BoxRec

I'm sure our regulars like MattyP and JCS83 will find time in their busy schedules to kindly add their thoughts to this one!!


Jaybee.

Matty's gonna harrass you by saying this belongs in Boxers of the Past!

Foreman wins. Too big, too strong and too hard of a head. Tyson will tire himself out and get stopped.

asdf

I believe he said Peak Foreman.. not Young Foreman.

edit

And what does a "prime" Tyson do exactly that a "prime" (1970-73) Joe Frazier could NOT do?

Foreman-Tyson could have been worse than Foreman-Frazier I from Kingston, Jamaica.

Shit.. a 46 year old Foreman hung in there with a prime Holyfield. At similar points in there careers, Holyfield handled Tyson.

I realize there are stylistic differences.. and this type of cyclical logic doesn't always work... but are you trying to tell me a prime Foreman couldn't take out Tyson? Tyson was a dangerous man, but he wasn't often storming through great fighters (other than Spinks).

Spinks....who after all is said and done was a truly great LIGHT heavyweight.

Trying to walk in close on a young Foreman was Suicide. Just ask Norton and Frazier about George's uppercut. I don't think Tyson has much of a chance here. I actually would pick the comebacking Foreman to beat the post prison Tyson. Prime for Prime Tyson gets ko'd.

abcd

If I recall correctly, we had quite a chat on this subject about two years ago. See if you can dig it up. There were some good insights from lots of still current Boxrecers.

Rng Anncr wrote:And what does a "prime" Tyson do exactly that a "prime" (1970-73) Joe Frazier could NOT do?

Foreman-Tyson could have been worse than Foreman-Frazier I from Kingston, Jamaica.

How in the world was Frazier similar to Tyson other than that erradict bob and weave he did. Even that was so much different from the technique Tyson used. Frazier didnt hit as hard wasnt as quick .. was far less skilled, was much more one dimensional didnt have as good as a chin. And Frazier wasnt so much as a foward goin fighter than sitting and hooking all night, not realy moving. Tyson was much more mobile and would have hit slow Foreman almost at will. If Bonecrusher Smith could not hit TYson Foreman most certainly could not.

I'm surprised opinions are so cleanly polarised here, before I asked the question I couldn't make up my mind. Both men are damn strong, though Foreman has a clear edge, and were very fast HW's, although advantadge here of course to Tyson. Typical "2-Chinny-Bangers" scenario.

Methinks whoever is the luckier to rock the other first enjoys the crucial intimidation factor, goes on to land the more punches and KO's the other. To that end, I think they could fight ten times and the scoreboard would read 6-4 - but I still don't know to whom the 6 goes.

Jaybee.

Did a quick search and came up with theese 5 threads which hold many of our answers to the question at hand.

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... man++tyson


http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... man++tyson


http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... man++tyson


http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... man++tyson


http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... man++tyson

abcd

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?

Cultus...your lack of appreciation for Joe Frazier is amazing.

He hit like a truck to the body and head. Fought and beat an entire group of fighters better than any of Tyson's wins...and had a very solid defense and twice the heart than Mike EVER showed.

Bonavena was a tough as nails, crazy, strong, and fearless bull.

Quarry was a skilled boxer, master counter-puncher and according to Gil Clancey, had the hardest single punch of any fighter he ever saw. (Quarry's string of all KO's to win the National GG may still me a record).

Yet you dismiss Frazier's impressive dismantling of these two (and several others).

And I haven't even mentioned Smokin' Joe's great performance on the biggest stage ever versus Ali in fight #1 or his never say die heroic effort in Manila.

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

What Foreman did to Frazier (twice) tells me that he'd have a very good chance of doing the same to Mike.

DaveV17 wrote:Jaybee,
You are entitled to your opinion, but out of curiosity, why do you think Foreman was stronger than Tyson? I think the opposite. Tyson weighed as much as Foreman but was 4 inches shorter. Tyson was more muscularand compact. I would think Tyson would be the stronger fighter.

Foreman never looked quick or fast to me. Tyson is probably without question the fastest power puncher of all time, and arguably the fastest handed boxer period. People need to understand that Tyson is not Joe Frazier. Mike Tyson is quicker, stronger, more athletic, in short he is far better physcially than Joe. Mike Tyson IMO, from Berbeck to M.Spinks is the best Heavyweight I have ever seen.

The Bonecrusher Smith that Tyson fought was bigger and stronger than the 1970s Foreman. To me that is the model for Tyson - Foreman, if Foreman stands and fights he gets knocked out, if he holds, he lasts a little longer but still loses badly.

Fair question - but somebody has since beaten me to the answer. It's the quality of opponent - Bonecrusher, in my opinion, didn't have the "bonecrushing" strength that Foreman had, or Douglas showed. Foreman has the superior Curriculum Vitae - most of Tysons opponents were beaten, mentally, before ever stepping into the ring. I (already) agree that Mike had blistering hand/head speed - but given the height/reach disadvantages, would that be enough to counter George's power?

Again, I am not convinced either way. I do need to review some of Foremans fights of that era, that's for sure.


Jaybee.

longrob wrote:Trying to walk in close on a young Foreman was Suicide. Just ask Norton and Frazier about George's uppercut. I don't think Tyson has much of a chance here. I actually would pick the comebacking Foreman to beat the post prison Tyson. Prime for Prime Tyson gets ko'd.

Ol Willy couldn't have said it any better.

DaveV17 wrote: ... Foreman never looked quick or fast to me. Tyson is probably without question the fastest power puncher of all time, and arguably the fastest handed boxer period. People need to understand that Tyson is not Joe Frazier. Mike Tyson is quicker, stronger, more athletic, in short he is far better physcially than Joe. Mike Tyson IMO, from Berbeck to M.Spinks is the best Heavyweight I have ever seen.

The Bonecrusher Smith that Tyson fought was bigger and stronger than the 1970s Foreman. To me that is the model for Tyson - Foreman, if Foreman stands and fights he gets knocked out, if he holds, he lasts a little longer but still loses badly.

There's a lot just in this much of your post that I don't quite agree with, although we're all just expressing opinions. I'll agree Foreman never "looked" particularly fast, but apparently he was fast enough. Not many guys were beating him to the punch, as the record shows. At least not for long.

I can go along with Tyson being bigger, stronger and faster than Frazier. Still not sure whether all that made him better than Frazier. As for Tyson being the best HW you've ever seen from Berbick to Spinks, well I suppose that's a hard argument to refute. He did look pretty close to unbeatable there for a while ...

Except along came Douglas! And that was not so long after your Berbick to Spinks timetable. I just don't think Tyson's ability could deteriorate that much, even with all the ineptitude around him by that time. He wasn't that far removed from Rooney. And he was still a very young man.

So, as great as Tyson's star shone for those few fabulous years, it all came crumbling down just as quickly as it appeared ...

Leading me to believe Tyson was actually quite beatable all along. It just took a tall, strong and determined fighter with a reach advantage, a stiff enough jab to keep himself out of Tyson's wheel house, and enough stones not be intimidated before he even stepped in the ring.

In my opinion, Foreman was all those things and probably just as hard a puncher to boot.

edit

DaveV17 wrote:kingpawn,
These hypothetical matchups are just opinion and of course there is no way to prove anything, but, I think Mike Tyson had deteriorated quite a bit in the Carl Williams, and Bruno fights leading up to the Douglas fight. Tyson was not the same fighter for Douglas as he had been earlier when he trained with Rooney. In addition, even if he had been the same fighter, I don't see any similarities in the way Douglas fought and the way Foreman fought.

Douglas, in Tokyo, fought like a bigger Larry Holmes. He had a career night. He did everything right. George Foreman never showed the skills that Douglas displayed that night. I don't see the greatness in the 1970s Foreman. I see a wild swinging fighter who could punch, but had almost no skill and little endurance. The only way Foreman looks good to me is if I take the best of 1970s Foreman and combine it with the best of the 1990s Foreman. Otherwise, in the 1970s, he was just a flawed fighter with two big wins.

You're right, these are just our opinions for which there's no way to prove. Douglas did indeed have a career night. That he fought like a bigger Larry Holmes was a nice comparison. I can't argue that Foreman was not the most skillful boxer in the world, but I do believe he had an underrated jab. It wasn't just his pushing tactics that kept opponents in his own best punching range. I think he had skill that, to the eye, was sort of undermined by the fact that he did throw big, looping punches. But he usually could find his mark.

To use a baseball analogy, Willie Horton (former Detroit Tiger) used to swing so hard one wonders how he ever made contact. A batting coach's nightmare. Was he skilled? Yep, no doubt about it.

Tyson resembles Frazier too much...that doesn't look good

Forman had that never say die mind set that seen him KO Moorer after coping a beltng, IMO Tyson hits Forman, Forman doesn't fold on the dotted line, Tyson becomes frustrated and intimidated by Forman who KOs Tyson in about 5 rounds.
Tyson could not handle great fighters - other than Spinks and that was more a size and weight issue. When a fighter was not intimidated by Tyson and it him back with conviction he was in trouble

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.