BoxRec

-Take out the ear biting in the 2nd and just judge it. Holyfield was ahead but it was a competitive fight.
-The first Tyson fight was a much tougher fight for Holyfield than the Foreman fight. The first half of the fight was very tough. The majority of the rounds Holyfield won easily. He hit him almost at will.

As for a the A beat C who went the distance with D stuff-What I was doing was pointing out several fighters who were far inferior to Tyson that Foreman couldn't knockout and most fought even with Foreman. That isn't a fluke. This isn't just one or two fights. This is a pattern.

Tyson lost the first few rounds against Botha? Well if anything that hurts the arguement that Tyson can't win if he doesn't the blow away the other guy right away. He did knock Botha out.

Foreman didn't try for the knockout against Shultz, Savarese and Grimsley because he had already won back the title. Please. George was always trying for the ko, he just couldn't do it.
Besides, that still leaves Stewart,Martin, and Morrison that Foreman couldn't knockout.

How durable was old George? Yes he managed to stand up against the guys he fought, but none were huge punchers. Holyfield may have been the biggest puncher and he had Foreman hurt a few times. Tyson hit much harder than Holyfield.

Bruno was scared to death? He was totally outclassed, but he gave all he had. He threw some haymakers. Tyson was just too fast and Bruno couldn't keep up with the pace. This would have been even more of a problem for Foreman. Against Foreman Tyson would throw land close to twice as punches Foreman would.

Ruddock going the distance against Tyson once again proves that Tyson wasn't going to automatically lose if he didn't knock out his opponent early. He knocked Ruddock down twice and had him trouble at other times. To Ruddock's credit, he managed to hang on and go the distance. If Foreman went down, there is no way that he would get up and survive if there was any time left in the round.

The middle aged Foreman didn't hit hard enough to knock Tyson out even if he nailed him. He wasn't able to put enough punches together to to stop him either.

There is no way that Foreman is going to win a decision. He is just easy to hit, even if he somehow, someway went the distance. That in itself would be improbable. This is a mismatch. Sometimes you have to think with your head, not with your heart.

I find there are pretty good arguments both ways. I'd still take the odds and bet on the old man. But you know about my bias when it comes to the seasoned vets over the kids. Foreman had two advantages heart, and strategic ability. Tyson had the two advantages of youth and explosiveness.


I picked my bet on this one I'm stayin put. I think I'd be collecting your spare change on this one.

Ambling Alp wrote:-Take out the ear biting in the 2nd and just judge it. Holyfield was ahead but it was a competitive fight.
-The first Tyson fight was a much tougher fight for Holyfield than the Foreman fight. The first half of the fight was very tough. The majority of the rounds Holyfield won easily. He hit him almost at will.

As for a the A beat C who went the distance with D stuff-What I was doing was pointing out several fighters who were far inferior to Tyson that Foreman couldn't knockout and most fought even with Foreman. That isn't a fluke. This isn't just one or two fights. This is a pattern.

Tyson lost the first few rounds against Botha? Well if anything that hurts the arguement that Tyson can't win if he doesn't the blow away the other guy right away. He did knock Botha out.

Foreman didn't try for the knockout against Shultz, Savarese and Grimsley because he had already won back the title. Please. George was always trying for the ko, he just couldn't do it.
Besides, that still leaves Stewart,Martin, and Morrison that Foreman couldn't knockout.

How durable was old George? Yes he managed to stand up against the guys he fought, but none were huge punchers. Holyfield may have been the biggest puncher and he had Foreman hurt a few times. Tyson hit much harder than Holyfield.

Bruno was scared to death? He was totally outclassed, but he gave all he had. He threw some haymakers. Tyson was just too fast and Bruno couldn't keep up with the pace. This would have been even more of a problem for Foreman. Against Foreman Tyson would throw land close to twice as punches Foreman would.

Ruddock going the distance against Tyson once again proves that Tyson wasn't going to automatically lose if he didn't knock out his opponent early. He knocked Ruddock down twice and had him trouble at other times. To Ruddock's credit, he managed to hang on and go the distance. If Foreman went down, there is no way that he would get up and survive if there was any time left in the round.

The middle aged Foreman didn't hit hard enough to knock Tyson out even if he nailed him. He wasn't able to put enough punches together to to stop him either.

There is no way that Foreman is going to win a decision. He is just easy to hit, even if he somehow, someway went the distance. That in itself would be improbable. This is a mismatch. Sometimes you have to think with your head, not with your heart.

Holyfield a bigger puncher than Briggs and Morrison??

Saverese, Morrison, Stewart, Briggs were all big punchers and Foreman never as so much as went down, in his mid-late 40s!

So Ruddock survives and Foreman doesn't? When did Foreman EVER go down and not get back up? He even made the count in Zaire if you look at the film. Ruddock actually got knocked out vs the same Morrison who went the distance with Old George.

You seem to be implying Tyson-Holyfield I was some epic battle. It wasn't. It was a midly competetive fight for the first 5 rounds and then became a very one-sided contest. Holyfield was also past his best by 96. Foreman vs a younger prime Holyfield won just as many rounds and was still able to stun Holyfield a few times in the later rounds. Definetely a tougher fight for Evander.

Tyson would land twice the # of punches? Go look at his Tyson's punch-stats in the 90s. He wasn't actually Marciano or Frazier in there in terms of activity. You are also greatly exaggerating Foreman's slowness. Even at 45 he wasn't as stiff and robotic as Bruno was.

Any of Tyson's fights in the 90s (Ruddock I and II, Holyfield, Botha, Lewis) vs someone with a pulse had a good deal of clinching. Tyson always was very easy to tie up. Now with Foreman you're talking about probably the strongest elite HW to ever lace up the gloves. And he also had a great uppercut. Tyson amidst all that clinching will get fatigued. And when Tyson gets tired, he gets sloppy. And when he gets tired AND sloppy, he gets knocked out.

"...Holyfield may have been the biggest puncher and he had Foreman hurt a few times. Tyson hit much harder than Holyfield..." - AmblingAlp

Cooney
Moorer
Morrison

Actually, as boxbuzz pointed out, there are some compelling arguments from both sides here. I always felt that Foreman was too slow & easy to hit to beat Tyson's speed & power in the 90's, which were still good.

Nowadays, looking back, I'm less certain about who I would pick to win. If Tyson really were scared he had a habit of reacting badly & making mistakes. Tougher call than I used to think it was. I'd sure be cheering for Foreman though.

tyson would never fight foreman because foreman was an idol and tyson put him up high which made him shit scared of him that is understandable not many fighters have to fight there idol and i beleive that foreman was 1 of tyson's idols and with cus saying that it was suicide fighting foreman if your short and come forward he wouldnt of fought him the only person that could of talked tysom into it was d'amato and unfortunatly for boxing(not so much for mikes sake but more the knowledge of boxing this man had) he wasnt alive to tell him he could beat foreman

No I don't think any of Foreman's other opponents hit harder than Holyfield.
Stewart? A good puncher, not in Tyson's class. He beat up Foreman.
Cooney was shot.
Morrison's power was always overrated. His reputation was built by by beating washed up opponents, such as Ruddock. Several opponents walked through his punches.
Moorer? At heavyweight he wasn't that hard of a puncher at all.
Briggs? Again, where is the proof that he could punch at all?
Savarese? Come on.

None of these guys hit remotley as hard as Tyson.

No I'm not exaggerating Foreman's slowness. It was glacier slow.

Does anyone that thinks Foreman won ever wonder why Foreman fought so many hand picked opponents? He wasn't going to take on anyone the slightest bit dangerous. He never took on a Bruno, Ruddock, McCall or anyone like that.

No, the Foreman fight wasn't that hard of fight for Holyfield. It was a great accomplishment for old George to last the distance. However, outside of a few punches that are shown on the highlights, he was completely outclassed.
Dempseyfire-
You want punch stats? Holyfield connected 61% of the time against Foreman. That high of a rate is almost unheard of. George was a punching bag. There is no way if he got hit that often, and by that many clean shots by Tyson, that he would go the distance. He was lucky to survive against Holyfield.
As for clinches, first of all you have to throw out the Lewis fight. That was in 2002. That's 5 years after Foreman's retirement.
Opponents did try to hold a lot against Tyson. Guess what, he still only lost two fights during this time.

You are not going to knockout Tyson by landing a good punch, take 10 seconds to gather yourself, and then land another. That is what Foreman had to constantly throughout his comeback. He was unable just keep firing shots like he could in his prime.
This is why Foreman couldn't knockout Schultz,Savarese,Grimsly,Stewart, Martin, Morrison, or Briggs.
And his one shot power simply wasn't that awesome anymore. It's a huge difference knocking out Moorer than it is knocking out Tyson.

No, Tyson didn't stop Ruddock the 2nd time. That is one fight that Tyson didn't score a knockout and he did come close to knocking Ruddock out. I named 7 fights against fighters that weren't nearly at the level Tyson was that Foreman couldn't knockout. Two actually beat Foreman. (If you don't want to count the Briggs loss, substitute it for the Schultz win.) Two others came very close.

I know people hate Tyson and love Foreman. However, the reality is that would be a mismatch. Old George simply didn't have the weapons to beat Tyson.
I know some people want to put on the rose covered glasses and live in a fantasy world, fine. However, in the real world this probably would have been ugly and I'm glad it never happened.

You said it yourself. Holyfield landed at 61%. There is no way that Evander Holyfield is the hardest puncher George Foreman met during his comeback. He was a moderate puncher. Gerry Cooney was shot? That has nothing to do with anything.

Mike Tyson was shot in the mid-to-late 90's. Do you think he no longer could punch? It doesn't matter what stage of your career you're at, you can punch at any time. Just look at the subject matter - it's George Foreman, winner of the title at age 45 with one punch!

Ambling Alp wrote:No I don't think any of Foreman's other opponents hit harder than Holyfield.
Stewart? A good puncher, not in Tyson's class. He beat up Foreman.
Cooney was shot.
Morrison's power was always overrated. His reputation was built by by beating washed up opponents, such as Ruddock. Several opponents walked through his punches.
Moorer? At heavyweight he wasn't that hard of a puncher at all.
Briggs? Again, where is the proof that he could punch at all?
Savarese? Come on.

None of these guys hit remotley as hard as Tyson.

No I'm not exaggerating Foreman's slowness. It was glacier slow.

Does anyone that thinks Foreman won ever wonder why Foreman fought so many hand picked opponents? He wasn't going to take on anyone the slightest bit dangerous. He never took on a Bruno, Ruddock, McCall or anyone like that.

No, the Foreman fight wasn't that hard of fight for Holyfield. It was a great accomplishment for old George to last the distance. However, outside of a few punches that are shown on the highlights, he was completely outclassed.
Dempseyfire-
You want punch stats? Holyfield connected 61% of the time against Foreman. That high of a rate is almost unheard of. George was a punching bag. There is no way if he got hit that often, and by that many clean shots by Tyson, that he would go the distance. .

But Tyson would never come close to even throwing that many punches, that's my point!! He would throw 1-2 punches, if he was feelin a little alive MAYBE a 3 punch combo, and then let himself get tied up. That was throughout his whole career, but seriously amplified in the 90s. You don't have to go to the Lewis fight . . .look at Tyson vs Bruno, Smith, Ruddock . . .he was easily tied up and pushed around in the clinch.

I don't know what to say to someone arguing that Holyfield was a bigger puncher than Tommy Morrison. That's just ridiculous. No-one will agree with you there. Morrison and Briggs didn't have the chin, skills, or stamina of Holyfield, but they hit much harder, and were definetely in Tyson's league as a puncher (if anyone's power is over-rated, it's frikkin' Mike Tyson)

I always worried about Foreman in his comeback but once he started fightying and picking his opponents it seemed fair enough. He was fighting guys he could beat and had a great nice guy act.

I really didn't want him get in with Tyson for all the reasons Alp outlines. I just couldn't see him lasting more than a couple of rounds. Tyson beating up another old man was not something I wanted to see. I honestly thought it would be bad for the sport.

In their primes there are 2 distinct scenarios. Tyson jumps all over George from the off and KO's him early or Foreman slaps and pushes him into his range and lands something early that puts Tyson in his shell. Foreman then obliterates Tyson stopping him around the 5th or 6th. Prime for prime I'd side with Foreman.

BUT despite agreeing with Alp on how I saw a fight between old George and Tyson I have to give some credence to the report. This rumour that Tyson didn't want to fight him has been around for a long time and has not gone away. Whether it is logical or not is not the point. I agree that Lotierzo was putting his name and rep on the line. He has nothing to gain from this story and everything to lose. How much of it is 100% verifiable I don't know but there's something in it.

Ezzard wrote:I always worried about Foreman in his comeback but once he started fightying and picking his opponents it seemed fair enough. He was fighting guys he could beat and had a great nice guy act.

I really didn't want him get in with Tyson for all the reasons Alp outlines. I just couldn't see him lasting more than a couple of rounds. Tyson beating up another old man was not something I wanted to see. I honestly thought it would be bad for the sport.

In their primes there are 2 distinct scenarios. Tyson jumps all over George from the off and KO's him early or Foreman slaps and pushes him into his range and lands something early that puts Tyson in his shell. Foreman then obliterates Tyson stopping him around the 5th or 6th. Prime for prime I'd side with Foreman.

BUT despite agreeing with Alp on how I saw a fight between old George and Tyson I have to give some credence to the report. This rumour that Tyson didn't want to fight him has been around for a long time and has not gone away. Whether it is logical or not is not the point. I agree that Lotierzo was putting his name and rep on the line. He has nothing to gain from this story and everything to lose. How much of it is 100% verifiable I don't know but there's something in it.

Another well thought out reasonable post on this topic.

Everybody loves George, but besides a decent showing against Holyfield and a come from (way) behind stoppage of the chin challenged Moorer, George struggled with just about every decent fighter he fought during his second career. In their primes, George bounces him around like a rubber ball, but the 40+ yo Foreman was no match for even the 90’s Tyson that fought Holyfield.

It's good to see some people are able to be realistic about this.
I just wanted to address a few comments:
That Cooney was "shot" as a fight is relevant. When you are going long periods of time without fighting (Cooney) you are going to losing your speed and timing. Those are important factors in regard to how well you punch. Foreman's fight with Cooney is no evidence at all that he could stand up to Tyson.
I'm sorry, but where is the evidence that Tommy Morrison was a huge puncher? Name one good fighter he ever stopped that wasn't well past his prime? Did he ever stop a ranked contender in his entire career? Even a washed up, glass jaw Carl Williams lasted 8 rounds. Lennox Lewis walked through his punches. Ray Mercer walked through his punches.

Briggs and Morrison were nowhere near Tyson's league in the power department. Not even remotely close. That is just silly to think that. Tyson had awesome power and he proved it many times over. He was also very good at finishing a hurt opponent.


You don't retain all of your power if you are fighting in your 40's. Foreman himself is proof of this. He wasn't nearly as hard of a puncher as he had once been. He couldn't even stop Briggs,Savarese,Grimsley,Martin,Schulz,Morrison, or Stewart. It's unlikely that any of these guys make it past the 5th round against a prime Foreman.
In his comeback, George could land an occasional good shot (which wasn't as hard as it was in his 20's) and then usually take several seconds to regroup before trying for another haymaker. This wasn't even good enough to stop all of the guys that I mentioned. It sure isn't going to stop Tyson.

Tyson did more than throw 2 or 3 punches and clinch. He wasn't as active as he was in the late 1980's. However, he was very active. He certainly threw a lot more punches than Foreman. He certainly wasn't a "shot" fighter, that is ridiculaus. His fight against Bruno in 1996 was one of the best performances of his career. In some other eras he still would have been a dominating champion.
Remember we aren't talking about the Tyson that fought Lewis 2002 or his fights after that. We are only going up to 1997, when Foreman retired for good. Tyson was still a very dangerous fighter. He was only 31 in 1997. He unlike Foreman, still had almost all of his power left. He still had great hand speed.

In a head to head fight between and ancient Foreman and Tyson, Tyson would be throwing more punches, he would be harder to hit than Foreman (as would almost anyone) and Tyson had a lot more on his punches than Foreman.

Just because you don't like someone, you shouldn't disregard how good they are. Conversley, just because you do like someone, you shouldn't overinflate what they can do. Tyson vs an ancient Foreman is an absolute mismatch. This is clear as can be.

Ambling Alp wrote:It's good to see some people are able to be realistic about this.
I just wanted to address a few comments:
That Cooney was "shot" as a fight is relevant. When you are going long periods of time without fighting (Cooney) you are going to losing your speed and timing. Those are important factors in regard to how well you punch. Foreman's fight with Cooney is no evidence at all that he could stand up to Tyson.
I'm sorry, but where is the evidence that Tommy Morrison was a huge puncher? Name one good fighter he ever stopped that wasn't well past his prime? Did he ever stop a ranked contender in his entire career? Even a washed up, glass jaw Carl Williams lasted 8 rounds. Lennox Lewis walked through his punches. Ray Mercer walked through his punches.

Briggs and Morrison were nowhere near Tyson's league in the power department. Not even remotely close. That is just silly to think that. Tyson had awesome power and he proved it many times over. He was also very good at finishing a hurt opponent.


You don't retain all of your power if you are fighting in your 40's. Foreman himself is proof of this. He wasn't nearly as hard of a puncher as he had once been. He couldn't even stop Briggs,Savarese,Grimsley,Martin,Schulz,Morrison, or Stewart. It's unlikely that any of these guys make it past the 5th round against a prime Foreman.
In his comeback, George could land an occasional good shot (which wasn't as hard as it was in his 20's) and then usually take several seconds to regroup before trying for another haymaker. This wasn't even good enough to stop all of the guys that I mentioned. It sure isn't going to stop Tyson.

Tyson did more than throw 2 or 3 punches and clinch. He wasn't as active as he was in the late 1980's. However, he was very active. He certainly threw a lot more punches than Foreman. He certainly wasn't a "shot" fighter, that is ridiculaus. His fight against Bruno in 1996 was one of the best performances of his career. In some other eras he still would have been a dominating champion.
Remember we aren't talking about the Tyson that fought Lewis 2002 or his fights after that. We are only going up to 1997, when Foreman retired for good. Tyson was still a very dangerous fighter. He was only 31 in 1997. He unlike Foreman, still had almost all of his power left. He still had great hand speed.

In a head to head fight between and ancient Foreman and Tyson, Tyson would be throwing more punches, he would be harder to hit than Foreman (as would almost anyone) and Tyson had a lot more on his punches than Foreman.

Just because you don't like someone, you shouldn't disregard how good they are. Conversley, just because you do like someone, you shouldn't overinflate what they can do. Tyson vs an ancient Foreman is an absolute mismatch. This is clear as can be.

Alp your making it too easy for me. Tyson would be the odds on favorite I would take the odds and bet on Foreman. I would hold my breath and hope for the old man to come through which I think he has an even chance of doing.

But you can't put this to bed by simply saying it would be a mismatch and Tyson would win. Tyson has been paired up with a few "mismatches" and ended up on the losing end. So it could happen....mismatch? maybe, but that doesn't mean Tyson would win this mismatch. Otherwise Buster Douglas would not have been champion..... Mike would be favored I'm sure....That's what makes it a good bet.

Well, buzz almost anything is possible. Tyson did lose to Douglas. However, he also won many, many times when he was a big favorite. The big favorite does win almost all of the time.
Foreman wouldn't even have a "puncher's chance" in this. He showed in several fights that he wasn't able to take out fighters far easier to stop than Tyson. Nor was he capable of winning on points.
Maybe lighting would strike. Maybe Tyson could get cut or a break his hand or something. However, I sure wouldn't bet on it. To judge Foreman's fights in his combeack and think think Foreman probably would have beaten Tyson during this time is simply silly to me and apparently to some others.

You have to know I"m just not assessing skills.....fear factor, heart and ingenuity all come in to play. But in a perfect world where everyone is Braveheart and in real time....Tyson should win.....and yet I think he wouldnt'.

at this time if there was to be a fight it wouldnt be a undertrained version of mike that came in he would be very very fit i think he would train as hard as he ever has for a foreman fight look at rocky marciano when he fought joe louis he trained harder than he ever had so i think it would be the same for tyson the fear he has of foreman may work in his favor