BoxRec

how would this fight go if it were the 1980's tyson vs the 1970's foreman
i know everybody will think the obvious that tyson would have too much spped and skill however somebody like foreman who kept pushing his opponents away to keep them at long range i think this would trouble tyson
also it would a power fest
any thought on how the fight would play out?

I think one could easily make an argument for either fighter.

Foreman had such natural raw power that in a single jab
could deter and shake a iron jawed fighter. His style though
seemingly ponderous was effective in its blunt savagery.
The traditional belief is that the shorter swarmer type of fighter
would fall prey early to Tyson. Ala Frazier, Cooper etc.

However Mike Tyson is cut from a different cloth to such men
and perhaps looking at say the over weight, under conditioned
Dwight Qawi versus older Foreman one can get a glance into seeing
how well Foreman would handle a different type of short aggressive
fighter.

Not as well.

Tyson has sharp reflexes, hard power and a good chin that often
gets over looked. The peak Tyson has better late fight power and
stamina to Foreman of the 70s. He is less tight and can mix it
up over the longer stage of the fight.

I see this being a good fight, but Tyson has the goods to win
by TKO late or a decision.

Foreman is open to vicious body attack combinations and
counter right hands and left hooks.

Foreman will have some success finding Tyson with his jab
and will slow Tyson up with his power.

Tyson working inside of his own jab, will do well to find a home
for his cross and the occasional body shot.

Tyson will get frustrated by Foremans shoving if the ref lets it
go.

Foreman will eat elbows at close range as well as some late
blows in response to his showing.

Whatever the out come it will be an entertaining night for those
in attendance.

"However Mike Tyson is cut from a different cloth to such men
and perhaps looking at say the over weight, under conditioned
Dwight Qawi versus older Foreman one can get a glance into seeing
how well Foreman would handle a different type of short aggressive
fighter.

Not as well..." - Robinson

I only take exception to this point. That Foreman has not a single thing in common with a prime version of himself. The 73-74 Foreman obliterates Qawi.

And that version of Qawi was his best ?

Older Foreman had pros and cons over his youthful self.

The Qawi that fought him was selected for one reason
he was a drugged over weight name that took the fight
on short notice. Foreman was in shape and trained for that
fight. Sure he was not his 'peak' self but the older Foreman
was a more patient and stronger animal.

Qawi was old & past it, but he's not on trial, here.

Ask yourself, how would any version of Qawi stack up to the Foreman who smashed out Frazier & Norton?

Foreman drills him, & I think, because of the style match (& intimidation factor) he drills Tyson, too.

You place to much emphasis on 'intimidation' fighters dont
get intimidated or scared. Its why they fight to win..
whether that be by fluke, or design. A man like Qawi does not
get intimidated nor does Tyson.

The fear felt by 99.9% of fighters is fear of losing, letting them
or loved ones down. Not fear of personal injury or pain,.

The point I made was that Qawi in that fight proved Foreman
struggled with some styles of a smaller pressure fighter.

Qawi loses to Foreman old and young, I grant you that. But
does that mean we can not take any lessons from that fight?
Seeing as older Foreman at that stage was a rejuvinated
fighter, perhaps in better form (not shape) that he was against Young?

I do not think Foreman decimates or drills Tyson.

Tyson is a different fighter to Norton and Frazier, as great as
both men were.

Kym, I agree 100%. Good fighters feel nervous prior to a fight because they don't want to lose or let their friends down. Good fighters are not afraid of an opponent. Intimidation of boxers by other boxers is mostly in the minds of sports writers.

But mr Galt dont you know that Tyson won all of his fights
because his opponents were scared before the opening bell.

Well atleast thats how mr Randolph Sugar tells it.

To clarify, you two don't think Holyfield or Lewis intimidated Tyson at any point? Tyson has at times spoken of both men with a reverence bordering on intimidation...

Respect or seemingly being in awe of some one that defeated
you does not mean you are intimidated.

The trouble I have always had is that alot of writers like to generalise
a fighter as simply calling them a bully or a master of psyching out a
foe etc. How would they know ????
And where does this general view of a 'bully' come from.

"You beat a bully by manning up or standing up to him"
says who ?

I just think that often a fighters determination and will to be number
one even if they are ranked number 372 is often dis regarded and
over looked.

I was actually thinking of an interview Tyson did speaking of Holyfield several years before they fought (around the time their battle was being hyped, late 80's/early 90's). Nevertheless, I absolutely agree that, "you beat a bully by standing up to him" is one of the most trite & under-thought, "truisms" ever unthinkingly uttered by the masses...

You of all people in your line of work would know first
hand whether that one is true or not.

Do you think some boxing writers get wet over that
one though after a few gins and cigars...?

I have not read the interview. But the trouble is one
can get alot of things from an interview. Respect, awe,
fascinated, etc does not neccesarily mean that they
are intimidated.

The only guy I can think of as being intimidated, well
atleast from our perspective was Frank Bruno in the
rematch. But even then it did not stop him from trying
his best to take Tyson's head of with his right hand.

I have only ever seen one guy back stage on shows who
was intimidated. He was a last minute replacement who
just found out his opponent was a 6'5, 120kg national level
wrestler. He was told he was fighting a 93kg bout. The guy
vomited and went pale at the weigh in and looked horrible
going into the fight. BUT...once the bell rang he backed
the big guy up intially and did well. Only to lose by TKO late
in the 2nd.

I can't fault your logic when you say writers over-play & under-think the psychological aspect of the fight game. Your point resonates with me, there.

What to make, though, of Tyson's declaration to King. "I'm not fighting that animal. You fight him," made in the early-90's. Foreman was a lot more imposing, certainly, in the 70's. If Tyson wasn't seriously concerned about what Foreman could actually do to him, I wonder what his worry stemmed from. It's curious.

Possibly, he knew he would be expected not only to win, but to convincingly thrash an ancient Foreman --- a task he had doubts over? Maybe he felt he could win, but not in smashing fashion? Perhaps he was concerned with struggling en route to victory, as opposed to an actual loss.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:To clarify, you two don't think Holyfield or Lewis intimidated Tyson at any point? Tyson has at times spoken of both men with a reverence bordering on intimidation...

- Don't know what he says of them and it don't matter.

Tyson is mentally unbalanced and out of whack, prone to extreme mania and extreme depression.

That said, the only fighter I see that Tyson ever feared was Foreman. Cus and Jacobs for all the fine work they did drilling him with fight films were always adamant that Foreman was the absolute worst nightmare for his style and to stay away from that kind of fighter.

When The Don King offered him the Foreman fight, remember, that was originally Foreman's goal coming out of retirement, to fight Tyson, well, when offered Tyson went crazy, chewing out King and storming away. This was post prison Tyson and he didn't want any part of George as he saw right through his grandpaw act.

Prime to prime, Tyson would remember the D'amato lessons and probably give in to George spite of having all the attributes save mental strength to beat him. Then again he could pull out the Dempsey fear of Willard or Ali of Liston and punch up an amazing performance. He was much stronger mentally in his prime with his team surrounding him.

He was in his prime like all the wiley fighters programmed, and
response to the preparation and corner work. He would listen
to his guys, he trusted them and didn't 'know better'.

Older Foreman like I said above had varying pros and cons to
that of younger Foreman. He had more strength, more ability
to absorb harder shots, and he was alot more patient and relaxed
despite his girth.

That is a good trade off for youth, aggression and quicker reflexes
(that youth gives).

Prime for prime is a different scenario for a possible 1990s meeting.
Tyson had it in him post prison to just give in after a few rounds,
especially against a big fortress like Foreman. Then again Foreman
also had it in him to be battered and out worked as he was against
Stewart and perhaps Morrison.

Prime for Prime, I just see Foreman making mistakes that Tyson
in his prime would be able to exploit.

Against shorter guys, say like Gullick, Foreman would lean foreward and
parry alot. Drop his left back to his waist after each shot. Alot of
openings for a fast hand and footed Tyson. Pushing against both
shoulders as he did often has weaknesses to, one is nice and
open while reaching like that.

Foreman also at this time stood square and open, an over hand right
which sevral of his foes then were ale to land would be there for Tyson.
Who had alot more speed and power than say a ted Gullick.

Foreman's jab always seemed like a battering ram to me, method, hard
but not as fast as many others, he also would recycle it at his waist

The beautiful and over looked thing that Foreman did to Frazier was ro
re-direct Frazier, and step of early. Avoiding Frazier. This set up those
pushes and shoves.

The flat footed Frazier was there to be hit, he bobbed at his waist, but
his legs stayed concredted to the canvas. He was there to be tagged by
that specimen Foreman.

Frazier stayed at the end of Foreman's power. Literally at arms length for
most of that brief bout. Tyson, in his best was geared to getting inside
under the taller HW. He was perfect at this. Frazier who swarmed in
more of a direct and attritional method lacked the angles offered by a
peak Tyson.

If Frazier had an over hand right in his arsenal, which he possesed in
the late 60s he could have stung Foreman. In any case Foreman's win
over Frazier is one of the most impressive Title wins ever, as far as
Im concerned.

I can see the counter view, but I sincerly feel that 1973 Foreman Vs
1987-88 Tyson just goes in the favour of Iron Mike.

Sorry to rant guys.

One thing i don't understand is when people compare Tyson to Frazier.

They were both short and aggressive, yes.

However, Frazier usually moved forward constantly, adding pressure on the fighter.

Tyson on the other hand was constantly moving, relying on quick combo's whenever getting inside.

Frazier usually looked to stay on the inside.

Against a Big Hitter like Foreman, Frazier's technique was very poor, and hence eventually got hit several times in a row.

Tyson on the hand who relies more and Speed than pressure, combined with Foremans relatively slow speed would have different results.

I personally feel this would not go the distance, and probable end in a TKO somewhere in the latter rounds.

I personally feel a Prime Tyson would take it.

Robinson wrote:Sorry to rant guys.

Are you?

A prime Foreman loses the first couple of rounds then hammers Tyson in about the fifth. Tyson's intimidation tactics simply don't work on George and it's all over red rover when Tyson starts to doubt himself 8)

I can imagine Tyson jumping on him before george knows what's happening and when Tyson landed combinations they were devestating enough to put anyone away... BUT then when Tyson got hurt he always backed off for a while, became unsure of himself… Both men crumbled psychologically when their plan A didn’t work… But Foreman is more likely to win a duke out than Tyson. Both men will get hurt at some point, both will probably touch down.

It's close, I lean toards george.

Both these guys had massive power, excellent chins & questionable stamina.

Tyson had the edge in speed & head movemt whereas as Foreman had the edge in out & out power & physical strength.

What separates these 2 is heart.

Foreman had a huge heart & proved he could fight through adversity to either last to the end or eventually prevail (Ali fight excepted).

Tyson on the other hand proved no such thing (Ruddock 1 & 2 aside, where Ruddock stupidly stood & traded single shots with Tyson, when he should have boxed & used movement etc) in his career & that's what separates these 2.

I can easily see Tyson becoming disheartened by the human brick wall that was George Foreman & losing by stoppage.

Robinson wrote:Older Foreman had pros and cons over his youthful self.

Older Foreman had absolutely no advantages over the younger Foreman, save his publicly persona. The "patience" that many claimed he displayed in his second career was also on display in a number of his first career fights as well, most notably the Young fight. However, in that case, everyone says that he wasn't as good as the pre Ali version of Foreman, so I guess it's all on the spin you want to use.

Everybody loves George, but the reality is that the Foreman of his second career was as slow as glacier, and had lost a notch or two from his punching power. The fact he did as well as he did is a testament to both the great will and determination of the man as well as some very well planned match making.

I think that prime George beats Tyson 3 of 4. His ability to control Tyson at range should give him the ability to stop Tyson within 5, although with Tysons' explosive power and speed he certainly had the ability to drop big George..

I think Tyson would be too quick, he could move out of the way of George's telepgraphed wide arm punches. He would land failry easily through George's non guard. The more I write this, the more I'm convinced this would actually be a quick ko for Mike.

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...

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