BoxRec

Okay, this is bit tongue in cheek and only slightly concerns the past, but could a "prime" Butterbean take out the current Mike Tyson, or would the 2005 Tyson still batter the Bean? When I say, ahem, "prime" Butterbean I'm talking about 7/8 years ago when he used to come in at about a "ready" 320lb and was on a long winning streak over various nobodies. Let's assume the fight would be a 4 rounder, as that's about all that the Bean could ever manage and about how long Tyson can go these days.

I seem to remember there was some talk once about this fight actually happening as well.....

My grandfather could take the current Tyson & he's been dead 10 years!!!

I shouldn't say that too loudly or I might get a call from Audley Harrison!!!!

.. a prime butterbean couldn't take the current ali....(father or daughter)

This may be tongue in cheek Chopping Right but ability wise is there that much difference between Kevin McBride and Butterbean at his best?

Tyson vs Butterbean may yet still happen I fear.

I voted for a 50/50 fight.

KOJOE90 wrote:.....ability wise is there that much difference between Kevin McBride and Butterbean at his best?

Thinking back to watching Michael Murray KO the Irish robot then a peak Butterbean beats him hands down!

ButterBean KNOCKEDOUT JOHNNY KNOXVILLE in Jackass the movie.


Butterbean like 3 years ago got totally embarrased and outboxed for 10 rounds by a 52 year old LArry Holmes. Holmes showed he could still win a fight with his jab at 52.

I still think the current Mike would KO him if he landed cleanyly, but the prime Mike would destory Butterbean.

I do not consider Butterbean even a top 50 boxer. But in the case of Mike Tyson, he has a chance to ko him. IT all depends who lands first. Both can punch extremely hard and both are able to ko the other is they land a big power punch.
So yeah, if Butterbean lands first a huge power punch he wins. But that is onyl a hypothetical possibility. Tyson is faster and better feet play. So I doubt Bean will be hte first to land a monster shot. I think Tyson koes him becasue even though shot, he is the faster, more ring skilled fighter. He wont just walk stupidly into a Butterbean bomb. Tyson is shot but not such an idiot to let Bean unload on him.

Tyson ko 2.

Didn't Butterbean hold that obnoxious IBA super heavyweight title or something like that???

Yes, he did.
but today a Super Heavyweight title means nothing. In fact it was created for Butterbean. Super Middleweight has a real significance, denoting a fighter above Middleweight and generally bigger, harder punching and more powerful than a Middleweight. But a Super Heavyweight? what does it mean? We dont even know at what weight that class should start. SM is 168. there is no such starting point/weigh limit (lower limit) for Super Heavyweight.

If lets say in 5-6 years a lot of really heavy heavyweights are in the top 30 rankings, then a Super Heavy class at 240lb+ might make sense. Btu not unitl then. You need to have enough fighters to fill a division. You cannot make a new class for just one oversized boxer.

And another thing: Butterbean is not a big heavyweight. He is only 5-11 to 6 feet tall. He is just very fat. That is not exactly my idea of a Super Heavyweight. It should be a class for giants, not for obese fighters.

jab wrote:If lets say in 5-6 years a lot of really heavy heavyweights are in the top 30 rankings, then a Super Heavy class at 240lb+ might make sense.

It won't make sense then either, because there can only be one Blue Riband boxing division and all the heavyweights would simply migrate up "Super Heavy" because all the money would be there. We'd then end up with a regular "heavyweight" division with no real interest, much like the cruiserweights. Every decent cruiser right now moves up to heavyweight at some point because you can earn more being the world's number 20 heavyweight than you can as the world's number 1 cruiser.

Wow this is testament to how far Iron Mike has fallen, there is actually a debate over a Tyson vs Butterbean who is no more than a novelty act to the sport...which I guess is what Mike Tyson has become.

ShoeShine wrote:Wow this is testament to how far Iron Mike has fallen, there is actually a debate over a Tyson vs Butterbean who is no more than a novelty act to the sport...which I guess is what Mike Tyson has become.

You've got a point there. Probably the more worrying question is, would Kevin McBride get past Butterbean?

Chopping Right wrote:

jab wrote:If lets say in 5-6 years a lot of really heavy heavyweights are in the top 30 rankings, then a Super Heavy class at 240lb+ might make sense.

It won't make sense then either, because there can only be one Blue Riband boxing division and all the heavyweights would simply migrate up "Super Heavy" because all the money would be there. We'd then end up with a regular "heavyweight" division with no real interest, much like the cruiserweights. Every decent cruiser right now moves up to heavyweight at some point because you can earn more being the world's number 20 heavyweight than you can as the world's number 1 cruiser.

You could be right Chopping Right.

I was thinking along this line: (remember I am not talking about the present, but of a hypothetical future) say sme 5-6 maybe more years from now you have a large number of 250lb and above fighters, all ranked in the top 30. then if there ares styll a lot of 220-230lb guys left, you could realistically make a 240lb+ class and call it Super Heavyweight.

You make a good point than many wil migrate up. But it still has to do with fitnes and body type. A fighter that is at his fit fighting weight in the 200-240lb range, will shortchange himself to put too much weight on him just so he could chase the money above his weight class. First of all he would be fighting men that are naturally bigger, stronger and comfortable above 240. He may decide to go up, but his chances would be limited. Think of someone like Sanders or Oquendo: they would never fight well above 240. That is to say nothing of Tyson, Holyfield and Byrd type fighters. IT is not that they couldnt beat men above 240lb, but they themselves would not be carrying that much weight successfully. Just like some fighter at 160 could beat 168 and ever 175lb fighters, but they wouldnt carry the higher weights well and their performances would be negatively affected if they attempted to.

what do you think?

cheers,

Jab

jab wrote:what do you think?

I like the theory but I do think unfortunately the financial realities would render any division below "the big boys" a failure. It works well in the amateurs, but there a 91kg gold medal is worth just as much as a +91kg gold, not so in the pro ranks The real question is why does a guy like John Ruiz earn far more for a fight than lighter weight fighters with infinitely more talent just because he's a heavyweight? It's not right but that's just the way it is I suppose.

Touche on heavyweight purses.

You are right on that one. But I think that very acomplished below heavy boxers, do on occasion earn as much as heavyweights (the Ruiz quality, not ones like Holyfield, Bowe, Tyson or Lennox).
For example Oscar de la Hoya, Roy Jones (and a few, very few others) did earn as much (or more) as the average heavyweight champion.

I think an big talent wiht pretty face (yeah, thats important; a lot of ladies will watch a good looking boxer, but not an average or below avrage looking one and they are a significant portion of viewers, despite stereotypes that all ladies hate boxing) will earn as much as the heavies. but you are right, it is rare. The people have a fascination with the highest class. Many people who wouldnt watch boxing otherwise will tune in when a heavyweight championship is on, while they will turn their nose as lt-hv, middleweight, lighhetweight, feather, welter etc championships.
I do not know why whi is, but it is an obseved fact.

Ultimately, I think you are right: the highest attention paid to as well as the highest purses given will be to the highest weight class. But it may still happen that this class is made in thi scentury, becasue fihgters keep getting bigger. Just not anytime soon. I think it is at least 10 years i nthe future. Time will tell.

Chopping Right wrote:

ShoeShine wrote:Wow this is testament to how far Iron Mike has fallen, there is actually a debate over a Tyson vs Butterbean who is no more than a novelty act to the sport...which I guess is what Mike Tyson has become.

You've got a point there. Probably the more worrying question is, would Kevin McBride get past Butterbean?

Well common opponent (and Tysonesque clone) Louis Monaco KO'd McBride but got KO'd by Butterbean.

I know Boxing is not as simple as that but it is some sort of formline I suppose.

It's strange really that we are talking about McBride, Tyson, Butterbean and Monaco in the same sentence. But I suppose that what happens when fighters fight on far past their primes.

Just like when Jimmy Young lost to Chuck Gardener and Leon Spinks lost to KP Porter.

KOJOE90 wrote:...like when Jimmy Young lost to Chuck Gardener

Anyone remember the BBC bringing UK viewers Bruno v Gardner from somewhere in France in 87? The guy redefined the word "DISGRACE". I seem to recall his age was just given as "35-plus", poor old Harry Carpenter was highly embarassed.

Chopping Right wrote:

KOJOE90 wrote:...like when Jimmy Young lost to Chuck Gardener

Anyone remember the BBC bringing UK viewers Bruno v Gardner from somewhere in France in 87? The guy redefined the word "DISGRACE". I seem to recall his age was just given as "35-plus", poor old Harry Carpenter was highly embarassed.

I remember it very well.

Maybe the worst mismatch I have ever seen. In fact it was dangerous Gardner could have been killed that night. For all his faults Bruno was always in good shape and could hit VERY hard.

I seem to recall that Gardner had spent most of the previous 24 hours traveling to the fight and entered the ring with a slight limp from a twisted ankle.

And there was indeed a lot of speculation about his age I read one report that he was 55 when he fought Big Frank. I also remember that apparently Gardner a few years earlier had a big role in a B-movie playing a barenuckle prizefighter I think the film was called The Kiss. But I may be wrong and have neve been able to find any info on this.

I remember prior to the fight 'Team Bruno' were trying to justify the match by stating Gardner held a victory over former contender Jimmy Young. This is of course is true but does not tell the real story, the late Jimmy Young was one of the most highly skilled Heavyweights of the modern era but the Young that fought Gardner was so shot from too many fights and a long drink and drugs problem he should not have been allowed a licence to fight.

I remember thinking prior to the Bruno fight (No 32) that one of Brunos rivels for World domination was Tony Tucker of the USA. Tucker in his FIRST PROFESSIONAL FIGHT had stopped Chuck Gardner.

I'm not big on Tyson - even at his peak- but Iron Mike could smoke crack, have syphillis, pneumonia and one hand tied behind his back and destroy the big mountain of lard that answers to the name of Butterbean.