Michael Spinks in former HW era's

[Dempsey-Louis]

Didn't say "other ATGs" but he'd have taken out many top rated HW contenders from 1900-1970 in a similar fashion. And even men like Charles, Walcott, Patterson and Tunney who I rate highly and would pick them against other bigger men, it's likely that if they were in the ring with Tyson on that night, they'd have been taken out just as quickly. I mean, perhaps they make it out of round 1, but that would only be because of their movement. I doubt any would see past round 3.

You are saying that Charles, Walcott and Tunney couldn't achieve what Bone Crusher Smith and Tony Tucker could.

Tyson wasn't as good as we all thought he was that's why Douglas exposed him.

[The Old LefHook]

You think Buster Douglas would stomp him?

We are always looking at the best versions of men in these matchups. The rephrased question then would be:

Do you really think the Douglas who stomped Tyson would stomp the great Spinchter?

Well, son, as a matter of fact....

Si, si, senor. That Douglas might have killed Holyfield, but that version did not show up.

Though I think that Douglas might have been well nigh unbeatable by most heavyweights of the past, that is merely a might, sir.

The discussion is how Spinks does among them. One might say that generally he is a good contender and hardly ever a heavyweight champion.

Buster's one night of glory earns him nothing AT but a footnote, because he ruined everything in his next fight.

If ever anyone deserved to die young so their legacy would be preserved, it was Buster right after the Tyson fight. As if he were Jimi Hendrix, we would still be mythologizing about ol' Buster and his greatness.

[uncle ben]

You are saying that Charles, Walcott and Tunney couldn't achieve what Bone Crusher Smith and Tony Tucker could.

Tyson wasn't as good as we all thought he was that's why Douglas exposed him.

Smith was 6'5 235 pounds and survived by being strong enough to continually tie Tyson up en route to a boring UD loss. Unless Charles, Walcott and Tunney are as physically strong as Smith and could keep tying Tyson up, then no. They would have to fight a different kind of fight altogether.

It's not that I don't think they are skilled enough. That's not the problem. The problem is their smaller size in comparison to Tyson's size plus the attributes that Tyson brings to the table. Some bigger men I'd pick the above smaller men to beat. I'd pick Walcott to out box say Joe Bugner. I'd pick Charles to UD Bonecrusher Smith. I'd pick Tunney to outbox Trevor Berbick. So it just isn't the size. A prime Mike Tyson would be hell for any smaller fighter and the all time great destroyer of any light heavy or cruiser (at least a cruiser who comes in as a cruiser, not bulks up to heavy) who moves up to heavy to fight him in his prime.

Now, if you gave Ezzard Charles some of the same medicine and weight training you gave Holyfield, bulked him up to a solid, muscular 210-220 pounds while allowing him to keep much of his speed and skill while giving him the extra weight to put behind his punch and increasing his physical strength, the same with Walcott or Tunney, then I'd give that modern, up to date version of Charles as much of a chance to beat a prime Tyson as I'd give a 1949 184 pound Ezzard Charles a chance to beat a prime Floyd Patterson.

[uncle ben]

Most often, I’ll find these comparisons incomparable.

What if Spinks had lived in the 1910s, training and believing in the techniques that was up-to-date back then.
Or if Jack Johnson had been active today, being a lot more wiser about nutrion.

“You can’t separate a champion from his time” Sonny Liston said.
I’m satisfied with that.

In that case then we can't compare ANY fighters from different era's. The best you can do is say that two fighters step out of a time machine in their primes or whatever and fight each other as is and make educated opinions on the outcome.

[Dempsey-Louis]

Smith was 6'5 235 pounds and survived by being strong enough to continually tie Tyson up en route to a boring UD loss. Unless Charles, Walcott and Tunney are as physically strong as Smith and could keep tying Tyson up, then no. They would have to fight a different kind of fight altogether.

It's not that I don't think they are skilled enough. That's not the problem. The problem is their smaller size in comparison to Tyson's size plus the attributes that Tyson brings to the table. Some bigger men I'd pick the above smaller men to beat. I'd pick Walcott to out box say Joe Bugner. I'd pick Charles to UD Bonecrusher Smith. I'd pick Tunney to outbox Trevor Berbick. So it just isn't the size. A prime Mike Tyson would be hell for any smaller fighter and the all time great destroyer of any light heavy or cruiser (at least a cruiser who comes in as a cruiser, not bulks up to heavy) who moves up to heavy to fight him in his prime.

Now, if you gave Ezzard Charles some of the same medicine and weight training you gave Holyfield, bulked him up to a solid, muscular 210-220 pounds while allowing him to keep much of his speed and skill while giving him the extra weight to put behind his punch and increasing his physical strength, the same with Walcott or Tunney, then I'd give that modern, up to date version of Charles as much of a chance to beat a prime Tyson as I'd give a 1949 184 pound Ezzard Charles a chance to beat a prime Floyd Patterson.

I agree regarding the 'time machine' problem; I don't agree that Tyson was that great. But that's cool.

Although Buster Douglas was bigger than Tyson, Douglas kept Tyson off him with his skills not his strength, (as you were correct in pointing out about Smith.)

I am of the same mind as Ben Bolt, if you want to judge a man's greatness you must do it based on the standards of his day, (whether they be ethical or physical.)

How do you see Tyson '88 against:

Foremen '73
Foremen '91

[uncle ben]

I agree regarding the 'time machine' problem; I don't agree that Tyson was that great. But that's cool.

Although Buster Douglas was bigger than Tyson, Douglas kept Tyson off him with his skills not his strength, (as you were correct in pointing out about Smith.)

I am of the same mind as Ben Bolt, if you want to judge a man's greatness you must do it based on the standards of his day, (whether they be ethical or physical.)

How do you see Tyson '88 against:

Foremen '73
Foremen '91

If Douglas was 185 pounds, you have to admit, he'd have been at a major disadvantage.

[uncle ben]

I agree regarding the 'time machine' problem; I don't agree that Tyson was that great. But that's cool.

Although Buster Douglas was bigger than Tyson, Douglas kept Tyson off him with his skills not his strength, (as you were correct in pointing out about Smith.)

I am of the same mind as Ben Bolt, if you want to judge a man's greatness you must do it based on the standards of his day, (whether they be ethical or physical.)

How do you see Tyson '88 against:

Foremen '73
Foremen '91

I wrote about Tyson vs prime Foreman here
https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...=778508&page=3

Vs a 1991 Foreman I predict Tyson via massacre. Foreman was just too slow by that point. If he was faster, then his chances sky rocket.

[Ben Bolt]

In that case then we can't compare ANY fighters from different era's. The best you can do is say that two fighters step out of a time machine in their primes or whatever

Yes, you're right. The good thing is, no one can prove us right or wrong in our belief who beats who. It's a matter of opinion. And I definitely would've liked see Spinks taking on Johnson, Dempsey, Louis etc.

[OctoberRed]

Smith was 6'5 235 pounds and survived by being strong enough to continually tie Tyson up en route to a boring UD loss. Unless Charles, Walcott and Tunney are as physically strong as Smith and could keep tying Tyson up, then no. They would have to fight a different kind of fight altogether.

It's not that I don't think they are skilled enough. That's not the problem. The problem is their smaller size in comparison to Tyson's size plus the attributes that Tyson brings to the table. Some bigger men I'd pick the above smaller men to beat. I'd pick Walcott to out box say Joe Bugner. I'd pick Charles to UD Bonecrusher Smith. I'd pick Tunney to outbox Trevor Berbick. So it just isn't the size. A prime Mike Tyson would be hell for any smaller fighter and the all time great destroyer of any light heavy or cruiser (at least a cruiser who comes in as a cruiser, not bulks up to heavy) who moves up to heavy to fight him in his prime.

Now, if you gave Ezzard Charles some of the same medicine and weight training you gave Holyfield, bulked him up to a solid, muscular 210-220 pounds while allowing him to keep much of his speed and skill while giving him the extra weight to put behind his punch and increasing his physical strength, the same with Walcott or Tunney, then I'd give that modern, up to date version of Charles as much of a chance to beat a prime Tyson as I'd give a 1949 184 pound Ezzard Charles a chance to beat a prime Floyd Patterson.

Ben brings up some very solid points here.