Intimidation. Sonny Liston.

[Tatabanya]

I am no boxing expert but your statements about Tyson are echoed by many pundits who know their stuff. Tyson at a conceptual best would be a dangerous fight for any ATG. What many fail to realize about Tyson, is that like Liston, who was illiterate (Mike was not illiterate), Tyson was very smart. Both men studied their craft.

Tyson to many was a stronger version of Dempsey at his best. Tyson had very fast feet, so he could come in off a line and be on top of a man with reach in a split second. Tyson also shows all kinds of skills in the tape. I wish I had the tape of him doing pivots, just like Dempsey did. And he had two hands of equal dynamite! As far as size, its an interesting issue as to how that would affect him versus bigger men.

Someone willing to speak seriously, at long last.

What BKM is pretending to ignore is the "conceptual best" bit that you mention. Unfortunately we haven't been able to watch the younger version of Tyson fighting Holyfield and Lewis, so anything we say is mere speculation. Perhaps he would have lost, as BKM affirms, or perhaps - as I believe - he would have beaten both. We will never know. But denying the high level of the 1986-88 version of Tyson's skills is rather puerile. Hiding behind the "you're still a Tyson fanboy at 56" excuse is too easy. Facts speak, except for the biased ones, and both Holyfield and Lewis lost to a number of B-level fighters while in their prime. This alone justifies the theory according to which a young Tyson would have probably defeated both of them. It's just logic, always debatable, but logic.

[BKM-]

Someone willing to speak seriously, at long last.

What BKM is pretending to ignore is the "conceptual best" bit that you mention. Unfortunately we haven't been able to watch the younger version of Tyson fighting Holyfield and Lewis, so anything we say is mere speculation. Perhaps he would have lost, as BKM affirms, or perhaps - as I believe - he would have beaten both. We will never know. But denying the high level of the 1986-88 version of Tyson's skills is rather puerile. Hiding behind the "you're still a Tyson fanboy at 56" excuse is too easy. Facts speak, except for the biased ones, and both Holyfield and Lewis lost to a number of B-level fighters while in their prime. This alone justifies the theory according to which a young Tyson would have probably defeated both of them. It's just logic, always debatable, but logic.

Well you never really learned to understand basic concepts of boxing such as styles make fights and that it's mostly mental not just technical. Not surprisingly this has gone over your head the entire time while I vouched for those arguments.

Tyson loses to both mostly because he's too mentally weak and that both men have styles that give him severe problems that he can't overcome. Lewis smothers him on the inside and outboxes him from the outside as he has proven capable many times. Holyfield has already shown the perfect blueprint on how to beat him, so did Buster Douglas.

So what other arguments did you have left? By pointing out their losses/lesser performances while ignoring Tyson's. Mike never beat a great fighter, he lost badly every time he fought a great fighter and he even lost to a journeyman at his peak which was a comprehensive beatdown, not a lucky one-shot like Lewis'. You also contradict yourself constantly by claiming that you rate Holyfield highly and then you try to discredit his resume.

I have talked to many Tyson fanboys over the years and while most are ignorant casuals, some are more intelligent and knowledgable. You, Tabatanya, are unfortunately leaning towards the former. Decades of ignorance and wasted potential, like I said you're a living tragedy.

[Roberto Vasquez]

Even Ali looked scared when he faced Liston. I wonder who of modern era HW champs could resist his fear when standing in front of Sonny. OK, I know Fury would be clowning etc. but I am convinced he would be scared deep inside. Such fighters as Joshua or Wilder would be scared as ****. Golota would practically cancelled the fight just after a staredown. Kownacki, in his careless ******ity, would smile at staredown and would regret it sooner than in last Helenius battle. If Mike Tyson and George Foreman said that Liston was the scariest human being ever in the ring, there is something in it.

I don't buy that many elite professional fighters are intimidated at all. I think maybe against someone like Wilder before the Fury defeat his KO record would play on your mind. Especially when you got people like Haye saying Wilder hits freakishly hard. It's more myth-making on the part of the press and promoters that does it.

I see so many face-off videos where in the comments people say a certain fighter looks scared then in the fight that fighter wins easily. People mostly see what they want to see or think everyone behaves the same way

[BKM-]

Come on BKM... You should reconsider some of these opinions. Look at tape. You can see things. Lewis, Holly and Tyson were three fighters that many experts think were exceptional and ATG. There are many measures of greatness and ability.

The biggest measure is when it's proven in the ring. Tyson never beat a great fighter who was in his prime. The others did.

He was good head to head, but seeing the obvious that Lewis and Holyfield would always beat him doesn't make him a bum.

Someone could have just worked with him on lowering his center and even sprawling. One of the things untrained people do when grabbed, or pushed back is try to make themselves bigger lol! I mean they try to get straighter which is the opposite of what one should do. When something opposes your momentum it is best to sink to preserve the center, or move to a new center.

Where does this come from? Through the ages, when we were in the jungle and started to get less robust and more tall, we would come into conflicts with other predators who had to decide whether they should attack us, or not... So what is the best thing to do? If you look bigger the predator will think twice right? So when that horrid smallish tiger looking thing is eyeing us? We would straighten our spine up, throw out arms out wide, yell... make us look big and strong! This also puts our hands in a position where we can optimally hit down on something. That is the way we hit before we developed the capacity to even make a fist. Like other primates fighting... Watch how they hit down using gravity and weight. And the tool is our forearm which is like our own billy club.

Thousands of years later, we instinctively push up when we are grappled, instead of pushing down. Tyson could have learned this after the first fight actually.

That would have been a good start but it would have taken years to develop.

He was a small heavyweight and in order to close the grappling gap he would have needed to be exceptionally strong in that department, not just average.

I don't blame Mike for this, I blame the overrated Cus. He should have worked on this from the start instead of throwing his hands up and having no answer.

[Tatabanya]

Well you never really learned to understand basic concepts of boxing such as styles make fights and that it's mostly mental not just technical. Not surprisingly this has gone over your head the entire time while I vouched for those arguments.

Tyson loses to both mostly because he's too mentally weak and that both men have styles that give him severe problems that he can't overcome. Lewis smothers him on the inside and outboxes him from the outside as he has proven capable many times. Holyfield has already shown the perfect blueprint on how to beat him, so did Buster Douglas.

So what other arguments did you have left? By pointing out their losses/lesser performances while ignoring Tyson's. Mike never beat a great fighter, he lost badly every time he fought a great fighter and he even lost to a journeyman at his peak which was a comprehensive beatdown, not a lucky one-shot like Lewis'. You also contradict yourself constantly by claiming that you rate Holyfield highly and then you try to discredit his resume.

I have talked to many Tyson fanboys over the years and while most are ignorant casuals, some are more intelligent and knowledgable. You, Tabatanya, are unfortunately leaning towards the former. Decades of ignorance and wasted potential, like I said you're a living tragedy.

You keep throwing insults, they keep bouncing off my superiority, so you're forgiven.

The Tyson you keep referring to throughout the thread is the post-Spinks version. In the 1986-88 version, his mind was focused and strong, not weak. He started having mental problems after the Spinks fight, when Robin Givens and Don King entered his life and made a mess of what D'Amato and Rooney had created, namely a hard-punching machine capable of fighting for twelve rounds if needed.

In one of my first posts I did say that Tyson had his flaws, I never ignored them. But - again - they came out after the Spinks fight, when he started to unravel, trained with less discipline and was messed up by Don King and his thugs.

Now, name the great fighters that Holyfield and Lewis have beaten. I'll help you: an old Foreman, a quasi-dead Holmes and a mentally wrecked Tyson. Then?

Finally, I rate Holyfield highly for his toughness and technical ability. Not for his resume in particular.

[billeau2]

Someone willing to speak seriously, at long last.

What BKM is pretending to ignore is the "conceptual best" bit that you mention. Unfortunately we haven't been able to watch the younger version of Tyson fighting Holyfield and Lewis, so anything we say is mere speculation. Perhaps he would have lost, as BKM affirms, or perhaps - as I believe - he would have beaten both. We will never know. But denying the high level of the 1986-88 version of Tyson's skills is rather puerile. Hiding behind the "you're still a Tyson fanboy at 56" excuse is too easy. Facts speak, except for the biased ones, and both Holyfield and Lewis lost to a number of B-level fighters while in their prime. This alone justifies the theory according to which a young Tyson would have probably defeated both of them. It's just logic, always debatable, but logic.

There are a lot of ways to look at Tyson. I tend to think that the things that sustained him, he lost fairly quickly... Sort of proving how much the Most High has a great sense of humor, and appreciation for irony lol... You take the youngest man at the time to win the title, and rather quickly leave him devoid of his speed, his upper body movement, and his mental fitness.

Many do not notice how quickly Tyson declined without the right people there to manage him. By the time he loses to Douglas he is still dangerous and a juggernaught but is already slower, using less combination work, virtually devoid of the feints, head and shoulder movements that made him shoot off fighting lines into the opponent.

Certain fighters had a quality that is very important in martial arts...Explosiveness. Ricardo Mayorga had it... He was actually a fantastic fighter when he beat Six Heads Lewis and Forrest. Tyson had it in spades. It is like everything thrown explodes into the person. You can see it with Wilder also... That quality is hard to preserve because it is partially about the ligements and how the body is able to snap itself with the weight distribution going into the attack. When we start to lose that quality attacks may look the same, but they are not really the same at all.

[Tatabanya]

There are a lot of ways to look at Tyson. I tend to think that the things that sustained him, he lost fairly quickly... Sort of proving how much the Most High has a great sense of humor, and appreciation for irony lol... You take the youngest man at the time to win the title, and rather quickly leave him devoid of his speed, his upper body movement, and his mental fitness.

Many do not notice how quickly Tyson declined without the right people there to manage him. By the time he loses to Douglas he is still dangerous and a juggernaught but is already slower, using less combination work, virtually devoid of the feints, head and shoulder movements that made him shoot off fighting lines into the opponent.

Certain fighters had a quality that is very important in martial arts...Explosiveness. Ricardo Mayorga had it... He was actually a fantastic fighter when he beat Six Heads Lewis and Forrest. Tyson had it in spades. It is like everything thrown explodes into the person. You can see it with Wilder also... That quality is hard to preserve because it is partially about the ligements and how the body is able to snap itself with the weight distribution going into the attack. When we start to lose that quality attacks may look the same, but they are not really the same at all.

The decline of Tyson was so abrupt that most people got struck by it more than his golden era, short but exceptional.

[Tatabanya]

Now, a thought for poor Dariusz, who saw his Sonny Liston thread turned into a Tyson vs Holyfield quarrel

[BKM-]

The Tyson you keep referring to throughout the thread is the post-Spinks version.

I've referred to the Tyson that gives you wet dreams from the start. I already know those games, and the excuses "post-spinks" aren't gonna work on me.

It remains ironic that this is your way to try to downplay his losses but when it comes to Holyfield you use his losses way post-prime against him. Only the lowest of boxing IQ's would refer to the James Toney or even Ruiz losses.

In one of my first posts I did say that Tyson had his flaws, I never ignored them. But - again - they came out after the Spinks fight, when he started to unravel, trained with less discipline and was messed up by Don King and his thugs.

Again, he was always extremely physically weak in the clinch, always kept up his flashy pace for the early part of the fight only, always one dimensional and always lost focus throughout fights that didn't end in early KO's and never beat anybody great back then either.

A one trick pony who would quit when it got too tough. Holyfield and Lewis overcame adversity many times and showed many different styles and tactics. They are far, far above your man.

Now, name the great fighters that Holyfield and Lewis have beaten. I'll help you: an old Foreman, a quasi-dead Holmes and a mentally wrecked Tyson. Then?

Lewis beat Holyfield, Klitschko, every man he ever faced and 11 world champions in total if I'm not mistaken.

Holyfield beat Bowe, Foreman, Tyson, too many world champions to count and regain the HW title more than anybody in history. He's also the GOAT Cruiserweight as a side note.

Tyson beat: 0.0 great fighters. Fought in the second or best HW era ever and faced less than half of the best, all of whom beat him badly.

Finally, I rate Holyfield highly for his toughness and technical ability. Not for his resume in particular.

Good back peddling.

[The Old LefHook]

Boxers are brave men. I have never seen one intimidated by the stare down.