View Full Version : Did Buster Douglas Really Beat Mike Tyson??


Pages : [1] 2

Pariah21388
09-10-2005, 10:37 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/tyson/flashback/kod/
The eighth round opened with Douglas again getting the better of Tyson, but it closed with a sudden, classic Tyson right uppercut that dropped Douglas to the canvas with six seconds left. It was the only time that Douglas got careless, and it nearly cost him his eventual stunning upset. Worse, though, was referee Meyran's shabby handling of the count, which, if promoter Don King has his way, may serve to deprive Douglas of the crown that he rightfully deserves. At the moment Douglas's backside touched the surface of the ring, the knockdown timekeeper began his count. Instead of picking up that cadence, Meyran began his own count, two beats behind.
As generations of felled fighters have done before him, Douglas kept his attention fixed on the referee's hands. As Meyran signaled nine, Douglas rose, but the bell ended the round. If there was any doubt that Douglas was clearheaded and could have risen to his feet on the timekeeper's count, it had been erased right after the knockdown when Douglas pounded his left fist on the mat, in obvious annoyance at his own lapse.
Yet King, who saw his world tour coming to a screeching halt about three continents short of his grand plan, would later seize on the discrepancy in the counts as grounds to bully others into awarding Tyson a victory by knockout.
But King was not willing to allow his investment in the franchise called Mike Tyson to take the hit that inevitably comes from losing a title fight. King summoned officials from two of the major sanctioning bodies, the WBC and WBA, and representatives from the Japan Boxing Commission to a small room off the arena. Emerging two hours later, King called a press conference to announce that tapes of the bout clearly showed that "two knockouts took place, but the first knockout obliterates the second. Buster Douglas was knocked out, and the referee did not do his job and panicked. As the promoter of both fighters, I'm only seeking fair play."
Two hours after that declaration, King again summoned the press. This time, he brought along Meyran, who said, "I don't know why I start my count and make my mistake. Yes, he was down longer than 10 seconds." Also in attendance was the fallen champion. His swollen left eye hidden by dark glasses, he said, "I thought I knocked him out. I thought he was counted out."
Not surprisingly, given the sway he holds over the sport, King's transparent attempts to alter the obvious were persuasive enough for the WBC and WBA to announce that they would suspend recognition of the outcome until further review, which is expected to take place during this coming week. Even as Douglas relaxed in his hotel room with the WBC belt around his waist, the organization's president, Jose Sulaiman, was saying, "I'm very confused." Later, at the second press conference, he was no longer so confused. He said a rematch "was absolutely mandatory." But the damage is pretty much done. All King's men can't put Tyson together again.
Of course, if you want confusion, boxing is, once more, for you. For starters, there is the blabbering of governing bodies whose only apparent purpose is to collect sanctioning fees. Tyson had consolidated all three titles -- WBC, WBA and IBF -- on Aug. 1, 1987, but because the Japan Boxing Commission does not recognize the IBF, no one from that organization was represented in Tokyo. Yet the IBF did sanction the fight, and does not recognize the challenge to Douglas's victory. So at the very least, Douglas now holds the IBF title.

It's really unfair how tyson's belt was taken away from him although he clearly won the bout. If the referee counted right and claimed Tyson as the winner, Tyson would have realized that he almost could have been knocked out (which happened) and would have been more careful in the future. Tyson even claims that his career ended at the buster douglas fight. Maybe it led to his to fallout not only in the ring but outside of it as well.
http://www.desearch.net/out.php/i35257_021990lg.jpg

Foreman
09-12-2005, 06:24 AM
Did Douglas beat Tyson? Yep, he beat him like a drum. Douglas beat the count fair and square. The "long count" is just don king bull****. Remeber these are the same peole who thought there was nothing wrong with biting another fighters ears. Consider the source and relegate this trash to the heap.

jabsRstiff
09-12-2005, 10:47 AM
God......Tyson's nuthuggers are the most delusional ******* you'll ever encounter in the boxing world. The bum who created this thread is obviously a Tyson nuthugger.

666boy666
09-12-2005, 04:01 PM
it was a long count, but it doesn't matter since you don't know if he could have gotten up sooner or was just waiting to hear 9.

The point here really is, if you are going to be champion, you have to recognize that you'll have to deal with some bs now and then, a real champ deals with it, mike got kncoked out plain and simple

A champ isn't a champ for a few rounds, he's a champ for the whole fight, and mike wasn't champ anymore that night

I'm most likely the biggest fan of prime tyson out there, but he got his ass handed to him on a sushi platter that night

Sort of like B hop, if the fight had continued B hop would have destroyed taylor, but you only have a certain number of rounds to work with, and he let taylor win too many of the early ones.

Bottom line, champs fight like champs if they want to stay champs

theironone
09-12-2005, 04:02 PM
yes douglas beat him, if tyson thought he had ko'd him why did he come out for the 9th, the ref picked up the count late, these things do happen, its called tough ****

chopper77
09-13-2005, 02:49 PM
I always thought Tyson was prime for a fight like that. I mean when you saw Tyson fight everything came from the outside. By the Douglas fight Iron Mike had abandoned his jab, and was bobbing in and throwing hook after hook. Douglas had his number by beating him to the punch with crisp straight shots. A masterpiece!!

Pariah21388
09-13-2005, 09:56 PM
yes douglas beat him, if tyson thought he had ko'd him why did he come out for the 9th, the ref picked up the count late, these things do happen, its called tough ****

tyson DID knock him out, but the refree counted late

Skydog
09-13-2005, 10:16 PM
Nah, Buster had everything that night that could stop Tyson. Quick jabs, good combos. He looked much like Ali that night, but without the speed or chin of Ali's.

Douglas showed heart, strength, chin, and good punches that drove Tyson into the ground.

Dirt E Gomez
09-13-2005, 10:37 PM
If you watch the video, Douglas is ok but takes his sweet time getting up like a smart fighter should in that position. Douglas poo'd on Tyson hard.

RastaSmoker
09-13-2005, 11:02 PM
Things that make you say hhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm got knocked the **** out

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/Rastasmoker/buster.jpg

McDuffie
09-13-2005, 11:23 PM
Did Buster Douglas Really Beat Mike Tyson??

Yes. Absolutely, unequivocably without a shred of a doubt.

At work the next day after this fight, the guys at work were saying that Buster cheated, Tyson was paid off, there was a long count etc. Turns out none of them had seen the fight. It also turns out, in my experience, is that articles like these are written for people who didn't see the fight.

If you saw this fight, you know that article is a crock of ****.

RAESAAD
09-13-2005, 11:27 PM
Of course not we all just had a dream it happened. :confused:

Tha Greatest
09-14-2005, 12:49 AM
Douglas KO12 Mike Tyson


LOL!

666boy666
09-14-2005, 02:12 AM
Douglas KO12 Mike Tyson


LOL!


................................douglas ko10 tyson

Thizzin Boxing Mexican
09-14-2005, 05:20 AM
tyson lost buster won.

Foreman
09-14-2005, 06:16 AM
The rules state "..to the count of ten" It does not say 10 seconds. If you watch the replay, the timekeeper with the gloves on is counting a little on the fast side. Tyson isn't even in a neutral corner and he is well into the count. He looks like one of those guys at the stock exchange trying to unload a million shares of Tyson Inc. before it goes in the crapper.

Tyson had him..blah, blah, blah. There were more rounds in the fight you know. Like the the very next round where Douglas came out and started really laying some leather on Tyson.

Besides, I don't hear any of the Tyson nuthuggers complaining that the Williams or Ruddock I fights were stopped to quick.

Face it, Tyson is like the old lady in that commercial, when he falls, he can't get up.

Floydmayweather
09-14-2005, 06:33 AM
Yes, Tyson lost that fight but he looked like ****. Douglas did not get the Tyson of old he got the Tyson who was falling apart.

kapersky
09-14-2005, 09:51 AM
Yes, Tyson lost that fight but he looked like ****. Douglas did not get the Tyson of old he got the Tyson who was falling apart.
thats true those who say something else is bums. tyson never throug anything back in that fight.

jabsRstiff
09-14-2005, 01:48 PM
Tyson lost because Douglas was too big, fast, skilled, & fearless for Tyson's stubby ass to ever handle.

Tyson was "out of it" in that fight because Douglas took him out of it.

Tyson at his best could never handle the Douglas who beat him that night.
It was a borderline mismatch....& a total ass-whupping.

marvdave
09-14-2005, 02:44 PM
Tyson lost because Douglas was too big, fast, skilled, & fearless for Tyson's stubby ass to ever handle.

Tyson was "out of it" in that fight because Douglas took him out of it.

Tyson at his best could never handle the Douglas who beat him that night.
It was a borderline mismatch....& a total ass-whupping.


stir that pot Jabs! :D

Mike Tyson Jr.
09-14-2005, 03:06 PM
he beat a tyson past
his prime not trained by kevin
rooney. douglas would have not
beaten tyson in 1988 i guarantee you

tysons prime
1985-1989 the kevin rooney years.

prtynacan
09-14-2005, 08:37 PM
This article you use runs completely counter to your argument that Tyson was cheated. Read it again - "if there was ever a shred of doubt that Douglas was dazed...it was erased when douglas pounded the ring upon going down." The article is saying that Don King pulled this stuff because he wanted the money, and the long count is bull**** because Douglas was waiting until 9 to get up. He could've gotten up a lot earlier if he wanted. Also - how can you say Tyson was past his prime at this point?
I'd give you that he had an off night, but passed his prime? This Tyson was still indestructible. Douglas was something like a 47-1 underdog and Tyson had never even been an a close fight before. He had trashed all previous opponents. Vegas is not stupid. They're not going to give 47-1 odds on a past his prime fighter. Douglas smoked a legitimate Tyson. Tyson had the physical tools, but he didn't have the mental game, didn't train hard, and never fought anyone who wasn't afraid of him, willing to stand in there, and box him.

Pariah21388
09-14-2005, 09:45 PM
If you watch the fight the refree is clearly behind the real count. The refree DID admit that Douglas was down for more than 10 seconds, period. Tyson boxed like a coward that night. He admitted to not training and partying when he was in Toyko. But the fact remains that although Douglas trained and out-boxed tyson for most of the match, tyson still managed to knock him out.

Skydog
09-14-2005, 10:07 PM
Jesus, would you guys get off Tyson's dick????

Tyson got knocked out in his prime (yes, that can happen!!!) and still, people come up with some bull**** excuse.

When Ali lost to Frazier or Norton, there wasn't an excuse, they simply boxed better than him that night, which is exactly what Douglas did to Tyson.

Imira
09-15-2005, 01:11 AM
Douglas won the fight. Period. If Tyson felt it was a fluke, there should have been a rematch. Title or not, it's a matter of pride. Plenty of other heavyweight champions have lost their belts under some kind of smokescreen and I'm sure the same excuses have been made then too. But there was always a rematch.

Mike Tyson Jr.
09-15-2005, 05:33 PM
Jesus, would you guys get off Tyson's dick????

Tyson got knocked out in his prime (yes, that can happen!!!) and still, people come up with some bull**** excuse.

When Ali lost to Frazier or Norton, there wasn't an excuse, they simply boxed better than him that night, which is exactly what Douglas did to Tyson.
\



he wasnt in his prime in 1990
when he loss to douglas. kevin
rooney hadnt been training him in
a while and he came in at his heaviest
at that time. douglas would not have
beat the same tyson that killed
larry holmes a few years earlier.

Tony Blitz
09-15-2005, 07:33 PM
I finally watched the fight, and if you focus on the screen when Douglas drops you can see one of the asian officials on the sidelines doing the count. When he was at 5 the ref was at 3. Douglas DID beat the **** out of Tyson that night, but if the ref would've done the count right Tyson would've won with a freak KO just like on Botha. I still count it as a loss, he took a beating for 10 rounds but the ref count pisses me off.

DudeManGuy216
09-15-2005, 08:01 PM
I finally watched the fight, and if you focus on the screen when Douglas drops you can see one of the asian officials on the sidelines doing the count. When he was at 5 the ref was at 3. Douglas DID beat the **** out of Tyson that night, but if the ref would've done the count right Tyson would've won with a freak KO just like on Botha. I still count it as a loss, he took a beating for 10 rounds but the ref count pisses me off.

Yeah but Douglas knew where he was and what he was doing, thats why he punched the mat cuz he knew he got overconfident in that round, you could see that from the beginning of the round when Buster wasn't sticking with the game plan and got knocked down. He could of got earlier but he waited til 9.
This is just like the infamous "Long Count Bout" with Dempsey/Tunney

Pariah21388
09-15-2005, 08:58 PM
I finally watched the fight, and if you focus on the screen when Douglas drops you can see one of the asian officials on the sidelines doing the count. When he was at 5 the ref was at 3. Douglas DID beat the **** out of Tyson that night, but if the ref would've done the count right Tyson would've won with a freak KO just like on Botha. I still count it as a loss, he took a beating for 10 rounds but the ref count pisses me off.

the refree is also telling Douglas "c'mon, get up!" the refree was in douglas's favor that night. Tyson won no matter all the rounds he lost.

Warhawk46
09-15-2005, 10:50 PM
Ummm....Tyson got his **** kicked in that night, there is no way to cut it differently.

Buster whooped his ass. Tyson was bar far the superior fighter, and if they had fought a rematch, Tyson would have mopped the floor with him. Tyson did not train for the fight, spent the night before drinking and carousing, ****ing the Japanese girls in his words.
He did not take the fight seriously. Any fighter can be beaten, anyone and everyone has the ability to lose. Tyson was way overconfident, stopped training, and abandoned the very skills that got him the undisputed title: defense and punching ability, not power.

Foreman
09-16-2005, 12:57 AM
The tyson nuthuggers are something else. The ref was biased for Douglas? C'mon. If anything it would have been in Octavio Meiran's best interest to speed up the count and be biased towards tyson. He was the champ and in dk's pocket. Who had more money to throw around? DK or Douglas? Who had more power to give choice ref gigs?

All the apologists claim tyson was past his prime when he lost to Douglas, but yet they claim a full FIFTEEN YEARS later that little mikey was going to clean out the heavyweight division. How the **** is that supposed to happen?

No version of tyson beats Douglas that night. Face it, mikey was good for a short time but not all that great.

Imira
09-16-2005, 01:56 PM
All the apologists claim tyson was past his prime when he lost to Douglas, but yet they claim a full FIFTEEN YEARS later that little mikey was going to clean out the heavyweight division. How the **** is that supposed to happen?

:lol1: That's funny because it's true.

Pariah21388
09-16-2005, 09:30 PM
Ummm....Tyson got his **** kicked in that night, there is no way to cut it differently.

Buster whooped his ass. Tyson was bar far the superior fighter, and if they had fought a rematch, Tyson would have mopped the floor with him. Tyson did not train for the fight, spent the night before drinking and carousing, ****ing the Japanese girls in his words.
He did not take the fight seriously. Any fighter can be beaten, anyone and everyone has the ability to lose. Tyson was way overconfident, stopped training, and abandoned the very skills that got him the undisputed title: defense and punching ability, not power.

I completley agree with you that he didnt train or take the fight serious which cost him but it doesnt take the fact away that he knocked douglas out. if the refree counted correctly Tyson would be declared the winner. he would have then realized that he could have lost the fight (which happened) and would have been better prepared for future fights. lets end the thread with that.

Skydog
09-18-2005, 12:48 AM
If Tyson didn't lose to Douglas, his nuthuggers would say that was in his prime. They would say he was in his prime until the Holyfield fight.

Pariah21388
09-18-2005, 11:44 AM
If Tyson didn't lose to Douglas, his nuthuggers would say that was in his prime. They would say he was in his prime until the Holyfield fight.


he WAS in his prime but he did not train for the fight like a dumass. When tyson's eye got swollen, his corner put a bag of tap water over it. Douglas was killing him. But then tyson managed to throw a punch which knocked douglas down. And Douglas was on the ground for more than 10 seconds.

Skydog
09-21-2005, 08:08 PM
Buster wouldn't have been on the ground if the ref's count wasn't behind the real count. He was waiting to get up at 9, and was simply folllowing the ref's count.

Sure Tyson knocked him, down, but Buster KTFO of Tyson and he didn't know where he was at. He looked like a ****ing retard trying to grab his mouthpiece.

kapersky
09-21-2005, 08:21 PM
same questions over and over. tyson was not in his best shape and got ko. a tyson in his best shape would ko douglas than is simple fact. but tyson didnt so he have himself to blame over and out.

Skydog
09-21-2005, 09:44 PM
Surely if Tyson and Douglas would have fought again, Tyson would have destructed him. But on that night, Buster was ready and outboxed Tyson.

YES, Tyson was in his prime.

Pariah21388
09-21-2005, 10:16 PM
Buster wouldn't have been on the ground if the ref's count wasn't behind the real count. He was waiting to get up at 9, and was simply folllowing the ref's count.

Sure Tyson knocked him, down, but Buster KTFO of Tyson and he didn't know where he was at. He looked like a ****ing retard trying to grab his mouthpiece.

Why would he wait to get up at 9???? what kinda **** is that?

Warhawk46
09-21-2005, 11:18 PM
The same reason that standing eight counts are given if the rules allow it. The same reason the ref counts to eight, even if the guy gets up at the count of four....gives them longer to clear their heads.

Buster got up at the count of 9 because he needed as much time as he could get. When he got to his feet he was out of it...and damn lucky the bell sounded after the count, otherwise Tyson would've finished the fight on a KO or TKO if there had been 30 seconds left in the round.

Bottom Line: Buster got a long count as the referee was clearly two seconds behind the ring-side official...shouldnt have happened, but it did. and then Mike lost.

Another point: if Tyson wasnt so dumb as to listen to Don Kings lies and fire Kevin Rooney, he would never have been in the position he was in that night where he needed a miracle uppercut...

Skydog
09-21-2005, 11:27 PM
Why would he wait to get up at 9???? what kinda **** is that?

Maybe so he had time to lay there and rest for awhile to get some energy back you DIP****!!!!

Tha Greatest
09-22-2005, 01:30 AM
God......Tyson's nuthuggers are the most delusional ******* you'll ever encounter in the boxing world. The bum who created this thread is obviously a Tyson nuthugger.
I second that...

If I was a mod, I would ban these people for saying Tyson really won. Douglas KO10 Tyson!

Get OVER it~!

Pariah21388
09-22-2005, 09:00 PM
Maybe so he had time to lay there and rest for awhile to get some energy back you DIP****!!!!

and risk not getting up before 10 seconds (which happened)

Gemini531
09-22-2005, 11:08 PM
Tyson lost because Douglas was too big, fast, skilled, & fearless for Tyson's stubby ass to ever handle.

Tyson was "out of it" in that fight because Douglas took him out of it.

Tyson at his best could never handle the Douglas who beat him that night.
It was a borderline mismatch....& a total ass-whupping.
You must be on crack buster douglas come on at Tysons best Douglas would have to get up 4 times just to make it into the 2nd round and keep in mind when he fought IMO he was on top of his game.

datneggajeep
09-26-2005, 02:11 AM
Ok for all you ******s who dislike tyson, you guys are ******s. Douglas should've been counted out, the ref didn't start counting until an hour later dumb ****s. You know why Tyson lost that fight, I got two words ******s, Don King.

Dirt E Gomez
09-26-2005, 04:03 AM
You know why Tyson lost that fight, I got two words ******s, Don King.

Funniest thing I've ever read. Why would Don King want a fighter who's making him millions of dollars lose? He could continue to ride Tyson and making millions of dollars everytime he'd beat bums. You're a moron, and Tyson got owned by Douglas. Face the facts buck-o.

datneggajeep
09-26-2005, 05:40 AM
Funniest thing I've ever read. Why would Don King want a fighter who's making him millions of dollars lose? He could continue to ride Tyson and making millions of dollars everytime he'd beat bums. You're a moron, and Tyson got owned by Douglas. Face the facts buck-o.
okay ******, keep telling yourself that. Tyson wasn't the same anymore after he lost his trainers, he didn't care anymore. Do your research, and I got five words, it's all Don Kings Fault.

Boxclever
09-26-2005, 08:15 AM
The right result was a great result ;)

rocco1252
09-26-2005, 12:11 PM
tyson DID knock him out, but the refree counted late
none the less tyson was found the loser so therefore he lost the fight..late count or not. When an umpire makes a bad call and they fight about it the call is most often usually the call that stands, so regardless of the fact it was late Tyson lost so too bad for him.

Hitman932
10-05-2005, 04:35 AM
Why would he wait to get up at 9???? what kinda **** is that?


Are you serious??

You're ****in dumb if you dont!

Skydog
10-05-2005, 10:05 PM
Oh my god. When Tyson loses, someone makes a post to find an excuse for him.

I don't see DID MUHAMMAD ALI REALLY BEAT GEORGE FOREMAN? or a DID MAX SCHMELING REALLY BEAT JOE LOUIS?

It's just Tyson that stupid people have to come up with dumbass excuses for.

j
10-06-2005, 04:14 PM
someone mentioned it was don king's fault. how so? he was protesting the supossed "long" count, remember?

stavros693000
10-14-2005, 04:54 AM
tyson did jab in his hey day and jabbed well.buster douglas is fat ***** who got extremely lucky ,and i have watched the tape many times and buster is down for a good 12 sec.if mike was on top of his game there is no way he would have lost to the likes of a buster douglas.look what happened to that flabby buster against holyfeild,a whole 3 rounds he held the title for a whole 5 minutes,hes no champ hes a ****in chump

stavros693000
10-14-2005, 05:07 AM
:) ;) in 50 years time do really think anybodys ganna remember douglas ,holyfeild maybe, but lennox lewis, in the ring lennox was about as exciting as watching wet paint dry....but tyson will never be forgotten like it or not,people will mention his name along with the likes of ali,louis,frazier,marciano and foreman....i rest my case

Pariah21388
10-16-2005, 10:26 PM
tyson did jab in his hey day and jabbed well.buster douglas is fat ***** who got extremely lucky ,and i have watched the tape many times and buster is down for a good 12 sec.if mike was on top of his game there is no way he would have lost to the likes of a buster douglas.look what happened to that flabby buster against holyfeild,a whole 3 rounds he held the title for a whole 5 minutes,hes no champ hes a ****in chump
thank you man, i rest my case....

Dirt E Gomez
10-17-2005, 12:32 AM
Was Douglas down long? Maybe a tid bit, but that's hardly relevant. He could easily have gotten up sooner. He took his time like a smart fighter should. He didn't want to pull a Zab Judah. He is visibly upset when he was knocked down, hit his fist on the canvas, and got up in time.

Tyson was owned. Get over it.

StaynerCoins
10-17-2005, 01:50 AM
Tyson sucks, and always has.

Thoth
10-17-2005, 04:02 PM
No matter how or in whatever manner I think of Mike, everytime I do all I see is Cus laughing his ass off somewhere in the afterlife. He done did it to all of us.

j
10-17-2005, 05:05 PM
how is this topic still going? douglas surely beat him.

dirt e gomez is right when it comes to popping up after a knockdown. sometimes, you just need to take a knee until you're gathered enough to stand up.

if jirov would've taking a knee in the moorer fight instead of popping up right away on unsteady legs, he could've won the fight.

please fellas, this is not a topic that needs to be discussed much.

Imira
10-17-2005, 07:23 PM
Actually, this thread should continue. I enjoy the various Tyson fans who spew obscenities at posters they don't agree with. Comedy.

Dempsey 1919
10-26-2005, 06:50 PM
douglass beat the crap out of douglass. if the count was shorter douglass still would have gotten up and BEAT HIM. this should not even be a thread.

legend_killer
10-26-2005, 10:53 PM
The argument can be made that Tyson was wronged, but at the same time, who is to say that Douglas wouldn't have gotten up before the 10-count if the referee had followed the timekeeper's count? The fact is Tyson was "officially" knocked out that night, while Douglas was not.

Tyson lost the fight because of personal reasons outside of boxing. I believe that the invincible aura the media had given him had made Iron Mike ****y and he didn't train for the Douglas fight as well as he should have. The big money fight was against Holyfield, so Tyson's camp did not think of Douglas as a threat. Just like Lennox Lewis with Hasim Rahman, Tyson didn't take the fight seriously and paid the ultimate price.

Dempsey 1919
11-02-2005, 06:59 PM
i agree. mike would have murdered buster had it not have been for his poor training.

Pariah21388
12-10-2005, 12:23 AM
^^ true true

Da Iceman
12-10-2005, 01:03 AM
i agree. mike would have murdered buster had it not have been for his poor training.
would you bet your life on it?

kapersky
12-10-2005, 04:38 AM
would you bet your life on it?
i would bet my life on it if he had rooney

Dirt E Gomez
12-10-2005, 05:26 AM
Regardless of all the fiasko and bull **** about the long count... almost no heavyweight in the history of the division could've beaten Buster Douglas that night. The man was a machine who systematically picked apart Tyson and didn't take any of his ****. I love that fight because Douglas put on the fight of his life and looked masterful while doing so.

leff
12-10-2005, 12:18 PM
YES he DID lose the fight, get over it.

and spar me the excuses like mike didnt train....well so why the **** didnt he train thats no excuse.

and if he would have beaten him in shape why the hel didnt he reamcth douglas?

Mike Tyson Jr.
12-10-2005, 12:22 PM
buster got a long count

Da Iceman
12-10-2005, 12:53 PM
i would bet my life on it if he had rooney
idiot......

leff
12-10-2005, 01:01 PM
buster got a long count


and he loss to williams cause the knee and lewis cause off his back and mcbride cause off his ingrod toenail and to hloyfield caus he was sick

dont you see tyson never lost a fight,tyson is unbeatable and is the greates ever he would kill ali,fore,frazier,holmes,marciaon and louis at the same time.

Mike Tyson Jr.
12-12-2005, 06:24 PM
and he loss to williams cause the knee and lewis cause off his back and mcbride cause off his ingrod toenail and to hloyfield caus he was sick

dont you see tyson never lost a fight,tyson is unbeatable and is the greates ever he would kill ali,fore,frazier,holmes,marciaon and louis at the same time.



in his prime no one can beat him
his prime ended when kevin rooney
left his camp.

Dirt E Gomez
12-12-2005, 06:28 PM
in his prime no one can beat him
his prime ended when kevin rooney
left his camp.

Which is why he's a piece of **** "champion". When your prime is a virtually nonexistant time frame; that means you're ****ty. If all you can do is make excuses the moment you start looking worse; you're a piece of ****. It's nobody's fault but his own that he went downhill. Had he stayed focus and wanting to win, and surrounded himself with the right type of people, maybe he would've been a top 10 of all time. But now all we are left with is what ifs and a shell of his former self.

leff
12-12-2005, 06:37 PM
in his prime no one can beat him
his prime ended when kevin rooney
left his camp.

now cause we al now tyson prime was over wednesday before the douglas fight and and tyson wasnt half the fighter he was a month before :D

Baddest man on da planet
12-15-2005, 04:44 PM
Tyson was not out of his prime when he fought douglas he jus did not use any combinations ar any head movement he was hoping for one big power shot which would knock douglas out it is the same in the fight with frank bruno tyson did nothing excep throw bower shots which hit bruno and knocked him out. all that talk of out of his prime is bull****. it is tyson's fault he did not train properly and abbandoned his peak a boo style.

catskills23
12-15-2005, 06:32 PM
tyson was in his prime but he did no training at all unless you call being beaten on by your sparring partners training . Washed up fighters such as berbick and page were beating mikes ass in the gym,mike didnt think that douglas would try and fight him he knew of douglas history of folding in fights and lack of commitment to boxing and thats why he took the fight , mike thought douglas would lay down at the sight of him but that wasent the case and the rest is history .

leff
12-15-2005, 06:33 PM
tyson was in his prime but he did no training at all unless you call being beaten on by your sparring partners training . Washed up fighters such as berbick and page were beating mikes ass in the gym,mike didnt think that douglas would try and fight him he knew of douglas history of folding in fights and lack of commitment to boxing and thats why he took the fight , mike thought douglas would lay down at the sight of him but that wasent the case and the rest is history .

still mikes fault that he didnt train, he wasnt out off his prime he was just pure lazy

Brassangel
12-16-2005, 12:23 AM
Let's end this, okay?

First of all, I will clear this out of the water right now: I am a firm believer that, despite the way Tyson's career fell apart, he should still be considered for most top ten lists. However, my statements here will concur with the obvious.

Mike Tyson's marriage was spiraling out of control, he left Rooney and joined Don King, and he put on 5 pounds before the Douglas fight. This is Mike Tyson's fault! James 'Buster' Douglas was also in the best shape of his life. He knew he was going to be on international television, in front of millions of viewers, tackling a wrecking machine of a man, in more-or-less a primer for the fight between Holyfield and Tyson. He wasn't going to look like a chump out there. Buster Douglas used all of this to his advantage and out-boxed the champ. Plain and simple.

Mike Tyson was not out of his prime, he was just out of shape mentally and physically. It's possible for a guy in his prime to not prepare like he's in his prime. It's these kinds of things that Tyson employed for the remainder of his career. Yes, he should have beaten Douglas; yes he would have clobbered Holyfield in the late 80's early 90's; yes, if he would have been able to stay with Rooney, Tyson would have had the best shot at going 50-0. The fact of the matter is, he blew it all.

On a side note, while Douglas was beating Tyson up all night long, Douglas was down for longer than a 10-count. In fact, the ref immediately stopped the count the moment Douglas motioned to get up. Usually, they continue the count until a fighter brings his gloves together and is standing upright. EVEN SO, Tyson still had an opportunity in the next rounds to finish off a guy that he had knocked down, but he didn't. Mike was notorious for finishing a fighter off, but again, he blew it.

In conclusion, I loved watching Mike Tyson, and I'd place him near the top of the list of all-time heavyweights. But on that night, and for the remainder of his career, I'll say it again....he blew it. :boxing:

Mike Tyson Jr.
12-16-2005, 11:56 AM
still mikes fault that he didnt train, he wasnt out off his prime he was just pure lazy



nope he lost his trainer that means
he lost his prime

leff
12-16-2005, 01:29 PM
nope he lost his trainer that means
he lost his prime


ummm not the same thing.


your just looking for excuses, hey you got one from all off his losses

Brassangel
12-16-2005, 01:45 PM
Tyson didn't fall out of his prime until after he lost to Douglas. Yes, he lost his trainer, but Tyson probably had enough experience by that point to seek a good trainer. If he didn't feel his training was sufficient, regardless of how lazy he was in preparing for the fight, he could have requested a postponement. Iron Mike was arrogant, and while he was still skilled enough without proper training to beat almost anybody, James 'Buster' Douglas was in the best shape of his lackluster career. One was lazy, the other was opportunistic. The result: Tyson got beat up, regardless of the referee's count. Even if Tyson would have had the judgment he deserved in the 8th round, people would have questioned his abilities. Chances are, Tyson still would have gone with crappy rented trainers and waterballoon cornermen.

I love Mike and all, but he got beat that night. Joe Frazier witnessed the fight and wrote about it in his exercise manual. He said, "..Tyson was the best of that era, cleaning up the mess in the heavyweight division. He could have been great. He took on several of my own fighters and made short work of them. While many feel that he got jobbed in Japan, the truth is simple; he got beat up that night. After that point, he let himself go beyond his years before it was due..."

:boxing:

kapersky
12-16-2005, 01:51 PM
Tyson didn't fall out of his prime until after he lost to Douglas. Yes, he lost his trainer, but Tyson probably had enough experience by that point to seek a good trainer. If he didn't feel his training was sufficient, regardless of how lazy he was in preparing for the fight, he could have requested a postponement. Iron Mike was arrogant, and while he was still skilled enough without proper training to beat almost anybody, James 'Buster' Douglas was in the best shape of his lackluster career. One was lazy, the other was opportunistic. The result: Tyson got beat up, regardless of the referee's count. Even if Tyson would have had the judgment he deserved in the 8th round, people would have questioned his abilities. Chances are, Tyson still would have gone with crappy rented trainers and waterballoon cornermen.

I love Mike and all, but he got beat that night. Joe Frazier witnessed the fight and wrote about it in his exercise manual. He said, "..Tyson was the best of that era, cleaning up the mess in the heavyweight division. He could have been great. He took on several of my own fighters and made short work of them. While many feel that he got jobbed in Japan, the truth is simple; he got beat up that night. After that point, he let himself go beyond his years before it was due..."

:boxing:


great post, 1mil successfully donated!

Brassangel
12-16-2005, 04:38 PM
Thank you. At least they weren't lottery points: 1 point a year for the next million years. :D

Fight_Nightx
12-16-2005, 07:52 PM
For those who says Tyson was in his best condition for the fight, he was corrupted by King and all his stuff and got knocked down in sparring for the love of god. Tyson in Japan was a shadow of himself. And i dont even like Tyson i'm not a fan but thats a FACT.

The Noose
12-16-2005, 08:31 PM
I havent read any other post here, but i say...

Tyson did NOT do the things he did in his other fights.

Such as giving Douglas WAY too much room to punch. Not using his jab.

Douglas was damn good.

But Tyson was pretty awful.

He forgot the little things that lead up to the big things (the KO and the win)

Mike Tyson Jr.
12-19-2005, 06:02 PM
ummm not the same thing.


your just looking for excuses, hey you got one from all off his losses


long count

leff
12-19-2005, 07:36 PM
long count
like i said excuses

metaGlass
12-25-2005, 07:38 AM
I haven't read any of the posts, but I'll put in my two cents for the Tyson-Douglas fight. I'll admit I'm a Tyson fan, but I try to be as objective as possible.

That night Tyson got his butt kicked. Long count or no long count, if he hadn't knocked out Douglas by then, it probably would have gone to decision, and Douglas would have likely won. Douglas fought a good fight, and even Tyson has said that. Tyson was off his game that night, and for almost every night afterwards.

Now, I'll add a few words about the man Mike Tyson and his career. It's my opinion that he was one of the best boxers around. I don't care if his opposition of that time sucked, the man was an extremely good boxer. To me, his biggest assets were...

- Physical Attributes: 19.75" Neck, Height/Weight ratio, Speed
- Mental Fortitude: His aggressiveness was very rough. It's one of the biggest reasons he's such a draw if you ask me. When you see Mike Tyson before and during a fight, you just KNOW that he doesn't want to stop until his opponent is lying on the canvas with a broken jaw, cut up and swollen eyes, and blood pouring out of his nose, mouth, and eyes.

Tyson was an extremely good combination puncher, finisher, and hard hitter. I even think his stamina was very good, I don't care what people say about it. It has always been a mental game with Mike, and in my opinion, he lost that way before the Douglas fight. He lost it when Cus died.

He has even said that when Cus died, he had a very strong urge to leave the sport. He didn't want to fight like a true boxer anymore, but wanted to go back to his old brawling ways. Cus was the father figure that helped Tyson grow as a person and develop as a boxer. Atlas tought him good elusive technique, and Rooney maintained everything Cus and Atlas taught him. It was Jimmy Jacobs and Rooney that helped him stay together, albeit maybe not grow. I think had Cus not passed, Tyson would be probably be going down in the history books as high as Ali.

The two biggest factors contributing to Tyson's downfall were whne A) Cus died, and B) Shake up of his management [Cayton losing the contract to Don King, Rooney be fired for siding with Cayton, Givens & Co taking further control of his professional life through personal pressure, etc].

I think the Cus Tyson would have probably shredded Holyfield and Lewis. I think the Rooney Tyson would have probably at least given them a good fight.

Anyway, done with the spiel for now :)

metaGlass
12-25-2005, 07:47 AM
For those you saying that Tyson was in his prime in the Douglas fight. It depends on how you define the word prime. Do you mean prime as in just the physical prime? If so, then yeah it's my opinion he was. If you define prime based on the person [including boxing skill, etc] as a whole, then HECK NO he wasn't in his prime.

As has been said time and again, Tyson lost his self-stated biggest asset: his elusiveness. No head movement, not nearly as much body movement, and more of a head-hunter then anything else. It was sad to see that.

I'll add one more thing: I think Tyson's chin was underrated. He took a lot of punishment in the Douglas fight. He also took a lot of punishment from Ruddock, and in the first Bruno fight he caught that hit in the first round. After the Tyson-Lewis fight, Lewis said he was impressed how much damage he absorbed.

While I'm on Lewis (Hey, I like Lewis, don't get me wrong), but Lewis said he was ready for a prime Tyson. Uhhhhh...no he wasn't. If he was ready for what he thought was a prime Tyson, then I would have put a ton of money on the prime Tyson knocking out Lewis. It wouldn't have taken him 8 rounds to knock out that hallow shell of a man if were ready for the prime version. The problem with Lewis winning against a prime tyson is that Tyson takes advantage of the power generated from forward-lunging attacks. Lewis has said before that boxing is about "hitting without being hit" (which is evident from his style and his losses to Mccall and Rahman). The problem with this is that Lewis tends to use his jab a bit, throw a couple of stronger punches (hooks or uppercuts or what have you), and then pedal backwards out of range. Tyson in his prime had a lot of elusive technique, and he was usually very forward moving. So you can see where this would go. Lewis would try to jab a few times and take a few steps back. Meanwhile, Tyson ducks those, and jumps forward clocking Lewis and breaking his jaw while he's back-pedaling.

metaGlass
12-25-2005, 07:52 AM
Man, while I'm at it, I'll add another comment on another heavyweight vs. Tyson. Tyson-Holyfield.

Had Tyson worked the body like his old self, I think he would have probably won. Watch Tyson-Holyfield I and watch when Tyson nails him with a 2-punch combo to the body (hook and uppercut IIRC). Holyfield was surprised and it did hurt him. Then Tyson hit him with a right cross and started nailing Holy with uppercuts to the body. That was practically one of the only times he concentrated on the body, and look what it did to Holy.

Again, don't think I'm anti-Holy. I like Holy as well. All three fighters (Holy, Lewis, and Tyson) have different styles. Holy has one of the best, if not THE best, hearts in boxing. Tyson has amazing elusiveness, speed, power, and chin. Lewis has his height and reach advantage, he has good speed as well, and good punching power. It's just my opinion that Tyson has a lot more potential then these guys. Lewis and Holy actually worked up to their primes. Tyson didn't reach his, I don't think.

Yogi
12-25-2005, 07:56 AM
As has been said time and again, Tyson lost his self-stated biggest asset: his elusiveness. No head movement, not nearly as much body movement, and more of a head-hunter then anything else. It was sad to see that.

If he wasn't in his prime for the Buster Douglas fight, then what's the excuse for his performance in the Nino Ribalta fight in '86, when the video shows that Tyson neglected much of his head movement, upperbody movement, and became a one punch at a time "headhunter" for the vast majority of the ten rounds?

And as far as your previous post and your "Cus Tyson" statement...Cus died in Nov of 1985, my friend, so I really hope that you're not saying that the Tyson of late '85 could've "shredded" a prime version of both Holyfield & Lewis, when he had only about eight months of pro experience and ten/eleven pro fights (a total of about 15 rounds) at that time...Come on, man!

metaGlass
12-25-2005, 08:22 AM
And as far as your previous post and your "Cus Tyson" statement...Cus died in Nov of 1985, my friend, so I really hope that you're not saying that the Tyson of late '85 could've "shredded" a prime version of both Holyfield & Lewis, when he had only about eight months of pro experience and ten/eleven pro fights (a total of about 15 rounds) at that time...Come on, man!

Ok let me clarify. I don't mean Tyson when Cus died, I mean what Tyson would have been had Cus not died. This is very obviously hypothetical, and I'm well aware of that.

I'm just saying that in my eyes, Tyson had a lot more potential. Given another year or two, and the continuing tutelage of Cus, I think Tyson would have beaten Holy and probably Lewis too. In other words, Tyson had a lot more POTENTIAL. That's all I'm talking about. I'm not a disillusioned Tyson fan. Most of the fights he lost because of his own decline of skill and mental weakness (post-Cus); he was underdeveloped and didn't hit his peak. The biggest factor was himself, not any long-counts or head-butting or whatever.

On a final note, Foreman said earlier this year that Tyson "isn't finished," that he's a class above the rest. http://www.********boxing.com/Newman/Newman070505.htm

metaGlass
12-25-2005, 08:23 AM
Link got screwed up, sorry. The right link (http://www.********boxing.com/Newman/Newman070505.htm)

metaGlass
12-25-2005, 08:24 AM
Umm, the server is censoring the first part of the domain for some reason. I'll just post the quick blurb on Tyson that Geroge said:

SN: George, there was a recent report published quoting you as saying that Mike Tyson is not finished. Do you really feel that way, and if so, would you really be interested in training him?

GF: Yes, I really feel that way. The sad thing about it is that Mike Tyson has never gotten started since losing that title fight to Lennox Lewis. He hasn’t even had a chance to get started yet. He’s just been the most mismanaged commodity I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. The most mismanaged athlete and commodity, period. He doesn’t really need a lot of training, all he needs now is some confidence building. He has his trainers already, he just needs to get his confidence back, and I know how to get confidence back after a defeat.

SN: How can Mike Tyson reinvent himself the way that you did so successfully?

GF: First and foremost you have to understand that boxing is a sport, but it’s a lot of entertainment. Some of the greatest champions we’ve had in the past, they specialized in ballyhoo. Jack Dempsey. Joe Louis. It’s no fable that he fought Bums of the Month. Jack Dempsey would go all over to different places and even change names and fight. These guys were great American heroes and they understood the nature of boxing. Tyson got involved with some people after Jimmy Jacobs died, who didn’t even know anything about boxing, they just thought they’d wind him up and put him out there. Now, if he’s able to get out there and do this thing right, the whole world will give him respect again for getting off the canvas and coming back. Because you don’t want to leave saying “I’m tired. I quit.” You want to come back. Even if you lose a boxing match, you want to lose it where the last man is standing, if you know what I mean. Then he could go on with his life. Because quitting follows you around. He didn’t really quit, but his legs weren’t even ready for that last fight he was in. That big guy just leaned on him and his legs just gave out.

I can show him how to come back. People reinvent themselves by gathering respect from their fellow man, and that’s what he needs. He can easily do that just by applying his craft. I don’t want to get into his personal life, that’s none of my business. But as a professional boxer, he’s got a great chance, a great opportunity. All he needs is someone with him who knows boxing.

SN: It was also reported recently that Mike Tyson might be considering a four round tourney with Holyfield and Bowe. Is this an ill-advised move, a sideshow, or do you think it is a good starting point for a Tyson comeback?

GF: No, he shouldn’t even be involved with those guys. Let those guys go on. They’ve made their name, and whatever is going to become of them, has already been done. He’s the only one who’s got a future. Mike Tyson’s got a future in boxing. I wouldn’t have said this about any other boxer, but I saw him in that last boxing match, and when he went down just from being pushed and leaned on, all of his problems just came down on him at one time. The other guys, they’ve had their chances. They’ve literally gotten beat up. Tyson is unique. He stands different, a class higher than those guys.

supaduck
12-25-2005, 03:23 PM
Just because George Foreman was awesome and could make a comeback when he was waaaaaaaaaaaaay past his prime, doesn't mean Tyson can. Foreman '73 could beat any 1980s or 1990s or 2000 fighter who ever lived.

metaGlass
12-27-2005, 03:59 AM
I'm not saying anything about him coming back. I don't think Tyson will make a comeback to anywhere near his state in the mid-80s. I get the feeling that Tyson just wants to stay away from boxing for good, and enjoy his life.

metaGlass
12-27-2005, 04:06 AM
Oh, and as for the Nino Ribalta. Tyson had a bad night. If he were this way in more then just a few fights, then I would double-guess him. He even said he had a bad night.

In his performance against Mitch Green, he went the full 10 rounds. Not because he couldn't KO him, but because he WANTED to go 10 rounds. It was pretty obvious when he was laughing at him in the ring.

If he were consistent in his performance like that, then I would wonder, but it was really just a few fights that he was like that (before the first Bruno fight anyway).

supaduck
12-27-2005, 05:43 AM
Tyson said he hates his life and is looking forward to death.

Brassangel
12-27-2005, 05:21 PM
And really, he (Tyson) was winning all but one round on the cards against McBride. He didn't burn himself right away and looked pretty good in round 6. He just sat down. That does say a lot about the fact that, as soon as the shenanigans with King started in 89, he lost Rooney and lost his heart to fight. It was easy to see, however, that Tyson looked pretty good at 40 when compared to many comeback champions. Ali looked rediculous against Holmes, for example. In fact, Ali basically looked rediculous from 1976-1980. Mike Tyson could still end on a positive note if he wanted to, but that's been the question of his career since fighting Douglas: does he even care anymore? The McBride fight was going well for Tyson and it looked rather promising; but quitting makes any hopes of a positive conclusion to Iron Mike's career questionable.

On a side note, George Foreman of '73 would have lost to a prime Larry Holmes. If an old, beyond-his-years Ali could stop Foreman in his prime, Holmes would have made it look easier. Don't get me wrong, Foreman is one of the greatest of all-time. Styles do make fights, however, and the dancer works well against the mummy. Holmes was very light on his feet, like a younger Ali, and he could hit a lot harder than Ali. Foreman rarely conditioned himself for the long haul. No one had even knocked Holmes out until he was in his late 30's against a young Tyson.

Oh yeah, and Douglas beat Tyson. He beat him while he was down, mentally & physically (5 lbs. overweight from previous fight), and kicked him in the package repeatedly. I like Mike and all, but that night was merely the fruition of what was already beginning to derail.

Easy-E
12-28-2005, 08:00 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/tyson/flashback/kod/
The eighth round opened with Douglas again getting the better of Tyson, but it closed with a sudden, classic Tyson right uppercut that dropped Douglas to the canvas with six seconds left. It was the only time that Douglas got careless, and it nearly cost him his eventual stunning upset. Worse, though, was referee Meyran's shabby handling of the count, which, if promoter Don King has his way, may serve to deprive Douglas of the crown that he rightfully deserves. At the moment Douglas's backside touched the surface of the ring, the knockdown timekeeper began his count. Instead of picking up that cadence, Meyran began his own count, two beats behind.
As generations of felled fighters have done before him, Douglas kept his attention fixed on the referee's hands. As Meyran signaled nine, Douglas rose, but the bell ended the round. If there was any doubt that Douglas was clearheaded and could have risen to his feet on the timekeeper's count, it had been erased right after the knockdown when Douglas pounded his left fist on the mat, in obvious annoyance at his own lapse.
Yet King, who saw his world tour coming to a screeching halt about three continents short of his grand plan, would later seize on the discrepancy in the counts as grounds to bully others into awarding Tyson a victory by knockout.
But King was not willing to allow his investment in the franchise called Mike Tyson to take the hit that inevitably comes from losing a title fight. King summoned officials from two of the major sanctioning bodies, the WBC and WBA, and representatives from the Japan Boxing Commission to a small room off the arena. Emerging two hours later, King called a press conference to announce that tapes of the bout clearly showed that "two knockouts took place, but the first knockout obliterates the second. Buster Douglas was knocked out, and the referee did not do his job and panicked. As the promoter of both fighters, I'm only seeking fair play."
Two hours after that declaration, King again summoned the press. This time, he brought along Meyran, who said, "I don't know why I start my count and make my mistake. Yes, he was down longer than 10 seconds." Also in attendance was the fallen champion. His swollen left eye hidden by dark glasses, he said, "I thought I knocked him out. I thought he was counted out."
Not surprisingly, given the sway he holds over the sport, King's transparent attempts to alter the obvious were persuasive enough for the WBC and WBA to announce that they would suspend recognition of the outcome until further review, which is expected to take place during this coming week. Even as Douglas relaxed in his hotel room with the WBC belt around his waist, the organization's president, Jose Sulaiman, was saying, "I'm very confused." Later, at the second press conference, he was no longer so confused. He said a rematch "was absolutely mandatory." But the damage is pretty much done. All King's men can't put Tyson together again.
Of course, if you want confusion, boxing is, once more, for you. For starters, there is the blabbering of governing bodies whose only apparent purpose is to collect sanctioning fees. Tyson had consolidated all three titles -- WBC, WBA and IBF -- on Aug. 1, 1987, but because the Japan Boxing Commission does not recognize the IBF, no one from that organization was represented in Tokyo. Yet the IBF did sanction the fight, and does not recognize the challenge to Douglas's victory. So at the very least, Douglas now holds the IBF title.

It's really unfair how tyson's belt was taken away from him although he clearly won the bout. If the referee counted right and claimed Tyson as the winner, Tyson would have realized that he almost could have been knocked out (which happened) and would have been more careful in the future. Tyson even claims that his career ended at the buster douglas fight. Maybe it led to his to fallout not only in the ring but outside of it as well.
http://www.desearch.net/out.php/i35257_021990lg.jpg

if buster douglass was truly out and should have been counted out, mike would have no problem finishing him like he did to so many other fighters hes dropped in the past. instead, we saw douglass get up with a clear head and fire back shots at mike. weak argument

Brassangel
12-28-2005, 12:27 PM
It's not a weak argument. In fact, it is clear that this fellow did a remarkable amount of research. Buster Douglas beat Mike Tyson up all night long in that fight. Only once did he slip, and only once did Mike take advantage of it. While Mike was out of his element that night for several reasons including Douglas's skill, he was still smart enough to seize an opportunity. Sometimes one punch is all it takes in the heavyweight division.

I imagine that the punch truly rocked Douglas, but rather than get hit by an inevitable combo that was sure to follow, he goes straight down to take a breather. The count of ten was clearly passed due by the time Douglas stood up, and, the referee stopped the count at nine while James wasn't fully upright yet. This doesn't excuse, however, the fact that Mike didn't take advantage of his shaken opponent and finish him off in the 9th round. Sometimes mistakes are made, whether by the fighters or the refs, and it's the job of a professional to press on regardless of those mistakes. Clearly, the derailing of Mike Tyson was beginning before this fight took place and he allowed it to get the best of him when he had a chance at all-time glory. Regardless of the bad counting, regardless of the circumstances around Mike, regardless of the investigations that followed, Mike Tyson lost the fight before he even stepped into the ring. Physical and mental preparation are both required to perform at one's best in the ring, and you could see it on his face when the announcer was introducing him; he wasn't there.

Mike Tyson77
03-24-2006, 09:19 PM
Tyson won this fight. He is the greatest. And if it wasnt for the rape convition, we would have seen Tyson fight Buster again. And Im sure Tyson would knock him out in 1 round. Id put my money on an 88' Tyson vs ANYONE. I remember when lots of people actully thought Spinks would beat Tyson, 91 seconds is all it took to settle that. :boxing:

hellfire508
03-24-2006, 10:58 PM
Tyson won this fight. He is the greatest. And if it wasnt for the rape convition, we would have seen Tyson fight Buster again. And Im sure Tyson would knock him out in 1 round. Id put my money on an 88' Tyson vs ANYONE. I remember when lots of people actully thought Spinks would beat Tyson, 91 seconds is all it took to settle that. :boxing:


Head-to-head, Tyson ranks fairly highly for me. Accomplishment wise - he isn't top 10 for me. He is JUST outside. I would pick Foreman, Ali and Liston over Tyson. Plus Louis, Frazier, Marciano and Dempsey as possibilities, along with Holyfield and Lewis. The only ones I would bet on are Foreman, Ali and Liston.

Dempsey 1919
03-25-2006, 03:23 AM
Tyson won this fight. He is the greatest. And if it wasnt for the rape convition, we would have seen Tyson fight Buster again. And Im sure Tyson would knock him out in 1 round. Id put my money on an 88' Tyson vs ANYONE. I remember when lots of people actully thought Spinks would beat Tyson, 91 seconds is all it took to settle that. :boxing:

tell that to douglass, holyfield, lewis, williams, and mcbride.

Verstyle
03-25-2006, 04:19 AM
tell that to douglass, holyfield, lewis, williams, and mcbride.


why do u always mention those ppl when ali lost like 5times also. leon ****in spinks :eek:

SuzieQ49
03-25-2006, 05:38 AM
i never understand why people pick foreman and liston over tyson


- tyson is too fast for liston


- tysons MUCH FASTER, shorter punches would get inside foremans long loops and punish him. tyson would be beating foreman to the punch every second. tysons combinations would tear apart foreman.

Yaman
03-25-2006, 12:39 PM
tell that to douglass, holyfield, lewis, williams, and mcbride.


Or tell that to Leon Spinks, Trevor Berbick, Larry Holmes, Frazier or Norton who arguable beat him twice.

Tyson is the greatest :cool:

smasher
03-25-2006, 01:43 PM
i never understand why people pick foreman and liston over tyson


- tyson is too fast for liston


- tysons MUCH FASTER, shorter punches would get inside foremans long loops and punish him. tyson would be beating foreman to the punch every second. tysons combinations would tear apart foreman.Cus D'Amato used to show a young Tyson the film of Foreman destroying Frazier and told Mike that NO SWARMING HEAVYWEIGHT COULD EVER BEAT FOREMAN. Tyson was the reason Foreman came back. Foreman knew he could beat Tyson and Tyson knew it to and was "scared ****less of Foreman". Read the article "WHY WE NEVER SAW FOREMAN-TYSON" by Frank Lotierzo on boxingscene archives.

RockyMarcianofan00
03-25-2006, 01:54 PM
Tyson vs Liston

it would be close but i could see Tyson beating liston

tyson vs Foreman i'd have to give it too foreman

Foreman's just too strong for tyson's chin
:boxing:

Dempsey 1919
03-25-2006, 01:56 PM
Cus D'Amato used to show a young Tyson the film of Foreman destroying Frazier and told Mike that NO SWARMING HEAVYWEIGHT COULD EVER BEAT FOREMAN. Tyson was the reason Foreman came back. Foreman knew he could beat Tyson and Tyson knew it to and was "scared ****less of Foreman". Read the article "WHY WE NEVER SAW FOREMAN-TYSON" by Frank Lotierzo on boxingscene archives.

yeah, i was gonna say the same thing, but you beat me to it, smasher. :D

tyson would get murdered by foreman and liston, their styles would matchup badly for tyson, plain and simple.

SuzieQ49
03-25-2006, 01:58 PM
Cus D'Amato used to show a young Tyson the film of Foreman destroying Frazier and told Mike that NO SWARMING HEAVYWEIGHT COULD EVER BEAT FOREMAN.

even the great cus D amato is wrong sometimes. he doesnt realize how good mike is.



Foreman knew he could beat Tyson and Tyson knew it to and was "scared ****less of Foreman".


i hope ur not implying a 1990s far past his prime foreman could beat a peak mike tyson?


- a 1972-74 foreman was a deadly machine, there was no one like him. but the 1990s foreman was a joke who couldnt even beat alex stewart, tommy morrison, and axel shulz yet hes gonna beat a peak mike tyson?


peak foreman u can defintley make a case, but i favor tyson


- smasher i dont know if u believe this, but joe frazier was 10lb overweight and past his prime when he fought foreman. frazier also fought totally different from tyson and tyson brings a lot more to the table than frazier does

SuzieQ49
03-25-2006, 02:00 PM
yeah, i was gonna say the same thing, but you beat me to it, smasher. :D

tyson would get murdered by foreman and liston, their styles would matchup badly for tyson, plain and simple.



put a lid on it. the only reason u pick these guys in every fantasy matchup is because they fought ali.

smasher
03-25-2006, 02:02 PM
i hope ur not implying a 1990s fat ass far past his prime foreman could beat a peak mike tyson?
I'm not implying it I'm telling you. Read the article before challenging me. Read what Tyson and Bobby Goodman said about a 1991 showdown between Foreman and Tyson.

Dempsey 1919
03-25-2006, 02:04 PM
put a lid on it. the only reason u pick these guys in every fantasy matchup is because they fought ali.

everyone says that foreman would tear into tyson. THIS IS A FACT! why do you think tyson ducked foreman? cause he knew he would lose! and liston i believe would beat him as well, since his power is close to foreman's and he's a better boxer with a longer reach.

Yaman
03-25-2006, 02:05 PM
There is no proof that he was scared of Foreman. He would dominate Foreman every second of the round. Foreman of the 90s was a fat slow power puncher. No dissrespect to Foreman though. The early 70s Foreman had a way better shot.

SuzieQ49, don't respond to the biased Ali fan.

Dempsey 1919
03-25-2006, 02:10 PM
There is no proof that he was scared of Foreman. He would dominate Foreman every second of the round. Foreman of the 90s was a fat slow power puncher. No dissrespect to Foreman though. The early 70s Foreman had a way better shot.

SuzieQ49, don't respond to the biased Ali fan.

you don't know that. foreman could still hit harder and he was a better boxer. he was a smart fighter. ok, maybe tyson had a shot at a 40+ year old foreman, but tyson was still scared of him, so you know foreman would have had a very good chance. definetely if he was the tiger who pulverized frazier back in '73, he would crush tyson.

and what does this have to do with ali? :rolleyes:

smasher
03-25-2006, 02:12 PM
- the 1990s foreman was a joke who couldnt even beat alex stewart, tommy morrison, and axel shulz yet hes gonna beat a peak mike tyson?
The 1990 Buster Douglas was a joke who couldn't even beat David Bey KO'd, Stefan Tangstad, Mike White KO'd, Jesse Ferguson, and Tony Tucker KO'd before handing Mike Tyson his ass on a ****in' silver platter with a side order of **** kicking. Oh and let's not forget the fact that Douglas suffered a 3rd round 1 punch KO at the hands of the relatively average hitting Holyfield in his next fight. How good was Buster Douglas?

Oh yeah and apparently Tyson was messed up and past his prime in the Douglas fight right? Well then that was the version that would have faced in Foreman in 1991. The Foreman of Cooney/Rodrigues/Holyfield stops Tyson.

smasher
03-25-2006, 02:18 PM
There is no proof that he was scared of Foreman. He would dominate Foreman every second of the round. Foreman of the 90s was a fat slow power puncher. No dissrespect to Foreman though. The early 70s Foreman had a way better shot.

SuzieQ49, don't respond to the biased Ali fan.
Holyfield said Foreman was much stronger and hit harder than Tyson. Then again what the **** would Holyfield know,he was only in the ring for a combined 24 rounds with both men...

Dempsey 1919
03-25-2006, 02:20 PM
Holyfield said Foreman was much stronger and hit harder than Tyson. Then again what the **** would Holyfield know,he was only in the ring for a combined 24 rounds with both men...

yeah, that's the truth!

Yaman
03-25-2006, 02:21 PM
40 year old Foreman is ****. You don't seem to understand. He barely beat Alex Steward and Tyson destroyed Steward in 1 round. Foreman was just way too slow. If you're slow, how are you gonna knock out a fast power puncher like Tyson who keeps coming after you with combo's? And Tyson had a very good chin. No way you're gonna knock him out with a few punches. Foreman was hurt plenty of times in the 90s and Tyson would hurt him.

Only thing you can say is he was scared of Foreman so he would loose. Thats only a statement, its not prooven.

smasher
03-25-2006, 02:26 PM
40 year old Foreman is ****. You don't seem to understand. He barely beat Alex Steward and Tyson destroyed Steward in 1 round. Foreman was just way too slow. If you're slow, how are you gonna knock out a fast power puncher like Tyson who keeps coming after you with combo's? And Tyson had a very good chin. No way you're gonna knock him out with a few punches. Foreman was hurt plenty of times in the 90s and Tyson would hurt him.

Only thing you can say is he was scared of Foreman so he would loose. Thats only a statement, its not prooven.Foreman was decieving in his second career. He punches may have looked slow but he was accurate. Check out the punch stats of his fights leading up to the Holyfield fight. Foreman learned his lessons from Archie Moore about conservative movement and accurate punching. The ONLY fighters that gave Foreman trouble in his comeback were guys that gave him foot movement. NOBODY WON BY BACKING UP OLD GEORGE.

Yaman
03-25-2006, 02:31 PM
Yet wich fighter who fought Foreman was as good as Tyson in terms of backing him up?

Dempsey 1919
03-25-2006, 02:32 PM
40 year old Foreman is ****. You don't seem to understand. He barely beat Alex Steward and Tyson destroyed Steward in 1 round. Foreman was just way too slow. If you're slow, how are you gonna knock out a fast power puncher like Tyson who keeps coming after you with combo's? And Tyson had a very good chin. No way you're gonna knock him out with a few punches. Foreman was hurt plenty of times in the 90s and Tyson would hurt him.

Only thing you can say is he was scared of Foreman so he would loose. Thats only a statement, its not prooven.

foreman did manage to win back the crown at age 45. he had to have had something left in the tank. foreman would use his jab to keep tyson away and then tear into him much like he did to frazier. cus knew this, and that's why he protected tyson. i've never really seen foreman hurt in the 90s at all, so i don't know where ytou got that from. douglass ko'd tyson, so foreman would do the same.

tyson was scared of foreman. only tyson nuthuggers deny this. it was a known fact that foreman was calling tyson out and tyson avoided him. tyson even said in an interview that he was afraid to fight him.

smasher
03-25-2006, 02:38 PM
Yet wich fighter who fought Foreman was as good as Tyson in terms of backing him up?
Foreman had one gear. Forward. Tyson had one gear. Forward. You're the guy that likes to shoot **** about Tyson losing Rooney and no longer jabbing, no more combination punching, no more body punching, no more head movement, no more breathing, no longer wiping his own ass etc... So what the **** does this 'well past his prime Tyson' bring to a Foreman fight in 1991?

Dempsey1238
03-25-2006, 02:40 PM
Cus was well, DEAD, when Forman made his comeback. I dont think Tyson was protection from Foreman or any oneelse in his heyday. He was just so much better than the other fighters of that era.

SuzieQ49
03-25-2006, 02:44 PM
peak 1986-91 mike tyson destroys the 1990s foreman. this would be a joke of a match.

- tyson took razor ruddocks best shots and easily beat him yet he wont be able to handle a far past his prime foremans?


- glass jaw morrison shutout foreman, if foreman couldnt knockout that glass jaw, he wont stop tyson.

- not too mention foreman lost to shulz and stewart and the fact he couldnt knock these ham and eggers out shows u how bad the 1990s foreman was compared to the peak 1972-74 foreman

Dempsey 1919
03-25-2006, 02:47 PM
peak 1986-91 mike tyson destroys the 1990s foreman. this would be a joke of a match.

- tyson took razor ruddocks best shots and easily beat him yet he wont be able to handle a far past his prime foremans?


- glass jaw morrison shutout foreman, if foreman couldnt knockout that glass jaw, he wont stop tyson.

- not too mention foreman lost to shulz and stewart and the fact he couldnt knock these ham and eggers out shows u how bad the 1990s foreman was compared to the peak 1972-74 foreman

tyson didn't think so. :D

Yaman
03-25-2006, 03:00 PM
Foreman had one gear. Forward. Tyson had one gear. Forward. You're the guy that likes to shoot **** about Tyson losing Rooney and no longer jabbing, no more combination punching, no more body punching, no more head movement, no more breathing, no longer wiping his own ass etc... So what the **** does this 'well past his prime Tyson' bring to a Foreman fight in 1991?

That version of Tyson can't beat an all time prime fighter, but he can destroy a ****ing slow ass flat footed past prime Foreman.

Ali nuthuggers would believe that crap though, i'll tell you that.

RockyMarcianofan00
03-25-2006, 03:00 PM
hang on i want you to think about something, which fight did Cus show tyson that scared him?

thats all you really need to think about- tyson was scared of the foreman of the 70's. The Foreman of the 90's was alot different. because Foreman had that lose to Ali he changed his fighting style. After the Rumble in the Jungle Foreman never fought the same, this is why when ppl later tried to Rope-A-Dope him they got ktfo this is also the reason that Ali didn't want a rematch. That kind of thing would only work once on Foreman. After that Fight foreman started picking and choosing his punches and thats what eventually led to his successful comeback. He was able to conserve energy and instead of throwing like a wild man for 4 rounds was able to go a full 12 rounds winning points on the way.

Now had 90's Tyson fought 90's foreman who would have won, well Foreman would have him scared before he got in the ring because tyson watched the old foreman films and though slowing down foreman was still dangerous. that aside though i don't know if Tyson would be able to win because after he got out of prison he wasn't exactly the same fighter.

However if this was a preprison tyson, prime tyson you might say, Foreman would have his hands full. Foreman was not what he was in the 70's in any way, just as tyson was not the same tyson when he got out of prison, but if it were Tyson from the early 90's vs Foreman from the 90's Foreman would have his hands full. this fight would be close. Foreman did well against swarmers but Tyson was very dangerous, almost if not as dangerous as Joe Frazier and Foreman was not what he was when he fought frazier so
this fight would be close

Foreman still had strength (alittle less then his old self) and he was slowing down but dangerous all the same

and Tyson was still "prime" i guess you could say

Foreman in the later rounds or Tyson in the Early rounds

SuzieQ49
03-25-2006, 03:03 PM
lets be realistic


no fat ass, slow as molasses, horrible reflexes, no defense 45 year old fighter who was shutout by glass jaw morrison is going to be a peak mike tyson.


- tyson beat ruddock, a far more dangerous fighter than a 1990s foreman



- lets be realistic here, tysons a top 10 heavyeight of all time. u think a 1990s foreman can beat a top 10 heavyweight of all time?


a 1990s foreman could never knock tyson out and he could never win on points cause hes not goo enough, SO HES ****ED.


- foreman never faced in the 1990s a fighter like a peak mike tyson. he would suffer a similar fate to larry holmes. foreman did not have a better chin than holmes who was knocked out cold by tyson.


comparing opponents??

tyson TKO 7 ruddock
tyson KO 1 alex stewart


ALEX STEWART W 10 FOREMAN

SuzieQ49
03-25-2006, 03:05 PM
im confused.


smasher are u saying a 1990s foreman beats a 1980s mike tyson?

SuzieQ49
03-25-2006, 03:09 PM
bottom line: george foreman was not good enough to beat a 1986-91 mike tyson. HE WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

- LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO LARRY HOLMES WHEN HE FOUGHT MIKE, IT WILL BE THE SAME WAY WITH FOREMAN EXCEPT WORSE BECAUSE FOREMAN WILL BE COMING IN AND THERES NO WAY A 1990S FOREMAN LASTS LONG COMING IN ON A PEAK MIKE TYSON

Dempsey 1919
03-25-2006, 03:10 PM
foreman did not have a better chin than holmes who was knocked out cold by tyson.

how do you know, i think foreman's chin is better than holmes.

RockyMarcianofan00
03-25-2006, 03:14 PM
how do you know, i think foreman's chin is better than holmes.
i could agree with that

Yaman
03-25-2006, 03:15 PM
late 80s Holmes had a better chin and more heart than a 90s Foreman.

Dempsey 1919
03-25-2006, 03:16 PM
i could agree with that

at least we agree on something. :D

Dempsey 1919
03-25-2006, 03:17 PM
late 80s Holmes had a better chin and more heart than a 90s Foreman.

better chin, possibly. more heart? are you insane? foreman won the title at 45, that wasn't heart? :confused:

RockyMarcianofan00
03-25-2006, 03:18 PM
lets be realistic


no fat ass, slow as molasses, horrible reflexes, no defense 45 year old fighter who was shutout by glass jaw morrison is going to be a peak mike tyson.

thats true, Foreman was slower, his reflexes were beginning to go, but though Foreman was heavier he still could take a body shot and he had stregth, i'm not saying he'd win i'm just saying foreman wasn't that bad in the 90's i mean he only lost 3 fights out of all the ones he won in the 90's

Yaman
03-25-2006, 03:19 PM
better chin, possibly. more heart? are you insane? foreman won the title at 45, that wasn't heart? :confused:


That was a good performance(Better yet luck). Heart is when a guy takes a huge beating and keeps going on.

Dempsey 1919
03-25-2006, 03:20 PM
That was a good performance(Better yet luck). Heart is when a guy takes a huge beating and keeps going on.

so foreman wasn't getting a beating in the 90s and still wenton to ktfo? :rolleyes:

smasher
03-25-2006, 03:43 PM
im confused.


smasher are u saying a 1990s foreman beats a 1980s mike tyson?These men were supposed to have fought in 1991. They were co-featured on a card that had Tyson-Tillman and Foreman-Rodrigues. The idea was for both guys to win then meet in a non-title showdown. It would have been the biggest money fight in boxing at the time but the fight didn't happen because Tyson didn't want it to happen.

Who the **** is Razor Ruddock? A one handed, one punch, limited bum who was destroyed by Lennox Lewis in 2 rounds after going 12 with Tyson. No jab, no right hand, no defence no nothing. Who the **** did he ever beat but an old, used up, shopworn ex-coke addict Michael Dokes.

Don't compare 1988 Holmes to 1991 Foreman. Foreman was a very active fighter in the years leading up to 1991. Holmes was inactive for 2 years when he fought Tyson and was completely un-prepared, under-trained, coming out of retirement and only took the fight because he needed a pay day to purchase real estate. Holmes was a rusty inactive shell in that fight, nothing like the 1991 Foreman.

Foreman did not fight Morrison in 1991. Foreman was slipping, yet even still Morrison ran like a thief in that fight. Had he came to Foreman in his usual style would have been KO'd. Morrison knew that, that's why he spent the 12 rounds on his bicycle.

1991 Foreman KO's 1991 Tyson.

K-DOGG
03-25-2006, 05:56 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/tyson/flashback/kod/
The eighth round opened with Douglas again getting the better of Tyson, but it closed with a sudden, classic Tyson right uppercut that dropped Douglas to the canvas with six seconds left. It was the only time that Douglas got careless, and it nearly cost him his eventual stunning upset. Worse, though, was referee Meyran's shabby handling of the count, which, if promoter Don King has his way, may serve to deprive Douglas of the crown that he rightfully deserves. At the moment Douglas's backside touched the surface of the ring, the knockdown timekeeper began his count. Instead of picking up that cadence, Meyran began his own count, two beats behind.
As generations of felled fighters have done before him, Douglas kept his attention fixed on the referee's hands. As Meyran signaled nine, Douglas rose, but the bell ended the round. If there was any doubt that Douglas was clearheaded and could have risen to his feet on the timekeeper's count, it had been erased right after the knockdown when Douglas pounded his left fist on the mat, in obvious annoyance at his own lapse.
Yet King, who saw his world tour coming to a screeching halt about three continents short of his grand plan, would later seize on the discrepancy in the counts as grounds to bully others into awarding Tyson a victory by knockout.
But King was not willing to allow his investment in the franchise called Mike Tyson to take the hit that inevitably comes from losing a title fight. King summoned officials from two of the major sanctioning bodies, the WBC and WBA, and representatives from the Japan Boxing Commission to a small room off the arena. Emerging two hours later, King called a press conference to announce that tapes of the bout clearly showed that "two knockouts took place, but the first knockout obliterates the second. Buster Douglas was knocked out, and the referee did not do his job and panicked. As the promoter of both fighters, I'm only seeking fair play."
Two hours after that declaration, King again summoned the press. This time, he brought along Meyran, who said, "I don't know why I start my count and make my mistake. Yes, he was down longer than 10 seconds." Also in attendance was the fallen champion. His swollen left eye hidden by dark glasses, he said, "I thought I knocked him out. I thought he was counted out."
Not surprisingly, given the sway he holds over the sport, King's transparent attempts to alter the obvious were persuasive enough for the WBC and WBA to announce that they would suspend recognition of the outcome until further review, which is expected to take place during this coming week. Even as Douglas relaxed in his hotel room with the WBC belt around his waist, the organization's president, Jose Sulaiman, was saying, "I'm very confused." Later, at the second press conference, he was no longer so confused. He said a rematch "was absolutely mandatory." But the damage is pretty much done. All King's men can't put Tyson together again.
Of course, if you want confusion, boxing is, once more, for you. For starters, there is the blabbering of governing bodies whose only apparent purpose is to collect sanctioning fees. Tyson had consolidated all three titles -- WBC, WBA and IBF -- on Aug. 1, 1987, but because the Japan Boxing Commission does not recognize the IBF, no one from that organization was represented in Tokyo. Yet the IBF did sanction the fight, and does not recognize the challenge to Douglas's victory. So at the very least, Douglas now holds the IBF title.

It's really unfair how tyson's belt was taken away from him although he clearly won the bout. If the referee counted right and claimed Tyson as the winner, Tyson would have realized that he almost could have been knocked out (which happened) and would have been more careful in the future. Tyson even claims that his career ended at the buster douglas fight. Maybe it led to his to fallout not only in the ring but outside of it as well.
http://www.desearch.net/out.php/i35257_021990lg.jpg

Pathetic. Absolutely Pathetic. Douglas got up before the ref counted 10, which is all that is required of a fighter...and finished kicking Tyson's ass. End of story. Get over it.

SuzieQ49
03-25-2006, 11:59 PM
1991 Foreman KO's 1991 Tyson.


now thats ridiculous, i cant agree with this. even if tyson couldnt knock him out, he would easily outbox him like he did tony tucker and razor ruddock. there is no way foreman could possibly beat tyson. 1990s foreman DOES NOT HAVE enough power or punching skills anymore to knock out mike tyson. 1990s foreman does not have enough skill or speed to keep from avoiding tysons blows. 1990s foreman is not good enough to outbox tyson.

- there is no way a 1990s foreman could possibly win this fight.


- tyson hit harder and was a much devastating puncher than ron lyle who nearly knocked george out. tyson will be beating foreman to the punch the entire fight, and foreman does not have a good enough chin to take tysons hardest punchers and deadly combinations.





- first of all, ruddock would have beat george in 91. george was shutout by a glass jaw fighter tommy morrison which is PATHETIC!

paul750
03-26-2006, 12:07 AM
- first of all, ruddock would have beat george in 91. george was shutout by a glass jaw fighter tommy morrison which is PATHETIC!
Morrison was still a talented fighter though, be fair.

smasher
03-26-2006, 12:55 AM
foreman DOES NOT HAVE enough power or punching skills anymore to knock out mike tyson. You are grossly downplaying the '91 Foreman. Foreman adopted a cross-arm defence and was much harder to hit than he was in the 70's. He was energy conservative, efficient, calm, focused and very accurate with his power punches. Foreman's jab was a battering ram. Check the punch stats in some of his fights around this time. Foreman was never backed up, seriously hurt or floored during his comeback and was never DOMINATED by anyone in the 90's.

1991 George at 42 yrs fought a PRIME Holyfield jarring and backing up Holyfield on several occasions and giving Holyfield a very tough and competitive fight. Foreman stood up in between rounds the entire fight showed stamina and power late in the fight and it was Holyfield that was holding on at the bell.

1996 Tyson at 30 yrs fought an older shot Holyfield was completely dominated, only won one round, got floored and KO'd. Don't tell me Holyfield was anywhere near his prime. Holyfield hadn't scored a KO in 5 years. Watch the Czyz fight. Holyfield was awful. Life and death with under achiever Ray Mercer, KO'd by Bowe and decisioned by Moorer. After Tyson, Holyfield scored 1 CAREER KO in the next 8 years. So in 13 years Holyfield scores 2 KO's and won of them is a convicing one over Tyson.

The Nevada state Athletic commision wouldn't even sanction the Holyfield-Tyson fight until Holyfield was examined by the Mayo clinic and given a clean bill of health. This was because HOLYFIELD LOOKED SHOT AS A FIGHTER AND THE NSAC WAS WORRIED HOLYFIELD WOULD BE SERIOUSLY HURT. Ring Magazine picked Tyson by 1 Round KO and Holyfield was a huge betting underdog. Don't give me **** about Tyson being shot. The boxing media couldn't get enough of Tyson when he KO'd Bruno that year. NO ONE was writing about Tyson being shot until conveniently after Holyfield manhandled and kicked the **** out of him.

Think Holyfield was stronger than Tyson the way he pushed Mike off him, backed him up, and bullied him? Watch Foreman against PRIME Holyfield. Foreman was knocking Holyfield back with jabs. Foreman was substantially stronger than Holyfield and Foreman was infinitely stronger than Tyson.

How many fights did Holyfield fight like he fought Foreman? Maybe Bowe II that's it. Holyfield knew if he stood in front of Foreman (like Holyfield was able to and thoroughly dominate Tyson) he would be stopped.

91 Foreman had strength, a battering ram accurate left jab and power. Tyson was staggered by Bruno, KO'd by Douglas, staggered by Smith and rocked and backed up by Ruddock. What makes you think Foreman couldn't hurt Tyson?

Foreman doesn't have the skill to avoid Tyson's blows? I guess the limited Bonecrusher Smith did who went 12 rounds with Tyson without being hurt did. Smith isn't in Foreman's league power wise or accuracy wise and he staggered and backed up PRIME TYSON when he decided to let his hands go.

Foreman came back for one reason. To fight Tyson. The match was in negotiations until talks broke down because of Tyson's unwillingness to fight Foreman. That's why Foreman ended up fighting Holyfield.

And there is no way in hell Ruddock would have beaten Foreman. With what? He had no jab, no right hand, no defense, a very average chin nothing but a telegraphed left hand. Ruddock was stopped by David Jaco, Tommy Morrison and killed by Lennox Lewis. What the **** did Ruddock ever do or who did he ever beat to make you think he would have defeated Foreman?

SuzieQ49
03-26-2006, 01:50 AM
You are grossly downplaying the '91 Foreman. Foreman adopted a cross-arm defence and was much harder to hit than he was in the 70's. He was energy conservative, efficient, calm, focused and very accurate with his power punches. Foreman's jab was a battering ram. Check the punch stats in some of his fights around this time. Foreman was never backed up, seriously hurt or floored during his comeback and was never DOMINATED by anyone in the 90's.

1991 George at 42 yrs fought a PRIME Holyfield jarring and backing up Holyfield on several occasions and giving Holyfield a very tough and competitive fight. Foreman stood up in between rounds the entire fight showed stamina and power late in the fight and it was Holyfield that was holding on at the bell.

1996 Tyson at 30 yrs fought an older shot Holyfield was completely dominated, only won one round, got floored and KO'd. Don't tell me Holyfield was anywhere near his prime. Holyfield hadn't scored a KO in 5 years. Watch the Czyz fight. Holyfield was awful. Life and death with under achiever Ray Mercer, KO'd by Bowe and decisioned by Moorer. After Tyson, Holyfield scored 1 CAREER KO in the next 8 years. So in 13 years Holyfield scores 2 KO's and won of them is a convicing one over Tyson.

The Nevada state Athletic commision wouldn't even sanction the Holyfield-Tyson fight until Holyfield was examined by the Mayo clinic and given a clean bill of health. This was because HOLYFIELD LOOKED SHOT AS A FIGHTER AND THE NSAC WAS WORRIED HOLYFIELD WOULD BE SERIOUSLY HURT. Ring Magazine picked Tyson by 1 Round KO and Holyfield was a huge betting underdog. Don't give me **** about Tyson being shot. The boxing media couldn't get enough of Tyson when he KO'd Bruno that year. NO ONE was writing about Tyson being shot until conveniently after Holyfield manhandled and kicked the **** out of him.

Think Holyfield was stronger than Tyson the way he pushed Mike off him, backed him up, and bullied him? Watch Foreman against PRIME Holyfield. Foreman was knocking Holyfield back with jabs. Foreman was substantially stronger than Holyfield and Foreman was infinitely stronger than Tyson.

How many fights did Holyfield fight like he fought Foreman? Maybe Bowe II that's it. Holyfield knew if he stood in front of Foreman (like Holyfield was able to and thoroughly dominate Tyson) he would be stopped.

91 Foreman had strength, a battering ram accurate left jab and power. Tyson was staggered by Bruno, KO'd by Douglas, staggered by Smith and rocked and backed up by Ruddock.
Think Holyfield was stronger than Tyson the way he pushed Mike off him, backed him up, and bullied him? Watch Foreman against PRIME Holyfield. Foreman was knocking Holyfield back with jabs. Foreman was substantially stronger than Holyfield and Foreman was infinitely stronger than Tyson.

Foreman doesn't have the skill to avoid Tyson's blows? I guess the limited Bonecrusher Smith did who went 12 rounds with Tyson without being hurt did. Smith isn't in Foreman's league power wise or accuracy wise and he staggered and backed up PRIME TYSON when he decided to let his hands go.

Foreman came back for one reason. To fight Tyson. The match was in negotiations until talks broke down because of Tyson's unwillingness to fight Foreman. That's why Foreman ended up fighting Holyfield.

And there is no way in hell Ruddock would have beaten Foreman. With what? He had no jab, no right hand, no defense, a very average chin nothing but a telegraphed left hand. Ruddock was stopped by David Jaco, Tommy Morrison and killed by Lennox Lewis. What the **** did Ruddock ever do or who did he ever beat to make you think he would have defeated Foreman?





Foreman was never backed up, seriously hurt or floored during his comeback and was never DOMINATED by anyone in the 90's.


he never faced the 2nd greatest heavyweight puncher of all time like he would with tyson









1996 Tyson at 30 yrs fought an older shot Holyfield was completely dominated, only won one round, got floored and KO'd.


tyson was a lot more past his prime than holyfield was. and tyson defintley won at least 3 rounds.

tyson was 8 years past his prime, in comparison holyfield was just about 2-3 years past his prime.







Don't give me **** about Tyson being shot. The boxing media couldn't get enough of Tyson when he KO'd Bruno that year. NO ONE was writing about Tyson being shot until conveniently after Holyfield manhandled and kicked the **** out of him.

- bruno was a scared jack rabbit who was pissing his pants the whole fight. he was nothing of an opponent. seldon was so scared he went down without being hit. u call this mike "showing his old form"??????????


NO FIGHTER WHO EVER CAME BACK FROM A 4 YEAR LAYOFF WAS EVER THE SAME AGAIN. look at joe louis, muhammad ali. u said it urself u thought ali was worse in the FOTC because of ring rust. well tyson leading up to the holyfield fight had fought just 8 rounds in the past 5 years and was coming off a 4 year layoff 91-95! tyson during those years had no boxing training whatsoever. tyson not only was mentally messed up, he was terribly ring rusty and was far past his peak . tyson was a earlier bloomer, and early bloomers usually are past there prime well before age 30.


- also, holy lost to michael moorer in 94. yet in 97 AFTER THE TYSON FIGHTS, holy dominated moorer knocking him out. in 99, holyfield fought 12 even rounds IN THE REMATCH with lennox. so how fast his prime can he be??


- if u watch holyfield-tyson I, holy clearly looks a lot closer to a prime holyfield than tyson does to himself. many reports claim holy fought the best fight of his career vs tyson.


ALSO, THAT WAS THE MIKE TYSON OF 96, NOT 1991 MIKE TYSON.






1991 George at 42 yrs fought a PRIME Holyfield jarring and backing up Holyfield on several occasions and giving Holyfield a very tough and competitive fight. Foreman stood up in between rounds the entire fight showed stamina and power late in the fight and it was Holyfield that was holding on at the bell.


- dont forget thats the same holyfield who was nearly knocked out by journeyman late sub bert cooper.

- also dont forget a older, worse larry holmes fought 12 close competitive rounds with evander yet tyson knocked out a MUCH YOUNGER HOLMES OUT IN 4 EASY ROUNDS.








Think Holyfield was stronger than Tyson the way he pushed Mike off him, backed him up, and bullied him? Watch Foreman against PRIME Holyfield. Foreman was knocking Holyfield back with jabs. Foreman was substantially stronger than Holyfield and Foreman was infinitely stronger than Tyson.


that tyson was A LOT WORSE THAN THE 1991 MIKE TYSON WHO WAS 5 YEARS YOUNGER AND WASNT COMING OFF A 4 YEAR LAYOFF!


- i also watched foreman lose to alex stewart and get lucky to win the decision. incidentley, tyson knocked out alex stewart in 1 easy round.


- george foreman could NOT EVEN KNOCK OUT alex stewart who is far less of a fighter than mike tyson and is far less durable than tyson. foreman couldnt even put him away yet hes going to put tyson away!

- foreman DID NOT HAVE HIS SAME POWER IN 91. razor ruddock was defintley a harder puncher than the 1990s george foreman.






91 Foreman had strength, a battering ram accurate left jab and power. Tyson was staggered by Bruno, KO'd by Douglas, staggered by Smith and rocked and backed up by Ruddock. why wouldnt foreman be able to hurt rocky

- TYSON TOOK RAZOR RUDDOCKS BEST PUNCHES. RAZOR WAS A HARDER PUNCHER THAN THE 1990S FOREMAN.


- foremans jab was slow, and easy to avoid. foreman was STAGGERED BY KEN LAKUSTA, MICHAEL MOORER, EVANDER HOLYFIELD, AND OTHERS WHO WERE ALL far LESS PUNCHERS THAN TYSON.


- tyson has 100X FASTER HANDSPEED THAN FOREMAN, THREW FAR BETTER COMBINATIONS, MUCH BETTER ACCURACY, MORE POWER, SHORTER PUNCHES, i mean tyson will literally beat foreman to the punch the entire fight!

tyson will have already landed 5 devastating punches by the time foreman gets 1 in




Foreman doesn't have the skill to avoid Tyson's blows? I guess the limited Bonecrusher Smith did who went 12 rounds with Tyson without being hurt did. Smith isn't in Foreman's league power wise or accuracy wise and he staggered and backed up PRIME TYSON when he decided to let his hands go.


- boneCLUTCHER held on for his dear life the entire fight, his goal was to survive not win.

- prime bonercusher smith was just as good as the 1990s foreman.


1990s foreman lost to shannon briggs, axel shulz, alex stewart, shutout by glass jaw morrison.




- 87 holmes was just as good as the 91 foreman. in fact, the 92 holmes who was 5 years older gave holy a closer fight than the 91 foreman.





- ruddock had too much power, speed, youthness for foreman, it would end up like the morrison fights. morrsion beat ruddock when ruddock was FAR PAST HIS PRIME






jsut remember...........


alex stewart beat george foreman- stewart was awful too


tyson KO 1 alex stewart



this would be a joke of a fight



tyson TKO 4 1990s foreman

SuzieQ49
03-26-2006, 01:55 AM
What the **** did Ruddock ever do or who did he ever beat to make you think he would have defeated Foreman?


what did foreman ever do?


foreman lost to morrison, C level alex stewart, axel shulz.


ruddock only lost to tyson and that was in 2 very competitive fights.



dokes was shot when ruddock beat him? wasnt this the same dokes who had recentley gived a PEAK EVANDER HOLYFIELD 10 life and death even rounds before getting stopped? ruddock was able to put dokes away with 1 punch. U SEE BY THIS TIME, HE WAS OFF THE DRUGS, AND IN THE BEST SHAPE OF HIS CAREER, WHICH EXPLAINS WHY HE CAME CLOSE TO BEATING A PEAK EVANDER HOLYFIELD.

Yogi
03-26-2006, 02:08 AM
ruddock was able to put dokes away with 1 punch. U SEE BY THIS TIME, HE WAS OFF THE DRUGS, AND IN THE BEST SHAPE OF HIS CAREER, WHICH EXPLAINS WHY HE CAME CLOSE TO BEATING A PEAK EVANDER HOLYFIELD.

Oh man, Brockton...Judging by the very noticable amount of chub Dokes possessed around his middle in the Ruddock fight, and also the very noticable decrease in his handspeed at the time (compared to the early 80's Dokes), for the life of me I cannot see why you could possibly say that he was "IN THE BEST SHAPE OF HIS CAREER".

Heckler
03-26-2006, 02:10 AM
****, its hilarious how people become delusional when someone percieved as INVINCIBLE gets his ass handed to him. Happened with Foreman against Ali. Every ****en exscuse under the sun. Douglas had the assets and the attitude to pick Tyson apart, expose his flaws. Simple. Do you think a boxer goes into a fight in TOP form every fight? no, but they are professionals and thus should be able to deal with it. Tyson didn't, he lost, simple. Long count, bull****. Douglas knew exactly where he was and waited until the last second to give himself as much recovery time as possible.

Heckler
03-26-2006, 02:18 AM
I believe a 1990's Foreman would beat Tyson. Infact im certain. Tyson would be beaten before he stepped in the ring. He used to watch footage of Foreman with Cus who noted that no swarming fighter had a chance against Foreman. Tyson BLATENTLY ducked Foreman and this is noted by all those who were close to him, he was ****-scared and thus would not perform well on the night. Foreman definately wasn't scared of him, STILL had awesome power and a style effective for dealing with swarming fighters. Tyson can't fight on the backfoot, he is no boxer. He would be nervous and hesistant, thus not applying pressure. Foreman Ko's him with a gigantic uppercut.

Heckler
03-26-2006, 02:29 AM
bottom line: george foreman was not good enough to beat a 1986-91 mike tyson. HE WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

- LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO LARRY HOLMES WHEN HE FOUGHT MIKE, IT WILL BE THE SAME WAY WITH FOREMAN EXCEPT WORSE BECAUSE FOREMAN WILL BE COMING IN AND THERES NO WAY A 1990S FOREMAN LASTS LONG COMING IN ON A PEAK MIKE TYSON

You're being too simplistic. Styles make fights.... 'WELL LOOK WHAT FOREMAN DID TO NORTON AND FRAZIER, HE'LL DESTROY ALI' The logic doesn't work. Tysons a swarmer, Foreman a powerful slugger. Tyson would look at foreman in center-ring and **** himself, he would not have the mental capacity to beat a man that he truly feared.

Dempsey 1919
03-26-2006, 02:33 AM
he never faced the 2nd greatest heavyweight puncher of all time like he would with tyson











tyson was a lot more past his prime than holyfield was. and tyson defintley won at least 3 rounds.

tyson was 8 years past his prime, in comparison holyfield was just about 2-3 years past his prime.









- bruno was a scared jack rabbit who was pissing his pants the whole fight. he was nothing of an opponent. seldon was so scared he went down without being hit. u call this mike "showing his old form"??????????


NO FIGHTER WHO EVER CAME BACK FROM A 4 YEAR LAYOFF WAS EVER THE SAME AGAIN. look at joe louis, muhammad ali. u said it urself u thought ali was worse in the FOTC because of ring rust. well tyson leading up to the holyfield fight had fought just 8 rounds in the past 5 years and was coming off a 4 year layoff 91-95! tyson during those years had no boxing training whatsoever. tyson not only was mentally messed up, he was terribly ring rusty and was far past his peak . tyson was a earlier bloomer, and early bloomers usually are past there prime well before age 30.


- also, holy lost to michael moorer in 94. yet in 97 AFTER THE TYSON FIGHTS, holy dominated moorer knocking him out. in 99, holyfield fought 12 even rounds IN THE REMATCH with lennox. so how fast his prime can he be??


- if u watch holyfield-tyson I, holy clearly looks a lot closer to a prime holyfield than tyson does to himself. many reports claim holy fought the best fight of his career vs tyson.


ALSO, THAT WAS THE MIKE TYSON OF 96, NOT 1991 MIKE TYSON.








- dont forget thats the same holyfield who was nearly knocked out by journeyman late sub bert cooper.

- also dont forget a older, worse larry holmes fought 12 close competitive rounds with evander yet tyson knocked out a MUCH YOUNGER HOLMES OUT IN 4 EASY ROUNDS.










that tyson was A LOT WORSE THAN THE 1991 MIKE TYSON WHO WAS 5 YEARS YOUNGER AND WASNT COMING OFF A 4 YEAR LAYOFF!


- i also watched foreman lose to alex stewart and get lucky to win the decision. incidentley, tyson knocked out alex stewart in 1 easy round.


- george foreman could NOT EVEN KNOCK OUT alex stewart who is far less of a fighter than mike tyson and is far less durable than tyson. foreman couldnt even put him away yet hes going to put tyson away!

- foreman DID NOT HAVE HIS SAME POWER IN 91. razor ruddock was defintley a harder puncher than the 1990s george foreman.






- TYSON TOOK RAZOR RUDDOCKS BEST PUNCHES. RAZOR WAS A HARDER PUNCHER THAN THE 1990S FOREMAN.


- foremans jab was slow, and easy to avoid. foreman was STAGGERED BY KEN LAKUSTA, MICHAEL MOORER, EVANDER HOLYFIELD, AND OTHERS WHO WERE ALL far LESS PUNCHERS THAN TYSON.


- tyson has 100X FASTER HANDSPEED THAN FOREMAN, THREW FAR BETTER COMBINATIONS, MUCH BETTER ACCURACY, MORE POWER, SHORTER PUNCHES, i mean tyson will literally beat foreman to the punch the entire fight!

tyson will have already landed 5 devastating punches by the time foreman gets 1 in






- boneCLUTCHER held on for his dear life the entire fight, his goal was to survive not win.

- prime bonercusher smith was just as good as the 1990s foreman.


1990s foreman lost to shannon briggs, axel shulz, alex stewart, shutout by glass jaw morrison.




- 87 holmes was just as good as the 91 foreman. in fact, the 92 holmes who was 5 years older gave holy a closer fight than the 91 foreman.





- ruddock had too much power, speed, youthness for foreman, it would end up like the morrison fights. morrsion beat ruddock when ruddock was FAR PAST HIS PRIME






jsut remember...........


alex stewart beat george foreman- stewart was awful too


tyson KO 1 alex stewart



this would be a joke of a fight



tyson TKO 4 1990s foreman

when people fight different things happen. it depends on the style they use. foreman had a harder time with holy than holmes did because holmes was a mover, foreman was not, and holy was able to outbox him. that doesn't mean if foreman fought homes then holmes would win. foreman has the right style to beat tyson. old foreman has a pretty good chance of winning. young foreman would kill him!

Heckler
03-26-2006, 02:40 AM
Tyson is the 2nd greatest puncher of all time? So he must be better then Dempsey? Joe Louis? Earnie Shavers? etc. Are you SERIOUS?

smasher
03-26-2006, 09:18 AM
what did foreman ever do?Your analogies are so twisted, biased, slanted, simplistic and subjective they're not even woth responding to individually.

How the **** was '87 Bonecrusher Smith as good as Foreman? Smith's record was 5-4 with 2 KO's in the last 3 years heading into the Tyson fight. After being stopped by Larry Holmes in '84 he lost to Tubbs, Witherspoon and Marvis Frazier (!) before fighting Tyson. Wow, 1 fight over .500 and 2 KO's in 9 fights and 3 years. What an animal. How long do you think Marvis Frazier would have lasted with a 1991 Foreman?

Foreman in contrast was 23-0 with 22 KO's in his comeback going into the Holyfield fight.

Tyson was past his prime at 22? That's ****ing hilarious. Name me one other fighter in history that was ever past his prime at 22? More ridiculous fabricated arguments from Tyson lovers who can't fathom how he got KO'd by Douglas.

Your whole Alex Stewart analogy can just as easily be applied to Holyfield vs Alex Stewart who went 12 rounds with Holy and stopped by Tyson in 1. Tyson was more durable than Alex Stewart? Not if you compare his fights with Holyfield. Holyfield couldn't floor or score a clean KO over Stewart like he did to Tyson.

Tyson is the most overrated, excuse laden, media saturated heavyweight champion of all time. More bull****.

Again, watch Holyfield vs Czyz. Czyz wasn't even a good middleweight who got his ass kicked by light hitting Mustafa Hamsho and had the **** kicked out of him by Prince Charles Williams yet Holyfield couldn't even hurt Czyz who fabricated an injury and quit in his corner. Holyfield was done when he kicked the **** out of Tyson and his ensuing record proves it. Tyson won three rounds? Are you counting the national anthem and the introductions as rounds? Tyson won one round at best. Ring Magazine had it scored 98-91 giving Tyson 2 rounds, while judge Frederico Vollmer gave Tyson no rounds.

NOBODY IN THE MEDIA WERE TALKING ABOUT TYSON LOOKING PAST HIS PRIME AND BEING FINISHED AS A FIGHTER IN 1996 UNTIL CONVENIENTLY AFTER HE LOST TO HOLYFIELD. More bull**** from Tyson fans who make excuses for every ****in loss this guy had. Tyson opened the betting odds on this fight as an 18-1 favourite. How far 'past his prime' was Tyson considered? Of the 48 sports writers polled all but Ron Borges picked Tyson to win. That's how bad Holyfield looked at this point in his career, and how dominant Tyson looked. Ring Magazine editor Steve Farhood had this to say AFTER the fight. "If you handed me a hundred bucks and I could make a wager right now after it had already happened and knowing the result, I still wouldn't bet on Holyfield." Sounds alot to me like the close to 34 year old, too many tough fights, Holyfield was the fighter considered farther past his prime than the 30 year old Tyson.

You call the Foreman-Tyson fight a joke? Ring Magazine featured the upcoming Foreman-Tyson clash on the front cover November 1990. It wasn't considered a joke then.

"Co-promoters Bob Arum and Don King hope that Tyson and Foreman will headline one more double header and then face each other with the winner to get a shot at the heavyweight title... The real fight, and the only fight in the heavyweight division that fans want to see, is Tyson-Foreman. It has become the most anticipated heavyweight matchup since Larry Holmes-Gerry Cooney in 1982"

..."Dundee who's worked in the opposite corners of both fighters doesn't see Tyson as an easy winner...."I definitely think that Foreman will beat Tyson. He'll knock him out."

So why didn't the fight take place? For the umpteenth time, BECAUSE TYSON WAS AFRAID TO FIGHT FOREMAN. This was a huge money fight that could have also happened in 1992 when Tyson was rated 2nd, Ruddock was rated 4th and Foreman 7th. Tyson would have made SUBSTANTIALLY MORE MONEY FIGHTING FOREMAN but instead chose to fight Ruddock. Why? BECAUSE TYSON WAS AFRAID TO FIGHT FOREMAN. If this fight would have been such an easy one for Tyson why didn't he take THE ONLY FIGHT IN THE HEAVYWEIGHT DIVISION THAT FANS WANT TO SEE and collect SUBSTANTIALLY MORE MONEY FIGHTING FOREMAN than fighting Ruddock?

BECAUSE TYSON WAS AFRAID TO FIGHT FOREMAN.

Yaman
03-26-2006, 09:55 AM
Ofcource you know don't you smasher? I mean you've worked with Tyson for years and he told you everything about him right? Get real.


Tyson being scared of Foreman cannot be proven, none of you knew Tyson personal so don't talk ****. That tommyhearns guy is a ****** ass ***** who loves talking **** about Tyson on the net.


Tyson KO3 Old ass Foreman. Horrible beating a la old Holmes.

smasher
03-26-2006, 10:02 AM
Ofcource you know don't you smasher? I mean you've worked with Tyson for years and he told you everything about him right? Get real.


Tyson being scared of Foreman cannot be proven, none of you knew Tyson personal so don't talk ****. That tommyhearns guy is a ****** ass ***** who loves talking **** about Tyson on the net.


Tyson KO3 Old ass Foreman. Horrible beating a la old Holmes.Firstly the article was written by Frank Lotierzo NOT that tommyhearns guy. Lotierzo has been in the boxing media for years is a reputable and excellent boxing writer. I have spoken with Lotierzo personally and have spoken to him regarding this matter. Lotierzo was the writer of the article and was present when Bobby Goodman stated why Tyson didn't want to fight Foreman. HE WAS SCARED ****LESS.

Yaman
03-26-2006, 10:13 AM
Firstly the article was written by Frank Lotierzo NOT that tommyhearns guy. Lotierzo has been in the boxing media for years is a reputable and excellent boxing writer. I have spoken with Lotierzo personally and have spoken to him regarding this matter. Lotierzo was the writer of the article and was present when Bobby Goodman stated why Tyson didn't want to fight Foreman. HE WAS SCARED ****LESS.


Go ahead and believe that.

I'll change my mind about this fight when i hear Tyson saying he was scared of Foreman. Interview like Butterfly said :rolleyes:

smasher
03-26-2006, 11:26 AM
Go ahead and believe that.

I'll change my mind about this fight when i hear Tyson saying he was scared of Foreman. Interview like Butterfly said :rolleyes:
Tyson was scheduled to fight Razor Ruddock when he was still champion. Tyson backed out of that fight after the contract was signed.

Tyson was scheduled to fight Holyfield in November 1991. The fight was signed and fight posters were advertised in Ring Magazine. Tyson backed out claiming a rib injury from doing sit-ups. The only reason Tyson fought him in '96 was because Holyfield was considered a shot fighter.

Tyson ducked Lennox Lewis by paying him step aside money so he wouldn't have to fight him.

Tyson never tried to secure a rematch with Buster Douglas.

TYSON WAS SCARED OF FOREMAN.

SuzieQ49
03-26-2006, 01:47 PM
Tyson is the 2nd greatest puncher of all time? So he must be better then Dempsey? Joe Louis? Earnie Shavers? etc. Are you SERIOUS?
2nd greatest heavyweight puncher of all time, # 1 is joe louis.

of course hes a better puncher than shavers. tyson threw far better combinations, a lot more handspeed, much more accuracy, much better body attack, more snap on his punches, better finisher, threw shorter punches.

smasher
03-26-2006, 02:25 PM
of course hes a better puncher than shavers. tyson threw far better combinations, a lot more handspeed, much more accuracy, much better body attack, more snap on his punches, better finisher, threw shorter punches.Really? In 1985 (one year from entering his prime according to you) it took Tyson 3 rounds to KO Larry Sims. 2 fights later it took the 52 year old Shavers 1 Round to KO Sims!

Yaman
03-26-2006, 02:30 PM
Really? It took Tyson 3 rounds to KO Larry Sims. 2 fights later it took the 52 year old Shavers 1 Round to KO Sims!


Hey! The Larry Sims fight is the only Tyson fight i don't have. Where the **** did you watch that? I heard it was never recorded on tape.

smasher
03-26-2006, 03:20 PM
he never faced the 2nd greatest heavyweight puncher of all time like he would with tyson This is ****ing more hilarious by the minute. Look who Tyson was padding his record against on his way to a title fight.

In 1985 Tyson went 15-0 with 15 KO's. Only one novice opponent would retire with a winning record (6-1). Not one of these 15 opponents ever beat a world class opponent and they accounted for 154 KO losses. ****ing incredible! The glass jaw brigade!

1986 isn't much better and this is the year Tyson fans will tell you his prime started.

David Jaco KO'd in 1 retires with a losing record and is KO'd 18 times.

Mike Jameson KO'd in 5 retires with a losing record and is KO'd 4 times.

Jesse Ferguson was probably one of Tyson's best opponents although his only notable wins were against Ray Mercer and Buster Douglas while he retired having been KO'd 6 times. Even still he finished the fight with Tyson on his feet and was only floored once in 6 rounds before the referee disqualified him for holding.

Steve Zouski retires with a losing record and is KO'd 9 times. In his 2nd fight after getting KO'd by Tyson in 3, 267 lb George Foreman who hasn't fought in 10 years takes only one round more than Tyson scoring a KO in 4.

James Tillis past his prime and now a decent journeyman loses a close decision to Tyson. Tillis never beat a top 10 heavyweight in his career and was KO'd 11 times.

Mitch Green. Here's a switch. A Tyson opponent who doesn't have multiple KO losses on his record. Green who never defeated a ranked fighter and retired 19-6 goes the distance with Tyson and is never floored.

Reggie Gross KO'd in 1. A confidence booster for Tyson who has failed to stop his last 2 opponents. Fought the first half of his career as a light-heavyweight and was KO'd 5 times in compiling an 18-8 career record.

William Hosea KO'd in 1. Another winning record! Retires 11-7 and is KO'd twice.

Lorenzo Boyd. KO'd in 2. Retires with a losing record. Incredibly Boyd suffers 41 KO's in 54 career losses!

Marvis Frazier KO'd in 1. Soft puncher with a weak chin but holds a decision win over Bonecrusher Smith, the only top 10 opponent win on his resume. KO'd in 1 in both career losses.

Jose Ribalta TKO'd in 10. On his feet, clear-eyed and complaining when the referee stops it. Retires with a winning record but still suffers 9 KO's in 17 losses and like most Tyson KO victims never beats a top 10 heavyweight.

Alfonso Ratliff KO'd in 2. A cruiserweight. KO'd by every world class heavyweight he ever fought. Retires with a winning record but is KO'd 6 times in 9 career losses.

That's 25 of Tyson's 44 Career KO's right there.

STOPPING THIS GROUP OF STIFFS HELPS QUALIFY TYSON AS THE 2ND HARDEST HEAVYWEIGHT IN HISTORY?

SuzieQ49
03-26-2006, 03:45 PM
smasher, im wondering...........


do you think a 1990s version of foreman beats a 1980s version of mike tyson head to head?


because if so, then ur implying a 1990s foreman beats a top 15 heavyweight of all time.


i am also interested..........

do u think a 1990s foreman beats a peak version of dempsey,marciano,frasier

Verstyle
03-26-2006, 03:59 PM
This is ****ing more hilarious by the minute. Look who Tyson was padding his record against on his way to a title fight.

In 1985 Tyson went 15-0 with 15 KO's. Only one novice opponent would retire with a winning record (6-1). Not one of these 15 opponents ever beat a world class opponent and they accounted for 154 KO losses. ****ing incredible! The glass jaw brigade!

1986 isn't much better and this is the year Tyson fans will tell you his prime started.

David Jaco KO'd in 1 retires with a losing record and is KO'd 18 times.

Mike Jameson KO'd in 5 retires with a losing record and is KO'd 4 times.

Jesse Ferguson was probably one of Tyson's best opponents although his only notable wins were against Ray Mercer and Buster Douglas while he retired having been KO'd 6 times. Even still he finished the fight with Tyson on his feet and was only floored once in 6 rounds before the referee disqualified him for holding.

Steve Zouski retires with a losing record and is KO'd 9 times. In his 2nd fight after getting KO'd by Tyson in 3, 267 lb George Foreman who hasn't fought in 10 years takes only one round more than Tyson scoring a KO in 4.

James Tillis past his prime and now a decent journeyman loses a close decision to Tyson. Tillis never beat a top 10 heavyweight in his career and was KO'd 11 times.

Mitch Green. Here's a switch. A Tyson opponent who doesn't have multiple KO losses on his record. Green who never defeated a ranked fighter and retired 19-6 goes the distance with Tyson and is never floored.

Reggie Gross KO'd in 1. A confidence booster for Tyson who has failed to stop his last 2 opponents. Fought the first half of his career as a light-heavyweight and was KO'd 5 times in compiling an 18-8 career record.

William Hosea KO'd in 1. Another winning record! Retires 11-7 and is KO'd twice.

Lorenzo Boyd. KO'd in 2. Retires with a losing record. Incredibly Boyd suffers 41 KO's in 54 career losses!

Marvis Frazier KO'd in 1. Soft puncher with a weak chin but holds a decision win over Bonecrusher Smith, the only top 10 opponent win on his resume. KO'd in 1 in both career losses.

Jose Ribalta TKO'd in 10. On his feet, clear-eyed and complaining when the referee stops it. Retires with a winning record but still suffers 9 KO's in 17 losses and like most Tyson KO victims never beats a top 10 heavyweight.

Alfonso Ratliff KO'd in 2. A cruiserweight. KO'd by every world class heavyweight he ever fought. Retires with a winning record but is KO'd 6 times in 9 career losses.

That's 25 of Tyson's 44 Career KO's right there.

STOPPING THIS GROUP OF STIFFS HELPS QUALIFY TYSON AS THE 2ND HARDEST HEAVYWEIGHT IN HISTORY?


who doesnt face lower opposition on there way up. he fought like twice a month :eek: thats very unheard of even today. ad he set his next opponent even before he had beat his current opponent. show me 1 fighter that fought world class fighters when he first came up.first 10 fights :rolleyes:

SuzieQ49
03-26-2006, 04:10 PM
tyson demolished 1980s heavyweight who had had never even been down before, let alone been stopped. the 1980s heavyweight divisison was filled with good solid heavyweights who kept winning and losing the title back and forth to eachother. even holmes struggled with some of them like spoon, weaver, bonecrusher. but no one dominated these guys, no one until a guy named mike tyson came along.

- NO ONE STOPPED LARRY HOLMES, I MEAN NO ONE. NOT EVEN WHEN HOLMES FOUGHT IN HIS 50S. however, one man did and he knocked him out cold in the process, mike tyson.


- watch the film of 85-88 tyson, then go watch film of tyson post rooney, he looked different. post rooney..... he loops his punches causing a loss of snap in his punches, became a headhunter, he no longer had his once unpreditable great defense, didnt have his once stellar body and head movement, didnt mix up his combiantions, etc notice how much tyson struggles with bruno and how much easier he is to hit and how vunerable he looks, and this was the FIRST FIGHT WHERE HE WAS WITHOUT ROONEY.

Yogi
03-26-2006, 04:12 PM
show me 1 fighter that fought world class fighters when he first came up.first 10 fights :rolleyes:

Pete Rademacher, Jack Skelly, Davey Moore, Leon Spinks, Saensak Muangsurin, Rafael Lovera, etc...

There's been a few.

SuzieQ49
03-26-2006, 04:13 PM
name you "1 other fighter past there prime at 22"


ok terry mcgovern who was past it at age 21

Yogi
03-26-2006, 04:16 PM
- watch the film of 85-88 tyson, then go watch film of tyson post rooney, he looked different. post rooney..... he loops his punches causing a loss of snap in his punches, became a headhunter, he no longer had his once unpreditable great defense, didnt have his once stellar body and head movement, didnt mix up his combiantions, etc notice how much tyson struggles with bruno and how much easier he is to hit and how vunerable he looks, and this was the FIRST FIGHT WHERE HE WAS WITHOUT ROONEY.

And while somebody is checking out the post-Rooney version of Tyson, be sure to throw in the Nino Ribalta fight too (with Rooney), and notice the lack of head movement, the headhunting, the lack of combination punching, the looping of his punches, etc., from Tyson in that fight.

Yaman
03-26-2006, 04:43 PM
This is ****ing more hilarious by the minute. Look who Tyson was padding his record against on his way to a title fight.

In 1985 Tyson went 15-0 with 15 KO's. Only one novice opponent would retire with a winning record (6-1). Not one of these 15 opponents ever beat a world class opponent and they accounted for 154 KO losses. ****ing incredible! The glass jaw brigade!

1986 isn't much better and this is the year Tyson fans will tell you his prime started.

David Jaco KO'd in 1 retires with a losing record and is KO'd 18 times.

Mike Jameson KO'd in 5 retires with a losing record and is KO'd 4 times.

Jesse Ferguson was probably one of Tyson's best opponents although his only notable wins were against Ray Mercer and Buster Douglas while he retired having been KO'd 6 times. Even still he finished the fight with Tyson on his feet and was only floored once in 6 rounds before the referee disqualified him for holding.

Steve Zouski retires with a losing record and is KO'd 9 times. In his 2nd fight after getting KO'd by Tyson in 3, 267 lb George Foreman who hasn't fought in 10 years takes only one round more than Tyson scoring a KO in 4.

James Tillis past his prime and now a decent journeyman loses a close decision to Tyson. Tillis never beat a top 10 heavyweight in his career and was KO'd 11 times.

Mitch Green. Here's a switch. A Tyson opponent who doesn't have multiple KO losses on his record. Green who never defeated a ranked fighter and retired 19-6 goes the distance with Tyson and is never floored.

Reggie Gross KO'd in 1. A confidence booster for Tyson who has failed to stop his last 2 opponents. Fought the first half of his career as a light-heavyweight and was KO'd 5 times in compiling an 18-8 career record.

William Hosea KO'd in 1. Another winning record! Retires 11-7 and is KO'd twice.

Lorenzo Boyd. KO'd in 2. Retires with a losing record. Incredibly Boyd suffers 41 KO's in 54 career losses!

Marvis Frazier KO'd in 1. Soft puncher with a weak chin but holds a decision win over Bonecrusher Smith, the only top 10 opponent win on his resume. KO'd in 1 in both career losses.

Jose Ribalta TKO'd in 10. On his feet, clear-eyed and complaining when the referee stops it. Retires with a winning record but still suffers 9 KO's in 17 losses and like most Tyson KO victims never beats a top 10 heavyweight.

Alfonso Ratliff KO'd in 2. A cruiserweight. KO'd by every world class heavyweight he ever fought. Retires with a winning record but is KO'd 6 times in 9 career losses.

That's 25 of Tyson's 44 Career KO's right there.

STOPPING THIS GROUP OF STIFFS HELPS QUALIFY TYSON AS THE 2ND HARDEST HEAVYWEIGHT IN HISTORY?


You really don't know **** about Tyson do you. BOXREC BOXREC!!! You ****ing idiot. Its like your fav site.

SuzieQ49
03-26-2006, 04:51 PM
tyson certainly did have flaws at his peak, but i think he gets critisized too much for what happened when he was past his prime.

tyson was 8 years past his prime in the holyfield fight

in comparsion

holyfield was only 2-3 years past his prime

catskills23
03-26-2006, 04:53 PM
tyson certainly did have flaws at his peak, but i think he gets critisized too much for what happened when he was past his prime.

tyson was 8 years past his prime in the holyfield fight

in comparsion

holyfield was only 2-3 years past his prime

werent you the guy who said that prime tyson wasent even in the top 50 hardest hitting heavyweights of all time .

Yaman
03-26-2006, 04:54 PM
werent you the guy who said that prime tyson wasent even in the top 50 hardest hitting heavyweights of all time .


No, that was another Ali ****sucker.

Heckler
03-26-2006, 05:42 PM
Ofcource you know don't you smasher? I mean you've worked with Tyson for years and he told you everything about him right? Get real.


Tyson being scared of Foreman cannot be proven, none of you knew Tyson personal so don't talk ****. That tommyhearns guy is a ****** ass ***** who loves talking **** about Tyson on the net.


Tyson KO3 Old ass Foreman. Horrible beating a la old Holmes.

While we were eating, Benton said, "Bobby, what's up with Foreman and Tyson, how come they're not fighting each other on the 16th? Isn't that the fight that King was trying to make?" He said, "Georgie, You'll never believe this but, ****in' Tyson is scared **** less of Foreman and wants no part of him. I was there when Don was trying to make the fight. He was telling Tyson that Foreman represented huge money, plus he was old and slow and would be no problem. Tyson got up and screamed at King saying, 'I'm not fight in' that ****in' animal, if you love the mother****er so much, you fight him!'" -

Its widely known that Tyson was not just scared of fighting Foreman, but ****en horrified at the thought. And its quite easily to understand when you take into account Tyson was
essentially a boxing historian with knowledge passed to him by Cus. And Tyson destroying homes is no more relevant to a Foreman-Tyson fight then Frazier-Foreman was to a Ali-Foreman fight. STYLES MAKE FIGHTS.

smasher
03-26-2006, 05:45 PM
You really don't know **** about Tyson do you. BOXREC BOXREC!!! You ****ing idiot. Its like your fav site.Oh yeah, one other thing. Tyson's 27 fight pre-title opposition?

268 CAREER KO LOSSES





THE MYTH IS EXPOSED!

SuzieQ49
03-26-2006, 05:51 PM
smasher, funny how you like to critisize tyson for his pre title competition considering george foreman had one of the most padded records pre title of all time.

- considering foremans big time experience in amatuers, he fought horrible pre title competition. the only guy foreman beat who was in the top 10 was george chuvalo.


look at some of the guys foreman beat pre title


chuck wepner- probably the worst fighter to ever challenge for the heavyweight crown. he was HORRIBLE. the only thing wepner had was size and heart.

gregorio peralta- one of the best guys foreman beat pre title, and thats not saying much. peralta also gave foreman fits losing a close decision in the first one. peralta was a very good underated fighter at LIGHTHEAVYWEIGHT, but peralta never did anything at heavyweight.


george scrapiron johnson
james J woody
charley polite
levi forte
mel turnbow
boone kirkman
roger russell
lou bailey
charlie boston
leroy caldwell
bob hazelton
roy wallace
jack o halleran
gary hobo wiler
rufus brassell

i mean are u kidding me? a very expereinced amatuer taking on these guys??

even though foreman was 37-0 before he fought joe, only ONE of his wins were against a top 10 contender. for a amatuer experienced gold medalist, thats horrible competition to be taking on pre title. NO EXUSES, this should be held against foreman.


prior to fighting frazier of the title, these were his last 5 fights



KO 2 terry sorrell- 4-14 tomatoe can bum
KO 2 miguel angel paez-
KO 2 Ted Gullick- 15-5 journeyman
KO 2 clarence boone- 4-18 complete bum
KO 2 joe murphy goodwin- 0-14. THATS PATHETIC

THESE WERE ALL OF FOREMANS FIGHTS IN 1972......

and ur telling me foreman got a title shot by beating these bums and tomatoe cans?

thats ridiculous! instead of taking on a jerry quarry in 72, he elects to fight these bumms!

smasher
03-26-2006, 05:58 PM
HI EVERYONE MY NAME IS YAMAN THIS IS HOW I LOOK. HAVE A NICE DAY. THUG LIFE FOREVER. PEACE OUT !


http://media.damnfunnypictures.com/dfp/stupid_******_19.jpg

SuzieQ49
03-26-2006, 06:00 PM
mike tyson is a lot more devastating and brings a lot more to the table than a overweight past his prime joe frazier.

i might add when we compare this matchup, were comparing peak, motivated, tyson vs foreman. so tyson being scared doesnt have anything to do with foreman since a peak ready tyson doesnt even know foreman, this is them at the peak mentally and physically. what cus says has no bearing on fantasy matchups.

- funny how foreman fans try to convince themselves a 1990s foreman would beat a prime mike tyson to make there hero look better than the fat slob who lost to alex stewart, tommy morrison, axel shulz.


didnt washed up short fat dwight qawi pressure foreman and also give foreman trouble?

SuzieQ49
03-26-2006, 06:01 PM
prime foreman vs prime tyson- goes either way



1990s foreman vs prime 1980s tyson- tyson by devastating early KO

Yaman
03-26-2006, 06:04 PM
HI EVERYONE MY NAME IS YAMAN THIS IS HOW I LOOK. HAVE A NICE DAY. THUG LIFE FOREVER. PEACE OUT !


http://media.damnfunnypictures.com/dfp/stupid_******_19.jpg


There's your gay obsession with me again :D . The fact that you had to keep your anger inside for 3 minutes untill you put so much work into a post trying to insult me, prooves you're a 40 year old white perv. I'll rape your wife mutha****a! Is that what you want to hear? lol.

smasher
03-26-2006, 06:25 PM
TYSON WOULD LOOK LIKE A FRIGHTENED CHILD COMPARED TO BIG GEORGE FOREMAN...DOWN GOES TYSON, DOWN GOES TYSON, DOWN GOES TYSON!!!!!!!!


http://www.thering-online.com/art/classiccovers/9_Nov90.jpg

SuzieQ49
03-26-2006, 06:59 PM
maybe prime foreman but not 1990s foreman.

tyson was too fast for a 1990s foreman

Smashing
03-26-2006, 07:13 PM
Douglas won fair and square...great performance that night..

Verstyle
03-26-2006, 07:17 PM
Pete Rademacher, Jack Skelly, Davey Moore, Leon Spinks, Saensak Muangsurin, Rafael Lovera, etc...

There's been a few.


geeeeez yogi. wanted him to say it not u. :D

Verstyle
03-26-2006, 07:19 PM
And while somebody is checking out the post-Rooney version of Tyson, be sure to throw in the Nino Ribalta fight too (with Rooney), and notice the lack of head movement, the headhunting, the lack of combination punching, the looping of his punches, etc., from Tyson in that fight.


actually i watch that fight everyday when im at work onmy cell phone and my computer. ppl really overrate his performance u guys need to look at it more clearer. he did bodyshots alot and good headmovement. and remember i watch it everyday so i know what im saying :cool:

smasher
03-26-2006, 07:28 PM
I'll rape your wife mutha****a!
A nice combination. A moron, coward and a rapist. You have more in common with your hero than you realize.

smasher
03-26-2006, 08:06 PM
- considering foremans big time experience in amatuers,



gregorio peralta- one of the best guys foreman beat pre title, and thats not saying much. peralta also gave foreman fits losing a close decision in the first one. peralta was a very good underated fighter at LIGHTHEAVYWEIGHT, but peralta never did anything at heavyweight.


KO 2 terry sorrell- 4-14 tomatoe can bum
KO 2 miguel angel paez-
KO 2 Ted Gullick- 15-5 journeyman
KO 2 clarence boone- 4-18 complete bum
KO 2 joe murphy goodwin- 0-14. THATS PATHETIC
Foreman had a grand total of 32 amateur fights. That's not called big time experience.

Unklike my breakdown of Tysons competition you conveniently ignored the fact that Peralta had 83 professional wins in 97 fights.

You also conveniently left out the fact that Miguel Angel Paez had 47 wins.

Unlike Tyson's legion of The Blind And In Denial, I accept Foreman's 90's losses.

He was beaten fairly by Holyfield. Miraculously I do not blame his 10 years of inactivity like Tyson's 4 years of inactivity.

He was beaten fairly by Morrison who chose to hit and move. Miraculously, I don't blame the loss of trainer Archie Moore on Foreman's inabilty to cut off the ring.

He was beaten by Briggs but I thought Foreman won as did many others. Even still I make no excuses. Miraculously, I do not blame the loss on Foreman being past his prime at 47 like Tyson was at 22.

Those are Foreman's only 3 losses in the 90's. Never knocked out, never knocked down. Can Tyson say the same?

Yaman
03-26-2006, 08:14 PM
A nice combination. A moron, coward and a rapist. You have more in common with your hero than you realize.

Anything is better than a 40 year old white perv.

Tyson KO1 Foreman :cool: . I see you realize you're loosing this argument so you just go back to boxrec lol.

Yogi
03-26-2006, 08:21 PM
actually i watch that fight everyday when im at work onmy cell phone and my computer. ppl really overrate his performance u guys need to look at it more clearer. he did bodyshots alot and good headmovement. and remember i watch it everyday so i know what im saying :cool:

It doesn't take more than one watch to see that was a subpar performance by Tyson (I've watched it plenty, though), so it really doesn't matter to me if you've seen that fight every day or not.

Besides some good left hooks at the beginning of the 3rd round & a good combo down there in the 7th, I don't see much body work from Tyson, as he rarely threw more than one or two in the other remaining rounds...His head movement was also lacking for most of the fight (especially from about the 3rd round on) as he very often walked straight into Ribalta's jab after throwing a little feeble jab himself and then falling directly into a clinch, which he very often initiated. In that fight, Tyson's head movement consisted of him ducking a few right hand punches from Ribalta that any fighter could've seen coming a mile away & reacted to (Ribalta had friggin slow hands!), and he very, very rarely came inside with that normal bobbing-and-weaving movement he did so effectively against other oppoents.

The only rounds where I thought we saw some good combination punching from Tyson was in the 7th and 8th, and I don't think it's any coincidence that Tyson was finally able to hurt Ribalta in the 8th and send his mouth piece flying after putting the combinations together...The vast majority of the rest of the fight saw Tyson loading up on his powershots, and trying to end things with one big, looping punch to the Ribalta's head.

How many times did we see that patented right to the body/right uppercut to the chin combination of Tyson's?

One? Twice? Maybe three times?

It wasn't a very impressive performance by Tyson through these eyes (one of the two or three worst of pre-jail Tyson), and apparently even Mike himself would agree with me as evident by his post fight comments;

"I had a bad night."

Heckler
03-27-2006, 05:41 AM
prime foreman vs prime tyson- goes either way



1990s foreman vs prime 1980s tyson- tyson by devastating early KO

At one stage i thought you were a man of reason and logic, but then you come out stating that Foreman vs Tyson (in respective primes) could go either way (50/50). I thought even the biggest nutsucking Tyson fans realised Tyson would have very little chance against a prime Foreman. What Tyson was going to develop the ability to box on the backfoot? Or he was going to go TO Foreman and inflict sufficent damage without getting collected? Joe Frazier was less skilled and physically gifted then Tyson, however was much tougher, had a stronger mentality, and was not scared of anybody - these things offset the disparity in skill and natural gifts. Joe Frazier was obliterated by Foreman.

SuzieQ49
03-27-2006, 10:47 AM
At one stage i thought you were a man of reason and logic, but then you come out stating that Foreman vs Tyson (in respective primes) could go either way (50/50). I thought even the biggest nutsucking Tyson fans realised Tyson would have very little chance against a prime Foreman. What Tyson was going to develop the ability to box on the backfoot? Or he was going to go TO Foreman and inflict sufficent damage without getting collected? Joe Frazier was less skilled and physically gifted then Tyson, however was much tougher, had a stronger mentality, and was not scared of anybody - these things offset the disparity in skill and natural gifts. Joe Frazier was obliterated by Foreman.


joe frazier was also a horrible starter while tyson was an extremley fast starter. unlike frazier, tyson had a devastating two fisted KO attack, threw better combinations, and had ridiculous handspeed........all traits that will enable him to beat george. speed kills, tyson was to fast for george, he will beat him to the punch ever moment. i favor tysons short straight blows over foremans wide loops.

now im not saying tyson will win, but to say he doesnt have a chance is ludicrous considering tysons devastating traits.

smasher
03-27-2006, 11:07 AM
favor tysons short straight blows over foremans wide loops.
Tyson's punches are straight? That's ****ing hilarious!!

SuzieQ49
03-27-2006, 12:15 PM
remememer that last left hook tyson nailed trevor berbick with? it was straight as an arrow. or the first right hand which knocked holmes down, lightning fast and straight. those kinds of punches would have got inside foremans long slow loops

Dempsey 1919
03-27-2006, 02:40 PM
remememer that last left hook tyson nailed trevor berbick with? it was straight as an arrow. or the first right hand which knocked holmes down, lightning fast and straight. those kinds of punches would have got inside foremans long slow loops

foreman would walk through tyson's punches just like holyfield did.

Yaman
03-27-2006, 02:44 PM
foreman would walk through tyson's punches just like holyfield did.


Or like he did against Lyle? And Holyfield didn't walk through Tyson's punches, everytime he got hit cleanly, he was rocked like crazy.

Anyway, Foreman's punches are in slow motion so he would be KO'd. Thats a dam fact :cool:

Southpaw Stinger
03-27-2006, 02:46 PM
Anyway, Foreman's punches are in slow motion so he would be KO'd. Thats a dam fact

No way, Tyson's a swarmer. Suicide.

SuzieQ49
03-27-2006, 03:28 PM
foreman would walk through tyson's punches just like holyfield did.


tyson was far past his prime, coming off a 4 year layoff.


how bout ur HERO muhammad ali, was he past his prime after the 3 year layoff?

SuzieQ49
03-27-2006, 03:30 PM
tyson was better than the 10lb overweight over the hill version of joe frazier that george foreman fought. tyson was faster, bigger, stronger, better defense, greater puncher, than joe frazier.

foreman was too slow for tyson, and foreman did not have good defense.

Dempsey 1919
03-27-2006, 03:46 PM
tyson was far past his prime, coming off a 4 year layoff.


how bout ur HERO muhammad ali, was he past his prime after the 3 year layoff?

his power was mostly still there.

smasher
03-27-2006, 04:08 PM
how bout ur HERO muhammad ali, was he past his prime after the 3 year layoff?Yes Ali was past his prime but his opponent Joe Frazier didn't need medical clearance from the Mayo clinic to get approval to fight like Holyfield did. Nor was Frazier approaching 34 years of age nor was he 4 years older than Ali like Holyfield was, nor was Frazier coming off a KO loss and decision loss in his last 2 title fights nor was Frazier coming off an inability to hurt, floor or KO a bloated middleweight like Holyfield was. Ali was not fighting an 18-1 underdog and Ali also avenged his loss to Frazier twice something Tyson was never able to do once against any opponent who beat him. Nor was Ali KO'd by Frazier like Tyson was against Holyfield, 1 of only 2 KO's Holyfield scored in 13 years. Oh yeah and Ali was still heavyweight champion 7 years after FOTC.

Give it up Tyson lovers. At what point does the ****in' light bulb come on.

Cus D'Amato said no swarmer could ever beat Foreman.

Angelo Dundee said a 90's version of Foreman would KO Tyson.

D'Amato, Dundee> SuzieQ49, Yaman.

Sorry children, the jig is up wake up and smell the coffee.

Texasboy34
03-27-2006, 04:12 PM
- tysons MUCH FASTER, shorter punches would get inside foremans long loops and punish him. tyson would be beating foreman to the punch every second. tysons combinations would tear apart foreman.

I am a big Tyson fan, but after seeing what Foreman did to Frazier (similarly built to Tyson, and similar in styles as well) I think Big George KO's any version of Iron Mike. Just keeping it real. I think Tyson would beat Liston though, and probably a few of the others on that list. I think if you were to beat the George Foreman that Ali beat you would need to be a master class boxer, and that Mike was not.

My Top 5 HW's of all time :boxing:

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Foreman
4. Tyson
5. Frazier

SuzieQ49
03-27-2006, 05:01 PM
Cus D'Amato said no swarmer could ever beat Foreman.


what Cus D amato says has to be true! :rolleyes:


i mean cus D amato, hes the savior, the resurector, hes god. anything he says his 100% true!



george is too slow, too clumsy, too wild, doesnt have enough boxing skill, doesnt have footwork, he doesnt have good enough defense, his punches are too wide, he has no stamina, he telegrahps his punches from a mile out, hes way too predictable, he doesnt have a good enough chin, hes too dumb.



1988 mike tyson knocks out any version of foreman


sonny liston also knocks out george foreman

Dempsey 1919
03-27-2006, 05:17 PM
what Cus D amato says has to be true! :rolleyes:


i mean cus D amato, hes the savior, the resurector, hes god. anything he says his 100% true!



george is too slow, too clumsy, too wild, doesnt have enough boxing skill, doesnt have footwork, he doesnt have good enough defense, his punches are too wide, he has no stamina, he telegrahps his punches from a mile out, hes way too predictable, he doesnt have a good enough chin, hes too dumb.



1988 mike tyson knocks out any version of foreman


sonny liston also knocks out george foreman

90s foreman was clever, pretty good defense(cross-armed like archie moore), his jab and straight right look pretty short to me. and he has one of the best chins in history! i thought you were very knowledgeable, but i'm wondering now. :rolleyes:

any version of foreman ko's any version of tyson.

oh, and i do agree with you that liston would beat foreman, but by ko, i'm not sure.

SuzieQ49
03-27-2006, 07:14 PM
o stop trying to hype up a 1990s foreman. he was shutout by glass jaw tommy morrison and beaten by B level axel shulz and alex stewart

Dempsey 1919
03-27-2006, 07:17 PM
o stop trying to hype up a 1990s foreman. he was shutout by glass jaw tommy morrison and beaten by B level axel shulz and alex stewart

yea, when he was 45+ years old. :rolleyes:

SuzieQ49
03-27-2006, 07:30 PM
peak foreman 72-74 ONLY was a devastating machine. holmes thinks hes gonna beat foreman by "outboxing him" based on the jimmy young fight?

HAHAH ok larry, lets see u go out there with a smile on ur face and start "outboxing" him and well see how long it takes the 72-74 foreman to cut off the ring and land a brutal haymaker on you.

larry, you got to go in there with a better gameplan, because the 72-74 foreman couldnt be outboxed from a distance. you just couldnt do it. he cut off the ring to well vs boxers. look what happened to ken norton.

Heckler
03-27-2006, 07:40 PM
joe frazier was also a horrible starter while tyson was an extremley fast starter. unlike frazier, tyson had a devastating two fisted KO attack, threw better combinations, and had ridiculous handspeed........all traits that will enable him to beat george. speed kills, tyson was to fast for george, he will beat him to the punch ever moment. i favor tysons short straight blows over foremans wide loops.

now im not saying tyson will win, but to say he doesnt have a chance is ludicrous considering tysons devastating traits.

Tyson is going to go TO Foreman, in his low crouching position. Hes walking straight into Foremans strengths, his chances are small not non-existent. You focus on Foremans weaknesses, and fail to realise that his natural gifts easily offset them.

Yogi
03-27-2006, 08:15 PM
peak foreman 72-74 ONLY was a devastating machine. holmes thinks hes gonna beat foreman by "outboxing him" based on the jimmy young fight?

HAHAH ok larry, lets see u go out there with a smile on ur face and start "outboxing" him and well see how long it takes the 72-74 foreman to cut off the ring and land a brutal haymaker on you.

larry, you got to go in there with a better gameplan, because the 72-74 foreman couldnt be outboxed from a distance. you just couldnt do it. he cut off the ring to well vs boxers. look what happened to ken norton.

I hope you're being sarcastic with this post, Brockton.

SuzieQ49
03-28-2006, 12:27 AM
howd u figure? :D




holmes vs foreman- gotta go with holmes though if holmes gets lazy and foreman catches him, he will end up like norton

Dempsey 1919
03-28-2006, 02:14 AM
howd u figure? :D




holmes vs foreman- gotta go with holmes though if holmes gets lazy and foreman catches him, he will end up like norton

holmes could win, but he doesn't have quite the chin or speed that ali had, so i don't know.

Verstyle
03-28-2006, 02:16 AM
holmes could win, but he doesn't have quite the chin or speed that ali had, so i don't know.


chin department i think there the same to be honest with ya. the remind me of the same ppl

Dempsey 1919
03-28-2006, 02:19 AM
chin department i think there the same to be honest with ya. the remind me of the same ppl

nah. a washed-up ali walked through prime shavers punches, but a past prime shavers floored prime holmes with one punch.

Yogi
03-28-2006, 02:44 AM
holmes could win, but he doesn't have quite the chin or speed that ali had, so i don't know.

I'll agree with you when you say that Holmes didn't quite have the chin of Ali, Butterfly, but it's close to enough to say that the difference is pretty minor...But I don't agree with you on the speed of the two fighters, as I actually think that the best version of Holmes had about the same footspeed as the Ali that fought Foreman (Holmes could also fight on his toes for about twice as long as the 70's Ali, who rarely did it for more than a few rounds at a time) and I also think that Holmes had quicker & snappier punches than that version of Ali (especially the jab!).

I made that assessment yesterday after watching the first few rounds of Ali/Foreman followed by watching Holmes/Shavers II.

P.S. Holy mother, did an angry Holmes ever **** splat Leon Spinks in their fight, though!

Heckler
03-28-2006, 07:02 AM
holmes could win, but he doesn't have quite the chin or speed that ali had, so i don't know.

I dont think Holmes would beat Foreman. He had as good a jaw as Ali, but i dont think he was adapatable as Ali nor could he absorb the same level of punishment.. the accumlative effect would eventually drop him. In the early seventies i think Ali's handspeed was better then any version of Larry, although Larry had the better jab. Put a prime holmes in Ali's position in 74' and i think he crumbles, you can't outbox an opponent when you're on the ropes. Larry had good footwork but not the fluid, lateral, fleet-footed movement which Ali implemented pre-layoff that could possibly offset Foremans ability to cut-off the ring. I think its Ali's intangible qualities mostly that create the difference between him and Holmes.

smasher
03-28-2006, 10:08 AM
I'll agree with you when you say that Holmes didn't quite have the chin of Ali, Butterfly, but it's close to enough to say that the difference is pretty minor...But I don't agree with you on the speed of the two fighters, as I actually think that the best version of Holmes had about the same footspeed as the Ali that fought Foreman (Holmes could also fight on his toes for about twice as long as the 70's Ali, who rarely did it for more than a few rounds at a time) and I also think that Holmes had quicker & snappier punches than that version of Ali (especially the jab!)Holmes was similar to Ali but VERY different in two critical departments which I believe would spell his downfall in a fight against prime Foreman.

1) When Holmes was hurt his survival instinct was to stand and trade. Weaver, Shavers, Snipes, Witherspoon hurt Holmes but Larry didn't hold clinch, hold or cover up, he punched back. Tyson KO'd Holmes with a hook because when Larry was wobbling all over the ring he still tried to load a right uppercut which got caught up in the ropes. In Holmes autobiography he admitted to getting mad when hurt and wanting to fight back. Joe Frazier had the same instinct. Ali did not.

2) Holmes was like a deer in the headlights when backed to the ropes. Old Larry adjusted his fighting style after launching a comeback after the Tyson loss and learned how to conserve energy by fighting off the ropes. Prime Larry wanted nothing to do with the ropes and would scamper to get off as quickly as possible. Larry was plainly not near as relaxed, comfortable nor expeienced as Ali fighting off the ropes. A death sentance if Foreman cuts off the ring on Larry.

K-DOGG
03-28-2006, 02:12 PM
Holmes was similar to Ali but VERY different in two critical departments which I believe would spell his downfall in a fight against prime Foreman.

1) When Holmes was hurt his survival instinct was to stand and trade. Weaver, Shavers, Snipes, Witherspoon hurt Holmes but Larry didn't hold clinch, hold or cover up, he punched back. Tyson KO'd Holmes with a hook because when Larry was wobbling all over the ring he still tried to load a right uppercut which got caught up in the ropes. In Holmes autobiography he admitted to getting mad when hurt and wanting to fight back. Joe Frazier had the same instinct. Ali did not.

2) Holmes was like a deer in the headlights when backed to the ropes. Old Larry adjusted his fighting style after launching a comeback after the Tyson loss and learned how to conserve energy by fighting off the ropes. Prime Larry wanted nothing to do with the ropes and would scamper to get off as quickly as possible. Larry was plainly not near as relaxed, comfortable nor expeienced as Ali fighting off the ropes. A death sentance if Foreman cuts off the ring on Larry.

Know you weren't posting to me; but your analysis of Holmes-Foreman caught my attention and I just wanted to give you your props. I've never thought about the aspects of Holmes personality in regards to this ficticious match up. Quite honestly, I don't know if I'm sold on the notion just yet; but wanted to drop you a line of kudos for intuitive thinking.

Peace.

the traveler
03-28-2006, 02:40 PM
Foreman was not that slow. He looked slow when he was tired and at times when he was throwing caculated punches. But if you watch the Frazier fight, his punches were not slow in that fight. He wasn't as slow as many like to think.

Yogi
03-28-2006, 03:55 PM
I dont think Holmes would beat Foreman. He had as good a jaw as Ali, but i dont think he was adapatable as Ali nor could he absorb the same level of punishment.. the accumlative effect would eventually drop him. In the early seventies i think Ali's handspeed was better then any version of Larry, although Larry had the better jab. Put a prime holmes in Ali's position in 74' and i think he crumbles, you can't outbox an opponent when you're on the ropes. Larry had good footwork but not the fluid, lateral, fleet-footed movement which Ali implemented pre-layoff that could possibly offset Foremans ability to cut-off the ring. I think its Ali's intangible qualities mostly that create the difference between him and Holmes.

Heckler, no offense mate...but you must be watching either Ali/Foreman or Holmes/Shavers with your eyes crossed, because the difference in handspeed, quickness, snappiness, etc., is quite noticable between Holmes & that version of Ali, and it is Holmes who has the clear advantage in that department.

Oh, and I don't think Holmes would be in Ali's position for much of the fight against Foreman...

You see, unlike Ali who, when off the ropes, basically threw a bunch of pitty-pat arm punches against Foreman with not all that many jabs in there, Holmes would be SNAPPING his jab whenever Foreman got within range and would also follow that occasionally with a SNAPPING & somewhat powerful right hand behind it...Watch Foreman against other guys who threw better punches than Ali, then again watch him versus Ali, and I think it's quite clear that Foreman only attacked Ali so aggressively in that fight because there was basically nothing coming back at him that could hurt him. He could walk right threw Ali's punches without consequence and Ali didn't throw that many jabs in that fight when off the ropes, which is something Holmes relied on HEAVILY...so many instances in the early rounds where Ali could've reached out and landed a jab, but chose not to. Foreman would find it MUCH more difficult putting that type of aggressive pressure on Holmes with that hard jab sticking him in the face whenever George gets in range for it...which is exactly what would happen and there's just no way Foreman would be able to put the pressure on Holmes like he did Ali because of it (and Holmes' right hand).

And Holmes footwork was just fine, thank you very much, as he did show plenty of lateral movement in his prime and his feet were about as fast as Ali's were during the Foreman fight...And as I said earlier, Holmes had the proven ability to use his footwork for a much longer period of time that could that version of Ali, as shown in the Shavers rematch when he stuck & moved for nearly the whole eleven rounds of the fight.

Dempsey 1919
03-28-2006, 04:04 PM
Heckler, no offense mate...but you must be watching either Ali/Foreman or Holmes/Shavers with your eyes crossed, because the difference in handspeed, quickness, snappiness, etc., is quite noticable between Holmes & that version of Ali, and it is Holmes who has the clear advantage in that department.

Oh, and I don't think Holmes would be in Ali's position for much of the fight against Foreman...

You see, unlike Ali who, when off the ropes, basically threw a bunch of pitty-pat arm punches against Foreman with not all that many jabs in there, Holmes would be SNAPPING his jab whenever Foreman got within range and would also follow that occasionally with a SNAPPING & somewhat powerful right hand behind it...Watch Foreman against other guys who threw better punches than Ali, then again watch him versus Ali, and I think it's quite clear that Foreman only attacked Ali so aggressively in that fight because there was basically nothing coming back at him that could hurt him. He could walk right threw Ali's punches without consequence and Ali didn't throw that many jabs in that fight when off the ropes, which is something Holmes relied on HEAVILY...so many instances in the early rounds where Ali could've reached out and landed a jab, but chose not to. Foreman would find it MUCH more difficult putting that type of aggressive pressure on Holmes with that hard jab sticking him in the face whenever George gets in range for it...which is exactly what would happen and there's just no way Foreman would be able to put the pressure on Holmes like he did Ali because of it (and Holmes' right hand).

And Holmes footwork was just fine, thank you very much, as he did show plenty of lateral movement in his prime and his feet were about as fast as Ali's were during the Foreman fight...And as I said earlier, Holmes had the proven ability to use his footwork for a much longer period of time that could that version of Ali, as shown in the Shavers rematch when he stuck & moved for nearly the whole eleven rounds of the fight.

i disagree, yogi. ali rocked foreman's head back continuously in that fight when on the ropes. there had to have been some power in those punches.

smasher
03-28-2006, 04:07 PM
i disagree, yogi. ali rocked foreman's head back continuously in that fight when on the ropes. there had to have been some power in those punches.
Ist Round, 3rd round, 5th round....

Yogi
03-28-2006, 04:16 PM
Holmes was similar to Ali but VERY different in two critical departments which I believe would spell his downfall in a fight against prime Foreman.

1) When Holmes was hurt his survival instinct was to stand and trade. Weaver, Shavers, Snipes, Witherspoon hurt Holmes but Larry didn't hold clinch, hold or cover up, he punched back. Tyson KO'd Holmes with a hook because when Larry was wobbling all over the ring he still tried to load a right uppercut which got caught up in the ropes. In Holmes autobiography he admitted to getting mad when hurt and wanting to fight back. Joe Frazier had the same instinct. Ali did not.

2) Holmes was like a deer in the headlights when backed to the ropes. Old Larry adjusted his fighting style after launching a comeback after the Tyson loss and learned how to conserve energy by fighting off the ropes. Prime Larry wanted nothing to do with the ropes and would scamper to get off as quickly as possible. Larry was plainly not near as relaxed, comfortable nor expeienced as Ali fighting off the ropes. A death sentance if Foreman cuts off the ring on Larry.

1. I haven't seen Holmes vs. Witherspoon or Snipes as of late, but I have seen his fights with Shavers and Weaver recently enough to know that Holmes did clinch Shavers immediately after the knockdown, and once the clinch was broken by ref, tried using his legs for a period of time, as he avoided a couple of big bombs from Shavers...Holmes didn't even throw a single punch until about 15 seconds after the ref resumed the action, and even then it was only a few little taps (right hand, couple of jabs) before Holmes again grabbed Shavers in a clinch.

As far as the fight with Weaver went...With ten or eleven seconds to go in the 10th round Weaver caught Holmes with a sneaky inside right hand which did buckle Larry's legs, but Holmes immediately went back to the ropes, covered up, avoided a few shots from Weaver while sliding himself into the corner, and it was then at the bell when Holmes finally threw a couple shots back at Weaver...But judging by the way he threw those couple of punches and especially by the way he had walked back to his corner, I thought Holmes was clear headed by that point in time and had recovered a bunch of his senses from a shot that didn't appear to hurt him all that bad (he did stagger noticably when Weaver landed it, though)

2. Again, the fight with Weaver doesn't show Holmes was "scared" of fighting on the ropes, because he spent more than a little bit of time there in that fight and seemed comfortable enough in doing so...In fact there was even a couple of instances when Holmes backed himself to the ropes on purpose, including one VERY noticable time around the 4th or 5th round, when Holmes looked off to the side to find the ropes, and then positioned himself there (wasn't hurt or anything either).

Versus Shavers he did show a reluctance to fight on the ropes, or more accurately...an ability to get off the ropes by using quick side movement in escaping that position. But even when Shavers didn't give him any room to slip out from the ropes, Holmes was quick to tie Shavers up inside and he did that quite often throughout the fight.

Also, see my previous post to Heckler in regards to the question of how much time Holmes would even be on the ropes versus Foreman, which I don't think is NEARLY as much as you others believe...But whether it be by slipping away or tying up, I think Holmes would be plenty capable of proteting himself during those odd occasions Foreman does get him in that position.

Yogi
03-28-2006, 04:17 PM
i disagree, yogi. ali rocked foreman's head back continuously in that fight when on the ropes. there had to have been some power in those punches.

Apparently you missed the part where I said "off the ropes", Butterfly, where Ali was basically throwing nothing but arm punches with no leverage.

K-DOGG
03-28-2006, 04:27 PM
Ist Round, 3rd round, 5th round....

Yup...that's what I remember. Ali snapped Foreman off the ropes with shots straight up the middle through George's wide punches, grabbed and rassled him, holding his head down to sap more strength. Brilliant plan, all together.

Yogi
03-28-2006, 04:37 PM
Ist Round, 3rd round, 5th round....

I have that Ali/Foreman fight on again as we speak and...where in the first round did Ali "snap" Foreman's head back?

Do you have a guesstimate at the time of the round, or general time of when it happened (like early, mid, late in the round)?

I didn't see it in happen in that round, myself, but maybe I missed it somehow.

K-DOGG
03-28-2006, 04:42 PM
Watch the righ hand leads as Foreman comes in. Of course, there is no rope a dope in Round 1.

Yogi
03-28-2006, 05:13 PM
Watch the righ hand leads as Foreman comes in. Of course, there is no rope a dope in Round 1.

I see one right hand lead from Ali that noticably landed (very first one Ali threw), but that looked to be largely an arm punch that was thrown off the back foot, as did the following left hand...Both of them caused sideways movement in Foreman's face because they landed (which is what you'll see from EVERY punch in boxing that lands on the face...no matter whose throwing them), but no way in hell were they powerful punches and I wouldn't call those punches as "snapping" one's head back per se'.

But if you do then...

Larry Holmes KO-1 George Foreman (via decapitation)

Why not?

If Ali could "snap" Foreman's head back with what look to be nothing more than a arm punch thrown off the back foot, what the hell do you think would happen if Holmes stepped in behind the jab and uncorked one of his quick, snapping and pretty powerful, inside right crosses that he employed so often (which were also generally thrown with a HELL OF A LOT more leverage behind them than that feeble right/left combo of arm punches by Ali).

Yogi
03-28-2006, 05:37 PM
But if you watch the Frazier fight, his punches were not slow in that fight.

Is your copy of the the first Foreman/Frazier fight sped up to ten times it's normal speed or something like that?

*Frazier is backed to the ropes, Foreman throws a right (and while Foreman thows that punch...Yogi gets up, makes a sandwich, drinks a glass a milk, has a nap and then a poop before returning to watch the fight) and follows that with a left to complete the combination*

the traveler
03-28-2006, 05:45 PM
Is your copy of the the first Foreman/Frazier fight sped up to ten times it's normal speed or something like that?

*Frazier is backed to the ropes, Foreman throws a right (and while Foreman thows that punch...Yogi gets up, makes a sandwich, drinks a glass a milk, has a nap and then a poop before returning to watch the fight) and follows that with a left to complete the combination*


The guy was throwing some quick hooks and uppercuts that made Joe back up and cover, all he could do was cover. He threw a quick double right hook combo at one point, but hey, I guess he was SLOW :rolleyes:

K-DOGG
03-28-2006, 05:54 PM
I see one right hand lead from Ali that noticably landed (very first one Ali threw), but that looked to be largely an arm punch that was thrown off the back foot, as did the following left hand...Both of them caused sideways movement in Foreman's face because they landed (which is what you'll see from EVERY punch in boxing that lands on the face...no matter whose throwing them), but no way in hell were they powerful punches and I wouldn't call those punches as "snapping" one's head back per se'.

But if you do then...

Larry Holmes KO-1 George Foreman (via decapitation)

Why not?

If Ali could "snap" Foreman's head back with what look to be nothing more than a arm punch thrown off the back foot, what the hell do you think would happen if Holmes stepped in behind the jab and uncorked one of his quick, snapping and pretty powerful, inside right crosses that he employed so often (which were also generally thrown with a HELL OF A LOT more leverage behind them than that feeble right/left combo of arm punches by Ali).

Dude, you know better than that....you're just being silly and obstinate, now. I know you're intelligent and know your **** because I've read your posts. But don't argue such a petty posistion as what's snapping and what's not. Ali never was a power puncher and if you don't call those snapping punches "snapping" then I don't know what the hell you're talking about. They were off the back foot; but his shoulder was into it, hence...."snapping" and not arm punches.

Good grief.

smasher
03-28-2006, 06:34 PM
1. Holmes did clinch Shavers immediately after the knockdown, and once the clinch was broken by ref, tried using his legs for a period of time, as he avoided a couple of big bombs from Shavers...Holmes didn't even throw a single punch until about 15 seconds after the ref resumed the action, and even then it was only a few little taps (right hand, couple of jabs) before Holmes again grabbed Shavers in a clinch.
Go back and watch again. Holmes briefly clinched when Shavers first approached after the knockdown. Holmes stood flat-footed and tried landing some one punch right hand power shots that were sloppy and inaccurate. Holmes while still hurt was momentarily on the ropes and covered briefly before punching to get off. Holmes punch of choice when hurt was the right hand and right uppercut. Not a lot of movement, not alot of holding until the referee would break and not alot of covering up. Same with the Witherspoon fight.

leff
03-28-2006, 07:03 PM
The 1990 Buster Douglas was a joke who couldn't even beat David Bey KO'd, Stefan Tangstad, Mike White KO'd, Jesse Ferguson, and Tony Tucker KO'd before handing Mike Tyson his ass on a ****in' silver platter with a side order of **** kicking. Oh and let's not forget the fact that Douglas suffered a 3rd round 1 punch KO at the hands of the relatively average hitting Holyfield in his next fight. How good was Buster Douglas?

Oh yeah and apparently Tyson was messed up and past his prime in the Douglas fight right? Well then that was the version that would have faced in Foreman in 1991. The Foreman of Cooney/Rodrigues/Holyfield stops Tyson.

its steffen tangstad not stefan( ive meat the guy, nice guy)

Yogi
03-28-2006, 07:29 PM
Go back and watch again. Holmes briefly clinched when Shavers first approached after the knockdown. Holmes stood flat-footed and tried landing some one punch right hand power shots that were sloppy and inaccurate. Holmes while still hurt was momentarily on the ropes and covered briefly before punching to get off. Holmes punch of choice when hurt was the right hand and right uppercut. Not a lot of movement, not alot of holding until the referee would break and not alot of covering up. Same with the Witherspoon fight.

I don't need to watch it again because I just watched it yesterday...My memory isn't that bad, you know, and my description of it is the basics of what happened after the knockdown.

But I did watch it again and this is what happened;

- Shavers knocked him down with a big right hand!
- Holmes got up and ducked under a attempted right by Shavers while grabbing him in a clinch
- The ref breaks it up and while Holmes is moving away, Shavers misses with a left
- Holmes starts trying to bounce on his feet and looks to move to his right, but Shavers throws a wild right which Holmes ducks under & away from to his left and backwards (stumbles with his movement)
- About 15 seconds after the ref resumes the action, Holmes stands still for a few moments and attempts a couple of pitiful right hand punches, which is only a short sequence of about three seconds
- Holmes then again tries to move on his feet, throws a jab, and then backs up to the ropes where he attempts to grab Shavers in a clinch
- Shavers breaks free before the ref gets there, and proceeds to throw about five or six punches at Holmes who was covering up in the corner
- With less than ten seconds left to go in the round, Holmes gets off the ropes by throwing a right uppercut & moves around Shavers, and then throws about two more right hands and a jab before the round ends (while moving backwards).


With the exception of about 7 or 8 seconds in total (which were about the number of punches he attempted), during the last 35-40 seconds of that round after he got up & the action was resumed, Holmes was primarily thinking defense in that cloudy mind of his, as he did attempt two clinches, three sequences of trying to move away from Shavers, tried ducking at least a couple of times when on the defensive, and the one occasion where he covers up for about five seconds in the corner.

Yogi
03-28-2006, 07:32 PM
I guess he was SLOW

If you want to make comparisions to other Heavyweights that were actually "quick" with their punches...yes, "SLOW" (with the emphasis) would the correct & most accurate definition of Foreman's handspeed.

Yogi
03-28-2006, 07:35 PM
Dude, you know better than that....you're just being silly and obstinate, now. I know you're intelligent and know your **** because I've read your posts. But don't argue such a petty posistion as what's snapping and what's not. Ali never was a power puncher and if you don't call those snapping punches "snapping" then I don't know what the hell you're talking about. They were off the back foot; but his shoulder was into it, hence...."snapping" and not arm punches.

Good grief.

Nope, arm punches off the back foot is what I saw Ali primarily throwing in that fight when he was off the ropes...especially when compared to what Holmes, who actually stepped into his shots & turned his body into them, would be throwing at Foreman.

Yogi
03-28-2006, 07:45 PM
By your guy's definition of "snapping" someone's head back, Norton must have did that eight times in the very first minute and a half of his fight with Foreman, because he noticably landed eight punches (five jabs, I believe and three left hooks) that moved Foreman's face somewhat...check it out!

the traveler
03-28-2006, 08:45 PM
If you want to make comparisions to other Heavyweights that were actually "quick" with their punches...yes, "SLOW" (with the emphasis) would the correct & most accurate definition of Foreman's handspeed.


If you put an average Yale graduate in the same room with Galileo and Einstein do they suddenly lose their smarts?

boxing912
03-28-2006, 08:58 PM
tyson got killed. lost every round but maybe the first which was close and the round where he knocked down buster.i dont understand how one of the judjes had tyson winning up until that point it was such a obvious beating

Yogi
03-28-2006, 09:00 PM
If you put an average Yale graduate in the same room with Galileo and Einstein do they suddenly lose their smarts?

Stupid comparision.

In the field of education an average Yale graduate is still going to be very intelligent when compared to others who are pursueing an education...WELL above average

In the field of Heavyweight boxing, Foreman's speed is not even merely average from what I've seen from MANY Heavyweight fights over the years (from prospects, to "opponents", to contenders, to champions from that division), and that's even being a little bit generous to him.

Give it up, bro...Foreman is a slow puncher no matter what direction you try to twist it.

the traveler
03-28-2006, 09:20 PM
Stupid comparison? You did say "compared to quick fighters", which I used as "einstein and galileo-- above smart guys whom are much smarter than the smart yale graduate" I was only giving a comparison to prove your point wrong. Now, you went and changed what you said to "not quick as far as the average heavyweight goes" now that's just stupid.

The comparison wasn't stupid at all. The point I was trying to make is that, though he may not be as quick as some of the quickest, he is still has some speed "at times". I think more than anything, he looked slow during times when he'd throw caculated punches. When the guy wanted, he could be very fast.

GO BACK AND LOOK AT HIS FIGHT AGAINST PAEZ. Those combos that he threw to knock the guy down both times were not slow punches. If you still watch that and think that he didn't have the speed, then I'd advise you to get your eyes examined.

smasher
03-28-2006, 09:42 PM
few moments and attempts a couple of pitiful right hand punches, which is only a short sequence of about three seconds
- With less than ten seconds left to go in the round, Holmes gets off the ropes by throwing a right uppercut & moves around Shavers, and then throws about two more right hands and a jab before the round ends .The point I am trying to make is that a hurt Holmes even on wobbly legs attempts to plant and fire loaded power punches. Not a great trait to have in a fight against George Foreman. Ron Lyle ring a bell?

SuzieQ49
03-29-2006, 12:51 AM
ron lyle was dead tired by the 5th round. holmes punches were much faster, straighter, than lyles.

smasher
03-29-2006, 01:00 AM
ron lyle was dead tired by the 5th round. holmes punches were much faster, straighter, than lyles.
We're talking about hurt Holmes in the 7th round vs. Shavers. Not fast and not straight....

Heckler
03-29-2006, 04:45 AM
After reviewing the rumble in the jungle again i still believe Ali was a bit quicker then any version of Holmes. Round one, 3, 5 show this especially. However Holmes obviously had more 'snap' in his punches.

smasher
03-29-2006, 09:26 AM
After reviewing the rumble in the jungle again i still believe Ali was a bit quicker then any version of Holmes. Round one, 3, 5 show this especially. However Holmes obviously had more 'snap' in his punches. I wonder how much snap Larry would have on his punches if the guy facing him was Foreman with the same height and reach. In other words, there's a good chance Larry would have been focused more on quickness instead of taking the time to plant and get more leverage and follow through on his shots. Following through leaves a a fighter vulnerable to be caught coming in which increases the power of the shot you get hit with.

Comparing Ali's punching style vs Foreman against Holmes punching style vs Shavers is comparing apples and oranges.

Yogi
03-29-2006, 01:00 PM
GO BACK AND LOOK AT HIS FIGHT AGAINST PAEZ. Those combos that he threw to knock the guy down both times were not slow punches. If you still watch that and think that he didn't have the speed, then I'd advise you to get your eyes examined.

I don't have the Paez fight and nor have I ever seen it, I don't believe. But even if I did see it I'd STRONGLY doubt that I'm suddening going to see some difference in Foreman's handspeed in that fight when compared to his other fights of the 70's, which I do have (Frazier x2, Ali, Norton, Lyle, Young, Chuvalo, Piralta, Kirkman...I think that's it, but even though I don't have them, I've also seen other fights of his from that decade like versus Roman, Pires, etc.).

To me Foreman was NOT a "quick" or "very fast" puncher in ANY of those fights of his from the 70's.

Christ, just because the guy has a bit of a blur to his punches, that doesn't automatically make them "very fast" as far as punching goes...Butterbean has that too when he punches and I'll be ****ed if I ever refer to him as a "quick" or "very fast" puncher, but hey...maybe you would if you're so impressed with Foreman's punching speed.

Yogi
03-29-2006, 01:10 PM
The point I am trying to make is that a hurt Holmes even on wobbly legs attempts to plant and fire loaded power punches. Not a great trait to have in a fight against George Foreman. Ron Lyle ring a bell?

Maybe that was your intended point, but the way you worded it from the beginning was something along the lines of Holmes' first insticts were to punch and he didn't attempt to clinch or cover up...Something like that, and that's why I disagreed with you, because the fights from Shavers and Weaver show that that Holmes first instincts (and most prominant) were defensive and he did attempt to clinch, cover up, move, etc. in both of those fights.

Ron Lyle?

Hmm...Foreman hurts him in the second, and Lyle backs to the ropes to cover up. Foreman hurts & knocks him down in the fourth(after being knocked down himself), and Lyle again backs to the ropes & covers up before coming back some time later to knock Foreman down again in the late goings of the round.

I got to watch that fight again, but those are two moments from thast fight that are pretty clear in my mind.

Yogi
03-29-2006, 01:15 PM
I wonder how much snap Larry would have on his punches if the guy facing him was Foreman with the same height and reach.

Why on earth would you need to wonder?

Just throw in the fight with Cooney and you'll have your answer, as you can then see how many times Holmes stepped in with the right hand (which he almost couldn't miss) against a dangerous guy with the same reach and even taller than him.

FloydFanatic
02-13-2008, 11:19 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/tyson/flashback/kod/
The eighth round opened with Douglas again getting the better of Tyson, but it closed with a sudden, classic Tyson right uppercut that dropped Douglas to the canvas with six seconds left. It was the only time that Douglas got careless, and it nearly cost him his eventual stunning upset. Worse, though, was referee Meyran's shabby handling of the count, which, if promoter Don King has his way, may serve to deprive Douglas of the crown that he rightfully deserves. At the moment Douglas's backside touched the surface of the ring, the knockdown timekeeper began his count. Instead of picking up that cadence, Meyran began his own count, two beats behind.
As generations of felled fighters have done before him, Douglas kept his attention fixed on the referee's hands. As Meyran signaled nine, Douglas rose, but the bell ended the round. If there was any doubt that Douglas was clearheaded and could have risen to his feet on the timekeeper's count, it had been erased right after the knockdown when Douglas pounded his left fist on the mat, in obvious annoyance at his own lapse.
Yet King, who saw his world tour coming to a screeching halt about three continents short of his grand plan, would later seize on the discrepancy in the counts as grounds to bully others into awarding Tyson a victory by knockout.
But King was not willing to allow his investment in the franchise called Mike Tyson to take the hit that inevitably comes from losing a title fight. King summoned officials from two of the major sanctioning bodies, the WBC and WBA, and representatives from the Japan Boxing Commission to a small room off the arena. Emerging two hours later, King called a press conference to announce that tapes of the bout clearly showed that "two knockouts took place, but the first knockout obliterates the second. Buster Douglas was knocked out, and the referee did not do his job and panicked. As the promoter of both fighters, I'm only seeking fair play."
Two hours after that declaration, King again summoned the press. This time, he brought along Meyran, who said, "I don't know why I start my count and make my mistake. Yes, he was down longer than 10 seconds." Also in attendance was the fallen champion. His swollen left eye hidden by dark glasses, he said, "I thought I knocked him out. I thought he was counted out."
Not surprisingly, given the sway he holds over the sport, King's transparent attempts to alter the obvious were persuasive enough for the WBC and WBA to announce that they would suspend recognition of the outcome until further review, which is expected to take place during this coming week. Even as Douglas relaxed in his hotel room with the WBC belt around his waist, the organization's president, Jose Sulaiman, was saying, "I'm very confused." Later, at the second press conference, he was no longer so confused. He said a rematch "was absolutely mandatory." But the damage is pretty much done. All King's men can't put Tyson together again.
Of course, if you want confusion, boxing is, once more, for you. For starters, there is the blabbering of governing bodies whose only apparent purpose is to collect sanctioning fees. Tyson had consolidated all three titles -- WBC, WBA and IBF -- on Aug. 1, 1987, but because the Japan Boxing Commission does not recognize the IBF, no one from that organization was represented in Tokyo. Yet the IBF did sanction the fight, and does not recognize the challenge to Douglas's victory. So at the very least, Douglas now holds the IBF title.

It's really unfair how tyson's belt was taken away from him although he clearly won the bout. If the referee counted right and claimed Tyson as the winner, Tyson would have realized that he almost could have been knocked out (which happened) and would have been more careful in the future. Tyson even claims that his career ended at the buster douglas fight. Maybe it led to his to fallout not only in the ring but outside of it as well.
http://www.desearch.net/out.php/i35257_021990lg.jpg

this is true. tyson knocked him out b4 he was knocked out and it never should of happened. tyson would have beat douglas and then nobody would question his abilities like heart and then he would of fought holyfield and stopped him or won a decision. its probably not 2 late to change the winner if its brought up again and theres more evidence.

NachoMan
02-13-2008, 11:30 PM
this is true. tyson knocked him out b4 he was knocked out and it never should of happened. tyson would have beat douglas and then nobody would question his abilities like heart and then he would of fought holyfield and stopped him or won a decision. its probably not 2 late to change the winner if its brought up again and theres more evidence.

This shows that you've never seen that fight. Buster got up in time to beat Mehran's count. That is all he had to do. If Mehran's would have started his count exactly when Buster hit the ground, Buster would have gotten up on time as well. Buster administered one of the worst beat downs ever in that fight. With the exception of taking that well-placed uppercut in the 8th round, he dominated Tyson from start to finish. Also, it should be obvious to everyone who has seen the fights that Tyson was going to lose to Evander whenever they fought. Evander was simply the better fighter.

FloydFanatic
02-13-2008, 11:33 PM
This shows that you've never seen that fight. Buster got up in time to beat Mehran's count. That is all he had to do. If Mehran's would have started his count exactly when Buster hit the ground, Buster would have gotten up on time as well. Buster administered one of the worst beat downs ever in that fight. With the exception of taking that well-placed uppercut in the 8th round, he dominated Tyson from start to finish. Also, it should be obvious to everyone who has seen the fights that Tyson was going to lose to Evander whenever they fought. Evander was simply the better fighter.

yeah he got up to beat the count but mehran didn't count right and took 2 long. tyson underestimated douglas and paid the price but he should of won.

NachoMan
02-13-2008, 11:43 PM
yeah he got up to beat the count but mehran didn't count right and took 2 long. tyson underestimated douglas and paid the price but he should of won.

It doesn't matter if the ref takes ten minutes to complete his count. The downed fighter doesn't need to be up within ten seconds as you seem to think; he only has to beat the ref's count. Buster got dropped with a great shot, but he was only slightly fazed, and he had no problem getting up. He won virtually every minute of the the ten rounds that they fought, so I find it odd that you insist that Tyson should have won.

Btw, given that the ref frequently has to make sure that the other fighter goes to a neutral corner, I wonder how many refs actually start their count the instant a fighter hits the ground.