Stop selling Tyson short !!

Look...Foreman and liston don't walk through Tyson and Ali doesn't have an easy night with him okay!!!! Come on I'm no Tyson fan but enough is enough!!!

Foreman/Liston - Tyson had faster hands....had greater head movement...better footwork and when he landed guys with great/good chins went down......I think he beats Liston but let's face it Foreman doesn't just turn up push him back and destroy him....he goes through HELL!!!!

Tyson isn't a Frazier..please have more respect.

Ali - If Frazier can give Ali a lot of problems..i'm sure a much bigger, quicker fighter with better handspeed than Joe and better head work could give him problems....Tyson was lightning fast..A rooney led Tyson would be a great matchup!!!

Sure I'd pick Ali but "He'd be beaten before he hit the ring" - Azania... or "liston and foreman walk right through him" - Chris..

Please just leave it out....

Much is made of Tyson's mental strength but apart from Buster who hit the deck and beat a sub par Tyson....no one else had it "easy" in his prime!!!!

Tired of the same old Tyson clap trap...

Learn some respect!!!!!! Sick of hearing about all his negative attributes and none of his positive ones...

Only been a few weeks since you last posted this Truss, you're slipping.

No I just feel the need to explain to certain people bare facts....

People are so dismissive of this guy....For me he is a top 10/15 heavy.....

Thanks for the constructive reply anyway..

Agreed Alma..........Liston walks through him....Really....??

Much slower just as weak mentally!!!!...Poor shoulder... and then lies down in the Ali rematch...

Tyson was a beast......too quick...

It's an opinion Truss just like yours is, personally do have Liston and Foreman beating him early but does you thinking differently mean your showing them no respect?

So tyson would have beaten a weak 1964 mentally weak version of Liston.. I don't see how that is any badge of honour.

David Haye would have dealt with that version of Liston, speed kills. Stick Davey Haye on that top 15 then.

Tyson was good, exciting, but you are selling him too high. As you said, he was a top 10-15 heavy, well how about talking about the other 9-14 heavys instead of blowin hot air about a ra pist

I'm suggesting tyson isn't a one round bum...I've not disrespected them..

Never said Tyson beats them easy.....just not sure how Liston copes with the speed, power and movement..I mean he couldn't take a slap off Ali....

Anyway Tunney plays with RJJ in your opinion... So your opinion is a strange one at the best of times..

Id agree Tyson is a top 15 fighter, I think I ranked him around 11th or 12th.

I agree no one walks through him, Tyson had an exceptional chin and anyone who went looking for him early to walk through him are certainly playing Russian roulette.

Let's be honest wherever you rank fighters your 1-20 are not going to have an easy night with one another, if Foreman were to beat Tyson it would beyond 9 rounds IMO and he'd have survived moments of hell.

He beats Liston anytime in my opinion...stop taking things out of context...

I was pointing out Liston's limitations...

as for all this 9-14 ... styles make fights....

go away reborn it's adult night on here..

Tyson beats Jeffries, Marciano and Louis for me doesn't mean they shouldn't be above him...

Problem is Cribby...these guys don't like him so they take a 1963 version of Ali and match him with the Lewis-Tyson...Tyson!!!!

Not the lightning killer that ran rampant.....under Rooney.....

So i've got strange opinions because I like many predict Tunney would have beaten Jones, you got me there Truss.

Liston and Foreman at their bests would have beaten Tyson fairly comfortably, just like they would Dempsey, Marciano and Frazier.

How would he have beaten Jones.....Would he be too smart like Toney and Hopkins.....

Running around the ring throwing the usual combinations ie the Dempsey fight!!

Jones never saw that....

I'm asking anybody to watch Tunney and tell me what he did that was as good or better than Virgil Hill........Who was quicker anyway...

Sad...rose-tinted bull-crap..

Toney and Hopkins do not have the skill, power, strength, durability and size of Gene Tunney who was despite your protestations a fabulous fighter in any era, too cute and intelligent for a fighter who's flaw he'd pick up on from the off.

That's the big problem with the rose-tinted brigade..

We hear it all the time.....Liston smashes Tyson.....Speed, footwork, head movement, work rate and chin are all in Tyson's corner but hey so what...

Robinson plays with Leonard......But wait a minute Lamotta beat this guy and so did Turpin.....

Come on..........Not suggesting they don't win but please don't sell Tyson short just because these guys are from a romantic age...

Liston and Foreman never had to fight a guy like Tyson he was an animal....

So please...just come on..."Walk Through him" - that's just laughable!!!

I would say your assertion that Virgil Hill is better than Gene Tunney is more laughable than anything i've ever said. Big deal Truss I don't think every modern fighter is the second coming and beats everything that went before.

Lets look at a fighter and mention fighters they lost to that have no relevance stylistically or size wise to someone you like, for instance Lamotta was a big strong brawler who beat Robinson once out of six. That definitely means that a smaller more talented fighter beats him as well, not saying Leonard couldn't but Lamotta has no relevance to him at all.

If Tyson brings the fight to Foreman no amount of power or speed is going to help him take the punches he'd be receiving, not disrespecting Tyson but having an opinion based on what i've seen not when they were born.

Despite you name dropping me as a villain of the piece in your article, Truss, I fully agree that Tyson gets a raw deal from plenty on here. The idea that he's nothing more than a four-round bully who dominated a poor era and would lose to all other great champions before or since is just as misguided a view as him being the greatest of all time and beating all other Heavyweights with one hand tied behind his back in his 'prime.'

I'll stick to my guns and maintain that Liston and Foreman beat him the majority of the time (just about every time in Foreman's case), but I don't think I'm doing him a disservice by saying that. Styles make fights as you know, and all that jazz. If you look at the 'greatest mismatches' thread properly you'll see that I'm fulsome enough in my praise for Tyson - I think he'd make short work of Marciano, Frazier and Wladimir, would decision Vitali, would beat Dempsey more often than not, and would over-power the Tunney and Charles types. Certainly wouldn't right him off against Louis, either.

Would actually add that his achievements, as well as his worth in head-to-head match ups, are becoming somewhat underrated, probably as so many hate the idea of thinking that the casual fans might actually be on to something (even if it is a small something) when they wax lyrical about Tyson. If Dempsey's making people's top five, then surely Mike has to as well? In recent times I've actually found myself sticking Tyson at eight or nine with Dempsey, in fact, a couple of spots behind.

I take your point but Tyson had quicker hands than anybody Foreman ever faced and certainly better head movement prime for prime....

Sure he'd try and push him back but Tyson could throw punches from all angles as Berbick found pushing him back....(For sure Foreman is miles better than trev) but Berbick traded on his durability and he went down in the 1st and for good in the 2nd...

Speed does kill and I seriously believe that as Foreman was easy to hit you do Tyson an injustice...

Now this article isn't about saying Tyson slaps all the above out or even beats them..

Just to mainly remind some what a quality fighter he was at his peak...

and not to write him off so easy!! Nobody has an easy night!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Robinson plays with Leonard......But wait a minute Lamotta beat this guy and so did Turpin.....

C'mon big guy - that's a Buncey-esque statement.

Leonard was decisioned by Norris after all. And Honeyghan whipped Curry.

Losses after the prime mean little - and it adds to Robinson's greatness that even at a higher weight - and when faded - he was able to compete and keep winning the MW title - so much so that he is ranked as a top 10 all time MW - even though his MW reign wasn't a patch on his WW pomp.

As for Tyson - certainly - some of his performances are impressive - and he would be a good fighter and a title contender in any era.

Fighters like peakTyson, Marciano, Frazier are never really going to be "easy" night's work for any other HW - which doesn't mean that they are always going to win - just that they aren't going to be blown away.

Shavers was not the best boxer in the world and Ali beat him by a margin - but he still suffered a great deal to do it. If Shavers could hurt Ali - Tyson could.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Look...Foreman and liston don't walk through Tyson and Ali doesn't have an easy night with him okay!!!! Come on I'm no Tyson fan but enough is enough!!!

Foreman/Liston - Tyson had faster hands....had greater head movement...better footwork and when he landed guys with great/good chins went down......I think he beats Liston but let's face it Foreman doesn't just turn up push him back and destroy him....he goes through HELL!!!!

Tyson isn't a Frazier..please have more respect.

Ali - If Frazier can give Ali a lot of problems..i'm sure a much bigger, quicker fighter with better handspeed than Joe and better head work could give him problems....Tyson was lightning fast..A rooney led Tyson would be a great matchup!!!

Sure I'd pick Ali but "He'd be beaten before he hit the ring" - Azania... or "liston and foreman walk right through him" - Chris..

Please just leave it out....

Much is made of Tyson's mental strength but apart from Buster who hit the deck and beat a sub par Tyson....no one else had it "easy" in his prime!!!!

Tired of the same old Tyson clap trap...

Learn some respect!!!!!! Sick of hearing about all his negative attributes and none of his positive ones...

Let me clarify my comment "beaten before he gets in the ring". Ali was a master of mind games and getting under the skin of opponents. Whatever one can say about Tyson, when he fought he was in total control because he was in control of himself. He used his fear as his friend. With Ali taking the P out of him constantly, I believe Tyson would implode, lose control and go there trying to decapitate Ali. He would lose his fear asset and become angry. An angry fighter is not as effective as one who utilised fear to his advantage.

Anyway, I think people have been constantly selling short based on the Douglas fight. In that fight the guy showed little to zero head movement, threw very few combinations and was a static fighter. That wasn't the Tyson who tore through the HW division.

Yes Douglas fought brilliantly and a peak Tyson would have has issues with him. But compare the Tyson who fought Biggs to that who fought Buster. There is no comparison.

I've said that only Holmes and Ali would beat Tyson. I stand by that. Liston probably was the next best to take him out. But that would have been a huge task. Tyson beats Frazier, destroys the frauds today and brutalises Rocky in less than 2 monutes. Also he'd beat Foreman. Siply too fast, accurate and perpetual motion. Foreman wouldn't cope. If Lyle could nearly KO Foreman, Tyson finishes him.

Its getting better every time. Before Rocky wouldn't have lasted 2 rounds with Tyson - now he won't last 2 minutes.

By the time we have this debate next month, Rocky will be being knocked out in fright by the sound of the ring bell.

Only Holmes and Ali? Hmm.

oxring wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Robinson plays with Leonard......But wait a minute Lamotta beat this guy and so did Turpin.....

C'mon big guy - that's a Buncey-esque statement.

Leonard was decisioned by Norris after all. And Honeyghan whipped Curry.

Losses after the prime mean little - and it adds to Robinson's greatness that even at a higher weight - and when faded - he was able to compete and keep winning the MW title - so much so that he is ranked as a top 10 all time MW - even though his MW reign wasn't a patch on his WW pomp.

As for Tyson - certainly - some of his performances are impressive - and he would be a good fighter and a title contender in any era.

Fighters like peakTyson, Marciano, Frazier are never really going to be "easy" night's work for any other HW - which doesn't mean that they are always going to win - just that they aren't going to be blown away.

Shavers was not the best boxer in the world and Ali beat him by a margin - but he still suffered a great deal to do it. If Shavers could hurt Ali - Tyson could.

Leeeeeaaave it.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Robinson plays with Leonard......But wait a minute Lamotta beat this guy and so did Turpin.....

C'mon big guy - that's a Buncey-esque statement.

Leonard was decisioned by Norris after all. And Honeyghan whipped Curry.

Losses after the prime mean little - and it adds to Robinson's greatness that even at a higher weight - and when faded - he was able to compete and keep winning the MW title - so much so that he is ranked as a top 10 all time MW - even though his MW reign wasn't a patch on his WW pomp.

As for Tyson - certainly - some of his performances are impressive - and he would be a good fighter and a title contender in any era.

Fighters like peakTyson, Marciano, Frazier are never really going to be "easy" night's work for any other HW - which doesn't mean that they are always going to win - just that they aren't going to be blown away.

Shavers was not the best boxer in the world and Ali beat him by a margin - but he still suffered a great deal to do it. If Shavers could hurt Ali - Tyson could.

Leeeeeaaave it.

I take it all back! Maybe you're improving

I notice you have to keep using the worst version of Liston (The one Clay beat twice) to make your point? I think most would agree that wasn't a peak Liston and if we can have a "prime" Tyson why not match him with a "peak" Liston.

Liston was a completely different animal before he won the title and a much better fighter. He was 30 odd before he won the title sure. His jab and reach alone (Sonny has a massive reach advantage) would make it extremely difficult for Tyson to get inside and throw his combos. Not to mention his power. It would be a long hard night for Tyson and he'd have to fight the fight of his life to get anything out of it.

You can also add;

"Tyson would be dangerous for the first 3/4 rounds, after that he gets battered"

"anyone with a good jab beats Tyson"

"He had no stamina"

"Tyson was a bully and would be beaten by anyone who refused to be intimidated by him"

to the list of cliches.

I think what happens is that boxing fans, of the TysonKing ilk, overrate Tyson's abilities and espouse such obnoxious and dismissive opinions that the more level headed fans, perhaps even subconsciously, seek to redress the balance by disparaging Tyson's abilities.

It is what I call, the D4 syndrome. I genuinely ended up hating Pacquiao for a few months and wouldn't miss an opportunity to denigrate his status as a genuine ATG. Thankfully, following D4's enforced absence from the boards, I am again able to fully appreciate Pacqiuoa's awesome talents.

Tyson has the most vociferous, deluded and obnoxious fan base of any boxer. This, I think really harms his standing among more rational fans of the sport.

To an extent I agree Gentleman, those who genuinely believe Tyson was a wrecking machine have a point - however when applied to other eras they become somewhat blinkered and start underestimating the other boxer. Foreman was a phenomenal power puncher and was dealing with boxers like Norton and Frazier with ease. His first undefeated 40 fights he had 37 by KO so I'd say that he was some way ahead of Tyson for knockout ability.

I get irked by the PRIME Tyson myth, but I think most do.

"No offense was intended"

Oh please...

Gentleman I think you're spot on....

I've never said Tyson beats Foreman or Ali just trying to get some level of context.....

The guy was not an easy night..

Truss, if I intended to offend you I'd be much more aggressive in what I said.

I believe the moderation team have removed the comments so we'll just leave it at that.

Gentleman01 wrote:
Tyson has the most vociferous, deluded and obnoxious fan base of any boxer. This, I think really harms his standing among more rational fans of the sport.

I would say it harms his standing more with irrational fans:

adjective
1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4. not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.

In light of the above, you can now see why Coxy had such hatred for the man.

But, I take your point, and I would also say that people sometimes forget his career prior to Douglas ever happened. The manner of fall from grace after Tokyo was so dramatic and ingrained in our consciousness that people can be guilty of looking past his considerable talents and his CV that is none too shabby.

You are absolutely spot on Gent, I used to come across as hugely negative towards Tyson on the old 606, but this was largely as a consequence of having to endure the ramblings of Tyson King and Damon Knight who had you believe PRIME Mike Tyson would beat every heavy on the same night whilst barely breaking sweat, you naturally find yourself railing against hyperbole on such a level but for me he is a borderline top ten heavy and as I have said a couple of times over the last couple of days is a tough nights work for anyone.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:To an extent I agree Gentleman, those who genuinely believe Tyson was a wrecking machine have a point - however when applied to other eras they become somewhat blinkered and start underestimating the other boxer. Foreman was a phenomenal power puncher and was dealing with boxers like Norton and Frazier with ease. His first undefeated 40 fights he had 37 by KO so I'd say that he was some way ahead of Tyson for knockout ability.

I get irked by the PRIME Tyson myth, but I think most do.

I think that those obsessive fans just completely overstate Tyson's ability. Making statements like 'Tyson would KO Ali in 2 rounds FACT!!' just alienates people. It's pretty hard to have a rational debate regarding Tyson's genuine abilities.

I think, for example, Foreman beats him. Not easily mind, but I just think he is has the style to handle Tyson. This is not to say that the fight couldn't go the other way, it's just how I see it.

I also think Liston gives him a very good fight. I would be unsire who to back in that one.

Tyson's prime is no myth, it actually happened. 10 championship wins between 86 and 90. That's a pretty decent run of form.

Also, let's not pretend that Tyson's list of victims in that run is spectacular but it's really not as bad as some people make out. There are some pretty decent names in there.

I don't think its disrespectful to say that Liston or Foreman walk through Tyson. The three of them are great heavyweights but styles match up differently and its possible for one great fighter to make an easy night's work of another. Foreman destroyed Frazier who no one would argue wasn't great.

The myth I refer to Gent is that in his prime he could have beaten anyone - something I don't believe for a second. He had a prime, but it wasn't a case of him being the greatest of all time, he was just by far the best in the division at the time.

I believe that Foreman beats him within 4 or 5 rounds - people forget that Foreman punches insanely hard and up until Ali nobody had really been able to deal with that and take it away from him. Nothing Tyson had in his arsenal for me takes that away considering Ali did it by working the ropes - I just don't see Tyson having that type of ring-savvy and despite his excellent head movement and at times stone solid defense - he would get caught flush and he would go down, Foreman was just that good. While not being one of Big Georges easiest fights by a long stretch because of Tysons power and working over the top, it wouldn't be challenging to the point of going past 4/5 rounds.

Although lets face it, Foreman vs Tyson would be a cracker.

I think it is dis-respectful because people aren't looking at the facts..

Head movement...speed....power etc...Foreman pushed opponents back like Berbick in the Tyson fight...He was hit by punches from all angles and durable as he was went down..(Berbick had a great chin). Foreman was easier to hit than Tyson...

As for Liston.. Tyson for me is too quick, powerful....

But they are hard fights!!!!!!!! which is my point.

Rooney-Tyson was a different animal!!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I think it is dis-respectful because people aren't looking at the facts..

Head movement...speed....power etc...Foreman pushed opponents back like Berbick in the Tyson fight...He was hit by punches from all angles and durable as he was went down..(Berbick had a great chin). Foreman was easier to hit than Tyson...

As for Liston.. Tyson for me is too quick, powerful....

But they are hard fights!!!!!!!! which is my point.

Rooney-Tyson was a different animal!!!

Tyson at his best was unreal. Scary to watch him really, especially at such a young age. I just don't think he matches up to Liston very well. As I said that reach difference alone is a huge thing for him to overcome. I think Liston beats Tyson more comfortably than Foreman would. That's not to say I wouldn't give Mike a chance, just that I'd strongly favour Liston and to a much lesser extent Big George.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:The myth I refer to Gent is that in his prime he could have beaten anyone - something I don't believe for a second. He had a prime, but it wasn't a case of him being the greatest of all time, he was just by far the best in the division at the time.

I believe that Foreman beats him within 4 or 5 rounds - people forget that Foreman punches insanely hard and up until Ali nobody had really been able to deal with that and take it away from him. Nothing Tyson had in his arsenal for me takes that away considering Ali did it by working the ropes - I just don't see Tyson having that type of ring-savvy and despite his excellent head movement and at times stone solid defense - he would get caught flush and he would go down, Foreman was just that good. While not being one of Big Georges easiest fights by a long stretch because of Tysons power and working over the top, it wouldn't be challenging to the point of going past 4/5 rounds.

Although lets face it, Foreman vs Tyson would be a cracker.

Ah I see, yes that is quite a myth. I agree, it is extremely irritating when people say that.

Good points as well regarding Foreman, although I also think that the Rumble proved that Foreman could be hurt. Ali wasn't the biggest puncher in the division's history and he stopped George. I appreciate that Foreman was very fatigued by that point and that may have had an impact but I wouldn't rule out Tyson hurting George either. Agree it would be an absolute cracker!

Tyson had 9 defences against opponents who would be contenders in most eras of HW boxing. His opponents are on par with those Ali beat in his first reign as Champ (Liston aside). I've always said that Tyson would give any fighter who ever existed living hell. I'd pick him to beat Foreman because of his speed of movement. Foreman needed space to punch with devestating effect. Tyson's short punches were awesome and he always threw multi combinations. He waasn't the best chest to chest fighter as Frazier was though, but he would be too powerful for him

What beats Tyson is a very good jab and more importantly exceptional footwork. Something ALi and Holmes had. But if Tyson landed as Shavers or sinpes did against Holmes, I cant see Holmes surviving the follow up.

I'd pich Holmes 6/10 times and Ali 8/10 against Tyson.

Gentleman01 wrote:Ah I see, yes that is quite a myth. I agree, it is extremely irritating when people say that.

Good points as well regarding Foreman, although I also think that the Rumble proved that Foreman could be hurt. Ali wasn't the biggest puncher in the division's history and he stopped George. I appreciate that Foreman was very fatigued by that point and that may have had an impact but I wouldn't rule out Tyson hurting George either. Agree it would be an absolute cracker!

There's no denying he could be caught, you've made me want to watch a few of his earlier fights to see if the same weaknesses showed! - I suppose the comparison to Tyson is always going to be subjective as both went through their early career seen as wrecking balls and they did tear apart their opposition, albeit with different skill sets. I think until Ali for Foreman and to a lesser extent Douglas for Tyson they don't get enough credit for the manner of which they lost. Foreman lost to a very clever (but also insane) gameplan and Tyson was fighting someone who I believe did his research and started believing in himself because he was connecting. Tyson wasn't himself in Tokyo but that doesn't mean he was any different in skills from the fighter who then went on after that to again tear through his opponents up to Holyfield who again had his number.

Tyson is under rated for his skills and legacy but in comparison to others he gets beefed up too much.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm asking anybody to watch Tunney and tell me what he did that was as good or better than Virgil Hill........Who was quicker anyway...

Sad...rose-tinted bull-crap..

Whilst appreciating the sentiment of the original article, have to say that this post somewhat lets you down, Truss. You're basing your views on Tunney on what? The footage of the Dempsey fights? As much as they are a masterclass, they hardly show off the full scale of Tunney's abilities.

Incredible boxing brain, hit harder than given credit for, great durability, plenty of speed, a full range of punches including a great body attack, a tight defence and could fight in close or at range. Hard to make comparisons across the generations but I'd back him every day of the week and twice on Sunday against Virgil Hill. If Hill is faster, that's about all he has on Tunney.

For all that you want people to respect Tyson's abilities (an admirable sentiment), equally you shoudln't be dismissing anyone picking an all time great like Tunney to beat RJJ as "rose-tinted bull-crap".

I always find it diffucut to gauge Tyson, the Tyson that destroyed Berbick, Holmes, Thomas, Spinks etc would pose problems for every heavyweight champion ever. I'd even go so far as saying he COULD beat any heavyweight champion, but whether he WOULD is a different matter.

As with all heavyweights it's about imposing your natural advantages over the other as much as it is using your boxing skills and Tyson's major natural weapons in this regard were speed and power. No-one I have seen in heavyweight history has the same speed/power ratio as Tyson. Foreman would have had the same power minus speed, Spinks or any small cruiserweight type heavy would be speed minus power but Tyson had an abundance of both. Even though Tyson annihilated an older version of Holmes I see the younger Holmes having massive problems too. Holmes never faced anyone like as fast and brutal and neither did most of the other luminaries of Heavyweight history. Tyson COULD beat any one of them on his day. Whether he would though is another matter entirely.

Absolutely...Shavers and snipes both found him....and they were 1 d....

I'm a huge Dempsey fan. Loved his style and attitude. He went for the kill from the first bell. Ditto Tyson. But what gets ignored is that Tyson had 9 defences against the best of the day who were very good fighters and comparable to the best available in any era (except 1970s).

Were he to be born in the sepia era he would be a shoe in for top 5. The quality of his opponents is better than Jack's. I often put Jack top 5 purely because I liked his style and dare say he's ranked high because of his popularity. But to me and in all honesty, Tyson should be ranked above him.

I've just watched Tyson/Holmes again and still stand by Foreman beating that version of Tyson. In round 4 I just don't see Tyson standing up to the much heavier hands of Foreman.

Maybe you should watch Foreman fight and compare their relative speed , combination punching and general boxing ability.

Foreman/Lyle? Would george have survived?

Tyson is often under-rated when it comes to his boxing skills - they even say it in the commentary, but I still say the slower heavier hands of Foreman land cleaner, crisper and with a lot more behind them.

There's an argument either way, of course, so think the simplest thing to do is to take each fighter and assume they're in top form. Foreman would be in a world of trouble against Tyson if he performed similarly to how he did against Lyle, but by that same token the version of Tyson which showed up against Tillis would have had his head nigh-on removed from his shoulders by 'Big George.'

Imagine if you will the Foreman who blitzed Frazier and Norton squaring off against the Tyson who tore through Spinks and Berbick - probably fairest to both fighters involved, I'd say. No disrespect to Tyson, but I see Foreman being all wrong for him. Tyson leaping in with that attack means he's meeting something which resembles an immovable object in Foreman. Look at how he pushed Frazier back so easily, for instance. Remember, Joe was only 3 lb lighter than Foreman when they met in 1973, too.

The thing about Tyson's attack is that it was repetitive. Now usually, that wasn't a problem because he could get inside, land his bombs and be done with it. But having to punch up to an iron-chinned Foreman means that he's going to have to come leaping in more than he'd like. Can't see how he evades Foreman's power shots. I don't like anyone's chances against Foreman if they're forever coming in.

Tyson would beat the count once, maybe twice, but eventually I think he gets put down for good or saved by the referee in the fourth round.

Not going to argue the point too much as to who would win. I'd back Tyson because of his speed and power combination. But I dont see Tysom playing yo yo. When a boxer like Tyson hits the deck, they usually stay there as it would take a superb shot to put them down.

I'm not downplaying that Tyson was ferocious, its just if you take the very best of Foreman as Chris mentions - you see something that you'd find it difficult for Tyson to deal with for longer than 4 or 5 rounds.

May have escaped your attention but apart from being a lot quicker...he also had a great jab and routinely outjabbed guys much taller....

Yeah memory is on the fade now but didn't Tyson effectively neutralise Tucker's jab and after a few rounds established his own and jabbed out a dull UD win? Something Tyson was capable of and few people remember that he could beat good opponents on points when needed.