Would Mike Tyson Be Simply Too Small, To Be Successful Now?

It's not about putting on just size though. That's not actually why they'd be using PEDs, unless the goal was specifically that.
Rather, it's increased recovery time, vastly increased capacity to train as a result of the better recovery rate, and very noticeable strength gains.
It really is a game-changer, it must be said.
You can sometimed see the 'acne back' on some boxers. Shannon Briggs and Andrew Golota has very noticeable acne backs.
There are some health concerns such as increased blood pressure, but it's a small price to pay for winning a fight.

 

This is normal way to bring up a prospect and at least Wlad's opponent's almost always looked more promising than he: younger, not rarerly from larger countries than Ukraine etc.

Btw, this normal flowchart how a prospect should be developed was for example Gerald.
He beated up row with bums, even dudes with only lost fights on pro records, then beated up formerly good boxer who had 4 last fights lost in row and get a title shot.
He won this one boxer and then they assumed that Nigel is enough old to beat him up to get next belt.

Way to develop prospect good to sell was well known: high KO ratio, 0 in fight record, beat some earlier better fighter over the hill and then vuala, hero is born there.

Wlad is considered as guilty?
Then wtf the same boxers beated up by him and Povetkin or Vitali still are used in top fights?
Looks that for every one this looks very good.

 

I know those facts thank you. I was just addressing someone's presumption of guilt based upon size.
Those who are very bulky + have "bacne" are likely juicing.
But not necessarily. I had severe acne when I was young adult, treated it with accutane, & never would even use Creatine.
Although without the total mass of those guys-in part due to not such a large frame-you could see photos of me even now well into middle age & without any acne, & despite being not quite the size I was, some might conclude i use PEDs. Depending upon the photo.

I am just saying that it is hard to know for sure, or with a good likelihood, if many use.
Although when there is specific evidence, such as with test results or "Even Fields" exposure when BALCO labs were investigated...

The use & abuse of PEDs may be very clear.

 

Seriously ????

 

Anybody who’s answered ‘yes’ needs to follow a different sport.

He might not have been able to have beaten them all, but of course he would have been able to have found success and been competitive.

Why on earth not?

Wilder has struggled with low level guys until his power has bailed him out. And when he isn’t able to land it, he’s extremely vulnerable. Fury has recently proven that. And he’d have had huge issues timing Mike at Mike’s size, along with his style. Mike would have been a very elusive target for him.

AJ is vulnerable to pressure, and he’s got a suspect gas tank. We saw Ruiz run over him.

Tyson Fury has the size and the skills, but Mike could have gotten inside.

People seem to be obsessed by size. They look more at size than how these guys would have matched up stylistically.

Boxing has a lot of ignorant fans.

 

I balance it on probability. (The use of PEDs.)
We have an enhancer that is proven to work, and give positive benefits. Who wouldn't take them?
Appealing to ethics and morals means almost nothing in sports where millions in earnings are concerned.
On the very odd occasion where someone is busted, they get a fine and a suspension. Not much to worry about, given how infrequently fighters fight anyway.
And athletes, having that crazy drive to succeed and win, will do whatever it takes.
Anyway, I'm risking hijacking this thread which isn't about that, so I'll say no more here.

 

Well I will say one more thing, because folks can just breeze past it, & the issue of Tyson's size organically leads to discussion of PEDs.

1) People are busted way more than the "very odd occasion".
2) This, the ridicule & effect on your whole boxing reputation& legacy, is also something of a deterrent.
3) It is unfair to assume morals & ethics means next to nothing-not everyone decides things on a purely utilitarian, cost-benefit analyses.
Many have Pride & Principles.
4) Many will do whatever it takes. I am not saying the opposite of you, that almost nobody cheats & lies & does not get found out.
But equally improbable is the confidence that almost everyone *must* cheat.
Just like it would not be rational to assume that *if* someone could load their gloves or drug their opponent & get away with it-they & almost everyone would.

So maybe someone like Lewis cheated. But there is no decent reason to believe that he, or many others boxers, did.

 

Tyson's ability to fight bigger rangier guys with jabs suffered after he got rid of Rooney. He became utterly useless against fighting bigger rangier opponents with jabs once his reflexes and legs were gone by his third comeback in 1999, he lost the ability to get inside at the speed of light and when he did, he would only throw one punch at a time.

 

But has anyone said he wouldn't find success if he was around now? I've only seen it said that he wouldn't be quite as dominant, which I find likely too.

 

Well, we can see Lennox Lewis cheating in actual fights to win.
Not just Lewis, of course, but you mention him.
I'm just saying. We don't need to speculate on whether they would bend and break rules to help them win. They did.

 

I haven't looked through the whole thread, but I would surprised if anyone claimed he wouldn't do better than for example Povetkin. But it's quite likely that he wouldn't become undisputed and lineal through quite such a path of destruction as he cut in the 80's.

 

Well, let's face it, he had a mediocre crop of 'title holders' to get through in his own era.
Berbick, Smith and Tucker .... then Spinks for lineal.

It's perhaps questionable whether Fury, Joshua, Wilder are any better ....... ?
I'd like to hope so, but who knows.

 

I think they are, but no way of proving it of course.

I think we have a good division right now. Fury, AJ, Wilder, Usyk and Hunter and Joyce perhaps sniffing at the door as well. I also like Ruiz quite a bit.

My concern isn't so much the quality of the current division, but that the fights will be made.

 

I watched Fury vs Wallin last night. Honestly, not at all impressed. Fury was slow as molasses and offered little besides a good jab going forward. His movement was very good for a large man, but his right hand was slow, ponderous and not particularly accurate.
He looked quite decent in both Wilder fights and those are the fights people tend to remember, but let's not forget he's looked utterly ordinary in some fights as well.
If he ever fought Mike Tyson the way he fight Wallin, he'd get poleaxed. He doesn't offer enough offensively and he's not a puncher.

AJ is interesting because he has confidence, size, decent technical ability and decent power. But he's also not the quickest and has shown to gas a bit later on.
Wilder... well, who knows? He capitulated against Fury alarmingly quickly. As early as the 3rd he was in distress, and he wasn't taking a shellacking either.
I'm not sure he's robust enough to withstand Mike. He has a hell of a right hand, but that's not close to enough in my opinion.

The one really big heavyweight that beat Mike, Lennox Lewis, is a cut above all three of these guys, and by some margin too, if you ask me.