Prime Iron Mike versus Joshua or Wilder today

[Mr Objecitivity]

Are you seriously telling me that you don't think that Mike could have taken out McBride and Williams had he have fought them in the 80's?

Are you serious?

Mike had nothing left against those 2. He quit against McBride, saying he wasn't going to embarrass the sport any further. There was nothing in his shots. McBride didn't take huge bombs where he repeatedly shrugged off the same kind of shots that had taken out Mike's former opponents.


Mike had great power. He was the only person to ever knock out Larry Holmes in 75 fights. Look at some of the guys who Larry fought.

He beat Bruno twice, in the same amount of time it took Lennox to beat him once.

Oliver McCall and Rahman knocked out Lennox.

Are you telling me that they were more powerful than Mike, and Mike couldn't have knocked out Lennox had he have had the perfect opportunity?


I suggest you go and look at some of the guys who beat and knocked out Williams and McBride, such as this guy below:

http://boxrec.com/boxer/6941

This guy only had 16 wins from 60 fights. Out of those 16 wins, he only had 8 knockouts. He was also around the same size as Mike. So are you going to tell me that Louis Monaco was a bigger puncher than Mike?


How about this guy?:

http://boxrec.com/boxer/69219

He took out McBride in 2 rounds.

Was he more powerful than Mike?


You are being silly.

If you could give me a long list of opponents who weighed the same as Williams and McBride who Mike had fought all throughout his career, which produced similar results, then that would be evidence. But you don't have that. All you have are 3 opponents, who were right at the end of his career, from 2002-2005. Which means that those statistics are completely irrelevant. Again, if you seriously think that the versions of Mike who fought the likes of Spinks and Holmes, couldn't have taken McBride out because of his size and weight, then you are completely deluded.

Are you seriously telling me that you don't think that Mike could have taken out McBride and Williams had he have fought them in the 80's?

Based on his career knockout record against heavier opposition (opponents weighing above 230 pounds particularly), Mike Tyson would have more likely won by decision than by knockout and his chances of knocking those two opponents out are much lower than the lighter bums (and even skilled) opposition he was taking out earlier on in his career.

He quit against McBride, saying he wasn't going to embarrass the sport any further. There was nothing in his shots. McBride didn't take huge bombs where he repeatedly shrugged off the same kind of shots that had taken out Mike's former opponents.

Kevin Mcbride was one of many examples. Against Danny Williams, it appeared Mike Tyson threw his absolute hardest, most powerful punches multiple times but still failed to even drop Williams. So the 'shot', 'out of prime', or 'nothing left in the tank' arguments don't work against bums / journeymens like Danny Williams.

Had Mike Tyson struggled to land his powerful punches against a skillful opponent like Chris Byrd, then I'd accept the argument that Mike Tyson not being able to KO Chris Byrd was down to him being past his best, thus lacking offensive skills (speed, timing, accuracy and etc.) at such a late stage in his career. However, when Mike Tyson is capable of landing not one, but multiple of his best punches on his opponent (Danny Williams), then being 'past his best' can't be used as an excuse because he was still good enough t o land those punches that he did. The only argument you might have is that Mike Tyson's punching power was lower when he fought Danny Williams than it was during the 80's. However, I don't believe such is the case because punching power is one of the very last attributes a boxer loses. I somehow don't believe that Mike Tyson's punches had less power at 2004 than it did in the late 1980's. There's no reason to assume that Mike Tyson had less power when he was in his late 30's, than during his 20's. The only thing believable is that Mike Tyson's offensive skills may have decreased as he got older.

He was the only person to ever knock out Larry Holmes in 75 fights.

That was a great knockout victory for Mike Tyson FOR ITS TIME. Knocking out Larry Holmes counts as one of the great knock out victories prior to 1990's. However, since the 90's and especially the early 2000's, the standards have become much higher. Thus, Mike Tyson's knockout win over Larry Holmes from the perspective of modern heavyweight isn't as impressive. Although Larry Holmes was a great 'heavyweight' boxer for his time, thus Mike Tyson knocking him out was a great knockout back then. However, Larry Holmes isn't a typical modern heavyweight like some of the top modern heavyweights are right now. He is a lot smaller than some of them in size and subsequently different in the way he boxes as a result.

Oliver McCall and Rahman knocked out Lennox.

Are you telling me that they were more powerful than Mike, and Mike couldn't have knocked out Lennox had he have had the perfect opportunity?


I suggest you go and look at some of the guys who beat and knocked out Williams and McBride, such as this guy below:

http://boxrec.com/boxer/6941

This guy only had 16 wins from 60 fights. Out of those 16 wins, he only had 8 knockouts. He was also around the same size as Mike. So are you going to tell me that Louis Monaco was a bigger puncher than Mike?


How about this guy?:

http://boxrec.com/boxer/69219

He took out McBride in 2 rounds.

Was he more powerful than Mike?

It doesn't work quite that way. I can name many boxers that knocked out common opponents Mike Tyson couldn't knockout or knocked out less impressively. In fact, some of those boxers aren't even considered 'power punchers'.

For example, Mike Tyson couldn't KO Tony Tucker in 12 rounds. Yet, this same Tony Tucker was demolished and stopped inside 2 rounds by Herbie Hide.

It took Mike Tyson 10 rounds to KO a bum in Jose Ribalta. This same Jose Ribalta was knocked out in only 4 rounds by Chris Byrd (someone who isn't even considered a 'power puncher') and 2 rounds by Vitali Klitschko.

Bonecrusher Smith which Mike Tyson couldn't knockout in 12 rounds was stopped in just 3 rounds by a relatively unpopular heavyweight named Lionel Butler.

So you might ask what is my point by listing those facts? My point is, just because other boxers knocked out certain boxers doesn't mean Mike Tyson is also guaranteed to knock them out as well.

There have been more than one opponent which Mike Tyson failed to knock out, but the same opponent was knocked out by another heavyweight, sometimes those other heavyweights were relatively unpopular or were of lower caliber.

So just because Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman knocked out Lennox Lewis, doesn't mean Mike Tyson would've also been guaranteed to do it.

Just because Luis Monaco and Mike Mollo knocked out Kevin Mcbride, doesn't mean Mike Tyson would've also been guaranteed to do it as well.

Had Mike Tyson not fought Tony Tucker, you would probably argue that Mike Tyson would've knocked Tony Tucker out because even a natural cruiserweight like Herbie Hide managed to knock Tony Tucker out. However, we all know that's not what occurred.

If you could give me a long list of opponents who weighed the same as Williams and McBride who Mike had fought all throughout his career, which produced similar results, then that would be evidence. But you don't have that. All you have are 3 opponents, who were right at the end of his career, from 2002-2005. Which means that those statistics are completely irrelevant. Again, if you seriously think that the versions of Mike who fought the likes of Spinks and Holmes, couldn't have taken McBride out because of his size and weight, then you are completely deluded.

I provided Mike Tyson's career knockout record against opposition of various weight ranges. The fact that Mike Tyson's results against such opposition were recurring events and consistent, actually makes the statistic conclusive.

Consider that I am only referring to weight. Mike Tyson also struggled a lot to KO taller + non bummy opponents as well.

[Mr Objecitivity]

James Smith was in survival mode, but Mike took out Frank Bruno in 3 rounds, who was the the same size as Smith, but heavier. That puts an immediate hole in your theory.


Your statistics are facts. But they don't allow for circumstances. Also, you only have THREE lots of statistics.

How on earth can you put together a theory based on just THREE lots of statistics? You can't.


You are saying Mike never knocked out anyone in his career who weighed as much as Williams, Lewis and McBride. Fine. But he didn't fight any other HW's that weighed that much. So you haven't got a true measure. And when he did fight those guys you've mentioned, his tank was empty. He was fighting purely for the cheques at that point.


What about 2 modern fighters who are as big and as heavy as Williams and McBride?

They are:

Mariusz Wach

David Price


Are you going to tell me that your evidence tells us that Mike couldn't have knocked them out?


Again, before we go any further, you need to look at who else knocked out Williams and McBride.

James Smith was in survival mode, but Mike took out Frank Bruno in 3 rounds, who was the the same size as Smith, but heavier. That puts an immediate hole in your theory.

No, it doesn't, because consistency matters. If Mike Tyson knocked out 1 guy who weighed a specific number of pounds but failed to KO 9 other guys that weighed the same, then he obviously lacks the consistency of knocking out opponents of such a weight. In this case, he'd only have a 10% knockout percentage against opponents of such a weight.

Again, Frank Bruno was an exception and not the rule. Mike Tyson more frequently failed to KO opponents of Frank Bruno's size than succeeded.

Your statistics are facts. But they don't allow for circumstances.

'Circumstances' can be interpreted subjectively by various different people in various different ways. However, raw numbers and statistics are objective!

Also, you only have THREE lots of statistics.

No, I have Mike Tyson's KO statistics for his whole / entire career against opposition of various different weight range:

1) Against opponents weighing between 180 - 199 pounds, Mike Tyson had a 100% knockout record.

2) Against opponents weighing between 200 - 214 pounds, Mike Tyson had a 91% knockout record.

3) Against opponents weighing between 215-229 pounds, Mike Tyson had a knockout record of 83%.

4) Against opponents weighing above 230 pounds, Mike Tyson had a knockout record of only 64%.

These stats are conclusive. As opponents became heavier, Mike Tyson's knockout percentage got lesser and lesser.

Of course, you can find exceptions where Mike Tyson (unusually) knocks out a very heavy opponent or type of opponent, but that's not the norm.

What about 2 modern fighters who are as big and as heavy as Williams and McBride?

They are:

Mariusz Wach

David Price


Are you going to tell me that your evidence tells us that Mike couldn't have knocked them out?

As far as Mariusz Wach is concerned, no, I don't think Mike Tyson is very likely to KO Mariusz Wach. When taking into consideration Wladimir Klitschko, who has a higher knockout percentage against heavier average opposition than Mike Tyson and still failed to KO Mariusz Wach in 12 rounds, Mike Tyson has a lower chance of knocking Mariusz Wach out than Wladimir Klitschko.

As far as David Price is concerned, Mike Tyson obviously stands a higher chance of knocking him out than Mariusz Wach. However, I believe it's more likely he beats both Wach and Price by decision than by knockout. I think it's more likely that Price survives 12 rounds against Mike Tyson, the same way Bonecrusher Smith and Tony Tucker did than getting knocked out.

[jas]

tyson by ko vs both

wilders defense needs work, he leaves his chin up in the air

and aj needs a better jab to be able to beat tyson

tyson is better defensively than both

[Basco]

Mike's pressure and power would be too much for both. Tyson by KO on both!

[NChristo]

Mike didn't have good training camps for either of those fights, he was way past his prime when he fought Lennox and Buster Douglas got the longest 10 count known to man in that fight when he got dropped. We know Wilder's chin is suspect and Joshua stiffens up for 3 rounds every time he gets nailed. Mike wouldn't stop the pressure after landing a single big shot and it's hard to weave and slip vs a much smaller man who uses angles.

Longest 10 count known to man.



K

[REMOVE SHARK 55]

Tyson smokes both, with relative ease I might add.

What makes you say that?.

[robertzimmerman]

Regarding his bob & weave, it was effective when used against an opponent who had no idea of timing. Look at the Douglas fight. Bobs & weaves and it is constantly negated by a jab or right hand. Good skill yes but it was & can still be nullified.

I acknowledge he beat Biggs who was a big man with the amateur pedigree to match. However the rest of the taller Boxers on his resume were not as competent as the big men we see today.

Regarding Wilder we'll see. It seems like a lot of people on here aren't sold on him. For me I see a big man who knows his distance & tries to work of a jab until he can land his famous right hand. I see a super athletic human being.
However you win regarding Wilder because Tyson at the end of the day was an undisputed champion. It would be nice of you to acknowledge that it's much tougher to be a undisputed champion's due to the skillset coupled with size in this era.

Any style can be nullified by the right opponent on the right night.

Regarding Wilder, of course a lot of people aren't sold on him. He beat a B class HW in Stiverne and has since looked poor against other B and C class HW's. He's also looked crude and uncoordinated at times.

[robertzimmerman]

Tabaristio,

Based on his career knockout record against heavier opposition (opponents weighing above 230 pounds particularly), Mike Tyson would have more likely won by decision than by knockout and his chances of knocking those two opponents out are much lower than the lighter bums (and even skilled) opposition he was taking out earlier on in his career.

Again, your stats don't allow for the fact that Lennox Lewis is considered by many as the greatest HW of all time, and Mike was also no longer a top level fighter when he fought Williams and McBride.

You have those stats. And yes, they're factual. But at what point do you use your eyes and apply some logic and common sense?

Williams and McBride are domestic/euro level guys.

Mike in mid 80's peak, was a completely different fighter to the versions they fought.

Yes, some world class/top level HW's could survive the distance against Mike. But again, with all due respect, those 2 guys weren't top level guys. Not only were they not not top level guys, they also weren't famed for having great chins and durability.

Forget the stats for a moment, and go and watch some of their other fights. Go and look at who else knocked them out and beat them.

Mike would have jumped on them and they would have had no answer. Again, Danny Williams would tell you that himself.

Kevin Mcbride was one of many examples. Against Danny Williams, it appeared Mike Tyson threw his absolute hardest, most powerful punches multiple times but still failed to even drop Williams. So the 'shot', 'out of prime', or 'nothing left in the tank' arguments don't work against bums / journeymens like Danny Williams.

How can you not allow for leverage, timing, speed, and follow up combinations, etc?

Had Mike Tyson struggled to land his powerful punches against a skillful opponent like Chris Byrd, then I'd accept the argument that Mike Tyson not being able to KO Chris Byrd was down to him being past his best, thus lacking offensive skills (speed, timing, accuracy and etc.) at such a late stage in his career. However, when Mike Tyson is capable of landing not one, but multiple of his best punches on his opponent (Danny Williams), then being 'past his best' can't be used as an excuse because he was still good enough t o land those punches that he did. The only argument you might have is that Mike Tyson's punching power was lower when he fought Danny Williams than it was during the 80's. However, I don't believe such is the case because punching power is one of the very last attributes a boxer loses. I somehow don't believe that Mike Tyson's punches had less power at 2004 than it did in the late 1980's. There's no reason to assume that Mike Tyson had less power when he was in his late 30's, than during his 20's. The only thing believable is that Mike Tyson's offensive skills may have decreased as he got older.

We've covered this.

Of course his offensive skills decreased when he got older.

That was a great knockout victory for Mike Tyson FOR ITS TIME. Knocking out Larry Holmes counts as one of the great knock out victories prior to 1990's. However, since the 90's and especially the early 2000's, the standards have become much higher. Thus, Mike Tyson's knockout win over Larry Holmes from the perspective of modern heavyweight isn't as impressive. Although Larry Holmes was a great 'heavyweight' boxer for his time, thus Mike Tyson knocking him out was a great knockout back then. However, Larry Holmes isn't a typical modern heavyweight like some of the top modern heavyweights are right now. He is a lot smaller than some of them in size and subsequently different in the way he boxes as a result.

No, Mike's knockout of Larry Holmes was a great knockout across any era. Again, look at who Larry fought throughout his career. Mike was the only guy who ever knocked him out. And even that past prime version of Mike would be a top 5-10 HW if he was around today.

It doesn't work quite that way. I can name many boxers that knocked out common opponents Mike Tyson couldn't knockout or knocked out less impressively. In fact, some of those boxers aren't even considered 'power punchers'.

For example, Mike Tyson couldn't KO Tony Tucker in 12 rounds. Yet, this same Tony Tucker was demolished and stopped inside 2 rounds by Herbie Hide.

It took Mike Tyson 10 rounds to KO a bum in Jose Ribalta. This same Jose Ribalta was knocked out in only 4 rounds by Chris Byrd (someone who isn't even considered a 'power puncher') and 2 rounds by Vitali Klitschko.

Bonecrusher Smith which Mike Tyson couldn't knockout in 12 rounds was stopped in just 3 rounds by a relatively unpopular heavyweight named Lionel Butler.

So you might ask what is my point by listing those facts? My point is, just because other boxers knocked out certain boxers doesn't mean Mike Tyson is also guaranteed to knock them out as well.

There have been more than one opponent which Mike Tyson failed to knock out, but the same opponent was knocked out by another heavyweight, sometimes those other heavyweights were relatively unpopular or were of lower caliber.

So just because Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman knocked out Lennox Lewis, doesn't mean Mike Tyson would've also been guaranteed to do it.

Of course.

I respect the above.

We all know about triangle theories.

We know that styles make fights.

We know that guys can be beaten by lower level guys when at the end of their careers.


Two things to consider:


1. There's a huge difference between world class HW's and domestic/euro level HW's.

Williams and McBride would never have survived Mike in his peak, because they wouldn't have been able to have implemented any type of an offense. They'd have just been beaten upon until the referee stepped in. There wouldn't have been anything in return which would have stopped Mike's onslaught. They would have been certain KO/TKO victories.


2. My comment regarding MCCall and Rahman, were based on your earlier comments where you stated that Mike wouldn't even have had a punchers chance against Lennox, as he'd have been crushed like an insignificant bug against Lennox and the other big guys of the modern era. But thankfully, you've admitted that you exaggerated.

Just because Luis Monaco and Mike Mollo knocked out Kevin Mcbride, doesn't mean Mike Tyson would've also been guaranteed to do it as well.

It does.

Again, there's a world of difference between comparing world level triangle theories with Mike, Lennox and Bruno etc, to triangle theories with Monaco and Mollo who were domestic/euro level fighters.

Those wins also weren't one offs where they just got caught against other competent HW's. Again, both Williams and McBride repeatedly lost to other domestic/euro level guys, who were nowhere near the level of peak versions of Mike Tyson.

Had Mike Tyson not fought Tony Tucker, you would probably argue that Mike Tyson would've knocked Tony Tucker out because even a natural cruiserweight like Herbie Hide managed to knock Tony Tucker out. However, we all know that's not what occurred.

Actually, I wouldn't have done, because Tony was a top level southpaw with a lot of attributes.

Also, Tony was on the downside when he fought Herbie. I don't think Herbie would have knocked out the version of Tony who Mike fought.

I provided Mike Tyson's career knockout record against opposition of various weight ranges. The fact that Mike Tyson's results against such opposition were recurring events and consistent, actually makes the statistic conclusive.

Consider that I am only referring to weight. Mike Tyson also struggled a lot to KO taller + non bummy opponents as well.

Again, when looking at Mike at his peak, your stats don't allow for the fact that he was levels above the version of him who fought in 2004-2005.

It's okay for you to look at the stats, but put forward a logical theory of how McBride and Williams could even have survived the distance against a mid 80's versions of Mike. They would both have been used as punching bags. Even in survival mode, they couldn't have survived.

[SN!PER]

Longest 10 count known to man.



K

The damn cheating ref.... still makes me angry to this day.

[robertzimmerman]

Tabaristio,

No, it doesn't, because consistency matters. If Mike Tyson knocked out 1 guy who weighed a specific number of pounds but failed to KO 9 other guys that weighed the same, then he obviously lacks the consistency of knocking out opponents of such a weight. In this case, he'd only have a 10% knockout percentage against opponents of such a weight.

Again, Frank Bruno was an exception and not the rule. Mike Tyson more frequently failed to KO opponents of Frank Bruno's size than succeeded.

You can manipulate the stats to suit your argument.

Again, how long before you apply common sense and logic?

How long before you look at Mike's peak and you analyse Williams and McBride's careers, before you realise that they couldn't hold their own against world class HW's, and they would have had no answer against Mike's onslaught?

'Circumstances' can be interpreted subjectively by various different people in various different ways. However, raw numbers and statistics are objective!

How are they?

If you look at BoxRec stats, they'll tell you that Leon Spinks was a better fighter than Muhammad Ali, and that Joe Calzaghe was a better fighter than Roy Jones.

To a knowledgeable fan, they mean nothing.

Your stats don't allow for the fact that Mike was absolutely shot in the mid 00's.

If you want to put forward an objective opinion on what may have happened had the fights taken place 20 years earlier, you'd analyse the styles and attributes of the 3 fighters, and you'd look at their strengths and weaknesses, as well as the level they fought at, whilst also analysing the results. And if you did that, we wouldn't even need to be having this debate.

No, I have Mike Tyson's KO statistics for his whole / entire career against opposition of various different weight range:

1) Against opponents weighing between 180 - 199 pounds, Mike Tyson had a 100% knockout record.

2) Against opponents weighing between 200 - 214 pounds, Mike Tyson had a 91% knockout record.

3) Against opponents weighing between 215-229 pounds, Mike Tyson had a knockout record of 83%.

4) Against opponents weighing above 230 pounds, Mike Tyson had a knockout record of only 64%.

These stats are conclusive. As opponents became heavier, Mike Tyson's knockout percentage got lesser and lesser.

Of course, you can find exceptions where Mike Tyson (unusually) knocks out a very heavy opponent or type of opponent, but that's not the norm.

We've already discussed the above. Whilst the above needs to respected, you also need to make allowances for the other factors that I've mentioned.

As far as Mariusz Wach is concerned, no, I don't think Mike Tyson is very likely to KO Mariusz Wach. When taking into consideration Wladimir Klitschko, who has a higher knockout percentage against heavier average opposition than Mike Tyson and still failed to KO Mariusz Wach in 12 rounds, Mike Tyson has a lower chance of knocking Mariusz Wach out than Wladimir Klitschko.

Again, you are analysing the stats, more than the styles of each fighter.

As far as David Price is concerned, Mike Tyson obviously stands a higher chance of knocking him out than Mariusz Wach. However, I believe it's more likely he beats both Wach and Price by decision than by knockout. I think it's more likely that Price survives 12 rounds against Mike Tyson, the same way Bonecrusher Smith and Tony Tucker did than getting knocked out.

I can respect that we all have different opinions. It's what makes this forum so enjoyable. However, without being disrespectful, what you've written above is absolutely laughable. Seriously man, it's a joke. And it's a perfect example of where I've asked you to put the stats to one side for a moment, to instead apply some logic and common sense.

Have you watched many fights of David Price?

I'm English. I've watched his entire career. He's a nice guy and a good pundit. However, he's a domestic/euro level HW who freezes when he gets hit. He panics. He can't take a shot, and he's mentally weak. His career is already almost over, after a crushing defeat to Christian Hammer, which followed losses to Erkan Teper and Tony Thompson.

If you think he'd have had even a chance to have survived a mid 80's version of Mike, then you have to be crazy. Seriously, no disrespect, but you'd either have to be crazy, or you'd only possess a limited amount of knowledge on Price.

He would have been crushed with absolute ease. I don't give a damn about your stats here. Go and watch his fights. He would have been like a deer caught in the headlights. He would have froze against Mike. And I don't need to possess psychic powers to put forward that theory.

Mike would have jumped on him, and he would have folded both mentally and physically. He'd have been completely defenceless, just taking a pounding until the referee had intervened. Seriously, if it'd have gone 3 rounds, I'd have been amazed. I don't care about his size and weight. It would have been a complete and utter mismatch.


Seeing as though you're so obsessed with size and weight, let me throw out another name who's as big as McBride and Price, and who operated on a similar level:

Audley Harrison.


Height - 6'5"

Reach - 86"

Weight - 230-260 pounds


Now are you going to use your stats as a guide to state that Harrison would have more than likely have survived getting knocked out, or are you going to apply common sense and logic after analysing his career?