BoxRec

stujones wrote:Tyson vs Foreman would have been at its biggest financially following George winning the world title and Tyson return from jail.

I think Boxing Monthly wrote something about them two being in the top 3 most recognisable faces of active sport stars in the states at the time. Michael Jordan sandwiched between them.

The Baddest Man on the Planet, vs the loveable grandad with a sledgehammer of a punch. Would have been a horrible fight, but the biggest PPV ever .

Horrible fight? Are you kidding?

Yeah, didn't Tyson say he would never fight him and basically said George was too much of a beast to get in the ring with him.

mickey1975 wrote: Your picking on the wrong guy there, mate! If you have read any of Loynesy's posts over the years you would know he is probably better placed than most to make these sort of statements and also the least likely poster on here to get his info from Youtube!

Well he's clearly very wrong here though isn't he.

Riddick Blowe wrote:Holy shit, I had no idea George fought in the UK. A six-year-old me probably wouldn't have cared much at the time, but someone should probably have told me out of courtesy still.

I was 18 when George fought here, god i feel old now. But i do remember it being on an odd night, and when i looked it was a Tuesday! not many boxing bills on that day of the week.

Old bones Ian wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:Holy shit, I had no idea George fought in the UK. A six-year-old me probably wouldn't have cared much at the time, but someone should probably have told me out of courtesy still.

I was 18 when George fought here, god i feel old now. But i do remember it being on an odd night, and when i looked it was a Tuesday! not many boxing bills on that day of the week.

ah i remembered it was because of Tuesday Night Fights program in America

I saw Foreman at a Naz fight in the 90's in London. I'd watched the rumble in the jungle the night before so when I saw him I gave a few verses of 'Ali Bumaye', (from a safe distance of course!)

Felt a bit guilty later as my dad bumped into George and he was an absolute gent and made my old man's day. A class act - and his cooker grill thing isn't too shabby either.

Old bones Ian wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:Holy shit, I had no idea George fought in the UK. A six-year-old me probably wouldn't have cared much at the time, but someone should probably have told me out of courtesy still.

I was 18 when George fought here, god i feel old now. But i do remember it being on an odd night, and when i looked it was a Tuesday! not many boxing bills on that day of the week.

Tyson-Spinks was on a Monday for some reason.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

stujones wrote:Tyson vs Foreman would have been at its biggest financially following George winning the world title and Tyson return from jail.

I think Boxing Monthly wrote something about them two being in the top 3 most recognisable faces of active sport stars in the states at the time. Michael Jordan sandwiched between them.

The Baddest Man on the Planet, vs the loveable grandad with a sledgehammer of a punch. Would have been a horrible fight, but the biggest PPV ever .

Horrible fight? Are you kidding?

Yeah, didn't Tyson say he would never fight him and basically said George was too much of a beast to get in the ring with him.

Axel Schultz beat Foreman at this stage - even the famed power was on the wane. Name me a fighter who he even hurt after Moorer.

Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe circa 1996-1997 would have destroyed him.

Tyson is on so much shit that its hard to know what he believes or not. He also declared in his prime that had he fought Larry Holmes in his prime we would have got smashed - but then ahead of the next fight starts comparing himself favourably with the greats.

I heard a story that when Joe Frazier died the police thought it was a suspicious death and were grilling George Foreman DD

I'm also sure there was a delay as there was an issue with Foreman's shorts. So long ago just can't think what it was.

mimmy123 wrote:I'm also sure there was a delay as there was an issue with Foreman's shorts. So long ago just can't think what it was.

Was he trying to get away with not wearing them?

Tyson-Foreman in 95 would not have been a horrible fight. It would have been the richest prizefight in history and a terrific spectacle. As for the in ring matchup there is no way on earth the Tyson of 95 would have had a hope of winning. George would have taken easily his 3 rounds of punching with bad intentions and than wore him down by the 7th or 8th to a knockout. Tyson of 95 and indeed 96 was terrifically rusty, lacking his previous offensive skills, and musclebound to the extent that even his once terrific speed wasnt the same. A 1998 Foreman-Tyson matchup would have been far more competitive as Tyson by that time had regained a little of his previous skills and spirit as he showed against Botha. But make no mistake Foreman didnt get to the world title in 95 by some fluke. he kayoed moorer and all Shulz did was potshot. U dont win a world title like that. Even in the Morrison loss, a noted puncher, a guy with speed, strength and skill like Morrison was backing up to Foreman all night long....the 95 Tyson may even have been destroyed in 2 or 3.

ILikeBeer wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:I'm also sure there was a delay as there was an issue with Foreman's shorts. So long ago just can't think what it was.

Was he trying to get away with not wearing them?

No im sure he wore someone elses, maybe Terry Anderson had a second pair and borrowed them to Foreman. Bloody hell I just can't remember It could have been the other way round, maybe Anderson had shorts issues. I'm not sure but there was some kind of hold up with shorts involved.

Found the fight on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx65bLAldLw

mugabi wrote:Tyson-Foreman in 95 would not have been a horrible fight. It would have been the richest prizefight in history and a terrific spectacle. As for the in ring matchup there is no way on earth the Tyson of 95 would have had a hope of winning. George would have taken easily his 3 rounds of punching with bad intentions and than wore him down by the 7th or 8th to a knockout. Tyson of 95 and indeed 96 was terrifically rusty, lacking his previous offensive skills, and musclebound to the extent that even his once terrific speed wasnt the same. A 1998 Foreman-Tyson matchup would have been far more competitive as Tyson by that time had regained a little of his previous skills and spirit as he showed against Botha. But make no mistake Foreman didnt get to the world title in 95 by some fluke. he kayoed moorer and all Shulz did was potshot. U dont win a world title like that. Even in the Morrison loss, a noted puncher, a guy with speed, strength and skill like Morrison was backing up to Foreman all night long....the 95 Tyson may even have been destroyed in 2 or 3.

Hang on - You say Morrison had speed strength and skill more so than the 1995 version of Tyson.

Morrison also had a terrible terrible chin but Foreman couldn't land clean enough on him to do damage.... or was his punch power in trouble. Morrison also had famed stamina issues but had enough to keep Foreman at bay (enough for him not to land). Tyson still managed to go 11 Hard rounds with Holyfield, he managed to go 7 tough rounds with Lewis.... yet Foreman might have destroyed him in 2.

Name me a fighter of Tyson's level of ability and chin that Foreman KO'd in 2?

Axel Schultz might have pot shot, but what did Foreman do??? Nothing.

Lou Saverese gave Foreman a tough fight..... do I need to continue the link there?

Moorer aside, Foreman hadn't displayed any true power since before the Holyfield fight. He didn't trouble Briggs (who had been KO'd previously), even some guy by the name of Crawford Grimsley went the distance with him - Grimsley losing all his other fights by KO.

The Tyson who lost to Holyfield would have KO'd Foreman in 6 rounds. The Holyfield who beat Tyson would have done the same also. George didn't have the fearful power of before.

Quick quiz, who was Foremans original opponent for the London match?

Stu - have you seen any of the fights you're discussing? Honestly?

Schulz, Grimsley and Briggs all employed the Tommy Morrison 'strategy' of running away from Foreman and not mixing it up for a second. Certainly his power was waning, but he could still whack. Schulz in his career proved himself to be super-durable but Foreman hit him with a horrifying uppercut that froze him. He couldn't catch him up because Schulz wouldn't fight. Briggs certainly felt Foreman's power and looked close to wilting more than once, as RJJ at ringside noted. Briggs himself admitted he had been hurt. Savarese didn't have the mobility to move around so Foreman pulverised his face and had him out on his feet at one point. Savarese also went 10 with the big hitting Michael Grant and another 10 with Mount Whitaker who clearly didn't tickle when he clubbed you.

The bottom line is Foreman still could go 12 and club you - Tyson would never, ever have ran like the others did. As Foreman said post-Schulz 'Tyson is too brave to run. We'll stand and fight and someone will hit the ground'. Now maybe that man would be Foreman, maybe not. But if Tyson were to win I feel it would look more like the second Ruddock fight. Foreman more than proved across 30 years that he knew how to survive in the ring.

loaded_gloves wrote:Stu - have you seen any of the fights you're discussing? Honestly?

Schulz, Grimsley and Briggs all employed the Tommy Morrison 'strategy' of running away from Foreman and not mixing it up for a second. Certainly his power was waning, but he could still whack. Schulz in his career proved himself to be super-durable but Foreman hit him with a horrifying uppercut that froze him. He couldn't catch him up because Schulz wouldn't fight. Briggs certainly felt Foreman's power and looked close to wilting more than once, as RJJ at ringside noted. Briggs himself admitted he had been hurt. Savarese didn't have the mobility to move around so Foreman pulverised his face and had him out on his feet at one point. Savarese also went 10 with the big hitting Michael Grant and another 10 with Mount Whitaker who clearly didn't tickle when he clubbed you.

The bottom line is Foreman still could go 12 and club you - Tyson would never, ever have ran like the others did. As Foreman said post-Schulz 'Tyson is too brave to run. We'll stand and fight and someone will hit the ground'. Now maybe that man would be Foreman, maybe not. But if Tyson were to win I feel it would look more like the second Ruddock fight. Foreman more than proved across 30 years that he knew how to survive in the ring.

I've seen those fights and yes Tyson wouldn't have employed those tactics - but we are talking C level fighters in Savarese and Schultz and even lower than that in Grimsley. Foreman alledegely won those all those fights on points (there is no way he really beat Schultz in reality), so that means he landed shots but he didn't have the speed to pull the trigger to follow up.

Tyson never got destroyed in 2-3 rounds like Mugabi feels Foreman would have been capable of, and he faced bigger punchers than the 90's Foreman. But Foreman didn't face anyone of the speed, power and combination punching ability of Tyson. As good as Foreman's chin and survival instincts were - they would have been severely tested by Tyson, like no man had tested them before.

Even without needing the footwork, Foreman would have been too slow, not enough power and not being able to get the combinations off against Tyson. Foreman might have surived, hold push back etc - the way to beat Mike, but he wouldn't have had the speed of punch to make pay etc like Holyfield and Douglas did.

Tyson didn't have the head movement of old, but he would have slipped that slow jab. This wasn't the Foreman who gave Holyfield a decent fight. Now that Foreman might have been interesting. There was just more snap to Tyson's punches and Foreman I feel would have got hurt - cause his defense was still not great and I just don't think he would have caught him. I don't think Foreman had one punch KO power back then also - which is critical.

Old bones Ian wrote:Quick quiz, who was Foremans original opponent for the London match?

didnt know there was one but im interested to know

incidentially, Sean Murphy fought johnny Good on the card it was Johnny's last fight. Any info on him (Johnny)????

Anyone remember Alex Stewart turning George's head into a pumpkin?

I personally thought he beat Briggs, but then he lost to Schultz. Foreman mkII had terrible trouble with movers, it's why Morrison won fairly easily, by constantly moving and not letting George get set. Moorer just stood in front of him in that last round, I bet George thought all his Christmases came at once.

orbtastic wrote:Anyone remember Alex Stewart turning George's head into a pumpkin?

I personally thought he beat Briggs, but then he lost to Schultz. Foreman mkII had terrible trouble with movers, it's why Morrison won fairly easily, by constantly moving and not letting George get set. Moorer just stood in front of him in that last round, I bet George thought all his Christmases came at once.

Yeah, he beat Briggs widely and lost to Schultz widely in my opinion. Cannot quite remember but wasn't he a tad fortunate to get the decision over Stewart despite flooring him multiple times.

MachoMan09 wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote:Quick quiz, who was Foremans original opponent for the London match?

didnt know there was one but im interested to know

I cheated to find the answer: Walter Masseroni from Argentina.

why was the change?

MachoMan09 wrote:I don't know. I've just found out that Gary Mason was the original original opponent for George but that match fell through as well.

interesting, not looked at Mason's career to that date but where was he at that stage and would that figh thave been dangerous for him. To be honest I can't imagine Mason as an opponent

MachoMan09 wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote:Quick quiz, who was Foremans original opponent for the London match?

didnt know there was one but im interested to know

I cheated to find the answer: Walter Masseroni from Argentina.

Yep thats the one, basically Anderson was cheaper

stujones wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:Stu - have you seen any of the fights you're discussing? Honestly?

Schulz, Grimsley and Briggs all employed the Tommy Morrison 'strategy' of running away from Foreman and not mixing it up for a second. Certainly his power was waning, but he could still whack. Schulz in his career proved himself to be super-durable but Foreman hit him with a horrifying uppercut that froze him. He couldn't catch him up because Schulz wouldn't fight. Briggs certainly felt Foreman's power and looked close to wilting more than once, as RJJ at ringside noted. Briggs himself admitted he had been hurt. Savarese didn't have the mobility to move around so Foreman pulverised his face and had him out on his feet at one point. Savarese also went 10 with the big hitting Michael Grant and another 10 with Mount Whitaker who clearly didn't tickle when he clubbed you.

The bottom line is Foreman still could go 12 and club you - Tyson would never, ever have ran like the others did. As Foreman said post-Schulz 'Tyson is too brave to run. We'll stand and fight and someone will hit the ground'. Now maybe that man would be Foreman, maybe not. But if Tyson were to win I feel it would look more like the second Ruddock fight. Foreman more than proved across 30 years that he knew how to survive in the ring.

I've seen those fights and yes Tyson wouldn't have employed those tactics - but we are talking C level fighters in Savarese and Schultz and even lower than that in Grimsley. Foreman alledegely won those all those fights on points (there is no way he really beat Schultz in reality), so that means he landed shots but he didn't have the speed to pull the trigger to follow up.

Tyson never got destroyed in 2-3 rounds like Mugabi feels Foreman would have been capable of, and he faced bigger punchers than the 90's Foreman. But Foreman didn't face anyone of the speed, power and combination punching ability of Tyson. As good as Foreman's chin and survival instincts were - they would have been severely tested by Tyson, like no man had tested them before.

Even without needing the footwork, Foreman would have been too slow, not enough power and not being able to get the combinations off against Tyson. Foreman might have surived, hold push back etc - the way to beat Mike, but he wouldn't have had the speed of punch to make pay etc like Holyfield and Douglas did.

Tyson didn't have the head movement of old, but he would have slipped that slow jab. This wasn't the Foreman who gave Holyfield a decent fight. Now that Foreman might have been interesting. There was just more snap to Tyson's punches and Foreman I feel would have got hurt - cause his defense was still not great and I just don't think he would have caught him. I don't think Foreman had one punch KO power back then also - which is critical.

You think Foreman's defence wasn't great?

You're talking about a man who hit the deck three times from 1969 to 1997.

The man's defence and chin was A***.

In his last two fights he was a near 50 year old man fighting bangers, and nether of them could so much as put him on the floor. The latter had Lewis flailing around the ring in his very next fight. Schulz C Level? He gave Moorer quite a challenge and Moorer himself beat Holyfield who dehumanised Tyson twice in a row. Foreman went 12 with Holyfield 91, who was head and shoulders above Tyson 91 or Tyson 96. You can contest that if you want, but I'll leave it to Holyfield's comments regarding Tyson post-smashing him to pieces. 'He don't hit like Foreman or Bowe. Heart? The man just doesn't have it'