Interesting Debate. Could Mid 90's Tyson have unified this era without K2?

Taking the klitschkos out of it yes, there isnt anyone round today thats got the tools, chin, will of holyfield to out muscle even 90s tyson. 96-97 tyson wasnt that bad holy had just trained so hard for him and had tricks up his sleeve not going all out toe to toe like he would have 5 years prior. And there aint no one close to holy today.

 

Mid-90s Tyson couldn't beat anybody. That was a shot guy who really didn't want to fight.

 

Hell no. If you think that version of Tyson would have any sort of longevity, you're an idiot.

 

he probably could. The Klitchkos are the problem for Tyson since he would be too small.

 

Tyson was never a great fighter, he was champ in the worst era of heavyweight boxing history.

 

your obviously a dumb****...:yep

 

wow I didn't read the thread correctly. Mid 90s Tyson? He would probably win the title and then lose in his 3rd defense. His defense was not great in the 1990s. The 1980s Tyson would have loved to have the opponents the Klitchko's have had.

 

Yes, just not for long.

 

Of course he would with or without K2. He may not have had is skills and what not but he is still harder and could take any shots from the best of this era quite easy.

 

Who would he have to beat today realistically? Povetkin, Pulev, Arreola and Haye. I'm not sure I'd pick any individual to do the job on the man who raped Bruno. But I reckon it's a safe bet that given a gauntlet one of them would.

Get past round 5 and the hard part is over I reckon.

So no, I don't think he unifies every belt.

 

Tyson beats them all, unifies the belt, then gets bored and loses to some nobody and then he moves on or retires.

The Tyson who lost to Holyfield in '96 still rocks all these mother****ers.

 

And today's era is amazing, yeah? :roll: