BoxRec

I adore Evander Holyfield, he might just be the Heavyweight champion I most admire, and yes he was in some epic fights, but for sheer intensity and excitement there is no one to touch the Cus D'Amato era Mike Tyson ... all in my anything but humble opinion naturally

Badhusker wrote:No, but Bnovelist is the greatest troller that ever lived.

In his prime? Maybe.
But he's on the slide now.

There's some real competition out there now, B can't live with this new generation of trolls IMO

Can we agree the Eugene Hill thread at least puts him in contention for ATG status?

Don't worry BNov - I won't stand by and see you diminished in this way

The key fight might be the one against Tony Tucker. If you accept the mid 60s Ali as being better than Tucker then the answer is no.

Can't see anyone else beating that Mike Tyson.
More speed and power than Dempsey or Marciano and just too fast for everyone else.

I don't think the fact that Tyson didn't stop Tucker as significant. Tucker was no mug, the fight wasn't close and no fighter is at their best every time out.

I agree with you about his having more power than Dempsey or Marciano, and probably way better technique too. For my money you can add Joe Frazier to that list as well.

Look at the guys Ali had most problems with: Frazier, Norton and Spinks. What do they have in common? They were pressure fighters. They all beat Ali, and Frazier and Norton pushed him to the wire in subsequent fights. How do you see Ali coping with a nineteen-eighties version Mike Tyson arguably the greatest pressure fighting Heavyweight of all time?

Cassius Clay might have had more chance but we'll never know. What I do know is that when I was a mere callow youth, they were making a tv programme / computer simulation, genuinely exploring the question of who would win a fight between Ali and Rocky Marciano? (They came up with Marciano since you ask).

Now I have much admiration for Rocky - a real fighting man and probably as underrated by those who never saw him fight as he was perhaps overrated by those who did, but I disagreed with their verdict at the time and I remain convinced Tyson would have destroyed him inside three rounds. I simply mention this to illustrate the point that if some considered Ali vulnerable to a 185lb Marciano what chance would they have given him had they looked into the future and seen the D'Amato era Mike Tyson?

Gotta favor Tyson over rocky & Dempsey, Ali would handle him easily and Frazier would take his soul.

It could be argued that Joe Frazier was the man who got me hooked on the sport of boxing, and I will always remember him with affection and respect, but having followed both their careers during the periods when each were at their peak, I'm convinced a peak Tyson was better than a peak Frazier. Frazier's spell as a world class Heavyweight lasted very much longer though.

I couldn't disagree more. Anyway you cut it, Joe would be a stylistic nightmare for Tyson. Mike was barely an average infighter. Frazier wouldn't let him hold either.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I couldn't disagree more. Anyway you cut it, Joe would be a stylistic nightmare for Tyson. Mike was barely an average infighter. Frazier wouldn't let him hold either.

Tyson would have been too quick for Joe, and would have banged him out early. Joe was a slow started, that's not going to work against a prime Tyson.

Tyson under Rooney was awesome, no doubt.

Greatest fight ever? I'm not so sure.

Tyson would always have been vulnerable to a fighter with an indomitable will, a good chin & especially a good inside game, as Mike didn't have one.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I couldn't disagree more. Anyway you cut it, Joe would be a stylistic nightmare for Tyson. Mike was barely an average infighter. Frazier wouldn't let him hold either.

Tyson would have been too quick for Joe, and would have banged him out early. Joe was a slow started, that's not going to work against a prime Tyson.

I'd bet a grand against that. I think it would be shockingly dominant. Joe being a slow starter is a bit overstated. Banging him out early is much easier said than done.

bnovelist wrote:So are you saying and telling me that Tyson under Rooney was no match for Lennox Lewis under Steward? How can you say that? Tyson under Cus

& Rooney looked supernatural.

Calm down.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I couldn't disagree more. Anyway you cut it, Joe would be a stylistic nightmare for Tyson. Mike was barely an average infighter. Frazier wouldn't let him hold either.

Tyson would have been too quick for Joe, and would have banged him out early. Joe was a slow started, that's not going to work against a prime Tyson.

I'd bet a grand against that. I think it would be shockingly dominant. Joe being a slow starter is a bit overstated. Banging him out early is much easier said than done.

Foreman did it, twice.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Tyson would have been too quick for Joe, and would have banged him out early. Joe was a slow started, that's not going to work against a prime Tyson.

I'd bet a grand against that. I think it would be shockingly dominant. Joe being a slow starter is a bit overstated. Banging him out early is much easier said than done.

Foreman did it, twice.

Lol, he got up everytime. Foreman's height and style had Joe walking into his wheelhouse. Tyson had no inside game, Joe would smother him.

Can anyone explain to me how a man of 5' 11" with no inside game manages to demolish or at least beat so many decent fighters who were at least 5" taller than him ... I can't be arsed to list them all but there were a lot.

I respectfully suggest you are talking from your outlet manifold.

No, I'm right. Mike was a programmed fighter, he had a low ring iq. He was at his best from midrange. He had a couple combos for the inside but he didn't know how to grind, usually two punches and a clinch.

All I'm going to say Saad is you aren't going to able to outbox a fighter whose a head taller than you from mid-range unless they cannot box and fighters like Mitch Green, Carl Williams and Donovan Ruddock could certainly box even if they weren't likely to feature in anypne's ATG list.

Methinks you do the man a massive disservice .

You thinks wrong, good honest evaluation. I don't understand why you find it so puzzling that a guy 4 inches shorter with tremendous speed and power could win a fight from midrange.

It's also worth noting that he struggled more with the big guys. His shots coming in were damaging, he just was nowhere near guys like Frazier, holyfield & bowe when it comes to infighting.he did hit Ruddock in the balls 100 times.

I don't know what you guys are talking about Tyson was the absolute sh@t! LARGER than LIFE! A fighting machine! A DESTROYER! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T02RhdpGWgw

He was treated like a GOD in Japan! The Japanese they recognize comic book like characters! Tyson prime would have dug to Evander's body like

nobody's business! TYSON...IRON MIKE TYSON LIVES FOREVER IMMORTAL

candyslim wrote:Can anyone explain to me how a man of 5' 11" with no inside game manages to demolish or at least beat so many decent fighters who were at least 5" taller than him ... I can't be arsed to list them all but there were a lot.

I respectfully suggest you are talking from your outlet manifold.

You don't need to ask the question; just watch Tyson's fights during that period & see whether he had a good inside game.

He beat his opponents with an unmatched combination of speed & power.

When he was up close, he often preferred to hold & clinch & wait for the referee to separate them, rather than pound out openings to the body.

This is not to say he never worked the body; he did (the Ruddock fights show you that), but that was not his game overall.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You thinks wrong, good honest evaluation. I don't understand why you find it so puzzling that a guy 4 inches shorter with tremendous speed and power could win a fight from midrange.

Simple physics it's a question of reach. See how Foreman's height and reach allied to his prodigious punching power proved an insurmountable obstaclle for Frazier, without the height and reach disparity, this fight would not have been the mismatch it turned out to be.

Syntax Error wrote:.

You don't need to ask the question; just watch Tyson's fights during that period & see whether he had a good inside game.

He beat his opponents with an unmatched combination of speed & power.

When he was up close, he often preferred to hold & clinch & wait for the referee to separate them, rather than pound out openings to the body.

This is not to say he never worked the body; he did (the Ruddock fights show you that), but that was not his game overall.[/quote]

You don't think an ability to tie up an opponent when required isn't part of an inside game? Not the whole part admittedly. I'm going to take you up on your suggestion of re-watching his fights because I know I'm a very long way from infallible and my memory is a tricky beast.

Where do you suggest I start i.e. which of his (pre-nineties) fights do you consider best illustrates your point?

He wasn't even the best fighter of his own era due to his popularity though he'll be getting overblown love like this from fans for as long as people care about Boxing. He was definitely a hell of a lot of fun to watch no doubt.

candyslim wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You thinks wrong, good honest evaluation. I don't understand why you find it so puzzling that a guy 4 inches shorter with tremendous speed and power could win a fight from midrange.

Simple physics it's a question of reach. See how Foreman's height and reach allied to his prodigious punching power proved an insurmountable obstaclle for Frazier, without the height and reach disparity, this fight would not have been the mismatch it turned out to be.

Syntax Error wrote:.

You don't need to ask the question; just watch Tyson's fights during that period & see whether he had a good inside game.

He beat his opponents with an unmatched combination of speed & power.

When he was up close, he often preferred to hold & clinch & wait for the referee to separate them, rather than pound out openings to the body.

This is not to say he never worked the body; he did (the Ruddock fights show you that), but that was not his game overall.

You don't think an ability to tie up an opponent when required isn't part of an inside game? Not the whole part admittedly. I'm going to take you up on your suggestion of re-watching his fights because I know I'm a very long way from infallible and my memory is a tricky beast.

Where do you suggest I start i.e. which of his (pre-nineties) fights do you consider best illustrates your point?[/quote]
Timing and speed play a role. There is no question he was at his best midrange.and no, hugging and waiting for the ref is not an inside skill. He had a nice right to the body/uppercut to the head combo but he wasn't​ elite in tight. If he was some of the stuff I'm reading in this thread might actually be true.