Mike Tyson KO1 Jack Johnson?

If we don't consider what's probable, one prediction is as good as the next. I can just as easily pick Pete Rademacher to beat prime George Foreman or Ray Robinson to beat Joe Louis. I'm sure that there is some unforseen scenario in which both could happen. But if we're going on serious probabilities, then those picks make no sense.

 

Did Douglas look any better than than other HW fighters is what I asked. Douglas did what he needed to do, his place in history is secure. But look at the man he was facing that night. Look at what Tyson was doing that night. Did Douglas look any better than Spoon did against Smith first time round for example? Did he look any better than Valuev did against Lyakhovic?

I asked how you scored the Hart vs Johnson fight.

Page knocked out Tyson just like Gunboat knocked out Johnson.

 

If probability was a good enough indicator of what will happen, we'd all get rich from betting on the sport.

Again, I think Tyson wins. But if he prepares the same way he did against Douglas, he doesn't.

 

In 1 rd it is. Tyson talks trash and NEVER backs it up. Rapo puss. How can you have a thugpunk like this as a hero?

This poster is too stupid to even answer. Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level & beat you with their experience.

 

If we use Johnson's losses against Klondike or Choynski, why don't we use Tyson's losses from the early 2000s? I mean, Johnson was less relevant in 1899-1901 period than Tyson was in the early 2000s. He started to make some noise in 1902 and wasn't fully developed challenger until 1904.

 

Johnson was 21 when he first fought Klondike.George Siler the famous referee saw the fight he said "Johnson had not a thimbleful of victuals inside him,he did well early but gradually weakened."He was considerably lighter than he was in maturity too he was described as a black Bob Fitzsimmons.
According to the Chicago Tribune this was one of six bouts put on at the Howard Theatre by the Illinois Athletic Club. "...Johnson, a long rangy colored man from Springfield, looking something like Fitzsimmons in black, showed up well at the start, but weakened under the steady but ponderous attack of 'Klondike'..."

 

Remember as well, the loss to Choynski wasn't legit. It was supposed to be an exhibition bout with pulled punches, but Choynski was there with bad intentions and when he saw an opening, he didnt pull his punch, instead landing a full unprotected heavy shot.

Haynes lost in the rematch to Johnson.

Griffin and Johnson fought on near even terms.

The early record of Johnson is nowhere near as spotty when you actually look into it.

If we wanna talk early century champions who Tyson would run right through, don't pick a defensive specialist who spent a decade as the best in the world.

Pick a more primitive specimen like James Jeffries.

 

Because we've seen the clinch box tactic doesn't work on Mike Tyson. Smith and Ferguson for example. You need to be able to control him with jabs and uppercuts like Douglas. . Johnson and is modern day counterpart Wladimir. K would be slept by Mike. Like you said the clinch wouldn't be effective

 

Was Jeffries more primitive? I don't think it's true at all, Jeffries was a good boxer.

 

You're the one who is clueless about boxing, not me.

 

Hey master, show us your list of opponents against which you proved that you are more skilled, faster, stronger and smarter than world champions.

 

Tyson doesn't even need to train, the skill gap is just too big.

 

World champions from over a century ago.
I repeat, there are amateurs out there that are better than they were.

 

His skills are probably underated but I wouldn't call him a "good boxer," he finished a 22 fight career with scar tissue above both eyes,a cauliflower ear and a thrice broken nose.Near 40 years old Fitzsimmons was described as hitting him when and where he wanted in their second fight,he traded heavily on his durability and powers of endurance
,to overcome better skilled men.imo