If Mike Tyson was around 1963-80, would he have won a title?

[Toney616]

Listen... i have had several months of Joeyzagz slating off Mike Tyson and he does it so as to glorify his hero Lennox Lewis, he comes out with the most laughable statistics imaginable

Tyson was younger than Lewis
Tyson never beat a single worthy opponent
Tyson's incarceration is meaningless
Tyson was always afraid of Lewis
Tyson paid step-a-side-money to Lewis
Triangle theories
blah, blah, blah

What a lot of Tyson "critics" try to do is claim that Tyson was the same fighter through out his career, when the facts clearly state otherwise. Ive never understood the whole age thing, you can only judge fighters by how that perform in the ring, not by their age. People age differently
Another problem with putting down Tyson is that him and Lewis fought a lot of the same opponents, you cant put down Tyson's resume without putting down Lewis's resume

He obviously was not following boxing during the period 1986-1992... The difference between Tyson & Lewis is that Tyson fought opponents who was "AT THE TOP OF THEIR GAME"...Lewis never fought any opponents who was "AT THE TOP OF THEIR GAME"

Which was a great time to be a fan of hw boxing

[Wild Blue Yonda]

His best shot for the linear title among those who actually held it during this period (excluding Norton's claim) would be Ellis, or Frazier. If he came about in 63, well, Ali already had the belt by February of 64. He'd have been too late to challenge Liston, & not good enough to beat a burgeoning Ali. After Ali's exhile, Tyson would still be young, so Ellis, Frazier, Quarry & an ageing Patterson would represent his major rivals for the vacated Championship. I fancy Tyson to beat all of the above men.

After that point, either a returning Ali or the young Foreman would've gotten to him. Since Tyson squandered every opportunity to return from adversity throughout his actual career, I am comfortable predicting the loss to either Ali or Foreman is the end of his Championship tenure. There would be no return to the title...once either of those two had him beat once, they'd succeed in any subsequent matching, & a chance against a prime Holmes at the tail-end of his career, if it came, would almost certainly yield no result.

[BennyST]

Listen... i have had several months of Joeyzagz slating off Mike Tyson and he does it so as to glorify his hero Lennox Lewis, he comes out with the most laughable statistics imaginable

Tyson was younger than Lewis
Tyson never beat a single worthy opponent
Tyson's incarceration is meaningless
Tyson was always afraid of Lewis
Tyson paid step-a-side-money to Lewis
Triangle theories
blah, blah, blah

He obviously was not following boxing during the period 1986-1992... The difference between Tyson & Lewis is that Tyson fought opponents who was "AT THE TOP OF THEIR GAME"...Lewis never fought any opponents who was "AT THE TOP OF THEIR GAME"

So.....kind of like the way you slag off Lewis?



Hypocrite much?

[Kid McCoy]

I would favour Foreman to beat Tyson and fights with Liston and Ali would be pick ems. Liston was past prime by this era so maybe Tyson picks off an aging Sonny. Ali and Tyson are bad matches for each other in some ways. Tyson the shorter, swarming, aggressive fighter with a powerful left hook and a great body attack against a quick, tall mentally tough fighter with a great jab and footwork. Each would have to be at their best to beat the other.

Probably a minority view, but I think the best Tyson beats the best Holmes. Remember D'Amato specifically trained Tyson for Holmes, thinking he'd be the one who Tyson eventually won the title from. Holmes' style and weaknesses just don't mesh well with Tyson's strengths, imo. In the scenario here, though, prime Holmes beats the older Tyson.

Can't see Frazier beating Tyson. A slow starter who was vulnerable in the early rounds against a dangerous puncher who came out of the blocks like a greyhound. Not a good match for Joe. I see Tyson beating the likes of Quarry, Ellis, Norton etc. Tyson would be up with the best in the 70s and would probably hold a belt at some point.

[Joeyzagz]

People can have different opinions, but opinions need to be formed by intelligent, informed thought and factual observation. Opinions can be wrong. Just because someone has an opinion does not mean it's right, just because they can have one.

You can have the opinion that the sky is red. It is not however. You can have the opinion cold blooded murder for murders sake is not wrong.

Chronological age in boxing means nothing..

It is my opinion that age plays a significant role in boxing. I call it an opinion because I can not prove it as iron clad fact.

But your statement that age means nothing is so utterly ******ed that it can easily be disproven. If my chronilogical age is 109, are you telling me that means nothing in boxing? If your chronilogical age was a 2 year old child, and Mike Tyson punches out your ltesticles, does this mean nothing?

The idea that age affects every single organism on this planet except for boxers is a bit preposterous, but again you are entitled to your opinion.

[Toney616]

The idea that age affects every single organism on this planet except for boxers is a bit preposterous, but again you are entitled to your opinion.

Tall rangy boxer. His whole aim was to keep you at the end of his jab and right cross. Which meant that you would be in his punching range and him outside of your punching range. He could go through fights without taking too much punishment.

Short swarmer: He has to get inside his opponents punching range and tends to take a lot of punishment in fights

All other things being equal, who do you think would have the longer prime?

[Joeyzagz]

What a lot of Tyson "critics" try to do is claim that Tyson was the same fighter through out his career, when the facts clearly state otherwise. Ive never understood the whole age thing, you can only judge fighters by how that perform in the ring, not by their age. People age differently
Another problem with putting down Tyson is that him and Lewis fought a lot of the same opponents, you cant put down Tyson's resume without putting down Lewis's resume

I saw Tyson throw the same hooks and uppercuts in 1999-2002 that he did early in his career. Not quite as fast or explosive, but still very effective against scrubs. He KO'd Botha faster than Wladimir Klitschko did. He put on an impressive performance aganst 62-1 Brian Neilson. Mike Tyson would be a fantastic janitor of any era, but he'll always lose to an A-class opponent.

And yes I can put down Tysons resume' with no qualms whatsoever. Tucker, Bruno and Ruddock were arguably 3 of the top 5 opponents that Tyson beat.

Tucker, Bruno and ruddock were just another days work for Lennox and wouldnt even make his top 6, of best opponents.

[Joeyzagz]

Lou Savarese: was a tall boxer, with an 80 inch reach. His whole aim was to keep you at the end of his jab and right cross. Which meant that you would be in his punching range and him outside of your punching range. He could go through fights without taking too much punishment. See Savarese/Buster Douglas

Mike Tyson: was a short fighter, who had to get inside his opponents punching range and tended to take a lot of punishment in fights

Which fighter performed at the elite level longer?

^^^I substituted the names in your post but the spirit of your question is the same.

The short guy performed at an elite level longer

[Toney616]

I saw Tyson throw the same hooks and uppercuts in 1999-2002 that he did early in his career. Not quite as fast or explosive, but still very effective against scrubs.

There is more to Tysons technique than throwing certain punches. What about his Head movement? Combination punching? Counter-punching? Bodywork?
Would you say those techniques were the same through out his career?

He KO'd Botha faster than Wladimir Klitschko did. He put on an impressive performance aganst 62-1 Brian Neilson. Mike Tyson would be a fantastic janitor of any era, but he'll always lose to an A-class opponent.

Just because a fighter is on the slide, doesn't mean he cant beat B level opponents, Botha and Neilsen were not very good.

And yes I can put down Tysons resume' with no qualms whatsoever. Tucker, Bruno and Ruddock were arguably 3 of the top 5 opponents that Tyson beat.

True

Tucker, Bruno and ruddock were just another days work for Lennox and wouldnt even make his top 6, of best opponents.

Not really
His best wins are:
Holyfield(very past prime)Would not beat a decent fighter in the next 10 years
Vitali: Has been tkoed every time he fought an opponent above B level. His best wins are Herbie Hide and Sam Peter

Apart from those two, every one else he beat were on the same level as Tucker, Bruno etc

[Toney616]

^^^I substituted the names in your post but the spirit of your question is the same.

The short guy performed at an elite level longer

Lou Savarese was at best a career journeyman, and was never considered to be elite at any point in his career.Unlike Tyson who was considered to be elite from 87-91. i.e bad comparison