Top 90's heavyweight boxers vs top 70's heavyweight boxers?

walshb

Just to add a bit to the Douglas fight. Mike showed that he still carried his power late, in spite of having received a steady beating for 8 rds, he managed to drop Douglas hard at the end of the 8th I think.

Buster also fought his ass off, and Maravilla, would you back the best Douglas over most men today? I certainly would. Buster was inconsistent, but when he really prepared, as he did for the Tyson fight, he was a very decent heavyweight. Very decent.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

My view on the Douglas fight has changed. From giving Mike a real pass, it has changed to feeling that Mike was beatable.

Still believe that he wasn't as prepared physically or mentally in 1990 without Rooney. This looks clear, but in 1990 he was still very good. I am always fair in assessing these matches.

In this thread, I am being fair to ALL men. Picking their primes. I wouldn't even use the 1973 Frazier, as many suggest this man was not the same after the 71 "beating" at the hands of Ali.

I think people forget how good Tyson was in his earlier career due to the circus that followed. He was so dominant and beat some good fighters. George is just a bad match for him imo.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

George is just a bad match for him imo.

No argument there. Styles make fights. We can piss and moan all we want about who he beat and who he didn't beat ect etc, but I prefer to take the best versions of both, and pit them against each other using their styles, traits, skills, strengths and weaknesses.

martin kelly.

70s for me too.

Littlehorny

Didnt Foreman claim in an interview when he was on his comeback in his early forties that his camp offered Tyson 5m to fight and he claimed they turned it down?

Maravilla33

Littlehorny wrote: »

Didnt Foreman claim in an interview when he was on his comeback in his early forties that his camp offered Tyson 5m to fight and he claimed they turned it down?

From what I've read a fight between the 2 was first mentioned after Tyson lost to Buster. Foreman was on the comeback trail and so was Tyson. Don King thought a fight against a big name like Foreman would catapult Mike back into the limelight while being a relatively easy night's work. But apparently Mike wanted no part of it. I know this is only one side of things but I've heard it a few times and tend to believe it.

Maravilla33

Here's a good article telling the above story in depth.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/boxing-news/lotierzo1609.php

walshb

Was the article written in 2009? Anyway, it's all well and good saying Tyoson fought with fear and doubt, but nothing at all during his pre prison or championship reign show Mike Tyson fighting with any amount of fear, in fact, it is quite the opposite. He never ever fought scared. He always fought like a man brimming with self belief and confidence.

I just cannot at all envisage a prime Tyson being scared ****less of any man, even the 70s Foreman. Mike at prime was a hell of a specimen, in fighting and visual form.

It is a dream match to watch a 20 year old Tyson vs. a 1973 Foreman. The Tyson that stepped in the ring against Berbick vs. the Formean who beat Joe in fight 1. That would be awesome. And, no way does Tyson fight Foreman scared. It's balls to the wall. That is what makes this match so special. Mike knows one way to fight. Kill!

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

Was the article written in 2009? Anyway, it's all well and good saying Tyoson fought with fear and doubt, but nothing at all during his pre prison or championship reign show Mike Tyson fighting with any amount of fear, in fact, it is quite the opposite. He never ever fought scared. He always fought like a man brimming with self belief and confidence.

I just cannot at all envisage a prime Tyson being scared ****less of any man, even the 70s Foreman. Mike at prime was a hell of a specimen, in fighting and visual form.

It is a dream match to watch a 20 year old Tyson vs. a 1973 Foreman. The Tyson that stepped in the ring against Berbick vs. the Formean who beat Joe in fight 1. That would be awesome. And, no way does Tyson fight Foreman scared. It's balls to the wall. That is what makes this match so special. Mike knows one way to fight. Kill!

So do you think the author is exaggerating or fabricating the details? As I said its only one side of the story but seems pretty credible to me. I cant see an old George blowing Tyson away as the author seems to think and I'd fancy Tyson against him to be honest. They didn't fight each other even though Foreman called him out and it was a viable match up so I think there's some truth in it.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

So do you think the author is exaggerating or fabricating the details? As I said its only one side of the story but seems pretty credible to me. I cant see an old George blowing Tyson away as the author seems to think and I'd fancy Tyson against him to be honest. They didn't fight each other even though Foreman called him out and it was a viable match up so I think there's some truth in it.

No, not saying he's lying or exaggerating. Tyson may well have said that he was not fighting Formean because Foreman was too risky etc. But, for this match it's irrelevant. Peak years Rooney Tyson would fight Foreman 100 percent committed. If he wins so be it. But, he will not fight scared. That is my point. Balls to the wall. Same for Foreman. That is why it's a dream match. Both men at prime had that wow factor, intimidation factor, and utter self belief.

BTW, yes, Foreman appears to have the style to beat Tyson, but, I wouldn't base this solely on Frazier. Tyson was a whole different type of punching machine. Much more varitaion, speed delivery and two fisted power. That has to be considered. Power at range, and power in close; and wicked fast. Tyson is also 14 lbs heavier than Frazier. Don't see him gettimng pushed around or bullied as easy as Joe. Add in the grade A chin, defence, and very good engine, and I cannot see this stoppage win for George.

Maravilla33

Not just based on the Frazier fight but its not a bad blue print. True Frazier wasn't Tyson but he was a very busy fighter with a good chin who had to work to get into range. He was relentless. However he slowed down considerably after being decked for the first time against Foreman...

Even though he won easily Mike still had a bit of difficulty getting into range against Bruno who provided little offence. George who was similar size would push him back and let his hands go as Tyson came in. He wouldn't simply hold like Bruno did.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Not just based on the Frazier fight but its not a bad blue print. True Frazier wasn't Tyson but he was a very busy fighter with a good chin who had to work to get into range. He was relentless. However he slowed down considerably after being decked for the first time against Foreman...

Even though he won easily Mike still had a bit of difficulty getting into range against Bruno who provided little offence. George who was similar size would push him back and let his hands go as Tyson came in. He wouldn't simply hold like Bruno did.

The Bruno fight was the first sign I saw of Tyson looking vulnerable. It was no coincidence that Rooney was gone at this stage. Yes, championship reign, peak years, but Tyson was starting to regress. The preparation was not as it was, and there was a new man in the picture, King! Tysnn still destroyed Bruno once he got going.

Tyson's peak years were 1986-1989, with 1986 and 1987 and 1988 being his absolute best. Who was there? Rooney and Jacobs and Cayton.

I am only 60 percent for a Tyson win. I think I matched these two over a ten fight series on another thread. I had Tyson winning 6-4 I believe.

Edit: Yes, 6-4. Note I used the 1986-1988 Tyson, as I did see a regression in 1989 when Rooney was gone.

Tyson vs Ali: Result is 6-4 for Ali
Tyson vs. Bowe: Result is 6-4 for Tyson
Tyson vs. Foreman: Result is 6-4 for Tyson
Tyson vs. Liston: Result is 5-5, a draw
Tyson vs. Marciano: Result is 7-3 for Tyson
Tyson vs. Holmes: Result is 7-3 for Tyson
Tyson vs. Lewis: Result is 8-2 for Tyson
Tyson vs. Holyfield: Result is 7-3 for Tyson
Tyson vs. Louis: Result is 9-1 for Tyson.

Tyson's total for wins is 59 points: Note: This is the 1986-1988 Tyson vs. any version of the others. I am not basing this on post prison or post Douglas Tyson.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Tyson vs Ali: Result is 6-4 for Ali
Tyson vs. Bowe: Result is 6-4 for Tyson
Tyson vs. Foreman: Result is 6-4 for Tyson
Tyson vs. Liston: Result is 5-5, a draw
Tyson vs. Marciano: Result is 7-3 for Tyson
Tyson vs. Holmes: Result is 7-3 for Tyson
Tyson vs. Lewis: Result is 8-2 for Tyson
Tyson vs. Holyfield: Result is 7-3 for Tyson
Tyson vs. Louis: Result is 9-1 for Tyson.

If all at their best this is how id see it, The big quality men are too much for Mike such as Peak Bowe and Foreman-lewis as big but i think Mike could KO him easier than the others, the men similar size i'd give Mike the advantage

Tyson vs Ali: Result is 3-7
Tyson vs. Bowe: Result is 3-7
Tyson vs. Foreman: Result is 2-8
Tyson vs. Liston: Result is 10-0
Tyson vs. Marciano: Result is 10-0
Tyson vs. Holmes: Result is 6-4
Tyson vs. Lewis: Result is 5-5
Tyson vs. Holyfield: Result is 2-8
Tyson vs. Louis: Result is 7-3

walshb

If I had more confidence in Lewis' chin I would give him a draw, or even a 6-4 win ratio over Tyson. But, the peak Tyson is IMO just far too dangerous for a man who was clean knocked out twice, and twice by lesser hitters.

The other point I want to make is that at peak Mike was still unbeaten, and very diffciult to outbox. Foreman I feel would need a KO. I see a Tyson points win if it goes the distance.

Bowe I would favor over Formean to get a points win against Mike. I would favor Foreman over Bowe to get a KO win against Mike. It's all about styles.

Take the Holyfield-Bowe fight I. Put a 1986 Tyson in there against either, and you won't take Mike out by KO. That I feel is a cert. He was a whole lot betterv than the 1996 verison, a whole lot better. Stamina, speed, ferocity, confidence, and even chin.

Holyfield's defence isn't as good as Mike's, nor is his power. Chins are probably equal, as is stamina. Now, Tyson won't ship as much punishment as Holyfield, and he will be landing heavier blows on Bowe. That is significant. Tyson slips the Bowe jab better than Holyfield, and again, if Tyson can nail Holmes so clean with the right cross, he can nail Bowe. It's a very dangerous fight for Big Daddy!

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

If I had more confidence in Lewis' chin I would give him a draw, or even a 6-4 win ratio over Tyson. But, the peak Tyson is IMO just far too dangerous for a man who was clean knocked out twice, and twice by lesser hitters.

The other point I want to make is that at peak Mike was still unbeaten, and very diffciult to outbox. Foreman I feel would need a KO. I see a Tyson points win if it goes the distance.

Bowe I would favor over Formean to get a points win against Mike. I would favor Foreman over Bowe to get a KO win against Mike. It's all about styles.

Take the Holyfield-Bowe fight I. Put a 1986 Tyson in there against either, and you won't take Mike out by KO. That I feel is a cert. He was a whole lot betterv than the 1996 verison, a whole lot better. Stamina, speed, ferocity, confidence, and even chin.

Holyfield's defence isn't as good as Mike's, nor is his power. Chins are probably equal, as is stamina. Now, Tyson won't ship as much punishment as Holyfield, and he will be landing heavier blows on Bowe. That is significant. Tyson slips the Bowe jab better than Holyfield, and again, if Tyson can nail Holmes so clean with the right cross, he can nail Bowe. It's a very dangerous fight for Big Daddy!

He hadn't yet met a Bowe, Foreman or a Lewis though? As good as some of his opponents were I wouldn't class any of them as great. Spinks was great but not a great heavyweight. Holmes had been great. A lot of his other opponents had issues in and out of the ring also. So while he was undefeated I dont think this is a major factor against Bowe, Lewis or Foreman. Thats not to undermine his reign which was phenomenal.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

He hadn't yet met a Bowe, Foreman or a Lewis though? As good as some of his opponents were I wouldn't class any of them as great. Spinks was great but not a great heavyweight. Holmes had been great. A lot of his other opponents had issues in and out of the ring also. So while he was undefeated I dont think this is a major factor against Bowe, Lewis or Foreman. Thats not to undermine his reign which was phenomenal.

Well, one could say that about anyone. Foreman had yet to meet a Lewis or Bowe. Louis had yet to meet a Liston or Ali. Dempsey had yet to meet a Louis or Ali et al.

Tyson could only meet and beat what was around in 1986-1988. Bowe was an amateur, Lewis too. Holyfield was a CW. Foreman was just back on the scene.

Then Mike went to prison for almost 4 years.

Analyse them all, and you can pick holes in who they met. That is why I don't do that. I look at them in their prime, and match them up according to their strengths and weaknesses.

Like I asked earleir. Who exactly did George beat in the 70s apart from a smaller Frazier?

Who exactly did Holyfield beat in the early 90s apart from an old Holmes and old George? Oh, and Bert Copper....:eek:

Bear in in that I sometimes hear Mike getting criticised for demolishing Holmes, yet not many criticsie Holyfield for taking 12 rds to beat an even older and more faded Holmes. This to me is just blatant ignoring. Like it or not Holyfield's reign was in no way more impressive than Tyson's. Lost to Michael Moorer. A man Tyson would have decapitated. A man who I would back Bruno and TNT and Spinks and Biggs and Thomas and Berbick to beat. Yes, this Holyfield was not prime, but if folks wanna' use post Douglas Tyson, then it's a free for all, isn't it?

This is my point. Folks criticising one man's opposition, and conveniently missing the other man's. Not saying you have. Just making the point.

Who the hell did Mike ever beat? Ok, who the hell did Evander or Foreman ever beat?

Simple: Pit both men when both were at their absolute best. The 1986 Tyson is a hell of a specimen. And a ridiculosuly dangerous opponent for any man ever.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

Well, one could say that about anyone. Foreman had yet to meet a Lewis or Bowe. Louis had yet to meet a Liston or Ali. Dempsey had yet to meet a Louis or Ali et al.

Tyson could only meet and beat what was around in 1986-1988. Bowe was an amateur, Lewis too. Holyfield was a CW. Foreman was just back on the scene.

Then Mike went to prison for almost 4 years.

Analyse them all, and you can pick holes in who they met. That is why I don't do that. I look at them in their prime, and match them up according to their strengths and weaknesses.

Like I asked earleir. Who exactly did George beat in the 70s apart from a smaller Frazier?

Who exactly did Holyfield beat in the early 90s apart from an old Holmes and old George? Oh, and Bert Copper....:eek:

Bear in in that I sometime hear Mike getting criticised for demolishing Holmes, yet not many criticsie Holyfield for taking 12 rds t beat an even older and more faded Holmes. This to me is just blatant ignoring.

This is my point. Folks criticising one man's opposition, and conveniently missing the other man's. Not saying you have. Just making the point.

Who the hell did Mike ever beat? Ok, who the hell did Evander or Foreman ever beat?

Simple: Pit both men when both were at their absolute best. The 1986 Tyson is a hell of a specimen. And a ridiculosuly dangerous opponent for any man ever.

I agree you can pick holes in nearly anyone's career. Thats not the point I was intending to make here. I don't think Mike being undefeated at his peak is a major factor when matching him up against Bowe, Foreman and Lewis as he hadn't faced anyone of their caliber yet.

Foreman had stopped Chuvalo (no mean feat) and knocked out an unbeaten Frazier and a very good fighter in Norton.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I agree you can pick holes in nearly anyone's career. Thats not the point I was intending to make here. I don't think Mike being undefeated at his peak is a major factor when matching him up against Bowe, Foreman and Lewis as he hadn't faced anyone of their caliber yet.

Foreman had stopped Chuvalo (no mean feat) and knocked out an unbeaten Frazier and a very good fighter in Norton.

And I could say that Foreman and Bowe and Lewis had never met a fighter of Tyson's caliber either. You can say Frazier, but really, Tyson as I said, brings a whole lot more danger to the table

Foreman stopped George Chuvalo? Hey, Chuvalo is tough as hell, but many men beat this man. He was not great. Not close to great. And not in any way better than Tyson's championship victims.

Norton? Again, Tyson too blows this guy away. Norton alwyas is a huge risk against hitters. Norton in this thread gets zero wins from me, and zero wins from other posters too.

As regrads me "saying" Mike was undefeated at peak. Well, that is not just a stetement. Go look at the fights. He was a difficult man to outbox and contain in all the distance fights. He dominated them. Now, the retort to this is "he hadn't met Lewis or Bowe or Foreman," and as I said, that is irrelevant, as they weren't around at that time.

Sure, all three could pose serious issues. I agree. But, Mike still will be very dangerous and difficult to simply outbox. Not just undefeated. Very dominant when undefeated. That is the point.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Bear in in that I sometimes hear Mike getting criticised for demolishing Holmes, yet not many criticsie Holyfield for taking 12 rds to beat an even older and more faded Holmes. This to me is just blatant ignoring. Like it or not Holyfield's reign was in no way more impressive than Tyson's.

Evander was a different type of fighter-not expected to take a man out in 1 punch so comparing how they done is not fair-if they both went the distance a comparison could be made in how they performed

How Evander performed out of peak, Now That's the beauty of Evander.

Evander's style was all about not letting opponents peform and it's fair to say when him and Mike fought they where equally as finished and i feel the original match would have been no different, Tyson did not like anyone standing their ground with him.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Evander was a different type of fighter-not expected to take a man out in 1 punch so comparing how they done is not fair-if they both went the distance a comparison could be made in how they performed

How Evander performed out of peak, Now That's the beauty of Evander.

Evander's style was all about not letting opponents peform and it's fair to say when him and Mike fought they where equally as finished and i feel the original match would have been no different, Tyson did not like anyone standing their ground with him.

Not saying necessarily that Evander should have demolished Holmes. But, if one criticise's Tyson's opponents, and uses Holmes as one example to illustrate, then what about Holyfield who also met Homes, but 4 years after Tyson.

Would you say that at peak Holyfield met better opposition than Mike, when both were champions? If so, much better. I mean, Bert Cooper to me is in no way better than any of Mike's victims. Then we have an old Foreman. And Holmes, and Bowe. Bowe clearly won that fight. Bowe is better than all of Mike's victims, but still, Holyfield was clearly beaten, so that is a bit of a moot point.

As to both at peak. Sorry. I have to say that Mike would at least go 12 here. I mean, he was past it clearly. At peak he had a far better defense and engine. Holyfield could win on points, I agree. I just think a TKO is a real stretch. Also, if Bert Cooper can do what he did, and he sure did hurt Holyfield, then Mike stands a very good chance of causing even more problems.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

And I could say that Foreman and Bowe and Lewis had never met a fighter of Tyson's caliber either. You can say Frazier, but really, Tyson as I said, brings a whole lot more danger to the table

Foreman stopped George Chuvalo? Hey, Chuvalo is tough as hell, but many men beat this man. He was not great. Not close to great. And not in any way better than Tyson's championship victims.

Norton? Again, Tyson too blows this guy away. Norton alwyas is a huge risk against hitters. Norton in this thread gets zero wins from me, and zero wins from other posters too.

As regrads me "saying" Mike was undefeated at peak. Well, that is not just a stetement. Go look at the fights. He was a difficult man to outbox and contain in all the distance fights. He dominated them. Now, the retort to this is "he hadn't met Lewis or Bowe or Foreman," and as I said, that is irrelevant, as they weren't around at that time.

Sure, all three could pose seriosu issues. I agree. But, Mike still will be very dangerous and difficult to simply outbox. Not just undefeated. Very dominant when undefeated. That is the point.

I don't mean literally Foreman, Lewis and Bowe but fighters as good, or that would pose the same kind of problems.

Agree with most of your points. Used Chuvalo more as an indicator of George's power. I was also one of the people who gave Norton no wins but the match ups couldn't be much worse for him.

I think Frazier is just as big a challenge as Tyson but in different ways. I'm not sure about this but wasn't Frazier favourite to beat Foreman? Hind sights a great thing and nobody expected him to be up and down like a yoyo.

Again can see your side of the argument and can appreciate the points you're making.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I don't mean literally Foreman, Lewis and Bowe but fighters as good, or that would pose the same kind of problems.

Agree with most of your points. Used Chuvalo more as an indicator of George's power. I was also one of the people who gave Norton no wins but the match ups couldn't be much worse for him.

I think Frazier is just as big a challenge as Tyson but in different ways. I'm not sure about this but wasn't Frazier favourite to beat Foreman? Hind sights a great thing and nobody expected him to be up and down like a yoyo.

Again can see your side of the argument and can appreciate the points you're making.

Frazier was quite a warm favourite going into the match. To me Frazier and Mike are similar in stature, and that is it. Tyson is far more versatile with his hands, has two fisted power, faster, more ferocity and intent, and can land the whopper from range, as well as in close. Really, apart from the lfet hook, Joe had nothing to beat George with.

Another key is that Mike had real fast attacking feet. He could close the distance very quickly. Compare this to Joe, who basically plodded forward. There was never that element of surpise attack with Frazier. One way, and one gear, and one line. Foreman simply waited for him to come, he came, and got battered. Tyson will not attack in such a one dimensional fashion. Foreman will need to be a lot more alert.

Maravilla33

You make a very good case. One I don't agree with but a good case nonetheless..

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

You make a very good case. One I don't agree with but a good case nonetheless..

You agree with the case, just not the result!

cowzerp

Foreman would beat Tyson in my opinion-frazier is like a B class version of mike but has the same come forward mentality which is bad against George and his main way of winning is KO and George is just too granite headed in my opinion to be KO'd by mike, Tyson potentially can beat anyone but he is relying on a 1 punch wonder here and i don't see it coming.
Ko win for George.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

You agree with the case, just not the result!

I can see the merits of your case but wouldn't agree with it in practice.. Mike's well capable of doing all the things you say he can but once he feels Foreman's power and realises hes going to have to take some big shots to get his own off then his usual game plan goes out the window.

While hes able to outbox a lot of his opponents he doesn't have the size or range to outbox Foreman (who could be outboxed no doubt.) Its a bit of a paradox Tyson can only beat Foreman by adopting his usual gameplan but its this style that plays straight into Foreman's hands.

Again this is just my own opinion.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Foreman would beat Tyson in my opinion-frazier is like a B class version of mike but has the same come forward mentality which is bad against George and his main way of winning is KO and George is just too granite headed in my opinion to be KO'd by mike, Tyson potentially can beat anyone but he is relying on a 1 punch wonder here and i don't see it coming.
Ko win for George.

Yeah, George had a great chin, but so did Mike. This baby probably goes the distance. Mike won't fight George like Frazier. He just won't. He will have a better defense, faster attacks and more versatile hitting. It to me is nothing like Frazier. Frazier plodded forward throwing a left hook. Rinse and repeat.

Here is the thing: If this goes the route, can Foreman score a points win? I don't think he will. I believe George needs the KO. And, Mike's chin, stamina and defense in 1986-1988 are all too good.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Yeah, George had a great chin, but so did Mike. This baby probably goes the distance. Mike won't fight George like Frazier. He just won't. He will have a better defense, faster attacks and more versatile hitting. It to me is nothing like Frazier. Frazier plodded forward throwing a left hook. Rinse and repeat.

Here is the thing: If this goes the route, can Foreman score a points win? I don't think he will. I believe George needs the KO. And, Mike's chin, stamina and defense in 1986-1988 are all too good.

I agree, Tyson was far superior to Frazier in all area's-but the range he fought in was the same in fairness and i don't see why he would suddenly change tactics in 1 fight, i do see why really but don't feel he would and at longer range George has advantage anyway and Tyson's whole way of winning is gone.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I can see the merits of your case but wouldn't agree with it in practice.. Mike's well capable of doing all the things you say he can but once he feels Foreman's power and realises hes going to have to take some big shots to get his own off then his usual game plan goes out the window.
.

He felt other power shots when at peak, Bruno could whack. Tyson felt it, and stayed with it and took him out. Now, Foreman is not Bruno, I know this, but he sure could whack. Point is, that nowhere in Mike's peak did anything ever go out the window.

You can do all the guessing and give all the excuses, but there is nothing in his prime years that even comes close to "out the window." Quite the opposite. He showed that even when the man cannot be knocked out he can still be clearly beaten on points.

You say he will taste some big shots. Possibly he will, but again, why is it that his plan goes out the window, and not Foreman's. Foreman too will taste serious shots. So, why is it that Mike's plan goes out the window? Both had great chins. I would argue Tyson's defence was superior to Foreman, and it will be George who will be tasting more shots, crisp and clean power shots too.

Defence, chin, speed, stamina, and power are all the reasons I think Mike wins, and at least makes the distance

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

He felt other power shots when at peak, Bruno could whack. Tyson felt it, and stayed with it and took him out. Now, Foreman is not Bruno, I know this, but he sure could whack. Point is, that nowhere in Mike's peak did anything ever go out the window.

You can do all the guessing and give all the excuses, but there is nothing in his prime years that even comes close to "out the window." Quite the opposite. He showed that even when the man cannot be knocked out he can still be clearly beaten on points.

You say he will taset some big shots. Posiibly he will, but again, why is it that his plan goes out thw window, and not Foreman's. Foreman too will taste serious shots. So, why is it that Mike's plan goes out the window? Both had great chins. I would argue Tyson's defence was superior to Foreman, and it will be George who will be tasting more shots, crisp and clean power shots too.

Defence, chin, speed, stamina, and power are all the reasosn I think Mike wins, and at least makes the distance

Bruno could hit but barely threw a punch against Tyson. He hit him in the 1st and stopped him in his tracks but didn't follow up. His whole gameplan was based on survival. I don't think Tyson hits Foreman all too regularly. Foreman's frame, reach and own offensive style make it hard for Tyson to connect. He could be very accurate with his combos but for every lovely conbo there were a few missed wild hooks. Foreman could be sloppy too but I think Tyson is basically walking into his shots. He'll be ducking and rushing in and get hit or pushed back and have to start again.

I don't see this going the distance. Foreman in 6 and if I've read it completely wrong then Tyson would also take him out before halfway.