Mike Tyson v. Tyson Fury

[IceTrayDaGang]

If Kevin McBride can frustrate Tyson, Fury might make him cry and quit.

I dont give a sht if it’s 87 Tyson or whatever Tyson. Tyson Fury would own him mentally and bully him inside the ring.

no way jose.

[15 Rounds again]

This. Iron Mike is an atg hw. You didnt mention how fast his hands were, and he didn't let you settle, just straight down to business.
He'd beat Wilder even quicker than Fury though, but neither last long with MT.

[removed]

Every time Mike stepped up, he lost. Fury wouldn't have been scared of him either. If Buster Douglas could beat Mike, so could Fury.

[Tatabanya]

I'm the best ever. I'm the most brutal and vicious, and most ruthless champion there's ever been. There's no one can stop me. Fury is a conqueror? No, I'm Alexander, he's no Alexander. I'm the best ever. There's never been anybody as ruthless. I'm Sonny Liston, I'm Jack Dempsey. There's no one like me. I'm from their cloth. There's no one that can match me. My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable, and I'm just ferocious. I want your heart. I want to eat his children.

And I come to the ring robeless.

[TheMyspaceDayz]

Above All Else, Tyson Fury is usually difficult to hit... For a man of his size he's tremendously agile and deft at head movement and foot movement. Not to mention, he would have an absolutely MASSIVE reach advantage over Tyson. Much more than Douglas had. Tyson would be getting peppered from outside and he often showed, when frustrated after not getting an early knockout--as he did, quite brilliantly, do with almost all of his opponents

Fury only has two inches on Buster. He’s great at utilizing what he has though so it seems like more. Otherwise it was a pretty flawless post.

And hey. Most of us put up a pretty good account of ourselves pre-Wilder 2.

[CubanGuyNYC]

It's often laughable, but it gets really boring how many people give Mike Tyson the ability to easily defeat and almost always by knockout the likes of Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Rocky Marciano, and other all-time greats who were rarely floored let alone knocked out..

Good post. My attitude towards Mike Tyson is that there are two sides to every story, and the truth lies somewhere in-between. Yeah, Mike’s competition was generally sub-par in his heyday, and he was defeated every time he stepped up, but despite this I’ve always said, at his absolute peak, he was capable of beating any heavyweight that ever lived. Please don’t misunderstand me; I think MT was capable of achieving such a feat, but that’s not to suggest he would’ve beaten anyone at his peak. It’s an important distinction.

The same might be said of Tyson Fury, even now. But in a head-to-head between these two, I’d have to side with Fury. TF is just huge; and, as you alluded, there’s never been a big man that’s moved so well. I see Fury holding Mike off long enough to impose his will. MT was known to slow his attack after about the fourth round. Fury is big enough, skilled enough and smart enough to weather the early storm, and outpoint the smaller man. Of course, as with most heavyweight fights, anything can happen — MT might’ve caught Fury early and ended it all — but if we're talking probabilities, I think Fury is likely to come out on top.

[YGriffith]

Fury too big too strong.

[Kaspa9t9]

Tyson would beat Tyson if you ask me. In the beginning, Tyson may be up on the cards, but I reckon Tyson would make a comeback and stop Tyson late. Tyson would need to hold the centre of the ring, whereas Tyson would need to stay out of reach and control the range.

Honestly I could easily see this being a draw as well.

[CubanGuyNYC]

Every time Mike stepped up, he lost. Fury wouldn't have been scared of him either. If Buster Douglas could beat Mike, so could Fury.

I’ve gone on record as picking Fury over MT, but the Douglas fight isn’t why. Mike is wildly overrated by most, but I will say this: I do believe his loss to Buster was due to a perfect storm of Douglas fighting the fight of his life and Tyson being terribly unprepared. I’d be willing to bet that if those two fought 100 times, both at their norm, Tyson wins 99/100. Mike wasn’t the greatest, but back in those days, he was damn near unstoppable. And that was part of the problem, Tyson (and everyone else) came to believe he was invincible. It created a complacent environment and Mike fell because of it. Tyson’s fanboys are right on that count.

[GelfSara]

It's often laughable, but it gets really boring how many people give Mike Tyson the ability to easily defeat and almost always by knockout the likes of Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Rocky Marciano, and other all-time greats who were rarely floored let alone knocked out.

It's always the same thing, someone says 'a prime Tyson would have absolutely killed him and probably knocked him out within x rounds'. In the case of articles asking about Muhammad Ali or Foreman in particular, it's especially funny and uninformed. Foreman was knocked out exactly once and KNOCKED DOWN only four times in his 80 fights. Ali paid for it dearly in the end but he had a remarkable chin. He was very much hittable after his layoff due to the Vietnam draft issue, if you watch rounds 10 to 15 of any of the three Frazier fights he was getting absolutely pounded with his hands down and only fell once. Yes, Tyson had great power. And in his prime, he impressively knocked out a bunch of mostly subpar but occasionally pretty good competition.

but, on the basis of that all of these Tyson honks immediately contend he would have crushed any of the greats of all time and whenever a hypothetical comes up he's always the favorite..

he was certainly a beast and his bobbing and weaving style and power in both hands was impressive. but he was short, he clearly didn't have a great chin, and let us not forget that in his short prime before going to prison he was beat by Buster Douglas. Excuses don't matter here about his preparation or anything else. Your "best heavyweight of all time" in his prime got beaten and Floored by an average fighter at best.

that's what makes these questions when Tyson is included so boring. The answers are predictable and yet wishful and uninformed on the basis of what I've just stated. Anyone who would compare Spinks or an ancient Larry Holmes to the competition that foreman and Ali beat in their heyday is an idiot. And therefore, the vast majority who always say Tyson and easily may also be--by association.

Above All Else, Tyson Fury is usually difficult to hit... For a man of his size he's tremendously agile and deft at head movement and foot movement. Not to mention, he would have an absolutely MASSIVE reach advantage over Tyson. Much more than Douglas had. Tyson would be getting peppered from outside and he often showed, when frustrated after not getting an early knockout--as he did, quite brilliantly, do with almost all of his opponents [what I consider to be the most impressive feat; although objectively, mostly, again against less than champion level competitors] a penchant to start swinging more wildly for knockouts and abandoning his pretty good boxing skills.

When he lost to Douglas, again I must remind you all in his prime, he was knocked out indeed. But he was also getting out boxed and behind on the cards as he would be against Fury.

The most hilarious misconception above is that Mike Tyson didn't have a fantastic chin. Ask Lewis about that, or Ruddock, or Tucker, or Bruno, among others.