View Full Version : If tyson fought in Clay/ali time he would be greater than he is now.


Baddest man on da planet
12-17-2005, 06:25 AM
i think so sure would have lost to ali but would have most likly beat all the other fighters. i think he would have beat ali once.

czars_salad
12-17-2005, 06:29 AM
he will not beat ali, and foreman. but he may have a good chance against frazier

Skydog
12-17-2005, 02:59 PM
I could see him and Frazier having the greatest boxing trilogy of all-time in that era instead of Frazier and Ali.

Dempsey 1919
12-17-2005, 03:41 PM
he probably would.

Smoo-V
12-17-2005, 06:59 PM
Yea but he would have no chance against Ali, Tyson's too agressive

Brassangel
12-18-2005, 10:12 PM
I don't know if "no chance" is the safe play here. His fighting style wasn't too far from Frazier's, and Frazier fought well against Ali all three times. Tyson would have given Ali trouble, but Ali would have beaten Tyson at least 2 out of 3. If, and I mean if Tyson would have beaten Ali, it would have been during their first fight when he had surprise on his side.

I believe Tyson would have beaten Frazier. Mike had more weapons, and he could lay it on more aggressively than George Foreman did to Frazier.

Foreman's mummy-like fighting style might have been difficult for Mike for the same reasons James 'Buster' Douglas's was. George can also hit harder than Douglas could.

Mike would have demolished Ernie Shavers, as Ernie had the weakest chin of that era (vs. Tex Cobb, anyone?).

Chuvalo and various others are difficult to gauge, as those fighters were always tough vs. any opponent.

All in all, I think that Mike Tyson probably would have posted a better career during that time period because of the richness of the hall-of-famers. While there weren't as many fighters in amazing shape during that time frame, there were more big names and styled fighters. After all, style makes the fight. This could have made Tyson more of an oiled machine, and it may have given him the discipline he needed to stay on top. Fighting a bunch of guys who don't pose a threat probably lead to a serious case of arrogance, and lack of preparedness. If all would have gone as we've discussed above, Tyson could have been 50-4 or so, with more quality victories. His career would have been heralded, instead of hotly disputed. Just a theory. :boxing:

Lucky466
12-18-2005, 10:40 PM
he certainly would have had a much more impressive resume. As far as beating the top fighters like Foreman, Liston, Frasier and Ali I dont know how well he would have done. I think he probably could have walked away from trilogoy with Frasier as the winner but it could have gone either way. But Ali would have pyshed him out before the fight and Tyson was too weak mentally to handle it and Ali would have picked him apart. But Foreman and Liston would have beaten him Tyson couldnt handle it when people would stand and actually fight with him instead of just boxing him.

Brassangel
12-21-2005, 01:56 PM
Since trilogies, or best two-of's were the big thing of that era, let's get hypothetical. First, we'll assume that Tyson stays with Rooney and focuses on each fighter. Secondly, we'll assume that his career spans from 1965-1979 or so.

VS.
Ali = 1-2 (Tyson got lucky in fight 1)
Foreman = 0-1 (Tyson's frustration prevents rematch)
Liston = 1-1 (Out of ring brawl cancels 3rd fight)
Frazier = 2-0 (Tyson's power and weapons are overwhelming)
Holmes = 1-1 (Tyson retires before a 3rd fight)
Chuvalo = 2-0 (Tyson usually wasn't outbrawled by converts)
Norton = 1-0 (Norton recedes under pressure; a la Foreman)
Shavers = 2-0 (Weakest chin ever)

Overall = 10-5

Not a bad resume against that lot, and it would look a lot better than the 6 losses he has in his current career. I think that Liston vs. Tyson would be an absolute bloodbath in the ring. Both fighters landing stiff combinations; Liston with the reach and Tyson with the speed. Tyson would win the first fight, but Liston would be a little smarter in fight two. This would piss off Iron Mike forcing some out-of-the-ring shenanigans that prevent a third match. I'm also not convinced that Holmes could take Tyson, regardless of what time period you find Holmes in. He might have won one of the fights on points, but that's it. Just speculation. :boxing:

Tear it apart at will.

BSD
12-21-2005, 03:22 PM
Tyson in the eighties was not mentally weak. He showed in several fights he had heart, perserverance, and endless aggression. He dominated during his time because he was that good. I believe he would have dominated the previous decade as well. The only fighter I see with a style that could obliterate Tyson would be Foreman.

Da Iceman
12-21-2005, 03:29 PM
stop makin excuses for tyson damn!

leff
12-21-2005, 03:41 PM
tyson was great in a bad division and would be now means be better in a better division simply because he would lose a lot more.

BSD
12-21-2005, 04:22 PM
The contenders of the seventies were far worse than those of the eighties. But there were more great champs in the seventies. Tyson had no great rival during his dominance.
That doesn't mean Tyson would not have dominated a decade earlier. He destroyed good fighters. If you watch the fights of the seventies, you see champs like Ali and Frazier in long, tiring fights with mediocre fighters. Fighters that didn't know how to throw punches with power or proper technique.
Tyson tore up better fighters. People were laughing at his first fight out of prison because McNeeley was a joke. The joke is relative, however. A fighter of McNeeley's caliber would have gotten a world title shot in the seventies based on his 36-1 record.

Brassangel
12-21-2005, 09:27 PM
You're correct BSD. The journeymen and mid-range fighters of the 70's were nowhere near the caliber that they were in the 80's and 90's. The fighters of the latter period were in far better shape, better conditioned, with better training. If Tyson had to compete with them, he likely would have rolled to the top like he did in the 80's, and he probably would have done really well. I highly doubt, however, that he would have beaten Ali (at least not twice). Muhammad Ali could figure out most fighters and would have adapted to Tyson accordingly (after their first fight).

Brassangel
12-21-2005, 09:30 PM
@NextRocky: We know that you hate Tyson. He was still great despite what happened to his career. It's not excuses, it's more of a hypothetical "what-if".

Da Iceman
12-22-2005, 11:48 AM
i dont hate him i just dont like him and i dont like that people try to make him seem like a god or the g.o.a.t, when he always loses to somebody that trys to fight back. you think ali, foreman, liston, frazier, marciano, louis, holyfield, johnson wouldve lost to some bum like douglas? hell no

BadMagick
12-22-2005, 11:58 AM
I don't know if "no chance" is the safe play here. His fighting style wasn't too far from Frazier's, and Frazier fought well against Ali all three times. Tyson would have given Ali trouble, but Ali would have beaten Tyson at least 2 out of 3. If, and I mean if Tyson would have beaten Ali, it would have been during their first fight when he had surprise on his side.

I believe Tyson would have beaten Frazier. Mike had more weapons, and he could lay it on more aggressively than George Foreman did to Frazier.

Foreman's mummy-like fighting style might have been difficult for Mike for the same reasons James 'Buster' Douglas's was. George can also hit harder than Douglas could.

Mike would have demolished Ernie Shavers, as Ernie had the weakest chin of that era (vs. Tex Cobb, anyone?).

Chuvalo and various others are difficult to gauge, as those fighters were always tough vs. any opponent.

All in all, I think that Mike Tyson probably would have posted a better career during that time period because of the richness of the hall-of-famers. While there weren't as many fighters in amazing shape during that time frame, there were more big names and styled fighters. After all, style makes the fight. This could have made Tyson more of an oiled machine, and it may have given him the discipline he needed to stay on top. Fighting a bunch of guys who don't pose a threat probably lead to a serious case of arrogance, and lack of preparedness. If all would have gone as we've discussed above, Tyson could have been 50-4 or so, with more quality victories. His career would have been heralded, instead of hotly disputed. Just a theory. :boxing:

He lost to Douglas because he had no heart. He saw that Douglas was going to stay in there and take his punches, and continue to hit him. Ali would do the same thing. He'd take his shots, and he'd hit him back. The formula for beating Tyson was to stand your ground, and break his heart. Ali would have done that perfectly.

Tyson would have been broken by Foreman.

The Fraizer fights would be interesting, and maybe Tyson wins, because of a similar style and faster movement.

Keleneki
12-22-2005, 12:05 PM
i dont hate him i just dont like him and i dont like that people try to make him seem like a god or the g.o.a.t, when he always loses to somebody that trys to fight back. you think ali, foreman, liston, frazier, marciano, louis, holyfield, johnson wouldve lost to some bum like douglas? hell no

I think that almost all heavyweights in history would have lost to James "Buster" Douglas if it was the Douglas that fought Tyson on February 11, 1990. He was fighting for his mother who had recently passed away. He had such great balance and timing that night. That was his moment, where he was nigh unstoppable, in boxing history. Just my opnion.

Brassangel
12-22-2005, 12:21 PM
Most fighters would have lost to a Douglas that looked as good as he did that night, I agree. He was in the best shape of his career, while Tyson was starting to lose heart in his own career. Mike fought poorly, compared to what he and everybody else was used to, while James fought brilliantly. He was accurate, quick, and smart. While Tyson was clearly beaten that night, there were a lot of unusual circumstances on both sides that allowed for such a set of results.

Tyson wasn't always weak of heart. Most people gauge his heart on that fight, and his post-prison career. We're talking about a focused and disciplined Tyson, during the short span between 1985-1988, maybe 89. If that Tyson, the one with potential, would have been placed in the 60's and 70's, he would have had a far more astounding career, in theory. Which is really what this whole post is: theory. :boxing:

Brassangel
12-22-2005, 12:32 PM
Besides, what kind of heart did you expect a guy to have when every opponent kept collapsing to his onslaught? Haven't you watched that ESPN, "Top 5 reasons you can't blame Mike Tyson for losing to Buster Douglas.." special? It wasn't an excuse bank for him, it merely explained that a situation like his could have happened to anybody. Unfortunately it happened to the most promising career anyone had seen in a long time. Had Mike Tyson been given a string of opponents with heart, it retroactively would have built up his own. Don King and the camp full of stupids basically poured garbage into Mike's ear like, "These guys are nothing; they don't even deserve to be in the same ring with you..." and so on. He was conditioned to expect every fighter to lay down once he looked at them before the bell; it started to show in 88-89, and climaxed in the Douglas fight.

Keleneki
12-22-2005, 12:35 PM
I hear you, Brassangel. I have to agree that the "prime" Mike Tyson sure appeared to be close to unstoppable. Back in those days, I used to wonder who in history could ever beat him (I thought he was going to continue to improve, but alas, all those things started to happen). Hrm, in a series of trilogies, I do believe that Tyson would have won at least one of the fights against almost all of those top boxers of the time. I do think that he might have come up short against both Charles "Sonny" Liston and "Big" George Foreman though, because of the style matchup.

I was just replying to the post that seemed to me to be putting down "Buster" Douglas. Sure he had his shortcomings (who doesn't?), but on that night, he was as good as he could be and I personally have the utmost respect for the effort that he put forth on his biggest night in boxing. :)

Brassangel
12-22-2005, 01:36 PM
Not to mention the largest upset in the history of the sport to date. 42:1 odds...whew! Donald Trump put a $1,000,000 bid on Douglas to win that fight. Lucky for a billioinaire I suppose. :rolleyes:

Bad matchups from that era for Mike Tyson would include George Foreman because of his size, reach, and his ability to hit with more raw power than Tyson. Although it would be interesting to watch Tyson attack Foreman's body. Sonny Liston would be a tough match, with Liston having a strong reach advantage, but Tyson had considerable speed. In another post I wrote a little ditty about how Tyson's record might look versus the hall-of-famers from that era, assuming he stayed on top and boxed from 1965-1978 or so. It has changed, but could parallel this:

Tyson vs.
Patterson: 2-0 (Mike prevails as Liston did, via KO)
Liston: 1-1 (Bloodbaths; pre-fight feud prevents 3rd bout)
Ali: 1-2 (Mike gets lucky and surprises Ali in fight 1)
Frazier: 2-0 (Similar styles; Mike has more weapons)
Foreman: 0-1 (Mike's frustration prevents a rematch)
Holmes: 1-0 (Holmes is a jerk anyway; Tyson retires afterwards)

Overall: 7-3; not bad. Figure another random loss somewhere to a guy like Chuvalo or Norton (or whoever) and he'd probably skate in around 50-5. His five losses would have looked cleaner against a lot like this, simply because of how big their names were. Keep in mind that the journeymen of the 60's and 70's were far closer to "bums" than the guys of the 80's.

Dempsey 1919
12-22-2005, 06:01 PM
Not to mention the largest upset in the history of the sport to date. 42:1 odds...whew! Donald Trump put a $1,000,000 bid on Douglas to win that fight. Lucky for a billioinaire I suppose. :rolleyes:

Bad matchups from that era for Mike Tyson would include George Foreman because of his size, reach, and his ability to hit with more raw power than Tyson. Although it would be interesting to watch Tyson attack Foreman's body. Sonny Liston would be a tough match, with Liston having a strong reach advantage, but Tyson had considerable speed. In another post I wrote a little ditty about how Tyson's record might look versus the hall-of-famers from that era, assuming he stayed on top and boxed from 1965-1978 or so. It has changed, but could parallel this:

Tyson vs.
Patterson: 2-0 (Mike prevails as Liston did, via KO)
Liston: 1-1 (Bloodbaths; pre-fight feud prevents 3rd bout)
Ali: 1-2 (Mike gets lucky and surprises Ali in fight 1)
Frazier: 2-0 (Similar styles; Mike has more weapons)
Foreman: 0-1 (Mike's frustration prevents a rematch)
Holmes: 1-0 (Holmes is a jerk anyway; Tyson retires afterwards)

Overall: 7-3; not bad. Figure another random loss somewhere to a guy like Chuvalo or Norton (or whoever) and he'd probably skate in around 50-5. His five losses would have looked cleaner against a lot like this, simply because of how big their names were. Keep in mind that the journeymen of the 60's and 70's were far closer to "bums" than the guys of the 80's.

nice post!

marvdave
12-23-2005, 03:09 AM
Tyson would never beat Ali or Foreman. He would give Frazier hell and I would pick Tyson in that one. Tough fight but Tysons speed and combos would be the difference against Fraziers one big punch. Styles make fights

Tyson would beat Norton and Lyle by ko
Tyson would decision Young
Tyson would ko Quarry

Easy-E
12-23-2005, 03:12 AM
i think so sure would have lost to ali but would have most likly beat all the other fighters. i think he would have beat ali once.

he would not have beat clay imo, but he prolly could have ko'd liston, fraizer, norton, quarry, etc etc. him vs foreman is a pickem, and i think ali beats him 2/3 times.
i agree wiht your point tho

Brassangel
12-23-2005, 11:31 AM
Thanks for your kind agreements. I just have to say, that in the short time I've been here, I have received several wonderful "donations" as well as complimentary remarks. I appreciate it.

Now, back to a manly topic. Tyson would beat Norton, I'm just factoring in another random loss. Even during the hayday of Mike's career, he tended to get a little bit careless. I guess it didn't matter as he started 37-0 before anyone figured out how to hit him while he's down, (in life, not in the ring).

Regardless of how Tyson's career spiraled into the toilet, it certainly makes for some of the most interesting speculation. Even the Tyson haters out there would have to concede that this makes him one of the top heavyweights in history. No one else had a "bad" career with the potential to be the best like Iron Mike did. His career wasn't a joke, it was more like an 80's rock ballad: hard and exciting, followed by a sad story that gradually fades away into the background. :boxing:

VERSION1 (V1)
12-27-2005, 03:30 PM
Since trilogies, or best two-of's were the big thing of that era, let's get hypothetical. First, we'll assume that Tyson stays with Rooney and focuses on each fighter. Secondly, we'll assume that his career spans from 1965-1979 or so.

VS.
Ali = 1-2 (Tyson got lucky in fight 1)
Foreman = 0-1 (Tyson's frustration prevents rematch)
Liston = 1-1 (Out of ring brawl cancels 3rd fight)
Frazier = 2-0 (Tyson's power and weapons are overwhelming)
Holmes = 1-1 (Tyson retires before a 3rd fight)
Chuvalo = 2-0 (Tyson usually wasn't outbrawled by converts)
Norton = 1-0 (Norton recedes under pressure; a la Foreman)
Shavers = 2-0 (Weakest chin ever)

Overall = 10-5

Not a bad resume against that lot, and it would look a lot better than the 6 losses he has in his current career. I think that Liston vs. Tyson would be an absolute bloodbath in the ring. Both fighters landing stiff combinations; Liston with the reach and Tyson with the speed. Tyson would win the first fight, but Liston would be a little smarter in fight two. This would piss off Iron Mike forcing some out-of-the-ring shenanigans that prevent a third match. I'm also not convinced that Holmes could take Tyson, regardless of what time period you find Holmes in. He might have won one of the fights on points, but that's it. Just speculation. :boxing:

Tear it apart at will.
i think it might have happen like that just think some of those fight would be all time greatest

Brassangel
12-27-2005, 03:43 PM
It's really a shame that his career couldn't have been fueled by a few more big name players. The average journeyman of the 80's was tough, but Tyson's skill made them look rediculous. I think that the following would be hall-of-fame match ups:

Tyson vs. Frazier I & II Tyson wins both, but Frazier has a heart of gold and keeps coming at Mike.

Tyson vs. Ali I, II, III Tyson shocks the world in their first meeting. Naturally there's a rematch and we get an amazing second fight, perhaps one of the best ever, with Ali winning a vicious battle. Ali's ability to age gracefully versus top-notch opponents gives him the advantage in fight three and Tyson loses heart as the fight drags on.

Tyson vs. Holmes Tyson wins and goes out on a positive note, unlike his real career.

Brassangel
12-27-2005, 03:47 PM
Oh yeah, and following Tyson's retirement comes some breaking changes to the sport:

Tyson and Liston messed each other up so badly that all committees require mandatory headgear. This takes away Evander Holyfield's most powerful strategy, the head-butt, and he never escapes the Amateur ranks.

Frieking Holyfield...

supaduck
01-14-2006, 05:37 PM
Well, that's not entirely true, I think the prime Tyson of a few years before then would have defeated that Douglas. And of course Ali, Liston, Foreman, etc etc..

moondog0
01-17-2006, 10:01 AM
Emotions such as Douglas had that night can't be measured by a record, same with James J. Braddock against Max Baer, you can't measure the human heart in boxing, Tyson would have been better earlier in his career, but you just never know....

Oasis_Lad
01-17-2006, 10:13 AM
simple answer no he would have been up against better oppisition ali would
have beat him every time so would frazier and foreman

Dempsey 1919
01-17-2006, 11:37 AM
simple answer no he would have been up against better oppisition ali would
have beat him every time so would frazier and foreman

yeah, that's the truth.