Honestly, I do not think that Prime Mike Tyson would beat Wilder, Joshua, and Fury

This content is protected

 

Nobody else's prime finished at ****ing 22

It's absoloutley absurd the excuses people make for Tyson when the simple fact is he could only fight ONE WAY

Squared up, peekaboo style. No variety, none. And that style in itself wasn't perfect.

If you can't adapt, you will get beaten. That happened to Mike. He was also mentally fragile which didn't help. He admitted he went into the ring with fear. And when he got hit back, he crumbled.

So to the point of this thread i think all of the behemoths listed have a good chance against tyson.

 

Tyson struggled with length...actually he struggled with anyone good (beating a shot 39 year old Holmes doesn't count). Fury, Wilder and Joshua all beat him. Deontay would absolutely starch that midget. Tyson is the most overrated boxer in the history of the sport. And a ******.

 

Kid, get off your big brother's PC before he gives you a swirley.

 

Let me guess..what about same age ATG Larry Holmes? Did that ATG, who was as old as Ortiz, had Tyson hanging in the ropes praying for dear life, barely surviving the round?
Oh wait! Tyson totally obliterated that ATG Yepp, I guess Wilder has the better win with Ortiz

Apart from other big fellows like James Smith, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, Tony Tubbs and Frank Bruno.

Do some users on BF24 pretend to be ******ed, or whats the explenation for shitting imbecile dung like that into the public?

 

This. James Smith would've knocked Ortiz out cold and I actually like Oritz, but Smith had knockout power for all 12 rounds just like Wilder and had just as good of a right hand. Ortiz doesn't have the gas tank to gas Bruno out and Bruno had a better jab than any active heavyweight along with excellent power. Thomas before he ruined his right hand also would've knocked out Ortiz, but after multiple surgeries on his hand I'd say it would be a 50/50 fight.

 

When Holmes fought Tyson, it was his 51st pro fight, including many, many wars, and Larry was pretty shot at that point. When Ortiz fought Wilder it was his 29th pro fight and the first time he took any real punishment. Ortiz is still a legit threat. It's apples to oranges, dude. Anyone can see the difference. My god Tyson fans are delusional.

 

The guys that are delusional are the guys thinking that this HW era is strong. It's not. It's as weak as a bridge made out of wet noodles.

 

Fair post mate. I still say the thoughts of mike being a bully...that folded when someone stood up to him are wide of the mark. I don't mean you saying it but that's generally the narrative regarding mikes career. I think its a misconception. Mike stopped training properly started drinking doing drugs...gaining weight etc. Then he started to slip. That's when the guys got him. I actually think its testament to his strong mentality and how well cus taught him that he was able to last as long as he did. Obviously he was all over the place mentally outside the ring...it was that that killed him more than a weak mentality inside it. He pretty much always took his beating usually when he wasnt training properly and living like an amatuer fighter.

The guys Tyson did beat it his prime we,re by no means guys that didn't turn up to win. It takes a strong mentality to get to where he did. Its just that he blew it by doing pretty much everything wrong. He didn't have the stamina or the skills he had through lack of training to compete in hard gruelling fights like the holyfield fights. Not sure I agree it had anything to do with mentality inside the ring imo anyway.

 

So was Tyson's era, that's the point.

Michael Spinks and Trevor Berbick are two of Tyson's best wins, for ****'s sake.

 

I appreciate the effort you put into this post. However, you are conflating quantity with quality. Obviously, Tyson has a *longer* reign than any of the three fighters we are discussing in this thread.

But the question posed is whether Tyson would defeat any of them, not a resume comparison. And the point of invoking his resume is to show that, despite all these fights you listed, there's no one there the caliber of Joshua, Fury or Wilder. I do agree that Ruddock would pose a threat to Joshua and Wilder, but he typically failed when he stepped up to the highest level. The 80s guys were just generally not very good, as evidenced by the fact you had to list Berbick (midget) and Bonecrusher (19-5 when they met, including a loss to Marvis Frazier) as notable Tyson wins.

I love Tyson in terms of presence and style, but the reality is that his resume is devoid of quality. But you're right that he was active and didn't duck anyone. He suffered through a poor era, one that preceded the super HWs who now dominate the scene.

 

whats 22 got to do with him going to prison, meathead?

 

What an eloquent response. You should be proud.

Ortiz and Holmes were at completely different places in their respective careers. Whereas Holmes was retired and secured as an ATG, Ortiz still is trying to establish himself as a champion and break into the highest paydays.

Holmes was considered a shot fighter after Spinks x 2, and then two years later Don King yanks him off the couch to fight Tyson. It was a joke, which is why Tyson was an 8-to-1 favorite. Prime Holmes handles Tyson over 12 or 15 rounds, but by 1988 he was completely finished as a top fighter.

None of Bonecrusher, Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs, Biggs or Bruno would have reached the AJ, TJ or DW level, either. Those are not great names if they are your best wins. And this overlooking Tyson's disastrous performance against Douglas, at 23 years old, that his fans typically insist that we all treat as "past prime." Silliness.

 

Tyson wipes the floor with all 3

 

Berbick a midget? At 6'2" he's just as tall as Parker and Whyte who are no where near 6'4". Even Joshua is really only 6'4"-6'5", which isn't anything Tyson hasn't seen before.

Also, Marvis was a very talented fighter that excelled against large fighters, but struggled with guys that were skilled enough to consistently time him such as Holmes and Tillis or guys that were faster than him and could beat him to the punch such as Tyson. Inactivity and two corrective surgeries on his neck did a number on Marvis, which is why he didn't respond well to uppercuts, but he still beat every big man he ever fought as a pro. James Broad in shape was just as good as Joshua, but had better fundamentals.

If you really think Joshua and Fury, who aren't as active or as experienced as the best guys on Tyson's resume are of a higher caliber than we'll have to agree to disagree.