Leon Spinks challenges Mikey Tyson, both prime.

I thought 36 was considered old. Remember, that's how old Ali was when he lost to Spinks?

 

If guys are still top ranked boxers regardless of age, & you call them great performances, then basically by definition they are not meaningles wins.
If you look great & easily beat a Worl Class boxer it means a good deal.
Not as much of guys were prime, but that is a rare situation.

You did not fail to mention a bunch of fighters as young. You labeled them all incorrectly as old!
And "approaching old" is not at all old. Kind of like middle aged is not old, though the next stage is old, they are very distinct.
but these guys were young & not even approaching middle aged.

It is simplistic & unfair to judge a victory largely on the age of an opponent.
Sometimes someone fairly "old" can be still great.
Especially for many years now due to training advances & PEDs.

Tyson's run up to & during his championship was among the better ones.
Someone wrote the record of his opponents, & especially in the '80's before they fought Tyson they were excellent.
People are always saying HWs especially battled "bums", winosfrom the alley...
lok at the record & frequency of who Tyson fought compared to almost any HW & he compares favorably.
Ali had the great competition after his true prime (& then many soft touches).

We can dissect anyone to make them seem unimpressive, though an objective look at who he beat how often is very impressive.
Especially considering the size differentials.
Tyson was a different animal in the '80's.
Go on & choose any great HW's run to the title & when they held it.
Note their records, is rematches that were deserved were neglected of dodged.

Tyson will compare very well.

 

I think you have a lot of good points, but I just don't remember calling all of Tyson's opponents "old", but it doesn't much matter. Berbick, Tucker, Biggs, Bruno, and Williams were all prime fighters, not old at all (Berbick was aging). I do not rate a performance by how good the opponent is, but how good Tyson was on the given night. When Tyson beat Holmes, it was a great night for Mike. When Larry beat Ali he was at his best. When Ali knocked out Williams he was in his peak. My primary reason for not putting as much value in these wins is that in a potential fantasy fight discussion (Ali vs. '60 Williams, Tyson vs. '82 Holmes), some ignorant goof-offs are likely to say that the outcome would be the same, when it definitely wouldn't. Tyson beat a lot of great fighters, old or not, and had a lot of great performances, but I have to say that if Tyson fought prime Thomas, Holmes, and Spinks that the outcome would most likely have been far different.

 

What did you do to Richard?

 

You initially called them all old.
I consider how good an opponent is as part of how good a performance is.
Because it is less of a challenge to beat someone not declined. Still Ali & Tyson were great at their respective peaks even if Spinks & Williams were not.
I think you made an error talking about Ali vs. Williams as a fantasy fight-you must know they actually fought in 1966.

I think Tyson beats Thomas & Spnks without question at their peaks.
Why on earth would you not think Thomas was in his prime?
And I can think of only on3e alleged reason he may not have been at his absolute peak.
He was just over 29 years old. He was 29-1-1, only losing a decision to Berbick.
He had won & defended the WBC title against excellent opposition, described above.

Spinks was not a natural *modern* HW. Tyson holds the stylistic advantage.
Holmes since he was great & definitely past prime, you can make a stronmg case for.
I still favor Tyson, as I would Frazier, since Tyson was enough of a swarmer to get to Holmes.
He held victories over Tillis, Weaver, Witherspoon & Ratliff. When these guys were near prime, certainly not washed up.

 

It was for @BlackCloud

 

i know

 

Leon Spinks jumps headfirst into the fiery pit of a volcano. Who wins?

 

Well, I do not recall calling them all old, but I will not say it any more.
I know Ali and Williams fought in '66. I was merely saying that if someone posted a fantasy match btwn '66 Ali and '60 Williams and expect the exact same outcome that would be stupid.
I agree, I think Tyson still would have defeated prime Thomas and Spinks.
Berbick took all Thomas had out of him, and Thomas did not display his great jab near as much in the Tyson fight. Prime Thomas would have forced Tyson back for a long time with the jab he had. I do not look at the Tyson fight as if Thomas had been washed up all these years, but rather that it was just ushered in. In reality, I think Thomas was looking good vs. Berbick, but just met the better man, one who was stylistically superior. For me, the Tyson fight was a confirmation of Thomas being washed up, which I believe was the general consensus following the Berbick fight.
I totally agree with you about Tyson and Spinks. The only thing I have with it is that I think Spinks would last a while. As we see in the film, he was very easy to hit. In his prime, Spinks was extremely difficult to hit.
I glad what you say of Holmes, as he is the only guy Tyson beat in the 80s that I think would have certainly beaten Tyson in his prime. I do think Tyson has some similarities to Frazier, but was tougher imo and more precise in his punching. Tyson might be able to beat Larry inside, who was deficient in that area, but Larry dominated good inside fighters like few did. My point is, Tyson would be good inside, but Larry would never let him. He would play the same number Holyfield did on Tyson, probably greater. Don't get me wrong. I think Tyson would prove more challenging than a big puncher like Shavers for instance due to superior speed and stamina would give Larry trouble. But I still have Larry stopping Tyson late or winning a decision.

 

OK thanks! I do not recall any opinion that Thomas losing his first fight be decision to Berbick while still young had him washed up though.
Maybe Berbick had the better style match up, but I cannot see why anyone would believe he was done.
He had 3 vistories after that before Tyson smoked him. Then he lost the next 4 out of 5, so I think you likely mixed up who was thought to have ushered in his decline, but am open to evidence. Then he won his next 13, though against lesser competiton.

Of vourse Holmes is an ATG & he might beat Tyson.
Although...Holmes was never as strong as Holyfield on PEDs, so I do not think he could tie up Tyson effectively.
And you are mistaking Tyson for an inside fighter...Because he was shorter & had less reach he looked like one, but he really fired away from his own midrange & was less effective inside.
That is one thing he could have done much better. He would tacitly consent to clinches & not struggle inside like say Frazier.

You are likely right about Spinks.
Williams I think would never pose a great challenge for prime Ali-he was too good against sluggers.

 

I don't think Thomas was washed up before he fought Berbick, but a lot of people say how he was high on drugs and all that. Maybe so, but I still have Berbick beating him anyhow.
I agree with you that Holmes was less effective at tying up than Holy was, and was not as strong. I don't think Tyson was a great fighter, but I think that would probably have been Larry's greatest weakness, so I think Tyson would fail if he attempted an outside fight with Larry.
I think Ali would have defeated Williams any time as well, but Ali rarely knocked out any great fighter in 3 rounds like that. However, I think Ali would struggle with Williams who had non-typical handspeed, mobility, and stamina for a slugger. I think Ali would probably win a decision against a prime Williams.

 

If Thomas had drug problems then he might well have won if he was clean, but I do not know about that fight or what led up to it.
But I am saying that was his only loss, & by decision, before fighting Tyson.
I would like to see some evidence that anyone felt this nearly undefeated fighter in his 20's was even past his prime, let alone washed up.

Ali would have taken more time than 3 rounds against a prime Williams? Very possibly.
But he might have done enough damage to take him out late, Williams had a spotty record.
We are not very part on this though.

Tyson would certainly fail in an outside fight against Holmes.
No way coul he beat an ATG or anyone very good & much talkler & longer from the outside-that is just basic physics.
But I am saying he was not an insie fighter either-the fact that he had to get closer to land his devastating attacks does not make him an inside fighter, he would smash & counterpunch from midrange (for him, closer seeming against much taller & longer opponents-& often get clinched, pushed back, & reset.
A real inside fighter tends to avoid this, & at least throws many effective very short punches, unlike Tyson.

Our biggest difference is that you o not call Tyson a great fighter.
Based upon his speed, power, boxing & defensive skills, effective aggression, & of course success against goo opponents with excellent records, he was unquestionably great to me.
Additionally that he fought & beat many bigger or much bigger man reinforces his greatness.

He had flaws like everyone, but mainly unraveled psychologically & in will to win in the '90's/

 

Holmes at his best was imo unquestionably better than Buster Douglas at his best. The fight Douglas brought to Mike (and yes I understand Mike wasn't quite himself during that fight, though that does count as an excuse) wasn't entirely dissimilar to what the Holmes of...say, the Scott LeDoux fight would have brought to him. Except Holmes had a far better, heavier and nastier jab, and probably a more powerful uppercut (in fact, the uppercut of prime Holmes was the only punch he had in his youthful repetoire that can anywhere near a power punch). Despite what I read above, Larry was usually quite good at clinching, even over five years past his prime and nearly two years without a pro fight he managed to tie up Mike quite well, until the very end where Mike's hand speed shocked the hell out of him (something Holmes should have been WAY more aware of beforehand, shame on him).

I do think Mike would have knocked Larry down, but I just don't see Mike being able to handle when Larry gets up and takes control again with the jab within a round. He did just that against Weaver, Snipes, and Shavers...even in the Cooney fight he took a few devastating hooks flush, came back and in control again each time. He had amazing resiliency and heart.

Mike would have made it 9 or 10 rounds. The jab and uppercut would have been his undoing imo (it's probably a 90s Mike would have lost to Riddick Bowe for the same reasons..though Bowe did get hit a lot).

I realize this is an unpopular opinion around here, and I respect the members who have legitimate assertions against it.