Tyson vs the great heavyweights before Sonny Liston

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 05 Dec 2006, 12:40

Decagon wrote:Yeah, Jeffries was slow, but he ran the 100 yard in under 11 seconds. Let's see Mike Tyson run from endzone to endzone in under 11 seconds.

He wasnt slow though, try reading something about him, you're always spouting off your negative opinions and showing how little you know what your talking about!...

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 05 Dec 2006, 13:40

silkov wrote:
Decagon wrote:Yeah, Jeffries was slow, but he ran the 100 yard in under 11 seconds. Let's see Mike Tyson run from endzone to endzone in under 11 seconds.
He wasnt slow though, try reading something about him, you're always spouting off your negative opinions and showing how little you know what your talking about!...

Wasn't Dec just being sarcastic?

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 05 Dec 2006, 14:30

The Great John L wrote:
silkov wrote:
Decagon wrote:Yeah, Jeffries was slow, but he ran the 100 yard in under 11 seconds. Let's see Mike Tyson run from endzone to endzone in under 11 seconds.
He wasnt slow though, try reading something about him, you're always spouting off your negative opinions and showing how little you know what your talking about!...
Wasn't Dec just being sarcastic?

I doubt it... Decs mindset doesnt allow for humour...

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 05 Dec 2006, 16:44

silkov wrote: I doubt it... Decs mindset doesnt allow for humour...

True, but it does allow for sarcasm

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 05 Dec 2006, 18:46

The question is why we do not give where CREDIT is due. Buster Douglas fought a magnificent fight against Tyson. He was terrific all around, including that he outgutted a big puncher like Mike. In my opinion, Buster, with that type of performance, would have beaten any great heavy of the past. why not???

Tyson, is not Tony Galento nor James Braddock. This man was too big and chiseled, no fat in his body. And who said that he did not had heart? C'mon please, that is like saying that Ali did not had a good punch.

I or maybe you all will never see something like Mike Tyson never again. He in the 80s, before Don King and before he fired Rooney, was awesome, and probably was not at his total peak yet. That was the most scary of all. What if things would have been with Rooney still in his corner? Right now, maybe we would have called him the greatest fighter that ever lived.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 05 Dec 2006, 20:10

elmersalsa wrote:The question is why we do not give where CREDIT is due. Buster Douglas fought a magnificent fight against Tyson. He was terrific all around, including that he outgutted a big puncher like Mike. In my opinion, Buster, with that type of performance, would have beaten any great heavy of the past. why not???

"Why not??", you ask...OK...since you asked...

You are a Tyson fanatic...don't be in denial about...You are a Tyson fanatic...

Being a Tyson fanatic is just fine, of course...but you can't expect the rest of the world to agree with you...only other Tyson fanatics are going to agree with you...

Douglas isn't going to beat a Joe Louis or Ali or Holmes just because he upset Tyson...the guy lost his very next fight by early KO!

Tyson wasn't the greatest thing since sliced bread just because he is, as you say, "chiseled"...looks don't win fights

Tyson was good for a couple years '87 to '89...Douglas was good for a few months in '90...until Holyfield dismantled him in 4 rounds...

Tyson and Douglas don't have very good resumes compared to the guys you seem to think they'd beat...

...stick to the Duran threads...a lot more credibility there...Duran was a winner, Tyson was a loser, Douglas was a one fight wonder...

MEISINGER · Post by **MEISINGER** » 05 Dec 2006, 20:17

ok i will admit that the buster douglas that beat tyson was incredible.
i will admit begrudgingly that tyson in his prime was something special.
i will even agree that fighters of today are genetically improved,bigger
stronger,faster.

but,louis-johnson-jeffries-marciano were all time greats that could and would compete and defeat iron mike.
mike did have tons of talent but lacked discipline and heart
making these genetic advantages moot.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 06 Dec 2006, 05:54

MEISINGER wrote:ok i will admit that the buster douglas that beat tyson was incredible.
i will admit begrudgingly that tyson in his prime was something special.
i will even agree that fighters of today are genetically improved,bigger
stronger,faster.

but,louis-johnson-jeffries-marciano were all time greats that could and would compete and defeat iron mike.
mike did have tons of talent but lacked discipline and heart
making these genetic advantages moot.

I'm not sure you can make a case for genetic advantages. My guess would be that our genetic code hasn't changed that much in over a 1000 years, yet alone 100.

JC · Post by JC » 06 Dec 2006, 09:31

Yes there seems to be a common misunderstanding of what is caused by genetics and what is cased by improvements in neutrition and general public health. The fact is if you don't get enough food in childhood your growth rate can slow down or stop all together, which is one reason why people in times gone by were smaller, the evidence of which can be seen in their bones.

Back in the middle ages when the average height was considerably lower than it is now, several of the kings of England were well over six foot tall partly due to the fact they had access to the same amounts of calories as we do today. It's the same reason that the age a which girls reach puberty has been found to be steadly dropping because it generally happens once they reach a certain weight, which they do much faser now because of modern diets.

It's all speculation of course, but if you read up on Jack Johnson's early life it seems very likely his growth rate would have slowed due to periods with extreme lack of food. He grew to be tall for the times he was living in I think around 6' 2'', if he lived now he might be in the 6' 5'' 6' 6'' bracket.

Sorry I know this is all a bit off topic but alot of people seem to assume people are taller and bigger now because the human race has evolved in the past 100 years.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 06 Dec 2006, 10:28

Tyson was a great puncher, but not a 'great' fighter or champion, he was too flawed... it also needs pointing out that Tyson came around just when the best fighters of the 80s were on the slide and the division was drying up talent wise... had he emerged in the mid-70s or even round about 1980... its doubtful that he'd have even won the title at all... Tyson has a chance against some of the greats because of his power but his flaws would count against him mostly and he would never have been the greatest of them all because of his mental and physical limitations...

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 06 Dec 2006, 10:36

silkov wrote:Tyson was a great puncher, but not a 'great' fighter or champion, he was too flawed... it also needs pointing out that Tyson came around just when the best fighters of the 80s were on the slide and the division was drying up talent wise... had he emerged in the mid-70s or even round about 1980... its doubtful that he'd have even won the title at all... Tyson has a chance against some of the greats because of his power but his flaws would count against him mostly and he would never have been the greatest of them all because of his mental and physical limitations...

I generally agree with your comments, except the one about him not being able to win a title around 1980. You’re probably thinking that he wouldn’t have been able to beat the 1980 Holmes, which I agree with, but remember that John Tate and Mike Weaver were also HW title holders in 1980, and I’d take Tyson over either one of them. The mid 70’s would been tough for Tyson, as he would have had to have beaten not just Ali and Foreman, but Young, Lyle, Shavers, Quarry, Norton, etc. Of course, in Tyson’s defense, just about any HW in history would have had a tough time then. Remember Foreman got mugged twice during that time.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 06 Dec 2006, 18:47

The Great John L wrote: I generally agree with your comments, except the one about him not being able to win a title around 1980. You’re probably thinking that he wouldn’t have been able to beat the 1980 Holmes, which I agree with, but remember that John Tate and Mike Weaver were also HW title holders in 1980, and I’d take Tyson over either one of them.

I think Weaver would hang in there and make it a battle...he managed to battle everyone else during that period...and if you can survive Tyson for 5 rounds...the tide can start to turn...

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 06 Dec 2006, 21:16

Sweet Scientist wrote:
The Great John L wrote: I generally agree with your comments, except the one about him not being able to win a title around 1980. You’re probably thinking that he wouldn’t have been able to beat the 1980 Holmes, which I agree with, but remember that John Tate and Mike Weaver were also HW title holders in 1980, and I’d take Tyson over either one of them.
I think Weaver would hang in there and make it a battle...he managed to battle everyone else during that period...and if you can survive Tyson for 5 rounds...the tide can start to turn...

If Weaver could get through the first two rounds I can see him stopping Tyson late.... I think a peak Dokes, Page and Witherspoon would all be tough fights for Tyson...

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 07 Dec 2006, 08:28

silkov wrote:If Weaver could get through the first two rounds I can see him stopping Tyson late.... I think a peak Dokes, Page and Witherspoon would all be tough fights for Tyson...

Weaver was a slow starter and didn’t have the most reliable chin either, so I have a hard time envisioning him beating a peak Tyson. I think the pre-Weaver version of Tate might have been a tough fight for Tyson. Tate was a very good offensive fighter with the size and strength to trouble Tyson. He completely outfought a very talented Weaver for 12 rounds and was way ahead when he was stopped in the 15th. I think that version of Tate might have been able to trouble Tyson. If he didn’t get hit.

I agree completely with Spoon and Page being very difficult for Tyson, but I think Dokes was too prone to forget his jab and movement. Despite the fact that he wasn’t a very hard puncher, he seemed to love to get in the trenches, rather than use his natural speed. Another wasted talent.

Does anyone remember Dokes’ fight on ABC with Stephenson? Dokes was actually the LH national champ, but he fought Stephenson in a US-Cuba card. Dokes was outweighed by at least 30 pounds, but stood in against the great Cuban. He landed a lot of punches, but ended up getting dropped a few times and stopped. Too bad he liked the nigh life, because I think he could have left a pretty significant mark if he had been focused on boxing rather than partying.

Bob Mauritz · Post by **Bob Mauritz** » 10 Dec 2006, 21:49

There are two distinctly different Mike Tysons. The Mike Tyson before Buster Douglass ( or perhaps before Cus Damato died) could have beat most of the Heavyweights before Liston except probably Joe Louis, Marciano and maybe a couple more.
The later Mike Tyson could not have beat any one of them, period end of discussion.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Dec 2006, 22:01

silkov wrote:
Sweet Scientist wrote:
The Great John L wrote: I generally agree with your comments, except the one about him not being able to win a title around 1980. You’re probably thinking that he wouldn’t have been able to beat the 1980 Holmes, which I agree with, but remember that John Tate and Mike Weaver were also HW title holders in 1980, and I’d take Tyson over either one of them.
I think Weaver would hang in there and make it a battle...he managed to battle everyone else during that period...and if you can survive Tyson for 5 rounds...the tide can start to turn...
.... I think a peak Dokes, Page and Witherspoon would all be tough fights for Tyson...

i believe you are simply naming these guys to cover for the fact tyson was much more impressive vs the top 1980s guys than larry holmes was

Dokes and Page would have been tough fights for holmes, in fact holmes blantantly ducked greg page in 1983. gave up his title rather than fight page.

witherspoon fought holmes to a dead even fight and there was no rematch

fact is look at what tyson did to some of the top 1980s heavyweights

TKO 2 tony tubbs
TKO 6 pinklon thomas
TKO 1 carl williams
TKO 5 frank bruno
KO 1 michael spinx
TKO 4 old larry holmes
TKO 2 trevor Berbick
Wideunanimous decisions over bonecrusher and tucker

if page, weaver, witherspoon, dokes fought tyson.......they would end up just like thomas, tubbs, berbick did.

you can add

TKO 5 page
KO 3 witherspoon
KO 2 weaver

to tyson resume

If Weaver could get through the first two rounds I can see him stopping Tyson late

weaver didnt have the chin, and tyson at his peak could take it to weaver all night long if he had too.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Dec 2006, 22:05

also needs pointing out that Tyson came around just when the best fighters of the 80s were on the slide and the division was drying up talent wise...

disagree,

most of the top 1980s fighters in 1986-87 were still young and in there primes.

in 1986-87......

these guys were all under 30 years of age

pinklon thomas
tony tubbs
carl williams
michael spinx
tony tucker
frank bruno
greg page
tim witherspoon
michael dokes
donovan razor ruddock

the few top guys that were over 30 like bonecrusher and berbick, were late bloomers who matured and were at there fighting peaks in 1986-87

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Dec 2006, 22:07

had he emerged in the mid-70s or even round about 1980... its doubtful that he'd have even won the title at all.

ya i mean theres no way mike tyson could have beat heavyweight champions like leon spinks, ken norton, big john tate

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 10 Dec 2006, 22:48

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
also needs pointing out that Tyson came around just when the best fighters of the 80s were on the slide and the division was drying up talent wise...

disagree,

most of the top 1980s fighters in 1986-87 were still young and in there primes.

in 1986-87......

these guys were all under 30 years of age

pinklon thomas
tony tubbs
carl williams
michael spinx
tony tucker
frank bruno
greg page
tim witherspoon
michael dokes
donovan razor ruddock

the few top guys that were over 30 like bonecrusher and berbick, were late bloomers who matured and were at there fighting peaks in 1986-87

yawn, same shit, different day. I suppose those stories about Dokes and Thomas being junkies were untrue and they were really rock solid fighters.

And I suppose the fact that Greg Page was fat and idle and blew every chance he had should be ignored and we should pretend he was a rock solid contender who was going to beat Holmes.

Enough of this fantasy crap, mate. You've spent too long with the other bullshitters at ESB and your arguements are now as soft as Greg Page's man tits were when he was 'in his prime'.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 12 Dec 2006, 02:58

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: i believe you are simply naming these guys to cover for the fact tyson was much more impressive vs the top 1980s guys than larry holmes was

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Will you ever smarten up? I doubt it....Tyson was impressive for about 2 years ('87-'89)...after that, he was the biggest bust in boxing history, a damn freak show...and you still are suckered in by those late '80's highlight reels...Is your favorite bird the ostrich?...go stick your head in a hole like an ostrich and avoid the world and truth around you...Larry Holmes was a Cadillac...Tyson was a wreck...

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 12 Dec 2006, 12:53

Tyson looking more impressive against fighters makes him more exciting but it does not translate into him being a better fighter. They had different styles and used their talents to win fights in a way that suited them. Tyson was good for 3 years. His skills then got showed up. Holmes was good for a decade and was always improving technically.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 13 Dec 2006, 11:04

livingstone cole wrote: I read a very interesting article in the New Scientist, probably nearly ten years ago, reporting that a team of scientists had located a gene that increases a persons likelihood of developing brain damage after taking years of cumulative punches.

Then I think that 'team of scientists' didn't have anything to do that was important...I mean, what the hell...? You can't possibly need a special gene to develope brain damage after "taking years of cumulative punches"...You get hit hard in the head often enough...bad things are going to happen, gene or no gene...