Mike Tyson vs Tyson Fury

I respect your opinion, but I don't think Wlad could have gone ten years undefeated in those other eras, even though he's a great champion. Also, I think there's far too much emphasis put on size.

But I agree with you that there's exciting matches to be made, even when Wlad retires. It's going to be exciting with the likes of Anthony Joshua coming through. But I still think the fighters from the earlier eras were better overall.

70's

Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Joe Frazier
Ken Norton
Ron Lyle
Larry Holmes
Earnie Shavers
Floyd Patterson
Jimmy Young
Jerry Quarry


80's

Tim Witherspoon
Mike Weaver
Pinkon Thomas
Frank Bruno
Larry Holmes
Carl Williams
Tony Tucker
Greg Page
Buster Douglas
Bonecrusher Smith
Tony Tubbs
Michael Spinks
Mike Tyson
Gerry C*oney
Michael Dokes
Tony Tucker


90's

Mike Tyson
Lennox Lewis
Ridd*ck Bowe
Evander Holyfield
George Foreman
Buster Douglas
Larry Holmes
Ike Ibeabuchi
David Tua
Oliver McCall
Tommy Morrison
Ray Mercer
Michael Moorer
Frank Bruno
Andrew Golota
Razor Ruddock


I won't do the HW's of the 00's.

But I fail to see how today's HW's are better than the HW's that I've listed above.

 

Come on, nobody's bothered about those losses.

Danny Williams and Kevin McBride would have done well to have gotten through the first round, if Mike had've been anywhere near his best.

 

I call him the King of Spin.

 

Again, I respect your opinion.

But I have a few fighters that would have beaten Wlad.

But take Wlad out of the picture today, and what's left?

How would the guys that are left have done against those HW's of the 70's, 80's and 90's?

In today's era, you've got an exceptional world champion, and a host of fighters who are good, but not great.

Today's era is definitely the weakest of the four decades listed.

I don't think Pulev and the like, would have done anything in those other eras.

 

I can't envisage Haye dominating the scene, even with Wlad out of the equation. But even if he was dominating, I don't see how today's HW's are better as a whole.

In the other eras that I've mentioned, no fighter went undefeated for ten years.

IMHO, Wlad could have not have gone undefeated for ten years if he'd have fought in those eras.

IMHO, all the fighters from each decade that I've listed, are better than today's guys.

I guess it depends on your definition of weak.

In the next few years, we may have some really exciting and entertaining matches to watch.

So in that sense, it wouldn't be weak.

But my main point, is that I think the HW's of the past had more ability as a whole.

I think they were better fighters and they would beat today's guys in head to head match ups.

 

IMHO, I think Roy would have decisioned him in a boring fight.

 

Roy had the speed and class, and Fury has the size.

I'll now await the usual comments - 'if Johnson and Tarver could knock Roy out, what would Fury have done etc'?

Or 'Fury by a jab in the first round.'

But people have short memories on this forum, and many of them place far too much emphasis on size.

Before Roy came back from HW, he was considered the best fighter in the world.

His elusiveness would have caused Fury lots of problems IMHO.

As yet, Fury is still a prospect with question marks surrounding him.

Size can be overcome by other attributes.

I might start a separate thread.

But with Tyson hoping to fight Wlad soon, and Roy fighting nobodies in Russia, I would expect a landslide number of votes in the favour of Fury, without too much thought going into it.

 

At last, a sensible post from you.

:good