If Tyson had fought in the 60s and 70s, would he have ever won a world title?

wrong using a quote that doesn't work buster beat a outta shape mike so that's nothing to think was good and no that's a lie on being beat up he beat mutiple people he was the only one to destroy a old larry who never was beat up when old

mike beat mutiple good jabbers like pink
razor trever smith all good jabbers all have good power and skill so your wrong you wont name the person who beat mike when he was in shape cause it never happened cause I asked you the first time who beat mike at his best you skipped over it and brought up that dumb buster quote like it would work

you must not seen my history quotes dont work with me

 

wrong? Your argument is not too valid. Mike did not keep his mind and body primed for long because he got lazy and got rid of guys who could keep him disciplines, and he let Robin Givens and that issue distract him as well as Don King. Buster beat Mike's style with the help of distraction, but the fact someone as lower level in my mind as Buster beat up Mike so badly shows that a better guy like an Evander or Lennox would have beaten the prime Mike, and it was the blueprint for beating Mike up. A bigger man with a big right hand pushing him back and landing punches on him. Mike was not unbeatable. He could be hit with the uppercut as Tucker showed in round one, or the right as Bonecrusher showed in round 12, had Bonecrusher wanted to land.. And Bruno landed on him in 1989 with the left hook. Pinklon Thomas was not a great fighter and was a little past it then, and a Lennox Lewis who fought Mike in 2004 is an even fight to stop the 1988 Mike Tyson, or rather the early Mike Tyson of that year who was probably peak. That is an excuse to say I cannot name someone who beat up the Mike Tyson who was in shape. He was only in shape or prime for let's say 3 years from 1985 to 1988, so how much time did he give us to showcase his skills?

 

Have you seen every Tyson fight or just the highlight reels? Tyson has been in a few dogfights in his day. Check out the Ribalta bout before he faced Berbick. Sure there were some dull moments but what fight doesn't have em? Have you seen both fights with Ruddock? The 2 most dangerous bombers were trading blows for a good portion of 19 horrific rounds!

I think you might be another Tyson hater in the mix...

 

You think Shavers KO's Tyson? Bruh...

 

I pointed that lie quote out to cause other people who hit mike didnt just name him stop fighting

 

well lots of matches he shown off his skills prime is not years it's the condition a person is in

from matches I seen the old George was way better older then younger he got less tired
he picked shots better
he was way tougher
he didnt fight dumb like when he was young

other boxers have fought better when older to which mean that is the real prime for some

why did you name bruno and tucker
bruno hit real hard some compare his power to George

tucker was underrated they didnt show any blueprint that's a myth they wasnt close at all to beating mike so no blueprint there

and holy when young was a full brawler no brawler ever beat mike and that holy waant as tough for taking damage and he was smaller so no that one loses

the old holy which is the best one 90s would beat mike at his best but it would have been a way better match then the one we seen

lennox is the best outboxer ever and would beat mike at his best

lennox hit real hard to and hit mike lots of times which to showed how tough mike was no other hw took that many clean shots who was a big name George was weak to hard shots shown by ron
ali never got caught with many shots by anybody from big hitters

so no I dont think mike was unbeatable at his best just s person had to be real skilled to do it

 

Prime matters and when it all comes together. If being in shape matters the most than boxing history would be very different. George was relaxed when he was older but slower and he used his jab more and waited, yet Shannon Briggs and even Morrison would have had more trouble with the young Foreman. Mike just went in with his punches when he got older, not like when he was younger when he would move his head move inside, land to the body and then the head without getting hit.

 

you skipped over the other stuff I said for George and no for the flaws I said young George had would be doom for him with tommy

tom hit hard I said George wasnt tough to hard shots exposed by ron you skipped over that it's not a lie it's on vid

tom using the same style he fought old George throwing wide shots from angles like mike did with combos is a end for George

 

I always thought George would be trouble for Mike prime or not, and George young or old.. He would push Mike back and take away Mike's style of moving forward and dodging punches. Mike feel for everything he said was bad a out boxing. Don King and distractions, everthing Cus warned him about.

 

He'd have murdered Frazier, who would stand right in front of him and try to trade.

I don't understand at all any of the arguments that Frazier would have beat Tyson. Tyson was faster, had more power, had his full power in both hands and with all punches, had better defense, had a better chin.

 

page 3 I said in a simple way that joe wouldnt land much

you said every reason that i have said before on other posts way better at angles speed and way to tough

the odd reason they pick joe is they think that sense he came back from oscar which dropped him fast and almost ended him there and made joe stuggled way more to get up compared to when George dropped him

oscar hit with better tech is the reason he hurt George from that drop more then George and it was a counter to which you know like I know a counter with a heavy blow out of nowhere hurts more then a seen shot

mike way the master at countering at the perfect time and with speed and power

didnt mike fight the son and run though him cause of that same basic head movement how does Joe win if he has no way to heat up to be better and has no way to stop from being hit and is basic come forward joe loses and fast

only a crazy person will say joe could win maybe think they he would be facing a felloff mike

 

Tyson demolished Marvis Frazier in one round. So did Larry Holmes.

Not sure that says anything about Joe though, other than he put his son up against two elites when he was in no way ready to face those guys. I think Marvis's 10th pro fight was against Larry. That's nuts.

 

It's funny how two one round wins can be so significantly different.

Holmes 2.57s but Tyson belted him out in 30 seconds including half the 10 count or such.

Virtually 4 punches from Tyson left Frazier an unconscious mess on his knee's. Holmes a heavy right hand KD from which Frazier recovered surprisingly fast given he looked very hurt going down. Holmes then lands a few flush right hands that never look like dropping Frazier but none the less gained a fair stoppage as Frazier was out of his element.

Frazier of course had 10 fights under his belt when he took on Holmes. He had 17 when he fought Tyson and was actually on a good streak including a solid win over Tillis and an excellent win over Bonecrusher Smith right before he fought Tyson. He was the best he ever was but while better than when he fought Holmes he still wasn't that much better.

Joe loved to match him hard. 21 fight career. Should have stayed with Benton. Should have looked at cruiser.

 

That was a good stoppage by the ref in the Holmes fight. It was clear that Holmes was far, far superior to Frazier, and wasn't going to take it easy. If the ref let it go on, every round would just be a sustained beating until Marvis finally couldn't get up. Save the kid the damage.

And Tyson, well, he was a KO artist back then.

 

more bull quotes