What strategy do you think Tyson would have implemented with Foreman?

[Stuntman Mike]

Mike will dance, dance, dance all night long. He will stay away from big George and pepper him with long jabs. He will play Ray Leonard in New Orleans. When George traps him, Mike will deftly slip away on the ropes. Willie Pep has nothing on the footwork Mike would use. In fact, he will look even more like Pep than big Vlad does, as everyone knows Vlad is a combination of Dempsey and Pep, right?

George had better go flat down when he falls. If he falls to his knees Mike plans to rape him before the count of nine, help him up and get another piece on the next knockdown. While raping him he will of course nibble his ears lovingly. Do not move suddenly, George, or he may have to take a lobe off.

is the bold a joke,Tyson would fight the same as he's fought all his other fights,its the thing that made him so special,he was a killing machine his only plan was to slip and counter with brutal shots,he never ran for any period of time even when hurt...he was that confident in his power if he was hurt he'd just slip and throw brutal punches..he really was an all or nothing fighter in every sense

[The Old LefHook]

is the bold a joke,Tyson would fight the same as he's fought all his other fights,its the thing that made him so special,he was a killing machine his only plan was to slip and counter with brutal shots,he never ran for any period of time even when hurt...he was that confident in his power if he was hurt he'd just slip and throw brutal punches..he really was an all or nothing fighter in every sense

Of course it is a joke. Tyson the stategist. He empolyed about as musch strategy as a pitbull.

[boxinghead530]

I think prime for prime Foreman would beat Tyson. I love Tyson he was an amazing fighter in his prime, but if he couldnt intimidate you(which he did to most all fighters prior to the Douglass fight) he was in trouble. I think if anything with Foremans size and strength he wouldnt be intimidated by Tyson and in turn would end up intimidating Tyson. If you could break Tysons shelf(his internal self confidence) he was in trouble. Tyson would have to use his legs and hand speed and head movement to be successful with Foreman but I think Foreman would eventually wear Tyson down and end up stopping him. This is one fantasy fight I wish could come true.

[The Old LefHook]

I think prime for prime Foreman would beat Tyson. I love Tyson he was an amazing fighter in his prime, but if he couldnt intimidate you(which he did to most all fighters prior to the Douglass fight) he was in trouble. I think if anything with Foremans size and strength he wouldnt be intimidated by Tyson and in turn would end up intimidating Tyson. If you could break Tysons shelf(his internal self confidence) he was in trouble. Tyson would have to use his legs and hand speed and head movement to be successful with Foreman but I think Foreman would eventually wear Tyson down and end up stopping him. This is one fantasy fight I wish could come true.

We will need blood samples from all the greats still living, so we can clone them for gladiator school.

[Mintcar923]

Of course it is a joke. Tyson the stategist. He empolyed about as musch strategy as a pitbull.

He did not fight exactly the same in every one of his fights in case you didn't notice.. Of course, he had to implement strategies for the diversity he would have in facing different opponents with various styles..

[The Old LefHook]

He did not fight exactly the same in every one of his fights in case you didn't notice.. Of course, he had to implement strategies for the diversity he would have in facing different opponents with various styles..

I do not consider Tyson a top strategist. The gameplan worked or it didn't. I do not see Tyson changing strategies to suit his opponent, unless allowing yourself to be tied up and clinched along the ropes is considered that. As a boxer he had limited strategic options open. His style was compact and good, and when it worked it worked marvelously.

A lot of people are very confused about the difference between strategy and tactics. When Mike Tyson did not fight the same in every one of his fights, it is because he was unable to, my friend.

Which fights do you say he fought altogether differently? Next, figure out why he did that. It was always because he had to.

There came a time when even Mike's attack was not very good, either. Without his once brilliant bobbing and weaving, why, he just stood there waiting to be hit, unable to return effective fire. Hardly a new strategy he came up with--it was the only thing he was still capable of doing.

[Scott9945]

He did not fight exactly the same in every one of his fights in case you didn't notice.. Of course, he had to implement strategies for the diversity he would have in facing different opponents with various styles..

You have to look pretty hard to detect any variables in Tyson's strategy. He was extremely successful with his style and typically was unable to adapt very well when his skills faded.

[Mintcar923]

I do not consider Tyson a top strategist. The gameplan worked or it didn't. I do not see Tyson changing strategies to suit his opponent, unless allowing yourself to be tied up and clinched along the ropes is considered that. As a boxer he had limited strategic options open. His style was compact and good, and when it worked it worked marvelously.

A lot of people are very confused about the difference between strategy and tactics. When Mike Tyson did not fight the same in every one of his fights, it is because he was unable to, my friend.

Which fights do you say he fought altogether differently? Next, figure out why he did that. It was always because he had to.

There came a time when even Mike's attack was not very good, either. Without his once brilliant bobbing and weaving, why, he just stood there waiting to be hit, unable to return effective fire. Hardly a new strategy he came up with--it was the only thing he was still capable of doing.

Well, I don't see anywhere in my previous posts where I said he was a TOP STRATEGIST or FOUGHT ALTOGETHER DIFFERENTLY??! I said he didn't fight exactly the same in all of his fights.. For example, he didn't go charging out on Tubbs in the first round like he would do in his next fight vs Spinks.. In Holyfield I he came out like the hammers of Hell.. In Holy II he boxed cautiously looking for opportunities.. Well, until the cut happened where he felt a sense of urgency.. In Bruno I he neglected the jab practically the whole fight.. In Bruno II he employed more of a boxing strategy than brawling though there was some.. I could name more but its late and i'm a bit tired..