Wilder v Mike Tyson (90`s version) who would have won?

You're kidding yourself.

There's no way Wilder would land more shots than Mike.

Even though Mike was past his best, he still fought low in a crouched position with head movement.

It would have been very difficult for Wilder to have landed power shots against that sort of an opponent.

Wilder has poor timing and he needs time and space to set himself.

I don't think Wilder could take the punishment that Ruddock did.

 

1. Wilder would have needed the perfect opportunity to have landed.

2. Those guys beat Mike down before he crumbled.

It took Lewis 8 rounds to finish a version of Mike who was completely finished as a top level fighter.

 

Against the versions of Mike who fought Ruddock?

 

Mike was unique. And his small physique and style worked to his advantage against bigger guys.

Yes, the HW landscape has changed. But today's guys are no better than the best HW's of Mike's era.

 

You're clueless.

You haven't even offered a breakdown of how their styles would have meshed.

Okay, you think Mike was overrated. Fine. But engage your brain and realise that his style was a horrible stylistic match up for Wilder. Horrible.

Also, if you use the same reasoning to analyse Wilder's career, then what he's achieved is even less impressive.

How on earth have you formed the opinion that Wilder would have won comfortably on points?

It's absolutely baffling.

There's zero logic to that opinion.

 

Gotta love these one-sided 'breakdowns'.. Mark's are all essentially:

McCall is overrated
Bruno is overrated
Tyson is overrated

Therefore my guy win. All from a guy upping Ortiz like he's actually accomplished something, other than getting KO'd twice by DW. Good grief these kids....

 

Tyson even in 90s was still a wrecking ball, however the flaws were evident, and Tyson sure does not have a good record of getting off the canvas when an opponent put him there, Wilders punch power has the ability of putting Tyson to the canvas if he should connect, would Tyson have the testicular fortitude to climb off the canvas, even if he could.

The buzz saw vs the long swinging axe.

 

Please

 

Style doesn't matter when you are 6'7 against a 5'10 opponent. Wilder is fighting a dwarf here. And Tyson has short range 71' against 83" ! He was a flashy athletic puncher, had poor gameplay inside and from outside his only hope is to jump one feet ahead and swing a left hook. Wilder doesn't need to be the most amazing heavyweight in history to beat him. Holyfield had different style than Douglas or Lewis. Any style can beat Tyson if you are legit. It was said that Holyfield went down 4 times in his career before he fought Tyson, but he did not visit the canvas once against Tyson despite being a former Cruiserweight and the aggressor. He did not concede an inch to Tyson in 2 fights, except when he lost a piece of his ear.

That's how bad Tyson was

 

Today's guys might not be better technically but they are certainly much bigger guys. My point was that I didn't understand how ppl just dismiss today's guys and claim Tyson or Ali would just easily knock them out in 1 or 2 rounds. It's very hard for me to judge who would win just because of the size difference. Would a 5ft 11 Joe Frazier be able to compete with a 6ft 8 inch Tyson fury. Imo it's difficult to tell.

 

Mike could take a shot.

The only time he ever quit was against McBride.

I don't think the odds of Wilder landing a perfectly timed shot would have been that good.

 

After reading your ridiculous opening sentence, I have to believe that you're trolling me.

 

How you think they'd have match up stylistically is far more relevant than any size disparity.

 

Yeh it's more relevant but that doesn't mean size difference should be dismissed. The difference in size is nearly the same between Pacquiao and Andre ward. Tyson was 15 stone 5ft 11 and Joshua is 6ft 6 and 18st. Surely with the advancements in sports science then the size issue could be a major part in determining the fight outcome. My only point is that I find it strange that ppl instantly make out that Tyson or Frazier or Marciano would simply just knock out today's guys in 1 or 2 rounds as if it would be really easy.

 

Size shouldn't be dismissed. But you have to look at the stylistic match up before you look at the size.

Being bigger and heavier isn't always an advantage. Of course it can be, but it simply depends on who you fight.

If you look at Wilder and Mike Tyson and you compare their height and reach etc, it looks as though it's a horrible mismatch on paper. When in actual fact, Wilder's size would actually put him at a disadvantage against a guy with Mike's style. Because Wilder would find it just about impossible to try and time Mike with his huge right hand. And the same applies to Joshua. You saw the Ruiz fight. Mike would have been a huge favourite despite the size disparity. Because he was small, fast and explosive, where he could get inside a bigger guys reach and go to the body etc.

Regarding sports science, the advancements aren't as important in boxing as what they are in other sports.

Regarding the older HW's knocking out the new guys with ease, I couldn't respect anyones opinion unless they gave an objective breakdown that was based on logic.