Tyson vs the Greats

Posted this on the old 606 but as fans of the sports appetite for all things Mike Tyson showed little sign of abating and as there are new users on here who may not have contributed thought, as a nice break from them who must not be named thought it was worth reposting.

Was ploughing through a bunch of old Boxing Mags recently and came across an article in the now defunct Boxing Illustrated speculating on how Mike Tyson would have fared against the all time greats of the heavyweight division and thought I would post the predictions on here to see how accurate we all felt they were. To give the article some context these results were debated by a number of boxing journalists post Mike’s win over Alex Stewart and the consensus of those journalists were considered the outcomes.

Tyson - Ali - Ali wins by 12 round decision, Tyson finds himself chasing shadows and gets tied up leaned on and frustrated on the rare occasions he manages to get in close.

Tyson vs Ezzard Charles Tyson by KO in 8, Tyson has too much for a guy perhaps more comfortable at a lighter weight particularly as Charles was relucant to sit down on his punches after the death of an opponent in 1948.

Tyson vs Dempsey Dempsey by KO in 3, Both men land and land big but Dempseys superior powers of recuperation seal the victory for him in a barnstormer.

Tyson vs Frazier Tyson by TKO in 5, As with Dempsey the fight could be fought in a phone box but this time author feels Mike has the power to do enough damage to Joe to get the win.

Tyson vs Liston Liston by KO in 4, Considers Liston's prime to be between 59-60 and argues Mike can't get round Sonny's awesome jab to be effective and eventually falls to one of Sonny's hammer blows.

Tyson vs Louis Louis by KO in 8, To quote, in a fight with Tyson Louis' inside hand speed would prove to be undoing of the wide swinging current champion.

Tyson vs Marciano Tyson TKO on cuts in 10, Rocky wouldn't have the style to hold off Mike and this coupled with his susceptibility to cuts would be his undoing.
Tyson vs Baer Tyson by KO in 2 Mike has too much for a guy who was never too hard to find.
Tyson vs Johnson Johnson by KO in 11 – Johnson knows too much defensively for Mike and frustrates him into making mistakes which get punished as the fight progresses.

Tyson vs Tunney Tunney by 12 round decision – Pans out similar to the Dempsey bouts with Tunney outboxing Mike on the outside

That’s the full set it made predictions on and by my reckoning this has Mike going 4-6 against these ten all time greats.
Worth noting this article was in the November 1989 issue so is very much pre Douglas so would appear to be based on that oft discussed beast that is 'PRIME' Mike Tyson. Thought it made for an interesting read as it gave lie to the often held believe that Mike was considered indestructible in his prime. However would still like to hear how other posters felt these fight would go.

Would agree that Tyson has the beating of Marciano, Baer and Frazier. I simply don't see how the likes of Rocky and Smokin' Joe can try to swarm Tyson giving away 20 lb (or 30 lb in Marciano's case) and win. Tyson a little too robust for those two I reckon, and given that both Marciano and Frazier could be notoriously slow starters, I think a stoppage for Tyson in the first four or five rounds is on the cards.

Likewise, while he may give Tyson plenty of problems, I don't think Charles can hold Tyson off for a full twelve rounds. I see a very even and close fight, until Tyson finds a burst in the mid rounds and takes Ezz out.

Liston makes short work of Tyson for me. I think he's one of the few that could have Tyson shaking like a sh*tting dog in the build up for starters, and I'm not sure that Tyson's style is well-suited to navigating that freakish jab that Liston had. I think Tyson is overwhelmed and is knocked out by the mid rounds. Likewise, I think Tunney is simply too rounded for the snarling Tyson. I think Tyson's lack of a jab and plan B costs him - Tunney is a fighter against whom you need to look for openings rather than just try to devastate them, and I'm not convinced that Tyson was savy enough to do that.

Johnson and Louis? I'm a bit torn to be honest. I actually would favour Tyson against Papa Jack, who was prone to lapses in concentration. Say what you like about Tyson, but with his explosiveness you couldn't afford such lapses. I think Johnson's low work rate may count against him, too; it would allow Tyson to settle in to his usual pattern and rhythm early, which spells trouble for Johnson. Tyson by decision, or perhaps even a late stoppage.

I'd make Louis the 60:40 favourite against Tyson. It's crucial that Tyson takes him out early and takes advantage of Louis' (sometimes) slow starting. If this fight goes anywhere past four or five rounds though, it's Louis by knockout all day long. Tyson's head movement rarely lasted beyond this point, and I can see Louis sapping his will with that jab. Tyson's tendancy to be lagging in the late rounds means that, if they get to that point, Louis ends up almost taking his head off with his short hooks.

Dempsey? A real pick 'em, and a genuine 50:50 for me. And as for Ali, to be honest I think it would be man versus boy. A bad match up for Tyson, I think Ali does the same to him as Louis behind his jab, but without the risk of being taken out early, and with a more gradual wearing down stoppage in the late rounds.

My guess would be that the ones most likely to cause controversy would be the Dempsey and Tunney fights, jeff.

I'm a huge Dempsey fan, but I could see this one going either way and I might even give Tyson the edge on a strictly head - to - head basis. My reasoning would be that they are pretty similar, stylistically, probably about even in power and speed, but Tyson would be enjoying a 25lb. weight advantage if we don't factor in Dempsey' ' doing a Holyfield ' and bulking up. I've never subscribed to the view that ' bigger is better, ' but when styles and other factors are roughly even I think it is relevant. Dempsey's strength of will might go a long way toward neutralizing Tyson's ( likely, ) superior strength, and if Tyson doesn't get him early I believe that Jack wins, but Tyson was a monster during the first two or three rounds so, much as I love Dempsey and reckon him to be the greater fighter overall, I'd lean toward Tyson here.

Tunney was tough as old boots and a brilliant ring general. He could certainly frustrate Tyson from the outside and might very well do it long enough to break Iron Mike's heart. On the other hand, we saw what a Dempsey combo did to Tunney second time out, and we must, in my opinion, at least accept the possibility that Tyson could land a combo on Tunney, also. Few could take Tunney out with a single shot, but a blistering combo might be sufficient to turn the trick.

What a load of garbage...

Tunney too small (Tyson-Spinks all over again)

Tyson too quick for Louis and Liston......

Tyson too big and quick for Dempsey....

Ali beats prime Tyson.........

I concur with the Frazier result, and the Ali, the only one I feel is properly suspect is the call for the Liston match-up.Did Liston really prove he had the whole arsenal..and a bit of a bully type too,so this one for me is a real "pick 'em". Sure he had the incredible jab, but how often did he go deep into the trenches..?And memories of the Tyrell Biggs fight slyly insinuate...
Dempsey v Mike is The One, however; hard to call as i can see Mike standing a great chance but have to give Dempsey the nod.

Plus maybe Charles given a dis-service.

Andy, should have said the article assumes all the fighters are in there prime. Think this means Liston would be around 1960. I'm a fan of his he was a terrific fighter then and was beating decent guys in the likes of Williams and Machen.

Oh boy!! The only one on that list who would give Tyson serious problems would be Liston. The rest would be easy for Tyson.

Oh good god Jeff, we're going to be having 'that' debate again :S

azania wrote:Oh boy!! The only one on that list who would give Tyson serious problems would be Liston. The rest would be easy for Tyson.

Ali easy for Tyson, azania ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Oh boy!! The only one on that list who would give Tyson serious problems would be Liston. The rest would be easy for Tyson.

Ali easy for Tyson, azania ?

My bad. IMO only Ali and Holmes in his prime would have beaten Tyson during 1866-89. Liston would be a great fight. Two bullies etc. The rest would be easy imo. Tyson certainly too fast for Louis. To powerful and hard hitting for Dempsey and Rock. As for Tunney, he hasn't got a hope in hell.

Yeah, you did say 59-60. so he was peaking then, ok.
Chris gives him 60-40 odds against Louis, do you agree?Slow starting.
Did Joe work well when a fighter got inside? Am genuinely asking as it's
been some time since I read up on the Bomber.When the Rock caught up with him it was pretty devastating, and after recent debate on RM I wonder if the result would have been the same if he'd have fought a prime Joe Louis, have to say I'm leaning towards upping my estimation of Rock and lessening my feeling that Joe is a nailed-on top three heavy of all-time.
I like Louis to beat Mike ,but think 60-40 in his favour is about right.

Ghosty did strike me as a possibility but with Manny, Floyd, weight jumping, P4P lists, catchweights all off the agenda on here because of you know who it was a chance I had to take unfortunately.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Oh boy!! The only one on that list who would give Tyson serious problems would be Liston. The rest would be easy for Tyson.

Ali easy for Tyson, azania ?

My bad. IMO only Ali and Holmes in his prime would have beaten Tyson during 1866-89. Liston would be a great fight. Two bullies etc. The rest would be easy imo. Tyson certainly too fast for Louis. To powerful and hard hitting for Dempsey and Rock. As for Tunney, he hasn't got a hope in hell.

1866 to '89? Tyson's prime was a lot longer than people think I guess!

Joking aside, Azania, I can't agree at all that Tyson has it easy against everyone apart from Holmes and Ali. In fact, sorry, but I'd have to say that's absolute nonsense, and Tyson's record would also seem to bear that out. I'll stick with the reasons I gave above; Tyson 5-4 against these greats, with me virtually unable to call the Dempsey result.

Ghosty seems 60-40 is pretty fair to me because as Chris rightly says if Joe has a weakness it was he could be a slow starter and if there is one guy you don't want to take a couple of rounds to get going against it is Tyson.

Personally though I think if Joe gets through those first few rounds there can only be one winner as Mike can tend to get a little frustrated and as Windy has rightly said get past a few rounds and his head movement can stop a little and one thing you do not want to present to Joe is a stationary target.

I would have Tyson losing to most of the names there. Perhaps Charles and Bauer would be too outgunned but the rest I would tend to favour.

I am very relectant to give Tyson the mythical powers and status he seems to have based on what he could have or didnt do. Its fair to say that he was a completely superior fighter in the 80s to the peiod after that and without delving too deep into his numerous personal issues, I think the only real way you can look at Tyson at his best is to judge him on his 80s stretch.

Its important to also remember that Tyson would be going up against a different breed of fighter to what he had faced in large parts. All of these men were champions in their own right and not likely to be easily bullied or intimadated by whatever Tyson brough. In fact I would suggest that it was Tyson himself who was the most mentally vunerable of all. Most of the men on that list have proved the mental character needed in big fights that Tyson rarely displayed. Things like being able to get off the canvas to win or to dig deep in fights that are not going your way are not things I associate with Tyson.

I would be interested to see how Tyson would fare when faced with men like Dempsey and Marciano who despite weighing less, possess much more fortitude for me and the question to be posed is if Tyson doesnt blast a guy out or have him intimidated and looking for a way out how does he cope? His effectiveness starts to drop off with every passing round and in the second half of a fight I would say nearly all these guys have the edge on him then. This then raises the question of how many of these guys are likely to be blasted out within 5 or 6?

We know what happened Frazier to against Foreman but stylewise that was a different fight and in the first encounter Frazier was able to ick himself off the canvas time and time again. Does Tyson have this ability? Im not convinced.

IMO only Ali and Holmes in his prime would have beaten Tyson during 1866-89.
***********************************************************************************
I believe if Tyson had Holmes staggering around like Shavers and Norton did then there's no way Mike let's him off the hook. For all his faults, Tyson could be a very good finisher and let's not forget, he doesn't necessarily have to KO the guy to beat him, the ref can always step in.

As discussed yesterday, Tyson beats Peter Jackson because it transpired Jackson had no defence, couldn't punch and didn't like being hit to the the body. It appears I have MASSIVELY over-rated the man!

In fact Tyson clearly beats any and all coloured fighters through history as apparently, the don't like it in the midriff (quite how this benefits the equally black Tyson is something that hasn't been figured out yet)

I DO like this smiley!!!!!!!

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Oh boy!! The only one on that list who would give Tyson serious problems would be Liston. The rest would be easy for Tyson.

Ali easy for Tyson, azania ?

My bad. IMO only Ali and Holmes in his prime would have beaten Tyson during 1866-89. Liston would be a great fight. Two bullies etc. The rest would be easy imo. Tyson certainly too fast for Louis. To powerful and hard hitting for Dempsey and Rock. As for Tunney, he hasn't got a hope in hell.

1866 to '89? Tyson's prime was a lot longer than people think I guess!

Joking aside, Azania, I can't agree at all that Tyson has it easy against everyone apart from Holmes and Ali. In fact, sorry, but I'd have to say that's absolute nonsense, and Tyson's record would also seem to bear that out. I'll stick with the reasons I gave above; Tyson 5-4 against these greats, with me virtually unable to call the Dempsey result.

Whooops. For those 3 years between 1986 and 1989, Tyson was an absolute monster displaying breathtaking handspeed and each punch thrown with menace. After that period, he lost the plot. Post 89, some of them would have a decent shout of beating him. Those old timwers are looked upon with rose tinted glasses and a huge dose of nostalgia. But fact looking at their styles and handspeed, it beggers belief how anyone can dream they would have a chance against Tyson. Not only were their punches telegraphed, they virtually sent carrier pidgeons also.

This whole idea of 86-89 Tyson being flawless is simply not one that stands up to analysis. Bruno had him on dream street briefly, Bonecrusher Smith frustrated him and also had him going late on. If these two guys could do this who were both Ok but far from elite fail to see how it is beyond the realms guys of far more ability and adaptability would not be able to do similar or worse

Does Tyson hit as hard as Shavers did though Dave?

I disagree with the Marciano result myself, he was prone to getting cut but always ended the show before it became a major issue, see him knocking out Tyson in the mid rounds, other than that don't disagree too much.

Anyone who says that Tyson has it easy with Tunney, well there's no hope for them

Styles and handspeed ?

Joe Louis' hands were EVERY bit as fast as Tyson's and a darned sight more accurate.

Louis also possessed almost flawless defensive technique and hit like a mule. In addition, his footwork, though not fancy, was the epitome of efficiency ; a step in, a half step back to draw his man onto him and Bingo !

Louis was a bit slow out of the blocks a few times, and would be vulnerable for a round or three. Thereafter, it's man against boy.

For those 3 years between 1986 and 1989, Tyson was an absolute monster displaying breathtaking handspeed
______________________

Still the most overrated overused words from any boxing fan, you can take a period of time from any fighter who never lost and see they were untouchable.

Out of the list I dont have Tyson winning against any of them, you could say Tyson throws the kitchen sink at Rocky but there is no part of history to say he could blow someone like Marciano out.

Cheers

Rodders

Not only were their punches telegraphed, they virtually sent carrier pidgeons also.
********************************************************
That joke wasn't funny the first time you told it....which tends to make the fact that it's also massively inaccurate all the more desperate.

Does Tyson hit as hard as Shavers did though Dave?
********************************************************
What he lacks in sheer power (and he was no slouch himself in that department) he more than makes up for with speed, timing and accuracy - all pretty important factors in providing the perfect KO punch!

I note Rowley hasn't included Foreman in this list. Personally I think George wipes the floor with Mike, blows his nose with Mike then screws Mike up into a ball and drops Mike into the nearest trash can!

rowley wrote:This whole idea of 86-89 Tyson being flawless is simply not one that stands up to analysis. Bruno had him on dream street briefly, Bonecrusher Smith frustrated him and also had him going late on. If these two guys could do this who were both Ok but far from elite fail to see how it is beyond the realms guys of far more ability and adaptability would not be able to do similar or worse

I didn't say he was plawless rowley. No-one was perfect. Cooper had Ali on the seat of his pants. He was far from perfect. Anyone can get hit at any time. Bruno and Smith were very hard hitters.

Light heavies had Rock down. All great heavies have been decked. Its meaningless. For those 3 years, imo the only boxers who could have beaten him were Ali and Holmes. Both had excellent jabs and fast hands and great recuperative powers. Tyson's weakness was the jab. It had to be an excellent jab to beat him. Hence I said Liston. Louis had a good jab but limited footwork. Tyson blows him away.

What about the great Olympic champion of the time Lennox Lewis? No foresight from the author there.

What is the best style to beat Mike Tyson? Slippery seems to be a theme of the article above, with Ali, Tunney and Johnson getting the nod. Ali would stay on the outside be to quick and Tyson left floundering, ditto Tunney - Tyson would spend most of his time chasing shadows. Louis and Holmes were more methodical, with tight defenses - that could cause Tyson problems. The fight between the Eastern Assassin and Iron Mike evidently didn't transpire that way, but Holmes was nearly a pensioner.

Marciano may be to small, that 30 lbs could make a big difference. He's 5ft10 as well and doesn't have the upper body strength or biceps of Tyson. I'd give Tyson the beating of many fighters outside of the top 10, but probably not against top 5 fighters. But, certainly a dangerous opponent. The question with Tyson always is, can he reach him from there? If he can with those combo's and he was pretty quick for a heavy, its game over man time.

Dave just listed the ones that were in the magazine, they did offer rationale as to why some guys were not included but as the magazine is at home that will have to wait.

Not for the first time I must say I am rather astounded at some of the comments regarding past fighters.

There is less than a decade between Marciano and Ali. How quickly does man evolve these days? This doesnt fit in with Darwinian theory I must say.

Chris believe the article was written in about 1989 so Lewis was a mere pup career wise and hadn't really done much to establish himself among the elite by then

Fair point Jeff...only ribbin' ya but I'd like to add Foreman's name to the mix as I believe his best clearly was in the early 70's so should qualify for "great" status if Frazier gets in there as well

azania, this business about Louis being slow is wholly inaccurate, in my opinion.

There is a marked difference between speed and mobility. Ali was mobile, Louis and Johnson less so. However, when Johnson exploded in short spurts, ( see the Burns, Ketchel and Moran fights for proof, ) and when Louis did the same, they were very quick indeed. A cat doesn't hunt at full speed. He stalks, slowly and silently, until the moment to pounce, at which point he moves like lightning.

So it was with Joe Louis.

And again, Louis' hands were blindingly fast and deadly accurate. Watch him fight, and then tell me how often he wastes a punch.

We know the drill Windy, modern training techniques and the like

With Tyson 86-89 happens to be the time when he fought his weakest opposition or is that purely coincidental?

imperialghosty wrote:We know the drill Windy, modern training techniques and the like

That's it, Ghosty. Evolution, modern training and nutrition. All between the time a peak Joe Louis was strutting his stuff and the arrival of Ali twenty years or so later. The fact that Tyson was beaten by Douglas twenty years ago and we haven't had a faster or more explosive heavyweight since seems to miraculously defy this jet - propelled evolutionary phenomenon.

It just isn't logical.

DAVE667 wrote:IMO only Ali and Holmes in his prime would have beaten Tyson during 1866-89.
***********************************************************************************
I believe if Tyson had Holmes staggering around like Shavers and Norton did then there's no way Mike let's him off the hook. For all his faults, Tyson could be a very good finisher and let's not forget, he doesn't necessarily have to KO the guy to beat him, the ref can always step in.

As discussed yesterday, Tyson beats Peter Jackson because it transpired Jackson had no defence, couldn't punch and didn't like being hit to the the body. It appears I have MASSIVELY over-rated the man!

In fact Tyson clearly beats any and all coloured fighters through history as apparently, the don't like it in the midriff (quite how this benefits the equally black Tyson is something that hasn't been figured out yet)

I DO like this smiley!!!!!!!

Holmes had excellent recuperative powers. The punch he took from Shavers would have decked a mule (Blazing Saddles springs to mind) and kept it there. I believe Holmes would have kept Tyson at the end of the jab before scoring a late KO.

imperialghosty wrote:Does Tyson hit as hard as Shavers did though Dave?

I disagree with the Marciano result myself, he was prone to getting cut but always ended the show before it became a major issue, see him knocking out Tyson in the mid rounds, other than that don't disagree too much.

Anyone who says that Tyson has it easy with Tunney, well there's no hope for them

I believe the inverse is true. Anyone thinking the likes of Tunney had a chance against Tyson is dreaming. Barring aside nutrition etc, Tyson was simply too skilled for a feather-fist like Tunney.

We also had a very prominent Heavyweight in Holyfield who was naturally no bigger than Marciano or Dempsey compete very well and a 46 year old Foreman who seemingly took punches from the more modern Heavyweights better than he did the 70's guys.

Too skilled? With the exception of Ali, you wont find many who conform to the idea that any Heavyweight champion had more skill than Tunney.

After 3/4 rounds any technique that Tyson had mysteriously disappeared

azania wrote:Holmes had excellent recuperative powers. The punch he took from Shavers would have decked a mule (Blazing Saddles springs to mind) and kept it there. I believe Holmes would have kept Tyson at the end of the jab before scoring a late KO.

Louis also had excellent recuperative powers. Check out his being caught by a Buddy Baer haymaker and knocked clean out of the ring in the first round of their first fight. He calmly climbs back into the ring and IMMEDIATELY starts to take Baer apart. Louis also had a battering ram of a jab, hit harder than Holmes and was harder to hit. Louis was only ever vulnerable to a right hand over the top, ( to some extent fixed after the first Schmeling fight, ) and that punch was by no means Tyson's most effective.

If Holmes can stop Tyson then so can Louis, provided he keeps his wits about him during the first couple of rounds.

Holmes had excellent recuperative powers. The punch he took from Shavers would have decked a mule (Blazing Saddles springs to mind) and kept it there. I believe Holmes would have kept Tyson at the end of the jab before scoring a late KO.
************************************************************
Great recuperative powers maybe but not necessarily a great chin...his ability to survive after the KD from owes more to Shavers' poor boxing than Larry's powers of recovery. Let's have it right, Ernie doesn't top any list other than the "Biggest punch" list so if a relatively poor fighter like Shavers has Holmes in trouble, what does the young hungry version of Tyson do and how often could Larry keep getting up after being decked? Certainly not indefinitely and if Tyson puts him down once, you can bet there's a great chance he puts him down again

azania, countless times you have pleaded the case here that speed and skills are the trump cards in boxing. Personally, I believe it varies according to the fighter and the stylistic match up, but let's go with your theory.

Tunney was a supreme strategist, a boxer deluxe, tough as old boots and probably as fast as Ali. How is he not a problem for Tyson, if we assume your criteria to be correct ?

As I've already said, I'd make Tyson clear favourite over Tunney, but mainly because Tunney had hand trouble and didn't have a big enough dig, ( in my opinion, ) to keep Tyson off him. Eventually I could see Tyson landing one of his feared combos and stopping Tunney.

Nevertheless, that's a country mile away from being the walk in the park which you suggest.

I can kind of see both sides of the argument. Its difficult enough to evaluate Tyson as a fighter individually let alone start comparing him.

Colonial Lion and Human Windmill make good arguments and I think finding a blance is the key.

I dont really subscribe to the evolution/nutrition theory or vice versa. I think you have to try evaluate Tyson on equal footing to other greats. Size, power, speed etc are obviously relevant but its not a case of Tyson being some kind of super evolved monster whil the black and white era guys are neanderthols.

Tyson was primarily a KO artist. Its been shown when he didnt get an early KO he was less effective as a fight went on. Obviously he was very good at getting KOs but he was coming up against guys that werent easy to intimidate, were confident fighters and very tough and not inclined to get KOed early. As Colonial Lion points out, Tyson didnt really exhibit much of the mental fortitude and powers of recovery as many of these other greats.

KOs look impressive, especially the streak Tyson was on. But its relative to competition and not he be all and end all. Someone like Lacy looked impressive KOing guys and a monster but at a higher level he looked fairly clueless and didnt have the rest of his game to win when the KO didnt come.

Tyson would be facing a similar step up in class and opposition against these greats and what happens if after 5/6 rounds the guys are still standing and boxing him a la Holyfield or even Douglas? Im not sure he has the tools in the rest of his game to see it out.

imperialghosty wrote:Does Tyson hit as hard as Shavers did though Dave?

I disagree with the Marciano result myself, he was prone to getting cut but always ended the show before it became a major issue, see him knocking out Tyson in the mid rounds, other than that don't disagree too much.

Anyone who says that Tyson has it easy with Tunney, well there's no hope for them

Rock ended the show because he was fighting bums. Tunney was a LHW. Tyson would literally run through him in double quick time.

See you can't help but talk so disrespectfully of the old timers can you and to think that Tyson was beating such brilliant opposition himself

I'm fairly sure that Tunneys chin would up to Tysons power, he did take the best Demspey had to offer and you will predictably mention the long count, the refs count is final.

Colonial Lion wrote:Not for the first time I must say I am rather astounded at some of the comments regarding past fighters.

There is less than a decade between Marciano and Ali. How quickly does man evolve these days? This doesnt fit in with Darwinian theory I must say.

Nothing about evolving. Tyson was that good. Louis had relatively quick hands, but he had a poor defence and his succeptable to a right over the top and uppercuts. He always had problems with quick boxers and not just movers who gave him fits (Holmes beats him easily),

Outside of Hearns, Holmes for me had the best jab in boxing. Certainly the best at Heavy imo.

imperialghosty wrote:See you can't help but talk so disrespectfully of the old timers can you and to think that Tyson was beating such brilliant opposition himself

I'm fairly sure that Tunneys chin would up to Tysons power, he did take the best Demspey had to offer and you will predictably mention the long count, the refs count is final.

Disrespectfully? Why? Because I think Rocky was an over-rated plodder who fought bums and old men?

Tunney was a LHW. Spinks was never decked until he met tyson. Those old guys were good....in their time. Styles changed. Tyson had too much handspeed for crude boxers like Rock and dempsey et al. Louis would be interesting, but I think his lack of footspeed would be his undoing.

See there's a way of saying things and personally i'm as sick of you calling the old timers plodders who fought bums as much as i'm of D4s constant propaganda machine.

azania wrote:Nothing about evolving. Tyson was that good. Louis had relatively quick hands, but he had a poor defence and his succeptable to a right over the top and uppercuts. He always had problems with quick boxers and not just movers who gave him fits (Holmes beats him easily),

Outside of Hearns, Holmes for me had the best jab in boxing. Certainly the best at Heavy imo.

Poor defence ? You must have been watching a different Joe Louis to just about everybody else.

Louis is RENOWNED for his slipping, elbow blocking, parrying of the jab, etc. His predisposition to being tagged with the overhand right was no different to Ali's flaw in being open to a left hook.

Conn apart, which quick boxers gave a prime Joe Louis difficulties ? Louis fought Jersey Joe at the end of his title reign, so he doesn't figure. Who, then ?

I can only see tyson definitely beating frazier and charles as they've been ko's by smaller punchers (and baer but don't see why he's there aboev foreman)

with rocky marciano it's fair to say the red stop it on cuts, but saying marciano vs tyson take splace after rocky knocked out charles in the 8th, surely the ref woudl give him the benefit of the doubt and let it go to the later rounds where rocky wins imo

THANKS for illuminating how good Louis was Windy. I'll have a refresher on Youtube.......Now.......................................
Perhaps it's time this article was put to bed.

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:See you can't help but talk so disrespectfully of the old timers can you and to think that Tyson was beating such brilliant opposition himself

I'm fairly sure that Tunneys chin would up to Tysons power, he did take the best Demspey had to offer and you will predictably mention the long count, the refs count is final.

Disrespectfully? Why? Because I think Rocky was an over-rated plodder who fought bums and old men?

Tunney was a LHW. Spinks was never decked until he met tyson. Those old guys were good....in their time. Styles changed. Tyson had too much handspeed for crude boxers like Rock and dempsey et al. Louis would be interesting, but I think his lack of footspeed would be his undoing.

Makes me laugh when you say ' old guys. '

Marciano was champion when I was born. Guess what, I walk upright, can speak, don't have webbed feet and never saw a dinosaur, ( apart from my first wife, ) in my life.

Wow ! I evolved ! Must have been all those rice puddings I had as a kid. I must say, though, that since 1980 I've grown six inches taller, fifteen pounds heavier, I'm considerably faster and have learned far better handwriting and unicycling skills.

andygf wrote:THANKS for illuminating how good Louis was Windy. I'll have a refresher on Youtube.......Now.......................................
Perhaps it's time this article was put to bed.

You're welcome, andy.

Hope you enjoy watching him. If I were you I'd put a rainbow filter on your computer screen, though. Nobody who fought in black and white was any good, you see.

DAVE667 wrote:Holmes had excellent recuperative powers. The punch he took from Shavers would have decked a mule (Blazing Saddles springs to mind) and kept it there. I believe Holmes would have kept Tyson at the end of the jab before scoring a late KO.
************************************************************
Great recuperative powers maybe but not necessarily a great chin...his ability to survive after the KD from owes more to Shavers' poor boxing than Larry's powers of recovery. Let's have it right, Ernie doesn't top any list other than the "Biggest punch" list so if a relatively poor fighter like Shavers has Holmes in trouble, what does the young hungry version of Tyson do and how often could Larry keep getting up after being decked? Certainly not indefinitely and if Tyson puts him down once, you can bet there's a great chance he puts him down again

I think it shows a great cin to be able to get from the bomb shavers landed. No-one is impervious to a perfectly landed bomb from a puncher like shavers.