Article on Mike Tyson vs the early Heavies

In my honest opinion, none of those dudes from the 20s/30s/40s (and earlier) could hand with the boxers from the 1960s-today. Today's fighters are more athletic, stronger, bigger, and waaay quicker than the oldies. Especially guys in the era of Jack Johnson, all they really did was bumrush.
Tunney, Dempsey, Sullivan, none of them could even be contenders today, probably not even top 20, It's the evolution of sport. No disrespect meant to these guys, they were great for their generation.

Different generations though, and ours is better.

 

Thank you for that . im studying tyson and this is helpful

 

>Says the severe Tyson fanboy

 

I just don't see any of those heavyweights competing in today's age. Andy Ruiz Jr is 6'2 and would be considered a giant back in the 30s/40s. David Haye, the last great small heavyweight IMO, was 6'3 and would be considered a giant back in those days. None of the boxers in the 30s/40s have the skill of David Haye and would not be able to hang in with the modern greats.
Not trying to diminish their accomplishments, but boxing is a whole different sport than it was.

 

Sorry but this is nonsense...

 

No, I don't believe so. I think David Haye could beat Joe Louis.
Haye was Slick, especially against the ropes and head great movement. See how he outboxed Nikolai Valuev, a dude who has WAY BIGGER and had a WAY LONGER reach, and Haye still outboxed him! He did it with speed and slickness. Louis would not be able to keep up.
Not saying Louis could not hurt Haye, that is always a possibility. Joe definitely had a punch, but as Ali said, "It doesn't matter how hard he can hit when the sucka can't find nothing to hit!"

 

A lot of the heavyweights back then were either at 200 or around that, and were generally around 6ft.
Muhammad Ali was 6'3 (really 6'2.5 but listed as 6'3) and had a height and reach advantage on nearly everybody he fought (Exceptions I can think of off the top of my head are Foreman at 6'4 and Terrell at 6'6, and Liston did have some reach on him)

While size isn't everything, especially in a sport like boxing, a height/weight/size advantage is a great advantage to have. Nonetheless skill trumps any size advantage, and even then I think today's top heavyweights would outclass the older legends.

 

Valuev was slow and bulky, but I just think Joe's style does not match up against Valuev well.
Valuev has never been KO'd, he has been shook before (Haye shook him multiple times in the fight and forced him to coverup/clinch) so I think Louis would win by KO/TKO, but put Joe against David Haye and Haye would have a field day.

I kind of like the sound of that. David "Field Day" Haye.
Edit: To clarify, I think that although Joe's style of methodically standing there does not pair well against a big man like Valuev, he would still beat him because of his power.

 

Yeah, but being 6'2 didn't make you a giant in any era. Jess Willard was a giant and he was 6'7. Primo Carnera was a giant. 6'2 is the height of Joe Louis or Jack Dempsey, they usualy fought at size disadvantage.

 

Louis beat a lot of large fighters, most of them better than Valuev.

 

You right, "giant" wasn't the right word to use. Except when talking about Ruiz Jr, because the man is huge. Heh.
The most modern heavyweights of today, 2000s-2010s, like Wilder, Fury, the Klitschkos, & AJ would be considered giants though. I think they would all dominate in that era too.

 

I strongly dislike Mike Tyson?