Tyson Vs The 60's And 70's

http://

This content is protected

 

Yes, Futch has insight on this particular subject that we cant really doubt. Also, it seems highly unlikely that he would be mistaken about such a specific phenomenon. In fact he's probably more aware of it that Norton himself, for who it was probably mostly subconscious and masked by all his other thoughts and feelings at time of a big fight.

(Dont feel guilty for hitting me with Futch quotes ! It is gems like that that keep me posting here!)

I agree.
We cant help picking Shavers against great fighters sometimes - sometimes we DO have to pick Shavers, despite his record against top shelf fighters.
The laws of probability dictate he would beat a great fighter by crushing KO, if you were to match him with all the great fighters, which we do here.
Rationally, in each individual match-up, we should favour the great fighter over him, but occasionally we have to underline his "danger factor" by irrationally picking him.

Also, he's a guy we cant help rooting for.

Maybe all that's true, it's all debatable.

With Norton, if you made his mind right against punchers, I think he's got some interesting tools and style to compete with them.

Tillis was in great shape, 207 pounds I think, and I believe he was 100% confident and motivated to beat Tyson, who was only a 19 year old kid with no top-flight experience. Tillis was out to school this massively hyped new prospect.

Actually, what I say about Tillis above holds to some extent about Berbick.
Tyson was still a young kid who might be "exposed" as "all hype". The victory over Berbick was what set Tyson onto the top-level.
Berbick was probably confident. His style and tactics proved less effective than Tillis's.

I dont think Berbick was at all intimidated, maybe he tried to prove that too much. But craziness was part of Berbick always.

 

I wonder how long Chuvalo was last against Tyson ?

Ernie Terrell is definitely a fighter I could see going the full distance with Tyson.

 

So is Bonecrusher Smith, Mitch Green, Tony Tucker and James Tillis.

Not really an elite bunch!

 

I agree with you there.

 

Peak Tyson versus peak Ali is close. Ali had the skills and the speed edge over Tyson, but he would be facing a swarmer that could hit equally powerful with both hands. Frazier was a one handed fighter but his left hook was able to bring him to a victory nonetheless over Ali. Tyson had clearly superior handspeed to Frazier, his left hook was on par with Fraziers, and his right hand was clearly better. I would give Tyson the edge here by razor thin decision although Ali might have a chance to stop him late if its over 15.

Foreman would definently give Tyson a tough fight. I could see Tyson getting dropped, but Tysons huge edge in speed is the difference. 70s Foreman didn't have any survival skills, and you need them if you fight a prime Tyson.

I would pick Tyson by early stoppage over Frazier. He has EVERY physical edge on Frazier, power, speed, chin, and size. Frazier had more heart but it wouldn't bail him out here.

Norton would be a cakewalk for Tyson. Norton would be too frozen too move.

Jimmy Young could give some problems for Tyson. He was a fast, clever boxer who could upset a lot of ATG boxers if they overlooked him at all. Tyson would be able to beat him though like Foreman should of.

Shavers doesn't have the chin to take Tyson. Chances are he won't even land a decent shot on Tyson, Tyson could take him out early ala Quarry or he cold be more wary and take him out in 5-6 after taking Shavers apart.

Liston could definently beat Tyson. A peak Liston versus Tyson is too close to call, Liston usually beat up fighters with Tyson's style.

 

Ali does not have a significant speed edge over Tyson.

Tyson is one of the few fighters who can match Ali's speed.

 

Close to a joke. Peak Tyson vs Peak Buster Douglas is a fairer matchup.

 

He fought underachievers that were highly ranked on a poor ratings system in the 80's and early 90's. Not to discredit what Tyson did during his first reign because he blew away everyone that was put in the ring with him. He was a good combination, power boxer that used his head properly to get inside when he was young.

The alphabet boxing soup is the forgotten factor here, which was and still is mostly controlled by Don King to capitalize on the Las Vegas odds. Forget the two fights with Holyfield in the mid 90's, those should have happened before Tyson's exile. Lewis fought a mediocre Tyson that was 240lbs and failed to finish him early. Bruno was scared before he got to the ring and Mathis Jr was no Mathis Sr. He never fought Riddick Bowe and don't even mention the White Buffalo.

Tyson has never fought close to the caliber of the 60's or 70's heavyweights. Don't compare James Tillis, Tony Tucker, Mitch Green, Henry Tillman, Carl Williams or Tony Tubbs against any of the ranked fighters from the 60's and 70's. It's embarassing and just plain wrong. Quarry, Bonavena, Lyle, Shavers and George Chuvalo would arguably be heavyweight champions if they fough in different eras and they would beat all those same contenders Tyson fought.

 

I respect your opinion but I have to STRONGLY disagree. Watch the first Ali vs Frazier FOTC. I can't remember any Tyson fight in his entire CAREER where he's put that kind of pressure on any opponent and at that pace. Frazier fought Ali at 205lbs with the pressure speed of a middleweight. Tyson at his prime never moved his head or banged to the body as quick as Joe Frazier in his prime.

 

Tyson beats EVERY 60 and 70s HW not named Ali or Foreman or maybe Frazier.

Lyle Shavers and Bonavena at best could last the distance against Tyson while getting a beating remimiscent of the Ruddock fights Shavers probably gest stopped early Lyle mid to late rounds.

Quarry gets stopped late

Chuvalo lasts the distance if the ref does not stop while receiving a worse beating then he got against Foreman

The 70s was a great era but ALOT of 70s HWS have only become legends just for fighting Ali.

 

The same could be said for Joe Frazier who defended his belt against men like Ron Stander, Terry Daniels, Dave Zyglewicz and Manual Ramos. Liston was dominant for a while, but only really beat a few fighters who were ranked. Foreman's run was impressive I'll admit.

I agree.

This is true, but it still shouldn't take away the fact that for three years Tyson beat every ranked fighter that was placed in front of him.

I won't claim that Smith, Tucker, Tubbs, Bruno and Co. were great fighters per say, but some of the guys you mentioned had more than their share of shortcummings as well. Earnie Shavers was a mother ****er of a puncher no doubt, but he was very one dimensional and was beaten by a number of average fighters. I wouldn't bet too much on him holding a title in too many eras, and that includes the 80's. Quarry was a terrific all around boxer and a very tough guy, but he was very limited in size, and had the tendency to bleed. I have a hard time seeing him beat Tucker or slugging it out with Frank Bruno. Chuvalo was a durable fighter, but having a great chin doesn't necessarily ensure that he'd be champ in the 80's. The list goes on.

Tyson fought and beat a lot of men who were fairly large in size, had a great deal of strength, a fair amount of experience, and were usually at a reasonable age. If you ask me, Spinks,Tucker, Biggs, Bruno, Williams, M. Frazier, Berbick, Thomas, Stewart, Tubbs and Ruddock are a pretty good list of opponents. You also have to factor in that Tyson won all of his first 37 fights, unified the title, became youngest champ, and cleared out the division of its best talent within less than 5 years, and by the age of 23. If that's not one hell of a resume, then I don't know what is.

 

If you don't find Floyd Patterson to be an ATG????? Than your lack of boxing knowledge should preclude you from posting anymore!!! I rate him and Tyson 12 and 13 and find both interchangable! I am not saying Tyson was not a great...but head to head with top 10 guys I struggle to find him a win! I am not certain he ever beat a top 20-25 guy in his carear...he has fought 2 top 10 guys 3 X's and is 0-3 (Unless you find the version of Holmes he beat to be a beast?).....so reality is that Floyds win against archie Moore is probably better than anything Tyson can boast!

 

Patterson is possibly underrated.
His resume is pretty good, a good win over Moore, two revenge KO wins over Johansson, Chuvalo, Machen, a controversial "loss" to Jimmy Ellis, a draw with prime young Quarry, a win over Bonavena.
He got knocked down a lot but only Johansson, Liston and Ali could beat him inside the distance.
Patterson also looks phenomenal on film.

 

Agreed,

Floyd was truley remarkable. His size was probably his main limiting factor, but it didn't stop him from being successful either.