Would a prime Mike Tyson be as dominate as he was if he had boxed in the 1970`s?

But tyson is young forever in the 70s? Lol

 

Lmao

 

Frazier also landed a few clean left hooks on Foreman, and Frazier was not the offensive dynamo Tyson was. Tyson was faster, threw combinations and, in my opinion, had more one-punch power than Frazier. He was also stronger than Frazier too, and had a better chin (see the Ruddock fights). Most importantly, Tyson was a FAST starter, unlike Frazier, who was notoriously vulnerable in the first couple of rounds.

Personally, I just don't see Foreman surviving Tyson's offensive arsenal. I mean, Lyle had Foreman rocked several times when he landed clean. Tyson would land, and I see Foreman succumbing. Just my opinion, though.

 

I KNOW WHAT DEAD ROGER MAYWEATHER WOULD SAY TO THIS POSTER!!!!!!

 

I respect your opinion, but Frazier was exactly the kind of offensive dynamo that Mike was, with far more stamina, and with an equally cruel left hook. He was also probably his match defensively (in his prime, watch FOTC). Frazier also had more heart than Mike...Mike never got up to win after getting knocked down, EVER. Joe was getting up even after getting floored six times by BG...he wanted to fight.

The advantage that Mike had was having a better overhand right, and a truly devastating right hook-uppercut combination. But as I mentioned, though it's quite possible Mike drops Joe (more than possible in the early rounds since he's a slow starter), Joe is going to come back. After six, seven rounds Mike backs off from the assault and starts holding. Joe keeps firing the hooks and short rights, Mike gets floored hard in the 7th, gets knocked all over the ring after that and stopped within a round thereof.

Mike was a ferocious, great fighter in his prime, but he didn't have the heart of a Joe Frazier, Ali, Holmes, Foreman...even a Ken Norton (though Kenny would undoubtedly freeze against Mike and get stopped). I fully concede that he did show heart after his prime, against Ruddock and Lewis, but we're not talking Holmes-Shavers II, Frazier-Ali I, Foreman-Lyle, Norton-Holmes....never. He seemed incapable of coming back after getting seriously hurt.

That said, I do rank Mike as #10 ATG and consider his prime to be utterly sensational.

 

Sorry Rules, but I immensely disagree with you on several points. First, Tyson was better offensively than Frazier because he had two-fisted power. Frazier was basically a one-handed fighter. He threw his right on occasion but not to tremendous success. His left was his coup-de-gras. Tyson had tremendous power in both hands and he threw them FAST -- even faster than Frazier threw his left hook. As far as stamina is concerned, Tyson had plenty of it, as shown in his fights against Tillis and Tucker. He started well in the beginning and remained consistent to the final bell. What more does he need?

Also, the reason Tyson never got off his feet to win a fight is because he had a great chin and it required a sustained, prolonged beating and a massive finishing blow to defeat him. It happened in his fights with Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis (he was so far passed it in his losses against Williams and McBride that they don't deserve to be mentioned). Frazier could be hurt early, as seen in his fights with Bonavena (not a great finisher), Foreman and Ali (not a powerful puncher by any means). If Tyson and Joe fought, I have no doubt that Mike would finish Joe early. Not only is Tyson a fast starter, but he's also a great finisher. I see Tyson beating Joe within the first three rounds, honestly.

As far as heart is concerned, which fights in particular did he show a lack of heart in? If you're talking about his post-Lewis losses, then yeah, I agree with you, but he was truly a shell of his former self in those fights. He took beatings against Douglas and Holyfield and kept coming forward until he was stopped. Against Lewis, as you mentioned, he took a tremendous shellacking before being dropped. I've never understood the whole "lack of heart" thing that people talk about -- I don't think it's backed up with much evidence.

Just my opinion, though.

 

Once Mike went down, that was it, he was through. He never went down and got up to win. Can't say that about Holmes (in three instances, in fact), Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Bowe, Louis. They all had fights where they got floored, got up and won.

Watch Douglas, Holyfield I, II (where he basically just quit because Holy wasn't being moved or intimidated by him and was on his way to beating him again). I won't mention the embarassments in this century (though you never saw Holmes, Foreman, or Frazier get beat so bad by total nobodies).

Again, total respect. I just agree to disagree. Joe Frazier's tenacity would have made Mike do his usual: close up and hope for a lucky shot. Once Mike got into trouble, he tended to do that. He often changed his whole strategy, backing way off. Frazier wouldn't stay off him, though he'd have a very hard time the first few rounds. Mike quit...Joe didn't.

I must reemphasize that I have gained a lot of admiration for Mike since I've been on this board, and saw that he did have a heart (Ruddock, Lewis). Just not the level of those 70s guys, and not the level of a Holyfield, Louis, or shoot, even a Bowe. All of those men came back from getting knocked down hard to win.

 

One of the most disingenuous posts I've seen here.

 

No he wasn't. He had a much higher workrate. Thanks for pointing that out.

Agreed. I just don't know why you put in the "threw combinations" part. Frazier did to.

After which of his 3 stoppage losses by bums, did that realization come to you?

Anyone who knows anything about boxing knows that Frazier being a slow starter is an old wives tale. Majority of his 27 kos came within the 1st five rounds.

Foreman was coming off a near 2 year lay off against Lyle, a dangerous puncher (possibly the most dangerous at the time) and was clearly rusty, mentally shot, and fought a style that didn't suit him.

 

I doubt he’d be able to establish that aura of dominance in the 1970s that he maintained from 1986-1990. No... I think he would most likely be a top player in that era though and even capture the title at some interval for a bit.

 

Tyson had good workrate too. He maintained consistency in his fights that went the distance, i.e. Tillis, Green and Tucker. Even in the Douglas loss, he managed to knocked Buster down in the 8th round, proving he still had power in the later rounds, even after getting his ass thoroughly whipped the whole fight.

Okay, you're right, he did, but he normally threw two-punch combinations. Not nearly as impressive as Mike's 5-6 punch combinations and the speed to which he threw them.

Wait, you call my response disingenuous and then go on to imply Douglas was a bum? Have you seen the Tyson-Douglas fight in full? He showed tremendous skill in that bout -- maintaining distance with the jab, throwing quick, accurate combinations, keeping a steady pace and displaying solid foot movement. An underachiever? Yes. A bum? Absolutely not. Tyson was so far past his prime against Williams and McBride that it's silly you're even bringing them up.

But he *was* vulnerable in the first couple of rounds. Quarry, Mathis and Bonavena, for example, showed success against Joe in the early rounds. It took him a couple rounds to start smokin', at least against durable opponents.

So it's okay to use the "he wasn't at his peak" excuse for Foreman but not for Tyson? You referenced Tyson's losses to Williams and McBride, for goodness' sake. Are you saying he was prime and mentally fit for those fights? Is a little consistency too much to ask for?

 

No argument there. Tyson's work rate was good to. I was just arguing that it was not higher than Frazier's nor particularly close as you claimed.

That was a tongue in cheek remark that wasn't meant to be taken seriously. The McBride and Williams fight have no relevance when assessing Tyson H2H. The Douglas Bout however is telling.

I do agree with you in that he generally got better as the fight went on. However, I wouldn't say he was vulnerable in the first couple rounds. Only three opponents dropped him early. 2 of them proceeded to lose. The other was his stylistic nightmare and quite possibly the hardest puncher of all time. It's actually the same stylistic disadvantage Tyson would face against Foreman.

As above, the McBride and Williams references were not to be taken seriously.

 

Oh Saint Primo save you...

 

Joe Frazier had a more powerful lefthook than Tyson. He also had a better credit score.