Am I All Wet?

[TheOneIsHere2008]

I am having one of those infuriating Ali-Tyson debates with someone on another board...

I came up with a list of Ali (Clay) opponents who would have given Tyson trouble and possibly beat him; they are:

Joe Frazier

Ernie Shavers

George Foreman

George Chuvalo

Jerry Quarry

Oscar Bonavena

and Ken Norton (Now I don't think that was a wise choice because Norton's record against power hitters was not stellar)

[Robinson]

I think prime for prime Tyson beats them all.
Frazier versus Tyson would be such a fun fight
to watch.
I think Frazier beats Tyson by a tough decision,
or Tyson wins by TKO late in the fight.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

I think prime for prime Tyson beats them all.
Frazier versus Tyson would be such a fun fight
to watch.
I think Frazier beats Tyson by a tough decision,
or Tyson wins by TKO late in the fight.

I picked Ali's toughest opponents, not so much that they were or weren't tough for him ,but that they were tough men...

And if you believe what you read on the net Tyson was scared of Foreman, even the old, bald version...

If he comes out swinging I think I like even Old George's chances...

[dempseyfire]

I am having one of those infuriating Ali-Tyson debates with someone on another board...

I came up with a list of Ali (Clay) opponents who would have given Tyson trouble and possibly beat him; they are:

Joe Frazier

Ernie Shavers

George Foreman

George Chuvalo

Jerry Quarry

Oscar Bonavena

and Ken Norton (Now I don't think that was a wise choice because Norton's record against power hitters was not stellar)

I like Frazier and Foreman over Iron Mike . . .Quarry is a 50/50 fight.

If scheduled over 15 Chuvalo could pull the upset. Over 12 I like Tyson by UD.

I like Tyson decisioning Bonavena, and knocking out Shavers and Norton (and I don't believe Norton loses to any big power puncher like some like to propagate from mythology, but Tyson is a bad style matchup in any case for Ken)

[Robinson]

I think prime for prime Tyson beats them all.
Frazier versus Tyson would be such a fun fight
to watch.
I think Frazier beats Tyson by a tough decision,
or Tyson wins by TKO late in the fight.

I picked Ali's toughest opponents, not so much that they were or weren't tough for him ,but that they were tough men...

And if you believe what you read on the net Tyson was scared of Foreman, even the old, bald version...

If he comes out swinging I think I like even Old George's chances...

I seldom believe what I read on the net. I mean seriously people online
really get into what fighter is pysched out by this fighter....these are professional
athletes that believe in their own abilities and training. Especially at such a level
as these men.

[Robinson]

Why are you wet ?

[TheOneIsHere2008]

I am having one of those infuriating Ali-Tyson debates with someone on another board...

I came up with a list of Ali (Clay) opponents who would have given Tyson trouble and possibly beat him; they are:

Joe Frazier

Ernie Shavers

George Foreman

George Chuvalo

Jerry Quarry

Oscar Bonavena

and Ken Norton (Now I don't think that was a wise choice because Norton's record against power hitters was not stellar)

I like Frazier and Foreman over Iron Mike . . .Quarry is a 50/50 fight.

If scheduled over 15 Chuvalo could pull the upset. Over 12 I like Tyson by UD.

I like Tyson decisioning Bonavena, and knocking out Shavers and Norton (and I don't believe Norton loses to any big power puncher like some like to propagate from mythology, but Tyson is a bad style matchup in any case for Ken)

Why is Tyson a bad match up?

Norton is a boxer, with a lot of head movement...Tyson is a swarmer...

[Robinson]

I dont know how to classify Norton...I dont know if he
is really a boxer. Tyson is not a swarmer in my opinion.

I think Norton matches up badly against tyson. I see him
getting beaten by KO or TKO.

I dont think Norton's head movement is great, he does at
times have good reflexes at moving his head out of fire...but
not good head movement in the sense of a Tyson or Patterson
etc.

[boxbible]

At his peak, with good head movement, combinations, and conditioning, Tyson would have been VERY hard to beat...

Against Frazier, Tyson's shorter and faster punches would have consistently landed first. And they were hard enough to put a dent in that Philly skull...

Against Shavers, a peak Tyson wouldn't even have been hit. And he would have caught Shavers rather early. The hardest puncher on earth was no defensive genius.

Now, Big George would have presented problems for Tyson. The boobing and weaving worked excellently against straight punchers, but Foreman's clubs and uppercuts would surely have done damage. Plus Foreman could take a helluva shot. But, so could Tyson.... who would be intimidated more... a tossup.

Chuvalo would probably have gone the distance, but would have ended up looking like his face had gone through a meat grinder.

Jerry Quarry would eventually have slugged a defeat away from a boxing jaws of victory. All that talent and zero brain power. But he would most likely have given Tyson absolute hell for half the fight.

Oscar Bonavena... another tough but slow guy... Tyson's huge power, fast hands and accuracy would have been way too much.

Ken Norton would have made another token appearance b4 being blasted into submission inside a round. They probably could have given Tyson the victory as soon as the fight was announced.

But, don't forget Ron Lyle though... this is a another big, tough guy with huge power. Lyle-Tyson would have been a classic. The bully getting bullied. Another toss-up.

A Sonny Liston match would also have been mint. A stare down between these two guys... holy shit!!! Tyson would've had to work very hard to get through Liston's jab and defense. And Sonny could definitely crack hard enough to keep Iron Mike very honest for a long time after the fight. But a well conditioned Tyson, with Rooney in the corner, would have stuck to a good fight plan and emerged with a points victory.

[boxbible]

... people online really get into what fighter is pysched out by this fighter....these are professional athletes that believe in their own abilities and training. Especially at such a level as these men.

These professional athletes, you must remember, are still mortal men. They all have there fears too. And it's not just the psyche of fear. There's the psyche of looking bad and being embarrassed that plays a big hand sometimes. Fighters can lose their fight plan because of it.

And the bully factor was so evident in the Cotto-Margarito fight. The bully got bullied, plain and simple.

Have you already forgotten the two Frank Brunos? The first one was too ignorant of fear and fought gallantly against Iron Mike. The second time, he was so scared, he crossed his arms over a hundred times on the way into the ring and damn near pooped himself from Tyson's first miss.

And remember McCall's atomic meltdown for the second Lewis fight? And it wasn't even because of Lewis. But Duran's macho meltdown was definitely due to Leonard getting in his head.

It's there...

[dempseyfire]

I am having one of those infuriating Ali-Tyson debates with someone on another board...

I came up with a list of Ali (Clay) opponents who would have given Tyson trouble and possibly beat him; they are:

Joe Frazier

Ernie Shavers

George Foreman

George Chuvalo

Jerry Quarry

Oscar Bonavena

and Ken Norton (Now I don't think that was a wise choice because Norton's record against power hitters was not stellar)

I like Frazier and Foreman over Iron Mike . . .Quarry is a 50/50 fight.

If scheduled over 15 Chuvalo could pull the upset. Over 12 I like Tyson by UD.

I like Tyson decisioning Bonavena, and knocking out Shavers and Norton (and I don't believe Norton loses to any big power puncher like some like to propagate from mythology, but Tyson is a bad style matchup in any case for Ken)

Why is Tyson a bad match up?

Norton is a boxer, with a lot of head movement...Tyson is a swarmer...

Norton was a slow starter, Tyson a fast one. Tyson's game was going forward aggresively . . .Norton didn't fight too well on the backfoot.

[Robinson]

... people online really get into what fighter is pysched out by this fighter....these are professional athletes that believe in their own abilities and training. Especially at such a level as these men.

These professional athletes, you must remember, are still mortal men. They all have there fears too. And it's not just the psyche of fear. There's the psyche of looking bad and being embarrassed that plays a big hand sometimes. Fighters can lose their fight plan because of it.

And the bully factor was so evident in the Cotto-Margarito fight. The bully got bullied, plain and simple.

Have you already forgotten the two Frank Brunos? The first one was too ignorant of fear and fought gallantly against Iron Mike. The second time, he was so scared, he crossed his arms over a hundred times on the way into the ring and damn near pooped himself from Tyson's first miss.

And remember McCall's atomic meltdown for the second Lewis fight? And it wasn't even because of Lewis. But Duran's macho meltdown was definitely due to Leonard getting in his head.

It's there...

Some times people dont get scared before a fight, too.
I personally have never been scared or 'physched out',
ive feared letting others down.

I just dont think the pychology works like many here portray
it as.

I do agree that Bruno was scared, that much was clear. He was
still in there and he still fought as best as he was...'scared' or not.

[Poncey]

Frazier and Foreman would beat Tyson, no question. I'm unsure of Shavers. The only reason I might sway towards Shavers is because he had bigger hands. Would be a great fight.

I'd also like to see Lyle v Tyson. That would be awesome for the two rounds it lasts.

[Ezzard]

Shavers and particularly Lyle would be great tests but I see Tyson winning both.

Foreman and Frazier were both better fighters but I'm not sure...

If frazier got beyond the first few rounds I'd imagine he'd then win fairly comfortably with a later stoppage. Foreman could get to Tyson earlier and stop him. Then again it could happen the other way too...

Ali would beat Tyson 7 days a week.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Well, it apperars there is a consensus that the gentlemen I named , with the possible exception of Ken Norton, would give Mike Tyson a competitive fight, as I truly believe.... I also truly believe that Mike's fragile psyche means that any competitive fighter has a chance because Mike didn't like to be hit and especially not hit repeatedly...His reaction was often to fold or foul his opponent...

These gentleman would have a good chance...

[funso banjo baby]

u cannot compare different generations

sorry to give u guys nothing to live for ...but it cant be done


its like fred perry with his wooden racket versus sampras with his graphite fibre reinforced thermoplastic viscoelastic polymer racket.


i just dont see the point

a 5ft 8 lt heavy from 1920 training on beer chopping down a few trees and running up a hill versus a 6ft 6 super heavy training in a nasa style laboratory





cant be done



drop it guys

for the love of god drop it

[dempseyfire]

u cannot compare different generations

sorry to give u guys nothing to live for ...but it cant be done


its like fred perry with his wooden racket versus sampras with his graphite fibre reinforced thermoplastic viscoelastic polymer racket.


i just dont see the point

a 5ft 8 lt heavy from 1920 training on beer chopping down a few trees and running up a hill versus a 6ft 6 super heavy training in a nasa style laboratory





cant be done



drop it guys

for the love of god drop it

I'm glad you've done the historical research to find out that 5'8 light HWs in 1920 trained on beer and chopping a few trees, that was very insightful . . .

The thread is about how 6-6'3 HWs do against a 5'10 fighter who fought a decade later . . .

[funso banjo baby]

u cannot compare different generations

sorry to give u guys nothing to live for ...but it cant be done


its like fred perry with his wooden racket versus sampras with his graphite fibre reinforced thermoplastic viscoelastic polymer racket.


i just dont see the point

a 5ft 8 lt heavy from 1920 training on beer chopping down a few trees and running up a hill versus a 6ft 6 super heavy training in a nasa style laboratory





cant be done



drop it guys

for the love of god drop it

I'm glad you've done the historical research to find out that 5'8 light HWs in 1920 trained on beer and chopping a few trees, that was very insightful . . .

The thread is about how 6-6'3 HWs do against a 5'10 fighter who fought a decade later . . .

u get my general point tho 8)

[Ambling Alp]

I agree with the consensus that Foreman and Frazier would have the best chance. Foreman almost for sure would beat Tyson. The one thing that could really help Tyson against Frazier is that Frazier was usually a slow starter. Tyson could possibly jump on him early. The longer the fight went though, the better Frazier's chances.

Norton is hard to say. It's not hard imagining Tyson blowing him out early. On the other hand, you can also see Norton giving him fits. Norton doesn't neatly fit into the main three descriptions of a fighter (Boxer/slugger/swarmer). He was a little of all 3.

Shavers would have a puncher's chance, but he better do it early.
Hard to imagine the rest (Quarry,Bonavena,and Chuvalo) actually winning. However, they were all extremely tough guys who wouldn't roll over easy.

[boxbible]

u cannot compare different generations
sorry to give u guys nothing to live for ...but it cant be done
its like fred perry with his wooden racket versus sampras with his graphite fibre reinforced thermoplastic viscoelastic polymer racket.
i just dont see the point
a 5ft 8 lt heavy from 1920 training on beer chopping down a few trees and running up a hill versus a 6ft 6 super heavy training in a nasa style laboratory
cant be done
drop it guys
for the love of god drop it

There's a thing called an imagination... some people have it...

[funso banjo baby]

u cannot compare different generations
sorry to give u guys nothing to live for ...but it cant be done
its like fred perry with his wooden racket versus sampras with his graphite fibre reinforced thermoplastic viscoelastic polymer racket.
i just dont see the point
a 5ft 8 lt heavy from 1920 training on beer chopping down a few trees and running up a hill versus a 6ft 6 super heavy training in a nasa style laboratory
cant be done
drop it guys
for the love of god drop it

There's a thing called an imagination... some people have it...

true but then some people on here honestly ask who would win out of , say, gene tunney and lennox lewis.....

if its all about imagination then we might as well have a fantasy section as well.....

evander holyfield versus Batman ?

james toney versus bilbo baggins

[Knucklez]

u cannot compare different generations
sorry to give u guys nothing to live for ...but it cant be done
its like fred perry with his wooden racket versus sampras with his graphite fibre reinforced thermoplastic viscoelastic polymer racket.
i just dont see the point
a 5ft 8 lt heavy from 1920 training on beer chopping down a few trees and running up a hill versus a 6ft 6 super heavy training in a nasa style laboratory
cant be done
drop it guys
for the love of god drop it

There's a thing called an imagination... some people have it...

true but then some people on here honestly ask who would win out of , say, gene tunney and lennox lewis.....

if its all about imagination then we might as well have a fantasy section as well.....

evander holyfield versus Batman ?

james toney versus bilbo baggins

1) You've used tennis rackets as a point of comparison. What amazing enhancements to boxing equipment are that they you can think of?
2) Are you suggesting that modern heavies are fitter than heavies of yesteryear? If so, and I hate to say this, but you clearly know nothing about the sport.
3) James Toney and Gene Tunney spent the bulk of their careers at lower weights so are not valid examples
4) Lennox is one of a very very small group of good "super" heavies (and I'll include Riddick Bowe in that, who was good for 1 or 2 fights). Most super heavies are shit, like the current crop.

[dempseyfire]

u cannot compare different generations
sorry to give u guys nothing to live for ...but it cant be done
its like fred perry with his wooden racket versus sampras with his graphite fibre reinforced thermoplastic viscoelastic polymer racket.
i just dont see the point
a 5ft 8 lt heavy from 1920 training on beer chopping down a few trees and running up a hill versus a 6ft 6 super heavy training in a nasa style laboratory
cant be done
drop it guys
for the love of god drop it

There's a thing called an imagination... some people have it...

true but then some people on here honestly ask who would win out of , say, gene tunney and lennox lewis.....

if its all about imagination then we might as well have a fantasy section as well.....

evander holyfield versus Batman ?

james toney versus bilbo baggins

1) You've used tennis rackets as a point of comparison. What amazing enhancements to boxing equipment are that they you can think of?
2) Are you suggesting that modern heavies are fitter than heavies of yesteryear? If so, and I hate to say this, but you clearly know nothing about the sport.
3) James Toney and Gene Tunney spent the bulk of their careers at lower weights so are not valid examples
4) Lennox is one of a very very small group of good "super" heavies (and I'll include Riddick Bowe in that, who was good for 1 or 2 fights). Most super heavies are shit, like the current crop.[/quote]

I would say Lewis is the only true 'super' Heavyweight one could argue was a great fighter (and I'm one who doesn't think Lewis would've touched the HW championship in the 60s or 70s). Bowe was great for one fight vs an opponent who matched up perfectly with him style-wise.

[raylawpc]

There was quite a bit of different in equipment between fighters circa 1890-1910 and today:

1. No mouthpieces.
2. Handwrapping was in its infancy, with no regulations. Some, like Jeffries, didn't wrap their hands; others, like Kid McCoy, used gauze covered with hard electrician's tape.
3. Gloves ranged anywhere from skin tight to five ounces - the later required in NY under the Horton Law. (Those guys sparred in 8 ounce gloves). The gloves were primitively made out of leather, horsehair and cloth. No form rubber, etc.
4. Many important fights were held in eight post rings. "Postless" rings (i.e. four posts with ropes suspended by turnbuckles) were rare. Sullivan and Corbett fought on turf, in an eight post ring, and both wore cleets!
5. The cup was little more than a tin thing you wore under your shorts to protect your penis and testicles.

[Robinson]

Penis