Tyson vs the Greats

First topic message reminder :

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.

imperialghosty wrote: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.

I haven't referred to Tunney as a plodder. Conn neither. I called Rock a plodder because he was just that...a plodder.

HumanWindmill wrote:

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 ?

If a light feather fisted guy like Conn could give Louis issues, then I fear for him if he fought Tyson who had faster hands and a far superior hitter. His upper body movement and puncjes in bunches would secure a win imo. Its one thing parrying against guys who were relatively slow and quite anothe with a fast and fierce hitter like tyson.

What does power have to do with anything?
Ali was hardly a concussive puncher yet he managed to cope pretty damm well, I think it's time you stop discussing this subject as you have no idea what your talking about. Stick to calling Pacquiao a PED user.

HumanWindmill wrote:

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.

Try 3 shredded wheat.

imperialghosty wrote:What does power have to do with anything?
Ali was hardly a concussive puncher yet he managed to cope pretty damm well, I think it's time you stop discussing this subject as you have no idea what your talking about. Stick to calling Pacquiao a PED user.

If power has little to do with it, why were you banging on about Rock's power and strength?

It seems as it it gets your back up when others have a different opinion.

I was actually born in the tail end of the Joe Louis reign and can remember people discussing the merits of Marciano when he became champion. The big qustion back then was whether Marciano would have beaten Dempsey and I remember my father swearing blind that Dempsey would have flattened Marciano (though as Dempsey was his favourite all time fighter he was less than impartial).

The first fighter I can remember watching clearly was Floyd Patterson. From then until now I have followed boxing as my favourite sport. I can honestly say that from Patterson to Liston to Ali to Tyson and beyond I did not see man evolve or the sport of boxing suddenly make a technological leap forward at an imaginary cut off point. I didnt see people in the 70s marvel at some overnight sensation that suddenly meant all boxers got better. The same hypothetical discussions went on then as they do now except that back then it was recognised that a top fighter was a top fighter. Even when Ali was at his best people often debated how he would fare against Marciano or Louis or Dempsey and at no point did they base their answers on Ali being some kind of advanced species, well above sharing the ring with past champions.

It seems that now people feel so detached from the past that they cant identify with it, black and white tv or newspaper reports and as such dismiss it offhand.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

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 ?

If a light feather fisted guy like Conn could give Louis issues, then I fear for him if he fought Tyson who had faster hands and a far superior hitter. His upper body movement and puncjes in bunches would secure a win imo. Its one thing parrying against guys who were relatively slow and quite anothe with a fast and fierce hitter like tyson.

So one ' off night ' against a HOFer, against whom Louis agreed to come in around 10lb. below his fighting weight and whom, lest we forget, Louis KNOCKED OUT, is a reasonable basis upon which to assess an entire career ?

I see.

Let's talk about Mitch Green, shall we ? Or James Tillis ? Or Buster Douglas ? Maybe Kevin McBride is closer to the mark ?

Nay, nay, protesteth he, for surely 'tis PRIME Tyson we adore.

Yep, let's take Iron Mike in his prime / peak / pinnacle / zenith / rather darned good, actually, and pit him against the rest of them on their worst nights.

What a splendid idea.

I have no problem with people having different problems to mine, it's when they can't give a balanced view that it gets annoying

Marciano's style depended on his power and strength which he utilised to great effect whereas Conn's depended on his speed and skill, two completely different examples. So suggesting that Tyson beats Louis because Conn gave him trouble is a bit far fetched when they fight in two completely ways. Styles make fights not eras.

All you ever have to say on the matter is the modern guys would slaughter the old timers because they are quicker and dont telegraph their punches, gets a bit tiresome debating something that someone has no idea about.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

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 ?

If a light feather fisted guy like Conn could give Louis issues, then I fear for him if he fought Tyson who had faster hands and a far superior hitter. His upper body movement and puncjes in bunches would secure a win imo. Its one thing parrying against guys who were relatively slow and quite anothe with a fast and fierce hitter like tyson.

So one ' off night ' against a HOFer, against whom Louis agreed to come in around 10lb. below his fighting weight and whom, lest we forget, Louis KNOCKED OUT, is a reasonable basis upon which to assess an entire career ?

I see.

Let's talk about Mitch Green, shall we ? Or James Tillis ? Or Buster Douglas ? Maybe Kevin McBride is closer to the mark ?

Nay, nay, protesteth he, for surely 'tis PRIME Tyson we adore.

Yep, let's take Iron Mike in his prime / peak / pinnacle / zenith / rather darned good, actually, and pit him against the rest of them on their worst nights.

What a splendid idea.

I;ve seen some of Louis fights on ESPN and frankly I was not impressed. His footwork was slightly better than Bruno's.

Notice I haven;t mentioned Louis against Rock or figts later in his career. Those can be discounted. Its easy slipping punches when your opponent is a poor boxer by any standard.

Yet the brilliance of Tyson couldn't avoid the punchces of one of the most average of Heavyweight champions in Douglas

Notice I haven;t mentioned Louis against Rock or figts later in his career. Those can be discounted. Its easy slipping punches when your opponent is a poor boxer by any standard.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apply same to Tyson please and where does it leave you?

If Berbick, Thomas, Tubbs and co are the benchmark of competition then I suggest it weakens Tysons argument rather than enhances it.

imperialghosty wrote:I have no problem with people having different problems to mine, it's when they can't give a balanced view that it gets annoying

Marciano's style depended on his power and strength which he utilised to great effect whereas Conn's depended on his speed and skill, two completely different examples. So suggesting that Tyson beats Louis because Conn gave him trouble is a bit far fetched when they fight in two completely ways. Styles make fights not eras.

All you ever have to say on the matter is the modern guys would slaughter the old timers because they are quicker and dont telegraph their punches, gets a bit tiresome debating something that someone has no idea about.

Shifting goalposts again Impy. If you are annoyed by what I write, the obvious soluton is not to read them.

Tyson's style depended on his speed, power and combinations. Rock only had power. To beat Tyson you had ot have excellent footwork and be able ot stick and move. Hence I'm certain Ali and s would have his number. Or by using bigger force which Liston possessed. Louis had relatively poor footwork and he was made for Tyson.

Liston is not exactly modern is he?

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

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 ?

If a light feather fisted guy like Conn could give Louis issues, then I fear for him if he fought Tyson who had faster hands and a far superior hitter. His upper body movement and puncjes in bunches would secure a win imo. Its one thing parrying against guys who were relatively slow and quite anothe with a fast and fierce hitter like tyson.

So one ' off night ' against a HOFer, against whom Louis agreed to come in around 10lb. below his fighting weight and whom, lest we forget, Louis KNOCKED OUT, is a reasonable basis upon which to assess an entire career ?

I see.

Let's talk about Mitch Green, shall we ? Or James Tillis ? Or Buster Douglas ? Maybe Kevin McBride is closer to the mark ?

Nay, nay, protesteth he, for surely 'tis PRIME Tyson we adore.

Yep, let's take Iron Mike in his prime / peak / pinnacle / zenith / rather darned good, actually, and pit him against the rest of them on their worst nights.

What a splendid idea.

I;ve seen some of Louis fights on ESPN and frankly I was not impressed. His footwork was slightly better than Bruno's.

Notice I haven;t mentioned Louis against Rock or figts later in his career. Those can be discounted. Its easy slipping punches when your opponent is a poor boxer by any standard.

Louis' footwork was a marvel of economy.

Only George Foreman cut off the ring as well as Joe, and a large part of Louis' strategy was based on his uncanny ability to judge distance down to the millimetre. A step forward, a half step back, draw his man in and wallop ! He'd lure his man, time and again, into walking on to his punches simply by creating the illusion that his opponent was in a safe zone.

Not as pretty to watch as Ali's, but wonderfully effective.

Colonial Lion wrote:Notice I haven;t mentioned Louis against Rock or figts later in his career. Those can be discounted. Its easy slipping punches when your opponent is a poor boxer by any standard.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apply same to Tyson please and where does it leave you?

If Berbick, Thomas, Tubbs and co are the benchmark of competition then I suggest it weakens Tysons argument rather than enhances it.

When a boxer is clearly paee no reason to discuss that part of their career. WHo counts post Manilla when debating Ali. He was clearly on the slide ater that fight.

Douglas had very basic footwork and simply stuck behind his jab the whole fight, yet he managed to win fairly easily, seems to go against everything you just said.

I'm confused where i've moved goalposts?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

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 ?

If a light feather fisted guy like Conn could give Louis issues, then I fear for him if he fought Tyson who had faster hands and a far superior hitter. His upper body movement and puncjes in bunches would secure a win imo. Its one thing parrying against guys who were relatively slow and quite anothe with a fast and fierce hitter like tyson.

So one ' off night ' against a HOFer, against whom Louis agreed to come in around 10lb. below his fighting weight and whom, lest we forget, Louis KNOCKED OUT, is a reasonable basis upon which to assess an entire career ?

I see.

Let's talk about Mitch Green, shall we ? Or James Tillis ? Or Buster Douglas ? Maybe Kevin McBride is closer to the mark ?

Nay, nay, protesteth he, for surely 'tis PRIME Tyson we adore.

Yep, let's take Iron Mike in his prime / peak / pinnacle / zenith / rather darned good, actually, and pit him against the rest of them on their worst nights.

What a splendid idea.

I;ve seen some of Louis fights on ESPN and frankly I was not impressed. His footwork was slightly better than Bruno's.

Notice I haven;t mentioned Louis against Rock or figts later in his career. Those can be discounted. Its easy slipping punches when your opponent is a poor boxer by any standard.

Louis' footwork was a marvel of economy.

Only George Foreman cut off the ring as well as Joe, and a large part of Louis' strategy was based on his uncanny ability to judge distance down to the millimetre. A step forward, a half step back, draw his man in and wallop ! He'd lure his man, time and again, into walking on to his punches simply by creating the illusion that his opponent was in a safe zone.

Not as pretty to watch as Ali's, but wonderfully effective.

You didn't need g when fighting Tyson. He came looking for you. Boxers of the Holmes ilk had the beating of Tyson. Good footwork with a good jab to set up the right cross.

azania wrote:You didn't need g when fighting Tyson. He came looking for you. Boxers of the Holmes ilk had the beating of Tyson. Good footwork with a good jab to set up the right cross.

Louis' jab was a battering ram, and extremely accurate. Granted, Holmes' was ' snappier ' but Louis' was no lazy, pawing thing. As to the right cross, you're not seriously suggesting that Holmes had a better right hand than Joe, are you ?

imperialghosty wrote:Douglas had very basic footwork and simply stuck behind his jab the whole fight, yet he managed to win fairly easily, seems to go against everything you just said.

I'm confused where i've moved goalposts?

Actually Douglas had good footwork and used it to get into position and out of the way. But importantly have you read about the debacle leading up to the fight and during the fight. It made Naz's preperation for MAB appear the height of professionalism.

I talked about Tyson's power and you asked what does power have to do with it. Yet you mention Rocky's power at every given opportunity. Why should I discount Tyson's power? He was certainly stronger than Rocky in terms of body and punching combinations.

You are saying its easy to do x, y and z when your opponent is poor.

Well lets look at Tysons competition at his supposed best. Largely a bunch of mediocre heavyweights. I dont see Douglas, Tate, Tubbs or Thomas or Berbick being the benchmark of top competition.

If you are going to dismiss large chunks of other champions opponets we should probably take a look at Tyson first.

The assumption seems to be because Tyson could blast through his own weak era of competition he can automatically do so against genuine top heavyweights (which he never did). Unless the whole modern is better theory equates to the likes of Pinklon Thomas or Tony Tubbs being evolved past Marciano or Louis.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:You didn't need g when fighting Tyson. He came looking for you. Boxers of the Holmes ilk had the beating of Tyson. Good footwork with a good jab to set up the right cross.

Louis' jab was a battering ram, and extremely accurate. Granted, Holmes' was ' snappier ' but Louis' was no lazy, pawing thing. As to the right cross, you're not seriously suggesting that Holmes had a better right hand than Joe, are you ?

I am indeed saying just that.

For me, the two standout heavies are Ali and Holmes. The rest we can debate all night long as to where to place them.

Colonial Lion wrote:You are saying its easy to do x, y and z when your opponent is poor.

Well lets look at Tysons competition at his supposed best. Largely a bunch of mediocre heavyweights. I dont see Douglas, Tate, Tubbs or Thomas or Berbick being the benchmark of top competition.

If you are going to dismiss large chunks of other champions opponets we should probably take a look at Tyson first.

The assumption seems to be because Tyson could blast through his own weak era of competition he can automatically do so against genuine top heavyweights (which he never did). Unless the whole modern is better theory equates to the likes of Pinklon Thomas or Tony Tubbs being evolved past Marciano or Louis.

I would put Tyson's opponents on par with heavies of many era outside of the 1970s. Dont forget that Tubbs (by nature also) had probably the fastest hands of anyheavyweight. The 1970s was unique with 4 extremely gifted ATG heavies (I include Norton with an asterix because he gave Ali fits but would have been blown away by more heavies).

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:You didn't need g when fighting Tyson. He came looking for you. Boxers of the Holmes ilk had the beating of Tyson. Good footwork with a good jab to set up the right cross.

Louis' jab was a battering ram, and extremely accurate. Granted, Holmes' was ' snappier ' but Louis' was no lazy, pawing thing. As to the right cross, you're not seriously suggesting that Holmes had a better right hand than Joe, are you ?

I am indeed saying just that.

For me, the two standout heavies are Ali and Holmes. The rest we can debate all night long as to where to place them.

Holmes had a better right hand than Louis ?

I can only guess that you must be referring to Sherlock or Katie, because Larry sure didn't.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:You didn't need g when fighting Tyson. He came looking for you. Boxers of the Holmes ilk had the beating of Tyson. Good footwork with a good jab to set up the right cross.

Louis' jab was a battering ram, and extremely accurate. Granted, Holmes' was ' snappier ' but Louis' was no lazy, pawing thing. As to the right cross, you're not seriously suggesting that Holmes had a better right hand than Joe, are you ?

I am indeed saying just that.

For me, the two standout heavies are Ali and Holmes. The rest we can debate all night long as to where to place them.

Holmes had a better right hand than Louis ?

I can only guess that you must be referring to Sherlock or Katie, because Larry sure didn't.

Ouch!

Douglas was slow, plodding and rarely in decent shape, even against Tyson he was hardly in great shape, to suggest he had good footwork is twisting things beyond belief.

I mention Marcianos power because it was very important to how he fought, he always caught up with his opponents and its that reason why he's dangerous for any Heavyweight through history. You wont deter him from his gameplan he would walk through fire to land his own hurtful punches.

Using Conn as example why Tyson would beat someone is way off the mark.

imperialghosty wrote:Douglas was slow, plodding and rarely in decent shape, even against Tyson he was hardly in great shape, to suggest he had good footwork is twisting things beyond belief.

I mention Marcianos power because it was very important to how he fought, he always caught up with his opponents and its that reason why he's dangerous for any Heavyweight through history. You wont deter him from his gameplan he would walk through fire to land his own hurtful punches.

Using Conn as example why Tyson would beat someone is way off the mark.

You should watch the Douglas again. He showed very good footwork. He was helped by a stationary Tyson without Rooney training or in his corner. Douglas was in the shape of his life.

So dont oyu think Tyson's power was important to him?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:You didn't need g when fighting Tyson. He came looking for you. Boxers of the Holmes ilk had the beating of Tyson. Good footwork with a good jab to set up the right cross.

Louis' jab was a battering ram, and extremely accurate. Granted, Holmes' was ' snappier ' but Louis' was no lazy, pawing thing. As to the right cross, you're not seriously suggesting that Holmes had a better right hand than Joe, are you ?

I am indeed saying just that.

For me, the two standout heavies are Ali and Holmes. The rest we can debate all night long as to where to place them.

Holmes had a better right hand than Louis ?

I can only guess that you must be referring to Sherlock or Katie, because Larry sure didn't.

Tysons power was very important to him but your suggesting that because the quicker and more skillful Conn gave Louis trouble that someone with Tysons power would, if he caught him then it could end the show but it's no foregone conclusion like your suggesting.

I've watched the Douglas fight many times and he displayed decent footwork but nothing special, was waiting for the excuses to start for why Tyson at the age of 23 was already past his best and lost.

imperialghosty wrote:Tysons power was very important to him but your suggesting that because the quicker and more skillful Conn gave Louis trouble that someone with Tysons power would, if he caught him then it could end the show but it's no foregone conclusion like your suggesting.

I've watched the Douglas fight many times and he displayed decent footwork but nothing special, was waiting for the excuses to start for why Tyson at the age of 23 was already past his best and lost.

Tyson was equally fast if not faster hand speed....but with tremendous power with each punch.

Douglas's footwork was aided by a very lethargic Tyson. But he didn't train and he paid for it. No argument from me.

Tyson lost the plot. Physically he was still there. Mentally he was shot to pieces. He had the proverbial taken out of him by every adult he came across. Clever bloke, but not intelligent.

Tyson has fast hands for a Heavyweight while Conn had fast hands for a Light Heavyweight, in a fight between the two Conn gets taken apart much like Spinks but A beats B beats C doesn't work in boxing. Conn had the foot and hand speed to frustrate Louis and with Tyson there is always the chance he'll close the show early but beyond the first 3 rounds I can't see him beating Louis.

imperialghosty wrote:Tyson has fast hands for a Heavyweight while Conn had fast hands for a Light Heavyweight, in a fight between the two Conn gets taken apart much like Spinks but A beats B beats C doesn't work in boxing. Conn had the foot and hand speed to frustrate Louis and with Tyson there is always the chance he'll close the show early but beyond the first 3 rounds I can't see him beating Louis.

I largely agree with what you say. But after seeing both of them, Louis was made for Tyson mainly due to his lack of evasivness because of his poor footwork. He wouldn't get away from Tyson's volume of punches. Having said that, Tyson could get caught coming in...then who knows. Thats he beauty of boxing.

I think our views of footwork are a million miles away, someone like Locche had next to no footwork but that didn't stop him being impossible to touch. Louis didn't use footwork to evade punches rather little tricks here and there, unless your a Mayweather or Pep footwork is more about getting in and out of range to land your punches.

imperialghosty wrote:I think our views of footwork are a million miles away, someone like Locche had next to no footwork but that didn't stop him being impossible to touch. Louis didn't use footwork to evade punches rather little tricks here and there, unless your a Mayweather or Pep footwork is more about getting in and out of range to land your punches.

That would have been Louis's downfall against Tyson. Tyson in range was devestating. He would overwhelm Louis with the volume of punches and all with bad intentions as he said. Footwork was needed to get in range to throw your punches and out of the way to evade Tyson inevitable charge. A good jad to keep Tyson thinking as I believe Tyson was a very good instiinctive fighter.

The problem is now because fighters only fight once or twice a year the subtleties of the defensive arts have largely been lost as fighters can afford to get bashed up and unfortunately for a lot of fighters (although not all) defence has been reduced down to either keeping a high guard or getting on your bike, this is why we see the likes of Winky Wright lauded as a defensive genius.

The reality is such gifts as slipping punches, blocking with elbows or feinting to create mistakes such as used by the likes of Locche and Burley are so rarely utlised a lot of modern fans cannot see these as defensive techniques when watching the old timers, apologies if that sounds patronising but I do fear its true because when the likes of Marciano and Louis get described as plodders there can be no other explanation.

What is there to suggest that would be Louis' downfall? He was never overwhelmed in his career so not sure how anyone come to that conclusion with no evidence to back it up.

imperialghosty wrote:What is there to suggest that would be Louis' downfall? He was never overwhelmed in his career so not sure how anyone come to that conclusion with no evidence to back it up.

He hadn't fought a skilled an opponent as Tyson. I base what I say on what I have seen of them. To beat a rampaging tyson, you need jab with snap (cheers windy) and excellent footwork. Louis had a good jab akin to Lennox but poor footwork (Lennox again).

So your judging it purely on how to beat Tyson rather than how to beat Louis?

Tyson was given problems by boxers with poor footwork, regardless of when they fought Lewis would have been too much for him, if your not intimidated by Tyson you've won half the battle, he beat his opponents before they entered the ring.

imperialghosty wrote:So your judging it purely on how to beat Tyson rather than how to beat Louis?

Tyson was given problems by boxers with poor footwork, regardless of when they fought Lewis would have been too much for him, if your not intimidated by Tyson you've won half the battle, he beat his opponents before they entered the ring.

If you are basing that on Douglas, I may as well base everything on Conn and Schmelling 1 (when Louis was clearly under prepared). You cant have it both ways.

Difference being Tyson never proved himself beyond the Douglas loss so mistakes made in the fight would happen again.

Louis lost to Schmeling but then adjusted his style and cut out the errors he made in that fight

Like Windy has said you seem to be basing this on the best of Tyson and the worst of Louis

imperialghosty wrote:Difference being Tyson never proved himself beyond the Douglas loss so mistakes made in the fight would happen again.

Louis lost to Schmeling but then adjusted his style and cut out the errors he made in that fight

Like Windy has said you seem to be basing this on the best of Tyson and the worst of Louis

Tyson's head had gone before the Douglas fight. His problem. But during the years 86-89 he was awesome. A tough match for any fighter in history. Perhaps I have been somewhat dismissive of old timers (apologies to you for that). But I maintain my opinion thata fighter of the calibre of Tyson would be all wrong for Louis....at any stage of his career.

Tyson is a classic case of too much too soon. He would be a classic sociological study. Too much money, too much time and bad advisors who were more interested in their pay the next day as opposed to the human being.

I know the exact name we're both thinking of right now

I agree that Tyson was a formiddable opponent for anyone but much like Liston a lot depended on him psyching out his opposition, I don't see guys like Marciano, Dempsey or Louis being intimidated by Tyson. It is very much the case of an early KO for Tyson which is quite possible but if they survive the initial onslaught then I feel Tyson would wilt quickly.

imperialghosty wrote:I know the exact name we're both thinking of right now

I agree that Tyson was a formiddable opponent for anyone but much like Liston a lot depended on him psyching out his opposition, I don't see guys like Marciano, Dempsey or Louis being intimidated by Tyson. It is very much the case of an early KO for Tyson which is quite possible but if they survive the initial onslaught then I feel Tyson would wilt quickly.

Tyson took a shellacking against Douglas and only wilted after a fearsome combination of uppercuts and hooks. That wasn't just wilting. That was a beatdown. Tyson intimidated others. Sure he did. But his skills did the damage.

Those guys would not hav been intimidated but they would have still lost imo.

Rocky would have been easiest. Dempsey I would love to invent a time machine just to see that. I'd still back tyson.

I think the Tucker fight gives a better indication of how Tyson dealt with going beyond a few rounds, beyond that point he looked far less dangerous and his explosiveness seemed to disappear.

imperialghosty wrote:I think the Tucker fight gives a better indication of how Tyson dealt with going beyond a few rounds, beyond that point he looked far less dangerous and his explosiveness seemed to disappear.

He won every round. And Tucker displayed a sturdy chin up until the last round.

Watch that fight and the Smith fight and you'll see Tyson become more ragged with his work, little head movement and less explosive.

imperialghosty wrote:Watch that fight and the Smith fight and you'll see Tyson become more ragged with his work, little head movement and less explosive.

And he still won every round. Even the 12th when he gt tagged. I dont know of any boxer who did not become more ragged and less explosive in the latter rounds. Even Rocky although he landed the perfect punch in round 13 became more ragged (he was ragged anyway). Its simple human nature. When fatigue sets in, you lose a little.

But becoming rugged against better opposition is a completely different ball game than against your tuckers and Smiths of the world. If Tucker could take Tysons punches is that absurd to suggest that Marciano or Louis could as well.

oh dear.this has turned into a bit of a slug-fest,as feared.
time for a poem methinks..
"Iron Mike is sacred,
Iron Mike is great.
If Iron Mike gets slated,
folks get quite irate.
Ev'ry neck roll be praise-ed,
Ev'ry uppercut be blessed.
He beat some quite good people,
And the rest we can forget.
Whomever he preceded,
Whomever he pursued,
The sockless saint'd ogre
A W-TKO accrues...

G'night!

imperialghosty wrote:I think the Tucker fight gives a better indication of how Tyson dealt with going beyond a few rounds, beyond that point he looked far less dangerous and his explosiveness seemed to disappear.

I thought that fight told us a lot more about Tyson than most of the others. Tyson did his bull in a china shop routine for the first half of the fight, and truth is it hadn't really gotten him anywhere. after six rounds the fight was pretty much even, and Tyson stopped trying to knock him out and boxed behind his very much underrated jab.