Tyson v Tyson: An uncomfortable truth

Currently there's an @KINGWILDER thread up asking the question who is the superior Tyson? and the majority of those currently polled back Mike to KO Fury!

Allow me to bring all you boomers down to earth:

Fury has never been KO'd by anyone and taken clean shots from at least three guys who were all harder punchers than Mike across 5 fights.

But the majority of guys in this poll think that 5'10 Mike will be able to magically KO Fury.

Seriously, get your heads checked and consider this:

How many Heavyweights are there in the top 50 right now who are Mike's height, weight, and boxing style?

There's 1 (one!), George Arias; he's billed 5'11, comes in at 230lb and very clearly bases his fighting style on Mike Tyson with his head-movement, pressure/hunter style, aggressive left hooks and overhand rights. You may remember he was stopped by Jared Anderson in 3 rounds.

You may say George Arias "Is no Mike Tyson" he lacks the (pick one) skill/power/heart/chin of Iron Mike and he may well do. But there are thousands of young men across the globe in boxing gyms who're around 5'10 tall and 200lbs and they look at Mike Tyson and want to be like him. Thousands of guys studying his style and replicating his techniques, statistically it seems likely that many are probably stronger or tougher or more skilled than Mike himself but none of them make it at heavyweight. Most never even make it out of the gym at heavyweight!!

So why is it the case that a third-rate fighter like Arias is the only example anywhere near the top level?

Because in the modern era a guy who looks and fights like Tyson, gets beat. Simple as. If Mike could beat Fury there would be a version of Mike around today. Maybe there would be lots of Mike lookalikes around today because he's one of the most admired fighters of all time with one of the most distinctive fighting styles.

But there aren't.

And that should tell you all you need to know.


Mike gets brutally ragdolled around the ring and stopped or schooled from distance, one or the other.

 

Convenient and unlikely.

 

Fury cultist? Where?!

I'm a realist mate, either Mike Tyson is a touched-by-God fire-breathing overman OR he wouldn't have much success in the modern era.

Which is more likely?

 

muh phenomenon, muh shadow realm.

Empty words the do nothing but reflect how far you have bought into the MYTH of Mike Tyson.

 

Agenda? I view boxing through a particular conceptual scheme which allows me to understand what I'm watching, same as you. I make arguments that support said understanding, same as you.

Fury having a hard time v Ngannu surprised me to a degree but Fury was and is a fighter that will decline steeply so it could well be the case that he's on the slope. But you overstate it, Fury was NOT outboxed, he clearly won most of the rounds, I gave Ngannu 3 or 2 rounds which meant a narrow but clear win for Fury.

Ngannu is a strange one for this forum because he'll be used by one side or the other for the sake of convenience. Imagine if Usyk were to beat Fury and then get beaten by Ngannu? Is Usyk suddenly bad or Ngannu suddenly good? My point being that we really don't know how good/bad Ngannu is at boxing, if Fury is in terminal decline, or if it was just a bad matchup. We need both guys to have more fights to know.

"But I suppose all those fighters are better than a prime Mike Tyson because they're "modern Heavyweights""

I think this statement misunderstands my whole argument, I don't think ALL heavies today are better than ALL heavies of yesteryear. I just think the general trend is upward. It could be that the overall quality of fighters today are worse than those of 5, 10, 15 years ago. But when you get to 30 years I get very sceptical and when you get to 50 and 60 years ago I start to think the claims are fantastical.