View Full Version : where does the peak tyson fit in


oakleyno1
08-01-2005, 09:23 AM
at a boxers peak do you think there are many that could of beaten iron mike in 86/88 i dont think so i think
prehaps ali and foreman but i dont think that anyone else in history agaist a peak tyson would have won

what are your views

oakleyno1
08-01-2005, 12:48 PM
i think sayng mercer culd beat him is Quite an insuly actuli and i think he could beat ne version of holyfeild when he was at his peak he didnt need to ashow he could get out of adversity because he never had ne due to being so good

Southpaw16
08-01-2005, 02:20 PM
I think that a prime Tyson is the fourth best fighter of the last 15 years, behind Lewis, Holyfield, and Riddick Bowe. Any of those three fighters could have beaten him in his prime.

M26
08-02-2005, 05:24 PM
I would rate Tyson the 10th or 11th greatest heavyweight of all time.

tommyhearns804
08-03-2005, 12:11 AM
You know what is funny about Tyson fans?The excuses they make.Holyfield was washed up when he fought Tyson.That is the only reason Tyson fought him.Tyson was 30 he was still in his physical prime and Holyfield destroyed him.I agree with you Mckay so many fighters would beat Tyson.And top level heavyweight who didnt have a glass chin and fell for the Tyson hype crap would knock Tyson out.Tyson a top 10 heavyweight?Hell no i can name at least 10 fighters in just the last 15 or so years who would own him.Tyson at his peak was just a guy who padded his record against bums.Nothing more and nothing less.

oakleyno1
08-03-2005, 09:42 AM
however he fought any challenger at the time and although he was in peak physical state vs holy, his mind was totally f**ked up as we all know from the second fight the peak tysonwas the man who took berbicks legs away, the man hu took larry holmes 15 rounds and Koed michal spinks in 1 hu beast larry although i do think larry won that fight

Easy-E
08-03-2005, 12:01 PM
i think sayng mercer culd beat him is Quite an insuly actuli and i think he could beat ne version of holyfeild when he was at his peak he didnt need to ashow he could get out of adversity because he never had ne due to being so good


to bad we will never know, they fought twice and "iron mike" got the living **** beat out of him each time.

tyson is overrated, hes top ten all time, but not number one

oakleyno1
08-03-2005, 03:29 PM
overall career top 10
at his peak id say top 3

kapersky
08-03-2005, 05:03 PM
overall career top 10
at his peak id say top 3

nice pic of tyson o your avatar, his bicep is beautiful. at his prime 86-88 maybe top 5 he had the potencial to be nr1 after rooney hmm no idea maybe 50?

Dude
08-04-2005, 12:58 AM
at a boxers peak do you think there are many that could of beaten iron mike in 86/88 i dont think so i think
prehaps ali and foreman but i dont think that anyone else in history agaist a peak tyson would have won

what are your views

Well, I'll just list the first ten boxers that come to my mind and would've beaten the peak Tyson at their respective prime soundly:

Foreman
Jimmy Young
Joe Louis
Gene Tunney
Holyfield
Ali
Holmes
Lennox Lewis
Sonny Liston
George Chuvalo
Marciano
Max Schmeling
Riddick Bowe

I'll just stop here, if someone wants me too I can name some more. Tyson isn't listed in my Top 20 HW and that's for a reason.

tommyhearns804
08-04-2005, 03:37 PM
Well, I'll just list the first ten boxers that come to my mind and would've beaten the peak Tyson at their respective prime soundly:

Foreman
Jimmy Young
Joe Louis
Gene Tunney
Holyfield
Ali
Holmes
Lennox Lewis
Sonny Liston
George Chuvalo
Marciano
Max Schmeling
Riddick Bowe

Lol take out Marciano Tunney Louis Young Chuvalo Schmeling they would all lose.But you could add Ron Lyle who could beat Tyson Frazier Norton Quarry.Vitali Klitchko Wlad Klitchko Tua Ibeabuchi Rahman Douglas because he did.the list goes on and one kids

oakleyno1
08-05-2005, 07:50 AM
Foreman- i agree would of beaten tyson at his peak
Jimmy Young - Iv onli seen clips of him but i do think tyson wuld be able to overwelm his jab
Joe Louis-tough fight for both i agree prehaps joe shud be on my list
Gene Tunney- i think tyson would of outgunned him tbh
Holyfield-prime tyson as in the one that beat berbick outpuches and stuns holyfeild to win a desision
Ali-yes ali would have won
Holmes- would have to be an absoulte wonder day remeber although he got up from shavers punch shavers was not a good finisher tyson was
Lennox Lewis - not a strong enough jab under pressure IMO
Sonny Liston - anotha prehaps but i thnk its more of a toss up
George Chuvalo - tyson Ko in round 9 i think
Marciano - as much as marceano was strong tyson would outgun him
Max Schmeling-nooo
Riddick Bowe - even at his peak when he beat holy etc tyson would stil win a easy points desision

remeber in 86/87 tyson could go 12 rounds np

Muchmoore
08-05-2005, 03:21 PM
Good post my man Oakley :)

Tyson would Ko Foreman in 6.
Tyson would beat Jimmy Young in 10
Tyson would beat Joe Louis in 4
Tyson would beat Tunney by Ud
Tyson would beat Holmes in 9
Tyson would beat Marciano in 11
Tyson would beat Lewis in 5
Tyson would beat Liston in 5(this would be the toughest one)
Tyson would beat Chuvalo by TKO in 6
Tyson would beat Bowe in 8
Max Schmeling?Your kidding right?

Thats my opinion

Dude
08-08-2005, 03:55 AM
Good post my man Oakley :)

Tyson would Ko Foreman in 6.
Tyson would beat Jimmy Young in 10
Tyson would beat Joe Louis in 4
Tyson would beat Tunney by Ud
Tyson would beat Holmes in 9
Tyson would beat Marciano in 11
Tyson would beat Lewis in 5
Tyson would beat Liston in 5(this would be the toughest one)
Tyson would beat Chuvalo by TKO in 6
Tyson would beat Bowe in 8
Max Schmeling?Your kidding right?

Thats my opinion

Well, I'm sure I'll regret it soon but let me waste some time and put these predictions right.

Tyson loses against Foreman because Big George never was afraid of anyone and a lot thougher than Iron Mike. Foreman had the power in both hands to knock any fighter out and he did best against fighters that came to him (Frazier being the prime example). Mike Tyson stylewise is lost here.

Tyson loses against Jimmy Young because Young had the speed and the boxing skills to hold Mike at bay. Tyson has some chances in this one though but Young proved more than once that he was able to jab his way to a UD against power packed KO artists (see his fight vs. Foreman).

Tyson loses to Louis in every department. Joe Louis in my very personal opinion is the best heavyweight that ever fought. He showed that he was human when he let Schmeling hit him with his big right hands but after that he only become stronger and better. Louis has reach, ring movement, ring intelligence, balance and his defense working for him against a Tyson that never was faster nor thougher than Joe. After being in the ring with Louis for 5 rounds Tyson would be likely to knock himself out just to get out of there.

Tyson loses to Tunney because Tunney showed against Dempsey how to defeat the man that invented the style that made Tyson successful. Tunney would have to gain some weight though.

Tyson loses to Holmes because Larry would outbox him all night long. Holmes was far too intelligent and accurate a boxer to even let Tyson come close enough to unload. Larry also had one of the best jabs the HW division ever saw. Plus Mike showed the tendency to get frustrated and careless during fights he was losing. You can't afford a moment of carelessness against Holmes.

Tyson loses to Marciano based on heart and determination alone. His only chance would be a cut that might force a stoppage under todays understatement of the rules. Apart from that scenario Marciano has the power and the heart to stand toe to toe with Mike (whos power always was a little overrated) and knock him out. Marciano always found a way to win while Mike is more known for finding ways to lose and get out of there.

Tyson loses to Lewis because Lewis is too big for him. Lennox punishes him with his jab and his straight rights until Mike loses any interesst in trying to rush in. It'd be similiar to the fight with Holmes. Lewis isn't as fast as Larry but boxed as intelligent and would have no problem to hold Tyson on the outside where Iron Mike would be lost.

Tyson loses to Liston just on sheer intimidation. Can you imagine Liston being afraid of Tyson? And now can you imagine Tyson being afraid of Liston? I can. Liston has the power and the boxing skills to take Tyson apart in convincing fashion (see his fights with Floyd Patterson).

Tyson loses to Chuvalo because their's no way he knocks him out. And besides haveing an iron chin Chuvalo had some power and solid inside-skills as well. It takes a lot of skill AND thoughness to beat a fighter like Chuvalo. Tyson never was though.

Tyson loses to Bowe because Bowe could fight him on the inside or on long range and be effective either way. Bowe showed against Holyfield that he can take a punch and give some back immediatly. Tyson is not the kind of fighter who expects to get hit back. In fact Tyson lost most of his bouts when somebody started hitting him back with some bad intentions. Bowe is better than Berbick ever was and could do a lot more damage to Tyson. If Iron Mike can't win a fight on the inside he certainly can't on long range. Especially not against a fighter like Bowe.

Tyson loses to Schmeling because Max showed that everyone can be knocked down and out against Louis. Schmeling often gets underrated because of the pounding Louis gave him in their rematch. But Max was a great fighter and more than gritty enough to hang in there with Tyson and dish out some of his fatal right hands. Schmeling was very accurate with most of his punches. And he never gave up. Sth. that cant be said about Tyson.


Iron Mike loses most of these fights based on his lack of heart and thoughness alone. The rest of them are out of his reach because of his style or because he'd be outclassed.

Mike had the power and the speed to loke like sth. very special against medicore opposition. Yet he never defeated another great fighter in or even close to his prime. Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champion ever, that's sth. you can't take away from him and that'll ensure his place in boxings hall of fame. But he is the definition of an overhyped one-dimensional KO-Artist. I've got all of his fights on DVD and I'd have loved to see his career going differntly. He certainly was a very good heavyweight, just not a great one.

tommyhearns804
08-08-2005, 11:09 AM
Dude as i said don't even bother trying to use logic with Muchmoore of all of the people i seen name post on any of the forums i am a member of this guy has to be the worst.Lewis already knocked out Tyson.Lewis is older than Tyson so the little excuse Tyson was old and past his prime dont work because as i said Lewis is older.Holyfield knocked out Tyson already.Tyson ducked a old Foreman.If Tyson can't knock out Douglas a guy who was knocked out 5 times before he even faced Tyson then how would he knock out Foreman?He also couldnt handles Douglas power so Foreman would of crushed him.Jimmy Young was a slick boxer and a much better boxer than James Tillis who almost beat Tyson so Young should beat Tyson.Liston wouldn't be afraid of a woman beating rapist but Tyson would fear him just like Tyson feared Foreman.Liston by early Ko.I was thinking about Chuvalo and he should be able to beat Tyson actually.He hit harder than Holyfield or Douglas.Chuvalo has a better chin than Douglas Holyfield Lewis Williams or Mcbride and Tyson couldn't knock them out.Chuvalo went toe to toe with a young Foreman while Tyson ducked a old one.Chuvalo was fearless and would wear Tyson down and stop him.Bowe is a harder puncher than Lewis and has a better chin.Lewis a slightly better boxer but if a guy like Mrbride could make Tyson quit then Bowe would hand a coward like Tyson his ass in one 1 or 2 rounds .As i said you could of named Tua Ibeabuchi Vitali or Wlad Klitchko Frazier Norton Lyle Quarry or even a guy like Marciano if he was natually over 200 pounds.
Again people of this good post if you see Muchmoore post anything just skip it.As i said he one of those guys who dreams of having sex with Tyson.He is one of those idiots who will find every excuse in the book to cover for Tyson losing.I was thinking i just remembered something this is the same idiot who once said on the Larry Holmes forum that Tony Tubbs is just as good as Ali.No kidding he was trying to say the people Tyson fought were better than the people Ali fought.And he said Tubbs was better than Ali,Ruddock was better than Foreman,Berbick was better than either Frazier or Norton.This guy is a waste of space.Maybe who ever in charge here will just ban him from this post now instead of just reading how stupid this guy is and getting pissed off and then banning him.

ricecrispi
08-08-2005, 02:48 PM
Hearns, you are the moron, read the topic, "where does the peak tyson fit in."

That means Tyson in his prime and at his peak, not after 1990-91 when he was already shot or after 1995 when he got out of jail.....Geez are you retarded. If you want to make a claim or comparision do it like DUDE and compare the fighters style, skills, and weakness. He did it the right way. DUDE very good job.

A young 20 yr old Tyson would knock out the Kevin McBride version Tyson in a minute. I don't agree with him though on all the points. Tyson has a long shot winning a fight pass the 4th round...... Problem is a peak Tyson didn't go pass the 2nd round that often either........

You also called Joe Louis a bum and overrated. Same for Marciano

tommyhearns804
08-08-2005, 05:04 PM
lol you are a ****** no heterosexual man defends a man who rapes and beats women.tyson had no peak.he beat up bums who just about any decent fighter could beat and lost when he fought any fighter who didnt fall for the bull around him.And rice unless you are blind you could go back and read over and over how i broke down Tyson and every other fighter i posted about.infact i am probably the only one who will break down what i say.
a peak tyson didnt go past 2 rounds?and your point is?before tyson went to jail for the first time who did he fight?mith green= bum,spinks=blown up light heavyweight who shyt his pants like a girl,james tillis is=a bum but still alost beat tyson.(on 2 of the scorecards tillis only lost by 2 points so if he didnt get knock down the fight would of been a draw)James Smith was he great?Did beating Smith make Tyson some all time great?
You believe a young Tyson could knock out Mcbride in one round?Kid you must be retarded.The last thing to leave a fighter is his power.Tyson hit Mcbride and Mcbride walked right through them like Tyson punches were nothing.A young Tyson would be Mcbride by never in one round.Let me ask you something and the rest of the people here maybe on of you can answer.
1 Who is better a prime Michael Moorer or Kevin Mcrbide and who has the better chin.Just look who Mcbride was knocked out too and compare that to who knocked out Moorer and tell me what you think.
2 If Foreman could knock out Moorer at 45 then why can't Mike Tyson beat Mcbride when Tyson is only 38.
3 Foreman could go toe to toe with a prime Holyfield and stun him through out the fight so why if Tyson is better than Foreman and has a better chin than Foreman he couldnt even get past Holyfield without getting knocked out when Tyson was only 30?
4 When Foreman was 48 he still had the power to make Shannon Briggs run like a scared woman but yet Tyson couldnt even beat Danny Williams a complete nobody when Tyson was 36 or 37?
5 Why when ever you mention how Tyson lost to Lewis people will say Tyson was old but Lewis is even older than Tyson?
6 Why is it that people will make excuses about why Tyson lost to Douglas then bash Foreman for losing to Ali?Foreman never trained period in his career.Just read what the people around Foreman at the time said.They basically said Moore and Saddler said no man could handle Foremans power so there was no point in really making him train.He just did a little road work and sparred every once in a while.So if you are going to say Tyson didnt train then Foreman didnt either.And who would you rather lose to Ali or get destroyed to Douglas?)
7 Besides a washed up Holmes did Tyson ever show he could knock out a world class fighter in his prime?So why would any sane person say he could knock out the likes of Foreman Ali Frazier ect?
8 How many times did Tyson get knocked down and get up and win a fight like Holmes Frazier Ali Foreman Holyfield did?
9 So based off your own answers and logic why you assume Tyson could beat any great fighter in their prime?So why would you say he is great.
Could anybody please answer these questions please.

tommyhearns804
08-08-2005, 05:36 PM
And ricecrispi Marciano and Louis are overrated big time.Let me break it down for you again.
1 Was Marciano a heavyweight?Nope at best he would be a slightly bigger light heavyweight today.And if you say well if he fought today he would be alot bigger then you are wrong.Marciano wasn't tall he couldnt just add weight and expect it to make him better.Marciano was a small man period just look at how short his arms were.
2 How many 230 plus pounds did Marciano fight in his career?1 and he was a guy name Jerry Jackson and he was a complete bum only 2-1 at the time he fought Marciano.
3 Of the 4 best fighters Marcinao fought in his career 2 were naturally middleweights(Moore started his career at 155 and stayed at middleweight for 7 years and so did Charles)not to mention Moore had probably one of the worse chins of any fighters in any weight class to become champion i think Moore was knocked down over 30 times in his career and knocked out about 10 times.Charles wasnt much of a puncher but his chin was better than Moore.But anyway each ofthese fighters gave Marcinao a hell of a figh before losing.None were heavyweights.So based on this why would anybody say Marciano was one of the all time best heavyweights when he wasnt a heavyweight period and he rarely fought guys who weighed over 200 pounds.I think he just fought 7 guys who weighed over 200 pounds.
4 If it is so easy to move up 30 or 40 pounds so you can fight heavyweights then why hasnt anybody in the modern era of heavyweight fighters tried to move up and bang with the big boys and win?
5 If this is your theory will Marciano is tough then i have to say what is your point?Tough has nothing to do with you beating a man bigger and stronger than you.Tough has to do with lets say you get punched and the punch breaks your jaw.A tough fighter will fight through the pain.That is tough.Just look at Frazier isn't he tough?Yep he sure was but did that help him beat Foreman?Nope and why was that?because Foreman was naturally bigger and stronger than he was.
6 Since Marciano wasnt a heavyweight and didnt fight heavyweights then logic would be he isnt a all time heavyweight great wouldnt it?And besides that Marciano fought mostly bums to attain that 49-0 record right but how may of you think lets say Ali Foreman Frazier Norton Lyle Lewis Bowe Tyson Tua ect ect ect would of lost to the people Marciano beat?And i mean a old Louis too so if you say a young Louis would beat lets say a prime Tyson i dont mean that i mean the exact same age as when Marciano fought Louis.So basically Maricano has to be overrated.A really small cruiserweight who idiots believe could beat 230 pound heavyweights.
Louis is basically the same as Maricano a guy who fought mostly small fighters in his career.Never beating a world class heavyweight but it built up to be some all time heavyweight great.
To be great you need to beat greats or at at least world class fighters in their primes.Ali is great because he beat Foreman.Foreman is great because he beat Frazier Foreman also beat Norton.Frazier beat Ali and he beat Quarry.Foreman also beat Moorer who beat Holyfield who beat Bowe you get my point.
You can't be great because you piled up a record against bums like lets say Tyson.You get my point?And finally to be considered great at a certain weight class you need to actually fight at that weight class.Being a 180 pound fighter who fights 180 pound fighters dont make you a heavyweight ok ricecrispi.

EXIGE
08-08-2005, 05:43 PM
at a boxers peak do you think there are many that could of beaten iron mike in 86/88 i dont think so i think
prehaps ali and foreman but i dont think that anyone else in history agaist a peak tyson would have won

what are your views
some people seem to think that Rocky Marciano would have but thats simply spurious.

kapersky
08-08-2005, 05:43 PM
cant compare when mike tyson is ****ed up. looks at the way he fough in bruno 1 and looks closely at his body, it doesnt looks like he was trained. dont forget tyson use a lot of drugs and wrong medication. tyson acomplished a lot in very short time which also was his prime.

EXIGE
08-08-2005, 05:43 PM
at a boxers peak do you think there are many that could of beaten iron mike in 86/88 i dont think so i think
prehaps ali and foreman but i dont think that anyone else in history agaist a peak tyson would have won

what are your views
Foreman or Liston would have a chance i think. He was definetly a God in his peak though.

tommyhearns804
08-08-2005, 07:19 PM
Lol Tyson is a god at getting knocked out since he did that 5 times and he was a god at raping women.

ricecrispi
08-09-2005, 01:04 AM
I got one name for you Kobe Bryant.

Think about that.

Muchmoore
08-13-2005, 03:33 PM
I was thinking i just remembered something this is the same idiot who once said on the Larry Holmes forum that Tony Tubbs is just as good as Ali.

Yeah, i said Tony Tubbs was better than Ali :D That makes loads of sense.

tommyhearns804
08-13-2005, 07:19 PM
Lol actually you did say Tubbs was better than Ali and Douglas was one of the hardest punchers ever to prove your point that Tyson fought some world class fighters dont you remember?You also said Berbick was great.And how he could beat most of the other greats from the 70's.When the Holmes Forum opens agains and it has all of the old post you made i will copy them and post them here.

Muchmoore
08-13-2005, 08:10 PM
I hope you do that ;)

Troy Fine
08-21-2005, 09:39 PM
tyson in his peak i could honestly say i have only seen one other like him and that is joe loius...tyson had all the potential to be ranked above loius, but just being a good fighter doesnt make you great you have to stay in there for a while you just cant be succsesful for a short moment

the GREAT one
08-22-2005, 01:40 AM
1.Muhammad Ali 2.George Foreman 3.Mike Tyson 4.Sonny Liston 5.Larry Holmes 6.Joe Louis 7.Joe Frazier

Tha Greatest
08-22-2005, 02:05 AM
1.Muhammad Ali 2.George Foreman 3.Mike Tyson 4.Sonny Liston 5.Larry Holmes 6.Joe Louis 7.Joe Frazier

Joe Louis #6?

What a joke!

tommyhearns804
08-22-2005, 02:27 AM
The joke is Louis shouldn't even be in the top 10.Beating up on complete bums and ducking black guys until late in your career doesn't make you great.Every black man Louis fought kicked the shyt out of his azz.Louis has one of the worse chins of any man to be called heavyweight champion.Tyson is superior to Louis in every way and yet Tyson is nothing special.Getting your azz knocked out 5 times by average fighters for the most part does not make you great.

ricecrispi
08-23-2005, 12:26 AM
1.Muhammad Ali 2.George Foreman 3.Mike Tyson 4.Sonny Liston 5.Larry Holmes 6.Joe Louis 7.Joe Frazier

Mike Tyson #3. above Holmes and Frazier, and Joe Louis? Could you explain why Tyson is number three when he shouldn't be top 10.

tommyhearns804
08-23-2005, 09:14 PM
Tell me about it Tyson never beat anybody who you would rank as a top 50 all time great.So why is he considered a great.

Skydog
08-23-2005, 09:41 PM
Tyson actually did beat Larry Holmes, who is arguably top 5, but Holmes was nearly 10 years after his prime then.

Skydog
08-23-2005, 09:47 PM
The joke is Louis shouldn't even be in the top 10.Beating up on complete bums and ducking black guys until late in your career doesn't make you great.Every black man Louis fought kicked the shyt out of his azz.Louis has one of the worse chins of any man to be called heavyweight champion.Tyson is superior to Louis in every way and yet Tyson is nothing special.Getting your azz knocked out 5 times by average fighters for the most part does not make you great.

How is Tyson superior to Louis when Tyson didn't fight anyone good either. Is Walcott not good? How about Schmeling? At least a much older Louis had the guts to get in the ring with a young Marciano.

Tyson only had chin and power on Louis (and power wasn't by much). Louis is arguably the most accurate and precise puncher ever. His heart is five times to that of Tyson's, and he had much better stamina. Sure Louis dominated in a time where no one was really good, but he still dominated and destroyed almost every fighter put in front of him. That's primarly your job in boxing, fight and beat everything put in front of you.

Skydog
08-23-2005, 09:48 PM
Louis's jab would break Tyson's rhythm, and if Tyson got past the jab then Louis would meet him with the uppercuts.

Troy Fine
08-24-2005, 01:30 AM
that guy must be totally retarted to say loius didnt fight good fighters and that he ducked black guys? you got remember back then boxing wasnt a black sport it was dominated by italians,jews,and irish

leoz12
08-24-2005, 01:40 AM
tyson doesnt fit anywhere in my opinion so he knocked out a few bums.
like i said he is a HAS BEEN. a heartless boxer. in other words a joke.
and if he was so great he could still stay on top past his prime.

Muchmoore
08-24-2005, 09:01 PM
By you calling him heartless its clear that you havent seen the Lewis fight, the Douglas fight, or the first Holyfield fight, in which he rose from a knockdown to fight for severel more rounds.

Skydog
08-24-2005, 10:23 PM
WOW, you wanna talk heart?? Louis got dropped twice in one round after his prime from Walcott and came back and won the fight. Foreman got knocked down twice by Lyle and came back and knocked him out. Ali got the **** knocked out of him by Frazier and shot him in no less than 4 seconds. Frazier was getting hit by arguably the most powerful punches ever in boxing from Foreman, but he shot up everytime and was probably willing to die that night before he lost. Ali has been knocked down a few other times and has come back and won the fight. Compared to these, getting up and just getting knocked out later is nothing.

Tyson got PUSHED down by a fighter he could have easily have beaten, but he quit. In the Lewis fight, he doesn't even get knocked down, he just bends his knees down low to avoid further punishment. You wanna talk heart, ****ing Tyson tried to end a fight by biting the **** out off Holyfield's ear to end the fight before he got the **** knocked out of him.

kmac
08-29-2005, 04:17 PM
Because Tyson is a great puncher with 2 heavy hands and a decent chin, he could have beaten anyone if he landed the right punch. At the same time so could Dempsey, Marciano, Foreman. I say Tyson is a top ten fighter but no where near the top.

He was the third best fighter in his era, behind Lewis and Holyfield

TKODoll
08-30-2005, 04:30 PM
i think sayng mercer culd beat him is Quite an insuly actuli and i think he could beat ne version of holyfeild when he was at his peak he didnt need to ashow he could get out of adversity because he never had ne due to being so good

In ENGLISH, please.

Warhawk46
08-31-2005, 02:18 AM
While I can respect everyone's opinions, I think it must be made clear as to when Mike Tyson's "prime" was. For certain it was not after he was released from prison. At this point he was exactly what some people here have written: a headhunting KO artist. He had lost the immense skills he once possessed.

In truth, Tyson was the most complete fighter since Joe Louis. During his prime, even though it was short, he was a defensive master who really only got tagged by a few decent shots in 35 fights!!! Rooney had molded him into a defensive jaggernaut. Besides this he also possessed nearly as fast hands as Ali. Remember Tyson did not shoot the jabs all that often, although he was able to double and even triple the jab to get inside with great effectivness. In truth, his jab is underrated. But one must remember that Iron Mike through powerful punches with lightening speed. His power combinations almost equaled Ali's; watch films and you will see this.

Besides his excellent defense and incredibly fast hands, Tyson possessed excellent punching technique. Not since perhaps Louis has a fighter been so technically precise in his punching technique. Perhaps there have been a few others since then, but not many. No on can dispute this.

Also, during his "prime" he was not a mental nut-case, not like he was once his personal life collapsed around him. Remember, he was so young and had lost the two most loved figures in his life: first D'Amato and then Jimmy Jacobs. When Jacobs dies Don King swooped in like a vulture. Shortly later Tyson fired Rooney and with this last move, his greatness left. In his first fight without Kevin Rooney he was lacking. Defense was poor, headmovement minimal. Precision punching gone, headhunting was in. His punchers were wider, less discipline. In fact, since he canned Rooney he has been a lazy fighter and lazy in training.

While I am not trying to say Mike Tyson is the greatest fighter ever, and I dont think he is, I think too many people (and biased and unknowledgable media influence doesnt help) forgot who the Prime Tyson was and what type of fighter he was. When looking at the fighter who fought Lewis or Williams or even Holyfield for that matter, think of an opposite fighter. While the others were undisciplined and lacked motivation or skills, prime Mike was disciplined, motivated and incredibly skilled.

Yogi
08-31-2005, 03:50 AM
In his first fight without Kevin Rooney he was lacking. Defense was poor, headmovement minimal. Precision punching gone, headhunting was in. His punchers were wider, less discipline.

Have you ever seen Tyson's fight with Nino Ribalta?

If so, you probably noticed the lack of head movement from Tyson for the vast majority of the fight when compared to some other fights of his during his "prime", the lack of combination punching throughout, and his relying on trying to land single bombs to end the fight during the last 7 or 8 rounds...And the funny thing is he had Kevin Rooney in his corner for that one, so how do you explain that rather crappy performance where Tyson himself said the following words during the post-fight, "I had a bad night"?

I don't know what you think, but maybe it had something to do with a "prime" Tyson's stylistic weakness and tendencies against taller fighters who used some effective movement behind a jab and the ability/knowledge to tie Tyson up when on the inside (which was Ribalta's gameplan). Sort of like how the much more talented (than Ribalta), Buster Douglas later proved when he knocked out a prime Tyson in 1990.

And if you're going to come back at me with "excuses" for that Tyson loss to Douglas, then I would tell you to be consistent with that thinking, as Tony Tucker had a bunch of crap to deal with before facing Tyson (including a drug problem which had just became known to those around him, a changing of both his manager & trainer in the weeks leading up to the Tyson fight, and he was also in court on the eve of the fight fighting with his former manager, Dennis Rappaport...Tucker also supposedly busted his hand in the very first round when he shook Tyson up with that uppercut), and if you were to be consistent you must also think that stuff made the difference between a Tucker win and a loss against Mike.

Tucker was more competitive with Tyson than Tyson was with Douglas, so...well, you can figure out the rest.

Warhawk46
08-31-2005, 02:37 PM
He had an off-night against Ribalta, but he also looked much better than he did against Douglas. Tyson was aggressive and landed pretty much when he wanted to against Jose Ribalta. And his defense WAS much better than it was against Douglas...watch the fight. Tyson hardly got hit with a meaningful punch. Against Douglas he got landed flush time after time after time.

I challenge you to learn more about a subject before going off into a rant about another person's post. I was not trying to anger anyone by my previous post. I simply stated obvious factors that should be in any discussion concerning Mike Tyson. It is those who cop out and go with the "Tyson never beat anyone who stood up to him..." line that warrant no respect. People who disagree with me are great, its what keeps these boards worth coming to.

However, Tyson (and Marciano and others) do not get a fair shake from many people when discussing their greatness. I am simply pointing out facts concerning a young and prime Mike Tyson.

I think everyone knows he was far from his best when he returned from prison. If you dont know this, watch his fights and watch his pre-prison fights. For those of you who throw out the "he was only 29 year old" when concerning fighters there is no magical age when a fighter is still in his prime. Much of it has to do with fighting style: smarmers, ala Dempsey, Tyson, Frazier, Marciano etc are going to burn out faster. That's just the way it is as opposed to a fighter who can control a fight with a jab, ala Holmes, Ali, etc.

I would appreciate intelligent, respectful discussion further on the matter if anyone is willing.

Yogi
08-31-2005, 04:55 PM
He had an off-night against Ribalta, but he also looked much better than he did against Douglas. Tyson was aggressive and landed pretty much when he wanted to against Jose Ribalta. And his defense WAS much better than it was against Douglas...watch the fight. Tyson hardly got hit with a meaningful punch. Against Douglas he got landed flush time after time after time.

I challenge you to learn more about a subject before going off into a rant about another person's post. I was not trying to anger anyone by my previous post. I simply stated obvious factors that should be in any discussion concerning Mike Tyson. It is those who cop out and go with the "Tyson never beat anyone who stood up to him..." line that warrant no respect. People who disagree with me are great, its what keeps these boards worth coming to.

However, Tyson (and Marciano and others) do not get a fair shake from many people when discussing their greatness. I am simply pointing out facts concerning a young and prime Mike Tyson.

I think everyone knows he was far from his best when he returned from prison. If you dont know this, watch his fights and watch his pre-prison fights. For those of you who throw out the "he was only 29 year old" when concerning fighters there is no magical age when a fighter is still in his prime. Much of it has to do with fighting style: smarmers, ala Dempsey, Tyson, Frazier, Marciano etc are going to burn out faster. That's just the way it is as opposed to a fighter who can control a fight with a jab, ala Holmes, Ali, etc.

I would appreciate intelligent, respectful discussion further on the matter if anyone is willing.

First off I noticed something on the bottom of the first page of the forums, so happy birthday, bro. I hope you have a good one.

Now as far as your challenge goes, I'm quite capable of speaking my opinions of Mike Tyson, thank you very much, as I was about your current age (you're 22 today, aren't you?) when Tyson was causing havoc in the division, and at that time I was following the sport about as close as anybody possible could. Even to this day I still have plenty of reading material left over from them days and own the vast majority of the fights of Tyson's earlier days (or "prime"), including his fight against Nino Ribalta. And in that fight I was not impressed with Tyson's performance, when compared to some other fights from his younger days...He landed some good combinations on Ribalta in the early goings, but after landing his patented right to the body/right to the head combination in the second round, which dropped Ribalta, Tyson became a one punch at a time headhunter for basically the rest of the fight (although I can recall a good right hand/left hook combination late in the fight that knocked Ribalta's mouthpiece flying, but those combinations from Mike were few and far between). Tyson may have been the aggressor in that fight, but for most of it he was a plodding aggressor looking to land one bomb at a time. And Ribalta was somewhat competitive with Mike in that one, and was able to neutralize Tyson to an extent with movement, the long left jab (he landed a bunch of those), and clinching when Tyson got in on him (Ribalta came back on Tyson a couple of times with flurries, but practically every time Tyson landed one of his single power shots, Nino was tying him up right away, as well as pushing Tyson's head down on a few occasions...wasn't pretty from Ribalta, but it was an effective strategy). I also don't see Tyson's defense being that much better than what it was for Douglas, as in both fights and for the most part, he neglected to use that head movement that he became known for (Tyson moved his head in both fights during the first couple of rounds, and then pretty much gave up on it for the rest of both fights).

As far as your "he looked much better than he did against Douglas" comment, don't you think that opinion of yours might have something to do with the quality of opponent he was up against (personally, I wouldn't say Tyson looked "much better")? Ribalta wasn't a particularily bad fighter and was a useful fringe contender type during that time, but there's no way he was anywhere near as talented as was Douglas when Buster was at his best (against Tyson, the first 6 or 7 rounds against Tucker, and also against the muscular & chinny, Mike Williams, which were the three best displays of Buster's overall talents). But even though there was an obvious talent difference between Douglas and Ribalta, they did have similiar attributes and used similiar styles against Tyson, and both were effective in some way with it (James Tillis also used something similiar, and that's another fight where Tyson abandoned the combination punching and head movement for the majority of the last half/two-thirds of the fight).

On to other things...

Listen, I'm not one to discredit Tyson's opponents during his reign as champion, as he did fight guys who were talented heavyweights in their own right (as far as pure talent goes, that era is certainly better than the one that exists currently). And no, I wasn't angry with your previous post. But what I don't like to see is people put Tyson (or any fighter for that matter) under an extreme microscope and then come up with excuses for a performance of his. I try to look beyond that because then you'd have to do that with every single fighter in history and decide what they were going through during the pre-fight buildup. Every single fighter in history has a personal life outside of boxing, and of course that means it's very, very likely they had things going on that could be deemed or viewed from the outside as an distraction. I presented an example of what Tony Tucker went through before facing Tyson (which you didn't respond to and I'd like you to if you don't mind...I can also quote documented "excuses" for a number of Tyson's opponents if I so choose), but for me, a prime Tyson defeated Tony Tucker in that 12 round fight. But I also consider Tyson's prime to include his fight with Douglas, as well, and likee most people and basically all the Tyson fans do, I'm not one to discredit that victory by Buster by saying Tyson wasn't in his prime...I also don't consider Tyson's prime to be after his prison stint, nor do I judge a fighter's prime by going strictly on his age.

Warhawk46
09-01-2005, 02:44 AM
Yogi, I can honestly say you are an intelligent poster who gives much thought into what he writes. It shows in your posts.

I would agree with you in saying that Tyson did not look particularly effective against Ribalta. However, I find this fight to be entertaining. Tyson had a poor performance, but he was still able to control the fight, something he couldnt do against Douglas. In effect, he was also able to control the fight against TNT Tucker...and even though he didnt knock Tucker out like many of his opponents, he still really dominated the fight. He pressed the action against both Ribalta and Tucker. Now, he did not use as effective headmovement against these two fighters than he did against, say Mitch Green or countless other fighters. However, Tyson did employ pretty good defense in that he was rarely hit with a meaningful shot.

Ribalta was a tough SOB that night. He brought his A game, as did many when they fought Tyson. Usually, it didnt matter. Ribalta was not afraid of Tyson and fought a very smart fight, as you alluded to.

I am not a Tyson fan who will say he was "far past his prime when he fought Douglas". I consider him prime until prison basically. However, make no mistake, he was a much less disciplined and did not employ the skills he once had in his arsenal against Douglas, or for that matter against Frank Bruno back in 1989. Basically, the Tyson of this time was lazy and believed the nonsense about him being "unbeatable" and "invincible". No fighter was or ever will be unbeatable. A fighter must be prepared to win every time they set foot into the ring. Tyson lost this focus, this truth about boxing. He had yes-men around him; no Kevin Rooney in his corner telling him he will never fight the perfect fight, and that he could always get better. This loss in discipline contributed greatly to Tyson's quick loss of greatness.

Now, after he lost to Douglas, I think he was humbled somewhat. Right away he hired Ritchie Giachetti, Holmes old trainer, and came back with fire to dispatch of two victims in the first round. One of these men was Alex Stewart who had recently fought several hard rounds with Holyfield, even taking it to him at points. After this Tyson fought the #2 challenger (he himself was #1) in Ruddock and fought two memorable bouts, and really basically ruined Ruddock (Lewis would finish the job a little while later with a 2 round TKO).

Prison ended the greatness Mike Tyson had. After prison it was all smart matchmaking and marketing on King's part. Tyson's skills were vastly eroded by then and he would never again recapture the form he once had.

catskills23
09-01-2005, 03:35 PM
Prime tyson beats anyone in history . He was too elusive, too fast and hit too hard . Prime tyson is one of the quickest heavyweights in history . I am not just talking about his handspeed he was very quick on his feet too . Any fighters that tried to run on him got beat down eg tyrell biggs . Ali could try and run from tyson but tyson would just systematically beat him down . Foreman could try and trade with tyson and end up mostly hitting thin air and end up on the deck . There are 2 ways you can fight tyson run and hold and loose a boring decision or stand and trade and end up on the deck . Even george foreman and muhammed ali said during tysons prime that they didnt think they could of beaten tyson and thats what dam near every boxing analyst thought , why has nearly everyone changed their minds since then ? .

Yogi
09-01-2005, 07:47 PM
Yogi, I can honestly say you are an intelligent poster who gives much thought into what he writes. It shows in your posts.

I would agree with you in saying that Tyson did not look particularly effective against Ribalta. However, I find this fight to be entertaining. Tyson had a poor performance, but he was still able to control the fight, something he couldnt do against Douglas. In effect, he was also able to control the fight against TNT Tucker...and even though he didnt knock Tucker out like many of his opponents, he still really dominated the fight. He pressed the action against both Ribalta and Tucker. Now, he did not use as effective headmovement against these two fighters than he did against, say Mitch Green or countless other fighters. However, Tyson did employ pretty good defense in that he was rarely hit with a meaningful shot.

Ribalta was a tough SOB that night. He brought his A game, as did many when they fought Tyson. Usually, it didnt matter. Ribalta was not afraid of Tyson and fought a very smart fight, as you alluded to.

I am not a Tyson fan who will say he was "far past his prime when he fought Douglas". I consider him prime until prison basically. However, make no mistake, he was a much less disciplined and did not employ the skills he once had in his arsenal against Douglas, or for that matter against Frank Bruno back in 1989. Basically, the Tyson of this time was lazy and believed the nonsense about him being "unbeatable" and "invincible". No fighter was or ever will be unbeatable. A fighter must be prepared to win every time they set foot into the ring. Tyson lost this focus, this truth about boxing. He had yes-men around him; no Kevin Rooney in his corner telling him he will never fight the perfect fight, and that he could always get better. This loss in discipline contributed greatly to Tyson's quick loss of greatness.

Now, after he lost to Douglas, I think he was humbled somewhat. Right away he hired Ritchie Giachetti, Holmes old trainer, and came back with fire to dispatch of two victims in the first round. One of these men was Alex Stewart who had recently fought several hard rounds with Holyfield, even taking it to him at points. After this Tyson fought the #2 challenger (he himself was #1) in Ruddock and fought two memorable bouts, and really basically ruined Ruddock (Lewis would finish the job a little while later with a 2 round TKO).

Prison ended the greatness Mike Tyson had. After prison it was all smart matchmaking and marketing on King's part. Tyson's skills were vastly eroded by then and he would never again recapture the form he once had.

That's a very fair post, Warhawk, and I do believe I initially labeled you as yet just another one of the numerous Tyson fanatics (albiet a very well written one, which in and of itself, should've clued me in)...Sorry 'bout that.

"I consider him prime until prison basically."

That's my views on that, as well. Nobody in their right mind or in the know is going to argue that Tyson was 100% prepared (both physically and mentally) for his fight with Douglas, but if one was to use that as the main reasoning as to why Tyson lost to Douglas...I ain't buying it. Personally, I don't think it would've mattered what Tyson showed up on that night, because I don't see any reason why one should think he would've won the fight, no matter what. He wasn't just edged out by Buster in that fight...he was thoroughly dominated by a fighter who used the exact style that other Tyson opponents hinted would work successfully against him (the use of jabs, angles, movement, smart clinching, and being tough/determined enough to take a few and hang in there). But if one was to say something like, "Tyson would've beat Douglas if he *fill in excuse*", then it's only fair to say the same thing about someone like Tony Tucker against Tyson (considering the competitiveness and pre-fight dealings surrounding both fights), don't you think?...Fair is fair, and it's a side I normally take when one wants to excuse Tyson's performance in that Douglas fight.

But getting back to Tyson's "prime"...Yeah, I share the same view as you do, and it's mainly because after losing to Douglas, Mike got right back on track and was as dominating as he had been earlier. He came back and utterly destroyed a fairly decent heavyweight in Alex Stewart, and then had those two victories against what I thought was one of Tyson's very best opponents during his pre-prison days. Considering the opponent he was up against, I actually consider Tyson's performance in the Ruddock rematch to be one of the best of his career. Unlike more than a few of Tyson's intimidated earlier opponents, there was no doubt Ruddock wanted the fight and certainly proved that he came to fight on both occasions (the two were scheduled to duke it out in a 1989 championship fight, but it never came off at that time...Ruddock WANTED the Tyson fight ever since then).

Anyways, in that rematch with Ruddock, Tyson looked excellant during the early going, and really put his punches together well. Tyson did fade a little during the last half of the fight (he did that in his younger days, as well), which gave Ruddock a chance to land that punishing left hook/uppercut of his on occasion (along with some good right uppercuts, as well), but Tyson stood in there and still had control of the fight (busted Razor's jaw in the process). For a total performace against a very willing opponent, I was much more impressed with that Tyson than I was with say the one who fought the likes of Tillis, Zouski, Ribalta, Smith, and Tucker. The way I see it, if a fighter was so far past his prime like some would say, he wouldn't have been able to come up with that type of all-around performance and I certainly wouldn't have been so impressed with it.

Warhawk46
09-02-2005, 02:04 AM
A fair and well-thought post. However, I do feel Tyson's skills were not as sharp as they had been previously. Douglas dominated Tyson in Tokyo that night. However, I think Tyson would have beaten Douglas in a rematch. Mike fought terribly that night and it was a poor performance from the get-go. He looked disinterested and lethargic.

However, I am in no way trying to downplay Buster's achievment. He was brilliant. I only wish he could have fought with similar fire and discipline against Holyfield instead of just cahing his check. We might have seen a competetive bout.

I agree Tyson's "Prime" was before prison. After he got out he was so far removed than what he had been. And to those who try to downplay his greatness, a record of 40-1 is not bad. This was Tyson's "first career".

If only his personal life had turned out differently he might have been able to challenge Marciano's record. Of course, fate would not allow it. Tyson seemed doomed to collapse under the intense weight of what he created in such a short timespan.

oakleyno1
09-02-2005, 12:17 PM
surely you can see the tyson who fought michal spinks who had beaten larry holmes TWICE although the wins are debatable and when he fought berbick the man hu took holmes 15 rounds although i do not rate berbick myself, if he had fought like that agaist lennox lewis id say a round 2 or 3 KO. lewis jab is very very good however so was holm es even past his prime and so was michal spinks and numberous other opponents. Also do not forgot lewis's chin isnt all that either (btw i rate lewis in my top 12 of all time). agaist someone such as joe frazier who needs a few rounds to get into things i think Tyson would of Koed him in round 2 or 3 aswell basically like the foreman fight, dont forgot ali nearly stopped joe in round 2 of their second fight. (joe is in my top 10) there are many other examples i could use the only fighters that could of beaten him are ali/clay foreman or prehaps liston..Im not another mindless tyson fan however if you watch his peak fights you can surely see a peak tyson was top 5 at the very least of all time

abyrvalg
09-10-2005, 04:15 PM
Ali, Holmes, Holyfield, Lewis ....................
with Frazier can be interesting fight

STEELERDYNASTY
09-11-2005, 10:26 AM
IMO Tyson could have been the best IF he would have stayed with Atlas and Rooney and his original promoters King ruined Mike's life and career

Pariah21388
09-11-2005, 06:19 PM
holyfield nor lennox would have beaten tyson if was still with kevin rooney and he didnt **** up outside the ring

TysonGOAT
09-12-2005, 01:41 AM
Tyson is god.

Hunna
09-12-2005, 04:46 AM
well, put it this way, which fighterwouldnt u like 2 come up against?
definitely Tyson. Ali and rest of tall big heavyweights were slow starters. Ali had quick hands, but got in full swing by the 3rd round onwards. Tyson was dynamite from the start, he came at u from start to finish, other heavyweights just wait till u get tired and pick ya off.
Ive always had a belief that short stocky heavies are much tougher than tall ones for some reason, dat goes for most divisions.

Dempsey 1919
11-03-2005, 04:43 PM
I think that a prime Tyson is the fourth best fighter of the last 15 years, behind Lewis, Holyfield, and Riddick Bowe. Any of those three fighters could have beaten him in his prime.
i believe only holyfield could. the others tyson would be all over.

legend_killer
11-04-2005, 08:14 PM
It's so funny to see all these different arguments. Tyson lovers base his career on what he achieved before he was knocked out by Buster Douglas, while Tyson haters base his whole career on what he achieved after he was released from prison. Regardless of how you feel about him, the topic was in relation to the peak Tyson.

I believe Mike Tyson's peak was when he knocked out Larry Holmes. Although he destroyed Michael Spinks in one round, it could almost be considered a mismatch. Holmes came in and challenged Tyson with the jab. Tyson responded by knocking Holmes down 3 times in the 4th round. That was the Iron Mike that terrorized the heavyweight division. He stalked his opponent and landed pressure blows until he found the knockout punch.

After he was released from prison, Mike Tyson was not the same boxer. Much like Muhammad Ali, Tyson had lost that spark that made him the best. Ali was treated as a hero by many, while Tyson had lost all the respect and was locked away from the world. That has to do some serious emotional damage right there. We have no idea what happened to him while he was in prison, so we have no right to judge.

The fact is that before he was imprisoned, Mike Tyson had lost one fight in his career. Every great fighter can lose at least one. Hell, Lennox Lewis lost to Hasim Rahman. Sure, he came back and regained his title, but he didn't go to prison like Tyson did.

This topic is based on what Tyson accomplished before he lost to Douglas. This has nothing to do with the losses to Holyfield, Lewis or any of the other fighters. At his prime, Tyson was considered to be the best in the world and perhaps one of the greatest of all time. He could knock them out in 2 or last the full 12 rounds. Before the Douglas fight, Tyson had never been troubled. His aggression allowed him to control the fights and that is why he always came out victorious.

As for who he would lose to, I believe the only two would be George Foreman and Muhammad Ali in their prime. Tyson may or may not be scared of Foreman, but if he is, Foreman's power would take him down in the 8th round.

Ali's hit-and-run tactics would frustrate Tyson, but he would take the fight to a slugfest with aggression. Rope-a-dope will not work with Tyson, as he would deliver vicious shots to the body. Ali would outbox Tyson to take a uninamous decision.

Dempsey 1919
11-08-2005, 03:24 PM
Ali would outbox Tyson to take a uninamous decision.
if buster douglass knocked tyson out, what makes you think ali couldn't do the same?

Dempsey 1919
03-08-2006, 07:22 PM
Prime tyson beats anyone in history . He was too elusive, too fast and hit too hard . Prime tyson is one of the quickest heavyweights in history . I am not just talking about his handspeed he was very quick on his feet too . Any fighters that tried to run on him got beat down eg tyrell biggs . Ali could try and run from tyson but tyson would just systematically beat him down . Foreman could try and trade with tyson and end up mostly hitting thin air and end up on the deck . There are 2 ways you can fight tyson run and hold and loose a boring decision or stand and trade and end up on the deck . Even george foreman and muhammed ali said during tysons prime that they didnt think they could of beaten tyson and thats what dam near every boxing analyst thought , why has nearly everyone changed their minds since then ? .

lol, this is the biggest piece of tyson nuthugging i have ever read in my life!! :D

Yaman
03-09-2006, 10:18 AM
Why you keep bringing up old ass topics.

moondog0
03-09-2006, 11:12 AM
Ali would have had to put himself in harms way to knock out Tyson, he would have to take some chances if he wanted to deliver knock out blows, I think Ali would have played it cautious against a prime Tyson, Frazier hit Ali plenty of times in their fights and a young Tyson could be much more dangerous than Frazier. The body shots alone from a Young Tyson dropped a lot of decent fighters, plus he was hard to hit when he was starting out, not in the end of his career.

Dempsey 1919
03-09-2006, 02:43 PM
Ali would have had to put himself in harms way to knock out Tyson, he would have to take some chances if he wanted to deliver knock out blows, I think Ali would have played it cautious against a prime Tyson, Frazier hit Ali plenty of times in their fights and a young Tyson could be much more dangerous than Frazier. The body shots alone from a Young Tyson dropped a lot of decent fighters, plus he was hard to hit when he was starting out, not in the end of his career.

not really. ali has a longer reach, so he would be able to stay away. also ali's jab would wear tyson down and make him weaker, so it would be easier for ali to knock him out.

smasher
03-09-2006, 10:02 PM
The Ribalta fight is an interseting foot note in Tyson's career in that it was the only stoppage he ever had past the 7th round. Even when the fight was stopped, Ribalta (who was on his feet) was clear-eyed and upset that the fight was being stopped. This is evidence that Tyson neither carried his power late in a fight nor deployed the type of systematic body attack that would break down and wear an opponent out.

Tyson was not a concentrated body puncher. In fact for a heavyweight of his stature he wasn't much of a body puncher period. He was an over-anxious swarmer who seemed intent on trying to end fights as soon as possible. Ribalta, Douglas, Tucker, Ruddock, Tillis, Holyfield, all these fighters went late with Tyson because after the absent inside of 5 rounds KO, Tyson was reduced to a one punch at a time head-hunter content to clinch, hold and push on the inside.

With Tyson's short stature and reach combined with his two-handed punching power and hand speed he could have been an awesome in-fighter, a heavyweight Duran if he had ever been taught properly. Rooney and D'Amato get a lot of credit for developing Tyson but I believe he was sadly lacking in this department and his fights prove it. Tyson was programmed like a machine and was not adaptable against different styles. He attacked straight-on and almost never presented angles, or learned to effectively fight in the pocket. Evander Holyfield a fighter not known as an in-fighter won almost every round in-close against Tyson.

As for Tyson having a lot on his mind as an excuse against Douglas, remember that Buster's mother died the week of the fight and his father who trained him walked out on him. Strangely this didn't have the detrimental affect on Buster that Tyson's managerial and marital problems had on him.

Stiv Rex
03-09-2006, 10:26 PM
i would love to see tyson-marciano/frazier/dempsey.

not one of those fights would go past about 8 rounds.
my picks would be marciano, frazier, tyson----but you know with these 4 guys it only takes one good one, they would all be dynamite fights.
gotta wait for heaven to see em though, but im sure they will let mike come up from hell on parole, ha.

Verstyle
03-09-2006, 10:36 PM
not really. ali has a longer reach, so he would be able to stay away. also ali's jab would wear tyson down and make him weaker, so it would be easier for ali to knock him out.
he might have had a longer reach but tyson was known to get in really good and quick with his foot speed and his superb defense

Verstyle
03-09-2006, 10:48 PM
The Ribalta fight is an interseting foot note in Tyson's career in that it was the only stoppage he ever had past the 7th round. Even when the fight was stopped, Ribalta (who was on his feet) was clear-eyed and upset that the fight was being stopped. This is evidence that Tyson neither carried his power late in a fight nor deployed the type of systematic body attack that would break down and wear an opponent out.

Tyson was not a concentrated body puncher. In fact for a heavyweight of his stature he wasn't much of a body puncher period. He was an over-anxious swarmer who seemed intent on trying to end fights as soon as possible. Ribalta, Douglas, Tucker, Ruddock, Tillis, Holyfield, all these fighters went late with Tyson because after the absent inside of 5 rounds KO, Tyson was reduced to a one punch at a time head-hunter content to clinch, hold and push on the inside.

With Tyson's short stature and reach combined with his two-handed punching power and hand speed he could have been an awesome in-fighter, a heavyweight Duran if he had ever been taught properly. Rooney and D'Amato get a lot of credit for developing Tyson but I believe he was sadly lacking in this department and his fights prove it. Tyson was programmed like a machine and was not adaptable against different styles. He attacked straight-on and almost never presented angles, or learned to effectively fight in the pocket. Evander Holyfield a fighter not known as an in-fighter won almost every round in-close against Tyson.

As for Tyson having a lot on his mind as an excuse against Douglas, remember that Buster's mother died the week of the fight and his father who trained him walked out on him. Strangely this didn't have the detrimental affect on Buster that Tyson's managerial and marital problems had on him.


your first paragraph is sorta funny cause i think tyson knocked down ribalta in the 8TH ROUND hhhmmmmmmmmm thats funny since u said he doesnt carry his power in the later rounds. and for body attack i guess u didnt see in the ribalta fight on how close ribalta was holding his elbos inside and how he would try to throw quick punches and try to cover up. hhhhmmmmmm thats weird huh. sorry i had to break this part of your statement down but i watch the ribalta fight everyday. i have the whole thing on my cell phone. hell i was even watching it at work today :D CORRECTION ON MY PART I FORGOT HE ALSO KNOCKED HIM DOWN IN THE 10TH ROUND ALSO SOOOOOOO IN TOTLA HE KNOCKED HIM DOWN THREE TIMES IN THE FIGHT AND TWO OF THOSE WERE AFTER THE 8TH.

on the second paragraph what the hell were u smoking aahahahaha. prime tyson wasnt a concentrated body puncher???? how many fights have u actually seen on tyson and anaylze. he was known for his body punches when he was coming up thats another thiing that put him apart from the rest of the hw field. hell even the commentators would even comment on how tyson attacked the body. u need to talk to DRZ and download some old tyson fights cause your pretty clueless on whaht u said about the body. the swarming and tryin to end it quick is correct although he didnt do it in all of his fights in the 80s but he still did it.

smasher
03-09-2006, 10:51 PM
tyson was known to get in really good and quick with his foot speed and his superb defense

Tyson is credited with a superb defense but his offense was his best defence. Most of Tyson's opponents pre-Douglas fought scared and were more intent on survival. Bonecrusher Smith and Tony Tucker for example were guys who survived but they didn't let their hands go. Tyson had good head movement early in fights but was a straight up plodder after 5-7 rounds. I would say his defense was pretty good but I would have liked to see him against a quality heavyweight who was willing to let his hands go before I would classify his defence as superb.

Verstyle
03-09-2006, 11:00 PM
Tyson is credited with a superb defense but his offense was his best defence. Most of Tyson's opponents pre-Douglas fought scared and were more intent on survival. Bonecrusher Smith and Tony Tucker for example were guys who survived but they didn't let their hands go. Tyson had good head movement early in fights but was a straight up plodder after 5-7 rounds. I would say his defense was pretty good but I would have liked to see him against a quality heavyweight who was willing to let his hands go before I would classify his defence as superb.


how many times have u seen the tyson cs tucker fight. i see it at least 15 to 20 times a month easily and tucker was throwing his hadns. but ironically to what your saying tyson would come in quick with speed and defense combined and smother his punches since hes a lanky armed fighter :)

smasher
03-10-2006, 12:33 AM
how many times have u seen the tyson cs tucker fight. i see it at least 15 to 20 times a month easily and tucker was throwing his hadns. but ironically to what your saying tyson would come in quick with speed and defense combined and smother his punches since hes a lanky armed fighter :)

I taped it the night they fought. I've kept the tape and watched it many times in over 18 years. You watch it 15-20 times a month? Why? It's not even a good fight. In any event I'm not saying Tucker didn't throw ANY punches. The term 'didn't let his hands go' means he didn't throw enough punches to outpoint or hurt Tyson. Tucker was far too conservative in his approach to have a chance at victory. This cautious approach combined and interspersed with useless mugging and showboating is what I implied as 'didn't let his hands go'.

The end result was Tucker did enough to be somewhat competitive but nowhere near enough to seriously challenge for the win.

smasher
03-10-2006, 12:57 AM
your first paragraph is sorta funny cause i think tyson knocked down ribalta in the 8TH ROUND hhhmmmmmmmmm thats funny since u said he doesnt carry his power in the later rounds. and for body attack i guess u didnt see in the ribalta fight on how close ribalta was holding his elbos inside and how he would try to throw quick punches and try to cover up. hhhhmmmmmm thats weird huh. sorry i had to break this part of your statement down but i watch the ribalta fight everyday. i have the whole thing on my cell phone. hell i was even watching it at work today :D CORRECTION ON MY PART I FORGOT HE ALSO KNOCKED HIM DOWN IN THE 10TH ROUND ALSO SOOOOOOO IN TOTLA HE KNOCKED HIM DOWN THREE TIMES IN THE FIGHT AND TWO OF THOSE WERE AFTER THE 8TH.

on the second paragraph what the hell were u smoking aahahahaha. prime tyson wasnt a concentrated body puncher???? how many fights have u actually seen on tyson and anaylze. he was known for his body punches when he was coming up thats another thiing that put him apart from the rest of the hw field. hell even the commentators would even comment on how tyson attacked the body. u need to talk to DRZ and download some old tyson fights cause your pretty clueless on whaht u said about the body. the swarming and tryin to end it quick is correct although he didnt do it in all of his fights in the 80s but he still did it.

First of all READ MY POST. I said The Ribalta fight was Tyson's ONLY STOPPAGE WIN PAST THE 7TH ROUND. Not too ****ing impressive when it was the only one in a career spanning the better part of 21 years. I also said he was not a CONCENTRATED BODY PUNCHER. Joe Frazier, Rocky Marciano, Roberto Duran, Alexis Arguello, Eusebio Pedroza, Julio Ceasar Chavez etc... were fighters who wore opponents down by focusing on a body attack. MIKE TYSON DID NOT FOCUS HIS ATTACK ON THE BODY. He was a headhunter. I never said he didn't punch to the body, just that he wasn't much of a body puncher meaning he didn't wear opponents down by going to the body.

As for not seeing enough Tyson fights you are dead wrong. I am the same age as Tyson and followed his entire career as well as taped ALL HIS FIGHTS. Over the last 21 years I have seen more than my share of Mike Tyson. The difference between us watching the fights is I know what I am watching and you apparently do not.

Verstyle
03-10-2006, 01:03 AM
First of all READ MY POST. I said The Ribalta fight was Tyson's ONLY STOPPAGE WIN PAST THE 7TH ROUND. Not too ****ing impressive when it was the only one in a career spanning the better part of 21 years. I also said he was not a CONCENTRATED BODY PUNCHER. Joe Frazier, Rocky Marciano, Roberto Duran, Alexis Arguello, Eusebio Pedroza, Julio Ceasar Chavez etc... were fighters who wore opponents down by focusing on a body attack. MIKE TYSON DID NOT FOCUS HIS ATTACK ON THE BODY. He was a headhunter. I never said he didn't punch to the body, just that he wasn't much of a body puncher meaning he didn't wear opponents down by going to the body.

As for not seeing enough Tyson fights you are dead wrong. I am the same age as Tyson and followed his entire career as well as taped ALL HIS FIGHTS. Over the last 21 years I have seen more than my share of Mike Tyson. The difference between us watching the fights is I know what I am watching and you apparently do not.
thats funny u say that. cause every1 on here knows how much i watch tyson. and not a concentrated body puncher pleassssssse.

Verstyle
03-10-2006, 01:05 AM
sorry i didnt put up a good argument on the last 1 but i jus recieved bad news. :(

smasher
03-10-2006, 01:08 AM
thats funny u say that. cause every1 on here knows how much i watch tyson. and not a concentrated body puncher pleassssssse.

What's funny? Just because you watch Tyson doesn't mean you understand him as a fighter or even the subtlties of boxing in general. A concentrated body puncher is someone who goes to the body repeatedly with the intention of wearing an opponent down. You should spend less time watching boring fights like Tyson-Tucker and instead watch Frazier-Quarry 1&2 to better undestand how a REAL BODYPUNCHER wears a man down.

Southpaw16
03-10-2006, 01:27 AM
he might have had a longer reach but tyson was known to get in really good and quick with his foot speed and his superb defense

I would not say that Tyson had superb defense. He didn't get hit that often early in his career because opponents were too terrified to open up on him out of fear of getting countered, but his defense was never anything great.

Yaman
03-10-2006, 07:15 AM
What's funny? Just because you watch Tyson doesn't mean you understand him as a fighter or even the subtlties of boxing in general. A concentrated body puncher is someone who goes to the body repeatedly with the intention of wearing an opponent down. You should spend less time watching boring fights like Tyson-Tucker and instead watch Frazier-Quarry 1&2 to better undestand how a REAL BODYPUNCHER wears a man down.

Then YOU should watch Tyson vs Green, where he demonstrated one of the worst beatingg i've seen on the body. Did you see that fight? He attacked the body over and over and Green felt sick afterwards. or his first few pro fights he wore them down on the body and the ref stopped it. Tyson was not a real body puncher as much annymore later in his career, but when he was young, he punished the body.

Yaman
03-10-2006, 07:18 AM
I would not say that Tyson had superb defense. He didn't get hit that often early in his career because opponents were too terrified to open up on him out of fear of getting countered, but his defense was never anything great.


Are you kiddin me? Prime Tyson who bobbed and weaved was never ever seriously hurt. his opponents did throw a lot and didn' manage to counter and definitely not hit his chin because he protects it very good. He's one of the greatest underrated defensive fighter ever.

smasher
03-10-2006, 08:54 AM
Then YOU should watch Tyson vs Green, where he demonstrated one of the worst beatingg i've seen on the body. Did you see that fight? He attacked the body over and over and Green felt sick afterwards. or his first few pro fights he wore them down on the body and the ref stopped it. Tyson was not a real body puncher as much annymore later in his career, but when he was young, he punished the body.

Green was an average fringe contender heavyweight. Tyson's body attack did nothing to wear down Green, take away his legs and set him up for a later rounds stoppage. The fact that Green went the distance without being stopped or floored late in the fight proves my point that Tyson's body attack did not sufficiently wear his opponents down. A truly effective body puncher would have at least one of those types of wins in a 21 year career.

Yaman
03-10-2006, 09:03 AM
Green was an average fringe contender heavyweight. Tyson's body attack did nothing to wear down Green, take away his legs and set him up for a later rounds stoppage. The fact that Green went the distance without being stopped or floored late in the fight proves my point that Tyson's body attack did not sufficiently wear his opponents down. A truly effective body puncher would have at least one of those types of wins in a 21 year career.

Dude, he hurt him a lot of times, he slowed him down and Green backed off in the later rounds. He did wear him down on his body because Green was really **** in the later rounds.

The reason why Tyson rarely wore down opponents on the body is because hitting the head is more effective. Thats where the 44 KO's came from.

moondog0
03-10-2006, 11:01 AM
Young Tyson was a very good defensive fighter because he was hard to hit with a jab. His hand speed and power were unbelievable, I think if Norton could break ali's jaw and hit him as much as he did while dragging his back foot around, and didn't have Tysons foot speed, hand speed, or defensive style, Tyson could have given Ali a run for his money.

smasher
03-10-2006, 06:03 PM
Dude, he hurt him a lot of times, he slowed him down and Green backed off in the later rounds. He did wear him down on his body because Green was really **** in the later rounds.

The reason why Tyson rarely wore down opponents on the body is because hitting the head is more effective. Thats where the 44 KO's came from.

Tyson was no doubt a KO hitter but hitting the head is not more effective in a fight that goes late. Head-hunting for a hard puncher is effective for an early round KO but not later. That was a Tyson weakness and why he couldn't pull out late KO's over opponents that lasted past the first 5 round onslaught.

Hand speed, combination punching, power and quickness fades and landing a well timed KO punch late in a fight becomes increasingly more difficult. That is why a body attack pays huge dividends late in a fight.

Body punching is like investing money. You don't often see the return immediately but you do later.

Kill the body and the head will fall. Boxing's oldest axiom.

Verstyle
03-10-2006, 06:09 PM
Green was an average fringe contender heavyweight. Tyson's body attack did nothing to wear down Green, take away his legs and set him up for a later rounds stoppage. The fact that Green went the distance without being stopped or floored late in the fight proves my point that Tyson's body attack did not sufficiently wear his opponents down. A truly effective body puncher would have at least one of those types of wins in a 21 year career.

whatcha gotta say about the tyrell biggs fight then :cool:

Verstyle
03-10-2006, 06:10 PM
Green was an average fringe contender heavyweight. Tyson's body attack did nothing to wear down Green, take away his legs and set him up for a later rounds stoppage. The fact that Green went the distance without being stopped or floored late in the fight proves my point that Tyson's body attack did not sufficiently wear his opponents down. A truly effective body puncher would have at least one of those types of wins in a 21 year career.


she practically knocked down michael jack johnson with bodyshots, hector mercedes,spinks,bejamin. he did tko and knock down ppl with body shots ya know

smasher
03-10-2006, 07:00 PM
she practically knocked down michael jack johnson with bodyshots, hector mercedes,spinks,bejamin. he did tko and knock down ppl with body shots ya know

I'm not sure if English is your first language so this is the last time I'm going to explain it because either you are not reading my posts or you don't comprehend.

A CONCENTRATED BODY ATTACK means round after round in a fight the boxer throws many punches to his opponents torso for the sole purpose of WEARING HIS OPPONENT DOWN LATE IN THE FIGHT.

Teeing off on a guy with a mixed attack for an early rounds KO IS NOT A CONCENTRATED BODY ATTACK. It is utilized against a fighter to WEAR HIM DOWN.

With Tyson's punching power do you not think he could have KO'd Tillis, Tucker, Smith, Green, Douglas, or Ruddock (rematch)if he had went more to the body and wore each opponent down?

If you want to learn about the lost art of bodypunching, you'll never understand it by wasting your time watching Tyson-Tucker 30 times a month.

Verstyle
03-10-2006, 07:07 PM
your naming a few fights that he didnt do bodyshots to which every1 that saw the fight knows he didnt besides the green fight. i think he threw 27 bodyshots a round that fight and averaged 16 connects. if thats not conecntrating to the body then i dont know what is. cause i think tyson punches per round were like average 45 and connects i think were 27

Verstyle
03-10-2006, 07:08 PM
and i watch the tucker fight cause its a fight taht he didnt knock out the guy and the fight was very interesting to me so i analyze it since i do the peek a boo style of boxing. and it actuallly last long enoough for me to study

smasher
03-10-2006, 10:34 PM
and i watch the tucker fight cause its a fight taht he didnt knock out the guy and the fight was very interesting to me so i analyze it since i do the peek a boo style of boxing. and it actuallly last long enoough for me to study

If you are planning on copying Tyson's style and using it in a lighter weight category you might want think again unless you have exceptional handspeed and one punch KO power in either hand, two of Tyson's strengths which allowed him to be successful more so than his peekaboo style.

Tyson had a decided physical edge against his opponents but keep in mind many of his opponents were overweight and slow in comparison. If you are fighting in a lighter weight division you can be guaranteed to be fighting guys that will not be overweight and slow and may be quicker, have a higher work rate or hit harder than you.

Do not get caught up in only studying Tyson. He was an ex-champ at 24 and finished at 30. His style was not condusive to longevity.

Tyson's style was not an adaptable one, unlike say Holyfield who could beat Tyson in-fighting, beat Bowe 2 and Foreman on the balls of his feet in and out, play the matador to the bull against Quawi or win as a counterpuncher against Douglas, or as the aggressor against Moorer 2.

You need to study great P4P fighters in the smaller weight divisions. You look pretty short. Study fighters that were great on the inside, (Tyson is hardly considered a great in-fighter and the Tucker fight is an example) regularly worked the body, presented angles while counterpunching and keeping opponents off-balance. I would watch one Roberto Duran performance before I would watch 40 Tyson fights for an education in these attributes. Defensively I would also watch fighters like Duran, Pernell Whittaker or Wilfred Benitez. You don't have to mimic these guys exactly but watch, study and take what you can from them.

Open your mind and good luck mystyal12k5.

Verstyle
03-11-2006, 12:41 PM
If you are planning on copying Tyson's style and using it in a lighter weight category you might want think again unless you have exceptional handspeed and one punch KO power in either hand, two of Tyson's strengths which allowed him to be successful more so than his peekaboo style.

Tyson had a decided physical edge against his opponents but keep in mind many of his opponents were overweight and slow in comparison. If you are fighting in a lighter weight division you can be guaranteed to be fighting guys that will not be overweight and slow and may be quicker, have a higher work rate or hit harder than you.

Do not get caught up in only studying Tyson. He was an ex-champ at 24 and finished at 30. His style was not condusive to longevity.

Tyson's style was not an adaptable one, unlike say Holyfield who could beat Tyson in-fighting, beat Bowe 2 and Foreman on the balls of his feet in and out, play the matador to the bull against Quawi or win as a counterpuncher against Douglas, or as the aggressor against Moorer 2.

You need to study great P4P fighters in the smaller weight divisions. You look pretty short. Study fighters that were great on the inside, (Tyson is hardly considered a great in-fighter and the Tucker fight is an example) regularly worked the body, presented angles while counterpunching and keeping opponents off-balance. I would watch one Roberto Duran performance before I would watch 40 Tyson fights for an education in these attributes. Defensively I would also watch fighters like Duran, Pernell Whittaker or Wilfred Benitez. You don't have to mimic these guys exactly but watch, study and take what you can from them.

Open your mind and good luck mystyal12k5.


i have al of his fights but i jus watch the 80s tyson fights and do alot of thinks different then him. and i do have good hand speed and power in both hands. but i tend to make angles for myself

smasher
03-11-2006, 01:21 PM
i have al of his fights but i jus watch the 80s tyson fights and do alot of thinks different then him. and i do have good hand speed and power in both hands. but i tend to make angles for myself

Good man. Good luck.

supaduck
03-11-2006, 05:57 PM
Forget Tyson, all we can do is wonder about him. Yeah, he could have been one of the greatest, maybe, but he never beat a fighter of the calibre of the ones that beat him (when he was in the opinion of many past his prime), so unless someone goes back in time and prevents Cus D'Amato from dying, and kills Desiree Washington...

Yaman
03-11-2006, 06:01 PM
But you still like my signature :cool:

supaduck
03-11-2006, 06:21 PM
Hell yeah, it's grooooovy.

sleazyfellow
03-11-2006, 07:13 PM
back on topic, where does peak tyson fit in? psh he fits in my pants!! but regarding other post i think tyson was already thought of as the best ever back when he was champion..and he did have good body shots early in his career, one punch knockout doesnt mean just one huge shot to the head as many would think, its one punch to the body and then one to the head, the thing is its gotta b quick and when sumone gets hit in one place they are thinking about covering it up and then thats when the other punch comes in

dangerous dave
03-12-2006, 01:25 AM
however he fought any challenger at the time and although he was in peak physical state vs holy, his mind was totally f**ked up as we all know from the second fight the peak tysonwas the man who took berbicks legs away, the man hu took larry holmes 15 rounds and Koed michal spinks in 1 hu beast larry although i do think larry won that fight

Yeah you dont know much about Tyson do you! He paid Lewis $5,000,000 to sidestep him when he won it off bruno and then vacated the wbc title when he was being forced to defend against Lewis. Also it was a 4th round ko of Holmes!

Face facts he was a bully in 88 and that worked great but when challenged in a fight he got scared and lost the edge.

Heckler
03-12-2006, 02:07 AM
at a boxers peak do you think there are many that could of beaten iron mike in 86/88 i dont think so i think
prehaps ali and foreman but i dont think that anyone else in history agaist a peak tyson would have won

what are your views

Larry Holmes, Ali, Joe Frazier, Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, Bowe, George Foreman all had the capability. Tyson would definately be beaten by Foreman, WITHOUT A DOUBT. Tyson was **** scared of him and would be beaten before he stepped between them ropes.

RockyMarcianofan00
03-12-2006, 02:08 AM
Larry Holmes, Ali, Joe Frazier, Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, Bowe, George Foreman all had the capability. Tyson would definately be beaten by Foreman, WITHOUT A DOUBT. Tyson was **** scared of him and would be beaten before he stepped between them ropes.

I have to agree,
Tyson's weak mind + Tyson's fear of Foreman + Foreman's Natrual strenght and ability = Tyson getting KTFO'd

Verstyle
03-12-2006, 02:10 AM
Larry Holmes, Ali, Joe Frazier, Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, Bowe, George Foreman all had the capability. Tyson would definately be beaten by Foreman, WITHOUT A DOUBT. Tyson was **** scared of him and would be beaten before he stepped between them ropes.


maybe jus ali and joe louis. looks like u got carried away with the names there ;)

Heckler
03-12-2006, 02:11 AM
thats funny u say that. cause every1 on here knows how much i watch tyson. and not a concentrated body puncher pleassssssse.

Hes not. He throws flurries at the body, in combination with headpunches. But generally, hes not a great infighter nor does he apply relentless pressure to an opponents body. Hes comfortable at MID-RANGE. You wanna see someone that concentrates an attack to the body, is brilliant on the inside and works an opponent over good... watch Joe Frazier not Mike Tyson.

Heckler
03-12-2006, 02:14 AM
The guys i mentioned had the POTENTIAL to beat Tyson. Im pretty certain Holmes school him, and i give Frazier and Marciano a slight edge. Foreman would kill him, i dont think thats even debateable. Riddick Bowe, im not sure but i think its quite possible.

Verstyle
03-12-2006, 02:16 AM
Hes not. He throws flurries at the body, in combination with headpunches. But generally, hes not a great infighter nor does he apply relentless pressure to an opponents body. Hes comfortable at MID-RANGE. You wanna see someone that concentrates an attack to the body, is brilliant on the inside and works an opponent over good... watch Joe Frazier not Mike Tyson.


u seriously need to go back and watch more of his 80s fights. u know whats better jus look at the stats. thats speaks for itself

Southpaw16
03-12-2006, 02:17 AM
Are you kiddin me? Prime Tyson who bobbed and weaved was never ever seriously hurt. his opponents did throw a lot and didn' manage to counter and definitely not hit his chin because he protects it very good. He's one of the greatest underrated defensive fighter ever.

He was susceptable to jabs and straight right hands, and was never able to fight going backwards. And he did get hurt by Buster Douglas. Your probably going to say that isn't prime Tyson, but as far I'm concerned it is. Although that is a different debate which I don't really feel like having right now.

Like I said, a lot of these things don't matter when your opponent is constantly on the run and about to go at any time. He also never really parried or deflected punches well either. I think he would have been much better off in the Buster Douglas fight if he had been able to take a step back once in a while when Douglas was timing him.

RockyMarcianofan00
03-12-2006, 02:23 AM
Larry Holmes, Ali, Joe Frazier, Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, Bowe, George Foreman all had the capability. Tyson would definately be beaten by Foreman, WITHOUT A DOUBT. Tyson was **** scared of him and would be beaten before he stepped between them ropes.
Thy all have the cabability of beating prime Tyson

Tyson would probably beat larry holmes, maybe Joe Frazier, It would be close with Rocky Marciano, but Joe Louis and Ali are have a decent shot

Yaman
03-12-2006, 08:40 AM
[/B]

I have to agree,
Tyson's weak mind + Tyson's fear of Foreman + Foreman's Natrual strenght and ability = Tyson getting KTFO'd

Weak mind...did you know him? When did he crumble when he was a civilized young champion who didn't think he was the best fighter ever? And yes, not all of his opponents were scared of him and fought back but lost. He never said he feared Foreman or anything so you're just making stuff up.

Yaman
03-12-2006, 08:43 AM
He was susceptable to jabs and straight right hands, and was never able to fight going backwards. And he did get hurt by Buster Douglas. Your probably going to say that isn't prime Tyson, but as far I'm concerned it is. Although that is a different debate which I don't really feel like having right now.

Like I said, a lot of these things don't matter when your opponent is constantly on the run and about to go at any time. He also never really parried or deflected punches well either. I think he would have been much better off in the Buster Douglas fight if he had been able to take a step back once in a while when Douglas was timing him.

Look at Tyson vs Biggs, and then look at Tyson vs Douglass in terms of defence. BIG DIFFIRENCE! Where was his head movement? Were were his the jabs he always used? Thats what he was missing against Buster.

Nevertheless, you can go ahead and take his defence under a microscope and critizise it(Like everybody tries to do) but his defence was excellent. And he had a good chin with it too.

SuzieQ49
03-13-2006, 07:02 PM
a peak mike tyson 86-88 was one of the best heavyweights in history. only ali and louis beat that mike IMO

Oasis_Lad
03-13-2006, 07:05 PM
a peak mike tyson 86-88 was one of the best heavyweights in history. only ali and louis beat that mike IMO

nah! foreman too

Dempsey 1919
03-13-2006, 07:30 PM
nah! foreman too

1966 or '67 ali would. so would 1972-75 foreman. also 1971 frazier, 1960-65 liston, and 1980-83 holmes. but no version of louis would, though.

Oasis_Lad
03-13-2006, 07:31 PM
a peak mike tyson 86-88 was one of the best heavyweights in history. only ali and louis beat that mike IMO

also add holyfield

Dempsey 1919
03-13-2006, 07:35 PM
also add holyfield

nah, prime tyson would ko any version of holyfield.

Oasis_Lad
03-13-2006, 07:38 PM
nah, prime tyson would ko any version of holyfield.

no chance holyfield's chin was solid i give young mike props
but holyfield was soild and i see any form of holyfield
beating tyson

The Noose
03-13-2006, 09:09 PM
no chance holyfield's chin was solid i give young mike props
but holyfield was soild and i see any form of holyfield
beating tyson

Holyfield was very good.

But in the first fight with Bowe he was nearly KO'd in the 10th i think.
The combinations of Tyson, plus his finishing skills IMO would have KO'd Holyfield. Tyson hit harder than Bowe.

In the first fight between Tyson and Holyfield, the only round i gave Tyson, was i think the 5th, he threw his famous right hand to the body and uppercut. It didnt land perfectly, but Holyfield felt it. He didnt do **** for a while after that.

The Noose
03-13-2006, 09:23 PM
As for anyone who talks about Tyson being scared of Foreman, or Liston, or whoever.
Tyson used to be ****ting himself before his fights.

We have all seen the footage of him crying with Teddy Atlas before an amatuer fight.
And look at the damage he used to inflict.

When he was young, and focused, and not relying on intimidation, he was awsome.

With the greatest heavywieghts, who knows who would beat who. Part of acheiving greatness is overcoming the odds. As Ali did with Liston and Foreman.
Or Holyfield beating Tyson. Or Marciano KO of Walcott.

Tyson beat the crap out of everyone he faced when he was young. He was never really challenged.

But every other great heavyweight, apart from Liston, had significant victories against the odds well after their primes.