Would Mike Tyson Be Simply Too Small, To Be Successful Now?

He ruined fighters who had serious potential.

 

He’d be a difficult night for absolutely anybody in any era. There’s plenty I’d pick to beat him from the past but he isn’t too small at all for this era, he knocks Joshua and Wilder out, Fury a more difficult fight. Usyk could very well become world champion soon and he’s a naturally lighter guy than Mike

 

In many cases, he had help from cocaine and donuts in ruining these fighters.

 

Don't forget Scaff, Richardson, Jameson !

 

Agreed. The Douglas fight was the first time he faced a prime mobile big man.

Bruno and Ruddock were big and hit hard but lacked speed and endurance.

Tubbs and Tucker were mobile with quick hands and good skill but lacked power.

You could say the 70's and 80's were an "extinction event" with big men like Douglas being "transitional fossils" and the heavies who were under 6'3 and under 220 lbs were rapidly dying out like an endangered species.

Tyson sort of came in the right place at the right time. Yes he was starting to lose focus and parted ways with some of his team, but the writing was on the wall. He showed small cracks against Tillis and Thomas who had the movement and jab respectively, but were not complete packages like Douglas.

With his short frame, aggressive style, the wear and tear from intense training, and his lack of focus, I really don't see Tyson succeeding in an era where as many as 5 of the guys in the top 10 rankings are big mobile heavies with big jabs and who have 20 lbs over him. He might beat 3, 4, 5+ men who fit this description but at some point he would reach a hill he wouldn't be able to scale. The clash of styles and difference in biology would be too much, it would be like asking a welterweight to compete with light heavyweights.

 

Tyson would bulldoze Joshua, too upright, slow and not a great chin

Fury does not have the power to keep Tyson off him, a boring 12 round survival mode loss for Fury

Usyk no chance

Wilder has a punchers chance, nothing more, be lucky to see the 4th round

 

Yes, because those guys were in the same league as Tucker, Bonecrusher and Douglas.

I'm not saying Tyson would be an afterthought, just that the sorts giants taking over the division since Lewis would be a hard road and would significantly lower his winning percentage. He would still be dangerous but not the emphatic, division cleaning phenomenon he was for a few years in the late 80's.

I would still favor him over that underwear model masquerading as a boxer, Joshua, tho....

 

Biggs, Carl Williams, Golota ...

 

I think he’d still have some success. I’m not sure that he could duplicate the aura of complete dominance that he achieved in the late 80’s however. Tyson received his toughest fights in that time frame from guys who were 6’4”-6’5” and north of 225 in weight. Some of them were good fighters. Others were “ok”. None of them were “ great.” I just don’t see men like Tony Tucker, Bonecrusher Smith, or Buster Douglas being better than Tyson Fury or Anthony Joshua who buy the way, would have even greater physical advantages than those guys did.

 

Agreed. Tyson even admitted at one point that the modern division would have been too big for him to achieve what he did decades earlier... and this comment was made during the Klitschko period.

 

It's an interesting question, and not without merit. It's kind of strange thinking of the marauder who tore the division a new one not all that long ago, is seen as maybe too small now.
But, heavyweights continue to get biggrr, and the better ones are skilled.
So here we are.

For me, a heavyweight today that wants to beat Tyson needs the following:
A very good jab
A very good uppercut
A good chin
Size*
A good game plan
Needs to have conviction

How many heavyweights over the last, say, 30 years have had all that?

It's a fairly common assertion that Tyson struggled against the big men, but is that altogether accurate?
Tillis wasn't big. Green was tall but not heavy. Smith wasn't bigger than most of Tyson's challengers. Tucker was tall but not heavy. Ribalta was tall but lanky.
Then one has to decide if lasting into the final round or losing a lopsided decision
(Tillis excepting) can be seen as 'giving trouble'.
Of those only Tillis, not a big heavyweight, gave Tyson something to really think about, losing narrowly on points.

He had no trouble finding Williams' chin. Williams was 6'4" I think. Ditto Biggs, who was 6'5". Also beat both easily.
Douglas was 6'4" and 231 in their fight, so that's something to note.

Then post-prison, Evander, not a big heavyweight, beats him no excuses.
Botha, not a big heavyweight, gives him trouble. Lewis was big and beats him.
(I won't go further because Tyson was shot at this point.)
The only tall fighters I can recall Tyson facing post prison was Golota (6'5") and Savaresse (around 6'5") Neither gave him problems.

So if you really think about it, of the men that beat Tyson, Douglas was reasonably tall and of average weight, Holyfield by today's standards was quite small himself, and Lewis was tall and heavy. It's a mixed bag.
The only man to give him some proper trouble in the 80's was Tillis, not a big man.
So we can narrow it down to Lennox Lewis essentially, as the only genuinely big man to beat Tyson or give him loads of problems.

Since Tyson's reign, if we're talking big, talented fighters, we've had Bowe, Lewis, the Klitschko brothers, Joshua, Fury and Wilder. (Exclude Wilder if you want... I think he's talented, though less so than these mentioned.)
That's still only 7 guys in 30 years. Perhaps if you want to throw in a Michael Grant type as a wildcard... but still. Not many.

Now, to be certain, height, reach and weight very much matter. It always will.
But there has to be appreciable talent to go with that, or else you're just Sammy Scaff. (No offense to him)

I can see a scenario where Tyson just struggles to get inside, and gets tied up when he does. The big guy leaning and mauling Tyson, exhausting him and softening him up. It's a perfectly possible scenario, but again it comes back to having the right blend of size and skillset to make it work, because big and average isn't troubling Tyson.
If everyone was a Lennox Lewis, then for sure I think it would be a big problem for Tyson.

 

Biggs, Coke & Booze was the combo that first got him. Duva knew to get him a big fight asap because of the precipitous decline Tyrell was on.

Williams: OK, but I think old Weaver already popped that balloon.

Golota... He was beat before he got into the ring.

Look, I'm not saying Tyson loses to every taller, longer athlete who faces him, but he would lose to more of them on the elite level. He would have huge problems with Fury, Vital and Wlad, as he did and always would with Lewis.

 

1. If we´d take the average rounds it took to stop an opponent in the first 34 fights of prime MT (until Spinks) as the success endpoint, yes I see him taking more rounds on average in his first 35 fights today. So yes, he´d have more problems.
2. Was Mike Tyson small? A fellow who ballooned to 250lb in like a month of not fighting at age 21, beeing a rock solid trimmed 218lb with that sort of measurements https://www.si.com/.image/t_share/MTY4MTkxMjY1ODYyMzMwMjY5/image-placeholder-title.jpg ?
They once asked Buster Douglas about him beeing small in an interview, who answered like "Make no mistake, he´s short, but for strength, power etc. he´s a HW for sure."

 

Tyson's lack of height was always a potential issue. It makes it difficult. Lack of height is a disadvantage.
Tyson wasn't invincible. But he could punch fast and hard. He could fight.
That's the main thing.

 

You find faults to critique in those fights but don't find any in Klitschko's fights with Sam Peters? What sort of horseradish posting is this!?

Let me tell ya something else , Sleep Williamson gave Klitch more trouble than Tucker gave Tyson. Steve Parnel gave Klitsch more hasstle than Green gave Tyson.
Steve Parnell !!