If Liston could punch and had underrated skills, Tyson could punch as well and had better skills. Liston's only advantage would be his endless jab and iron chin, Tyson was faster and way more accurate. I envision a decision for Tyson.
I wouldnt call Liston's chin better than Tysons... Tyson has never been down early, and that's virtually Listons only chance.
I agree with the first part of your statement. Tyson has an iron chin, absolute granite. No difference there really. But I do disagree with you that Liston's only chance is to drop Tyson early. Liston was a wonderful ring general. He could box as well as he could punch. He is certainly the better boxer out of these two - but Tyson's speed is the equaliser+. Liston has a better jab than Hollyfield, he is stronger than Hollyfield and I think he's every bit the ring general that Hollyfield was - as well as being more adaptable. If one of these fighters is stuck with a one-option plan it is Tyson. Anyway, I'll pick Liston based on the mental, but it's a close run thing.
Liston had the two ingedients that makes him a style nightmare for a short slugger, long arms and a knockout punch. George Foreman says in his autobiography that he would have done the same thing to Tyson that he did Frazier, and there is little doubt that he would have. Liston would have done it too.
I think Tyson would have beaten George. George's punches are to wide and his straight punches are to slow...Tyson would get him.
Not just the equalizer, it's the finisher. Liston didn't represent the kind of tactician that guys like Ali, and later Holyfield were. Sure he could box and move when he wanted to, but he didn't lead with his head, elbow and hold on much. He wasn't so much a dirty fighter. And that's where Tyson's speed and agression would pay off. To beat a prime Tyson you really had to have a combination of control, poise, power and your own aggression. Guys like Holyfield and Douglas best represent this package.
Why would you need to be a great tactician when fighting Iron Mike? One does not follow the other; i'm confused at this logic - with Mike the most important factor would be to break his rythym with strength, timing, punching, movement, whatever it may be (the last is the most riksy and least likely to succeed in my view). Liston is capable of almost any of them, though I would suggest that closing the distance, utilising his superior strength and in-fighting skills would be the best way to get it done. IMO, more than any of these you need to have either GREAT distance or GREAT inside, because at mid-range you will never be at an advantage against Tyson. That Liston can do either is a huge boon, but his best bet is inside, as i've said.
Tyson studied alot of the old time boxers. He may not have shown great finesse in his prime but he knew how to get to them. His inside right hand is one of the best in boxing history. And his overhand right is one of the most destructive. Ditto for his 1-2 to the body and uppercut upstairs. I mention the cheating because if there is one place Tyson wouldn't be prepared it is there. A well schooled swarmer like Tyson could be controlled by doing things abnormal, something he wouldn't be prepared for. Tyson is not a guy who adapts in the ring either. He is well schooled, but not creative. So if you surprise him in the ring there really isn't much he is gonna do to work around it. And then you have him. Yes, he had a good inside game, against guys like Patterson. Tyson in no way fits here. He was sheer speed, power and vicious attitude. And if you didn't headbutt him, elbow him, hold onto him, he was gonna steamroll you. Liston would be hopelessly knocked out on his noble shield here.
That's a really tough one to call. Liston had a really great jab which would help him against Tyson. I could see him beating the Mike that lost to Buster Douglas, but when Tyson was prepared properly he would beat Liston.