Sonny Liston (1960) vs "Iron" Mike Tyson (1988) - who wins?

I stopped reading after this part. :roll: There is a reason he was nicknamed "Big Cat". I'll give you a hint...Cats aren't slow.

 

liston stops tyson.he destroyed patterson x2,who used peek-a-boo style like tyson and was faster than tyson.
styles make fights,mike would get nailed with that hard jab and if comes inside that steelhammer uppercut is waiting for him

 

I predict Tyson would win by a mid-round KO or stoppage. I don't make this pick with supreme confidence, but I'm more confidence in Tyson than Liston.

I don't see how the chins and defense category are even. Tyson for me is clearly superior in both categories. For a fighter that fought moving forward, I'd expect he would get more credit for being so hard to hit cleanly. Though, he relied on phenomenal athletic ability it was extremely effective. Tyson was sharp, active, fast enough to avoid shots in that Peeka Boo style, and had the reflexes to help instruct his body out of the way of shots. His head-movement wasn't arbitrary, nor predictable. In other words he was difficult to time due to his explosion on both ends of the spectrum (Offense and defense).

I feel like Tyson's chin is clearly better, as well. I also think that while Tyson is the worst in-fighter and more of a mid-range bomber among ATG HW swarmers, I still feel he's equal or at least more effective than Liston in this category. Liston is going to look to fight, and tie up. He won't look to in-fight or capitilize on Tyson's weakness on the inside. In fact, the only way I see him unleashing bombs in close is when his opponent his hurt, which is somewhat he's quite adequate and capable of doing. Although, Liston stringing combinations together appears pretty robust and ponderous compared to the lightning fast Tyson. But don't ever dare question it's effectiveness. Liston is brutal, sharp, and quick enough when you're hurt... unfortunately I don't see Tyson experiencing this much often.

Liston is a awesomely powerful specimen. He has great physical advantages and knows how to use them. He can fight backing up, as well as moving forward. I don't know entirely subscribe in the notion or belief that a fighter like Tyson is one-dimensional therefore exposed if you can find a way to back him up. His weakness, prolifically is not his inability to fight like some kind of boxer (How could he, and why?). That would be nonsensical, similarly it would be silly to expect Joe Frazier to take on this sort of fight unless it's stylistically merited. For Mike Tyson this would never be the case (His chin is great, he's explosive, and his defense is good). Tyson's weaknesses is his weakness on the inside. Everyone, even Tyson and his fans complain about Tyson's opposition holding. Watching film of Tyson can be extremely frustrating. I believe his psyche (Like the way Atlas sometimes describes) leaves him feeling like a vulnerable boy in clinches. He can't get his punches off, and he just looks inadequate. He should be a destroyer, and he should kick his left leg back a little and dig to the body... instead he's completely content to hold and wait to pounce on his foe. That's the biggest fallacy of how Tyson fights.

I'm rambling... Against Liston, Tyson's lack of in-fighting would be costly. But I do feel Tyson gets past Liston's jab. It's a great effective jab but it's far too ponderous. Beating Tyson requires a great strategy of boxing, tieing up, shifting, angles, clinch, jab, rinse repeat in a Holyfield-esque fashion. Or you need moving, a great jab fast jab, and lateral motion.

Liston's problem is his lateral motion. It's lacking in a huge way, and it's a huge reason why he'd almost always fall short against an Ali type (Or Ali himself). Liston fights well backing up, but Tyson well pounce on him and slip that jab. Liston's best chance is to unload the uppercut and time Tyson. I feel Tyson would overwhelm, though. Tyson, while not the greatest in-fighter does have solid body-work. Liston had a bit of a habit of covering up and ducking when getting unloaded on. I feel that in order to fend Tyson off you need to have more movement, better durable, or at least better strategy. Liston wouldn't encourage tieing Tyson up, in my mind, and he certainly doesn't counter often or sharp enough. If he was more like Joe Louis in this aspect he would have a much better chance in my view. I think Foreman, with his heart, uppercut, and durability is a worse style matchup for Tyson personally.

Still a fight I'd need to re-assess more often, honestly.

 

Take it back... Liston is better on the inside.

 

He was slow compared to Tyson but he was faster than Liston. He was easy to hit. Vs. other guys with quick hands or even aggressive guys like Liston he had no defense. Williams gets overrated on here.

 

I like Liston on a stylistic match-up, largely because i think Liston is about as bad a style match up for him as i can imagine. I'm not closed-minded on it though, i can hear debate. The way Douglas fought is something Liston can do to devastating effect, but that's not the be all and end all, Tyson could get to Liston i believe, i don't think Liston is totally invincible to any mental impsotions by other fighters, such as a prime Tyson. Anyway, i do lean towards Liston. The jab isn't one to simply grab points, it's noe that comes with authority, and i just think that's huge against Tyson, esepcially considering the quality and accuracy of Liston's jab. Tyson does well against outboxers, because he counters so well with full on combos of tremendous quality, but because of the afforementioned i'm going with Liston.

But of course nobody beats 88 Tyson!

 

Liston can tear Tyson up on the inside, and the outside. mid round TKO.

 

:rofl

1988 Tyson is a total myth.
He was 100% peaked still when journeyman Buster Douglas anally raped him.

 

:good

 

'59 Liston beats '87 Tyson for me. I don't think he would struggle as badly with Mike's speed as some have indicated, I think the speed issues were more to do with - as McGrain said - speed moving away from him. His issues there are in closing the gap. He doesn't have to do that with Tyson, I think his timing is good enough to be able to keep Mike off him with the jabs and land hard right hands down the barrell and left hooks as he's moving inside. Liston in 9.

 

i agree,and patterson was faster than tyson and liston demolished him.

 

patterson was never a full blown heavyweight as for being quicker i wouldnt be so sure cus d mato said tyson was quicker than floyd .:rasta

 

How would Tyson do if he was able to fight a MW/LH version of Sonny Liston and place Sonny's chin a few notches down?

That's basically what you want me to do when comparing Floyd Patterson to Mike Tyson.

Tyson's style was similar but not quite the same as Patterson's.

 

No he wasn't

Peak = Physically, Mentally, Technically trained...at your best

Tyson post Spinks was not equal. Put the version Tyson from Berbick to Spinks in there with any version that came after, and the post-Rooney version gets his ass kicked.

Now he should have still been during those years but it still comes down to the Fighter and how he is preparing.

It doesn't matter how good you are, if you don't prepare properly, you are not going to be nearly as affective.

But yes, depending on how one talks about him, there is build-up that goes beyond what should be. Even Tyson from Berbick to Spinks still leaves questions open for me as to just how good he was.
I don't think he was unbeatable. I don't think anyone is.

 

Peak is a term overused and altered by Tyson fans to excuse his losses.
Tyson was peak from 1986-1991.
And I want you to accept that he was prime from 1986-1997.

This content is protected

Tyson looks properly prepared here.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Again, here too he looks properly prepared.

This content is protected