A better question, who was more of a phenom Roy or Tyson

Not one for mincing words, eh?

 

In terms of gifts and athletic ability - Jones Jr. But in terms of the complete package (No homo) then Tyson. And what I mean by that would include technique, chin, defense, aggression, etc.

 

Bonecrusher looked like a fool against Tyson. He landed maybe one flush punch the entire fight. I don't know how you could possibly believe he could have KO'd Tyson.

 

Of course this is speculation on my part, but I'll start by saying James showed signs of being able to physically neutralize and dominate him aggressively, like Foreman did Frazier. I knew Berbick and Tucker wouldn't be able to beat him, but I expected Bonecrusher to seriously test his limits, and was extremely frustrated that we didn't get to find out then how Mike would respond under substantial pressure.

I watched Smith-Bruno in it's entirety, and Bonecrusher did nothing for nine rounds. Tyson-Smith looked like an instant replay, and I was wondering if Smith was planning an all out late round assault by design this time. He only got uncorked at the very end of round 12 however, but rocked Mike enough with a single shot to lead me to wonder what would have happened if he'd cut loose with a Bruno like sustained assault at the outset of round 11 or 12. At his best, Smith was a big, strong, well-conditioned athlete who carried a tremendous punch, certainly with more power than Douglas or Holyfield, and I believed he was a more likely candidate than either of those two to hand Tyson his first stoppage defeat.

Having expressed that, I also want to add that this is a cheap way to try winning a match, that Smith maybe should have been thrown out for not competing in the earlier rounds of both Bruno and Tyson, and perhaps ought to have had his purse withheld, as indeed Mike asserted he shouldn't get paid after their exasperating stinker. (John Tate-Mike Weaver was not the same kind of situation, as Big John smothered Hercules against the ropes with points scoring offensive tactics.)

Ultimately, we have no way of knowing what would have happened if the wildly unpredictable Bonecrusher had produced an earnest effort, but he was the only man to stop Witherspoon before Terrible Tim turned 40, and Spoon was an opponent who had previously dominated him over 12 rounds. Perhaps Tyson would have been able to knock out a more open Bonecrusher, but I do think Mike's power was overrated, and not enough to take out Smith if in top condition. (Tillis and Holmes both have stated that Shavers carried greater force.)

Maybe if Mike had survived significant resistance from Smith, then that experience would have allowed him to prevail over Douglas in Tokyo, and given him the confidence to answer Foreman's throwing down of the gauntlet.

 

You think Bonehugger Smith and comebacking Foreman could beat Tyson? The same Foreman who was life and death with Alex Stewart? The same Foreman who Bob Arum admitted in grand jury testimony was being fed stiffs who were only rated due to payoffs that Arum was making to the IBF? The same Foreman who lost every single round to Axel Schulz and yet still somehow managed to get a decision (again courtesy of Arum)? The same Foreman who I will go to my grave believing was involved in a monumental fix against Michael Moorer (again, courtesy of Bob Arum)? Or who was completely outboxed by... TOMMY MORRISON? O... K... go back to posting on hockey forums....

 

Sorry Roy but Tyson takes this. I think it was the urgency in preparing him for the world title that and Tyson filling the demands so flawlessly at a young age.

to be fair, there is little documented footage on roys progression. There isn't much on his training either.

 

tyson, he imposed his will on his opponents when at is best. jones, while dominant, was content on going 12 rds of potshotting especially when he moved up to 175.

 

Hard to say. I would favour Tyson as more of a phenom than Roy.

When Tyson was first on the scene, nobody was dispatching opponents like he was doing, regardless if Don King had a say in the quality of opponents.

 

Tyson.

 

Yours is an interesting perspective. Personally, I think Tyson was too good for Smith, but where I do agree is that Smith obviously could have done a lot better.
His record is spotty, but the man could punch, no doubt about it. As you say, he did have Tyson in some distress with a single right hand.
I've always thought Smith pysically was one of the strongest heavyweights I've ever seen...he just looked physically very powerful.

Anyway, I like a perspective that challenges conventional wisdom. Whose to say yours is wrong?