Fighters That Could Take Tyson In The Prime

First topic message reminder :

I was watching this amazing video of Tyson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QACELH3www and it got me thinking, is there anyone that could have actually taken Tyson in the prime? Obviously people would put someone like Muhammed Ali, but in complete honesty I think he would actually have taken him, just my personal opinion... But do you guys think that there would have been a Heavyweight on the planet that could have taken Pre-Prison and before he began cutting his training like Pre-Buster Douglas? Because in my personal opinion there isn't a fighter on the planet that could have honestly taken him, his pure aggression and power was enough to take out a lot of guys in the later stages, but when you mixed that with his athletisicm and ability to not get caught whilst coming in was just purely incredible, I would love to see Haye have taken on Tyson in his prime, personally I think you need to have a guy that has speed and 1 punch knockout power, enough to rock him back (I know what you're thinking what about Muhammed Ali?) But I just don't see it happening. I don't think Haye would beat him by the way but give him a decent fight. Or even a Valuev don't forget how big Valuev was and how much of a small Heavyweight Tyson was, could he have even reached his head!? :O

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Fighters were different in them days...Basically swapping punches in the centre of the ring....why do you think Corbett licked him so easily..

For me Rooney-Tyson 86-88 was his prime.....

I only allude to his prime because that's the articles premise..

Corbett licked him so easily because Sullivan had fought over 400 other men and was an alcoholic. I wouldn't use that fight as proof that Tyson beats him. How well does Tyson cope with Sullivan's punches?

I could be entirely wrong and guilty of looking through old-timer spectacles - but IMO the weaknesses were there even in the Rooney days - it was just the opponents weren't right to exploit those weaknesses.

Oxy nobody is right and nobody is wrong but I'm sure even Windy would tell you that the evolution from the O'sullivan era to the Corbett one is probably one of the biggest if not the biggest since Boxing began...

Why Corbett is the father of modern Boxing..

Didn't have many lightning fast, bobbing and weaving heavies in John L's time...

But like I said it's opinions and yours is just as good as mine.

In your eyes anyway

I know some people prefer the old timers; but in a head to head?

Come on lads!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote: In your eyes anyway

Lol. Feeling's mutual mate.

Corbett wins. Feints Tyson and jabs him apart. Without wishing to claim Dave667's thunder - Peter Jackson does well vs Tyson as well.

I find this assessment frankly absurd.

Tyson Fury

fearlessBamber wrote:

Corbett wins. Feints Tyson and jabs him apart. Without wishing to claim Dave667's thunder - Peter Jackson does well vs Tyson as well.

I find this assessment frankly absurd.

Why Bamber? Tyson was always vulnerable to a jab. Corbett was as slick a boxer as any and had a great jab.

oxring wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:

Corbett wins. Feints Tyson and jabs him apart. Without wishing to claim Dave667's thunder - Peter Jackson does well vs Tyson as well.

I find this assessment frankly absurd.

Why Bamber? Tyson was always vulnerable to a jab. Corbett was as slick a boxer as any and had a great jab.

Slick for his era maybe, largely populated by sluggers or endurance fighters. Slick by later standards? Highly debateable.

Corbett like Tunney was slick for any era, how many slick boxers have their really been in the heavyweight division, it's mainly dominated by swarmers and brawlers with Ali, Holmes, Louis and Lewis being the only real exceptions even then Ali and Louis weren't afraid of a tear up.

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:

Corbett wins. Feints Tyson and jabs him apart. Without wishing to claim Dave667's thunder - Peter Jackson does well vs Tyson as well.

I find this assessment frankly absurd.

Why Bamber? Tyson was always vulnerable to a jab. Corbett was as slick a boxer as any and had a great jab.

Slick for his era maybe, largely populated by sluggers or endurance fighters. Slick by later standards? Highly debateable.

Goes back to the same question as the other day - can you do H2Hs across different eras.

Personally - I don't feel that humankind has evolved over the last 100 years and I don't think the sport has moved on THAT much either (although I accept that Corbett was a major step in style from Sullivan and Jeffries in training from Corbett).

They fought more often then against a wider variety of opposition. There was more opposition available to fight. I am prepared to accept limited footage, newspaper reports and trainers reports from the era as acceptable evidence.

I dont think it has to do with human evolution. But there is little doubt boxing has moved on significantly since Corbetts day.

Its one thing looking slick in an era that is widely accepted to be filled with cruder fighters from th bareknuckle London Prize Rule era. Its different altogether to being slick in comparison to later eras.

This is without even going into the traditional arguments of weight differences, modern techniques etc.

Corbett only needed to be slick and smart enough to outbox guys like Sullivan, Kilrain and Sharkey who bear little resemblence to the hevyweights of later years.

I certainly couldnt envisage Corbett giving Tyson a boxing lesson.

Because he only ever fought guys who crossed over from the bare knuckle days didn't he. Think Fitzsimmons, Jackson and Mccoy might disagree with your assertion.

oxring wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:

Corbett wins. Feints Tyson and jabs him apart. Without wishing to claim Dave667's thunder - Peter Jackson does well vs Tyson as well.

I find this assessment frankly absurd.

Why Bamber? Tyson was always vulnerable to a jab. Corbett was as slick a boxer as any and had a great jab.

Mate - I rate the old timers, but Corbett won the title in 1892, had around 25 fights and was stopped 3 times. I've seen him on tape and that fencing master style with his head right up in the air and his hands by his waist are invitation to the hospital against a 220 lbs Tyson.

He can't contain Fitz - how the hell is he going to keep Tyson off him ?

I actually think Dempsey might have decapitated him.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Because he only ever fought guys who crossed over from the bare knuckle days didn't he. Think Fitzsimmons, Jackson and Mccoy might disagree with your assertion.

? You just named 3 guys who did.

Scottrf wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Because he only ever fought guys who crossed over from the bare knuckle days didn't he. Think Fitzsimmons, Jackson and Mccoy might disagree with your assertion.

? You just named 3 guys who did.

All primarily gloved boxers who fought the occassional bare knuckle fight, big difference Scott

This is getting ridiculous. Are we really going back to the beginning of gloved boxing and saying nothing has changed much? Back when weights barely mattered and things had only just started to evolve from bareknuckle styles and rules?

I repeat. Corbett was considered slick in the day when he was fighting crude boxers by later standards. No doubt at the time his style was novel and had many praising it. Would it be remotely as impressive 50/60/70 years on? You are taking reports from people who were used to the bareknuckle style and would never witness the later eras as your basis.

Its like taking the opinion of the first people to witness a propeller plane in action and then using at evidence to say that a jet engine is isnt as good.

If nothing has changed much since that time why was Corbett seen as innovative?

Are we not entitled to have our own opinions without having people like you rubbish them all the time

It's a question. 'People like you' is a rubbish cop out because I believe a lot of factors from the past made them better boxers. There was progression from the start of the 19th century to a few decades later though.

Not sure when you try to big Corbett up you use the Fitz, Jackson and mccoy fights to do it Atom....

Hardly a great record against that lot..

The Mighty Atom wrote:Are we not entitled to have our own opinions without having people like you rubbish them all the time

If you could ever bother coming up with some tangible argument rather than some unfounded opinion that older was better it might help.

How can you possibly say having seen Corbett fight precisely no times that he was slick by any era?

manos de piedra wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Are we not entitled to have our own opinions without having people like you rubbish them all the time

If you could ever bother coming up with some tangible argument rather than some unfounded opinion that older was better it might help.

How can you possibly say having seen Corbett fight precisely no times that he was slick by any era?

I beg your pardon, where have I ever said older is better, if you want to go ahead and act like a tool be my guest

The Mighty Atom wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Are we not entitled to have our own opinions without having people like you rubbish them all the time

If you could ever bother coming up with some tangible argument rather than some unfounded opinion that older was better it might help.

How can you possibly say having seen Corbett fight precisely no times that he was slick by any era?

I beg your pardon, where have I ever said older is better, if you want to go ahead and act like a tool be my guest

Your constantly bigging up older era fighters based on the flimsiest of evidence. For example that Corbett was slick by any era. Or that Marciano was more skilled than the Klitschkos.

I have no problem with people thinking one era is better than another but what is your basis that Corbett is slick by any era? You havent seen him fight and all you have to go on is the opinions of people that never witnessed the majority of boxings eras.

I question if hes slick by any era based on the fact that the era he fought in was a transitional one populated with a different style of fighter, different rules and regulations, different glove sizes etc and the fact you dont need to be nearly as slick back then as you do in later eras. the entire style and manner which they fought was different.

Im also basing it on the principle that fighters evolved from then in style and technique and while Corbett may have been a pioneer of the time, his methods were improved and built on and adapted to by other fighters over later generations.

Im also going to acknowledge the fact that having never seen him fight its a pretty sweeping and unfounded statement to say that he is slick by any era. Even if he was, theres no way of telling and even less to base it on. The people that witnessed him only witnessed a fraction of boxing history so their opinions are confined entirely to the era they witnessed and cant be compared to eras the didnt see.

You just took issue because your opinion was questioned by a couple of people, as opposed to rubbished as you suggested.

So what your suggesting is that it's a more informed opinion to guess whether a fighter is silky rather than take into account the opinions of those who saw fighters from various eras. Think it's a bit rich to suggest i've got flimsy reasoning when your basing yours purely on generalisation but go ahead.

I've also never said Marciano was more skilled than the Klitschkos, better than them yes based on watching him fight but more skilled no.

manos de piedra wrote: I question if hes slick by any era based on the fact that the era he fought in was a transitional one populated with a different style of fighter, different rules and regulations, different glove sizes etc and the fact you dont need to be nearly as slick back then as you do in later eras. the entire style and manner which they fought was different.

Woah there! Hold that horse.

You definitely needed to be as slick back then as later - arguably slicker. Try slipping a punch with a tiny glove on, as opposed to the featherbed pillows they wear today.

This era picks up a lot of slick. Partly because its an era where boxrec is a bit limited - it has Sullivan only fighting a few times (under 50 if memory serves) - when we know he fought over 400 times.

Similarly with Corbett - and Jackson. You don't fight that many times and survive without serious injury - unless you have a good defence. Tyson's stance is the modern one - straight up, with bobbing and weaving. In those days, stance was off centre and the target sight line for the opponent's punch was the shoulder.

So the idea that the defence of Corbett and Jackson could trouble Tyson is not that ludicrous.

For a start - it would be something that HE certainly HADN'T faced before.

Now - was Tyson known for adapting well in the ring?

Not by me at any rate...

Manos is right and the word slick can be misleading.........

Fighters were more basic back then without a doubt and the slickness it took to achieve victory back then is not comparable to the slickness you need to deal with the more schooled modern day fighter....

You should read about the John L's of this World...great fighters yes but mainly strongmen who swapped punch for punch until someone hit the deck...

Different times watch Corbett and Fitz.....and you'll see where Manos is coming from

Anyone mind if I join this debate? 8)

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/corbett.html

"Before the arrival of Corbett onto the scene boxing was very much a sport that resembled no holds bared fighting more than it did modern boxing."

I think it's fair to assume that any analysis of his ring skills were against boxers without as far developed ring skills as we saw later on.

The Mighty Atom wrote:So what your suggesting is that it's a more informed opinion to guess whether a fighter is silky rather than take into account the opinions of those who saw fighters from various eras. Think it's a bit rich to suggest i've got flimsy reasoning when your basing yours purely on generalisation but go ahead.

I've also never said Marciano was more skilled than the Klitschkos, better than them yes based on watching him fight but more skilled no.

The Mighty Atom wrote:
What should also be considered is that running shoes and track are now designed for speed, give Owens access to that and he runs faster, give Bolt Owens conditions and he runs slower. Factors like that don't exist in boxing. Marciano was a natural 190lbs as was Holyfield so the actual size difference is minimal.

Marciano beat the best of his era without doubt while the K Bros may have done the same taking out weight they are rated far lower because they are lesser skilled.

No Im not saying anything of the sort that to guess is better than to take into account opinions of the day. What I a saying is that those opinions are only relevant to that day. I think everyone is in universal agreement that Corbett was slick in his day.

But how can it possibly be said he was slick compared to say the 50s/60s/70s/80s? We live in the present so we have the luxury of being able to reflect on the entire history of boxing. Th people that watched Corbett dont have that luxury and heir opinions are confined to what they actually saw and could comment on. If I were to say MAyweather was the best defensive fighter of all time my comments will have no bearing on comparisons to the great defensive fighters in 100 years. How can it?: I will never even have witnessed them.

Corbett established many of the principals of gloved boxing in era that was transitioning from bareknuckle and had scarcely been regulasid or standardised. Many of these principals were built upon by other fighters and adpted to - hence the development of boxing.

Nobody can say for a fact either way just how slick Corbett would be now, 10yrs ago, 20 yrs ago and so on. Its impossible to say. But we can look at how his slickness was regarded in the context of his own era where the style asnd rules were significantly different to now. Theres also no way anyone can say with any real authority other than sheer guesswork that Corbett would be slick by any era.

The you have consider Mike Tysons own strengths. A product of the much more moden era and rules, a 220 lb heavyweight with serious speed and power (we know this) up against Corbett who was basically a lightheavy and a product of the earliest days of gloved boxing. Again one can only speculate on the outcome but given that Corbett was stopped by a guy weighing not much more than Carl Froch we could safely assume Tyson has the power to stop him. The fact that Corbett is essentially a lightheavy doesnt bode well either becuase at the end of the day size matters in boxing and were the fight to happen today its unlikely Corbett would ever even share the ring with Tyson given the weight classes.

That comment was in relation to the relative skill of Marcianos opponents as opposed to that of the K bros.

I personally think Tyson beats Corbett with ease but you can't accuse someone of basing an opinion on what they've not seen when your in the same boat, bit hypocritical.

In short, Tyson would absolutely murder Corbett. To assume otherwise is frankly ridiculous. Any matchmaker with the benefit of a time machine who puts that fight together would be condoning murder.

Not sure how much this adds to the debate but we have seen plenty of Tunney in action and think to a man we all agree Tunney was a skilled and sublime operator. During his prime he indulged in a playful spar with a middle age Corbett and even allowing for his advancing years and the fact the session was obviously not full on Tunney was in absolute awe of Corbett's abilities and said his ability to feint and some of his defensive skills were truly sublime.

Now given Tunney was not noted for talking too kindly about his predecessors his words are probably worth listening too and speak well of Corbett's abilities.

azania wrote:In short, Tyson would absolutely murder Corbett. To assume otherwise is frankly ridiculous. Any matchmaker with the benefit of a time machine who puts that fight together would be condoning murder.

And Roy Jones would beat both of them right Az

The Mighty Atom wrote:That comment was in relation to the relative skill of Marcianos opponents as opposed to that of the K bros.

I personally think Tyson beats Corbett with ease but you can't accuse someone of basing an opinion on what they've not seen when your in the same boat, bit hypocritical.

Ok well if so then I apologize as I thought you meant in relation to the the aforementiond fighters. Would agree Marcianos were the more skilled.

My opinion isnt based on what I havent seen. Its based on the weight difference, changes in era and assumption that boxing has developed from those days with references to stylistic changes that can be traced, standardised rules and regulations and so forth.

I dont have a problem with people saying who would win one way or the other. Oxring has made a case for Corbett which I dont neccessarily agree with but I can see where hes coming from. I just take issue with things like he would be slick in any era because theres just no way of knowing, and even more importantly, almost nothing to base it on.

We can say he was slick back in the late 19th century for sure. But we also have plenty of evidence that boxing back then was significantly different to now and the changes and developments can be tangibly traced. Therefore I dont think its unreasonable to say that what was slick then is not neccessarily so now as we know boxing has come on from the majority of fighters and styles that Corbett faced.

rowley wrote:Not sure how much this adds to the debate but we have seen plenty of Tunney in action and think to a man we all agree Tunney was a skilled and sublime operator. During his prime he indulged in a playful spar with a middle age Corbett and even allowing for his advancing years and the fact the session was obviously not full on Tunney was in absolute awe of Corbett's abilities and said his ability to feint and some of his defensive skills were truly sublime.

Now given Tunney was not noted for talking too kindly about his predecessors his words are probably worth listening too and speak well of Corbett's abilities.

We could look at this scientifically
[/tr][tr]

Pros Tyson	Pros Corbett
Power	Reasonable power - stopped Sullivan
Head movement	Feints
Combination punches	Defence
Tired later	Stamina
Weak against a strong jab	Jab

By all means feel free to add.

Remembering that Corbett would fight over 25 rounds or more - I think its fair to say he had a pretty good stamina.

Should be also remembered that he was battering one of the most skilled boxers of all time in Fitzsimmons before being stopped. Yes, he did get decked by a 168lber - but Fitzsimmons had unreasonable power - most people accept this.

Writing Corbett off is perhaps premature.

oxring wrote:

rowley wrote:Not sure how much this adds to the debate but we have seen plenty of Tunney in action and think to a man we all agree Tunney was a skilled and sublime operator. During his prime he indulged in a playful spar with a middle age Corbett and even allowing for his advancing years and the fact the session was obviously not full on Tunney was in absolute awe of Corbett's abilities and said his ability to feint and some of his defensive skills were truly sublime.

Now given Tunney was not noted for talking too kindly about his predecessors his words are probably worth listening too and speak well of Corbett's abilities.

We could look at this scientifically
[/tr][tr]

Pros Tyson	Pros Corbett
Power	Reasonable power - stopped Sullivan
Head movement	Feints
Combination punches	Defence
Tired later	Stamina
Weak against a strong jab	Jab

By all means feel free to add.

Remembering that Corbett would fight over 25 rounds or more - I think its fair to say he had a pretty good stamina.

Should be also remembered that he was battering one of the most skilled boxers of all time in Fitzsimmons before being stopped. Yes, he did get decked by a 168lber - but Fitzsimmons had unreasonable power - most people accept this.

Writing Corbett off is perhaps premature.

Well the most glaring thing for me is the weight difference. Corbett would be closer to a lightheavy in todays terms than a heavyweight. He could probably make lightheavy easily. So I almost feel we are talking about two different weight class fighters here and that is pretty significant.

You could do a chart for Pacquiao against Pascal and even if Pacquiao held all the advantages in skills he would just be outgunned and outsized.

Tyson was always vulnerable to a jab, when Larry Holmes started jabbing it confused him for a bit and he didn't like someone moving away and outboxing him, but to be fair to Tyson he figured it out proving he can make adjustments, he understood boxing very well, not just a big puncher! also what happened to Larry Holmes is what would happen to Corbett, I can't see it mate...

I think the Spinks fight might be more relevant than the Holmes one personally.

Qawi and Mustafa were very complimentary about Michael Spinks skills too Rowley.....

He was murdered by Tyson..

Means sack all..

The corbett that lost to Fitz gets creamed..

Scottrf wrote:I think the Spinks fight might be more relevant than the Holmes one personally.

Nah because he just walked through Spinks jab outright, he was confused for a bit by Holmes jab, was just using it as an example that he could adjust to someone with a good jab, and please don't try and tell me that Holmes had a poor jab!

People forget Snipes and Shavers both had Holmes in big trouble......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:People forget Snipes and Shavers both had Holmes in big trouble......

What does that have to do with anything :S

AlexHuckerby wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I think the Spinks fight might be more relevant than the Holmes one personally.

Nah because he just walked through Spinks jab outright, he was confused for a bit by Holmes jab, was just using it as an example that he could adjust to someone with a good jab, and please don't try and tell me that Holmes had a poor jab!

He clearly means size wise

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:In short, Tyson would absolutely murder Corbett. To assume otherwise is frankly ridiculous. Any matchmaker with the benefit of a time machine who puts that fight together would be condoning murder.

And Roy Jones would beat both of them right Az

Ha

RJJ wouldn't get out of the first round against Tyson. Although RJJ had better footword, in terms of hand speed when throwing combos, they were very similar with the exception of the power difference.

As for the old guys, no nutritional drinks = no chance.

Which brings us back to the size difference.

If we're stuck on that

Lewis and W/V Klit both beat pretty much everyone else.

People tipping the scales at 250 plus, can punch, reasonably athletic - that would do it. Against almost everyone else in history/against everyone else in history.

I'm not sure the records bear this out. There's been big men throughout history - eg Carnera, Buddy Baer etc. In the past, during boxing's glory days - they were contenders not champions.

Size does matter...

But its not everything.

azania wrote:As for the old guys, no nutritional drinks = no chance.

Aye. If only lucozade and creatine had been around in Dempsey's day. Think how hard he'd have punched then!

And to think your only allowed to drink water inbetween rounds anyway

The Mighty Atom wrote:And to think your only allowed to drink water inbetween rounds anyway

Tell that to Pryor

Isotonic drinks too now in some places.

oxring wrote:Size does matter...

But its not everything.

When it's a LH against Mike Tyson it is.