How big is too big?

Didn't do too well against Douglas did he? Please don't bother with all the garbage about him drinking, screwing around, and doing soft drugs, because it is crap. He had been doing exactly the same for years previous to that ( since the death of Cus D.). He just didn't know what to do when the guy decided to fight back, and fight back hard.

 

The idea of a man Tysons size being "big enough" to dominate superheavyweights is feasable. There have been more great heavyweights under 230 than over. Vitali is the only great fighter never to scale less than 230. All the others were lighter at some point.

 

And your point is? Every heavyweight champion big or small has lost apart from Rocky. Douglas in Tokyo looked a whole better than Wladamir has ever done, doesn't mean on that night he would have beat him. Boxing has way too many variables for clear cut outcomes.

 

If Tyson appeared on the scene now he'd make short work of the competition out there. Even though the mid to late eighties was not a strong era there was greater depth of competition than there is now. The speed and power that he had would make mincemeat of the current opposition including the Klitshcko's.

 

Vitali at his best was a different animal to Wladamir, he wouldn't fall down as easily and was more aggressive aswell as more active. As good as Tyson his, I can't see him walking through Vitali so easily. I can accept that he'd win a points decision, don't think he'd get a stoppage.

 

To the main thread, I think the weight depends on the fighter and his frame. I would say that Wlad, Vitali and even Lewis are probably outliers. I think most of our heavies will still be in the 6-2 to 6-4 range and about 225-235. That said, it is possible and futhermore likely that a smaller guy will occasionally capture lightning in a bottle, tho their stays at the top do not tend to last as long.

 

The training trend has been to come in heavy the last 15-20 years or so but I think that trend has become exhausted. I am encouraged by the weight of Detonay wilder and Anthony Joshua, big dudes who don't feel the need to bulk up to 240, 250.

 

I think whatever your trim (ie not fat or roided) walking around weight is, if you are a great puncher you can knock out guys who have a 30 pound advantage over you physically. So if you are a natural 200 pounder you can still knock out a 230 pound man, and they mostly don't come any bigger, except for the 6'5"+ super-heavyweights. After you give away 35+ pounds of muscle and bone and four or five inches of height, it's hard to keep guys honest and respecting your power. That's really a different weight class at that point. Unless they have a glass jaw, bad technique, or are weak arm punchers themselves, you don't belong in the ring with them.

 

The point is self explanatory. Good big uns beat good little uns, and that night Buster was the good big un. The next fight he showed he could just as easily be a bad big un. Tyson however just went back to being a good little un.

Whether people like it or not Lewis, Vitali, and the unbeaten in almost 10 years Vlad, ARE good big uns.

 

That's besides the point, Tyson also lost to the lighter Holyfield. He also beat the much bigger Ruddock who I believe would have knocked out Douglas.

 

Your not very bright Foxy 01,even if Tyson was 100%(which he def, wasn't),how does ONE loss to a 6'4" 230lb dismiss all the previous equally large men he destroyed? When he destroyed Biggs 6'5" young Olympic champ who boxed correctly,stick and jab,why did that fight not prove to you height meant nothing? What about when he out jabbed and one every round over 6'5" Tony Tucker? How about earlier in his career when he crushed(in 1 round)6'6" Richardson? 6'5' Staff? 6'6" Ribalta? If you watch those fights they ALL fought back hard BUT LOST! What about all the 6'3" fighters? Holmes,Tubbs,Thomas,Williams(6'4") Are you so dumb you don't realize if your short and fight that way,it can be an advantage. Treavor Berbick said before his fight with Tyson he hated short guys because they were "tricky" and no one perfected the "short man" style more than Mike.Look at his physique in the Douglas fight,it wasn't as ripped indicating he trained lightly,plus,with Buster's crappy record, mentally Tyson was extremely overconfident and not motivated.Stop judging Tyson on a bad period in his life and at the end when he had nothing left.Tyson was great,why do you think the current heavyweight scene sucks so much now?ANSWER:WE MISS TYSON! IDIOT.

 

I respectfully disagree,with the huge reach disadvantage Tyson would either eat the jab all night,and then take the crushing right hands(and be knocked out)Or,as he always did,slip the jab get inside and land bombs,and the Klitschkos have never been hit as hard,or fast from anyone.The only problem I see is if Mike got held and complacent when he finally got inside,he must work hard once inside.

 

Crawl back under your stone you moronic lowlife. You are an insignificant Tyson excuse monger. He fought bums, junkies, alcoholics, and has beens until he came up against Douglas, and NO they didn't fight back hard, whereas Douglas did.

He was as fit for the Douglas fight as he had been for the previous 6 fights, whether a ****** like you believes that or not is of no consequence to me.

Where you scumbag fanboys make normal people sick is your pea sized brains can't understand that mental strength is just as important as physical attributes, and your fvcking boy just didn't have any.

Go find a window to lick.

 

Foxy, Douglas's size was no more relevant than his combinations in that fight, don't forget that Tyson beat Tucker who was as big as Douglas and who also beat him. Size wasn't the factor in him destroying Mike, he dictated the pace in that fight and got off first. He boxed beautifully and Mike had no answer for it.

 

I think that we have to accept that Tyson at the very least, met Douglas half way that night.