Mike Tyson "weak" opposition

I've been lurking here for years and I just wanted to point out a few things regarding Tyson Opposition.

Tyson Opposition

People say that Tyson beat "bums" in the 1980s when the fact of the matter is that his opponents would have been stiff opposition for any heavyweight champion ever. No champion that we've seen thus far would saunter through that same gauntlet of opposition without encountering their share of trials and tribulations.

And we don't have to leave much to the imagination. We've seen Holmes vs Berbick, Spinks and Williams or Bowe vs a past his best Tony Tubbs or Lewis vs Tucker and Bruno.

Regarding Michael Spinks, many seem to think that he would have never fit in any heavyweight era. Just because he lost to a young Mike Tyson in one round doesn't mean that therefore any fighter who ever fell under the umbrella of "heavyweight" could have done the same thing. A 200- 212 lbs version of Michael Spinks likely would have been a top 5 or 10 contender in any heavyweight era, especially in the era of 185 lbs heavyweights. I was watching the late Harold Johnson Eddie Machen fight the other day. Johnson, at the time reigning LHW champion was weighing 181 lbs against the 194 lbs Machen. A fight which Johnson won, BTW. So you mean to tell me that Spinks at 200+ lbs would stand no chance vs Machen, when Harold Johnson at 181 lbs beat him, because I know if I started a Michael Spinks vs Eddie Machen thread, some goofball would say Machen would "destroy" Spinks because Spinks was a LHW. Uh no. Just because Spinks didn't make it against a young 218 lbs Mike Tyson doesn't mean that 194 lbs Machen or Folley or Cleveland Willams (knocked unconscious by 176 lb Bob Satterfield) or any other name your heavyweight who may have been a modern day cruiserweight here could do the same thing. That's just an obvious attempt to cheapen Tysons win over Spinks by implying any heavyweight, even one weighing 190 lbs could have done the same thing. They couldn't. And many of them would have met the same fate as Michael Spinks had they been in the ring with Mike Tyson on June 27, 1988. I'm virtually certain that Machen or Folley, even in their prime would not have made it past round 1 if you replaced Michael Spinks with any of them or any other 60s or prior contenders. And truth be told some 70s contenders.

Lastly, what do you think would happen if you took 6'3 210- 212 lbs Muhammad Ali from 64- 67 and put him against all of Tysons title opposition? Would he do better vs the same row of "bums"?

No.

Many of those fights would go the distance. Even 38 year old Holmes and blown up light heavyweight Michael Spinks . There'd be no 91 second blowouts. Ali especially the 60s version wouldn't have the power to demolish the same opposition. Spinks would likely lose a UD or perhaps be stopped late on his feet but in a relatively competitive fight. 38 year-old Holmes makes it the distance, likely giving a good account of himself, Bruno may be stopped late as he gasses, Biggs might go on cuts, Tony Tucker would have been a lot more aggressive and competitive because he wouldn't have to worry so much about Ali's punching power, ditto for Tubbs, Berbick would see the last bell, so would Thomas and Williams and perhaps Smith. Even a focused Douglas wouldn't have gone quietly. People would be baffled about how they'd be able to make a 60s Ali work for his money. And if anyone disagrees and think a 60s Ali breezes through these guys I'm open to hearing your well thought out analysis.

On the other hand if you put an 80s Tyson against Ali's 64- 67 opposition, the slaughters would be mass and the massacres uncompetitive. I can imagine a horrified Dempsey and Louis watching from ringside as Tyson batters a helpless and unconscious on his feet Henry Cooper or Brian London with a barrage of swift uppercuts to end matters in the first round. Think Tyson/Marvis Frazier except all of his title fights are over that quickly.

A young Mike Tyson might have been banned from boxing for everyone else safety had he fought in 64- 67. If anyone disagrees I'm willing to hear your well thought out, name calling free analysis.

 

I'm convinced that if a young Mike Tyson fought in the 70s, it would be a same script, different cast sort of deal.

Ali would be the only one who could possibly and realistically do it and even then, that's iffy.

Fraizer at 205 lbs, his best weight would be coming forward to trade punches with a harder hitting, 218 lbs puncher, who's faster and uses 2 hands and is very accurate. Tyson lands 3 or 4 punches in the amount of time it took Foreman to land 1 and he wouldn't have to shove because he had the footwork to use angles.

Foreman was too slow. In the rematch with Fraizer, a washed up Fraizer, when Frazier bothered to move his head, Foreman missed and missed. Tyson would have punished those misses with blistering combinations. And Foreman stumbled across the finish line vs Ron Lyle. I know it was after the Ali loss but a comparable position for Tyson would be Tyson vs Ruddock. If you took the Tyson of the Ruddock fight and replaced Ron Lyle with that Tyson, Tyson still would have stopped Foreman. He hit harder and faster than Lyle, better stamina and *at least* an equal chin.

All the rest wouldn't make it vs a young Mike Tyson

 

I'm more concerned about how those opponents would likely have done H2H if measured against the opposition of other champions. Not so much their paper records. Or their age.

The fact is, if you put a 38 year old Holmes in the 60s, he likely would emerge as say Ali's number 1 challenger. Who would have stopped it from happening? The return of Cleveland Willams? Especially considering the fact that a 42 year old Holmes was competitive vs prime Holyfield.

Tony Tucker, a 6'5 221 lbs heavyweight with legit skills would have been considered way better had he fought in that time frame. He would have likely been touted as the one to dethrone Ali or Liston and im not making judgement on how he does vs them, but he certainly stands out in comparison to their other opposition. Put it this way, how does any of those heavies do, even in their prime vs Lennox Lewis? As good as Tucker or Bruno?

Bruno would be considered to this day as some inhuman puncher had he been able to punch on the smaller heavies of that day.

As i said head to head, in the real world of the boxing ring, no heavyweight champion just smooth sails through Tysons opposition. If you disagree tell me who and why.

 

1. Tyson was never put out of his senses by a single punch, despite the punchers he fought. Even Lennox Lewis had to hammer a washed up, alcoholic Tyson for 8 rounds. And despite giving away like 25 lbs, never went down vs Ruddock despite catching monstrous shots. It's highly unlikely that the 220 lbs Foreman of the 70s would have made Tyson go down immediately from 1 or 2 or 3 shots. He'd have to land repeatedly. And in combinations. He threw 1 punch at a time while leaving himself wide open to be countered. It's also why I favor the great Joe Louis against him.

2. I hate to hearken back to Lyle, but that was a slugfest vs a fellow one at a time wide open puncher. Lyle wasnt boxing and moving and working behind the jab. He was going head up with Foreman whilst catching clean punches and didn't just fall over as soon as Foremans glove touched him. And he lost because he ran out of gas first. Why couldn't the Tyson who stopped Ruddock survive if we built a time machine and replaced Lyle with Tyson?

It's safe to say if we replaced Lyle with Ruddock that Foreman likely has to get up off of the canvas to win. And he'd best act quickly, because if he ran out of gas vs Ruddock and since Ruddock in those days had a solid chin and could last 12 rounds, a Dokes like KO could have happened vs a weary Foreman. No i dont rate Ruddock above Foreman. But realistically, a hard puncher Foremans size or heavier who could make it into the middle rounds is a dangerous foe. I'd say the same for Mercer.

3. Cus was speaking in general. He wasn't saying "You...yes you....Michael G. Tyson can never beat George Foreman. Ever. In your wildest dreams. No matter what". That was meant more for the Marcianos, Fraizers and Dempseys of the world. Plus Tyson wasn't a traditional swarmer and was arguably a lot more durable than those guys.

4. Watching Foreman Frazier is a bi weekly ritual.

 

While I may buy that Foreman hit harder than Lewis or Ruddock, but the question becomes how much harder? I don't buy that he at 220 lbs hit so much harder than Lewis or or Ruddock that he accomplishes in a few shots what it took them a combined total of hundreds of shots to accomplish. That's far fetched.

And Foreman was not a more efficient or effective puncher than Lennox Lewis by a long shot. Zaire goes very differently if Lewis replaced Foreman. Lennox Lewis would not throw wide looping shots that are easily countered until he's so tired a strong wind could knock him over.