H2H,who beats a prime Tyson

I open myself up for a serious debate and you spew this nonsense. I give up. :hi:

 

I'd make Ali, Holmes, Holyfield, and Foreman favorites. I'd give Lewis, Bowe, V. Klitschko, Louis, Frazier, and Marciano a chance but I wouldn't make them favorites. I don't see Liston getting the job done.

 

For a long time a lot of people were overrating Tyson and some still do, however, now a lot of people are underrating him. I followed his career since 1984.

H2H prime vs. prime I'd favor Ali, Holmes, Holyfield, and Foreman.

Lewis, Bowe, V. Klitschko have a chance but I would not favor them. W. Klitschko, Louis, Frazier, and Marciano have a slightly worse chance, but still a pretty good chance. I guess you could throw Liston in the bottom of this tier. Tunney, Dempsey, Johnson, Walcott, Charles, and others... I doubt it.

 

If Tyson had beat Douglas does anyone think he would have beat Holyfield in his next fight, or would Evander have won?

 

Tyson would have won.

Holyfield did not have the strength and power to keep Tyson off him in early 91 and he wasn't nearly as intelligent as he was in 96.

He would most likely mix it up and that would be his downfall.

 

Fair enough, you probably have a very low opinion of Frazier for losing like that to Foreman, but I don't. It's largely styles. Tyson might fare a lot better, but he might fare as bad or worse.
Seriously, how many Foreman uppercuts do you think Tyson could take ?
Tyson was wide open for an uppercut, you'd have to be blind to not see it, he walked straight onto them. With pitty-patty shoeshine guys like Tillis and old Holmes it was fine, but Foreman's another animal. You can deny it but you know it to be true. :good

 

What utter tripe, Holyfield had more than enough strength to compete with Foreman who was a monster, Tyson was Childs play compared to Big George. Mixing it up with Tyson wouldn't be his downfall at all, infact it would be one of the key points of his victory. Holyfield stops Tyson late on and further shatters the myth....

 

100% correct on all points made. ( Gets ready for you're just a hater from the Tyson freaks.)

 

More likely his PED supplier.

 

Who said I have a low opinion of Frazier? It's you who has a low opinion of Tyson. Foreman wishes he could fight Tyson like Douglas and Holyfield did. But I'm sure in your eyes Tyson would simply walk into those insane Foreman uppercuts like Frazier did with his chin all but asking for it. Frazier walked into those uppercuts but Tyson wouldn't. He might get tagged here and there but he's not getting caught frozen like Frazier did.

Your posts are hilarious. But they are your opinion, which is hilarious. :hi:

 

Well, all I said was Foreman MIGHT beat Tyson even quicker than he beat Frazier. You think that's grossly unfair to Tyson, yet you claim you don't have a low opinion of Frazier.
Basically, you assume Tyson would do better - much better - than Frazier, for whatever reason. If someone guesses that Tyson might do no better, or do worse, than Frazier, that's an insult to Tyson in your eyes. I can only assume that you hold Frazier at a low regard compared to Tyson then.

Tyson walked into plenty of uppercuts. It was a specialty of his. Pitty-patty jokes like Tillis's uppercuts, and Ribalta's and old Holmes, and actually a half-decent uppercut from Tucker's left hand that lifted him a bit.
Hardly comparable to what Foreman would do to him.

Thanks. :good

 

Explain to me how Foreman MIGHT beat Tyson quicker than Frazier? I think Tyson has a better chin than Frazier, yes. In fact I KNOW he does. I believe Mike Tyson is a better fighter than Frazier, yes. Most people - not only on this forum but in life - feel the same way. Unless you talk to some of the old timers around here. But most of the old timers around here I respect. You come across as a troll. I'm finding out that you are.

Not really. However, I can read between the lines in YOUR posts regarding Mike Tyson. Any ATG heavyweight who fought before 1985 beats Tyson in your eyes. There's a lot of misinformation and disinformation about Mike Tyson, and the fans who are swayed by this stick out from the crowd. They're opinions are skewed because they aren't fans of Tyson's out-of-ring life style. They're usually a younger bunch but you're not young. In fact you're pretty old compared to them. 65 years old or higher, I'm assuming. So admit it...you just don't like Mike Tyson.

Again, I think Tyson is a better fighter than Frazier. But you don't see me going on Joe Frazier threads and picking apart his deficiencies, even the ones that aren't even there. It's fairly easy to do that on a forum. You like to do it on every Tyson thread. So I'll keep calling you out on it. You're a Tyson hater. Plain and simple.

Patty cake patty cake baker's man. Everyone gets hit by uppercuts, no one is immune to them. Tillis, Ribalta, Old Holmes and Tucker didn't fight like Foreman did (you forgot Reggie Gross). Foreman's uppercuts are monstrous but I'm pretty sure Tyson would be looking out for Foreman's bread and butter shots. Like I stated before, Foreman will land but will he do enough in succession to get the job done? Maybe he can on Joe Frazier, who stuck his chin out and invited his chin to more servings of Foreman's uppercut a la mode, but Tyson doesn't play that game. Who's to say Foreman would survive Tyson's fuselage of offensive artillery? Oh Foreman will get hit, too.

 

Did Holyfield clinch, wrestle and push Foreman around the ring like he did Tyson? Can a 205 pound Holyfield do the same? Mind you, Evander lost his speed and sharpness by 96 but he had more power and strength, as was evidenced in Bowe 3 when he almost KO'd Bowe with one big hook.

And the idea that Holyfield mixing it up would be advantageous is nonsense. I guess you disagree with Holyfield himself, who doesn't rate Tysons power because he admitted he never felt it. He boxed and countered Tyson while smothering him when he came close to prevent a shoot-out.

One only needs to take a look at Holyfields fight with Bert Cooper to realize that Holyfield had no business trading with heavyweights.

Mind you, I'm not saying Holyfield wouldn't have a chance, but he'd need to box carefully and play to his advantages. And he was pretty inconsistent in that regard.

 

I don't think Tyson would get up 6 times against Foreman. On the other hand maybe he wouldn't need to.
I don't think Tyson's chin was much better.
I don't rate Tyson's style going up against Foreman's.
I don't think Tyson's square-on footwork would bode well against Foreman's spin-and-push tactics. Frazier's stance was more solid and it didn't help.

I don't think Tyson was a better fighter than Frazier.
Frazier was a bit past it against Foreman, yes, but he was an incredible fighter.
Frazier beat Muhammad Ali, a classic fight worth re-watching if you are in any doubts. I rate Frazier as great.

None of this should bother you. But it seems to puzzle or bother you, I don't know why. But then you think Tyson is 50-50 or better against EVERY FIGHTER THAT EVER LIVED .... "Tyson beats everyone", that's pretty much your agenda, clear as day .. so you argue with whoever thinks Tyson would lose to X, Y or Z. Anyone who won't accept prime Tyson's invincibility or 'style advantages' sticks in your craw badly. I'm trying to figure it out. Am I right ?
You ask them to explain how or why Tyson would or might or could possibly LOSE, and when they do you call them a troll.
Maybe you're the troll.

I don't know who you class as an ATG heavyweight.
But even if I thought they all beat Tyson, what of it ?
You think Tyson beats everyone, that's fine too. There's such a thing as agreeing to disagree, and no need to take it personally.

I am 42. I was 12 and 13 in 1986. Tyson was one of the reasons I got into boxing. I actually consider myself a Tyson fan in real everyday life, but I've always reckoned him to be a little bit overrated as a fighter. I remember the hype. I've never thought he was a match for Ali or Foreman who I was aware of. But I admire his style and skills and punching, he's a damn sight more interesting to watch than most boxers actually.

I'll admit you could say "I don't like Lennox Lewis". I found him to be pompous and full of himself. But in real life I don't know him, he's probably a decent guy and good luck to him.

Tyson I kind of like, if I'm honest. I've always found Mike Tyson interesting and likeable, from what I've seen in interviews over the last 30 years. He is interested in a lot of the same things I'm interested in. He has a dark side, no doubt, and he's admitted to it. I don't know the sins he's committed really, but then I could say that about anyone. Sometimes I suspect he's manipulative and fake, other times I'm sure he's genuine and open and being honest. He's a complicated figure. I don't dislike Mike Tyson. I kind of like him, if it's right to like someone you never met.

You mistake my estimation of him as a fighter for some assessment of him as a person.

You really are being a bit strange now.

I'm on a lot of Tyson threads because my knowledge and interest of boxing history is naturally limited. I've picked up a lot about boxing history since the internet age, but I always tend to come back to heavyweights, that's where my interest lies, and I feel pretty good with memory and facts on the heavyweights of "my era". Fights I've seen, fighters I followed obssessively in my youth or read about extensively.

No, not a "hater". I don't have any emotional attachment to this subject. I am beginning to suspect that you do though.
From reading these statements of yours it is becoming clear. You seem to harbour a real and mysterious "love" for Tyson the fighter. A deep admiration anyway, like an mild psychological dependence. Anyone who sees Tyson the fighter in a vastly or clearly different way to you - ie. those who rate him clearly lower than you do, as a fighter - actually threatens your inner peace, you can't seem to handle it, even more so when they explain their points to you ... so you brand them a "hater" and throw other insults and cast aspersions.
You need to detach yourself emotionally, you'll feel better for it. :good

Well, I already said Tyson has a chance to hit Foreman and a chance to win that way with his counters.
That's was my post, I was saying that Liston would be more reliable to beat Tyson than Foreman because Foreman was hittable too.
I said that straight off the bat when I brought up Foreman.
But you chose to pick on the one little thing I said that you really didn't like, it seemed to bother you so much.
You forgot I actually gave Tyson some chance.