Would a prime Mike Tyson lose to any of the current top heavyweights?

If we're really being honest, it tells us more than that - about Douglas and what he was capable of back then, in his prime years.

Unfortunately, Ortiz started his pro career late and hasn't fought anyone of note; not before nor since Wilder. So there's little to compare against. And, at 39, was he anywhere near his prime? I don't think so.

But, Douglas was, when he fought Page, Tucker, Berbick and McCall. And, therein lie the big gaping differences, which make any realistic comparison an exercise in futility.

No. Douglas isn't an all time great but, in his prime, he was better than a 39-year-old Ortiz.

 

The thing is though, Ortiz didn't beat Wilder......

 

And Douglas didn't beat Tucker, which is the point at which this entire discussion is rooted.

 

Joshua- Joshuas jab, height, and thudding combos give Tyson problems early and he rocks him badly. If he can land the uppercut he used on wladmir Tyson might get KOed and would at least go down for sure. But we need to see more of joshua to get a better picture. tyson likely stops him in 6 in a thrilling war but anything could happen.

Fury-Tyson drops Fury early and wins a very narrow decision in a nail biter. Classic slugger vs outfighter chess match.

Wilder-3 possibilities. Either it becomes a brutal shootout where either Tyson or wilder ends up KOed within 3 rounds; or Tyson schools wilder and wins by wide UD or late round stoppage.

Ortiz-hmm, this is a hard one to figure out. I figure Tyson because ortiz is nearly 40 and his stamina isnt that great. However i cant just ignore ortiz enormous reach advantage along with his height, weight, and high ring iq. Tyson wins 7-8 times out of 10 but ortiz can crack and tyson never beat a good southpaw, let alone a huge hard hitting one so eh.

Whyte-probably ends up looking like the berbick fight to be honest. Whyte coming right at tyson with sloppy technique, poor defense and no head movement likely ends with whyte being koed in 4.

Parker-Parker stinks up the joint going down twice in the first couple rounds then goes in a survival mode. Probably ends up looking like a combination of tyson vs Tucker and foreman vs Stewart. Tyson wins an ugly lopsided decision.

Miller-Tyson pounds on the giant heavybag for 10 brutal rounds until the ref has seen enough and waves it off.

Basically a few guys have a chance of pulling it off, but none can be favored over Tyson. None of them have a remote chance of winning a decision except fury and even he would have to dig deep to pull it off.

 

povetkin, ortiz,fury and joshua all beat tnt.
Tnt is overrated, the the

The Only one big win that tnt has was buster douglas in a fight that buster lost more than tnt won. Buster was schooling him.
He ducked all the top 10 fighters of his era.
I pick prime Povetkin Joshua Ortiz Fury over him

 

Lol.

 

Prime Tyson could literally pick the rds's he'd ko them in of today's heavyweights. A better comparison in my opnion is could today's heavyweights could've beaten some of Tysons opponents. A Pinklon Thomas would be an ATG by today's standards.

 

The Douglas against Tyson, yes. He looked quite good for parts against Tucker, but folded quite easily from memory. Against Holy he looked horrible. He was inconsistent, in short. I'm not at all sure that Douglas was better overall than Ortiz.

Was the Douglas that faced Tucker better than the Ortiz that faced Wilder? Younger and more athletic, certainly. But he folded quite easily from memory whereas Ortiz come back from an early KD to take over the fight before he was knocked unconscious.

There was a reason that Douglas wasn't very highly rated before Tyson, even though he'd put together a string of victories since the Tucker fight. He was clearly talented, but inconsistent. Against Tyson he put everything together for one night and looked fantsatsic, but I don't think he was nearly as impressive when facing Tucker.

Because of the points above I'm not sure I agree with you.

Oh, yes, But that trick is lethal.

 

the obvious hole in this argument is that Pv Ortiz, Fury and Joshua all lack a big win too, and moreover, have barely a single prime world level win between them.


Its obvious TNT is above them with the exception of Joshua, probably.

 

Granted, Douglas was inconsistent but, despite this, he did beat better competition than Ortiz ever has. And, his performance against Tucker was quite solid (as was his performance against Page, the year prior), up until he got caught and drifted out of the 10th round.

Wilder was a significant step up for Ortiz and, to my mind, his age and conditioning showed. He just wasn't able, at this point, to push the envelope. Ortiz is a good technician and tough, as well, but he was worn out early, in my opinion, and hadn't really got going, to start with. Fair play to him for having Wilder in a little bit of trouble in one of the mid-rounds, but it was piecemeal and a mere blip on the way to the inevitable.

The difference in the quality level of the boxing, comparing each of the respective bouts, is clear to see. Douglas (Tucker) was better than Ortiz and there's nothing to really demonstrate the case otherwise, as far as I have seen. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Likewise. Because of the points I have made above and from the outset - particularly, the age of Ortiz; his lack of conditioning; the fact he had previously propped himself up with Nandrolone; the lack of anyone on his resume; his pretty much pedestrian performance against Wilder - I can't consider him better than Douglas was and so I can't agree with you.

Indeed. But, it can be diffused and/or absorbed by the right type of opponent. Fury is one such opponent.
Unfortunately, for Wilder, his trick is more or less the only trick in his tool bag.