Who "Wouldn't" Mike Tyson defeat as a Challenger ?

Ive always held that prime Tyson beats prime Ali.

I'll just say that I think Tyson at his absolute peak defeats everyone listed. For one of many various reasons. I'd give Lewis or Foreman the best chances. But I'd favor Mike Tyson.

 

You and inmemoryofjakelamotta just love some iron mike tyson.

Did you both wet your frillies at the word ’iron’? My apologies

 

I have legit reasons why I think Tyson would win and Im not picking Tyson because it's Mike Tyson I'm picking Tyson because of the attributes he possessed and if any other fighter possessed those attributes I'd pick them as well.

 

Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Joe Louis
Evander Holyfield (yes Holyfield beats prime Tyson too)
Rocky Marciano
Jack Dempsey
Prime Larry Holmes

And maybe Frazier and Lewis

"Prime Tyson" is an illusion based on poor competition, just because they were bigger than him. Even people who have famously bad competition like Dempsey, Marciano (who really didn't have that bad of competition), Patterson, etc still beat better competition than Prime Tyson.

The best competition Prime Tyson beat was a Michael Spinks who was pissing his pants at the thought of fighting Tyson, and Tyson dodged Foreman in his prime.

After saying all of this, I should say that I still rank Mike Tyson in my top 10 Heavyweights

 

Ali, Marciano, Foreman, Holyfield (obviously), Lewis, and maybe joe Luis. Don’t see the others winning but when taking about lineal champs in their prime many of them almost seemed unbeatable till they are beat. There was a blue print for Tyson and that was control distance either fight on the inside or keep him outside. Mike had that happy medium where if he caught you there you were in trouble. Mike obviously has a punchers chance at beating anyone I picked any given night. Just those guys def had a better or more favorable chance to win in my opinion

 

Tyson had better competition during his reign than many other champions. The men he were beating were big AND skilled. Most champions before him had competition that was one or the other. Either they were the stereotypical big oaf or they were skilled, but were modern day cruiser weights.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with the "skilled" part of that

Also beating a big man with skills isn't as impressive as beating a normal man with alot of skills

I'd be more impressed by someone beating prime Ali than beating Anthony Joshua. The way i see it, big men will never have as much "skills" as the normal sized Heavyweights (5'10" - 6'4") ((with exceptions like Lewis and Langford)). Humans weren't made to be that size. That's why Lennox Lewis, who probably has the most skill out of the SHWs, is still an amatuer when compared to Ali and Louis

Also factor in that power from size gives really diminishing returns after 180lbs and chins are purely genetic, and you have guys like Marciano, Liston, Dempsey, and Tyson who can brawl with the "big men with skills"

 

More size in general, means more strength and better reach and can give one the ability to take harder punches. All of these are generalities. Although I agree, at a certain size it can give diminishing returns.

On the other hand, it does count for a great deal or at least it can. Spinks and Holyfield didn't add weight when they moved up to heavyweight so that they could be seen better on the TV screen by people at home. If size was just irrelevant at all, Spinks could have just entered the ring at heavyweight weighing just 170-175 or Holyfield could have just fought at heavyweight weighing 185-190.

So I would say beating a bigger, skilled man is more difficult than a smaller, skilled man. I mean, H2H, who'd be more dangerous, Pac or Shavers? But Pac is obviously much more skilled.

And even among the bigger men, I'd expect say McCall to have done better against Liston than Patterson did. Simply because he's a significantly bigger man than Patterson who has a better chin

 

I'd rather fight valuev than shavers, and Valuev outweighs him by 100lbs and is 1ft taller

Part of the reason why they put on weight is simply because they stopped cutting weight. You know how lower weight classes work, water cuts then refuel right before the fight. Only heavyweights and the occasional badass like GGG fights at their natural weight these days

Though Holyfield put on weight for another reason too (HGH)

And I admit they put on weight because obviously they could max out their frame more and muscle always helps. But Heavyweights today went too far, now you have guys like Stiverne, Ortiz and Chrisora who are fat for the hell of it. 20lbs over what their peak fight weight should be.

 

Fergy, I agree with a lot of this, but I have my fav heavy ever Frazier getting wiped out early against Tyson. The fastest starter ever at heavy v a fighter that noticeably warmed up after 2/3 rounds before he smoked, imo it don't look good for Joe. I think Vitali ud's him in a close one and Dempsey's shots bounce off Tyson as they go h2h for 2/3 rounds max in a brutal fight where the natural bigger power of Tyson brings people back to the quote " a good biggun beats a good littlun ".... I agree with the rest though bud

 

Good post. Plus if they fought more the slobs might not be in the shape they are in