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

He has the potential of beating everybody on that list. That much I will agree.

However that lineup is a LOT freaking tougher than the run being described by OP.

His chances of replicating his run against that lot are in my opinion slim.

 

I will admit I made a jokey post about him fighting them all in one night but I'd hope that was obviously a joke? Seriously, at his incandescent best, from just before Berbick to, let's say Holmes, and if I had to pick one example it would be his brutally elegant dissection of Tyrell Biggs. Just not hitting hard enough to end it, revelling in the precise beating he was admistering, that was a terrifying Tyson, he was a phenom, a veritable force of nature. Looming at the list offered,

Carlos Takam he stops within 6
Joseph Parker he stops within 10
Deontay Wilder he stops within 4
Anthony Joshua he stops within 4
Alexander Povetkin might go the distance but likely stopped within 10
Andy Ruiz Jr stopped within 6
Dominic Breazeale stopped within 4

...and I honestly can't see ANY way any of them beat him. Are there men from history that beat him? Yes, and some easily, but none of that list. No pun intended its a listless list and the fighters attributes might be enough to give some great a run, but Mikey ploughs them....

Styles make fights. Some of them would give Evander fits, some might even beat him. But Evander beats Tyson every time...

Fascinating discussion, thanks for your thoughtful answers, peace and love, Px

 

Fanboi confirmed

 

The only thing we agree upon is that Tillis might decision a Farr or LaStarza, at least on that night.
But Tillis was not expected to be competitive.
Thomas, Page, Witherspoon, Weaver...it seems that every time he moved up to decent quality competition he lost.
THEN he lost 4 of the 5 fights just before he faced Tyson!

Tyson's absolute peak is overwhelmingly considered Spinks, he showed tremendous focus & great results.
His execution there was flawless & a blow out was unexpected.

The fight with Tyson was CLOSE.
Some thought Tyson lost.
I would have to check the rounds to see if Tillis was clearly ahead sometimes, but no fighter need be visibly hurt or frustrated to be losing or have it running close.

 

Already crossed that Rubicon brother man. I'm no Tyson fan boy, I'm a boxing fan. I listed many fighters in a previous post who, in my opinion, beat Tyson. I don't think the list offered is a particualry strong one regarding the attributes they possess, do you? I'm happy to engage in boxing talk all night with like minded souls and will never claim my opinions are right, how can I, or anyone? But they are my opinions and thats kinda what these places are for, aren't they?

Thanks for taking time to reply, peace and love always, Px

 

I do know exactly what i am talking about. Tillis may have traded in spurts but he was using his feet to stay away. Povetkin and Ruiz can't do that.

 

Potentially yes as long as the fights aren’t spread too far apart. Mike Tyson performed best while maintaining constant activity. That and his prime was only about a three year window

 

Here maybe you want to take a look at this clip, which shows Tillis not staying away and fighting right in front of Tyson. Don't be scared. Press the little triangle so that it runs and you can also watch the fight:

This content is protected

 

LOL yeah I've seen these before. Wait, can I have a go?

"I'm Tyson's biggest fan, I even have his face on my pillow. But I have to admit that he's gonna lose a couple to the guys on that list"

Hopefully this sounds convincing

 

Always nice to speak to people with alternative takes. Take care man. Have a wonderful evening, Px

 

he beats them all in one year, easily.

 

I reckon that version of James Tillis would probably beat every name on that list. Great jab. Great movement. Could take a punch. Could punch on the move etc.

I dont think he really won any big fights either.

 

Your predictions seem pretty close to me.
Although I always picked peak Foreman with the stylistic advantage, yet the speed difference could determine the fight.

Although I showed BC68 how I disagreed Tyson had a short prime: 3 years 8 months starting from the fight AFTER Tillis, to Douglas.
But more important of a measure is likely # of fights: 17(!) after Tillis 7 ending before Douglas.

Now maybe you are distinguishing prime from peak: but Tyson during that time was pretty damn "peak"!
Somebody said he was already falling apart vs. Spinks, nonsense, his personal life & team may have started disintegrating, but it is widely regarded as his absolute peak.

So do you not agree that for that span after Tillis & until Douglas marked his fall from Grace:

1) He had around an average LENGTH prime.
2) That prime was about as close to "peak" in each fight as you could hope for, so you can use any of them to launch in H2H speculative matches.
3) That 17 consecutive prime, & virtually peak fights is a LONG prime!
Count any ATG & see how many straight superb, dominant fights they had.
Rarely 17 right?
And more often against, on average, worst competition.
And even if by chance as good *for their time*, they are likely to have been smaller.

The caveat is peak can be divided so finely with anyone to be extremely short.
But for all of his subsequent flaws, Tyson did NOT have a "Mayfly" Prime.

 

Tillis was 6'1" & fought Tyson at 207.75 lbs.
Not 6' 2" (when you see 2 heights, almost always pick the shorter one as correct) & 215 lbs.
Either way not very large, quite small for any HW for DECADES now, & not especially strong

Usually going the distance but losing, & losing FOUR OF HIS LAST 5 FIGHTS made him a huge underdog vs. Tyson.
Look at some of the other names who beat him before: he lost to most all very good competition, while undefeated Tyson was already highly impressive.

I doubt Tyson was never behind, we would have to look at & score each round.
But not being hurt or looking frustrated does not show it was not very close.
Almost everyone thought it was closer than the cards showed, 7 some said Tillis should have won.

Tillis might have beaten Farr or LaStarza, but I would not favor him against either.

 

But are not most all true primes not longer than 3-4 years?
And he had 17 fights from right after Tillis to Bruno, b4 Douglas.
And I am not counting as time the 8 months b4 DOuglas.

Even boxers who have longer primes, how many of them have 17 prime, dominant, never threatened fights?
How many fought as good competition?
What were their records?

If you find primes that are longer in # of fights, they are very likely to be against smaller HWs, & many devades ago when folks fought much more often.