If Mike Tyson was around today, would he be a bigger star than Floyd?

Do you really think so?

Wlad would obviously have been his biggest challenge. Personally, I'd take a 1988 version of Mike to prevail.

But other than Wlad, who else do you think would have stood in his way? I can't see the likes of Fury and Wilder etc having beaten him.

 

Tyson would beat them all including Wladmir.

 

No they wouldn't. Hed beat them both.

 

It is amazing how the myth of Mike Tyson is still around today. He was a circus side show freak after he was KOed by Buster. His best wins are Spinks or old Holmes. His era was awful in his first title reign and in his 2nd one he lost to every good fighter he fought by KO.

 

Vitali is a much harder fight for Tyson than Wlad is.

 

Arreola is #36 on boxrec. No way was Thomas any better than Arreola anyway. On the same page, and probably not as tough. You've got guys like Eddie Chambers outside the top 40 that would give Thomas or Smith a hard fight, or guys around the top 30's like Hellenius, Wach, Martin, Ruiz Jnr, Gerald Washington, all punchers and tough match ups for Thomas or Smith, the number one and two contenders in 1986 as per Ring magazine.. I think you need to look at the rankings today, mate.

 

Yet he struggled against Jim Smith in 87, the same Jim Smith who lost a UD to Marvis Frazier a year earlier. Wlad (a league above Smith) would tie up and beat that Tyson, pretty certain on that.

 

You're comparing Wilder to Tyson? On ANY level that is absurd. Wilder fights like a beginner. He has a terrible style, tall, clumsy, not many people are buying into him. I mean, doesn't he just throw 1-2 all fight? lol Tyson was a great fighter, amazing speed, unparalleled explosiveness, and most of all his aura. This is what you're completely overlooking. His look and demeanor sucked people in immediately to him. Doesn't matter what era you put him in, people didn't care who Tyson fought, they just wanted to see him fight.

 

Yes, after he was knocked out by Buster, and post prison.

But before that, he had a unique skill set.

You say his era was awful, but this era is awful.

Holmes, Berbick, Spinks etc would all be top ten today. Tyson Fury is rated at number 3 pretty much everywhere. I'm a big fan of his, but he's still unproven and his best win is Chisora. Pulev is also in the top ten, as well as guys like Tony Thompson.

 

Definitely.


:good

 

You think Arreola was better than the likes of Thomas?

Don't just look at boxrec, look at the other publications.

The Ring magazine has currently got Takam and Thompson in their top ten.

Tyson Fury is rated at number 3, and that speaks volumes.

All Mike's best opposition of the 80's would be in today's top ten.

I don't need to look at the top 30 HW's today, because I know who they are. Although I might not agree in the order that they're ranked, I know who they are.

I suggest that you have a look when you can spare 5 mins. Because saying that Pinklon Thomas wouldn't be in today's top 30 is absolutely laughable.

 

The Holmes that lost to Tyson would probably be how champ today !, but we know he was old

 

You'd have fancied him against Wilder or Stiverne wouldn't you.

Despite him being 38, if he was active today, he'd be without a doubt in today's top ten.

He'd be considered one of the best HW's around.

I'm a fan of Tony Thompson, and he's in the Ring's current top ten.


:good

 

1. He made his era look awful in his first title reign by being so dominant.

2. He lost to every good fighter he faced in his second reign because he was mentally shot to pieces.

 

yes simples