If Tyson had fought in the 60s and 70s, would he have ever won a world title?

He beats Patterson, Terrel, Frazier, Ellis, and Norton. Might beat Holmes, hard to figure that one out.

Liston is 50/50

Loses to Foreman and Ali, but he beats post Zaire Ali who was running on fumes.

 

The opposite is also true

Ali used many of the tactics that Tillis, Douglas, and Holyfield used.

Biggs was a sorry excuse for an Ali clone with zero heart and Holmes was old and coming off a loss and layoff yet he gets so much mileage out of these wins.

 

Tyson beats anyone in that era.

 

He did beat Tillis.

 

He did, but Tyson had trouble with Tillis.

It's strange to bring up men Ali "had trouble with" (even though he won most of those fights) that had similarities to Frazier but ignore Tyson's close fights and losses to men who had similarities to Ali.

Short crouching aggressive guys with good hooks, so I'm guessing Frazier, Patterson, Cooper, and Bonavena.

He went 7-1 against those men. You'd think Ali had an abysmal record against the men people compare to Tyson when it's convenient.

The one loss was against Frazier, who had far superior stamina and work rate than Tyson who I definitely don't see being able to pressure Ali every minute of every round for 15. Unless Tyson knocks him out within 6, I don't see him winning.

 

He had trouble with Frazier in the sense that he outright lost to Frazier when both were closest to their best. Frazier repeatedly whacked Ali with that hook, and ultimately was one of a very select number of people to knock Ali down. I don't think that's all that odd to point out.

 

Tyson was close to his best when he struggled with Tillis and outright lost Douglas who both used tactics Ali excelled at.

So once again it goes both ways

 

dont see anybody giving him trouble except ali Ron gerry and oscar

 

it's not odd at all and people leave out joe did the most damage to ali even though George hit way harder then joe

cause joe punched with good tech and clean punches

no way does it make any sense that a person who hits way harder then another causes more damage then a weaker hitter well yea the reason is cause of tech which is the same reason why mike caused way faster ko to mutiple people

yet they say mike is weaker by punch then George no mike punches was way better tech and was hit on sensitive spots with speed that causes more damage

George power was the type to have a person hurt longer more like being numb

another thing im tired of is how they keep saying how mike had trouble with Tillis yea he was a good boxer that moved good
buster on that night moved good
they leave that out which is odd

mike never had trouble or was beat by a slow puncher they leave that out to

 

Pinklon Thomas reminds me of 70s Ali. Same trainer too.

 

It would be up to Tyson to lose, except for a match w post Liston Ali which would be close.

 

yea pink is underrated the lie myth goes that mike only beat bums

well mike beat more skilled people then ali George and joe combined that is no bum there

 

You always claim that fighters before the 70s couldn't move well and present your hand-picked videos as undeniable proof. You claim that you have good eyes and can recognize good movement and footwork. Can you be so sure that this is truly the case? You also claim that someone like Joe Louis had bad footwork which I disagree with. Almost all your claims are flawed and I can show you why.

Once upon a time I may have thought something with resemblance to your claims. I too was a massive Tyson fan once and thought that the fighters post 70s moved better than those who came before. Then when my boxing knowledge started growing, I started to question everything I thought I knew. I think this is a crucial part of every boxing enthusiast's journey. Can you truly trust your eyes and your judgement? I started thinking why older fighters didn't seem to be moving so well. What if older fighters had actually better and more efficent footwork than more modern boxers? Did it ever cross your mind that someone like Louis was actually more efficent? Louis didn't waste any energy compared to modern fighters. Why is the Ali or Holmes-style movement good in the first place? What does more flashy and mobile footwork actually achieve? That kind of movement improves the fighters ring-control which is of course a very desirable thing to pursue. What are the downsides of modern footwork? More traditional footwork keeps you balanced while modern footwork does the opposite. Modern footwork can help you evade punches better, but why would you waste your energy on that if you could simpy pull out of your opponents reach and range? Traditional footwork is also better for fast and effective counters with the in and out movement, a modern example of this is when Holyfield countered and KO'd Douglas. You can't defend yourself in a mechanically correct way and stay balanced at the same time when using more modern footwork (at least the Ali or Holmes-style footwork).

You also claim that Liston's jab is close to being useless or ineffective just because Liston wasn't fighting on the backfoot. Is it impossible to out-point your opponent if your aren't dancing or "outboxing"? You know that you can win rounds while being the aggressor right? Why did Liston then win against Machen on points if he wasn't outboxing and fighting on the backfoot? With a jab so good as Liston's and the 84' reach it absolutely makes all the difference and isn't useless at all. You can make use of your jab when coming forward, you should know that as a Tyson fan. You say "son" was slow right? Well he perhaps hadn't the fastest hand-speed, but it was fast enough, especially in his prime. You show proof to Liston being slow by linking a video that has the most highlights where he looks slower to reinforce your agenda.

Your claims are usually differ drastically from the opinions of many respected experts. Have you ever wondered why? Of course you think that they all have rose-tinted glasses and are brainwashed into thinking like that. Have you ever even considered that you might be the one who is wrong? You should think critically about these things before posting. You shouldn't always assume something is better just using an eye-test. You should read philosophy or something like that to improve your critical thinking. I don't claim to be speaking only the absolute truth and I often doubt myself, but at least I usually try to think these things out before I post.

 

I dont post handpicked like its vids that is from a certain match all the vids I post is mutiple matches in highlights So yea it is facts unless you have a vision problem

every vid I post showed outdated movement compared to anybody I show from 70s-90s so stop trolling

nobody will show Louis sonny or anybody in louis era moving like bowe razor lennox cause it didnt exist thats why they wont

the other stuff you said I have no reason to respond to cause you started off lying so why did you say I claim like I lie

I always say that people moved better then certain fighters I wouldnt show video of the truth if people stopped trolling like I made it up blame the trolls or liars not me for exposing lies