Who Would You Pick To Beat The Following?

[TommyV]

I'm going to scrap the 'How To Beat' idea because it doesn't seemed to have gained much interest and I can't be bothered. :lol:

Instead, I'll just create a thread here and I'd like to hear some insight and discussion as to who you think can beat the following fighters:


'66 Muhammad Ali
'87 Mike Tyson
'94 Roy Jones Jr (Super Middleweight)

'80 Salvador Sanchez
'80 Roberto Duran (Welterweight)
'44 Charley Burley (Middleweight)
'48 Sandy Saddler
'62 Eder Jofre

So, who would you pick to beat each of these fighters, or do you think that any of them are unbeatable at their respective weights at these respective times in their careers?

And of the fighters you pick, what is it specifically about their styles and qualities that you feel gives them the edge or a great chance of victory? How exactly do you see the fight going.

Thanks in advance for any replies, hopefully this generates more interested then the Robinson thread. :lol:

[GPater11093]

I enjoyed taht How To Beat thread, i can see this one being abit of a mess with all the names though

Ill be back

[TommyV]

I enjoyed taht How To Beat thread, i can see this one being abit of a mess with all the names though

Ill be back

It probably will be a bit of a mess and I'm expecting it to go off-topic a bit, but I don't have the energy to do the 'How To Beat' threads anymore if I'm honest.

[McGrain]

I'm going to scrap the 'How To Beat' idea because it doesn't seemed to have gained much interest and I can't be bothered.


This generation :-(

[janitor]

You can find a stylistic turd to throw at anybody.

[McGrain]

Don't let Harry Greb hear you say that.

[Beeston Brawler]

1996 Lewis & 1991 Holyfield would both destroy a 1987 Tyson.

A 1993/2000 Lewis & a 1988/1996 Holyfield probably would as well.

[ripcity]

'66 Muhammad Ali: Mike Tyson in his prime. Watch the first Floyd Patterson/Muhammad bout it is on or at least used to be on youtube. patterson defently makes contact with Ali. If Patterson could tha Tyson could. While Ali's movement might frustrate Tyson it also gives Tyson the one thing he needs to be his most effective. That is space. Tyson despite being short is more of a mid-range puncher than he is an inside fighter. Ali will dance when he should hold, and that will cost him against Tyson.

'87 Mike Tyson: To beat Tyson it helps to have longer arms, a piston like jab, the williness to hold rather than fight at times, a lot of patitints, a good chin and good power. The boxers who best fit this discription are Lenox Lewis and Waldmir Klitschko. All though there questions reguarding both of their chins. However aside from their abillities to take punches They both have the style to beat Tyson. I would also like to bring forth another canadate who might meet the disrription above. Joe Louis. Tyson captializes on his opoents mistakes. Take his fight with Larry Holmes. In to the fourth round Holmes is doing everything right. In the fourth he lets his gaurd down for a second and the fight changes in an instant. As a boxer Joe Louis dose not make many mistakes and that could be the diffrence in victory and defeet.

'94 Roy Jones Jr (Super Middleweight) With Jones you got match speed with speed. I don't think there is anyone at 168 who can match his speed. It would be a long shot but my choice is Ezzard Charles. 168 is not Charles best weight but I think he has as good speed and as good of a chance as anyone else. Perhapps a better version of James Toney than the one who acatuly fought Jones.

'80 Salvador Sanchez: I need to do more research.

'80 Roberto Duran (Welterweight): Duran has outstanding boxing skills. However he is an agrisive fighter. Agressian feeds off of aggressian. Look at the diffrence between Duran/Leonard I and Druan/Leoanerd II. I'm going to go with a tactcal boxer to beat Duran. Choice #1 is Pernell Whitaker. Duran has outstanding boxing skills but they are not on Whitaker's level. Duran won't be able to out box Whitaker. If Duran takes the fight to Whitaker Whitaker Counters him all day. My second Choice is Floyd Mayweather Jr. For pretty much the same reasons that Whitaker beats Duran. Whitaker is the better defensive boxer while Mayweather is the better counter-puncher.

'44 Charley Burley (Middleweight): I need to do more research. To be fair not much film of him is avaible on line.

'48 Sandy Saddler: I need to do more research.
'62 Eder Jofre: I need to do more research.

[anarci]

Well i think Holyfield would have beat any version of Tyson, I dont think the Younger Tysons head movement and better combos would have made as much as a difference as many others think , Early Tyson would do well but after 6 rounds it would go the same way as their fights in the late 90s.

At 168 im not sure anyone beats Jones, however if he fought a 175 Spinks or Foster im sure they would both ko Jones. Ive always thought Hearns had the style to beat Jones if his Chin held up but i dont think it would. Mccellan gave Jones fits in the Amatuers, And he might have been able to do it in the pros. However if he doesnt catch Jones early Jones would beat him

How about Arguello at 126 against Sadler, I think this would be a very close matchup. I think Salvador Sanchez would also have a good shot. However Sadler was rough and savvy enough to maybe be even those guys. Also had great power but i dont think either would knockout eachother.

How about Manny Ortiz outhustling Jofre at bantam.

Ill have to think long on the other fighters you mentioned get back to you.

[Beeston Brawler]

Well i think Holyfield would have beat any version of Tyson, I dont think the Younger Tysons head movement and better combos would have made as much as a difference as many others think , Early Tyson would do well but after 6 rounds it would go the same way as their fights in the late 90s.

At 168 im not sure anyone beats Jones, however if he fought a 175 Spinks or Foster im sure they would both ko Jones. Ive always thought Hearns had the style to beat Jones if his Chin held up but i dont think it would. Mccellan gave Jones fits in the Amatuers, And he might have been able to do it in the pros. However if he doesnt catch Jones early Jones would beat him

How about Arguello at 126 against Sadler, I think this would be a very close matchup. I think Salvador Sanchez would also have a good shot. However Sadler was rough and savvy enough to maybe be even those guys. Also had great power but i dont think either would knockout eachother.

How about Manny Ortiz outhustling Jofre at bantam.

Ill have to think long on the other fighters you mentioned get back to you.

I agree with your point on Holyfield vs Tyson.

Strange thing is, nobody knew this more than Holyfield himself, and probably Tyson as well.

Tyson couldn't outbox Holyfield, couldn't KO him, couldn't out-man him either....... just an example of one fighter having the other's number.

I just wish I'd have been old enough to grab the 25/1 on Evander..... what was it by stoppage in the 1st fight?

Only Ron Borges picked Holyfield - a noted Tyson hater!

[GPater11093]

You can find a stylistic turd to throw at anybody.

excellant saying

[anarci]

I agree with your point on Holyfield vs Tyson.

Strange thing is, nobody knew this more than Holyfield himself, and probably Tyson as well.

Tyson couldn't outbox Holyfield, couldn't KO him, couldn't out-man him either....... just an example of one fighter having the other's number.

I just wish I'd have been old enough to grab the 25/1 on Evander..... what was it by stoppage in the 1st fight?

Only Ron Borges picked Holyfield - a noted Tyson hater! Yey Holyfield stopped him in 10 and after an extended beatdown.

I also agree that Holyfield had his number from back in the amatuer days and would have beaten him everytime they fought.

However i disagree with the post who picked Lewis, Tyson did good in the first round of their fight. I think A young Mike eventually catches Lewis and kos him.

[TommyV]

Well i think Holyfield would have beat any version of Tyson, I dont think the Younger Tysons head movement and better combos would have made as much as a difference as many others think , Early Tyson would do well but after 6 rounds it would go the same way as their fights in the late 90s.

It's an interesting arguement that Holyfield would always have the beating of and one that I've found many agree with, including myself.

I think even an '87 version of Tyson at the peak of his powers would really struggle with Holyfield. I see it going similar to the first fight in number of ways, even though Mike was clearly a more complete and better fighter all-round in '87 than at the time of the first fight.

I think Holyfield would continue to frustrate Tyson with excessive clinching, leaning, hitting & holding, leaning in with the head, elbows etc and really take Mike out of his rhythm. That first fight aswell he showed great strength on the inside to back Tyson up and try to put him on the back foot and take away his power & leverage.

From a general perspective, I just think Holyfield is too smart for Mike. I think he knew what he had to do to offset Mike from a mental perspective, by remaining unintimidated and frustrating him, and in doing so gained the upper hand in which he could really on his technical skills, durability and ring-craft to get the job done.