Which Fighter Sufferers Most Moving Era's..?

Not as bizzare as the way people overrate Tyson. These are all ATG fighters. Nothing bizzare about it.

 

They absolutely aren’t all ATG’s.

 

Norton, Young, Lyle and Shavers aren’t ATG fighters.


You cannot watch Ali’s fights with Frazier, and then come to the conclusion that Mike would have had little chance.

Joe was a much loved fighter, for many reasons. Whereas Mike is hugely overrated by many, and disliked by many others.

But take all emotion away, and Mike was just a flat out better fighter than Joe Frazier.


Shavers was never a top fighter.


Mike was the only guy to ever knock out Larry Holmes, in a 20 year, 75 fight career.

And 4 years after Mike beat him, Larry was still good enough to have beaten a prime Ray Mercer.


Joe Bugner?

You can’t be serious.

 

Jimmy Young, Ron Lyle, Shavers and Bugner aren't ATGs?

Bugner was the best British HW for like a 50 year period. Bugner was fighting at a fairly high level in Tysons era. Think about that.

The problem with Frazier is he can contest a full fight if need be. Tyson really can't. Hes got to take Frazier out or he will lose. Frazier is a bit overrated but hes got a substantial advantage over Tyson here and he should prevail.

 

Of course those guys aren't ATG fighters.

You can't be serious.

What on earth did they do to become ATG fighters?


Mike could contest a full fight. He went to war with Ruddock for 12 rounds.

There was nothing wrong with his stamina when fully fit an focused.


Put their ability under the microscope.

Offensively and defensively.

Mike was just better than Frazier.

By quite a significant margin.


We never got to see Mike at his best for a prolonged period, due a lack of desire. A lack of motivation. However, he was a much more dynamic fighter than Joe was.


They'd have gone to war, because they were both powerful pressure fighters.

But Mike was faster, more powerful, and harder to hit with a much more varied offensive arsenal.

 

Why would Mike have had to have taken him out?

He could have decisioned him.

 

Jimmy Young fought Foreman, Ali and Norton and had case to win all 3.

Lyle knocked down George Foreman multiple times.

Lyle would give Mike Tyson a very severe beating.

 

That doesn't make them ATG fighters.

 

I see the path build up big cushion and hold the lead. I don't give Tyson a great chance of doing that.

Especially if its 15 rounder. If he did that he'd have that the 12 rounds to thank most likely. For example if Tyson v Tucker was 15 rounds Tyson either loses or he barely wins. Tuck had a broken hand.

 

The Ali who fought Norton the 2nd time was probably the sharpest Ali looked in the 70s.

He used constant movement for all 12 rounds looked sharp and was reminiscent of the Ali in the 60s

That version of Ali in the 70s I think would be the version to pit against Tyson.

 

Neither would suffer.

Holmes would be the favourite against every Heavyweight now outside of Usyk which is a pick em fight.

Tyson would have better competition in the 70s but it would also mean his resume would be better because he'd be the favourite over most of the 70s Heavyweights.

So I think all in all both fighters would thrive.

 

They're different stylistic match ups.

Completely different.


Joe had a great left hook. But if that was nullified, he really struggled. He wasn't the 2 handed fighter that Mike was.

I never saw Joe knock out a guy with his right hand.

Never with an uppercut.

Never with a combination which Mike threw.


They were both super tough and durable. But Joe would have found it hard to have hit Mike with his left hook.

You're also making a huge assumption, that Joe could have survived Mike's 2 handed offense.


Again, Mike was just a more dynamic fighter.

Faster.

More powerful.

More elusive.

A switch hitter.

He had a bigger offensive arsenal.


It makes zero sense for you to have given Mike only a small chance of winning.


Joe has that monster win over Ali from the FOTC.

Apart from that, he doesn't have a better resume and a better group of wins.

Again, Mike was a better all round fighter, and by some margin.

 

Holmes would obviously have it harder today. I'd like to see him against Jalolov.

 

Most of those fighters you mentioned would be early KO wins for Tyson.

Norton gets bombed out in the first 3 rounds he's not surviving a rampaging KO artist like Tyson.

Shavers is a glass cannon he would be bombed out in the first few rounds.

Frazier is a slow starter and it's basically pitting two fighters of similar height and build against eachother. Except Tyson is faster, stronger, more athletic, KO power in either hand, Frazier gets taken out early.

An ATG swarmer like Tyson is all wrong for a defensive fighter like Young with no real power. Young would get beaten up and possibly stopped in the 2nd half of the fight.

Lyle would get taken out in the middle rounds.

If Bugner fights a defensive fight he could possibly go the distance because of his size and durablity but he has virtually no chance of winning.

Foreman and Tyson would be a war I'm not of the opinion it's a repeat of Foreman/Frazier because Tyson was much more proven against big imposing punchers Ruddock, Bonecrusher, Bruno etc.

Ali was past his prime in the 70s and it would have to be a very specific version of Ali to pit against Tyson which would be the Ali who fought Norton the 2nd time.

 

Joe is overrated compared to his peers in the 70s who didn't have long title reigns who you don't think are ATGs. And it seems you understand the reasoning for why thats the case. He didn't fight most of those guys and the ones he did hes 2-4 against with 0 KOs. Hes not overrated compared to Mike Tyson.