Can 1986-89 Mike Tyson go through this gauntlet undefeated?

Yes. Without even breaking much of a sweat. If focused, none of them see tge second half of the fight. Some will end very quickly.

 

Povetkin from that list is the toughest fight for Mike. He maybe sees the second half.

 

He goes 7-0 ,all in one night and still has time to KO that big dosser!

 

I think people are overestimating Mike here. There are some tough fights for Mike. On top of that there are some big guys that can move him around with different styles. The main thing is that he is going to get hit. I say he goes 5-2.

 

Pounds them all into human meat paste.

 

No he doesn't and people need to stop huffing glue.

Ask the question: are any of these guys better than OLD Tillis? Smith?

Yeah? How much better?

I can see ways he has to beat all of these guys, but to suggest that he blows through the gauntlet with ease is laughable. I can also see how several of them can give him all he can handle.

 

But Tyson didn't get hit much in his prime ? That's the point.

Tyson's defence and speed was on another level that he only occasionally took the odd single hard shot.

Look at Tyson's fights between 1985-1989 and give me an example where Tyson got consistently hit in any of his 37 fights during that period ?

And finally which 2 opponents is Tyson losing to ?

 

Tyson rarely got hit against a talented bunch who were fairly quick in their own right...and left.

 

Who do you see beating him up?

 

I agree that Tyson was great then, & we never saw that HW combination of overall speed & power.
He would do better than any of those proposed here in a round robin, not sure he would beat everyone. He may well.

But the answer to your question is easy: he fought James Tillis on May 3rd 1986.
He had lost all of his last 3 fights-Biggs, Coetzee, & Frazier.
2 fights before that he was defeated by Carl Williams.
42-22-1 over his career, he had lost every time he stepped up, & did you know how the fight was very close, & with fair judging, arguably could have been decided by when tillis hit the canvas once, although not really hurt?

This is like Ali vs. Doug Jones, Marciano likely lost to Ted Lowry, without Sharkey turning away to appeal to the referre he beats Dempsy, & many other cases where even the ATGs suffer subpar performances during their prime or near to it.
Ali, Louis, Holmes...almost everyone has that happen.

Tillis did many things against advise, including "hooking with a hooker" & standing & trading with Tyson, who had no excuses nor poor training.
The score cards were really too wide, biased-fan sites like "Eye on the Ring" had it closer.
But it was Tyson's first time going the distance as a professional.

Here is a description of the fight, some thought Tillis won.
He certainly outlanded Tyson in some rounds!
https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/James_Tillis_vs._Mike_Tyson

So sure Tyson could have lost once or twice when running a gauntlet.
Athough I duspect it would have been once or zero losses.

 

Smith held on for dear life and lost every round. So some of these guys could also last the distance if they held for dear life. Doesn't mean they would actually win.

Tyson blows through all of them. You think a fat Ruiz has any chance of moving away from Mike and keeping him at a distance? No. Ruiz will fight him at close range. Tyson is far quicker and hits harder. Tyson stops Ruiz and early.

Joshua has no tools to keep Mike off him. Just a repeat of the Bruno fights. Joshua is too vulnerable, doesn't handle pressure well, is too stiff. Maybe he can land some good shots like Bruno did but he gets stopped brutally.

Wilder has a right hand. That is it. Wilder is extremely hittable, has a low lead hand which makes him wide open to Tyson's right hand. On top of that, he does not like when people attack him and push him backwards.

Out of all the heavies of the last 15 years, the only ones i would give a chance to beat Tysn would be Wlad, Usyk and Fury. And i wouldn't favour any of them over Mike. But at least they would have a chance.

Tyson was not unbeatable. But to beat him, you need great combination punching (Douglas, Holyfield), powerful in fighting or deadly uppercuts (Holyfield, Douglas), either exceptional durability and toughness (Holyfield), or extremely long arms and a powerful jab (Douglas, 84 inch reach), as well as foot speed.

On top of that, you need great foot speed. Douglas alone is a far better and more fluent mover than anyone on this list. I mean come on.

Joshua is the only one on the list who has the power and combination punching ability and the long arms. But he is way too hittable. He was hurt by slow as turtle Whyte when he was in his prime. An old Povetkin was landing clean on him. And Povetkin is no Tyson speed wise even in his prime. Joshua has the uppercut but his feet are not fluent like a Douglas nor is he a clotton for punishment like Holyfield.

 

Yes . Period.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Tyson had no excuses except he was nineteen years old. Thi sis less like Clay - Jones and more like when Clay fought Besmenoff in his 10th fight .. would you pick that Clay , all 190 pounds of him vs the Tyson that fought Tillis ? I wouldn't ...

 

It is worth noting that Tyson did go 10 rounds just 3 weeks prior to fighting Tillis. I'm not making excuses but that is quite a hectic schedule.

It was a learning fight for Tyson like many other ATG Heavyweights who were tested at similar stages in their career.

I don't think that has any barring on how a championship form Tyson in his peak would fare against the fighters in this thread.

Who I don't think are that special quite honestly.

Joshua on paper is the best fighter on that list but I think he would get the Bruno treatment once he gets hurt.

I don't see any of the other fighters on that list troubling Tyson stylistically.

Fury would because he's a big man who knows how to clinch and use his weight but he's not on the list.