1988 Mike Tyson who KO'd Spinks vs these opponents

I wonder how the 1988 Michael Spinks would do against these same fighters?

I doubt he beats Walcott,Charles,Schmeling,Max Baer or Moore for a start.

I certainly don't think this was the best Spinks there was and people tend to get a bit carried away with Tyson based on this performance.

Yes he would probably beat the aforementioned fighters but I don't think he blows them all away in the first couple of rounds like people seem to think.At this point he'd already been taken the long route by Tucker,Bonecrusher,Green and Tillis and 18 months later at 23 yrs of age he'd get the **** beaten out of him by Douglas.No world beaters amongst that lot.

Point being Tyson was dangerous and devastating but not infallible and these tough and formidable fighters couldn't and shouldn't be discounted to give him some stern tests.

 

I love Iron Mike but you're right, many people hear Tyson versus ? and they automatically choose Tyson without analyzing the fights in a vacuum and understanding that he had SERIOUS stamina issues and relied heavily, as did Dempsey, on intimidation get many of his early stoppages.

 

Yey but none of these of these smaller heavys woud have never made it out the early to mid rounds to test Mike.

 

Valid point, but you're assuming that guys like Moore and Charles are gonna stand their and mix it up with '88 Tyson. I don't believe they would, and it's for that reason alone that I'd give them a "boxer's" chance against the aggressive Tyson.

 

Keep in mind that I agree with you, I think Tyson would and should be a HEAVY favorite against all of these guys BUT, Moore/Charles were slick *******s and true students of the science(especially Moore). He would come to the fight with a sophisticated gameplan to exploit Mike's weaknesses. Game fighters with broad skill sets are always dangerous.

 

Tyson was more vulnerable to a skilled clever fighter so Walcott and Charles are the ones to pick

 

Why would you give them a boxers chance when Tyson is faster and equal in skill? Watch Moore against Patterson, Moore was older but he was dominated and he always had nightmares with the faster opponents he faced. Moore is going to get hit early and his chin wont stand up, hes aa dead cert for getting taken out within 2

 

1. Again Are you picking these opponents to spoil and try to survive or to come and fight? Louis had poor footwork, so at times was susceptable to being outboxed. Tyson just wasnt outboxed in his prime, some cam to hold on for dear life and run yes, lets not pretend the fights were competitive

Tyson was a geat boxer with his footwork, defense, speed. Hes known for his power/offense to the extent his skills get underrated

2. Baer was easy to hit, had slow hands, poor footwork. Tyson has fast hands, ATG defense, great footwork, just in terms of boxing its a schooling before we factor in power

BTW Bruno on a PSI test scored over Foreman and Tyson

 

This.:good

 

Walcotts record against punchers isnt that good, theres a question mark over his chin. Even if he had the best jaw of all time though, in terms of winning the boxing contest Tyson maybe the most skilled of the 2 plus his speed of hand/foot would cause Walcott and everyone problems

 

Schmeling was as about as skilled as them and cleverer. Conn too.

 

I think Conn has a good chance too.

True.

Tyson was used fighting bigger fighters. Those guys are all smaller than him. I wonder what effect that would have. Beeing used to fight small and fight bigger but slower and less coordinated fighters might very well bemuse Iron Mike. And Walcott, Schmeling, Baer and Moore are up there as punchers with Bruno and Smith and better than Holyfield or Douglas who both stopped Mike.
I wouldn't make any of hem favourite but I give Walcott, Schmeling and Baer a 50/50 chance at best and say they win one out of three.

 

1. No the purpose of boxing is to hit without getting hit. The only time prime Tyson was frustrated was against opponents then came to run and clinch. They had little success at landing on him and if it wasnt for the clinching/running and not throwing they would have been ko'd

2. There isnt 1 of them thats a better boxer or faster, so they cant hope to outbox Mike like they may have managed with the less skilled Rocky/Louis. mike has superior speed, footwork, defense and accuracy to those 2 men, which makes him far harder to have success against

3. It pretty obvious the Douglas fight was an aboration, Tyson was past prime after prison but on top early against Holyfield before fading, Holyfield had to take shots all these men would be incapable of taking

4. Tyson beat plenty of punchers as powerful as Baer in Rudduck, Bruno, Smith, . Your acting like Tysons other opponents didnt have power, Spinks himself was a puncher. Lets also not forget he first time Baer fought the somewhat similar Louis he got taken apart within 4 rounds. Then look at what Tyson did to bigger similar men in Bruno and Golota. I see no reason why Baer does any better against Tyson

5. I'm not saying Baer couldnt punch, I know he could, I just dont think its anything Tyson hasnt seen and just because a fighter can bang doesnt mean they are skilled enough to land it