and Foreman are both about the same height at 6'3". If Ruddock was able to go the distance with Tyson in 1991, what would a prime Foreman have been able to do against Tyson in '91?

Ruddock was not a good fighter. He was hugely overrated on the back of some spectacular KO's.

He had an egg custard chin, poor stamina & was one dimensional (see the 2 Tyson fights for details).

If Ruddock had a bit more boxing nouse, he could have beaten the equally overrated 1991 Tyson.

I really believe that Foreman could have toughed it out against the 1991 Tyson.

Tyson would have got tired hitting Foreman's massive crossed arms & collapsed late in the fight.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 25 Aug 2006, 09:44

On one hand I can imagine Tyson jumping on George and his pin point punches finishing the fight relatively early. On the other hand Tyson was easily discouraged once tagged hard. If Foreman lands a decent shot and Tyson backs off (as was his way) then George could steamroller him.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 25 Aug 2006, 10:13

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 25 Aug 2006, 10:27

DaveV17 wrote:When was Tyson discouraged while he was at his best? When he was with Rooney he never showed any quit. Later (post prison), he was only in boxing for the money and just didn't care.

The problem with this thread is that a lot of people are combining the peak Tyson with older, post prison Tyson. Post prison, Tyson was shot. Many are also combining the best of Foreman from his youth and from his comeback. He never had the best of both.

The prime Tyson, (Berbeck to M.Spinks) would demolish the 1973-75 Foreman. If Foreman's legs buckled from an Ali shot in round two, he won't last long under Tyson's quick shots. Tyson wins quick over Foreman.

Someone wrote that Frazier looked like Tyson? They might be about the same height and weight, but Tyson was muscular and strong and conditioned at around 220 pounds, Frazier was sloopy fat at 214. Look at Frazier from the Foreman fight, his extra weight is all hanging over his waist band. Frazier was better at 205. Tyson is a strong, quick athlete, he weighed as much as Foreman, carried it better on a compact frame. Frazier and Tyson are nothing alike. Two completely different fighters.

Tony Tucker discouraged Tyson. He landed that shot early on and Tyson decided not to go in quite so gung ho. If Foreman did that and had Mike thinking twice before coming in to land his own shots (as he did with Tucker) then Foreman is already halfway to winning.

Like I say, either of the two outcomes is imaginable.

The problem is not that people combine the so-called two Tyson's. The flaws were always there (they were mental not physical). The peak Tyson could be beaten.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 25 Aug 2006, 10:57

cultus · Post by **cultus** » 25 Aug 2006, 20:21

Fought and beat an entire group of fighters better than any of Tyson's wins.

I like Tyson...but his resume has NONE of those entries on it...and nothing that even comes close.

deosnt even come close?.. all that golden age of HW-s has gotten totally out of hand..

and I never said Frazier can't fight or doesnt have a heart.. I said Tyson was nothing like Frazier.... and that he was better than Frazier

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 26 Aug 2006, 07:49

DaveV17 wrote:Tyson vs. Tucker - The 21 year old Tyson lost one round on one card, two rounds on another and three on another. He easily beat an undefeated 29 year old fighter in Tucker who at 6-5, 221, was bigger and more skilled than the 1973-75 Foreman.

Foreman had two impressive fights in the 70s, one over the over weight and past his prime Frazier, the other over a made for him Ken Norton. A fighter who could not fight backing up. Most of his other fights are best forgotten for anyone who wants to make a case for Foreman's greatness.

On the other hand, Tyson defeated 8 fighters from Berbeck to M.Spinks. Seven of them wieighed more than Foreman did when he beat Frazier, 3 were taller than Foreman, the rest were about the same height as Foreman, 3 of them were undefeated when they met Tyson, 7 of them were current or former champions, the one who wasn't was an undefeated Olympic heavyweight champion. IMO, Tyson's run from Berbeck in November of 1986 until Mike Spinks in 1988 is the most impressive performance in the history of heavyweight boxing.

Tyson at his best is head and shoulders above the 1970s Foreman. Tyson has better video and a better resume'.

You've missed the point. I saw the fight. Tyson won conclusively. You don't need to quote the cards to me. You seem to be trying a bit too hard. Anyway, he didn't knock Tucker out, or come close. He was cautious because of that early shot. I wouldn't call Tucker necessarily more skilled than Foreman. It takes more than just punch power to KO the fighters George did.

Like I said, I can imagine either man winning this. BUT Tyson is not head and shoulders above Foreman. You might think he's better, fair enough, but that's too much of a discrepancy.

barry · Post by **barry** » 26 Aug 2006, 09:51

I see people always trying to use the Frazier-Foreman fight to try and gauge a mythical match-up of Tyson and Foreman. The only thing about Frazier and Tyson that was even remotely alike was they're height and that they both used a bob and weave style...other than that Tyson was a much different fighter than Frazier.

The main asset for which I would favor Tyson in this match-up would be his hand speed. In his prime Tyson had arguably the fastest hand-speed of any heavyweight ever and with the brutal raw power that Tyson also carried he would be all over Foreman. It wouldn't be like Foreman's bout with Ron Lyle...if Tyson put Foreman down and Foreman was able to regain his feet Tyson would take him out.

Although Foreman's had the raw power to hurt and stop almost any heavyweight that ever lived he did not have the technical skill, speed or endurance/stamina to outlast Tyson at his best! It would be a barn-burner for how ever long it lasted, but in the end I would pick Tyson to win by knockout!

Cojimar 1945 · Post by **Cojimar 1945** » 26 Aug 2006, 17:07

Tyson does not appear to have a better resume than Foreman. Foreman's best wins seem easily as good as Tyson's best wins if not moreso. People keep talking about Tyson's power but he was unable to stop Holyfield whose chin is no better than Foreman's in my opinion.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 26 Aug 2006, 17:19

barry....it might be possible for Foreman to keep Tyson away as he did with Frazier, I know you think that if Tyson hit Foreman with what Frazier hit Foreman with (at least in the second fight) he wouldnt' react the same way to a Tyson punch as he did to Fraziers. Which is probably not a stretch but the key here for me is just how much grit did Foreman have? He seemed to have a remarkable ability (at times) to be resiliant. And Tyson did not seem to be invincible chin wise and certainly if he really gets hurt he struggles. Take him to the edge, put some hurt on him and he just might lose that "bad intention" that Cus was so proud of in his prospect.

We all look to certain fights for the keys to these "intangibles" for me the Ruddock fight is what I look to. barry you will certainly point out that the styles here are not good "markers" for comparison but I look to "heart" as much as "style". If Foreman was a last minute replacement for Ruddock on that night my guess is Foreman would have a better than even chance. Your critical analysis is superior to mine in terms of the "style interaction" which often trumps the "intellect, integrity and heart" dynamics. But in this case I would argue the reverse.

I would bet on Foreman for these reasons....and yeah I know what Decagon would say.....never bet on your gut feeling...always go with the stats and styles. But thats what this game is all about....the different opinions. If I were to put my money on the line on this theoretical it would likely be against the prevailing odds. And yet I think I would collect.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 27 Aug 2006, 14:38

barry wrote:I see people always trying to use the Frazier-Foreman fight to try and gauge a mythical match-up of Tyson and Foreman. The only thing about Frazier and Tyson that was even remotely alike was they're height and that they both used a bob and weave style...other than that Tyson was a much different fighter than Frazier.

The main asset for which I would favor Tyson in this match-up would be his hand speed. In his prime Tyson had arguably the fastest hand-speed of any heavyweight ever and with the brutal raw power that Tyson also carried he would be all over Foreman. It wouldn't be like Foreman's bout with Ron Lyle...if Tyson put Foreman down and Foreman was able to regain his feet Tyson would take him out.

Although Foreman's had the raw power to hurt and stop almost any heavyweight that ever lived he did not have the technical skill, speed or endurance/stamina to outlast Tyson at his best! It would be a barn-burner for how ever long it lasted, but in the end I would pick Tyson to win by knockout!

Don't forget Tyson and Frazier each possesed a dynamite left hook.

hawaiianpunch · Post by **hawaiianpunch** » 27 Aug 2006, 21:23

I think it comes down to the fact that they both had great chins and dynamite power. But, Tyson's handspeed and pinpoint punches would be the difference. I can see him nailing George during one of his wide/looping off balance swings and hurting him, if not dropping him. Problem for Foreman is (Peak Tyson) would absolutely finish him, if he hurt him. Tyson KO5!

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 27 Aug 2006, 22:29

DaveV17 wrote: Tyson is probably without question the fastest power puncher of all time.

Never seen Floyd Patterson then, have you...

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 29 Aug 2006, 05:55

Tantum wrote:
DaveV17 wrote: Tyson is probably without question the fastest power puncher of all time.
Never seen Floyd Patterson then, have you...

I think that honour might go to a certain Mr Joseph Louis Barrow.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 29 Aug 2006, 08:54

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 29 Aug 2006, 08:59

DaveV17 wrote:I'll stick with my origianl assertion, Tyson is the fastest power puncher I have seen. I have seen Patterson and Joe Louis fight. Louis was a great fighter but I don't remember seeing him throw combinations as fast as the ones I have seen by Tyson.

Yes Tyson could throw blazing combinations - for a few rounds anyway. Then he became sluggish and one dimensional.

Peak Foreman Vs Peak Tyson??

re

Foreman resume

Re: re