Why Mike Tyson Beats a Prime George Foreman

[The Old LefHook]

You take a man at his lowest, his worst, and make examples of it. What is the matter with you? Foreman fought Lyle at the lowest point in his career. Use the Lyle fight to show that Foreman could take a punch, please, not to say see what happened. At his best I believe Foreman walks right through Lyle. He was not at his best. He was far from it.

[Willo'thewisp]

Although Tyson has the edge in speed, defence, counter-punching and perhaps even overall skill, Styles make Fights!

It cannot be overlooked that Tyson success was partly based on intimidation and say what you will but there is no way any Foreman (90's or 70's) would be intimidated by Mike. I feel this would leave Tyson far more fearful than he ever was in his Prime

Secondly, Foreman could just crab up in that cross-armed defence and absorb whatever Tyson threw at him. After absorbing this for a time (4/5 rounds) Foreman would then come into his own. He'd cut of the ring, push Tyson to the ropes and throw a couple of those vicious uppercuts , by just 5 or so rounds into the fight Tyson would be tiring and would be open for some of Foreman's bombs

[SUBZER0ED]

Prime Tyson seemed more polished than Foreman, but man, if Big George ever caught him!

[billeau2]

I do think however that you have to account for physical attributes as well as style when making predictions. For example, Robinson and Ali had similar styles. But you wouldn't say that Lamotta could drop Ali just because he managed to floor Robinson. The reason is the physical differences between Ali and Robinson. Ali was a much bigger man than Robinson and although Robinson was a KO puncher at middle and below and pound for pound was a harder puncher than Ali, when it comes to absolute punching power, it's extremely likely that Ali hit harder than Robinson. So even though Lamotta was an iron chinned middle weight, Ali would probably did what Robinson couldn't and floored Lamotta. Because of the physical differences.

Now I know the physical differences between Tyson and Frazier aren't as extreme as the physical differences between Robinson and Ali or Lamotta and Ali. But they are still significant enough. Tyson is physically closer to Foreman than he is Frazier, in an overall sense. He's similar to height when comparing him with Frazier, but overall muscle mass and weight, he's similar to Foreman. Also, Tyson had a better chin than Frazier, at least when it came to taking single heavy shots from big punchers. Frazier may have been better at taking punishment over the long haul from average HW puncher's than Tyson was, however. Mike Bruce and Oscar Bonavena dropped Frazier as well, but I think it'd be a misnomer to say they'd have dropped Tyson simply because he may have had a similar style as Frazier.

Frazier's best weight was 200-205 pounds, Tyson's best weight was 217-218 pounds, although he was effective as high as 220 pounds. And Tyson's body was noticeably more muscular than Frazier's. The issue is that I think Tyson could absorb more punishment than Frazier and keep coming. I'm not sure that if Frazier caught the clean shots that Tyson did from Razor Ruddock that he would've made it and even if he did, he'd have to get up off the canvas a time or two to make it happen.

Regardless of whether the physical differences are as extreme, vis a vis Robinson and Ali when compared to Frazier and Tyson your point still stands, it is a good one. I acknowledge that with no caveats and would take it a step further: What we are, in effect doing, is breaking down the traits of two fighters in order to isolate a particular variable. Thats what I am trying to do and even though this sounds cerebral it is really a very simple process that the scientific method has taught us when it comes to looking at data.

The question does arise whether the frazier fight tells us anything, I maintain that it does and would not throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak. Precedent is our data and if we can account for other traits we can perhaps isolate how Foreman would do against Tyson.

Ok, lets give Tyson double points for strength and say he was much stronger than Joe, lets give him single points on footwork, and speed. Now lets give Joe single points on activity level, he was much more active than Tyson, lets give him a point for reach, though I would argue that he might get double because Tyson had such short arms... and finally intangibles, I would call a draw. Frazier had a better beard and could take more abuse but Tyson as you point out did take some shots versus Lewis.

So we have two things: we have A) a situation where we show two fighters who we could argue are essentially equal opponents. Why? because when we analyze their strengths and weaknesses with no perspective on how strong or weak each category is, Frazier and Tyson show equal comprehensiveness. NOW! if we start to attach a scale for attributes it does get interesting....Frazier goes way ahead in respect to quality of competition fought, Tyson goes way ahead in being dominant over competition that he fought.... a good example would be comparing Roy Jones, who dominated those he fought, with Sugar Ray Leonard, who fought dominant fighters and won...

The second thing we get is a breakdown of categories that we can examine....was Foreman better against fast footed power punchers? or grinders? guys who fought every second of every round? Did Foreman expliote others based on his reach? or his power in taking the fight to the inside?

Heres why Frazier is a good model when compared to Mike Tyson: Foreman had incredible leverage and any bobber or weaver would have a hell of a time getting past Foreman's intial onslaught. That means his jab and his punches from the outside area. Tyson was faster but his reach was less than joe, not good against Foreman...Tyson was stronger, but again, Foreman was taught leverage by the master big man Sonny Liston...Liston maynot have weighed a ton but he was an enormous man.
we are left with how Tyson would have to move to get inside which is...pretty much the way Frazier moves. Tyson did not have the persistance that Frazier did, but when he did get a chance he could hurt Foreman because of his power.

Foreman did have a weakness of tiring and this might create a fight similar to Razor Ruddock where both guys battle away. Razor was essentally at that time (when he fought TYson) a one armed fighter, and managed to almost beat Tyson twice in the later rounds, I believe that if Joe could have been stronger he might have been able to take it to the later rounds but Tyson perhaps could, the thiing is Foreman would have more weapons to attack with, so even in this scenario does not look so good for Tyson.

I think when we look at these things carefully one can see that Foreman would probably handle Tyson, thats my opinion but in total transparency you can see exactly what I am basing it upon.

[uncle ben]

Regardless of whether the physical differences are as extreme, vis a vis Robinson and Ali when compared to Frazier and Tyson your point still stands, it is a good one. I acknowledge that with no caveats and would take it a step further: What we are, in effect doing, is breaking down the traits of two fighters in order to isolate a particular variable. Thats what I am trying to do and even though this sounds cerebral it is really a very simple process that the scientific method has taught us when it comes to looking at data.

The question does arise whether the frazier fight tells us anything, I maintain that it does and would not throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak. Precedent is our data and if we can account for other traits we can perhaps isolate how Foreman would do against Tyson.

Ok, lets give Tyson double points for strength and say he was much stronger than Joe, lets give him single points on footwork, and speed. Now lets give Joe single points on activity level, he was much more active than Tyson, lets give him a point for reach, though I would argue that he might get double because Tyson had such short arms... and finally intangibles, I would call a draw. Frazier had a better beard and could take more abuse but Tyson as you point out did take some shots versus Lewis.

So we have two things: we have A) a situation where we show two fighters who we could argue are essentially equal opponents. Why? because when we analyze their strengths and weaknesses with no perspective on how strong or weak each category is, Frazier and Tyson show equal comprehensiveness. NOW! if we start to attach a scale for attributes it does get interesting....Frazier goes way ahead in respect to quality of competition fought, Tyson goes way ahead in being dominant over competition that he fought.... a good example would be comparing Roy Jones, who dominated those he fought, with Sugar Ray Leonard, who fought dominant fighters and won...

The second thing we get is a breakdown of categories that we can examine....was Foreman better against fast footed power punchers? or grinders? guys who fought every second of every round? Did Foreman expliote others based on his reach? or his power in taking the fight to the inside?

Heres why Frazier is a good model when compared to Mike Tyson: Foreman had incredible leverage and any bobber or weaver would have a hell of a time getting past Foreman's intial onslaught. That means his jab and his punches from the outside area. Tyson was faster but his reach was less than joe, not good against Foreman...Tyson was stronger, but again, Foreman was taught leverage by the master big man Sonny Liston...Liston maynot have weighed a ton but he was an enormous man.
we are left with how Tyson would have to move to get inside which is...pretty much the way Frazier moves. Tyson did not have the persistance that Frazier did, but when he did get a chance he could hurt Foreman because of his power.

Foreman did have a weakness of tiring and this might create a fight similar to Razor Ruddock where both guys battle away. Razor was essentally at that time (when he fought TYson) a one armed fighter, and managed to almost beat Tyson twice in the later rounds, I believe that if Joe could have been stronger he might have been able to take it to the later rounds but Tyson perhaps could, the thiing is Foreman would have more weapons to attack with, so even in this scenario does not look so good for Tyson.

I think when we look at these things carefully one can see that Foreman would probably handle Tyson, thats my opinion but in total transparency you can see exactly what I am basing it upon.

I agree that you can maybe compare them stylistically. Although I don't agree that Frazier fought better competition....overall. If you take away his win over Ali (which was a big one mind you, but it just so happened that he and Ali shared an era) then the fighters he beat were more or less the same caliber as the fighters Tyson beat and smaller, too.

But like I said prior, I think this battle comes down to who gets hurt first. I just think Tyson's defense and hand speed allows him to get their first with the most without taking too much in return and he has the chin to take an occasional bomb without just going down. The only way I see Tyson losing is if he gets hurt early, which has never happened throughout his career.

[billeau2]

I agree that you can maybe compare them stylistically. Although I don't agree that Frazier fought better competition....overall. If you take away his win over Ali (which was a big one mind you, but it just so happened that he and Ali shared an era) then the fighters he beat were more or less the same caliber as the fighters Tyson beat and smaller, too.

But like I said prior, I think this battle comes down to who gets hurt first. I just think Tyson's defense and hand speed allows him to get their first with the most without taking too much in return and he has the chin to take an occasional bomb without just going down. The only way I see Tyson losing is if he gets hurt early, which has never happened throughout his career.

You really think Tyson fought as good comp? I could almost see a monty python skit here... "my fighter lost to the better man than your fighter!" lol. I mean at the end of the day Tyson lost to two guys who were pretty damn good, in Holy and Lewis among others, but Frazier lost to and beat Ali and even some of the guys like Ellis he fought were excellent fighters.

I can agree to disagree on the comp. Certainly one way a Tyson Foreman fight could go is a bomb session... While I see this differently it would not shock me to see these two exchanging shots and in that situation Tyson could indeed prevail.

[TheReadyTimeBoy]

Young foreman was honestly one of the worst fighters I've ever seen at the elite level.

He was big and strong and could punch. That was literally it.

Old foreman was craftier, still strong and hit hard but much wilier with more skill. He was a decent hw. but nothing great.

[Dempsey-Louis]

The 1970s version of Foreman would have traded with Tyson and lost. The 1990s version would have patiently neutralized Tyson's attacks and Koed him in the later rounds.

[OctoberRed]

The 1970s version of Foreman would have traded with Tyson and lost. The 1990s version would have patiently neutralized Tyson's attacks and Koed him in the later rounds.

I actually agree with this. I give old man Foreman a better shot to win over 70s version.

[uncle ben]

You take a man at his lowest, his worst, and make examples of it. What is the matter with you? Foreman fought Lyle at the lowest point in his career. Use the Lyle fight to show that Foreman could take a punch, please, not to say see what happened. At his best I believe Foreman walks right through Lyle. He was not at his best. He was far from it.

It's the only example I can think of where Foreman fought a relatively big puncher who actually got to land on him. Unless there are other examples you can think of. But it can't just be discounted. Foreman relied on strength and punching power and he landed some clean, heavy shots on Lyle early on which Lyle took and came roaring back from. It wasn't like Foreman was some slick, moving master boxer who ring rust would be more likely to effect. The kind of fight he had with Lyle was the kind of fight where Foreman could've been expected to shine. It was the ideal fight for him, to fight someone who stood in front of him looking for a punch out. It wasn't like Lyle kept it a boxing match and was sticking and moving behind a jab.

This is why I doubt that Foreman would've ever just walked through Ron Lyle. If Foreman started more aggressively two things likely would've happened:

1. A brawl breaks out much sooner.
2. Foreman would even more so leave himself open to Lyle's counter rights.