Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by AngryBirds, Feb 7, 2024.
no way, Tyson looked far quicker.
Practically all of them beat Mike. In 2004 and 2005 he was stopped early by Danny Williams and Kevin McBride, respectively. Almost two decades later Mike is most certainly much slower, much weaker and much less able to take a punch. In the Jones bout Tyson was basically out of energy by the end of round three. Mike has pretty much no chance to beat these guys.
Call me cynical brother and I know he was shot then. But I think he threw the fights with Williams and McBride
He was in massive debt and it wouldn't surprise me if he made money to lose. He was absolutely piecing Williams up, then looks 'injured' before being stopped while wide awake
It's possible he didn't want it anymore, but I honestly had a hunch at the time he didn't want to beat Williams. Had he beaten him? He was expected to fight Vitali and I doubt Mike wanted another Lewis style beaten at this age, so took a way out again
Again, this is just a crazy opinion, but I do think this is plausible wheb you watch the fights lol
This is boxing and stranger things have definitely happened, You could be right.
Until we see someone compete into their 50s, the answer is: "are you stupid?"
No, Tyson dominated Jones and looked far quicker and in better shape than he was in the mid 2000`s.
Well, a 20 year younger version didn't get past the Danny Williams and Kevin McBrides.. Why do you think Tyson beats father time? He could probably beat a lot of much lighter current champions, if they fought with that massive weight disadvantage, but not heavies..
Tyson was far quicker than McBride v Jones, he was in great shape.
I'm sure he looked better visually in an exhibition bout, against another 50-something. But we're talking champions..
There have been some awful champions but none of them as awful as McBride, a 50 something Jones is still quicker than McBride.
Nobody knows what OP is trying to say, but this is actually an interesting topic. What is the biological age limit for a top level pugilistic athlete? Based on a few rare outliers I would have to guess early-mid 50s. I think Big George still had a few good years left in him if he wanted it badly enough. Foreman had a lot of things lining up for him - Genetic specimen, taking a good decade off, and becoming a much smarter fighter as he aged to mitigate the decline in skills/reflexes. Hopkins wasn't the specimen Foreman was, but his style itself coupled with his discipline and likely good genetics helped keep in the game for as long as it did.
Tyson was in better shape than Foreman v Jones and quicker too.
Dude, STFU... YDKSAB
Foreman did well to stop Moorer but wasn`t quick at all by the mid 90`s, Moorer was standing right in front of him despite boxing his ears off for most of that iconic fight.
You idiot. Foreman was still competing throughout his 40s and holding his own with world rated opposition. Tyson/Jones was a fake exhibition match. The last fights Tyson had in his late 30s his body/mental toughness were totally gone, old Foreman would have smashed Williams and McBride.