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

Perhaps I am not explaining myself well. I agree that Tyson was a handful for the period you identify but for me, his dynamic, animalistic, atavisitc physical and mental fistic prime, the Tyson that would give any heavyweight in history problems, was a relatively brief period. He was already partying, indulging in goodness knows what and had starting to seek 'mutually agreed truces', even in the period I specify, the Smith fight being a prime example. His dynamism was wearing off and he started to fall in love with his power and believe his own hype, a hype created by the world he lived in and obe which must have been headily addictive for one so young and with his mental fragilities.

I concede we are debating nuances, degrees of brilliance but for me his time as a phenom was limited...as, one can argue, was Ali's for instance, and this 'peak prime' Tyson as you identify it, occurred during a limited temporal window.

Thanks for your interesting post and valid points. Have a wonderful day, peace and love, Px

Further edit. I am an often lonely voice in NOT counting the Spinks fight as his absolute peak. Many reports suggest Spinks was a beaten man before the ring walk and even had he 'made a fight of it', his mobility was seriously limited in that fight. He was, in a sense, a historical coronation for Tyson, a tethered goat that signifies Mike's annointing as 'the' talent of the generations; something the boxing world loves to do with anyone who tears through the heavyweights and has a strong media attraction, 8 out of 10 cats are always enought to create an ATG, aint they, but for me there are many better, more meaningful performances in his career.

 

As your a last word freak, I'll give it to you. What 19 year old heavyweights in history do you pick to beat the 19 beat old Tyson that defeated Tillis ?

 

Well, no, it wouldn't be easy. Joshua is a bigger, stronger version of Bruno. If Mike underestimated him, he’d crush Tyson completely. If a prime Joshua were to face the Mike from the first Bruno fight, I think he’d handle it.

 

I don’t have as high of an opinion of Tyson as most people do. That said, he probably knocks out everyone in this list in three rounds or less.

 

Thank you, a gracious & well put argument!

Here is how my opinion differs.
I believe Tyson was basically about as good & dangerous throughout his reign.
Tons of athletes party & lose discipline but continue to be dominant or even ATGs-sometimes until there physical skills detiorate.
He was able to keep it together until overdoing things training for the Douglas fight.
Even then it took a great performance to take him down.

I like your example of Bonehugger!
Tyson was overwhelmingly stymied by him constantly grabbing & holding.
You have virtually any World Class, large HW with some skills there, anyone can just clinch to a lopsided loss.
Tyson won every single round!

Compare it to Ali vs. Terrell, who was known to be a grab-oholic too.
Ali did almost as well in the scoring.
Maybe being longer he was more able to prevent some of the holding-although Ali was a huge offender at clinching & worse pulling behind the neck in some 2nd career fights...
Like Tyson was more likely to KO you early, but both lead to an extremely one-sided victory.

And Ali was certainly peak for Terrell.
We can also use Cleveland Williams as an example vs. with Spinks.
I agree that Spinks had those limitations, but that did not stop Tyson from being Brilliant.
Just like Williams is generally considered Ali's absolute peak, despite him fighting a man in worse shape, *literally* a shot fighter with an atrophied leg.
Who ALSO had the locker room reluctance to come out & was a slugger tailor-made for Ali's style.

Ali had for all practical purposes a shorter prime than Tyson.
I am arguing that Tyson in the peak/prime I am defining was as good, against bigger righters with on average a much better record, as Ali.
Neither guy seemed in danger of losing, but 'lil Mindenburger southpaw-stymied Ali a bit, Ali lost 3 rounds vs. Chuvalo who famously said that right after the fight, he went dancing with his wife & Ali was hospitalized (he did land many hard body shots)...

The only reasons Ali even barely had a 3 year prime were the ban-not at all his fault-& it ws 15 months between the Liston title fights!
I do not know why, that is unfair to challengers.
But Ali had 10 prime fights vs. 17 for Mike, fighting more often.

I am not like the vast majority & have significant or massive bias towards the guys I like.
I think Ali would be strongly favored over Tyson, who I like you just recognize for his sublime prime.

I just define its length differently.

 

It is neither fair nor true that I am a "last word freak".
You are taking a peaceful debate & introducing an unreasonable & negative interpretation.

It seems more likely that when you ignore all my substantive arguments you do not have a rejoinder, &/or are tired of debating politely.
Me having responses & challenges to any debate should not be interpreted as a pathology, any more than if I said that to *you* when you were making many arguments (that I was ignoring).

Now then, as for your question, since as a matter of principle I do not think direct questions made with Good Will should be ignored.

I do not know if I would pick ANY HWs at his age of 19, 10 months & 3 days to beat Tyson.
Tyson matured physically very early & was very well trained & dedicated.
But I never argued nor iplied anything different.

Instead, I have been saying he was immediately pre-prime-& some have his prime as starting later-Tillis fought very well, & it was a close competitive fight.

 

We did never see a heavyweight with that combination of speed and power. But he was not invincible or unbeatable. Look between the ears, too.

But he beats all on that list IMO. I can't see any of them getting in between his ears (like Hrgovic did to Itauma, for instance).

 

But the OP clearly listed Tyson's run from the Trevor Berbick fight up until the Carl Williams fight. In regards to the exact version of Tyson that would be facing those list of opponents.

So i don't really get the relevance of the Tillis fight where Tyson was still learning on the job and hadn't quite reached his peak yet.

And as i said it's also forgotten Tyson had already gone 10 rounds just 3 weeks prior to the Tillis fight. So he may of not been 100 percent either.

Regardless Tyson wouldn't be fighting these mythical H2H match ups with only a 3 week break in-between like he did against Tillis.

Finally as for the size difference it can make a difference especially if the bigger fighter has a stylistic advantage. But i don't see that Joshua has a stylistic advantage over Tyson to be quite honest.

Joshua froze up in his first fight in America against Ruiz and got beat up in the exchanges by a shorter man.

Not to mentioned looked like a deer in the headlights when he fought his first notable puncher in years against Dubois.

If Joshua is fighting a prime Tyson in America which is where i believe the fight would take place. I think Joshua would be intimidated by Tyson's power and reputation plus fighting away from home. And once Tyson starts to land on Joshua he would freeze up and be taken out.

 

Dynamic Puncher I accidentally put my response in the wrong place, but see it in full above where your quote normally is!
One point is that Tyson had about 2 months, not 3 weeks between fights before Tillis.

 

Yes I mistakenly forgot it was 3 weeks after the Tillis fight he fought Green not before.

Regardless the OP states the Tyson that fought Berbick up until Williams.

So only the version of Tyson during his championship reign not before or after.

So again the Tillis fight is not of relevance here.

 

Right again I was responding to a comment that said 1985-1989 was his peak.
It is true that does not Tillis does not effect the answer.

I still believe that while Tyson would clearly be favored against all of them, 0 or 1 would be how many fights he loses.
And peak AJ would be most likely to do it, but maybe he would have a...1/3 chance?

 

So we're in agreement the Tillis fight has no relevance to the thread question.

And we're also in agreement that Tyson during his championship reign between Berbick-Williams would be favoured over every opponent listed in this thread

There's nothing else for me to add.

 

Usyk and Fury could make it difficult for Tyson and I wouldn't scoff at anybody who favoured em (I don't). But the opponents listed by OP? Please.

 

Yep, & early in the thread I said as much, including Tyson likely losing 0 or 1 fight.
These fighters are good enough quality & size that this would be quite an accomplishment.
I suppose we could figure how the quality of the proposed fighters compared to all fighters from Berbick to Williams.
But recall we are taking absolute peak versions of each of the former, which in all likelihood gives them the edge.

Although I have been a prime Tyson defender forever.
I never bought that poeak Holyfield-even with PEDs-would "have Tyson's number".
And that a 3 year peak-or prime, if we define the former as only the very top few fights- where he fought on average EXCELLENT opponents with great records, 17(!) of them, is not really a short peak.

 

I do not think AJ was stronger than Bruno, taller yes, & a bit better.
But Bruno in a fight with Tyson was a very chiseled 247 lbs., at 6'3" that is more muscle per square inch than Joshua ever had.

A small point, & we agree that prime Mike likely beats him, AND he is the biggest risk or threat.
However I think if Mike underestimated him, the best Joshua would do is likely about as well as Douglas did.

Which would be enough to win!
But prime Tyson would not come in so negligently, in attitude or training.