Who's the best fighter that Prime Mike Tyson can beat?

Horse****. 1996 Tyson was not prime, his prime was 86-88.
87 Tyson destroys 96 Tyson.

 

Because he didn't? Douglas needed ten rounds to hammer Tyson with his best shots and still nearly got his head taken off.

Tyson also ate a lot of good shots from Holyfield before going down and especially Lewis who was one of the hardest punchers of all time. I honestly don't know why you brought that up as if it'd help your point. Williams? Seriously? Tyson was beyond shot and his heart wasn't even in the game by that point. He'd also torn a ligament in the first round which required surgery and was visibly gassed by the time he got knocked down.

Your chin is the first thing to go as you age. This is a well known fact. Yes Foreman kept his durability up until he retired at nearly 50 but that's the exception not the rule. Ezzard Charles at a similar age as Tyson was when he lost to Williams, was getting knocked out by obscure names like Donnie Fleeman and George Logan.

Lyle at that age was knocked out by Lynn Ball . Their are countless other examples. Are we really gonna hold those past prime losses against their durability because they didn't have Foreman's super-human ability to maintain their chin in their 40s?

As I stated, I don't dispute Tyson loses to Foreman. Not at all. I agree. I just disagree with your statement that he's going to freeze as soon as he tastes Foreman's power. Would you favor Shavers over Tyson on this basis considering virtually all their common opponents considered him the much harder puncher than Foreman?

 

Agreed. But Tyson could realistically defeat Lewis if he lands consistently.
He has better chances at taking out Lewis than Louis or Foreman.

 

Tyson was only 30 years old in 1996 and was on his second reign as unified heavy weight champion.
So yes his age and accomplishments exemplify someone still in his prime.

 

Against Williams I think he was looking for that left hook, knowing Williams dropped his right when he jabbed. So he seemed pretty well prepared and executed well.

Against Bruno it seemed he thought it was a done deal after the first KD and needed a few rounds to wake up and get going when Bruno got back up and fought back strong. Once he remembered to focus on the body it was soon over.

I also believe he started to become a bit complacent after Spinks, though, and probably didn't train as hard or apply his fundamentals quite as well as he did under Cus and Rooney, but that's the case with many champions. He wasn't damaged goods in any way, hadn't even lost as much as Frazier post FOTC imo.

And if you're going to give him credit for beating guys like Thomas who also had plenty of out of the ring distractions not to mention a former H addiction, you also has take away some for being dominated the way he was against Douglas and Holy while still being fairly close to his very best.

 

That may be true. I think it was common knowledge even back then, Williams was a sucker for the left.

I admittedly haven't watched the Bruno bout in a while but remember thinking he had far to much trouble than I would've expected.

I agree. I don't think he was damaged goods at all like Frazier was. Tyson's issue weren't quite as severe. He just neglected his training, and roadwork a bit.

Frazier imo suffered permanent damage at least to a degree against Ali in TFOTC. It was very much a pyrrhic victory imo. He was never the same after that, and I think he knew that given who he chose to defend the title against in his next 2 bouts.

Yeah that's a fair point. Their was definitely a coke epidemic in the 80s when it came to boxers.

I don't think he was dominated against Douglas but yes he was clearly losing. I just think the extent to which Douglas was dominating gets overblown a bit. Tyson did have some success outside of the 8th round. Even Douglas commented at times, he found Tyson very difficult to hit because of his speed and angles.

I don't think Tyson was very close to his best against Holyfield. While by no means shot, he looked like a different fighter perhaps because he was rusty. His hand speed had visibly slowed down imo.

 

I think he still had his speed in '96. He was very explosive against Bruno and Seldon.

I do think he took Holy lightly in the first fight, though, and wasn't really focussed in his approach, but in the second he looked very much on point. That was very sharp version, but he still wasn't getting anywhere which is why I think that Holy just had his number.

 

Yeah I agree. He definitely took Holyfield lightly because of his rep going into the fight. People were legitimately worried for his health and he looked less than stellar against cyzy to say the least. Tyson was definitely better in the 2nd fight, and was having a very good third round but the problem was, Holyfield wasn't going anywhere and I think he sensed it was going to be a repeat of the first fight, despite his best efforts, and he couldn't let it happen again which is why he bit him.

 

Yep. That is my guess too.

As for the thread question, I don't know how things would go if former greats met each other, I have a hard enough time accurately predicting what will happen between fighters that are active at the same time (Ngannou-Fury was quite a schock), but it's clear to see that Tyson was very complete. He probably didn't have great stamina and was of course lacking in height and reach and maybe his heart in the Holy fights can be questioned, but otherwise he had pretty much everything.

 

Tyson was better, faster and more powerful than Norton and Frazier, his combos were two fisted and his body attack was better than Norton`s.

 

On the right night and with everything going his way, Mike Tyson MIGHT have beaten literally anyone
. Would it always work out that way? probably not. But the tools and the potential were there.

 

Tyson was one of the best fighters in history at slipping the jab and countering, Douglas`s jab was longer and quicker than Foreman`s and Tyson still floored him by countering his jab.

 

Anyone in history

 

Joe Frazier

 

As I said, I like Mike and wish to give him all credit where due.

Sure, the first Bruno fight was a hit tough for an abbreviated number of rounds. Rather than focus on what Mike possibly wasn’t, I think that fight was actually a feather in his cap.

Bruno was big, strong with a helluva punch - and he fought extremely dirty - Mike had to deal with that and was also notably stunned early in the fight.

This can happen to the best of them without anything necessarily being wrong within the fighter himself.

It seemed Mike was a bit disgruntled and perhaps angry with Bruno’s tactics but then he retightened his focus and got the job done well and truly.

Against Douglas he took a lot of punishment before falling - reasonably interpreted, I don’t think the prior perceptions of his chin should’ve suffered - Mike had a very good, possibly great chin imo.

I would generally favour Lewis over Mike. Both were past their best when they fought - Mike clearly worse for wear and not properly prepared.

However, while it might be a heavy extrapolation, I saw Mike do some things very early that could be reasoned to have possibly secured an early round KO if Mike wasn’t as far gone as he was.

He showed he could get inside but the crucial prime speed and millimetre perfect judgement wasn’t there.

I don’t know if people recall but Tyson also rocked Lewis back on his heels with that jab of his - amazing at 5’10” with just a 71” reach.

But Mike had no tank for that fight. 1-2 rounds and that was it except for the stoic ability to absorb a number of hellacious shots from Lewis.

For me, in a prime vs prime match up, if Mike wins it will always have to be early otherwise it’s Lewis’ fight increasingly as the rounds add up.