Would a prime Mike Tyson lose to any of the current top heavyweights?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by mark ant, Dec 4, 2018.



  1. Bokaj

    Bokaj Boxing Junkie Full Member

    19,740
    1,588
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 4, 2008
    Why?


    Tucker was durable, yes, and Douglas fought a fantastic fight against Tyson. But Douglas was inconsistent and not nearly as good against Tucker as he was against Tyson, that's clear to see from both fight. So we are still left with that Tucker's best win was over someone who lost to Jesse Ferguson four fights previous.

    Not unreasonable, no. From what we know today it's also not unreasonable to say that his puncher's chance gives a decent chance against anyone. But he's still a bit hard to really asses, given that he hasn't met many quality fighters yet.
     
  2. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,502
    1,239
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 9, 2010
    Why should they be in this case? Can you accurately quantify how much better Douglas became between Ferguson and Tucker and from Tucker to Tyson? I think Douglas was notably better than Ortiz; that's all I'm suggesting.



    Which is still better than Wilder's best win over Ortiz (and significantly so, in my opinion); the simple point I was making on page 7.

    Have you ever watched the Douglas/Ferguson bout? It's not like Douglas was utterly outclassed and in his very next fight, Douglas put on an altogether different and superior performance against Page.



    I've seen enough of Wilder now to be convinced that he is, and probably always will be, a one-trick pony.
     
  3. mark ant

    mark ant Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,992
    1,608
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    May 4, 2017
    Povetkin is far easier to hit than 'iron Mike' was yet Tucker landed some good shots on Mike. Tony Tucker was better than Povetkin and Tyson beat him, Tucker was also around 6′5 near AJ`s height, Povetkin landed counter hooks like the counters Tyson was great at landed, so I`d pick Tyson to beat AJ, Wilder punches harder than AJ and has a longer reach than Tucker so he would have good chance v Mike, Fury was defensively sound v Wilder but made the mistake of moving backwards in straight lines which is how Wilder caught him, Mike`s offensive footwork was far better than Wilder`s so he might have caught Fury using this tactic, but he would have cover a lot of ground to exploit this flaw in the slippery Fury, because of the height and reach difference.
     
  4. DavidC77

    DavidC77 Member Full Member

    322
    147
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 30, 2018
    There isn't a heavyweight around today who could beat Tyson in his prime.

    In fact I don't think any other of the fighters after Tyson could have beaten him in his prime.
     
  5. Entaowed

    Entaowed Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,471
    212
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 16, 2012
    Reference please. Stallone is listed at 5' 10". though he cou;ld be a bit shorter.
    I recall reading at the ti,e that he got as low as 167 for Rocky 3.
    I do not think he got amny lighter than this, he would not have the same muscle mass if he did.
     
    mark ant likes this.
  6. mark ant

    mark ant Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,992
    1,608
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    May 4, 2017
    I stand corrected:
    Sylvester Stallone Body Weight
    Sylvester Stallone’s Body Weight changed from movie to movie, based on the needs of the script and how Stallone wanted to look. He would change his training and diet to arrive at his ideal body weight. In each Rocky film, Sylvester Stallone weighed:

    • Rocky I: 178 pounds
    • Rocky II: 200 pounds
    • Rocky III: 163 pounds
    • Rocky IV: 173 pounds
     
  7. mark ant

    mark ant Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,992
    1,608
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    May 4, 2017
    Sorry he was 5'10 and 163lbs in Rocky 3.
    This content is protected
     
  8. Reinhardt

    Reinhardt Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,179
    1,318
    Sportsbook:
    234
    Oct 4, 2016

    Totally agree with the analysis of todays heavyweights,,,,Tyson at his best, wipes these those three out, Wilder goes in 1, after swinging for the fences and missing. Joshua will be chopped down along with Fury
     
  9. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven Boxing Junkie Full Member

    46,845
    4,388
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 24, 2005
    Well, you're using subsequent results to come to that conclusion.
    Ortiz is only 9 months removed from the Wilder loss.
    You're whole argument then rests on what Ortiz does in the future, or what men who might have lost or might lose to Ortiz will do in the future.

    Let's discuss Wilder, Ortiz, Fury and Joshua ten or fifteen years from now then.
     
  10. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven Boxing Junkie Full Member

    46,845
    4,388
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 24, 2005
    I'm not sure how Stallone's body weight ended up as a topic for this thread, LOL !

    ..... and he used steroids, man.
    Certainly by the time of Rocky III and Rocky IV.
     
    mark ant likes this.
  11. Wass1985

    Wass1985 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,668
    1,273
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 18, 2012
    Stallone and Arnie could possibly be the longest abusers of steroids the world has ever seen. Just goes to show if you know what you're doing and have the right instruction steroids can be relatively safe.
     
  12. rski

    rski Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,799
    722
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    May 12, 2013
    I think fury would be Mike’s biggest problem, he has the skills and size to tie him up. It’s possible mike could out point him on activity but the size difference is massive. He has the chin to survive wilder and it’s very likely he would land something, I think he gets the ko. I think AJ is tailor made for Tyson, a bit slower enabling mike to get inside and rip him up, the speed would be Joshua’s issue.
     
    ticar likes this.
  13. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,502
    1,239
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 9, 2010
    My "whole argument"? I don't think so. My argument rests on the obvious, i.e. the considerable gap between the condition and abilities of both Douglas and Ortiz, at the times of the respective bouts. The fact Douglas went on to demonstrate his abilities at the highest level is just the icing, in this case.

    - Who, out of Douglas and Ortiz, was in their prime, at the time of the fights in question?
    - Which of them demonstrated the greater workrate, skill, speed and agility?
    - Who had Ortiz beaten on a level equivalent to Page, before he met Wilder?
    - Which of the two had failed a drug test?

    As I asked @Bokaj - how does one quantify the improvements made by Douglas between his decision loss to Ferguson and the later bout with Tucker - and, from then on, between his loss to Tucker and his win over Tyson?

    You seem to be implying that Ortiz is at the same level as Wilder, Fury and Joshua, when there is nothing to suggest that he was, is or ever well be. Is Ortiz likely to improve, as he approaches 40 years old?

    As I pointed out to you, at the outset, there's no comparison between Douglas and Ortiz and you've not been able to produce any reasonable explanation, as to why you think there is one. Achievements aside, how Douglas was regarded in his time has nothing to do with the blatant chasm in age, conditioning, speed and skills between the two. This is clear to be seen just by watching them both in action.
     
  14. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven Boxing Junkie Full Member

    46,845
    4,388
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 24, 2005
    Luis Ortiz was ranked around top 5 when he met Wilder. He was rated there by just about everyone.
    Buster Douglas was rated in the bottom half of the top 10 when he faced Tucker.
    There's a comparison.

    Ortiz is a very well-drilled skilled southpaw boxing. He's a good boxer.This is clear just by watching him.
     
    Bokaj likes this.
  15. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,502
    1,239
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 9, 2010
    I trust you don't seriously find anything meaningful in this^.



    I haven't said Ortiz isn't any of the things you mention. But, you seem content in ignoring that he was 39, which by anyone's reckoning, is old; he wasn't particularly agile; he didn't have a particularly high workrate and he hadn't fought anyone of note, prior to Wilder.

    Incidentally, this was considered, at the time, by far Wilder's biggest test. To me, at this stage of his career, Ortiz is the type of test that prospects-turning-contender take on.
     

Share This Page