BoxRec

I agree Roars, Bruno looked more skilled than a young Foreman. Plus Bruno was 228 pounds of solid muscle for the first Tyson fight. Bruno looked bigger, faster, and more skilled than the young Foreman.

Roars Like Me wrote:I think Tyson would be too quick, he could move out of the way of George's telepgraphed wide arm punches.

i don't think Foreman was an arm puncher at all. His undeniable power came from the way twisted his hips into his punches.

Roars Like Me wrote:

Ezzard wrote:But there are plenty of lesser fighters Tyson could not KO so quickly. It took him 5 rounds to KO Bruno who had less of a chin, more telegraphed punches and far less skill...

You think so? I think they both have equally shaky chins - Frank actually had a good jab, George didn't have any technique or style, he was just ko artist. I don't agree at all there DD

Excuse me? You think Foreman had a shaky chin?

Prime vs Prime I'd bet on Foreman, and for many many reasons I believe I would collect.

I'd be pretty happy to bet heavy on this one.

then thats it then isnt it.

Tyson is just crap all round.

John L

For one, Foreman used the cross arm defence, or Moore's
style alot in his come back. In his youth he was wide shouldered
and his defence came from glove slapping and parries.

Foreman's jab seemed more consistent as an older man than
in his youth. Though this is just observation.

Foreman dedicated alot more time and effort to strength training,
as an older man.
Whether he was stronger or not, is not for me to say.

Those are just my opinions.

I think that he had some pluses and minuses as far as each
stage of his career is concerned.

Tyson wasn't crap at all, he just didn't have the mental toughness that separates the greats from the not so greats

dangerousjohnny wrote:This is just stupid.

Mike Tyson, who lost to such killers as Buster Douglas, Kevin McBride & Danny Williams, would get killed by Big George Foreman.

Watch Fraser-Foreman to see what Tyson would be in for.

The same Mike Tyson who was twice knocked silly by light-punching blown up cruiserweight Evander Holyfield (yes, the same Holyfield who went 12 with china chinned losers such as Alex Stewart, Hasim Rahman & Lou Savarese)

Yeah because Tyson really had no problems what so ever, no financial or management or ridiculous family issues, and was always preparing with his long-time trainers and coach for Buster Douglas. Not to mention he was Not Under-prepared for the bout with what appeared to be NOT baby-sitters.

As for Danny Williams and McBride, i really should not have bothered with you, but come on? you serious?

Do many here think Tyson qualifies as a great fighter? I don't, although he had a great impact on the sport at the beginning of his career and could have today been seen as a great fighter. He managed to unify the main titles which was no mean feat. Distractions outside the ring? Sure, but look at Carlos Monzon's person life while he was beating the best middleweights in the world. I'd say his issues were larger than Tyson's. Tyson should never have left Cayton and Rooney for a start

bollox

So Tyson being a non ATG fghter. Who post Ali is a ATG as far as you are
concerned ? Say HW wise.

Here is an interesting point...Tyson to this day is an obsession with non
and very casual fans. Why is that ? Because as far as sporting entertainment
goes he gave these people what they wanted. Beyond the ring he was a
tabloid spectacle, but between those ropes he was a very real danger to any
man past or present. Atleast prior to 1999-2000. Not to mention in
this given scenario, in the late 1980s.

The upset loss to Douglas hurt Tyson's legacy and 'invincible' aura. Whatever
'excuses' his fans offer he lost in his youthful prime and lost to a massive
under dog.

Douglas, for all his faults was a talented, focused big man. But then he
was decimated so easily by Holyfield thereafter. So what can you say beyond
his one real great fight.

To say Tyson was not a great is daft.

He was an active champion, cleaned up the politics of the division, politics
not faced by champions long ago. He never drew a colour line, he never
sat on the title for years on end never defending it. He faced top and
tough men.

But if he is not a great to you, then who am I to argue.

Robinson wrote:bollox

So Tyson being a non ATG fghter. Who post Ali is a ATG as far as you are
concerned ? Say HW wise.

Here is an interesting point...Tyson to this day is an obsession with non
and very casual fans. Why is that ? Because as far as sporting entertainment
goes he gave these people what they wanted. Beyond the ring he was a
tabloid spectacle, but between those ropes he was a very real danger to any
man past or present. Atleast prior to 1999-2000. Not to mention in
this given scenario, in the late 1980s.

The upset loss to Douglas hurt Tyson's legacy and 'invincible' aura. Whatever
'excuses' his fans offer he lost in his youthful prime and lost to a massive
under dog.

Douglas, for all his faults was a talented, focused big man. But then he
was decimated so easily by Holyfield thereafter. So what can you say beyond
his one real great fight.

To say Tyson was not a great is daft.

He was an active champion, cleaned up the politics of the division, politics
not faced by champions long ago. He never drew a colour line, he never
sat on the title for years on end never defending it. He faced top and
tough men.

But if he is not a great to you, then who am I to argue.

Great HW's post Ali? Holmes, Holyfield and Lewis. That's about it

Tyson came around when the HW's were a talented but drug filled and uninspired bunch of fighters. There were a fair few 'next big thing' HW's from the late 70's to the mid 80's yet a lot of them wasted their talent via the cocaine and others through laziness (refer big purses) and others through the Don King factor (refer Tim Witherspoon, he could have been a special HW) . Or all 3 of the above

Tyson was and probably still is to some degree an obsession for a few reasons...

1) his speed power and ferocity in the ring had not been seen for quite a while

2) he cleaned up the division when it was in a horrible mess

3) his fighting style and general demeanour appealed to our basic animal instincts

But the sum total of the above alone does not make a great fighter

Douglas....yes Tyson had major issues going on outside the ring and Buster was on a mission from god that night due to the passing of his mother not long before the fight. But what happened in that fight convinced me and probably countless others that he didn't have what it takes to become a great. I also reckon his best days were probably a bit behind him at this point. He matured and peaked extremely young for a HW so his prime was never going to be a decade long. If you judge him based on what I reckon his prime years were then he still doesn't qualify

I think the guys he beat were a pretty talented big bunch of men.
Yes inconsistent, but what challengers were not in any era.

One could make arguments for the men that Holyfield and
Lewis faced. And dare I mention my all time favourite Holmes
(lots will come out to slander his good name, and that of his
opponents).

I personally feel he is an ATG. I feel he had the attributes and
style to give most men trouble when he was at his best.

BUt back to the original topic...I stand firm in my belief that he
would have it in him to defeat the always formidable prime
Foreman.

bollox wrote:Do many here think Tyson qualifies as a great fighter? I don't, although he had a great impact on the sport at the beginning of his career and could have today been seen as a great fighter. He managed to unify the main titles which was no mean feat. Distractions outside the ring? Sure, but look at Carlos Monzon's person life while he was beating the best middleweights in the world. I'd say his issues were larger than Tyson's. Tyson should never have left Cayton and Rooney for a start

Well...

Great fighter? He had great talent, well-honed skills, & an excellent nous for the ring. I think he was a great fighter, yes. A great career, no. His accomplishments are piss-weak for a man of his potential. I will say that the special consideration people like Observer give to Tyson's, "outer-ring" issues is appalling --- as if it's anything unique in boxing for fighters to have an endless stream of trouble beyond the ropes.

Most of the great ones manned up & got it together. Tyson couldn't. Excuses, excuses.

dangerousjohnny wrote:Fact is, had Tyson came up 15 years before or after, he'd not be talked about in the same way. Face it, if it were Sam Peter instead of Mike Tyson coming thru the 80's, he would have had the same success. It's not Tyson's fault, but he was champion in an extremely weak era.

Tyson fans tend to get attached emotionally and detached from reality when it comes to his legacy. He was a very good fighter, but on his best day he would never touch a prime Lewis, Holyfield, either Klitscho, and I'd even bet on Chris Byrd beating him. I don't know that I would pick Tyson over Tua, Ibeabuchi or Rahman.

I have a lot more respect for Tyson than you do. We agree it was a weak era. However, that is where our paths diverge. I think he beats every man you mentioned, if he's truly at the top of his game. Lewis was simply too slow & fragile. Holyfield got hit too much. The Klitschko's, too, lacked the speed or fluidity to respond in time. Byrd couldn't escape Ibeabuchi, & he wouldn't get away from the much faster Tyson. Tua & Rahman would be little more than punching bags for him. Those two are seriously sparring-partner material for a young Tyson.

Our paths come together again, though, when we concur Foreman wrecks him.

Robinson wrote:For one, Foreman used the cross arm defence, or Moore's
style alot in his come back. In his youth he was wide shouldered
and his defence came from glove slapping and parries.

His defense was much better in career 1. With, in general, a much better level of competition, he was hit far less, although that may be due in part to the fact that just about everybody was afraid to actually attack George.

Do you really think that Alex Stewart would have been able to land on young George at will in the manner that he did against old George? Of course that's partly due to the fact that the young George, while not exactly quick, was light years faster and more dangerous than old George.

Robinson wrote:Foreman's jab seemed more consistent as an older man than
in his youth. Though this is just observation.

I think that's because he used it more because he didn't have the same fire power as the young George and he therefore had little choice in some of his fights. However did use his jab often to control fights and it was much quicker in his first career. For example, watch him Agosto and see hi actually move well and use a good solid jab, which was quite common in most of his fights. He also had reflexes then. He wasn't exactly Benny Leonard, but he was certainly much quicker and more capable than middle aged George.

Robinson wrote:Foreman dedicated alot more time and effort to strength training,
as an older man.
Whether he was stronger or not, is not for me to say.

I agree, and that probably helped to make him even slower.

On the other hand he was much more personable and well liked in his second career, not to mention the brilliant match making. Not too many (any?) movers on the resume in his second career.

Also, Dick Saddler discouraged use of the jab during his time with the young Foreman, while Dundee, for one, fostered it.

dangerousjohnny wrote:Fact is, had Tyson came up 15 years before or after, he'd not be talked about in the same way. Face it, if it were Sam Peter instead of Mike Tyson coming thru the 80's, he would have had the same success. It's not Tyson's fault, but he was champion in an extremely weak era.

Tyson fans tend to get attached emotionally and detached from reality when it comes to his legacy. He was a very good fighter, but on his best day he would never touch a prime Lewis, Holyfield, either Klitscho, and I'd even bet on Chris Byrd beating him. I don't know that I would pick Tyson over Tua, Ibeabuchi or Rahman.

Sam Peter would have had the same success as Tyson against Williams, Tucker, Thomas, etc.!?! Are we talking about the same guy here, or is there more than one SamPeter?

dangerousjohnny wrote:Yes, those guys weren't exactly killers. Peter's destruction of Jeremy Williams is better than anything those 3 accomplished... ditto for his 2 wins over ATG James Toney.

Jeremy Williams... right.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Also, Dick Saddler discouraged use of the jab during his time with the young Foreman, while Dundee, for one, fostered it.

That's interesting. What's the source for that information?

I don't think Tyson's loss to Douglas makes him a poor fighter but his inability to come beat adversity raises question marks about him.

I think he had good physical stamina but poor mental stamina.

He has to be rated below Lewis and Holyfield.

Robinson wrote:
Foreman dedicated alot more time and effort to strength training,
as an older man.
Whether he was stronger or not, is not for me to say.

The Great John L. wrote:
I agree, and that probably helped to make him even slower.

Come on Kym, are you one of those newbies? All old guys know that strength training makes one "muscle bound", slow and inflexible. You'd never catch a world class sprinter, football player, or anyone who relied on speed doing "strength training"...LOL, they all do strength training because they want to be fast!

Kym, where do guys like John L. come from? Are they still living in the 50s? John L., get out, read a little, strength is speed. Stronger is faster.

Ezzard wrote:I don't think Tyson's loss to Douglas makes him a poor fighter but his inability to come beat adversity raises question marks about him.

I think he had good physical stamina but poor mental stamina.

He has to be rated below Lewis and Holyfield.

- No question marks needed about the limited ability to rate Tyson by average fans.

For one thing, overcoming one of the most terrible childhoods in history to become a record setting heavy champ is not just beating adversity, but also unending the status quo of the tail end of the Ali era and the whole Holmes era and standing it on it's head and shaking it down.

To do that, he also has to overcome the adversity of being beat out of the Olympic trials by Tillman and turning pro at the ridiculously underdeveloped age of 18 against much larger, stronger, more mature grown men. He also has to overcome the adversity of a some good sharp shots across the chops by the same, minor details unimportant to those not taking the shots.

Typical fan wants to see less skilled and less talented fighters go down against clubfighter types and get back up and persevere like some famous names usually ranked over him. At any rate, IBRO: 12. Lewis, 13. Mike, 14. Mr. Evan H. Field.

Read it and weep.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I don't think Tyson's loss to Douglas makes him a poor fighter but his inability to come beat adversity raises question marks about him.

I think he had good physical stamina but poor mental stamina.

He has to be rated below Lewis and Holyfield.

- No question marks needed about the limited ability to rate Tyson by average fans.

For one thing, overcoming one of the most terrible childhoods in history to become a record setting heavy champ is not just beating adversity, but also unending the status quo of the tail end of the Ali era and the whole Holmes era and standing it on it's head and shaking it down.

To do that, he also has to overcome the adversity of being beat out of the Olympic trials by Tillman and turning pro at the ridiculously underdeveloped age of 18 against much larger, stronger, more mature grown men. He also has to overcome the adversity of a some good sharp shots across the chops by the same, minor details unimportant to those not taking the shots.

Typical fan wants to see less skilled and less talented fighters go down against clubfighter types and get back up and persevere like some famous names usually ranked over him. At any rate, IBRO: 12. Lewis, 13. Mike, 14. Mr. Evan H. Field.

Read it and weep.

I don't think anyone on this board is qualified to judge what one of the most terrible childhoods in history is... Just think about that statement for a moment...try and remember a little bit of history and you'll realise just how far from reality you are on this.

Are you a child psychologist? It's pretty apalling of you to try and make a statement like that which is based on nothing other than the posters above your bed and a wiped eye for your hero. Maybe all the bleeding hearts should get together and concoct excuses for the fighters they like to champion.

Now, lets say that you are right, for the sake of argument (and you're not). But i'll accept that Tyson, like many others, had a hard time growing up. What's absolutely for sure is that he did not overcome his childhood. He ended up a victim of it. You don't need to be Melanie Klein to see that.

If you're trying ascertain whether someone is great you judge them against other greats, not on the experiences of fans of the sport. All fighters are braver, stronger, more skilled etc... than the fans... It's generally a given for club fighters let alone world champions. The fact that you're even bothering to put this into your argument means that you're standing there with a fistful of straws.

John Galt wrote:Kym, where do guys like John L. come from? Are they still living in the 50s? John L., get out, read a little, strength is speed. Stronger is faster.

You're right. The middle aged, fat Foreman who used weight training was light years faster than the younger Foreman, as I'm sure even Stevie Wonder could determine by watching fights from both of his careers. How could I be so blind as to not notice the great speed and nimble moves of Old George and guys like Rahman, Peter and Brewster. I feel so ashamed...

I guess you're right that properly executed weight training can definitely help speed, and I'm sure that all of these current giant, blazing fast HWs are all expertly trained as we can all plainly see with our own eyes.

John, you are a genius. Thank you for setting me straight. An old guy like me could never understand that training the body properly could actually improve speed.

dangerousjohnny wrote:Oh give it up. Every boxer has a hard life sob story. Tyson is similar to Edison Miranda, a childhood thug who caves in against anyone with the cajones to stand up to them.

Yes, standing up to Tyson did work great for Berbick.

Ezzard wrote: If you're trying ascertain whether someone is great you judge them against other greats, not on the experiences of fans of the sport.

- No IFs, ANDs, and BUTs about it bud, I gave the current IBRO rankings completely independent of my rankings.

You and like ilk are the ones out of whack here. First Ballot HOF lock in the biggest IBHOF day in history, assuming he's still alive. His mortality at that time is the only part not a given.

No need to say you heard it here first as those who know already know and there's quite a few.