Tyson v ,Layne,Lastarza,Walcott,Charles,Moore , Cokkel

For this to be at all interesting, I presume you mean all 5 in one night?

 

Walcott may see the halfway mark....at a push.
The rest don't go beyond the 3rd.


No amount of romanticising will change my opinion.

 

Tyson runs through em all imo. Walcott and Charles last the longest, maybe get in the 6 th but by then it's a foregone conclusion.

 

Hmmm tyson beats em all. Although stylistically Charles to me has the best shot. Walcott and Moore May do ok but their chins fail them at some point within 6.

 

i hate that term 'prime tyson' like hes the only one who gets to be prime but i must ask the question. Is this Tyson at his best and the others at the time they fought marciano or are they all prime too?

 

Rex Layne 1951 Tyson ko round 2. Mildly entertaining slug fest.

Jersey Joe Walcott 1953 Tyson endures some stinging jabs, tricky hooks and right hand leads that cause minor swelling. Tyson is slightly out of breath the first 4 rounds before pressuring walcott into a corner. He invests in body shots and eventually pins him down and brutalizes him with a 5 punch combo that has walcott down for the count in round 5. It would resemble the pinklon Thomas and biggs fights.

Ezzard Charles1954 if they were the same size perhaps charles does better. Tyson is too big, fast, and efficient and he'd be able to take whatever Charles dishes out. Tyson ko round 3.

Archie Moore 1955 at first tyson is frustrated by Moore's cageyness and cross arm block but eventually slips through the cracks in his guaed alternatinf between upstairs and down stairs. His right hook to the body uppercut combo does the trick and droos moore who manages to get up in the 4th. Moore survives the bell and is all defense, parrying and deflecting. Tyson cant land a clean hit and Moore rocks tyson with a sudden right lead in the 6th. He thinks he seed an opening and goes on the attack but tyson throws a leaping hook that droos moore again for the count.

Don Cokkell 1955 hahaha.

How does he fare? Brutal kos or stoppage. Somewhat competitive early on, some may win a round or 2 but that's it. Some of these guys don't qualify as sparring partners (layne, cokkel).

Any surprises? Id be surprised if anyone made it past the 8th.

 

Apologies, i never read the posts. Tyson goes through these versions like a dose of salts.

 

Maybe the unasked and crux question in Tonto's thread is "does Tyson do better than Marciano did against the following"?

The answer is yes, almost certainly.

Tyson would get through them all more quickly than Marciano managed except for '53 Walcott - 1 round is 1 round.

1953 Walcott (i.e. after Marciano kayoed him in Philly) had insufficient punch resistance (or desire, probably) to hold off Tyson any longer than he did Marciano in '53.

 

I'd actually be surprised if any see the third round

 

I don’t think any of them freeze and I know all of them had not been as inactive as Larry Holmes, Michael Spinks and Frank Bruno. Thomas And Tubbs had not fought serious opposition for years. Larrry had not even had a fight for years.

Tyson gets a lot of credit for smashing up all the best available guys in his prime. Well Smith, Tucker and Douglas certainly didn’t get smashed up. And interestingly they were a few of the title opponents Tyson fought who had either fought just as recently as Tyson had or been in with decent opposition.

Who would favour Tucker, Smith or Douglas over Wallcot Charles and Moore? Heck, I think Rex Layne beats them too.

I recon Tony Tubbs that Tyson fought would lose to both Cokkell and Lastarza. He was pathetic. His coach walked out on him and Tubbs flunked the bonus to come in shape because he knew he had not fought serious opposition for three years.


Tyson was a very fast starter and providing he lands first he can still knockout any of them. However, it wasn’t really the size of Tony Tucker that made him a competitive opponent against Tyson. Because Tyson was so much faster he could reach him and Tyrell Biggs or Truth Williams whenever he wanted. It was literally because Tucker was fresh enough to respond and box with him at his own level.

These guys are shorter than Tucker but They are all faster and in the case of Charles Walcott and Moore much better fighters. Why shouldn’t they box with Tyson at the level that Tony Tucker did? Tucker was in no way more advanced than any of them. He wasn’t even a physical guy like Bonecrusher which shows me a cleverer shorter fighter who had fought serious opposition and had a good camp should do at least as well.

The prime Tyson that lost to Douglas should beat Layne and Cokkell without much trouble at all. But I think Charles Moore and Walcott deserve a real 50-50 chance against Tokyo Tyson.

 

Tyson probably KOs them all.
Perhaps Charles or Walcott puts on a surprise performance and lasts the distance but I wouldn’t put my money on it.

The only real potential danger I see here for Mike are the bouts being 15 rounders. Charles or Walcott could pull an upset because of that. But again, wouldn’t put my money on it.

 

The problem here is that Tyson's footwork and speed are going to negate what the three old men listed here were able to do to slower opponents, like, I don't know, say some overachieving small heavyweight with not a lot of natural talent in his legs.

 

Id favor him over all of them but Walcott in particular would cause alot of problems. He was a man possessed in that title defense and Tyson would find it harder than beating a Holmes with no camp. I predict Tyson mid round stoppage for Charles and Walcott. The rest are early, especially Layne and Cockell, who are both stylistically... downright ****ed against Tyson.