Could have Mike Tyson reigned as champion for 3 years in the 1960's ?

But Muhammad Ali had psychological warfare on his side, Tyson would not be able to intimidate Ali, as a matter of fact, Ali would have gotten into Mike's head as he did to Liston in 1964. As we know Tyson did have some mental setbacks, it could be frustrating for him, especially someone laughing at him and making fun of him.

 

Tyson doesn't need to intimidate Ali. The likes of Tucker, Smith, Tubbs - were not intimidated at all by him and he still beat them.
You people overrate the mental part too much. Ali beat his opponents cause he was the better man when they fought, not cause he got into their head.
And with Rooney by his side, Tyson won't get frustrated at all. He'd just listen to Rooney's indications and take Ali out.

 

That is your opinion.

 

Who would you have him face instead of the guys he did face?

And of course if you want to go that route for Tyson: "Heroine addicts like Thomas, coke heads like Tubbs, never beens as Biggs, Berbick who couldn't beat the corpse of Ali convincingly, an old and rusty Holmes, a Spinks who just was there to cash out..."

 

I don't think there were any other challengers available. I guess my point is they weren't any better than Tyson's title challengers in the 80's. As we all know Tyson gets flack for trouncing an era with not many name opponents. I actually believe Tyson's opposition was very good. Even better than the 60's bunch that challenged Ali.

 

Well, mimicking your take on Ali's challengers: "Heroine addicts like Thomas, coke heads like Tubbs, never beens like Biggs, Berbick who couldn't beat the corpse of Ali convincingly, an old and rusty Holmes, a Spinks who just was there to cash out..."

Liston, certainly in their first fight, was better than anyone Tyson beat, though.

 

No he was not. He was around 40 years old, barely trained cause he underestimated Ali and had a shoulder injury going into the fight.

What makes Ali great is his achievements in the 70's, not those in the 60's.

 

Wasn't he at least 50?

 

Good question, have to think about this one.

 

Jesus ****ing Christ.

 

What's there to think, the answer is easy as pie: YES.
Tyson would have been champ in any era.

 

But for three years is the question. From 1960 he'd be ok, taking out Floyd and Ingo. Then there's liston a couple of years in. That's a not so easy fight imo. Then he's got Ali at his fastest to beat.
Once Ali is stripped, Tyson in with a great shout. But by 1968 a young, hungry Joe Frazier steps up.
So imo at least, there's a few easy time lines and a few not so easy.

 

HAHA! Yeah so drugged out that they were all coming off their best wins or hadn't even lost yet. Now that is what we call excuses. You're too much. You really are.

 

Thomas, Tubbs and Holmes were hardly coming off their best wins.

But I have no problems with Tyson's challengers. There is always going to be some past their primes, or at their primes but nothing special. It's like that for every champion. Tyson cleaned out those that were around, I have no issues with that. I was just translating your take on Ali's challengers to Tyson's. But you clearly couldn't handle that.

But not surprising, since you are a classic Tyson fan. Denigrating Ali's opp and just as defensive about Tyson's, and of course excuses for every time things didn't go his way. And only comes life in discussions about Tyson. Tyson is one of those fighters whose fans really can make one dislike him.

 

Tyson would probably have caused boxing to be "outlawed" if 80s Tyson had come along in the 60s...he might seriously injure or kill guys like Brian London, Ernie Terrell, Cleveland Williams (Ali version), Zora Folley, Floyd Patterson...Different era, different type of athlete.