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

The Lewis fight happened some ten years later after he'd paid him step aside money in the early 90's.

Foreman did Cooney in 2 rounds but again your missing the point, fighting Spinks doesn't prove in any way that Tyson didn't fear Foreman, his actions of paying him suggest he was scared. It was the biggest fight to be made and King was anxious to get it done as he saw it as low risk but Tyson saw it differently hence the outburst.

Took the fight cos he wasn't scared of Lewis?

Anyone who finds Lewis more scary than Foreman is a fool methinks. Lewis had a jab and some power. Foreman's power was terrifying.

No logic in emotion, either.

Tyson's fear of Foreman and his style went back a very long way, too.

The Mighty Atom wrote:The Lewis fight happened some ten years later after he'd paid him step aside money in the early 90's.

Foreman did Cooney in 2 rounds but again your missing the point, fighting Spinks doesn't prove in any way that Tyson didn't fear Foreman, his actions of paying him suggest he was scared. It was the biggest fight to be made and King was anxious to get it done as he saw it as low risk but Tyson saw it differently hence the outburst.

10 years later when Tyson knew he would lose - he still fought regardless of fear.

2 rounds or 4 Cooney got Ko'd by an old man and a jumped up LH.

The biggest fights to be made were Douglas vs Tyson 2 or Tyson vs Holyfield not Tyson vs Foreman.

I thought we were talking about Tyson fearing Foreman, him facing this guy or that guy doesn't change the fact he's been quoted as saying he wouldn't fight an animal like Foreman, never said anything like that about anyone else.

No the biggest fight to be made was Tyson vs Foreman money wise, hell big George was so popular on his return his fight with Cooney was made PPV.

oxring wrote:Took the fight cos he wasn't scared of Lewis?

Anyone who finds Lewis more scary than Foreman is a fool methinks. Lewis had a jab and some power. Foreman's power was terrifying.

Old George was more terrifying than a Prime, Lennox? How do you work that out?

Lennox laughed at the possibility of fighting George by saying it wouldn't last a round and Foreman never pushed for a fight with Lennox.

Is someone now gonna claim Lennox paid off George cos he was scared? Get outta here.

The Mighty Atom wrote:I thought we were talking about Tyson fearing Foreman, him facing this guy or that guy doesn't change the fact he's been quoted as saying he wouldn't fight an animal like Foreman, never said anything like that about anyone else.

No the biggest fight to be made was Tyson vs Foreman money wise, hell big George was so popular on his return his fight with Cooney was made PPV.

What are we keeping the boundries of the debate on your rules?
To rule out who they were fighting at the time seems a mute point.

Audley vs haye was PPV - enuff said.

WelshDevilRob wrote:

oxring wrote:Took the fight cos he wasn't scared of Lewis?

Anyone who finds Lewis more scary than Foreman is a fool methinks. Lewis had a jab and some power. Foreman's power was terrifying.

Old George was more terrifying than a Prime, Lennox? How do you work that out?

Lennox laughed at the possibility of fighting George by saying it wouldn't last a round and Foreman never pushed for a fight with Lennox.

Is someone now gonna claim Lennox paid off George cos he was scared? Get outta here.

Well, it doesn't matter what WE think, it's what TYSON thought.

Tyson probably always felt that his being the swarmer and Lennox being the boxer, ( and with a questionable chin, ) he had the tools to take Lennox. Historically, swarmers come unstuck against sluggers and heavyweight sluggers didn't come much better than Foreman.

HumanWindmill wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

oxring wrote:Took the fight cos he wasn't scared of Lewis?

Anyone who finds Lewis more scary than Foreman is a fool methinks. Lewis had a jab and some power. Foreman's power was terrifying.

Old George was more terrifying than a Prime, Lennox? How do you work that out?

Lennox laughed at the possibility of fighting George by saying it wouldn't last a round and Foreman never pushed for a fight with Lennox.

Is someone now gonna claim Lennox paid off George cos he was scared? Get outta here.

Well, it doesn't matter what WE think, it's what TYSON thought.

Tyson probably always felt that his being the swarmer and Lennox being the boxer, ( and with a questionable chin, ) he had the tools to take Lennox. Historically, swarmers come unstuck against sluggers and heavyweight sluggers didn't come much better than Foreman.

Can't see it sorry, Windy.

The old guy with a beer belly to rival mine or a slightly faded dominant Lennox.

Could historically be that the younger brawler beats the old. Did Tyson not want the fight - seems possible but he would have swarmed all over the slow George.

WelshDevilRob wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

oxring wrote:Took the fight cos he wasn't scared of Lewis?

Anyone who finds Lewis more scary than Foreman is a fool methinks. Lewis had a jab and some power. Foreman's power was terrifying.

Old George was more terrifying than a Prime, Lennox? How do you work that out?

Lennox laughed at the possibility of fighting George by saying it wouldn't last a round and Foreman never pushed for a fight with Lennox.

Is someone now gonna claim Lennox paid off George cos he was scared? Get outta here.

Well, it doesn't matter what WE think, it's what TYSON thought.

Tyson probably always felt that his being the swarmer and Lennox being the boxer, ( and with a questionable chin, ) he had the tools to take Lennox. Historically, swarmers come unstuck against sluggers and heavyweight sluggers didn't come much better than Foreman.

Can't see it sorry, Windy.

The old guy with a beer belly to rival mine or a slightly faded dominant Lennox.

Could historically be that the younger brawler beats the old. Did Tyson not want the fight - seems possible but he would have swarmed all over the slow George.

Don't get me wrong, Rob. I don't see the LOGIC of it, either, but I do regard those sources as being very reliable - ESPECIALLY the author - so I have to believe that, whatever the reason, he wanted no part of George.

Your not very bright are you Rob?

Tyson WAS scared of Foreman whether you like to admit it or not, this has nothing to do with Lewis, Haye, Spinks or anyone else it's purely about Tyson and Foreman, to ignore that point is plain stupidity.

Lewis never paid Foreman off so fail to see the point your trying to make nor was he a viable opponent at any time whereas King pushed for Tyson to fight Foreman, any idea why that fight didnt happen?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Your not very bright are you Rob?

Tyson WAS scared of Foreman whether you like to admit it or not, this has nothing to do with Lewis, Haye, Spinks or anyone else it's purely about Tyson and Foreman, to ignore that point is plain stupidity.

Lewis never paid Foreman off so fail to see the point your trying to make nor was he a viable opponent at any time whereas King pushed for Tyson to fight Foreman, any idea why that fight didnt happen?

Not very bright? Why the need to throw insults around when someone doesn't see your point of view. I haven't insulted you.
I write for Boxrec, BoxingTribune and ringnews24. I own two Boxing websites - not bad for someone who isn't bright.

I post on every boxing forum around and I have to class you in the 'fanboy' range, the deluded type. While you could well be right on this subject you only see your own view as correct - plenty of idiots like yourself on many forums.

Your still adamant of a quote despite you not being there at the time and tbh if you were I'd treat it as Poopie.

Oh very well done, such an insightful response for someone who websites, when you right for an actual magazine please get back to me.

I'm no fanboy but for someone who's a boxing writer your knowledge isn't all that or was it a lie to try and make you feel better?

Then the insults come out and you show yourself up, just one little comment and I can make it happen just like that, very well done brain of britain.

I'm a profressional journalist so writing for a website doesn't impress too much plus anyone can write articles for those sites, so better luck next time.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Oh very well done, such an insightful response for someone who websites, when you right for an actual magazine please get back to me.

I'm no fanboy but for someone who's a boxing writer your knowledge isn't all that or was it a lie to try and make you feel better?

Then the insults come out and you show yourself up, just one little comment and I can make it happen just like that, very well done brain of britain.

I'm a profressional journalist so writing for a website doesn't impress too much plus anyone can write articles for those sites, so better luck next time.

Well of course you get a reply, I am too long in the tooth on forums not to give one, though they do say "Don't feed the troll".

I have bumped heads with alot greater than your poor efforts. Pro journalist you are but boxing knowledgeable you ain't cos you would have known who Boxrec is run by.

I don't mean to impress but I will not be bowled over by your views - I have my own.

My poor efforts at what conveying the facts or rubbishing your inconsequential views?

I only really care about boxing, who owns what makes no difference to me and Boxrec itself is fairly inaccurate but having people like you writing for it I can't begin to imagine why. For instance which world record is wrong on their? Put it this way mate I could probably dance around you as far as boxing knowledge is concerned from what i've seen you post thus far.

The Mighty Atom wrote:My poor efforts at what conveying the facts or rubbishing your inconsequential views?

I only really care about boxing, who owns what makes no difference to me and Boxrec itself is fairly inaccurate but having people like you writing for it I can't begin to imagine why. For instance which world record is wrong on their? Put it this way mate I could probably dance around you as far as boxing knowledge is concerned from what i've seen you post thus far.

Boxing knowledge, I highly doubt. Being subjective then No.

But anyway, I intervened in your public hanging of Azania so I did my job.

Which paper do you write for?

Put it this way you've shown no shred of boxing knowledge thus far, you didn't even know the circumstances behind the early 90's heavyweight division so some writer you must be.

Intervened doubtful, all you did was show yourself up pretty damn quickly

The magazine I write for isn't important unlike you I don't feel the need to try and boast on a boxing forum

The Mighty Atom wrote:Put it this way you've shown no shred of boxing knowledge thus far, you didn't even know the circumstances behind the early 90's heavyweight division so some writer you must be.

Intervened doubtful, all you did was show yourself up pretty damn quickly

The magazine I write for isn't important unlike you I don't feel the need to try and boast on a boxing forum

No knowledge, well over the coming months I shall prove that wrong. Make sure what you post is accurate cos you are now a big fish out of a little pond and i am the shark. Good Luck.

I eagerly await a sparkling article outlining the relative merits of each member of the black murderers row, shouldn't take too long to write for such an aficiando like yourself?

Calm down please lads.

Right rob going back to the facts.

YES - we agree - why be afraid of an old fat Foreman compared with a prime Lewis.

Tyson called Lewis out. No-one has ever said he feared him.

Read the article, remember he paid George off.

As such - to echo Windy - the logic of it DOESN'T matter - what Tyson thought mattered.

If you want a source re: paying George off - it is definitely in "becoming Holyfield". I'm pretty sure its elsewhere if you care to look (revising for primary care exams so don't have time to chase where else I found it).

Chatted with my mate Billy C - who hosts his own boxing radio show in New York and he said that from what he recalls it was Foreman that wanted no part of Tyson. Also, he doesn't take Benton's comments seriously as Benton was involved with Foreman.

Anyway, my last comments on this matter are that I believe Tyson would have won if they had met (90's). I don't believe Tyson could beat a 'Prime' George. (70's version)

Interesting. Benton was Foreman's man/ And he is making claims about what Tyson allegedly said. No bias there. Move along.

Should read the article and realise the naiveity of that comment, it's not based on one mans view but rather a collective. Also strange that their are no articles of anyone other than 'your' friend that say it was Foreman who avoided Tyson, not accussing you of making things up of course, it was also not Benton who that quote is attributed to.

I read the article again. It actually made me laugh that so many actually believe what was written. It is beyond a joke to be honest. All these claims are from Foreman's men. Even his brother. For heaven's sake, can anyone take whatever Arum says seriously? The man is a self admitted liar. Moreover the author cant even remember when the interview happened. I wonder how many Jack Daniels and Lond Island Ice Teas they all shared.

As for Goodman. He is Don King's man. Did this interview take place during the period that Tyson was suing King for $100m? It is a nonsense. Beyond nonsense. The author claims many things from many people. Who on earth cant do that? Boxing is corrupt. More so than any other sport imo. Lies are told as often as breathing. This is one of them.

Would a respected journo write something like this without displaying any bias?

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

.

No if is not a fact. It is his opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. I seriously question the amount of spin. It is worse than anything D4 could ever dream of writing.

Sorry lads (azania and Welshdevilrob) - the evidence stands.

Saying "my mate said" that Foreman was afraid of Tyson" doesn't come close to cutting the mustard.

If you want to rebut the evidence - produce something substantial in reply.

I ask again, WelshDevilRob - why did Tyson pay Foreman not to talk about fighting him?

oxring wrote:Sorry lads (azania and Welshdevilrob) - the evidence stands.

Saying "my mate said" that Foreman was afraid of Tyson" doesn't come close to cutting the mustard.

If you want to rebut the evidence - produce something substantial in reply.

I ask again, WelshDevilRob - why did Tyson pay Foreman not to talk about fighting him?

It isn't evidence. Its pure conjecture and hearsay. Would you buy a car from any of those guys? Heck in a thunderstorm if they told me it was raining, I'd go check myself. And bringing George's brother into the convo...please!

Can I see evidence of Tyson paying George step aside money. Was a contract drawn up for them to fight? Was Tyson the champ? Link please and preferably from a neutral source and not some trumped up journo with an axe to grind...obviously.

Goodman had absolutely no ties to Foreman at all, he was Kings matchmaker so would be in a better position than anyone to know the details and Tyson sued King in 1998 so once again guys I commend you on such brilliant knowledge of facts.

If it had no basis why is it so widely accepted?

You may gather I'm getting frustrated by this refusal to face facts, which is more despicable than anything D4 has ever done. You have before you, a set of evidence about the mindset of young mike Tyson and you have refused to believe a word because we can't find it reported by a vicar, a rabbi, a judge and a scientist.

From Atlas, who trained him at his youngest, through to Benton.

Benton is not believable because he was "Foreman's man".
http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/George_Benton

Here's Benton. Foreman isn't under his list of proteges.

Bobby Goodman was working for Don King AT THE time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Goodman

The article has never been retracted or served a warning - even though it is on the most respected boxing news website around.

Furthermore, the claims are repeated in becoming Holyfield. No warning or retractions served.

And neither King, nor Tyson have ever been shy about litigating.

Tyson didn't face many huge punchers.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Goodman had absolutely no ties to Foreman at all, he was Kings matchmaker so would be in a better position than anyone to know the details and Tyson sued King in 1998 so once again guys I commend you on such brilliant knowledge of facts.

If it had no basis why is it so widely accepted?

Yes I know Goodman was DK's man. I said so in my post.

So why the need to bring up a court case that happened 7 years later?

oxring wrote:You may gather I'm getting frustrated by this refusal to face facts, which is more despicable than anything D4 has ever done. You have before you, a set of evidence about the mindset of young mike Tyson and you have refused to believe a word because we can't find it reported by a vicar, a rabbi, a judge and a scientist.

From Atlas, who trained him at his youngest, through to Benton.

Benton is not believable because he was "Foreman's man".
http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/George_Benton

Here's Benton. Foreman isn't under his list of proteges.

Bobby Goodman was working for Don King AT THE time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Goodman

The article has never been retracted or served a warning - even though it is on the most respected boxing news website around.

Furthermore, the claims are repeated in becoming Holyfield. No warning or retractions served.

And neither King, nor Tyson have ever been shy about litigating.

Tyson didn't face many huge punchers.

Opinions are never facts. They remain opinions

Atlas has an axe to grind against Tyson (rightfully) Hardly impartial also. Atlas is also on record in saying that Pac is on roids or has seen an email stating as much. This guy seems the type to say anything to make headlines. That comment has never been retracted or Atlas sued.

It is simply ridiculous beyond belief that Tyson would be scared of GF and then take on a far more dangerous boxer in Rodduck who was a huge puncher. Bruno was a huge puncher and so was Smith.

The Mighty Atom wrote:So why the need to bring up a court case that happened 7 years later?

Who says there is a need?

Its in becoming Holyfield. I nkow that.

Maybe if you read some boxing books and history azania, you'd be more au fait with the facts.

The following quote says it all really. You'd rather believe a lot of people are lying than face something against your worldview involving Tyson.

"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."

Fact is mate your just a wind up merchant, you never add anything insightful to a debate, your knowledge is fairly atrocious on anything you do try and discuss and above you dismiss anything you disagree with to a rather pathetic extent.

Saying something is nonsense doesn't prove a thing, if you could come up with a counter argument that would be different but as things stand you seem encapable of doing so.

oxring wrote:Its in becoming Holyfield. I nkow that.

Maybe if you read some boxing books and history azania, you'd be more au fait with the facts.

The following quote says it all really. You'd rather believe a lot of people are lying than face something against your worldview involving Tyson.

"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."

I do not put Tyson on some sort of pedestal. Read my views on him as a fighter. I have said that Holmes (peak) and Ali would take care of him. But to suggest he was running scared of an old, slow, poncerous GF, but take on a far more dangerous fighter in his next fight is a nonsense. It doesn't add up and therefore I smell a rat. Boxing is full of hyperbole from all directions. This is one.

Can you provide any evidence that he wasn't scared?
We've provided what most acknowledge to be evidence, you on the otherhand have simply stated an opinion?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Can you provide any evidence that he wasn't scared?
We've provided what most acknowledge to be evidence, you on the otherhand have simply stated an opinion?

That article is not evidence of anything. Its hearsay. The fact that Tyson took on a far more dangerous fighter after the GF fight was mooted is evidence enough.

It's from a well respected journalist, what can you come up with in return?
Facing someone you deem to be more dangerous is not an indication of what Tyson himself thought.

The Mighty Atom wrote:It's from a well respected journalist, what can you come up with in return?
Facing someone you deem to be more dangerous is not an indication of what Tyson himself thought.

A respected journo would never say something like this:

It is absolutely a fact that Mike Tyson was afraid to fight 41-year-old George Foreman

That's opinion passed as fact. Does he work for BBC of NewsCorp now?

You should read up on him and you may realise he's regarded as one of the leading boxing journalists but if that doesn't fit into your view shall we ignore it?

Also i'm still waiting for evidence of any sort of evidence that Tyson wasn't scared because facing Tillman instead proves nothing

The Mighty Atom wrote:You should read up on him and you may realise he's regarded as one of the leading boxing journalists but if that doesn't fit into your view shall we ignore it?

Also i'm still waiting for evidence of any sort of evidence that Tyson wasn't scared because facing Tillman instead proves nothing

I know of him and like what he has written. But would a respected journo pass opinion as fact? No. In this instance he was very wrong.

Tillman would have beaten GF. Heck if a very average Alex Steward could run him close and Shulz beat him in everyone but the judges eyes, what was there for Tyson to be scared of. The fact remains that Tyson took on a far more dangerous fighter than George when he faced Ruddock.

You mean Tillman who had previously lost to Bert Cooper, someone Foreman had just taken apart in 2 rounds?
Also it's not a fact that Ruddock was more dangerous it is your opinion and one I disagree with, Foreman was many things but he always had the great equalizer of power.
Heck if Buster Douglas could beat Tyson then Foreman could, using future fights that hadn't happened at the time don't classify as any sort of evidence.

The Mighty Atom wrote:You mean Tillman who had previously lost to Bert Cooper, someone Foreman had just taken apart in 2 rounds?
Also it's not a fact that Ruddock was more dangerous it is your opinion and one I disagree with, Foreman was many things but he always had the great equalizer of power.
Heck if Buster Douglas could beat Tyson then Foreman could, using future fights that hadn't happened at the time don't classify as any sort of evidence.

Yes, the very same one. As you know, styles make fights. Foreman even at his peak had issues with boxers who moved and had a decent jab. The lter version lost to Morrison who moved and Shulz who was robbed.

Of course you would disagree with me. It wouldn't be the same otherwise. But I doubt if you are being serious if you think GF was more dangerous that Ruddock.

What had Ruddock done to be seen as a dangerous opponent, purely known for losing to Tyson and Lewis nothing more nothing less. Foreman went on to beat Moorer and should have got the nod over Briggs. What someone goes on to do isn't really relevant when talking about a specific time in 1990 is it.

I do believe Foreman to have been more dangerous than Ruddock and was considered to be so at the time

The Mighty Atom wrote:What had Ruddock done to be seen as a dangerous opponent, purely known for losing to Tyson and Lewis nothing more nothing less. Foreman went on to beat Moorer and should have got the nod over Briggs. What someone goes on to do isn't really relevant when talking about a specific time in 1990 is it.

I do believe Foreman to have been more dangerous than Ruddock and was considered to be so at the time

If you dont know how dangerous Ruddock was considered at the time, then its pointless talking about him. YOu are letting issues cloud your objectivity.

With the exception of Moorer, who by all accounts was chinny and not the best champ, what did GF do that merits such exhaulted status? He lost his big fights ad ran miles from Holmes.

If you can't understand the merits of Foreman then you really are clueless and there's nothing to suggest Foreman ran from Holmes, it's a myth that was started by Holmes himself in order to try and elevate his status.

The Mighty Atom wrote:If you can't understand the merits of Foreman then you really are clueless and there's nothing to suggest Foreman ran from Holmes, it's a myth that was started by Holmes himself in order to try and elevate his status.

ok. I'm clueless and you're clued up.

I just wonder why you have this penchant for slow moving, plodding big unching heavyweights.

The bottom line is that GF lost to everyone he fought who had a semi decent jab. One of his victories was daylight robbery. He went life and death with Alex Stewart who was blown away in a round by Tyson. And Tyson is supposed to be scared of this version of Foreman? Yeah right. Give me a break.

You can't provide any evidence on the contrary so you quite simply are clueless

Foreman while at his peak was beaten by Ali and beat Frazier, Norton and Chuvalo disregarding his comeback the wins he held are more than enough to see rated higher than Tyson or Holmes neither of whom have any top class wins.

You seem to be confusing different periods of time, we're talking about 1990 here so anything that occurs after isn't relevant to the regard that Tyson held Foreman, you can wriggle this way and that but doesn't change that fact.