Tyson`s speed and punching power would give him an edge in a very tough fight. Maybe Tyson as winner in the later rounds, although Oscar was a very strong heavyweight.
I'd say Bonavena's chances of winning are pretty vanishingly small. He might have a good shot at going the distance and giving a somewhat decent account of himself, though.
In a 12 rounder, I could see Oscar winning up to potentially 5 rounds, but Mike would be too much for him.Tyson UD Bonavena in a good fight.
No,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the Argentinian Bull,,,,,,,,,,,Was Too Damn Slow And at 5' 10 1/2" and 205 lbs. - Too Small. His 'awkward style' plus the 'elbows and head' would be his best attribute. Lets not forget, Oscar spent 90% of his career fighting guys who 200 lbs. or less. Out of '68' bouts, only '8' were against 'bigger men'. 'Two bouts' with 210 lb. Zora Folley 'One-bout' with 212 lb. Muhammad Ali 'One-bout' with 215 lb. George Chuvalo 'One-bout' with 211 lb. Wendell Newton 'Three bouts' with 230 lb. Jose Giorgetti Even in his '2 bouts' with 'Smokin Joe' Frazier, Joe was only 202 lbs.
I think Bonavena's awkwardness, strength and ability to cover up, ala the Frazier fights would enable him to last the distance. He's lose a decision and absorb a shellacking, but he'd go the distance...in fact I think Oscar would have gone the distance with Ali if there was ever a rematch. Ali caught lightning in a bottle in that fight of theirs and I don't think he'd be able repeat the trick.
don't u think d same could have been claimed about Tony Tubbs or Jesse Ferguson ? Even Michael Spinks ? Tyson was no Frazier , he was dirty in a very effective way which Bonavena could never overcome . "Lightning in a bottle" or not , d fact that Ali managed what he did against him is a true indication of Bonavena's worth . I disagree that it was anything flukey 4 2 reasons : 1) there r no flukes in this sport especially . 2) old man Zora Folley almost managed what Ali had . Bonavena was just another short fat guy who gets overrated 4 fighting in d 1970s . D 1970s advantages over d 1980s was d absence of Heroin , Cocaine and Crack while d 1980s had bigger men . d 1970s had George Foreman and 2 a much lesser extent a faded Joe Frazier , but d 1980s had Miguel Gerardo Tyson and 2 a lesser extent up and coming Oliver McCall and Evander Holyfield . d 1970s were much ruined by Dundee , King and Ali but d 1980s were also much ruined by Holmes and King . Actually d 1980s weren't any worse , d best era were d late 1980s 2 early 2000s , at least as far as d heavyweight division goes , and nothing even comes close .
The speed would make an immediate and decisive difference ... Oscar would not know what hit him ... Tyson was so much faster, harder hitting and even stronger ... it would be a blow out ...
Just read a great article on Bonavena from a 2009 ring issue entitled state of the game with Pacman on the cover. Bonavena was a very complex person, I believe the quote was something like "he had a big soul, but you never knew whether he was an angel or the devil". He came from extreme poverty and was Considered impossible to intimidate. Im gonna say Tyson tko 9. I believe Bonavena could take a lot of punishment, but this is Tyson were talking about. I ve only seen compilation of Bonavena though. What do you people feel was his best performance?
Frazier #1 was his best performance followed by Chuvalo (i think i still haven't seen it in its entirety so it's doubtful) and then followed by Frazier #2 .
No, he couldn't win but I do believe Oscar's character and toughness would bring out the worst in Tyson. He would look bad in winning a bad-tempered decision I think and the right referee might even disqualify the worst possible version imaginable of a prime-Mike, if that's not too hard a sum.
