Why Mike Tyson Beats a Prime George Foreman

[Ascended]

Had Tyson gotten by Douglas I believe that Tyson-Foreman would today (even with the growth in population and availability of tecnology 30 years later) still hold the record for PPV buys.

It would have been the most viewd prize fight in history.

a kid you say no I call it like I see it alot of you people here are dumb/crazy and it is a right it's called saying facts from vid like the 1st page said to bad the truth hurts you crazy people

[Ascended]

[QUOTE=Willie Pep 229;n31256666]

Had Tyson gotten by Douglas I believe that Tyson-Foreman would today (even with the growth in population and availability of tecnology 30 years later) still hold the record for PPV buys.

It would have been the most viewd prize fight in history.

not in history one of but mike being younger always they wouldnt want that fight they would say why are you taking this fight with a old man mike still had good reflexes when he did his match with roy George never did mike would make him look bad

[Willie Pep 229]

[QUOTE=moneytheman;n31257018]

Had Tyson gotten by Douglas I believe that Tyson-Foreman would today (even with the growth in population and availability of tecnology 30 years later) still hold the record for PPV buys.

It would have been the most viewd prize fight in history.

not in history one of but mike being younger always they wouldnt want that fight they would say why are you taking this fight with a old man mike still had good reflexes when he did his match with roy George never did mike would make him look bad

I think you fail to see how absurdly popular Foreman II was with boomers. In the '90s we were the highest wage earners - IMO we loved Foreman and would have paid big for the fight. Tyson (King) would never have walked away from that kind of money, especially if they viewed it as a walk over, as you suggest.

Don't think of it as to what fight fans wanted, Foreman II made himself (and his stupid grill) a national sensation. It's why he got the Hollyfield fight. But that was a let down, everyone wanted it to be Tyson.

[QueensburyRules]

[QUOTE=Willie Pep 229;n31257131]

I think you fail to see how absurdly popular Foreman II was with boomers. In the '90s we were the highest wage earners - IMO we loved Foreman and would have paid big for the fight. Tyson (King) would never have walked away from that kind of money, especially if they viewed it as a walk over, as you suggest.

Don't think of it as to what fight fans wanted, Foreman II made himself (and his stupid grill) a national sensation. It's why he got the Hollyfield fight. But that was a let down, everyone wanted it to be Tyson.

- - George was also 2 years older for Vander. Buster vs Tyson was the replacement for George after Tiananmen Square. He was coming off an absolute blaster over Brutish Bert Cooper who was still a force then predating the nose candy.

I don't know why Boy Money is in the history section when BS has some hysterical forums more suited to his mental age.

[Ascended]

[QUOTE=QueensburyRules;n31257483]

- - George was also 2 years older for Vander. Buster vs Tyson was the replacement for George after Tiananmen Square. He was coming off an absolute blaster over Brutish Bert Cooper who was still a force then predating the nose candy.

I don't know why Boy Money is in the history section when BS has some hysterical forums more suited to his mental age.

Used the right word mental that you are like the rest of you crazy dummies I don't know why your here at all like the rest

[Willie Pep 229]

[QUOTE=moneytheman;n31257625]

Used the right word mental that you are like the rest of you crazy dummies I don't know why your here at all like the rest

WTF - I didn't write that. How the hell did my name get involved in your dispute with Queen. Come on learn how to quote.

[EDIT] Damn it now I did the same misquote - how did the first quote get screwed up like that?

[tokon]

Its not that Frazier is Tyson per se, but the architecture has similarities that tell us things. Frazier was a bob and weave guy, and like Dempsey and Tyson a bob and weave guy has to have a place to set up. One way to beat them is timing, throwing when they set up to come in. Reach allows one to get there before the set up. Also you lionize Tyson when comparing him to Frazier. Tyson had horrible reach and would have a heck of a time getting into Foreman...

The problem is that Tyson would have to find a way to use his strength and Foreman had such good leverage. My point is that Frazier's approach and style was similar enough that it gives an idea of what Tyson would have to overcome.

Frazier was a better inside fighter than Tyson imo.

[billeau2]

Frazier was a better inside fighter than Tyson imo.

I agree. There are similarities but also a lot of differences. When we look at precident, a fight that occured where there is a result, we have to accept similarities and account for differences. Tyson was bigger than Frazier, had way more tools to use, etc. But both men pressured in order to create openings. Both men had fast feet, though Tyson's were a little faster... While Frazier's footwork was more consistant.

The point made was how they would match up to Foreman who was able to impose size through reach primarily, and was a murderous puncher. My opinion is that Tyson and Frazier would have similar problems with Foreman's reach and that Tyson would be subject to similar tactics used against Frazier.

[Ascended]

I agree. There are similarities but also a lot of differences. When we look at precident, a fight that occured where there is a result, we have to accept similarities and account for differences. Tyson was bigger than Frazier, had way more tools to use, etc. But both men pressured in order to create openings. Both men had fast feet, though Tyson's were a little faster... While Frazier's footwork was more consistant.

The point made was how they would match up to Foreman who was able to impose size through reach primarily, and was a murderous puncher. My opinion is that Tyson and Frazier would have similar problems with Foreman's reach and that Tyson would be subject to similar tactics used against Frazier.

Where am I being a idiot at you crazy troll you said that lie quote of joe was like mike when he wasnt at all mike was like jack you have no reason to say what you said cause mike wasnt like joe nothing in the way he fought was like joe not even the ranges what's hard to accept

And im not new here just cause my name is new doesnt mean I haven't seen this post mutiple times sense last year

Well your lying saying Mike was like joe holds no weight since we have video proof can your lies go over that I think not which means your a liar like the rest who say that lie

Its real easy to see mike was alot like jack nothing like Joe not the young mike
the old bad in shape mike 90s was like joe that's two different styles what dont you get about that you crazy troll

Truth hurts you crazy idiots mike would destroy george and easy since he was slow sloopy and straight forward

shown here mike moving nothing like joe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPhX...el=BoxingReels they move they own way and fight at diff ranges like i said see how you shouldnt repeat lies you seen other dummies say until you show where they was alike ill keep repeating you blind liar

[tokon]

The point made was how they would match up to Foreman who was able to impose size through reach primarily, and was a murderous puncher. My opinion is that Tyson and Frazier would have similar problems with Foreman's reach and that Tyson would be subject to similar tactics used against Frazier.

Yes, I agree. Thanks.