BoxRec

Jon Saxon wrote:

DaveBoyMorrison wrote:

exittored wrote: This is worse then cakesgate, are you for real Jon?

If you take a guy out of an era he was born then you also have to account for the evolutionairy process of people being bigger and stronger then their forefathers and the advancements in supplements and nutrition for athletes, if Ali had been born 30 years later with the same skils and talent then he'd probably be around 6ft 5 and 17stone which is more then enough to compete with any modern heavyweight.

Evolution? There is no doubt that evolution has not affected boxing. Training and nutrition is another story.

Wow so all the world records that get broken could have happened in the past also?

People get better and records get broken, it's life.

loaded_gloves wrote:Refinement of training techniques certainly - but what transpires inside the ring?

I cannot fathom how anyone could look at any fight or fighter in 2011 and think they are 'superior' or 'tougher' than Bob Foster, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, Ron Lyle, Victor Galindez, Carlos Monzon, Rodrigo Valdez, Emile Griffith, Alexis Arguello, Roberto Duran, Ken Buchanan, Leonard, Benitez, Hearns, Azumah Nelson, Salvador Sanchez, Saad Muhammad, Mustafa Muhammad, Muhammad Qawi, Hagler, Quarry etc.

Quixall wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Quixall wrote: Depends which Tyson we are on about James. Let's take the Razor Ruddock Tyson against the Frazier that beat Ali, i think Frazier has a great chance of beating Tyson. What you have to remember about the early Tyson was that he didn't fight anyone of real quality in that time. Berbick, Thomas, Biggs, Tubbs, Spinks, Williams et al and an ageing Holmes, where as Frazier had been in tough championship fights. Tyson couldn't really figure out Tucker or Smith and as KG said, once you backed him up and the fight had gone past six rounds, he was as one dimensional as the next guy. People always talk of the "invincible" iron Mike Tyson of the early years, but the fact is, there wasn't any real quality fighters around at the time.

tucker and smith held most of the fight, and lost wide decisions, so Tyson had little to figure out. Also both were very big very physically strong men with leverage over tyson, so presented different challenges.

Well, i think that is a little Harsh on Tucker and Smith. Williams was also a big, but got knocked out by Tyson, in fact most fighters had a physical advantage over Tyson. Essentially, Tyson fought fairly average opponents in his early years and he used his power, speed, accuracy to grind down and knock out his opponents inside the first half of the fight. If however he didn't make any headway in the first six rounds, he looked predictable and slightly jaded and very one dimensional. Once people knew that Tyson didn't like being backed up and actually fought him, he started to lose fights. People often say that he wasn't the same fighter after prison, his lifestyle etc etc, but it was more to do with Douglas exploding the myth around Tyson and once he himself knew he wasn't as good as he thought, it was the begining of the end for Tyson.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Quixall wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: tucker and smith held most of the fight, and lost wide decisions, so Tyson had little to figure out. Also both were very big very physically strong men with leverage over tyson, so presented different challenges.

Well, i think that is a little Harsh on Tucker and Smith. Williams was also a big, but got knocked out by Tyson, in fact most fighters had a physical advantage over Tyson. Essentially, Tyson fought fairly average opponents in his early years and he used his power, speed, accuracy to grind down and knock out his opponents inside the first half of the fight. If however he didn't make any headway in the first six rounds, he looked predictable and slightly jaded and very one dimensional. Once people knew that Tyson didn't like being backed up and actually fought him, he started to lose fights. People often say that he wasn't the same fighter after prison, his lifestyle etc etc, but it was more to do with Douglas exploding the myth around Tyson and once he himself knew he wasn't as good as he thought, it was the begining of the end for Tyson.

Agreed, Tyson's opposition may not have been the best, but he absolutely tore them to pieces, and these were guys who were still at the top of the tree before Tyson arrived on the scene. Berbick and Thomas certainly were no patsies, if certainly not future hall of famers.

The one chink in Frazier's armour I think was murderous punchers, who came out winging he never faced Lyle or Shavers, and the one truly murderous puncher he faced in Foreman, destroyed him twice, with ease. I just think that Tyson's speed and power would have been enough to get him out of there.

King Geedorah wrote:

Quixall wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: Tyson's speed would have been the factor, and the fact that he came out of the blocks very very quickly. Joe was a slow burner, he gradually ramped up the pressure, whereas Tyson was a like a sparkler, bright and hot, but after a few rounds, he usually slowed up.

I think Tyson would have been able to hurt Joe quickly and often enough to stop him, much like Foreman. If Frazier made is past the fourth, then the fight would have become interesting, but personally, I think Tyson would have got him out of there quite quickly. Just a matter of styles, Tyson had the edge in power and speed, and also his footwork was exemplary early in his career. They were of comparable sizes, but Tyson was the more explosive of the two.

Frazier was tough mentally, but he was also predictable and relatively one dimensional, he got by on his toughness against the likes of Ali, but against a murderous puncher like Tyson, I think that would have ended only one way.

Depends which Tyson we are on about James. Let's take the Razor Ruddock Tyson against the Frazier that beat Ali, i think Frazier has a great chance of beating Tyson. What you have to remember about the early Tyson was that he didn't fight anyone of real quality in that time. Berbick, Thomas, Biggs, Tubbs, Spinks, Williams et al and an ageing Holmes, where as Frazier had been in tough championship fights. Tyson couldn't really figure out Tucker or Smith and as KG said, once you backed him up and the fight had gone past six rounds, he was as one dimensional as the next guy. People always talk of the "invincible" iron Mike Tyson of the early years, but the fact is, there wasn't any real quality fighters around at the time.

Tyson often came square on when delivering his own shots at short range and was nowhere near as tight as Frazier with the left hook. Frazier’s loss to Foreman is often cited but George pasted him at range after realising he was in danger up close after one of Joe’s hooks went whistling by. Tyson threw his punches in stages when close, he would have to come close to do damage to Joe and for my money would get pinged inside and it would be similar to Tyson-Holyfield. I know, I know, Mike was finished then, had a lay-off and a tough loss under his belt but then again people base their thoughts on Joe around the Foreman fight but Frazier had a longer career, was a short burner and had tougher rounds with Ali in their first fight than Mike had with Douglas so what is good for the goose.