Honestly, I do not think that Prime Mike Tyson would beat Wilder, Joshua, and Fury

http://www.nafpaktia.com/HQW-1155322.html

 

Tyson in his prime I'd strongly favor in all three match ups. He was faster and more skilled then all three, more of a specimen then Joshua or Wilder and obviously Fury. I think he'd batter all three each one of them likely would start reverting to holding. Wilder has the best chance because of his 1 punch knockout power but I see Tyson likely getting there first throughout and eventually stopping Wilder. He'd be too quick for Fury and would get inside with his head movement landing bombs throughout until likely getting a stoppage. Joshua would be overwhelmed likely try to box Tyson and get stopped.

I think all three mentioned would have a much tougher time putting together a run as champion like Tyson did. All of the guys Tyson faced as champion I think would be a much bigger threat to these three then they we're to Tyson. The only great heavyweight Tyson beat as champ was Larry Holmes who was passed his prime but he beat a number of good contenders and made it look easy.

 

I doubt you saw Tyson fight back then. Anyway, you’re clearly driven by an agenda, with no regards for facts.

 

He wasn't pretty shot.

He went onto beat Ray Mercer and push Evander in the early 90's.

 

We definitely disagree about most of what you posted. Joshua is legitimately 6-5 and would enjoy a massive weight advantage over the likes of Berbick! By today's standards, a 6-2, 218-pound HW is a midget. Tyson lacks sufficient wins over high quality big men, which is why you are forced to invoke Berbick and Frazier (6-1, 210) to boost him.

Moreover, your assertion that James Broad was as good or better than Joshua is positively scandalous! That is one of the more novel arguments I've seen here lately. What in the world did he ever accomplish to justify such a claim?

 

Holmes was shot to pieces and hadn't fought in two years. The odds were 8-1 against him for a reason.

 

Why are you here?

You are not open to debate this subject.

You've proved that countless times.

I don't know why you can't comprehend that a sportsman can be past his best at a such an earlier age.

Yes, they can.

Everyone's circumstances are different.

If you follow football/soccer, you'd know that Paul Gascoigne and George Best were past their peaks before they hit 25.

 

A shot to pieces HW couldn't have gone on to have beaten Ray Mercer and given a prime version of Evander a tough night, whilst being in their 40's.

Run along.

 

He was past his prime. Tyson's prime had gone by the time he fought Bruno. Forget his age, that's too simplistic a measure. You have to consider the chaos going on in his life out of the ring, his lack of dedication to the sport and the way he was mismanaged by King. You can argue his short prime was largely self-inflicted but nonetheless it was a small time window. But in that window and at his very best he would have beaten all the three you mention, probably brutally...

 

Do you understand how difficult it would be for a guy like Wilder to have landed that big right hand on Mike?

A short, fast fighter, bobbing and weaving from a crouched position?

Starch the midget?

Go away and learn the sport. Then you'll realise that Deontay's size would actually have been a DISADVANTAGE against a guy like Mike.

 

Spinks, Tucker, Bruno and Holmes would all be top 10 HW's today.

 

Yeah but that's not saying much.
Both eras are weak, now and then.

 

Tyson KO 4 Wilder (and beats him 8 times out of 10)
Tyson KO 7 Joshua (and beats him 7 times out of 10)
Fury UD Tyson (and beats him 5 times out of 10, making this a 50/50 fight in my mind.)

 

What a terrible poster you are.

His resume was devoid of quality?

The 80's guys were just generally not very good?

As opposed to the "Windmill" who is unbalanced and struggles with B and C class fighters until he can land his right hand?

I despair.

 

There's no evidence that Larry would have handled Mike when he was younger.

It was a bad match up for him stylistically.

Regarding Douglas, he was a very competent fighter on his day. He had a lot of tools. But like so many other guys, he was very inconsistent due to his lifestyle. He put in a great performance against Mike. But if you knew anything at all about Mike's life, you'd know that he'd already started to slip before he fought Douglas, and he undesrstimsted him and didn't train for the fight. He was overweight, he got dropped in sparring by Page, and he was sleeping around with the maids etc. Very arrogant and very unprofessional behaviour. But don't try and claim he was still at his best just because of his young age, because he clearly wasn't.

What levels ate you talking about?

Tony Tucker is a better fighter than a guy like Wilder.

What has Wilder done?

He's beaten a lazy Stiverne, and his best win was against Ortiz. He's also struggled with low level guys until his power has gotten him out of trouble.

Although he has truly great power, he's often unbalanced and uncoordinated.