I hate to say it, but I think Wilder would've beaten Prime Tyson

[mathed]

Like most things in sports, its about matchup's. Tyson v Wilder is a horrible matchup do to length and height. Just is what it is. The fight wouldn't even be made if they were fighting in the same era.

So how many of his opponents do you think Tyson was bigger than?

[QballLobo]

Don’t think so. Young Tyson was a complete fighter. He would have stayed inside and used his head movement and footwork.
Wilder is too basic for prime Tyson. He just reaches that left and loads up on the right. I understand that people are prisoner of the moment, but young Tyson for about 3 years was an all timer. Wilder is not in that class.

[Sheldon312]

Plus wilder hasn't koed anyone who had a reputation for great chin. Do you think vitali, holyfield, mercer couldn't take that shot ortiz succumbed to?

Has ortiz ever been known to have a chin

[Curtis Harper]

They were closer to their best version though than mike was. Their defensive styles could last longer than explosive ones. Holy was still good many years later.
And Lewis still went on to beat vlad. While mike was already dry af.. not to mention the long layoff

Lewis fought 1 more time and then retired @ age 38
Holy was mid 30's when he 1st fought Mike who had just turned 30.

That jail stint only put off the inevitable beatings he would have caught sooner. As ''talented'' as Mike was, he was also very flawed.

[Curtis Harper]

Don’t think so. Young Tyson was a complete fighter. He would have stayed inside and used his head movement and footwork.
Wilder is too basic for prime Tyson. He just reaches that left and loads up on the right. I understand that people are prisoner of the moment, but young Tyson for about 3 years was an all timer. Wilder is not in that class.

''Young Tyson''......

People criticize other guys for having soft fights to begin a career and was protected. This pretty much defines ''young'' Mike.

26 fights in and maybe Ferguson is his best win ?

Are we implying Wilder wouldn't have ended those same 26 no hopers ?

[dibzvincent143]

Lewis fought 1 more time and then retired @ age 38
Holy was mid 30's when he 1st fought Mike who had just turned 30.

That jail stint only put off the inevitable beatings he would have caught sooner. As ''talented'' as Mike was, he was also very flawed.

Mike primed early. his best version was his 21-24 years.. it doesn’t even compare to what he was when he turned 30.

It’s like saying “oh roy jones should’ve beaten a 46 year old hopkins coz he’s much younger.”

Defensive styles last longer in this sport and ages gracefully.. or at least most in history.

Age shouldn’t just be the only factor when comparing fighters primes..

[Curtis Harper]

Mike primed early. his best version was his 21-24 years.. it doesn’t even compare to what he was when he turned 30.

It’s like saying “oh roy jones should’ve beaten a 46 year old hopkins coz he’s much younger.”

Defensive styles last longer in this sport and ages gracefully.. or at least most in history.

Age shouldn’t just be the only factor when comparing fighters primes..

It's one excuse after another when it comes to Mike
Mike didn't have to fight wars like almost everyone else did. He faced one bum after another.

In your head, see how far Mike would have went if he fought who Holy and Lenny fought (I'm already assuming you'd think Mike blasts all of them out).

[HeadShots]

sometimes i wonder if Tyson fans are just a legion of manlets who are clinging to his short glory run as some type of comfort in their physical disability. you can feel the seething disdain they have toward Wilder. BIG MAN FALL HARD LOLZ! THE TALLER HE IS THE HARDER HE FALLS LMAO!

JFL



[IMG]https://media.*****.com/media/UI0Xt8ra81OSI/*****.gif[/IMG]

[ELPacman]

I hate these theoretical matchups because it's 100% opinionated whether or not you like the fighter or not. I mean, you got a few that aren't actually biased and can try to come up with simulated answered result. Though the majority will lay out the entire game plan in about 8 words of what the one guy will do to the other.

Tyson was exciting as all hell in his prime. I think the entire world knows that. Wilder CAN be exciting (wasn't really last night). Why not leave it that they are both exciting fighters for their time and give the fans their money worth (usually). The debates of who would beat who can go on for life.

[Curtis Harper]

I hate these theoretical matchups because it's 100% opinionated whether or not you like the fighter or not. I mean, you got a few that aren't actually biased and can try to come up with simulated answered result. Though the majority will lay out the entire game plan in about 8 words of what the one guy will do to the other.

Tyson was exciting as all hell in his prime. I think the entire world knows that. Wilder CAN be exciting (wasn't really last night). Why not leave it that they are both exciting fighters for their time and give the fans their money worth (usually). The debates of who would beat who can go on for life.

These match up have been going on since forever (most notably that computer ''fight'' with Ali and Rocky ). Rocky fans swear by it...''See, Rocky would have won !''

As opinionated as hypothetical fights are, if a fight fan is just a little bit honest, a logical conclusion is what we expect.

''Hell yeah prime Khan would have beaten prime RJJ at MW !!!''
Ridiculous but can't be proven.