If Tyson fought in the 70s he would not survive

Those 70s guys whom I would bet on as favourites to beat prime Tyson -

Muhammad Ali of 1972-74 vintage provided he's fully focused and in top shape.
George Foreman circa 1973-74.
Larry Holmes 1978-79 although I say this with hesitation. Prime Holmes around 55/45 favourite in my opinion.

Joe Frazier 1970/71 a 50/50 shot. Depends upon whether Joe's still standing after 5 rounds or so after taking copious punishment.


Tyson beats the rest. Joe Bugner and Jimmy Young could well take him the distance but would be well outpointed.

 

I concur with that breakdown.

 

Tyson was not on the same league as Ali. Even suggesting he could beat Ali in the 70s because he was “past his prime” is a stretch, considering that Ali had cleared out the whole division by 1976 at 34. Ali was formidable during that decade which doesn’t get talked about enough. Tyson would put up good fights against Frazier, Quarry, Young, Norton, maybe even Holmes; would Tyson beat them? Honestly don’t know. I cannot see Tyson beating Foreman and Ali however, sorry i just can’t.

 

Yes. Norton. But he would be likely lose to guys other than the top 4 or 5. Jimmy Young, Earnie Shavers and Ron Lyle are other ones. And thats 7. He could lose to guys hes better than too.

Not saying there wouldn't be times Tyson would be ranked higher than 10th. But if he fought in that era he'd be generally 10th. Opposed to generally 5th. Because prime Tyson reached the top so early it predated the emergence of anyone from his own era who'd likely beat him Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis or Moorer. And that leads to a division between people who think Tyson in the 80s could beat anyone or if Tysons dominance in the 80s was because of his competition. But IMO no one should be expecting Tyson or any of the aformentioned fighters to beat the top 70s guys regardless. Sure Tyson destroyed Holmes who could be a slow starter but that was Tysons best matchup of the top guys from that era and if they'd fought earlier(or dare I say later) it would not have been easy.

Tyson fought in an era where the top guys tended to be more point fighters and less sluggers. This really helped Tyson as a shorter power fighter. Tyson tried to overwhelm fighters quickly and usually could or at least damage the opponent beyond where they could rally. This meant his size and cardio didn't matter. But if this didn't work he was in trouble. And in the 70s it would work less often. If Tyson struggled against Lewis and Holyfield then George, Ali and Frazier would destroy him and he wouldn't be able to consistantly stop the fight early. Fighters in the 70s especially the top guys tended to hit harder be more durable, have more endurance and be more used to resistance. All of which would make Tyson less effective. Not to say he wouldn't be successful but his best wins would look more like the Tony Tucker fight and less like he did against Trevor Berbick, Carl Williams and Michael Spinks. He'd have a lot more competitive fights but would lose a lot of them. Earnie Shavers was a bit bigger and had more power than Tyson and he lost most of his big fights. I don't see Tyson outperforming Shavers. His power would translate less and his size would be an issue more.

I consider Foreman the best HW ever we heavily disagree there. George was never stopped by anyone except Ali on an off night and was able to go the distance with Briggs when he was 48. Foreman had more decisions in his 40s than Tyson did his whole career. I see no reason to expect Tyson who had an 8 inch reach disadvantage to stop prime Foreman. He would have had to get close to hit Foreman. And Foreman had a lot more power to hurt Tyson with than vice e versa and unlike most fighters he could do it with jabs.

 

Summed up perfectly my exact thoughts

 

Good joke man.
Tyson beats ALL of them.

 

Mike destroys both, and quite easy.

 

Tyson obliterates them all.

 

Elaborate

 

Tyson could not beat bums like Tillis and Buster Douglas he would not have a chance against Foreman and Ali.

 

Calling them bums shows how completely CLUELESS you are.
Tyson already beat Tilis.
And he was completely unprepared vs Douglas due to the turmoils in his life.

 

Morrison knocked him while Tyson almost lost and Tillis is poor mans Ali, I think even 1977 Ali beats Tillis like a drum.

That is his problem because he clearly lost and that is his official record, he is pro fighter who is paid for fighter so it is his problem if he was not prepared right because he was paid to.
Douglas was like poor mans Ali too.

 

Foreman was getting divorced around the same time he fought Ali. Notice nobody makes such excuses for other fighters.

 

these are such funny comparisons. Ali had more problems with Doug Jones than Tyson had with James Tillis. They were both at about the same stage of development, I would say Ali was higher. Liston had problems with Marty Marshal, Norton with Garcia, Foreman with Peralta, I'm not sure if Bowe beat Tony Tubbs and I don't even want to mention the defeats of Lewis or Wlad because I don't consider them as elite as the ones we're talking about.

I wonder if people who think that Douglas was beyond Tyson's reach are not surprised that it was Mike, not James, who ruled the heavyweight division for 10 fights and three full years. What did Buster do then? took care of his mother?

 

Cus D'Amato said this and that. 'No short swarmer beats Foreman, blablabla..' Well, folks, I do not agree with the great Cus' words. Remember how fast, effective and precise Tyson was with Rooney in the corner and him being young and mentally stable? I think Mike would stand a fair chance vs Foreman.