Not one mention here of the most importand factor. Technique. Dempsey had it, Langford had it, Louis had it, Tyson had it. Foreman or even Ali and Liston did not have that final maestro's touch.
He certainly was. Technicaly proficient and just plain good at everything. What he perhaps never atained is the blend of power, speed, delivery and method that characterised fighters like Louis and Tyson.
True but Listons handspeed was average at best. Tyson and Louis had great handspeed Liston would never get the blend of speed and power that Tyson and Louis had . He just did'nt have the handspeed.
I've already mentioned it. Technique is not talent though. Technique is learnt, you are not born with it. Tyson had the best technique at what he did. Dempsey, Langford and Louis were flawed in different areas. Like Ali and Foreman they had good points and bad points. At what Tyson did he had VERY few technical bad poitns.
It was not tysons brain who tought hom to fight like he did, it was the great Cus d'amato. If this man lived longer Tyson doesend need an Holy brain to be successfull for a longer time.
But those that he did have were critical. I think that had Damato lived longer he would have adressed these flaws. I tend to think that Tyson was about where Louis was at the time of the Baer fight whenn his aprenticship was indefinitely put on hold.
Fighter slike Dempsey, Langford, Louis and Tyson represent the intersection between talent and technique where the true maestro is born.