Mike Tyson: Ten years either way

[Ambling Alp II]

1. He didn't look better generally. Glad you are changing your tune about 1985 when he was fighting tomato cans.
In 1986, he fought several stiffs did fight a few guys worth mentioning; Ferguson, Tillis, Frazier and Berbick. He struggles with Ferguson, and only won 6 out of 10 rounds against Tillis.

2. Yes you can pick weaknesses in the guys that he fought in 1988-1990; guess what you can do the same from 1985-1987.
Ribalta was a bonafide contender? Again, what in the world are you talking about.? Ribalta was never a bonafide contender.
You make fun of Bruno? Well he ko'd Ribalta in two rounds. Stopped Tillis in 5.

You think Tucker and Thomas were a lot better than Bruno and Tubbs? Maybe, but not by much. Tubbs beat Smith and Page. The Tucker that Tyson fought was basically a one handed fighter after hurting it, and Tyson still struggled with him.

3. He had personal problems outside of the ring? Irrelevant. Just look at what he did in the ring. That is all that counts.

Tyson was still improving in 1986 and into 1987. He didn't know what to do with guys that threw a punch and clinched; look at the fights with Ferguson and Tillis in 1986, and Smith in 1987.
If you are going to respond, please be brief and stay on point.

[The Great John L]

From 1985-1988, he struggled with James Tillis, Tony Tucker, and Bonecrusher Smith. Mitch Green went the distance with him. Jose Ribalta almost did.

He didn't exactly "struggle" with those guys. I guess it's all relative because they survived and won some rounds as opposed to getting stomped in the first few rounds. Tucker fought him pretty even for the first half of the fight but even that fight wasn't close at the end.

[HomicideHenry]

From 1985-1988, he struggled with James Tillis, Tony Tucker, and Bonecrusher Smith. Mitch Green went the distance with him. Jose Ribalta almost did.

He didn't exactly "struggle" with those guys. I guess it's all relative because they survived and won some rounds as opposed to getting stomped in the first few rounds. Tucker fought him pretty even for the first half of the fight but even that fight wasn't close at the end.

That's the thing... even in fights that went several rounds or the distance, Tyson outpointed them so badly that where really is the argument that he struggled with them?

[Ambling Alp II]

He only won 6 out of 10 rounds against Tillis. It was a very competitive fight.
Tucker was doing very well until he hurt his hand. Even after that, he was competitive with Tyson.
No question that Tyson easily won the Smith fight; however that was mostly due to Smith not doing anything. Tyson certainly did not look that good in this fight.

When people talk of Tyson's best fights, they don't talk about these fights, or the Mitch Green or Jose Ribalta fights. They all happened before 1988.

No way he would have won the Buster Douglas fight performing like this.

He lost more rounds in the Tillis fight than he did against than he did against Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno, Williams, Tillman and Stewart combined.
Tillis performed reasonably well, but Tyson would have won this fight much easier 2 or three years later. He was still improving at that point.

[Syntax Error]

This is a great question.

For a brief time, Tyson was a truly great fighter & would have been problematic for any other ATG in HW history.

Whether he ultimately had the heart to live with the best, we will never know, because he never faced an ATG in his short-lived whirlwind period from 1985 - 1989.

I think he would have enjoyed more success had he turned pro in '75, as opposed '95.

In '75, he would have come up against ageing carcasses of some of the best HWs that had ever been, but had he turned pro in '95, he would have be pitched right in the deep end during the second best era of HW boxing.

[cjdragon]

It's interesting how divisive Tyson is when people look back on his career. If he was a great, upstanding role model I wonder if opinions would be different.
But, of course he wasn't. Lets face it, objectively we should all rank and "judge" fighters on what they did in the ring...but we don't always do that. There are some fighters who I always wished would get their head handed to them in the ring because they appear to be such A-holes. And then there are fighters I root for because they appear to be good, friendly guys I'd love to have a drink with. :)

Anyway back to Tyson, I still I enjoy watching his early fights. Just watched the 1st Bruno fight. :)
In the late 70's I think he would have been the same. An intimidating top tier heavyweight with a title or two before imploding (I hate that word, but I think it is apt :)

Tyson was very good in his rather short lasting prime.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes he is a polarizing figure. Many of the people that don't like him often say he was just a bully who wasn't that good.
Many of those that like him often will the excuse of him being past his best after Cus and Rooney and the gang left and he was already washed up by the Douglas fight. That way none of his losses count against him.

Had he come up in 1975? Well there is some truth that the great heavyweights were starting to slip by then. Still, there was a lot of depth.
In 1975,he doesn't beat Ali or Frazier. Of course they slipped a lot after that, so maybe Tyson gets them. (Frazier retired in 1976, with one comeback fight several years later.)
Foreman didn't fight at all in 1975. He would still had enough to take Tyson in 1976. Then he quit after the Young loss in 1977.
Norton was still at a high level until 1979. (This is the part where someone comes up with the bogus comment about Norton not being able to take a punch)
Then there is Holmes in the late 1970s.
So even then, Tyson would have had his hands full. No way he comes along and dominates.

[fanman]

If he turns pro in 1975 rather than 1985, but emerges just as quickly then he probably runs into an aging Ali around 1977, and maybe meets a few guys like Shavers, Lyle and Norton along the way. I think he wins all those fights, especially given that most of them ( including Ali ) were past their primes. A young Larry Holmes circa 1978-79 would have been an interesting match and a toss up for me. If his career trajectory works out to where he loses focus early, then he probably diminishes around 1980-81. If for some reason he remains on track, then he'd be a force to be reconned with throughout the 1980's. Going the other way where he turns pro in the 90's, I think his career would be the shortest lived of all given scenarios. Lots of big men with talent in that era including Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield, a comeback Foreman and the rising Klitschko's. He wins some and losses some, but doesn't establish dominance for very long if even at all.

[Bricks]

Well all know about Iron Mike's path of destruction through the '80s, but what if he had arrived exactly ten year before or even ten years later?
So, he had his first fight on March 06th 1985, so the question is how would his career have ran if it was 1975 and 1995?

Great thread which I have played out in my mind so many times but never printed out here.every time I see a ttyson 1985-86 fight il think ....man guys here still have the 70s look (scaff,long,green),85 is very close to 76-77.....but back than and tysons 85 career I remember vividly as my dad made me watch it as a 8 year old the 70s seemed a lifetime away.it's only when u get older u realise man ,tyson almost made it in the 70s class!

[Bricks]

I would have loved to see tyson emerge even 5 years earlier and have to face weaver ,shavers,young,cooney,Holmes and witherspoon That's a whole lot of different competition in the first half of the 80s let alone 70s.

But sticking to the what if scenario from career begins in 75.......

Personally it's revealing to me that those who now dismiss tyson never mention the razor Ruddock fights when pulling the weak lazy cliche"he was a bully,he never won a fight he struggled in,he folded when put under pressure,he was afraid to fight foreman" nonsense.

That 89-91 Ruddock was one of the greatest physical specimens the hw world has ever seen he beat 4 former world champions.he had lightning fast hooks,the heart of a lion,great stamina,pulverising power,and a granite chin and early in his career he danced like Ali or at least tyrell biggs.Tyson fought him head on in 19 brutal rounds within three months,and Ruddocks peak was destroyed totally.it was Ruddock who holyfield and foreman were avoiding in 89-91.Tyson didn't need to fight him at all.

Tyson 86-89 is a top 12 atg, the 91 vintage was a tough son of a bitch with an iron will even as his skills deteriorated.the earlier tyson may have beaten Holmes in 78, but the Ali of 76 still had too much. If foreman hadn't retired he would have halted both tyson and Holmes aspirations.but tyson would still have established himself as an atg much as vitali did despite losing to lewis and much as Frazier is despite losing to George brutally twice add Patterson to that too.Tyson still beats, shavers ,Norton,lyle and young but loses to foreman who retires in 1981.Holmes and tyson pick up the two belts and tyson defends against weaver,Tate before beating Holmes in 82"s superfight he than beats cooney in 84"s big spectacle.in fact he has a clean run up to 1988 but after jacobs dies he meets his journeys end in 1990 to holyfield. He tries to cling on but retires after Ray Mercer outpoints him in 92.

[cjdragon]

I would have loved to see tyson emerge even 5 years earlier and have to face weaver ,shavers,young,cooney,Holmes and witherspoon That's a whole lot of different competition in the first half of the 80s let alone 70s.

But sticking to the what if scenario from career begins in 75.......

Personally it's revealing to me that those who now dismiss regimented mention the razor Ruddock fights when pulling the weak lazy "he was a bully,he never won a fight he struggled in,he folded when put under pressure,he was afraid to fight foreman" nonsense.

That 89-91 Ruddock was one of the greatest physical specimens the hw world has ever seen he beat 4 former world champions.he had lightning fast hooks,the heart of a lion,great stamina,pulverising power,and a granite chin.Tyson fought him head on in 19 brutal rounds within three months,and Ruddocks peak was destroyed totally.

Tyson 86-89 is a top 12 atg, the 91 vintage was a tough son of a bitch with an iron will even as his skills deteriorated.the earlier tyson may have beaten Holmes in 78, but the Ali of 76 still had too much. If foreman hadn't retired he would have halted both tyson and Holmes aspirations.but tyson would still have established himself as an atg much as vitali did despite losing to lewis and much as Frazier is despite losing to George brutally twice add Patterson to that too.Tyson still beats, shavers ,Norton,lyle and young but loses to foreman who retires in 811.Holmes and tyson pick up the two belts and tyson defends against weaver,Tate before beating Holmes in 82s superfight he than beats cooney in 84s big spectacle.in fact he has a clean run up to 88 but after jacobs dies he meets his journeys end in 90 to holyfield.

Excellent post Mugabi.
Especially your points about Ruddock.

[Sklar]

Ten years earlier he'd be there or thereabouts until 1990. Holmes would be top-dog but Mike would be a closeish second.

Ten years later he'd be cutting like a mofo to make cruiserweight. No 5'11" guy is going to closely compete against the new generation of 6'5"+ heavyweights.

[gregor]

Ten years later he'd be cutting like a mofo to make cruiserweight. No 5'11" guy is going to closely compete against the new generation of 6'5"+ heavyweights.

The money was always in HW. There are a lot of guys who were natural LHW/CW and moved to HW only for that reason. Adamek, Cunningham, RJJ , Haye, Cunningham, Mormeck, Byrd, Gomez, Hide, Holy, Moorer... just to name a few who were either recent or successfull. Toney was even shorter and despite being simply fat he was still quite competitive for some time.

[Bricks]

I disagree that if tyson turned pro in 95 he would do worse.c'mon who exactly was that much better.Lewis is the obvious danger.I'll come to him.

Tyson in his prime I always felt beat any version of holyfield.he would ignore the old man's headbutts.

assuming tyson was ready for contenders and champs by the start of 97 he would have in front of him younger guys like rahman,mccall,briggs,j Williams,golota,tua,moorer and Ruiz and ibeabuchi and byrd.

Lol tyson would beat these guys.tua and ike and mccall hit hard and had good chins but none of them was a 1989-91 Ruddock.and other tough punchers like bonecrusher soon got intimidated into not throwing bombs by tyson.study the last 20 seconds of Smith-tyson, Smith lands a bomb and tyson takes it like it's nothing and fires back with fury.McCall and Rahman are sparring partner material for tyson.golota I don't need to discuss easy ko.

by 19977 moorer despite being a champ was nothing like the sleek 1991 fighter he had realised he was nothing special at hw.byrd was just a slower sleeker than Tony tubbs boxer with defence and discipline but not as much nous.

aged tough veterans like Witherspoon and Mercer would be tough fights but would be outpointed .the linear champ foreman in 97 wouldn't want any part of tyson.five years earlier he would have. Shannon Briggs and Ruiz are easy kayoes.so are fodder like herbie hide and Williams........

Bowe had retired by 97 so he wouldn't be a factor .if he was still around after the golota bruisings I just have a hunch he could beat tyson.but we will never know and for the arguments sake I think champs like holyfield and Lewis would 've fought first to build a Brooklyn superfights if bowe did stick around. The Lewis ,tyson would meet in 1998 after stopping old man holyfield in a foul infested match , would not be the accomplished fighter of 2000-2004, so in other words tyson gets a Lewis still vulnerable,still tentative,still not willing to go in for the finish.I think tyson outboxes him makes him hold in fear.
That leaves wlad,and vitali...... in part 3.......ps thanks cjdragon