Honestly, I do not think that Prime Mike Tyson would beat Wilder, Joshua, and Fury

Relative to prime Holmes, he was shot to pieces. I'll grant he did perform much better against Mercer and Holyfield, but he had been very active within the context of a sincere comeback attempt, rather than the two-year inactive version who got up off the couch to fight Tyson. I'm sure you've heard the story how King sold Larry on that fight. Don't be daft.

 

Then explain his early 90's performances when he was in his 40's.

 

Yes, his resume is devoid of quality. Moreover, his adherents invented an "out-of-prime at 23" rule for him that never has been extended to any other fighter (other than for severe injuries and so forth). If you factor in, say, his entire 20s, you see a dynamic but highly flawed fighter.

And he benefited as a midget fighting mostly other midgets, or else lumbering oafs who would get wiped out by today's modern SHWs.

 

See above.

 

I'd say Mike's era was stronger.

 

Without question fighters he fought came to fight and win, some were present or ex World Champions, so no shrinking violets in that group for sure.

As we know Tyson built a aura of invincibility about himself so yes lot of fighters were beat before they even got in the ring, again our sport is littered with examples of Champs who beat em before the bout even started.

I do not believe that a boxer can have mental health issues outside the squared circle to the level Tyson had requiring psych meds, to not carry those issues into the ring, especially if those meds have to be stopped or be moderated to allow him to fight.

 

Relative nothing.

You've clearly exaggerated.

 

How can it be devoid of quality?

And if it really was, what does that say about the quality of the resumes of the guys in question?

Midgets fighting midgets?

Lumbering oafs?

You're just another clown who has no knowledge of his era, who has no intention whatsoever of having an actual debate.

 

We can agree to disagree on Holmes/Tyson.

You second paragraph illustrates the problem with most bedazzled Tyson advocates. Any shortcoming in the ring gets written off to poor preparation, not his obvious limitations. That he get dominated and knocked out at 23 is somehow irrelevant in all head to head matchups. If only we could engineer all of our arguments this way!

Disagree on Tucker. I do agree Wilder has issues and would be — and will be — in danger against skilled punchers. However, Tyson's midget size would offer Wilder a couple different ways to win. I'm not trying to dismiss Tyson as a champion, only note that it's a new era now and he'd struggle more than he did then. I doubt any of the three fighters will match his achievements over the course of a career, but head to head he's in trouble.

 

If you want to amend "shot to pieces" to "severely declined," then I'm okay with that.

But no way would prime Holmes be anywhere close to an 8 to 1 underdog against Tyson. The betting public understood he took a payday and a likely ass whipping to further propel Tyson to stardom.

 

To clarify, it lacks quality in terms of any *one* win that would suggest he could handle Joshua, Fury or Wilder. It does not lack quality over a career, because he did notch a lot of solid wins and many in emphatic fashion. I'm a Tyson fan for that reason.

But this is a *head to head* discussion, and his resume lacks the kind of scalps that suggest he could adjust well to a much larger species of HW.

You also might want to double back on your logic. It's dubious to accuse someone of not wanting an "actual debate" when in that very same sentence you reduce yourself to personal attacks. I can argue my points without lowering myself. Can you?

 

I will acknowledge that Mike wasn't perfect. He did have flaws. But if you knew anything about the guy, you'd have to know that by the time the Bruno fight came around, he was simply a different fighter to the one who'd beaten Berbick and Holmes.

He'd stopped training to his full capabilities and studying old reels of past greats. He wasn't as sharp. His defence wasn't as tight. He cut corners. He was surrounded by different people and involved in a sham of a marriage. He'd already reached the top of the mountain. Instead of dedicating himself fully, he began partying and womanising. A young guy from the streets, with a huge ego and millions of dollars at his disposal. He was never going to have longevity.

He showed up for Douglas without a care in the world and paid a heavy price. But you're trying to push the idea that he just beat up bums, but lost as soon as he stepped up his competition. You think that I'm ignorant because I'm claiming that he was past his best at just 24, yet it's you who's ignorant for ignoring his circumstances.

If it hadn't have been Douglas, it'd have been someone else shortly afterwards. Again, the signs were there against Bruno in 1989. If you watch the Douglas fight, you have to see that Mike was lethargic. You have to see that he tired early. Douglas was the best man on the night. And all credit to him. But he did not fight the versions of Mike who'd beaten the likes of Berbick and Spinks. How can you just dismiss the fact that he was been dropped by Page in sparring and that he hardly did any roadwork or serious training?

Let's just clarify a few things here:

1. Are you claiming that Mike was at his best against Douglas, where he fought to his fill capabilities?

2. Are you saying that no version of Mike could have beaten Douglas?

Regarding Wilder, again, he'd have had tremendous difficulty in trying to detonate his big right hand. Mike would have bobbed and weaved at speed, causing havoc for Wilder's timing. So I'd love to know the ways in which he could have beaten Mike. Because the stylistic match up would heavily have favoured Mike. He could have gotten inside a lot easier than Wilder could have set Mike up with something big. His size would actually have been a disadvantage in the fight. Also, everytime you use the word 'midget' you lose a little bit more credibility.

 

Saying that he was faded/clearly past his best would have been sufficient.

 

Hey, I'll debate you all night if you wish. But people are going to label you as a 'clown' when you're ignoring circumstances and ignorantly labelling people as 'midgets' and 'lumbering oafs' etc.

Debate objectively, and I'll respect you.

Yes, I know you're looking at a hypothetical H2H scenario.

Again, they would all be intriguing fights. But Wilder would be the easiest of the 3 for Mike, due to his huge flaws.