Fighters That Could Take Tyson In The Prime

First topic message reminder :

I was watching this amazing video of Tyson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QACELH3www and it got me thinking, is there anyone that could have actually taken Tyson in the prime? Obviously people would put someone like Muhammed Ali, but in complete honesty I think he would actually have taken him, just my personal opinion... But do you guys think that there would have been a Heavyweight on the planet that could have taken Pre-Prison and before he began cutting his training like Pre-Buster Douglas? Because in my personal opinion there isn't a fighter on the planet that could have honestly taken him, his pure aggression and power was enough to take out a lot of guys in the later stages, but when you mixed that with his athletisicm and ability to not get caught whilst coming in was just purely incredible, I would love to see Haye have taken on Tyson in his prime, personally I think you need to have a guy that has speed and 1 punch knockout power, enough to rock him back (I know what you're thinking what about Muhammed Ali?) But I just don't see it happening. I don't think Haye would beat him by the way but give him a decent fight. Or even a Valuev don't forget how big Valuev was and how much of a small Heavyweight Tyson was, could he have even reached his head!? :O

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:As for the old guys, no nutritional drinks = no chance.

Aye. If only lucozade and creatine had been around in Dempsey's day. Think how hard he'd have punched then!

I love watching Dempsey fight. Not only for the comedy value of watching him flail away like a dervish, but his sheer ferocity and instinct in wanting to murder his opponent.

Scottrf wrote:Isotonic drinks too now in some places.

Really, since when and where?

oxring wrote:Which brings us back to the size difference.

If we're stuck on that

Lewis and W/V Klit both beat pretty much everyone else.

People tipping the scales at 250 plus, can punch, reasonably athletic - that would do it. Against almost everyone else in history/against everyone else in history.

I'm not sure the records bear this out. There's been big men throughout history - eg Carnera, Buddy Baer etc. In the past, during boxing's glory days - they were contenders not champions.

Size does matter...

But its not everything.

It matters up to the point that you need serious skills to start accomodating for it. Lewis and the Klitschkos whilst not undefeatable have been seriously formidable based on size/skill mix. Others like Valuev, Carnera etc have only had size and even then picked up titles.

If Tyson was a blob like Arreola or something I would be less concerned but we are talking a seriously streamlined 220lb heavy here with a blend of speed, skill and power. Corbett at effectively lightheavy would need to have skills to seriously outclass Tyson to the point of being a clear level up from Tyson in order to compensate in my view. I dont think he does, and even if he did such is Tysons power that its a big equalise anyway.

The weight thing can be a red herring if you are talking about fat guys like Toney who is just a SMW in a fat suit, or if you are talking about a Valuev who has literally nothing going but size alone.

But if you are talking about a decent fighter that naturally outweighs a guy by virtually two weight classes then its a major deal as far as Im concerned. How many lightheavies would win against Tyson really?

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:As for the old guys, no nutritional drinks = no chance.

Aye. If only lucozade and creatine had been around in Dempsey's day. Think how hard he'd have punched then!

I love watching Dempsey fight. Not only for the comedy value of watching him flail away like a dervish, but his sheer ferocity and instinct in wanting to murder his opponent.

He looked really comical as he gave Williard the biggest beating in the history of the sport

The Mighty Atom wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Isotonic drinks too now in some places.

Really, since when and where?

Not sure exactly. Think some states allow it but others don't, Morales had one inbetween rounds at the weekend apparently, not that I noticed it at the time.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:As for the old guys, no nutritional drinks = no chance.

Aye. If only lucozade and creatine had been around in Dempsey's day. Think how hard he'd have punched then!

I love watching Dempsey fight. Not only for the comedy value of watching him flail away like a dervish, but his sheer ferocity and instinct in wanting to murder his opponent.

He looked really comical as he gave Williard the biggest beating in the history of the sport

Yes, but had Willard been taking protein shakes, he wouldn't have fallen over for those pitter-patter slaps from Dempsey. Ahem.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:As for the old guys, no nutritional drinks = no chance.

Aye. If only lucozade and creatine had been around in Dempsey's day. Think how hard he'd have punched then!

I love watching Dempsey fight. Not only for the comedy value of watching him flail away like a dervish, but his sheer ferocity and instinct in wanting to murder his opponent.

He looked really comical as he gave Williard the biggest beating in the history of the sport

Those were the rules in those days. Stand next to your floored opponent and drop him as soon as he gets his gloves off the canvas. Its like watching "stand up" in MMA. Fun but very entertaining.

oxring wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:As for the old guys, no nutritional drinks = no chance.

Aye. If only lucozade and creatine had been around in Dempsey's day. Think how hard he'd have punched then!

I love watching Dempsey fight. Not only for the comedy value of watching him flail away like a dervish, but his sheer ferocity and instinct in wanting to murder his opponent.

He looked really comical as he gave Williard the biggest beating in the history of the sport

Yes, but had Willard been taking protein shakes, he wouldn't have fallen over for those pitter-patter slaps from Dempsey. Ahem.

I wouldn't say they were slaps. But better diets would have made no difference.

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:Which brings us back to the size difference.

If we're stuck on that

Lewis and W/V Klit both beat pretty much everyone else.

People tipping the scales at 250 plus, can punch, reasonably athletic - that would do it. Against almost everyone else in history/against everyone else in history.

I'm not sure the records bear this out. There's been big men throughout history - eg Carnera, Buddy Baer etc. In the past, during boxing's glory days - they were contenders not champions.

Size does matter...

But its not everything.

It matters up to the point that you need serious skills to start accomodating for it. Lewis and the Klitschkos whilst not undefeatable have been seriously formidable based on size/skill mix. Others like Valuev, Carnera etc have only had size and even then picked up titles.

If Tyson was a blob like Arreola or something I would be less concerned but we are talking a seriously streamlined 220lb heavy here with a blend of speed, skill and power. Corbett at effectively lightheavy would need to have skills to seriously outclass Tyson to the point of being a clear level up from Tyson in order to compensate in my view. I dont think he does, and even if he did such is Tysons power that its a big equalise anyway.

The weight thing can be a red herring if you are talking about fat guys like Toney who is just a SMW in a fat suit, or if you are talking about a Valuev who has literally nothing going but size alone.

But if you are talking about a decent fighter that naturally outweighs a guy by virtually two weight classes then its a major deal as far as Im concerned. How many lightheavies would win against Tyson really?

I could play the eras card -

Drop Tyson into Corbett's time, he is smaller and loses. Drop Corbett into Tyson's time - he's bigger and copes with Tyson's power easily and outboxes him.

That's a bit of a cheat IMO.

Re: LHWs to beat Tyson - answer - not many. However - Charles and Moore would both have a chance. And who'd rule out Bob Foster.

Lest we forget, this is a guy with a 3-4 fight prime. Spent fighting past it versions of Berbick, Holmes and Spinks and paying George Foreman not to fight him.

What did old George offer? A jab and power. Corbett had both, Sullivan had the power. And it would be brave to suggest that old-big-George offered more in terms of movement etc than big John Sullivan. Sullivan could fight 80 rounds and wouldn't be intimidated by Tyson.

Given Tyson was paying George not to call him out (let alone fight him) is it that unreasonable to say he wouldn't do well against Sullivan?

I think he gives him a beating if he has to retreat to a neutral corner too. Maybe not as many knockdowns but still.

Interesting that people criticise Tyson for having a 3/4 fight prime (3-4 years more like) but praise Rocky for defending against old men and washed up has beens.

azania wrote:Interesting that people criticise Tyson for having a 3/4 fight prime (3-4 years more like) but praise Rocky for defending against old men and washed up has beens.

Couldn't have put it better...

AlexHuckerby wrote:

azania wrote:Interesting that people criticise Tyson for having a 3/4 fight prime (3-4 years more like) but praise Rocky for defending against old men and washed up has beens.

Couldn't have put it better...

I could.

azania wrote:Interesting that people criticise Tyson for having a 3/4 fight prime (3-4 years more like) but praise Rocky for defending against old men and washed up has beens.

Ah azania, how delightful. I feel we haven't discussed this topic enough before.

Instead of rising to your bait - how about I ask you this question.

Tyson's team PAID George Foreman not only NOT to fight him, but not to even TALK about fighting him, when George made his comeback - they were that concerned.

Rocky beat everyone there was to beat. He didn't pay off challengers.

Please, defend Tyson to me and explain why its OK that he paid off big George; in fact, how that adds to the greatness of "peak" Tyson.

And don't mention creatine.

I dont know the ins and outs (unlike D4) of why Tyson paid off george. But I doubt it was anything to do with Tyson fearing losing to old george. I'd guess it was more to do with the belief that it would be a no contest in that Tyson may actually do serious harm to george.

I doubt if anyone thought George would or could beat Tyson even after his prison haitus. Moorer was giving George a boxing lesson up to that punch connecting.

azania wrote:I dont know the ins and outs (unlike D4) of why Tyson paid off george. But I doubt it was anything to do with Tyson fearing losing to old george. I'd guess it was more to do with the belief that it would be a no contest in that Tyson may actually do serious harm to george.

I doubt if anyone thought George would or could beat Tyson even after his prison haitus. Moorer was giving George a boxing lesson up to that punch connecting.

I've read the details.

Tyson, probably remembering what D'Amato had said about the chances of any swarmer who took the fight to George, was terrified. In front of witnesses, he screamed at King " If you want someone to fight that ( effing ) monster, why don't YOU do it ? " or words to that effect.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:Which brings us back to the size difference.

If we're stuck on that

Lewis and W/V Klit both beat pretty much everyone else.

People tipping the scales at 250 plus, can punch, reasonably athletic - that would do it. Against almost everyone else in history/against everyone else in history.

I'm not sure the records bear this out. There's been big men throughout history - eg Carnera, Buddy Baer etc. In the past, during boxing's glory days - they were contenders not champions.

Size does matter...

But its not everything.

It matters up to the point that you need serious skills to start accomodating for it. Lewis and the Klitschkos whilst not undefeatable have been seriously formidable based on size/skill mix. Others like Valuev, Carnera etc have only had size and even then picked up titles.

If Tyson was a blob like Arreola or something I would be less concerned but we are talking a seriously streamlined 220lb heavy here with a blend of speed, skill and power. Corbett at effectively lightheavy would need to have skills to seriously outclass Tyson to the point of being a clear level up from Tyson in order to compensate in my view. I dont think he does, and even if he did such is Tysons power that its a big equalise anyway.

The weight thing can be a red herring if you are talking about fat guys like Toney who is just a SMW in a fat suit, or if you are talking about a Valuev who has literally nothing going but size alone.

But if you are talking about a decent fighter that naturally outweighs a guy by virtually two weight classes then its a major deal as far as Im concerned. How many lightheavies would win against Tyson really?

I could play the eras card -

Drop Tyson into Corbett's time, he is smaller and loses. Drop Corbett into Tyson's time - he's bigger and copes with Tyson's power easily and outboxes him.

That's a bit of a cheat IMO.

Re: LHWs to beat Tyson - answer - not many. However - Charles and Moore would both have a chance. And who'd rule out Bob Foster.

Lest we forget, this is a guy with a 3-4 fight prime. Spent fighting past it versions of Berbick, Holmes and Spinks and paying George Foreman not to fight him.

What did old George offer? A jab and power. Corbett had both, Sullivan had the power. And it would be brave to suggest that old-big-George offered more in terms of movement etc than big John Sullivan. Sullivan could fight 80 rounds and wouldn't be intimidated by Tyson.

Given Tyson was paying George not to call him out (let alone fight him) is it that unreasonable to say he wouldn't do well against Sullivan?

I agree you cant start saying if Corbett was around now he would be bigger or Tyson back then would be smaller. This is just pure specualtion. You have to take the fighter as they were/are and at the end of the day Tyson was 220ish and Corbett was 175-180ish.

We could argue back and forth about primes but how do you nail down Corbetts prime either? He didnt exactly have a long and illustrious reign either and I dont think his wins over guys like Kilrain or Sullivan are in any way superior to Tysons.

Guys like Sullivan I just dont see hacking it now. They belong to a different era. Fighting different rules with different styles and methods. If Corbett could outbox him and KO him I have no problem believing the Tyson or his victims could also. I dont really think Sullivan and Foreman is a comparison really. Even the fading Tyson of the 90s I would back to soundly box the ears of Big George at the time.

Im not Tysons biggest fan but I honestly couldnt make a single Lightheavy in history favourite over him if we are talking 80s version. The Fighting Marine might have the strongest argument given what he did with Dempsey but if Charles and Moore were got by Marciano then thats good enough to say Tyson gets them for me.

Corbett v Tyson would barely be a match up in modern weight class terms and I think you have to give Corbett the benefit of the doubt if so many different areas to make him a real contender. Like we know he could jab and was one of the earliest guys to stat employing these tactics but its incredibly difficult to say how well he did it or how it translates to the established jabs and jab based tactics which became mainstream (and dare I suggest improved?) that were uses by the like of Douglas or Lewis against Tyson with success.

Come on. We're taling about a 45 year old Foreman here not the young version. This version of George was slow (faster than Rocky though but very slow) and no where near as good as he was 20 years earlier.

azania wrote:I dont know the ins and outs (unlike D4) of why Tyson paid off george. But I doubt it was anything to do with Tyson fearing losing to old george. I'd guess it was more to do with the belief that it would be a no contest in that Tyson may actually do serious harm to george.

I doubt if anyone thought George would or could beat Tyson even after his prison haitus. Moorer was giving George a boxing lesson up to that punch connecting.

That post is so ridiculous I'm going to hope you're on the wind up. If you're deadly serious, I fear for your logic.

Tyson, that gentle soul, not wanting to harm big George. Course it was that.

azania wrote:Come on. We're taling about a 45 year old Foreman here not the young version. This version of George was slow (faster than Rocky though but very slow) and no where near as good as he was 20 years earlier.

So why did Tyson pay him off?

azania wrote:Come on. We're taling about a 45 year old Foreman here not the young version. This version of George was slow (faster than Rocky though but very slow) and no where near as good as he was 20 years earlier.

I'll provide a link, if you wish. The fact is that Tyson was scared to fight Foreman.

Yes manos - they are different eras - but I don't think they're that different.

We're in danger of going in circles, but my issue remains - you can't beat 400 men and not see most styles of fighter. As such - I can't rule Sullivan, or Corbett out so quickly.

Problems do arise in that boxrec is lacking the majority of both their fights. I accept it is hard to reliably estimate how good they were.

As a postscript - what about Tunney? He coped with what Dempsey threw at him - another LHW I'd give a chance against Tyson

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:I dont know the ins and outs (unlike D4) of why Tyson paid off george. But I doubt it was anything to do with Tyson fearing losing to old george. I'd guess it was more to do with the belief that it would be a no contest in that Tyson may actually do serious harm to george.

I doubt if anyone thought George would or could beat Tyson even after his prison haitus. Moorer was giving George a boxing lesson up to that punch connecting.

That post is so ridiculous I'm going to hope you're on the wind up. If you're deadly serious, I fear for your logic.

Tyson, that gentle soul, not wanting to harm big George. Course it was that.

Are we talking the George whi lost to Morrison, Briggs, Holy and was given nightmares by BERT COOPER? Team Tyson probably saw no gain in fighting him. Also you have to understand that it is hardly the boxer's decision as to who they fight. If the fight was made, Tyson would have fought him (and probably retired him).

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Come on. We're taling about a 45 year old Foreman here not the young version. This version of George was slow (faster than Rocky though but very slow) and no where near as good as he was 20 years earlier.

I'll provide a link, if you wish. The fact is that Tyson was scared to fight Foreman.

Please do windy. Also please post the reason why George was paid off from Team Tyson's POV. Just for balance mind.

Azania it's well documented that Tyson feared even the old version of Foreman hence why he wouldn't fight him, make excuses all you want but it's there for all us to see.

You need to reel in the Marciano rubbish now, you bring it up all the time and has absolutely no relevance on this discussion

Come on guys, Tyson afraid of the 45 year old Foreman?

Too far fetched for me. Tyson paid off Lewis at one point also in order to to secure a more lucrative fight with Holyfield. He wasnt afraid of him. It was business.

What relevance does it have on a fight with Corbett anyway unless we are now debating if Tyson would even have the stones to face him......

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Come on. We're taling about a 45 year old Foreman here not the young version. This version of George was slow (faster than Rocky though but very slow) and no where near as good as he was 20 years earlier.

I'll provide a link, if you wish. The fact is that Tyson was scared to fight Foreman.

Please do windy. Also please post the reason why George was paid off from Team Tyson's POV. Just for balance mind.

You mean the fight that Don King did everything in his power to make but was met with the famous response from Tyson of 'I'm not fightin' that F**kin' animal, if you love the motherf**ker so much, you fight him!'"

Doesn't sound like fear at all

The Mighty Atom wrote:Azania it's well documented that Tyson feared even the old version of Foreman hence why he wouldn't fight him, make excuses all you want but it's there for all us to see.

You need to reel in the Marciano rubbish now, you bring it up all the time and has absolutely no relevance on this discussion

For heaven's sake. This is a joke right? I know that Tyson is not everyone's cup of tea, but to suggest he was afraid of a 45 year old Foreman is seriously stretching the boundaries of debate here.

Well documented by who? Did Tyson say he was scared of Foreman? When I first heard of that fight, I hoped they were joking as I didn't want to see George flat out at that age.

As for Rocky, just exposing double standards again. It was very relevant to the debate. Plus it isn't rubbish, unless its how you refer to Rocky then its accurate.

Tyson was scared before a lot of his amateur fights before setting records for the quickest knockouts.

You mean the fight that Don King did everything in his power to make but was met with the famous response from Tyson of 'I'm not fightin' that F**kin' animal, if you love the motherf**ker so much, you fight him!'"

Doesn't sound like fear at all

Context is everything. Can I have the preceeding exchanges that led to that outburst please.

Don King trying to set up the fight

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

The Mighty Atom wrote:Don King trying to set up the fight

The full exchanges please.

Here you go, az.

The author is one of the most respected fight journalists in America.

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

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Azania it's well documented that Tyson feared even the old version of Foreman hence why he wouldn't fight him, make excuses all you want but it's there for all us to see.

You need to reel in the Marciano rubbish now, you bring it up all the time and has absolutely no relevance on this discussion

For heaven's sake. This is a joke right? I know that Tyson is not everyone's cup of tea, but to suggest he was afraid of a 45 year old Foreman is seriously stretching the boundaries of debate here.

Well documented by who? Did Tyson say he was scared of Foreman? When I first heard of that fight, I hoped they were joking as I didn't want to see George flat out at that age.

As for Rocky, just exposing double standards again. It was very relevant to the debate. Plus it isn't rubbish, unless its how you refer to Rocky then its accurate.

FFS!!!

Explain the quote, please, first.

Then explain the perspective of Rooney and Atlas.

Here's Atlas in the legendary "the coward and his due" article:
http://www.salon.com/july97/news/news2970710.html

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

Here's the quotes from the people at the time.

Who all said Tyson was scared to fight him.

No money in it?

Please. There was more money in Foreman than Buster Douglas.

Not really too sure how those words can be misunderstood in any context but if you could enlighten me, for someone with such knowledge and love of Tyson you should know this was in 1990. Before Morrison, Holyfield and Moorer

Sorry guys, I cant open esb here. Can you please post the article.

Atom, was that after Cooper and Qawi fights with foreman also?

I see Ghosty beat me to it.

Which exchanges, az, if this isn't good enough ?

The bit where Mike said " Two sugar, please " when he was offered coffee ? Everything we need is here. Tyson was scared, plain and simple.

oxring wrote:Yes manos - they are different eras - but I don't think they're that different.

We're in danger of going in circles, but my issue remains - you can't beat 400 men and not see most styles of fighter. As such - I can't rule Sullivan, or Corbett out so quickly.

Problems do arise in that boxrec is lacking the majority of both their fights. I accept it is hard to reliably estimate how good they were.

As a postscript - what about Tunney? He coped with what Dempsey threw at him - another LHW I'd give a chance against Tyson

As I said in my above post, Tunney would be the Lightheavy I would give the best chance to beat Tyson as he has evidence on his side to say he had the potential to. I would still make Tyson a favourite though.

Im not sure in Corbetts era that we can say he met all manner of fighters. We dont know for one and also the rules and styles were different back then. Corbett is considered an innovator precisely because he was doing things that were not mainstream and putting into place the beginnings of what would become modernised gloved boxing. Historical evidence suggst that fights back then were of the bareknuckle style often with London Prize Rules or hybrid rules. I cant accept we can say Corbett faced all maners of jabbers, outside fighters, boxer punchers, counter punchers etc as everything we know seems to suggest quite the contrary.

Giving guys like Sullivan or Corbett a serious chance for me is like suggesting boxing has barely moved on from its roots at all. I find this hard to accept as a principle as its not reflected in nearly anything else. This is without even considering the weight factors which we may disagree on.

The principle that size matters is possibly the biggest fundemental in boxing as is reflected in the need for weight classes.

You sure are stubborn, az. Here you go :

16.09 - On March 9 1987, former heavyweight champion George Foreman stopped journeyman Steve Zouski in the fourth round. Foreman's fight versus Zouski was the official beginning of the second leg of Foreman's 18-year career, after being retired for ten years. Foreman's bout with Zouski was his first fight since losing a decision to third-ranked contender Jimmy Young back on March 17 1977.

Foreman said he came back to reclaim the title he lost to Muhammad Ali back in October of 1974. After beating Zouski, Foreman fought on a schedule that had him in the ring just about every other month. He would constantly tell anyone with a microphone after each fight that, he came back because he knew he could beat Mike Tyson and wanted to fight him for the title. Through Big George's first ten to fifteen fights, he was laughed at for the quality of the fighters he was fighting and wasn't taken seriously. Foreman never made excuses for them and admitted that he was fighting guys who had no chance of beating him. He said that he wanted to get used to being back in the ring and was in no hurry. In 1987, Foreman fought five times; in 1988, he fought nine times and in 1989, he fought five times. After 19 fights, Foreman was 19-0 (18). During the course of those 19 fights, Foreman only fought two name fighters: former light heavyweight and cruiserweight champ Dwight Muhammad Qwai (formerly Dwight Braxton), and fringe contender Bert Cooper, stopping both.

On January 15, 1990, Foreman fought former heavyweight title challenger, the hard-hitting Gerry Cooney. Cooney was making a comeback after not fighting in almost two and a half years. Cooney viewed Foreman as an easy win and figured he could capitalize off of Foreman's name and jump to the front of the heavyweight picture with an impressive victory. Going into the fight neither Foreman or Cooney were perceived to be a real threat to any of the top heavyweights in the world, let alone Tyson who was just 23 and the unbeaten, undisputed champ.

By January of 1990, Foreman had built up such a following and fan base that the Foreman-Cooney fight was only seen on PPV. It took Foreman less than two full rounds to mutilate Cooney sending him back into permanent retirement. Foreman displayed accuracy and devastating power in stopping Cooney. It wasn't until after Foreman's destruction of Cooney that he was taken as a serious title contender. Before the boxing world had time to digest Foreman's showing against Cooney, it was dealt an even bigger shock 26 days later.

On February 10 1990, 42-1 underdog James "Buster" Douglas literally turned the boxing world upside down when he traveled to Tokyo and knocked out undisputed heavyweight champ Mike Tyson. Don King promoted Tyson, at the time of his defeat. After Tyson's loss to Douglas, King wanted to have Tyson fight in a high profile fight. He figured a spectacular knockout win over a name opponent would get Tyson back on track to being the man in the heavyweight picture again. King thought he found the perfect opponent in Foreman who was all over television after beating Cooney. Foreman never passed up an opportunity to take a shot at Tyson and throw out challenges to him while doing the talk show circuit.

In the subsequent months following Foreman's victory over Cooney and Douglas' upset of Tyson, there was much talk of a Foreman-Tyson fight. It was a potential fight that captured the public's imagination, and not just the boxing public. In fact, there were several reports that the fight was signed and about to be announced. ESPN Sportscenter devoted numerous segments on the fight assuming it was going to happen. Shortly thereafter, there was an announcement that Foreman and Tyson were going to fight on the same card. In late April of 1990, it was announced that Foreman and Tyson would be fighting a co-main event on June 16 to be broadcast on HBO. Foreman's opponent was Adilson Rodrigues, who was ranked in the top ten by two of the major sanctioning bodies. Tyson's opponent was the unranked Henry Tillman. Tillman was best known for beating Tyson twice in the 1984 Olympic trials.

At this time, Evander Holyfield was getting ready for his sixth fight as a heavyweight against Seamus McDonagh on June 1 in Atlantic City. On the day of the Holyfield-McDonagh fight, I went to grab something to eat with Georgie Benton, Lou Duva and Bobby Goodman. At the time, Goodman was, and still is, Don King's matchmaker. I've known Benton for many years, through him I met Duva, and was introduced to Goodman a couple weeks before Tyson fought Larry Holmes at the Convention Center in Atlantic City in January 1988.

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, Flip' Tyson is scared Poopie 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 fightin' that Flip' animal, if you love the Flip so much, you fight him!'"

Goodman stated that Tyson said Foreman was much better than people thought, and was a dangerous fight for any of the top heavyweights. Goodman proceeded to explain how Tyson was calling Foreman a big con man, and explained that the grandpop act was just a front. He said Tyson saw Foreman as trying to set up the boxing world into thinking he was a pushover, knowing that he really wasn't. Tyson said Foreman was a wolf in sheep's clothing. Goodman continued to say that after seeing Tyson's response to King trying to push him into a fight with Foreman, he had no doubt that Tyson had fear of Foreman. He also said that from that point on, he felt that if Foreman and Tyson ever fought, Foreman would knock Tyson out!

Throughout the lunch Goodman, Duva, Benton, and myself shared stories and thoughts on the fight game. Out of the blue Goodman said, "Oh I remember why else Tyson wanted no parts of Foreman. He said that King had found out from Steve Lott that Tyson and Cus D'Amato used to watch the Frazier-Foreman fight over and over." He continued saying that Tyson loved that fight because he was awed by Foreman's power and Frazier's toughness and how he kept getting up after every knockdown. He also said that Lott told King that Cus sat alongside Tyson saying, "It's suicide against Foreman if you're short and fight a swarming attacking style like Marciano or Frazier," never figuring that Foreman could be a possible Tyson opponent down the road. He said that Cus said the only fighters who had a chance against Foreman were, tall rangy fighters who could fight him from a distance while moving away from him, and no way any swarmer could beat Foreman by going to him.

Those are the words of the man who actually had a hand in trying to make the Foreman-Tyson fight, and was in the room when the negotiations broke down. Over the years, I've talked to many people who were involved with Tyson and Foreman and they all verify the story, every one of them. I have also talked to people who were involved with promoting Foreman, including Ron Weathers who promoted a few of Foreman's comeback fights. He told me the same story. The fight didn't happen because of Tyson being fearful of losing to George. Bob Arum also said that he dreamed of making Foreman-Tyson. He said it would be huge money and that Foreman would stop Tyson easier than he did Frazier. This is something Arum often repeated to the press. I have also heard this from George's brother Roy who was his business manager. I co-hosted a boxing show with Roy in Atlantic City for a little less than two months and this was a regular topic when discussing Tyson. Anyone who covered boxing at the time or knew any of the involved parties knew of this. It's not breaking news.

It is absolutely a fact that Mike Tyson was afraid to fight 41-year-old George Foreman--the same Foreman who Evander Holyfield would fight and beat in April of 1991. I have not a doubt that had Foreman and Tyson fought anytime between 1990 and 1997 that Foreman would have knocked Tyson out inside of three rounds. Tyson just has nothing to beat Foreman with; his edge in hand speed would have been a non-factor. He can't beat him by backing away, and he would have gotten his head handed to him if he brought the fight to Foreman. In addition, Foreman was bigger, stronger, tougher and hit harder. Not to mention the fact that Foreman had a better chin and no fear or doubt, unlike Tyson, who was full of fear and self-doubt.

Think about it, Foreman-Tyson was the biggest fight that could have been made in 1990. Foreman was perceived to be an easy fight for Tyson, and it would have been his biggest payday to date. There can only be one reason why Tyson didn't fight Foreman, and that's because he feared losing to him.

I haven't a morsel of a doubt that Tyson just doesn't match up with Foreman, and he knows it. If Tyson of 1990 was afraid of an old Foreman, think how petrified he would of been of a prime Foreman, the one who stared down both Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali in 1973 and 1974.

Writers Note

The above account is of a quick get to together for something to eat between myself and the above mentioned parties. The only thing I can't recall for certain is if it took place after the Holyfield-McDonagh final press conference, or the weigh in? However, the above quotes are just that, quotes. Everything there is exactly how the conversation unfolded. Whether you chose to believe it or not is up to you. All I can say is that is exactly what was said. To disbelieve this you have to assume a lot of people close to both Foreman and Tyson are lying. Remember, Tyson is a student of boxing and boxing history. If there ever was a fighter who understood styles and match ups, its Tyson. He was smart enough to know that Foreman was all wrong for him. You can talk about his speed and defense for the next 100 years. The fact of the matter is he had nothing to beat Foreman with! Sometimes the truth is very hard to believe and accept, but the truth is the truth. And the truth is, Mike Tyson was fearful of fighting George Foreman in 1990. The only reason why Foreman-Tyson was never made is because Tyson was afraid Foreman would beat him.

The three of us posted the exact same link

It was straight after the Cooney fight I believe

Coem on guys, even if he was "scared" of him do we truly believe he would have lost?

AlexHuckerby wrote:Coem on guys, even if he was "scared" of him do we truly believe he would have lost?

D'Amato, years before, evidently thought so, and he knew Tyson as well as anybody.

Manos what we do have as evidence is Corbett competing with Jeffries over 20 rounds, a stronger, fitter and similarly sized fighter to Tyson. He was a freak of nature at the time and physically would fit in very well nowadays, technically not the best but there have been very few better physical specimens since in the division. Speed, power, toughness, strength and fitness.

HumanWindmill wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:Coem on guys, even if he was "scared" of him do we truly believe he would have lost?

D'Amato, years before, evidently thought so, and he knew Tyson as well as anybody.

Windy I forgot nobody beats prime Mike Tyson

For the record I see Tyson as been stylistically perfect for Foreman, moving into the punches of someone like Foreman is suicide even the old version

The Mighty Atom wrote:Manos what we do have as evidence is Corbett competing with Jeffries over 20 rounds, a stronger, fitter and similarly sized fighter to Tyson. He was a freak of nature at the time and physically would fit in very well nowadays, technically not the best but there have been very few better physical specimens since in the division. Speed, power, toughness, strength and fitness.

I have to disagree. Jeffries is indeed a physically immense fighter but for me his style is based on long distance endurance fights. 12 rounders would be all wrong for Jeffries as his biggest strength was wearing out and outlasting his opponent. Over 12 he just becomes too easy to outpoint by more skilled opponents. However if we are talking 20/30 rounders then theres probably few better.

I would say that the handful of guys that Corbett fought as it moved to glove era were the exceptions in style terms. The fundementals were still deep seated in the bareknuckle era. Hence Corbett is considered the pioneer. I thinks its fair to say that over the next century countless styles and techniques developed that Corbett would never have faced. Counterpunching, jabbing, fighting on the outside etc were all extremelly uncommon and underdevelped when Corbett fought. By the time Tyson had emerged these were all mainstream styles and techniques that had been practiced and developed over decades and were well established as a result.

I'm not suggesting that Jeffries is anything other than a 20 round fighter because he was not and probably could never be anything other than that but it highlights Corbetts ability to compete with someone holding every conceivable physical advantage. The style of Tyson is what would win it for me not necessarily his added size, to beat Tyson you need to be a boxer puncher with either a stinging jab like Holmes or someone in the style of Foreman.

Goodness me. This was just after Cooney who was obliterated by Spinks. I wonder if anyone has read what Tyson had to say about it.

Atom

Who said that no-body beats prime Tyson? I have said that Ali, Holmes beats him. I see failings in his game. The fact that he shatters Rocky, Charles et al is neither here nor there. I dont show blind support for any fighter.

Foreman Tyson in the early 1970s would have been interesting. But I'd still pick Tyson purely for his speed (Frazier was not as fast) and combination punching. Foreman was slow then and slower in the 1990s.

Doesn't change the fact that Tyson was still scared stiff of Foreman, you can deny it all you want but its there in black and white.

No version of Tyson ever beats the Foreman who destroyed Frazier, the power of the man is too much, i'd never seen a fighter lifted of his feet by a punch before, that happens to Tyson and he simply doesn't get up. He doesn't have the power to deter Foreman nor would he be difficult for him to find, he wants a fighter coming to him and that's exactly what Tyson would do.

The Mighty Atom wrote:He doesn't have the power to deter Foreman.

Tyson we are talking about?

The Mighty Atom wrote:I'm not suggesting that Jeffries is anything other than a 20 round fighter because he was not and probably could never be anything other than that but it highlights Corbetts ability to compete with someone holding every conceivable physical advantage. The style of Tyson is what would win it for me not necessarily his added size, to beat Tyson you need to be a boxer puncher with either a stinging jab like Holmes or someone in the style of Foreman.

I tend to agree. The weight thing isnt the be all and end all but it is significant. Obviously against less skilled heavies Corbett could nullify the weight differences and in this regard Jeffries is probably a good match up for him if you are talking a 12 rounder. I would back him to win that on points.

But against a natural 12 round fighter who naturally outweighs him by 40/50 pounds and is reasonably skillful himself then it does become a significant factor I think.