Tyson vs the great heavyweights before Sonny Liston

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 21 Nov 2006, 16:10

elmersalsa wrote:
Sweet Scientist wrote:Elmersalsa has repeatedly proven himself not to be very knowledgable...

Not very knowledgeable of what? of boxing? Well, I may not have time to go up with you sir, but if you think a Joe Louis would have beat a big and solid chiseled heavy like Mike or beat a talented fighter like Mike or Douglas then be it. I do not see it that way.

Guys as big and talented like Bowe, Douglas, Tyson, Lewis, Vitaly Klitschko would have crushed Joe Louis

...You just proved my point...see above quote...

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 21 Nov 2006, 18:09

Gawd, what a thread. Is this what we are reduced to?

Anyway, to keep in the spirit of things, is it just me or does Jameel McCline seem to have an unusually large head?

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 21 Nov 2006, 19:48

I know, but is McCline's head unusually large or not?

Maybe we need Kovit in this thread...

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 21 Nov 2006, 23:46

Elmer,
I think what people are trying to say is that size is a factor, but can be overcome if the difference in level of skill is large enough.
A handful of fighters smaller than Tyson (Such as Louis, Dempsey, Marciano and Johnson) would have a good chance to beat Tyson because their all around ability was greater than Tyson's.

You mention that Tyson's power would be too much for these guys; and on a given day maybe he could knock them out. However, you also have to remember that these guys can punch as well.
It's also important to remember that Tyson didn't destroy all of his opponents even before Douglas. He had trouble with Tucker,Smith,Tillis, even Jesse Ferguson.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 22 Nov 2006, 00:23

Ambling Alp wrote:Elmer,
I think what people are trying to say is that size is a factor, but can be overcome if the difference in level of skill is large enough.
A handful of fighters smaller than Tyson (Such as Louis, Dempsey, Marciano and Johnson) would have a good chance to beat Tyson because their all around ability was greater than Tyson's.

You mention that Tyson's power would be too much for these guys; and on a given day maybe he could knock them out. However, you also have to remember that these guys can punch as well.
It's also important to remember that Tyson didn't destroy all of his opponents even before Douglas. He had trouble with Tucker,Smith,Tillis, even Jesse Ferguson.

I agree, size only comes into the equation when all else is equal.

As numerous other posters have mentioned, if size was the only important factor then the list of ATGs would be very different.

Now, can we please get back to the un-natural size of Jameel McCline's head...

chance · Post by **chance** » 30 Nov 2006, 20:36

bigger and talented beats smaller guys NO MATTER HOW GREAT OR TALENTED THEY WERE.

Ok this is just wrong. Styles make fights. You also seem to think that just because one fighter outweighs the other by 15 pounds, that there is no way he could withstand a punch from him. Boxing history and human physiology say you're wrong. There is so much ignorance of the sweet science going on in these posts, I almost didn't even bother with this thread, but I guess my anger and frustration got the best of me. Lets see, where to start.

Dempsey and Tyson were not a similar as you claim. Dempsey was more skilled defensively and fought out of a longer rythm, with his weight on his back foot as such he could land punches with leverage from further away by taking larger strides and was more dificult to hit. Tyson on the other hand was a cus D'ammatto styled fighter who fought out of a short rythm, kept his weight to the center and had to take several steps and get much closer to get in position to punch. He was less fluid through combinations than jack as well. Most importantly Tyson couldn't fight at the same pace dempsey could for an extended period nor did he have the heart to win after getting up of the canvas. In a fight between two guys that hit as hard as these fellas heart and chin would be important factors. Tyson fails in both regards. Not to mention Tyson folded every time someone stood up to him and Dempsey wouldn't be afraid.As far as the weight discrepancy, again lets not make too much of this. As far as frame goes, tyson wasn't all that much bigger than Dempsey, he was shorter, and his extra weight was manufactured through weights in an attempt to get bigger. I don't see him being that much stronger than Dempsey and certainly not a harder puncher. You can't rule out the fact that Dempsey could beat Tyson.

As far as Ezzard Charles goes, have you watched many of his fights, his style and abilities are strikingly similar to someone who Tyson couldn't beat...Evander Holyfield. With the exception of the inside out blocking and such that Holy picked up from Benton, stylistically he and Ezzard are pretty similar. On a side note, they even look like they could be related. Granted ezzard may not have been as strong as Holyfield and therefore MAY not have been able to keep Tyson off of him, but if he did, he could make Tyson fold just like Holyfield did.

Joe Louis could have had problems, but not because Tyson outweighed him by a couple of pounds. Joe at times made himself a target and would let guys get up against him. He was also vulnerable to big punchers, but then again, so was mike. Like the others mentioned earlier, I could see it going both ways. I can see Joe holding him off with movement and crisp punches as mike tries to come in, and eventually stopping him ala buster douglas. Douglas didn't have the speed or power of Louis.

Thats just a couple of guys, I could go through Marciano and some of the others. Some would beat him some wouldn't, but explaining each would take all day and I'm sure I'm already boring most of you.

My biggest beef is this, heavier doesn't directly translate into signifigantly more strength or power. Willard weighed two sixty yet one could argue that a 180 Dempsey hit much harder. Puchers are born, not made (although technique helps alot) Marciano at 180 was busting blood vessels in peoples arms and shattering bone, knocking out men far larger than himself. Granted, there is a cut off. A 125 pounder may be a devestating pucher at featherweight, but not be able to hurt heavy weights, physics eventually kicks in. But the diference in strength and power (strength and power are not the same thing you know) between a natural 200lb guy who works his butt of to get down to 185 training chopping wood and doing manual labor and a natural 200lb guy that lifts weights and puts on bulk and fluid weight to get up to 217 is negligable.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 01 Dec 2006, 14:10

chance wrote:
bigger and talented beats smaller guys NO MATTER HOW GREAT OR TALENTED THEY WERE.

Ok this is just wrong. Styles make fights. You also seem to think that just because one fighter outweighs the other by 15 pounds, that there is no way he could withstand a punch from him. Boxing history and human physiology say you're wrong. There is so much ignorance of the sweet science going on in these posts, I almost didn't even bother with this thread, but I guess my anger and frustration got the best of me. Lets see, where to start.

Dempsey and Tyson were not a similar as you claim. Dempsey was more skilled defensively and fought out of a longer rythm, with his weight on his back foot as such he could land punches with leverage from further away by taking larger strides and was more dificult to hit. Tyson on the other hand was a cus D'ammatto styled fighter who fought out of a short rythm, kept his weight to the center and had to take several steps and get much closer to get in position to punch. He was less fluid through combinations than jack as well. Most importantly Tyson couldn't fight at the same pace dempsey could for an extended period nor did he have the heart to win after getting up of the canvas. In a fight between two guys that hit as hard as these fellas heart and chin would be important factors. Tyson fails in both regards. Not to mention Tyson folded every time someone stood up to him and Dempsey wouldn't be afraid.As far as the weight discrepancy, again lets not make too much of this. As far as frame goes, tyson wasn't all that much bigger than Dempsey, he was shorter, and his extra weight was manufactured through weights in an attempt to get bigger. I don't see him being that much stronger than Dempsey and certainly not a harder puncher. You can't rule out the fact that Dempsey could beat Tyson.

As far as Ezzard Charles goes, have you watched many of his fights, his style and abilities are strikingly similar to someone who Tyson couldn't beat...Evander Holyfield. With the exception of the inside out blocking and such that Holy picked up from Benton, stylistically he and Ezzard are pretty similar. On a side note, they even look like they could be related. Granted ezzard may not have been as strong as Holyfield and therefore MAY not have been able to keep Tyson off of him, but if he did, he could make Tyson fold just like Holyfield did.

Joe Louis could have had problems, but not because Tyson outweighed him by a couple of pounds. Joe at times made himself a target and would let guys get up against him. He was also vulnerable to big punchers, but then again, so was mike. Like the others mentioned earlier, I could see it going both ways. I can see Joe holding him off with movement and crisp punches as mike tries to come in, and eventually stopping him ala buster douglas. Douglas didn't have the speed or power of Louis.

Thats just a couple of guys, I could go through Marciano and some of the others. Some would beat him some wouldn't, but explaining each would take all day and I'm sure I'm already boring most of you.

My biggest beef is this, heavier doesn't directly translate into signifigantly more strength or power. Willard weighed two sixty yet one could argue that a 180 Dempsey hit much harder. Puchers are born, not made (although technique helps alot) Marciano at 180 was busting blood vessels in peoples arms and shattering bone, knocking out men far larger than himself. Granted, there is a cut off. A 125 pounder may be a devestating pucher at featherweight, but not be able to hurt heavy weights, physics eventually kicks in. But the diference in strength and power (strength and power are not the same thing you know) between a natural 200lb guy who works his butt of to get down to 185 training chopping wood and doing manual labor and a natural 200lb guy that lifts weights and puts on bulk and fluid weight to get up to 217 is negligable.

The nostalgia or nostalgic FANS over reason and logic carries away from the truth. Dempsey beat a talented and fast and strong Mike Tyson?

I do not go far from reality. I cannot see this fight go more than 60 seconds seeing that Tyson had the advantages in almost everything except height. But weight advantage, speed, and power, Tyson CLEARLY is more than Dempsey. I see a massacre. Tyson by KO, this time shorter than what he did to Michael Spinks.

Joe Louis: I saw his fights again and I am totally convinced that this would have been another feast for Tyson licking his chops. I cannot see Louis beating TALENTED AND BIGGER AND FASTER OPPONENTS like Tyson, Riddick Bowe, or Lennox Lewis nor even a well prepared Buster Douglas. A fight with Muhammad Ali or Larry Holmes, big guys with skill and great jabs would anhiliate any version of Louis, Marciano or Dempsey or any heavyweight before Sonny Liston. They were too much and too big and also had heart. Tyson would destroy any of them, no matter how much heart they had.

The rule in almost all the weights is: a great, bigger and talented fighter will always beat 90% of the time a great, but small and talented one.

Hello to the best boxing forum of this world!!! I mean, the whole ENTIRE WORLD!!!

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 01 Dec 2006, 14:32

elmersalsa wrote: Joe Louis: I saw his fights again and I am totally convinced that this would have been another feast for Tyson licking his chops. I cannot see Louis beating TALENTED AND BIGGER AND FASTER OPPONENTS like Tyson, Riddick Bowe, or Lennox Lewis nor even a well prepared Buster Douglas.

Buster Douglas over Joe Louis, eh? Hmmmm

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 03 Dec 2006, 14:49

The Great John L wrote:
elmersalsa wrote: Joe Louis: I saw his fights again and I am totally convinced that this would have been another feast for Tyson licking his chops. I cannot see Louis beating TALENTED AND BIGGER AND FASTER OPPONENTS like Tyson, Riddick Bowe, or Lennox Lewis nor even a well prepared Buster Douglas.
Buster Douglas over Joe Louis, eh? Hmmmm

Of course he beats Louis. Too big and too talented when motivated. The Douglas taht beat Tyson that night with those attributes: big, strong, great jab, maybe one of the best that I have ever seen, quick, great balance, great foot movement, tall and hit hard woould have beaten any version pof Louis, Marciano or Dempsey. Hey, he (Douglas would have beaten any great fighter of the past, including Ali. ON that night in Tokyo, Buster was TERRIFIC.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 03 Dec 2006, 15:31

Decagon wrote:Joe Louis had a better jab than Douglas.
Joe Louis hit harder than Douglas.
Joe Louis was faster than Douglas.
Joe Louis was more consistent than Douglas.
Joe Louis threw combinations better than Douglas.
Joe Louis had a better chin than Douglas.
Joe Louis had more heart than Douglas.

But Kirk Douglas was just an actor, so whats your point!!?.... 8) and why the big red letters?... have you lost you're glasses or something??? 8)

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 03 Dec 2006, 15:33

elmersalsa wrote:
The Great John L wrote:
elmersalsa wrote: Joe Louis: I saw his fights again and I am totally convinced that this would have been another feast for Tyson licking his chops. I cannot see Louis beating TALENTED AND BIGGER AND FASTER OPPONENTS like Tyson, Riddick Bowe, or Lennox Lewis nor even a well prepared Buster Douglas.
Buster Douglas over Joe Louis, eh? Hmmmm
Of course he beats Louis. Too big and too talented when motivated. The Douglas taht beat Tyson that night with those attributes: big, strong, great jab, maybe one of the best that I have ever seen, quick, great balance, great foot movement, tall and hit hard woould have beaten any version pof Louis, Marciano or Dempsey. Hey, he (Douglas would have beaten any great fighter of the past, including Ali. ON that night in Tokyo, Buster was TERRIFIC.

You're joking, right?

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 03 Dec 2006, 15:44

elmersalsa wrote:
The Great John L wrote:
elmersalsa wrote: Joe Louis: I saw his fights again and I am totally convinced that this would have been another feast for Tyson licking his chops. I cannot see Louis beating TALENTED AND BIGGER AND FASTER OPPONENTS like Tyson, Riddick Bowe, or Lennox Lewis nor even a well prepared Buster Douglas.
Buster Douglas over Joe Louis, eh? Hmmmm
Of course he beats Louis. Too big and too talented when motivated. The Douglas taht beat Tyson that night with those attributes: big, strong, great jab, maybe one of the best that I have ever seen, quick, great balance, great foot movement, tall and hit hard woould have beaten any version pof Louis, Marciano or Dempsey. Hey, he (Douglas would have beaten any great fighter of the past, including Ali. ON that night in Tokyo, Buster was TERRIFIC.

ELMER!!.... I AGREE WITH SOME OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!... IF LOUIS COULD BE FLOORED BY BRADDOCK AND GALENTO FOR INSTANCE THEN TYSON WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE HAD A PUNCHERS CHANCE AGAINST HIM!!... ESPECIALLY EARLY ON!.... THOUGH I THINK JOE COULD HAVE WHETHERED THE EARLY STORM AND BEAT TYSON LATE... BUT TYSON WOULD HAVE HAD A CHANCE FOR SURE AND TO SAY HE WOULDNT IS PURE FOOLISHNESS!!. HAVING SAID THAT THOUGH YOU DO PLAY A BIT TO MUCH ATTENTION TO SIZE!!... SIZE IS NOT SO IMPORTANT AS WHAT YOU DO WITH WHAT YOU'VE GOT!! (THATS WHAT MY WIFE HAS ALWAYS SAID TO ME AND I BELIVE HER!!!) BUT TO SAY TYSON WOULD BEAT ALI IS A GROSS MISJUDGEMENT MY FRIEND AND YOU NEED TO RETHINK THAT POINT!!... ALSO LISTON AND FOREMAN WOULD HAVE BEAT TYSON CLEARLY!! SO TOO A PEAK HOLMES!!
AS FOR BUSTER DOUGLAS HE WAS NO ACTOR ON THE NIGHT HE BEAT TYSON AND SHOWED GREAT TALENT BUT I DONT SEE HIM BEATING THE LIKES OF ALI. LISTON OR LOUIS... STYLES MAKES FIGHTS AND TYSON WAS ALWAYS MADE FOR A FIGHTER WITH MOBILITY, CHIN AND A GOOD JAB!!....

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 03 Dec 2006, 16:55

elmersalsa wrote: ON that night in Tokyo, Buster was TERRIFIC.

What the hell did he do that Ali or Holmes couldn't have done? Buster wasn't really that great...but he had what it takes to beat Tyson...a jab, a chin, the ability to fight back, and the savvy not to be intimidated...

You should start a thread about all the great things Tyson did after 1989...might give some insight on who he could compete against on the all time list...

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 03 Dec 2006, 21:07

Decagon wrote:Joe Louis had a better jab than Douglas.
Joe Louis hit harder than Douglas.
Joe Louis was faster than Douglas.
Joe Louis was more consistent than Douglas.
Joe Louis threw combinations better than Douglas.
Joe Louis had a better chin than Douglas.
Joe Louis had more heart than Douglas.

...but he wasn't as big...and big is everything to the salsa man...

yiddo14 · Post by **yiddo14** » 04 Dec 2006, 05:48

elmersalsa wrote:
The Great John L wrote:
elmersalsa wrote: Joe Louis: I saw his fights again and I am totally convinced that this would have been another feast for Tyson licking his chops. I cannot see Louis beating TALENTED AND BIGGER AND FASTER OPPONENTS like Tyson, Riddick Bowe, or Lennox Lewis nor even a well prepared Buster Douglas.
Buster Douglas over Joe Louis, eh? Hmmmm
Of course he beats Louis. Too big and too talented when motivated. The Douglas taht beat Tyson that night with those attributes: big, strong, great jab, maybe one of the best that I have ever seen, quick, great balance, great foot movement, tall and hit hard woould have beaten any version pof Louis, Marciano or Dempsey. Hey, he (Douglas would have beaten any great fighter of the past, including Ali. ON that night in Tokyo, Buster was TERRIFIC.

Can we nominate this for post of the year???

This is up there with the 'high altitude in Manchester'and squatdogs power punching pics.

Buster Douglas all time greatest heavyweight.....

Some of you Mikey nuthuggers have it real bad!!

enrique · Post by **enrique** » 04 Dec 2006, 12:40

Did Dempsey, Braddock, Louis or Charles quit on their stools? NO. NEVER.

Did Tyson? YES.

So, there's your answer as to how Tyson would have done against the fighters of yesteryear....

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 04 Dec 2006, 13:05

enrique wrote:Did Dempsey, Braddock, Louis or Charles quit on their stools? NO. NEVER.

Did Tyson? YES.

So, there's your answer as to how Tyson would have done against the fighters of yesteryear....

I'd still give Tyson a punchers chance against Louis, but after the early rounds Louis would dismantle him.... if he got past the early rounds...

Crease · Post by **Crease** » 04 Dec 2006, 13:37

Decagon, if that is the case, then Nikolai Valuev would be TEH GREATEST BOXER OF ALL TIME, (because of his body mass)

Genetics is genetics? NONSENCE

Floyd Patterson:
Yeah, I would fancy Tyson to KO Patterson, but if Patterson could survive early pressure, he could hold-on for a points victory, (I mean lets face it, Patterson is gonna hit Mike more than he gets hit).

Rocky Marciano:
Archie Moore was perhaps the greatest KO pouncher in the history of boxing... Marciano would be able to take everything than Tyson throws at him, but vice-versea? I don't think so...

Joe Louis:
Louis would punch Tyson until Mike would have to retire because of temporary blindness...

Jack Dempsey:
Dempsey might not be as skilled as Tyson, but he was far tougher (and Tyson aint no Tunney who can dance around Jack and outbox him). This would be a gruelling and bloody match-up, but I'd fancy Jack.

Gene Tunney:
Yeah, I believe that Tyson would KO Tunney because Gene can't take the power Tyson has to offer... But a Tunney point victory is on the horizon.

Jack Johnson:
Nah, Johnson just has too much to offer Tyson, he could take Tyson's punches and coulod delive rit back, (Tyson hasn't been known for his great chin).

Ezzard Charles:
I believe a point victory for Chrles is conecivable BUT I agree, a Tyson KO is more than likely.

Jersey Joe Walcott:
Again, I could even say Walcott KOing Tyson, but it's more than likely the other way round.

Tommy Burns:
Burns wouldn't have stood a chance against Tyson, he just couldn;t take Iron Mike's power.

Jim Jeffries:
Jeffries mighyt be slow but he made up with it in endurance and strength. But I think a prime Tyson would KO Jim in the middle-rounds.

Max Baer:
Tyson punched harder, THE END.

Max Schmeling:
Schmeling might be able to mix-it-up on Tyson, but if there's a lpase of focus, Tyson would win by KO.

So in total, I think the only heavyweights that Tyson WOULDN'T BEAT are:

Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Jack Dempsey and Jack Johnson.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 04 Dec 2006, 13:53

Interesting matchups. Just a few general comments.

Crease wrote: Jack Dempsey:
Dempsey might not be as skilled as Tyson, but he was far tougher (and Tyson aint no Tunney who can dance around Jack and outbox him). This would be a gruelling and bloody match-up, but I'd fancy Jack.

I would not agree that Tyson was more skilled than Dempsey. At times Dempsey may have been overly aggressive, but he had much better skills than most seem to give him credit.

Crease wrote:Gene Tunney:
Yeah, I believe that Tyson would KO Tunney because Gene can't take the power Tyson has to offer... But a Tunney point victory is on the horizon.

I think Tunney would have made Tyson look very amateurish.

Crease wrote:Jim Jeffries:
Jeffries mighyt be slow but he made up with it in endurance and strength. But I think a prime Tyson would KO Jim in the middle-rounds.

How do you know that Jeffries was slow? Are you old enough to have actually seen one of his fights?

Crease wrote:Max Baer:
Tyson punched harder, THE END.

Actually, I think Baer was the harder puncher, but Tyson was more consistent and had better basic skills.

Crease · Post by **Crease** » 04 Dec 2006, 14:57

No, I'm not. I wasn't even born when Marciano fought... But at the end of the day, there's nothing I can do about that.

HOWEVER,

I (unlike some "fans" around here) would never judge a fighter I've never seen fight before. I have seen each of those fighter in competition and those are my opinions....

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 04 Dec 2006, 15:13

My take:

Floyd Patterson: Tyson by KO a la Liston.

Rocky Marciano: Marciano by late KO when Tyson runs out of gas

Joe Louis: Louis places a bunch of precise counteropunches early and that's it

Jack Dempsey: Someone will fall in the first two rounds. Who? Dunno.

Gene Tunney: the perfect machtup for Tunney. Tunney by wide UD.

Jack Johnson: Close one. I lean towards Johnson, after surviving the early onslought. He had the defensive skills to do so.

Ezzard Charles: prime Charles had all the tools to outpoint Tyson.

Jersey Joe Walcott: pick'em.

Tommy Burns: early KO for Tyson

Jim Jeffries: there is so little coverage of Jeffries that I find this one hard to assess.

Max Baer: Baer punched harder but had no defence. KO win for Tyson

Max Schmeling: Schmeling has a very serious chance if he survives the early onslaught. He was a brilliant counterpuncher who might have figured Tyson out.

Other heavyweights Tyson wouldn't beat are: Ali, Frazier, Holmes, Foreman, Liston.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 04 Dec 2006, 15:27

Crease wrote:No, I'm not. I wasn't even born when Marciano fought... But at the end of the day, there's nothing I can do about that.

HOWEVER,

I (unlike some "fans" around here) would never judge a fighter I've never seen fight before. I have seen each of those fighter in competition and those are my opinions....

You judged Jeffries and said he was slow. I simply wondered how you know he was slow. The only way to know that would have been to actually see him fight.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 04 Dec 2006, 16:01

Tunney had an excellent chin and would have a good chance of outboxing Tyson imo... he certainly had more guts.... also Gene was a underrated puncher...
all the reports I've read about Jeffries say that he was actually very fast and athletic for such a big guy, in many ways Jeffries is probably one of the most underrated of the heavyweight champs... and I'd give him a 70% chance of wearing down and stopping Tyson....

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 04 Dec 2006, 16:05

silkov wrote:Tunney had an excellent chin and would have a good chance of outboxing Tyson imo... he certainly had more guts.... also Gene was a underrated puncher...
all the reports I've read about Jeffries say that he was actually very fast and athletic for such a big guy, in many ways Jeffries is probably one of the most underrated of the heavyweight champs... and I'd give him a 70% chance of wearing down and stopping Tyson....

Thanks for adding a little objectivity to the Jeffries discussion.

JC · Post by JC » 05 Dec 2006, 10:47

If you watch the film of jefferies fighting he doesn't look all that slow on his feet at all, harder to say about his handspeed.