vote & discuss.

What debate?

first off the people that voted for foreman are fools.if the debate was strongest heavyweight foreman would be the answer.mike tyson was a better puncher than foreman.

first off the people that voted for foreman are fools.if the debate was strongest heavyweight foreman would be the answer.mike tyson was a better puncher than foreman.

No doubt he was better skill wise, but harder I beg to differ. A guy who sends fighters to the matt with telegraphed arm punchers must have more natural whack than someone who uses precision combos to acheive such results. Regardless in terms of power I'd take Tua's left hook over any of Mike's shots and I'd take Shavers right over practicly any other shots thrown by anyone.

No doubt he was better skill wise, but harder I beg to differ. A guy who sends fighters to the matt with telegraphed arm punchers must have more natural whack than someone who uses precision combos to acheive such results. Regardless in terms of power I'd take Tua's left hook over any of Mike's shots and I'd take Shavers right over practicly any other shots thrown by anyone.

I agree, so do Ali and Holmes.

Hold Up! i agree foreman has more punching power. But Tuas left Hook better than Mikes! now i cant agree with that!

Hold Up! i agree foreman has more punching power. But Tuas left Hook better than Mikes! now i cant agree with that!

Not better, just more raw power.

Tua's left hook probably had more power, by Tyson used his much more effectively, ether way he'd wreck Tua.

If Foreman had a different trainer who showed him how to put all his weight behind his punches like Tyson, I might say Foreman hit harder, but foreman had a very traditional older style trainer who wasn't nearly as innovative as Cus d'amato. So for power I'm going for Tyson. Tyson knew how to punch, nuff' said.

No doubt he was better skill wise, but harder I beg to differ. A guy who sends fighters to the matt with telegraphed arm punchers must have more natural whack than someone who uses precision combos to acheive such results. Regardless in terms of power I'd take Tua's left hook over any of Mike's shots and I'd take Shavers right over practicly any other shots thrown by anyone.

haha,I might actually do a project and count how many times after then fought Tua and Tyson,did they get ko'd again. This would be interesting,and probably one sided.

Foreman had great power, but many times he threw arm punches.


Tyson put his weight into his punches. From watching both fighers, I gotta go with "Iron" Mike.

No way Tyson punched harder than Foreman. Truth is though, Shavers hit harder than both of them.

Poet

This isn't asking about the hardest hitter in history, though. It's only asking the greater of the two.

Tyson's punches probably stunned a lot more people, because they were lightning fast, came from awkward angles, and were usually followed by many others. Foreman probably had more pure power, but Tyson's torso technique and spring-action gives him more snap.

George Foreman weighed in at 217 1/2 pounds for his fight with Joe Frazier, arguably one of his most powerful performances.

Mike Tyson weighed 218 pounds against Michael Spinks, a performance which some consider to be a night where nobody could have stopped Mike.

It's not that Foreman has lots of size on Mike, and height and reach don't necessarily translate into power. Plus, Mike's leverage comes from mid-to-short range, where George has to get those arms extended.

Mike fought a lot of taller guys, which takes something off of the punches. Tyson also was thrown into the title hunt much sooner, and was therefore fighting heartier fighters earlier than was Foreman.

It's tough to call. I did vote for Foreman, but a good case could be made either way.

Tyson had the edge in speed, skill and accuracy, plus every punch he threw was effective wether it was an uppercut, left hook or right cross. Foreman probably had more natural power and he has longer arms, but he would punch himself out many times because he was missing too much, and was too much of a "natural puncher". A slugger, compared to the more skilled Tyson who would set up unbelievable combinations.

Some of you boys know Tyson alot better than me.. i know him well..but some of you boys followed his career like a hawk.

My humble opinion is...that Foreman and Tyson had the same awesome power than could knock any living thing out with one stike.

But Tyson had the higher fitness rate and was faster and technically skilled.

big george = more power
iron mike = more potent

That's a good way of seeing it, ForemanCrossArm. I think many of us agree that it was "different" power. One guy had big, scything swats, while the other fired fast, explosive punches in combination.

big george = more power
iron mike = more potent

tython was much more accurate with his punches than foreman, and threw combinations. big george would load up and throw one big shot at a time. i'd say foreman had more raw power, tython's power came more from skill

This isn't asking about the hardest hitter in history, though. It's only asking the greater of the two.

Tyson's punches probably stunned a lot more people, because they were lightning fast, came from awkward angles, and were usually followed by many others. Foreman probably had more pure power, but Tyson's torso technique and spring-action gives him more snap.

George Foreman weighed in at 217 1/2 pounds for his fight with Joe Frazier, arguably one of his most powerful performances.

Mike Tyson weighed 218 pounds against Michael Spinks, a performance which some consider to be a night where nobody could have stopped Mike.

It's not that Foreman has lots of size on Mike, and height and reach don't necessarily translate into power. Plus, Mike's leverage comes from mid-to-short range, where George has to get those arms extended.

Mike fought a lot of taller guys, which takes something off of the punches. Tyson also was thrown into the title hunt much sooner, and was therefore fighting heartier fighters earlier than was Foreman.

It's tough to call. I did vote for Foreman, but a good case could be made either way.in a interview they did to spinks's manager, he went to tyson's locker room to check on tyson and he saw mike punching holes in the wall before going to the ring and finish the fight in the first round. it was incredible. :lol1:

in a interview they did to spinks's manager, he went to tyson's locker room to check on tyson and he saw mike punching holes in the wall before going to the ring and finish the fight in the first round. it was incredible. :lol1:

I saw the pic of the wall awhile back.Pretty big hole.

I saw the pic of the wall awhile back.Pretty big hole.there's even a picture of it? :lol1: wow.

there's even a picture of it? :lol1: wow.

Yes siiiiiir.......

Tyson had more head movement and skill but Foreman is clearly a harder hitter than Tyson ever was.

By the way,you guys do know that Tyson himself said that Foreman hit harder right? I just wanted to clear that up.:)

where's the question here?? we all know mike tyson had the speed, accuracy, speed, bad intentions, speed and body movement. oh and speed.

foreman had no defense, no speed, no brain... BUT THE ****ING POWER

Not better, just more raw power.

This is the whole point of this thread, the debate is about power not quality of shot.

Foreman, Shavers even Bruno had more raw punching power than Mike Tyson but Tyson's punches were quicker, more accurate and came together in bunches, therefore in summary Tyson was a better technical hitter but Foreman had more punching power.

By the way,you guys do know that Tyson himself said that Foreman hit harder right? I just wanted to clear that up.:)

I don't doubt it Versi. Mike always had better knowledge of past fighters than any fighter I've heard of. That's where my respect for Tyson comes from: HIS respect for Boxing, it's history, and the fighters that came before him.

PS. Don't underestimate young Foreman's straight ahead speed: You blink and he was on you like stink on ****. Straight ahead Foreman was a cobra.

Poet

Oh. As a side note I believe Foreman still holds the Heavyweight record for career knockout percentage and this despite not recording a single KO after Michael Moorer. Whether you're judging by pure power or punching effectiveness that record shows Foreman was pretty damn effective.

And some nitwit was comparing Tyson's KO of Berbick favorably over Foreman's KO of Frazier. I'll make this VERY simple: Berbick has no right to be used in the same sentence as Frazier. Frazier was an all-time-great, Berbick was a journeyman at best. There is absolutely NO comparison.

Poet

I don't doubt it Versi. Mike always had better knowledge of past fighters than any fighter I've heard of. That's where my respect for Tyson comes from: HIS respect for Boxing, it's history, and the fighters that came before him.

PS. Don't underestimate young Foreman's straight ahead speed: You blink and he was on you like stink on ****. Straight ahead Foreman was a cobra.

Poet


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki4UKsI8bms He says it at 4:33 of the video.

for the one who voted "I could care less, there's other boxers who punch harder than them."

Dynamite Dye..

who punches harder than them?:rolleyes:

this ough to be good :lurk:

for the one who voted "I could care less, there's other boxers who punch harder than them."

Dynamite Dye..

who punches harder than them?:rolleyes:

this ough to be good :lurk:

Olivia.....................

Oh. As a side note I believe Foreman still holds the Heavyweight record for career knockout percentage and this despite not recording a single KO after Michael Moorer. Whether you're judging by pure power or punching effectiveness that record shows Foreman was pretty damn effective.

And some nitwit was comparing Tyson's KO of Berbick favorably over Foreman's KO of Frazier. I'll make this VERY simple: Berbick has no right to be used in the same sentence as Frazier. Frazier was an all-time-great, Berbick was a journeyman at best. There is absolutely NO comparison.

Poet

not foreman, he's 2nd best. rocky marciano has the highest KO %

first off the people that voted for foreman are fools.if the debate was strongest heavyweight foreman would be the answer.mike tyson was a better puncher than foreman.

Read the question again. "Who has more punching power?" The answer is clearly Foreman, and I'm not talking about the 45 year old that knocked out Moorer, I'm talking about the one that knocked down Frazier 6 times in 2 rounds.

Mike Tyson without a doubt had more power

Mike Tyson without a doubt had more power

And your evidence is what? If you are going to make a gratuitous statement it can equally gratuitously denied.

Poet

There have been several bigger punchers than Mike Tyson like Shavers, Foreman, Bruno even Lewis but Tyson had the perfect technique for the power shots. He was a squat guy with a low centre of gravity compared to his opponents married with excellent technique, lightening hand speed and good power. There have been very few better heavyweight fighters at delivering powerful combinations.

Therefore Foreman hit harder.

There have been several bigger punchers than Mike Tyson like Shavers, Foreman, Bruno even Lewis but Tyson had the perfect technique for the power shots. He was a squat guy with a low centre of gravity compared to his opponents married with excellent technique, lightening hand speed and good power. There have been very few better heavyweight fighters at delivering powerful combinations.

Therefore Foreman hit harder.

I tend to agree with this. George Foreman had more raw power, but Tysons punches was more effective, given his technique and speed of hand. This is why Tysons kayos often seem more explosive and damaging than those of Foreman.

i heard mike tyson turned down an offer to fight 40 year old earnie shavers back in the late 80's. :dunno:

George is what he is. A straight ahead destroyer. He demolished more than a few good, capable heavyweights. Tyson, however, combined power with speed, skill, discipline and technique, was a machine.

But having said that, you take away the skill, discipline and technique and Tyson becomes nothing more than a glorified headhunter and very uneffective. Once he left Camp Cus that was it. Don King was the absolute ending of Mike Tyson.

Personally I don't subscribe to the fact that Tyson's physical prime ended around the Douglas fight. I think he had all his faculties just didn't have the work ethic to get it done. He just became a sloppy fighter looking for the killshot and that was ultimately his undoing.

At anyrate, Foreman has the overall edge in powershots by far. Tyson hit hard, but it was his handspeed that was the real killer.

hawkins..

when mike tyson came out of prison, did he returned STRONGER than he was before?

Stronger? I don't know about that. He just didn't have any discipline and fought mostly 2nd-3rd tier fighters and he still looked sloppy doing it.

Tyson's great technique. Not just a skilled puncher, but a very smart one. Stepping side to side, keeping the legs far away from each other to create more power while keeping low center of gravity. Deadly.

hawkins..

when mike tyson came out of prison, did he returned STRONGER than he was before?

He was never a very physically strong fighter. But in his prime, he was able to push back some strong fighters like Ruddock, sometimes holding his own against brutes like Bruno. Later, Holyfield was having a rather easy time handling Tyson in the clinches.

Well, in Tyson's years after the Douglas debacle and post-Rooney era, he relied mostly on two things - his reputation to intimidate and his punching power. I'm sure Don King and all of his yes men played a huge part in perpetuating Tyson's ego to the point that he thought that was all he needed.

Needless to say, Foreman was a successful one dimensional fighter. When Tyson became one dimensional he was average at best.

He was never a very physically strong fighter. But in his prime, he was able to push back some strong fighters like Ruddock, sometimes holding his own against brutes like Bruno. Later, Holyfield was having a rather easy time handling Tyson in the clinches.

if tyson hadn't gone to jail, do u think he would beat holyfield in 94-95?

if tyson hadn't gone to jail, do u think he would beat holyfield in 94-95?

I don't think it would have mattered. Holyfield would have beaten any version of Tyson post-Rooney.

I think it would have mattered. Holyfield would have beaten any version of Tyson post-Rooney.

This has been thoroughly discussed in the "prime mike tyson could have been the best ever?" thread if you're interested.
I still think Tyson would have beaten Holyfield in the early 90s. He had the heart and physical attributes to beat a young wreckless slugging loving Holyfield.