Tyson vs old time fighters

Fighters before Tyson's time that could beat him h2h.

Only Ali is a fav in my head to head.

Holmes,Foreman and Liston might be 50-50 fights.

I think Mike beats the sh1t out of Frazier,Dempsey,Louis etc.

I know the hardcore readers, that love history will disagree with me. What I suggest is, watch old fighters without the rose tinted glasses and tell me, how these old time,lighter, slower fighters, deal with Mikes power and speed.

Don't point to his losses, we can do that with any fighter. Think of the olden time fighters at their best, and Tyson at his.

Deep down you will know Mike kills Rocky,Joe etc but will never admit it.

Frazier was quality only ever beat by 2 men in is career Ali and Foreman, involved in one of the greatest heavyweight fights of all time The thrilla in Manila, and also had A 73% KO ratio.

Frazier,Tyson is a 50/50 fight for me, as is Louis, I fancy Foreman the monster that beat Frazier to KO Mike and big fan of Holmes ( great Heavyweight) so fancy prime Larry, but if Tyson catches anyone clean they're in bother.

Frazier for me is tailor made for Mike. Great fighter, but even Dundee picked Tyson to beat Frazier.

nobody smaller than Mike beats him imo.

Louis better fighter for his time, but I can't see the slower 200 lb Joe bombing out Mike. If it went past 6 and he was still in the fight, he might win down the stretch,though I doubt it.

Marciano vs Mike would be like Bslboas first fight with Lang. Had to throw that in there, for the Rocky fans.

Dempsey vs Mike. Read the above.

Foreman takes him out in double quick time just like he did with Frazier, nobody goes on the offensive and lasts long, make Big George come to you and it's a different proposition however.

AdamT wrote:Frazier for me is tailor made for Mike. Great fighter, but even Dundee picked Tyson to beat Frazier.

nobody smaller than Mike beats him imo.

Louis better fighter for his time, but I can't see the slower 200 lb Joe bombing out Mike. If it went past 6 and he was still in the fight, he might win down the stretch,though I doubt it.

Marciano vs Mike would be like Bslboas first fight with Lang. Had to throw that in there, for the Rocky fans.

Dempsey vs Mike. Read the above.

Dundee picked Tyson to beat Frazier, Eddie Futch would argue differenly, Frazier would have gone in the same weight as Tyson in modern day, Frazier was slightly taller than Tyson.
Frazier slow, he was fast enough to drop and beat Ali and give him the fight of his life in Manila.

I don't think it's that simple Nico, Tyson whilst shorter was a lot bulkier than Frazier who looked terrible when he tried packing on the weight late in his career, just like Marciano that added bulk would affect his stamina.

Foreman and Ali win. Marciano gets crushed. Louis does his best work at mid range and so does Tus on so rwally need to mull that one. Instinct says Tyson. Liston Tyson would be a proper cracker and it's the fight of the century that one. Holmes vs Tyson is either one way or the other no tough fight no near misses. One guy just wins comprehensively.

Frazier is bloody tough so I'd probably lean towards a tight UD after being flattened a couple times or a Tyson blowout with the latter being more likelier than the former.

Beat me to the punch hammer. Tyson would have been a nightmare style for Ali and vice versa.

Mike's lack of discipline would be his undoing vs Ali. He would lose focus. To Frazier's credit, he was mentally strong so could push Ali all the way.

Unfortunately for wee Joe, Tyson hits much harder than Ali and would hit Joe clean and often.

Come on, shorter fighters will have no advantage vs Mike. They can't use the jab,then grab him anytime he lunges. Mike would bully Frazier and stop him in a few rounds

This is just my opinion but For me Mike Wins that fight easy.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't think it's that simple Nico, Tyson whilst shorter was a lot bulkier than Frazier who looked terrible when he tried packing on the weight late in his career, just like Marciano that added bulk would affect his stamina.

Frazier was a brilliant finisher, I think Frazier, Tyson would be a cracker, Frazier's bobbing and weaving style, Mikes fast hands and both can bang, you wouldn't dare blink if you were watching it.

Both fighters are capable of knocking each other out, can Frazier take Mikes power, can Tyson take Smokin Joe's left hook, 50/50 for me.

AdamT wrote:Beat me to the punch hammer. Tyson would have been a nightmare style for Ali and vice versa.

Mike's lack of discipline would be his undoing vs Ali. He would lose focus. To Frazier's credit, he was mentally strong so could push Ali all the way.

Unfortunately for wee Joe, Tyson hits much harder than Ali and would hit Joe clean and often.

Come on, shorter fighters will have no advantage vs Mike. They can't use the jab,then grab him anytime he lunges. Mike would bully Frazier and stop him in a few rounds

This is just my opinion but For me Mike Wins that fight easy.

Wee Joe as you call him beat the man you regard as the beat Heavy ever and gave him nightmares, I suggest you watch Joe's knockouts.
I can't recall Tyson fighting so called smaller men so haven't got a comparison, as I've said only 2 men to beat Frazier and that's  2 greats Ali and Foreman one of which he beat.
Ali the greatest ever IMO, Frazier beat him but has no chance against Tyson, sorry not having It.

It's a styles thing Nico, these arguments get too black and white. Frazier troubling Ali who was susceptible to the left hook and in the midst of adjusting his style doesn't mean he troubles everyone otherwise Foreman wouldn't have treated him with contempt.

Was Ali at his absolute best when he lost to Joe?

Nobody Mikes Size or smaller would beat him. Have you watched Mikes losses? Holyfield same weight and taller, absorbed everything Mike Threw and bullied him. Was also very dirty might I add, but that is an argument for another thread. He got the win.

Buster fought a beautiful fight. He had an 80 plus inch reach and was 6'4. He boxed superbly that night.

Lewis fought a shot Mike but he had the size and Jab to frustrate Mike. When he gets close,tie him up and then find range and use the jab. Mike stopped throwing combos and using good lateral movement long before Lewis.

Joe had a lot of heart and was certainly tough but I don't think he could take much punishment from a young Tyson.

It would be Foreman all over again.

Only my opinion, of course I could be wrong.Have been before.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's a styles thing Nico, these arguments get too black and white. Frazier troubling Ali who was susceptible to the left hook and in the midst of adjusting his style doesn't mean he troubles everyone otherwise Foreman wouldn't have treated him with contempt.

Frazier had a 73% KO ratio, so we assume the bobbing weaving Frazier isn't capable of catching Tyson, Frazier's left hook connects and Tyson's in trouble.

Tyson beats Foreman for me...Too fast and with a better defence than Frazier.....Be a more competitive Tyson v Berbick type fight....

Only oldie I see troubling Mike pre 1950 is Johnson...

But he'd need longer than 12....

Nico the gman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's a styles thing Nico, these arguments get too black and white. Frazier troubling Ali who was susceptible to the left hook and in the midst of adjusting his style doesn't mean he troubles everyone otherwise Foreman wouldn't have treated him with contempt.

Frazier had a 73% KO ratio, so we assume the bobbing weaving Frazier isn't capable of catching Tyson, Frazier's left hook connects and Tyson's in trouble.

I don't think the notoriously slow starting Frazier lasts long enough for his left hand to become a factor, give him time and he'll get that engine revving but attack from the start, catch him cold and he won't recover.

I used to think Frazier would win, because I was always reading old books, growing up.

Unless my own eyes deceive me, Tyson is too fast and strong. Not saying he should be ranked higher. He shouldn't, Joe has a deeper resume.

However h2h I think Mike is too much. Same with Louis,Dempsey and Rocco.

Tyson is all wrong for Frazier....wouldn't give him room for his beloved left....bigger,stronger and quicker....Be closer than Foreman v Joe though...George had murderous power...

6 or 7 rounds imo.

I'd take Louis, Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes and Ali over Tyson.

Why Louis? Why do you think he would win?

Heard Nico put up a good argument for Frazier, so don't expect any different reasons.

I would have Liston and Holmes 50-50. Maybe if Liston is as good as my dad told me, I would side with him.

Not trolling, genuinely interested on how Louis beats him. Do you think he is better, or hits harder?

AdamT wrote:Why Louis? Why do you think he would win?

Heard Nico put up a good argument for Frazier, so don't expect any different reasons.

I would have Liston and Holmes 50-50. Maybe if Liston is as good as my dad told me, I would side with him.

Not trolling, genuinely interested on how Louis beats him. Do you think he is better, or hits harder?

Louis was a 15-round fighter while Tyson lost a lot of steam after 6-7 rounds. Louis would also hold a massive advantage inside; Tyson had next to no inside game. Louis would take him to the cleaners up close.

Tyson would have a shot at taking Louis out early (this pair are probably the two finest finishers in heavyweight history) should he stun Joe early.

I'd take Louis to steadily chip away at Tyson before taking him out late. Tyson had a superb chin but Louis had the power to halt him.

AdamT wrote:I used to think Frazier would win, because I was always reading old books, growing up.

Unless my own eyes deceive me, Tyson is too fast and strong. Not saying he should be ranked higher. He shouldn't, Joe has a deeper resume.

However h2h I think Mike is too much. Same with Louis,Dempsey and Rocco.

Frazier had too much will. He climbed off the canvas three times to halt Bonavena and - despite suffering an unbelievable drubbing from Foreman - kept getting up; kept trying to win.

Every time Tyson was dropped he lost. Once the heavy flak started flying, Frazier would be the guy who kept rolling. He'd outwork Tyson and murder him inside. He might have to climb off the canvas to do it mind you.

Tyson is a different animal to the people frasier beat. Ali aside who were the best he beat? Quarry, Ellis and Bugner?

I think that era over rated (It was more strength in numbers). There were a lot of good fighters who fought each other, and this provided entaining fights. I think the brilliant fights are often mistaken for brilliant fighters.

The depth of decent talents meant there were a variety of styles competing against one another, and this gave rise to great bouts.....and a over inflated sense of the greatness of the champions and contenders.

Tyson beats Frasier, early.

Beats Louis in a couple rounds.

Maybe it's drugs or evolution but, Louis was a cruiserweight. Tyson murders him.

3fingers wrote:Tyson is a different animal to the people frasier beat. Ali aside who were the best he beat? Quarry, Ellis and Bugner?

I think that era over rated (It was more strength in numbers). There were a lot of good fighters who fought each other, and this provided entaining fights. I think the brilliant fights are often mistaken for brilliant fighters.

The depth of decent talents meant there were a variety of styles competing against one another, and this gave rise to great bouts.....and a over inflated sense of the greatness of the champions and contenders.

Ali aside? That's a tad harsh. He whupped the greatest ever heavyweight with an intoxicating blend of work rate, power and sheer guts. Ellis, Machen, Quarry and Chuvalo were all tough competition. The same could be asked of Tyson. Frazier beat better men.

Frazier's era was the best in history. There were so many quality heavyweights on the scene it was unreal.

The Ali era was strength in numbers you're right fingers but that included three bonafide greats sandwiched by Liston and Holmes. The best of the rest included top quality, when Young, Ellis and Lyle are after thoughts you realise how much quality was about.

AdamT wrote:Beats Louis in a couple rounds.

Maybe it's drugs or evolution but, Louis was a cruiserweight. Tyson murders him.

Louis was around the same size as Tyson. Tyson 10 pounds heavier - Louis a few inches taller with a way longer reach.

Tyson could get to Louis early but it would be a sensational win rather than the formality you're suggesting.

I think we agree for once Haz, it's either Tyson early or Louis late; boxers give Tyson trouble and give him his dues Louis was a fantastic boxer who was troubled by movers and Tyson was no mover. He gets past the first three rounds and he starts to manoeuvre Tyson around the ring, beating him to the head and the body before a trademark combination takes him around the 9th round.

I agree could be Louis late. But he has been knocked down too early many a time.

Sorry guys, not trolling but Louis for me doesn't see the 3rd.

10 pounds is a lot of mass when a fighter is 2 or 3 inches taller.

Floyds better than GGG, doesn't mean I would pick him. Same goes with Louis. Better for his era. Perhaps, but he can't beat Mike.

Don't think Frazier does either, but he stands a better chance than Louis.

Tyson isn't invincible as fan boys suggest, but he was bloody good. Also he wasn't that bad in 2nd halves of fights, when trained by Rooney.

Anyway best 4 round fighter ever imo and Louis problem is, I really don't think he would see 4 rounds.

Who knows maybe he could of proved his greatness and beat Mike, though can't see it.

Can't see Jesse Owens beating Bolt either, or Nichalus woods. Anyways this is my opinion.

I guess boxing evolution dictates Tyson hammers everyone prior to 1980 but doesnt stand a chance against the current heavyweights.

Foreman in his early days would be too much for Tyson and in his second coming I still think it would be 50-50. Tyson wouldn't frighten Big George and not many got up after being hit by one of Foreman's shots. Frazier also I think would come out on top and Holmes would out jab him and win on points. Liston wouldn't give him an easy night and what about Johnson? He would dance out of his way all night and frustrate Mike. If Joe Louis landed one on Tyson it would be all over.

If Louis landed one it would be all over? Tyson had a solid chin.

If Braddock and the obese Alco, Galento could drop Louis, what do you think Tyson would do?

If Tyson landed it would be all over.

rapidringsroad wrote: Foreman in his early days would be too much for Tyson and in his second coming I still think it would be 50-50. Tyson wouldn't frighten Big George and not many got up after being hit by one of Foreman's shots. Frazier also I think would come out on top and Holmes would out jab him and win on points. Liston wouldn't give him an easy night and what about Johnson? He would dance out of his way all night and frustrate Mike. If Joe Louis landed one on Tyson it would be all over.

Tyson would have stopped old George. He was so easy to hit. Moorer teed off on him throughout their bout. Alex Stewart absolutely battered him. Tyson would have stopped him.

AdamT wrote:If Louis landed one it would be all over? Tyson had a solid chin.

If Braddock and the obese Alco, Galento could drop Louis, what do you think Tyson would do?

If Tyson landed it would be all over.

Louis also had a good chin. Schmeling had to virtually nail him to the canvas. Douglas had to do the same to Tyson. Tyson may well have scored an early stoppage but neither of these heavyweights would go out with one punch. Only one great heavyweight (Lewis) ever did.

Not saying Louis had a bad chin, but Tyson hit like a mule.

I will leave this topic alone. Don't want to sh1t over Louis all the time. Just can't see a 200lb heavyweight that fought 40years earlier, being able to beat Tyson.

Is boxing the only sport were athletes get worse?

Tysons prime years were 30 years ago. He was trained by an old school teacher who began training fighters in Joe Louis' time. Tyson trained doing the same sames - sparring, hitting bags, running, skipping etc using a style that had been around for decades taught by a trainer that trained fighters from the 1930s.

Tyson may as well be equally consigned to the scrap heap of dinosaurs using boxing evolution.

AdamT wrote:Not saying Louis had a bad chin, but Tyson hit like a mule.

I will leave this topic alone. Don't want to sh1t over Louis all the time. Just can't see a 200lb heavyweight that fought 40years earlier, being able to beat Tyson.

Is boxing the only sport were athletes get worse?

Boxing isn't athletics. Despite all the potions and paraphernalia around these days, ring craft has regressed and heavyweights can't fight at a pace over 12 rounds never mind 15.

Louis and Tyson were a similar size also.

Tyson's optimum weight was around 220lbs whereas Louis' was 200lbs, that is far too big a gap to call similar.

hazharrison wrote: Boxing isn't athletics....... ring craft has regressed.

Seriously, that is a bold statement, please explain.

Good point hammer and Tyson was couple inches shorter. They say every inch, should be roughly 5-7 pounds difference, if two guys have similar builds.

Say Louis was 6'1 and 200lb

Tyson 5'10 at 218

add another 15 lbs due to height, then Tyson has 30lbs of muscle on Louis.

Anyway not going to change opinions of others, but it is ludicrous to state Louis was Tyson's Size. You could say he is better, that is opinion and I can't tell anyone Louis isn't.

However saying Tyson is more powerful is a fact.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Tyson's optimum weight was around 220lbs whereas Louis' was 200lbs, that is far too big a gap to call similar.

I said similar sized. Tyson around a stone heavier at 215 but 3 inches shorter with a 5 inch shorter reach. In this imaginary world surely Louis would be privy to the gunk Tyson used to pack on a bit of bulk?

That seems to be the go to defence but we have no way of knowing how packing on extra affects Louis so it sort of fails as an argument, it's not as simple as saying he stays the same boxer just a bit heavier.

I don't see any real similarity in size between the two, considering the shorter man is the significantly heavier man the difference in muscle between the two is huge.

Well we can only rate them as we see them.

I never said Louis wasn't greater for his time. He obviously was, his record was great. Maybe not the highest caliber of opponents, but 12 years champion is some going.

I just can't see him beating Tyson. It is all hypothetical really.

I respect if others favour Louis

3fingers wrote:

hazharrison wrote: Boxing isn't athletics....... ring craft has regressed.

Seriously, that is a bold statement, please explain.

I don't believe there's anything bold about it. Who today can boast outstanding ring craft? Floyd, Hopkins, Marquez. Ward maybe. Rigo perhaps.

Modern fighters don't actually fight much these days. They don't fight often enough to develop the ring savvy of fighters even from the 80s. Techniques have been lost down the generations. The likes of Hopkins and Ward are students of history, of men like Burley, Moore, Charles, Robinson etc. Look at how easily Hopkins can diffuse modern champions, who are rendered one-dimensional athletes after a few rounds with him. The likes of Bouie Fisher, Bill Miller and George Benton built Hopkins, Toney and Whitaker on old school foundations far more widespread in the 30's, 40's and 50's.

I agree with you on this Haz.

Makes a change haha

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That seems to be the go to defence but we have no way of knowing how packing on extra affects Louis so it sort of fails as an argument, it's not as simple as saying he stays the same boxer just a bit heavier.

I don't see any real similarity in size between the two, considering the shorter man is the significantly heavier man the difference in muscle between the two is huge.

There are plenty of potions that can pack on a bit of muscle without compromising speed or stamina (side effects may include hair loss, mood swings and gappy teeth....cough cough).

If the overriding factor in these imaginary fights is weight then you may as well just rank fighters from heaviest on down and be done.

The weight disparity is equal to Ali-Frazier, only Tyson is shorter and more squat. It isn't a factor for me (in my own imaginary land).

AdamT wrote:I agree with you on this Haz.

Makes a change haha

Yeah, you wanna watch that. Damage your street cred.

No Haz you do have good knowledge. You just lean more to old school fighters.

Nothing wrong with that. I do sometimes, especially in lower weights.

I am going to lay off Louis, at times I do down play his achievements. Perhaps I just think some overrate him.

Maybe I'm guilty of under rating him. Anyway if we all agreed, what would be the point of debating.

I value everyone's opinions and always try to learn something on here.