Prime Tyson is Holmes era starting with Norton

[Bummy Davis]

I think Tyson walks through all of the heavyweights of Holmes era and even KO's the fighters Holmes did not fight such as Tate,Coetzee,Page,Dokes and the better version of Weaver. He makes quick work of Cooney and Shavers and Snipes, Witherspoon was an underachiever and most of his wins were squeakers, I see a repeat of the 2nd bone-crusher Smith fight with Tyson starting fast. Tyson had a good chin and the type of fights that beat him are the durable good stamina fighters that can either move well with power to keep him at bay or the attrition fighters.

I think some would give him a few rougher fights but don't see anyone beating him from that era.


But that my opinion. Any thoughts on the subject and if so which fighters of that era would beat Tyson and why

[Hookie]

I think Tyson walks through all of the heavyweights of Holmes era and even KO's the fighters Holmes did not fight such as Tate,Coetzee,Page,Dokes and the better version of Weaver. He makes quick work of Cooney and Shavers and Snipes, Witherspoon was an underachiever and most of his wins were squeakers, I see a repeat of the 2nd bone-crusher Smith fight with Tyson starting fast. Tyson had a good chin and the type of fights that beat him are the durable good stamina fighters that can either move well with power to keep him at bay or the attrition fighters.

I think some would give him a few rougher fights but don't see anyone beating him from that era.


But that my opinion. Any thoughts on the subject and if so which fighters of that era would beat Tyson and why

Tyson could most likely beat every fighter Holmes fought from 1973-1985... but 12 1/2 years is a long time to go without a loss.

Tyson went a little less than 5 years without a defeat. Could Tyson go 12+ years without a loss?

With that said, I could see Tyson having an off night vs. the likes of a determined Tim Witherspoon, Renaldo Snipes, or even Gerry Cooney. Sure, Tyson was better than those guys but could Tyson reign for 7+ years as champ without slipping up? I doubt it.

[choklab]

I think Tyson walks through all of the heavyweights of Holmes era and even KO's the fighters Holmes did not fight such as Tate,Coetzee,Page,Dokes and the better version of Weaver. He makes quick work of Cooney and Shavers and Snipes, Witherspoon was an underachiever and most of his wins were squeakers, I see a repeat of the 2nd bone-crusher Smith fight with Tyson starting fast. Tyson had a good chin and the type of fights that beat him are the durable good stamina fighters that can either move well with power to keep him at bay or the attrition fighters.

I think some would give him a few rougher fights but don't see anyone beating him from that era.


But that my opinion. Any thoughts on the subject and if so which fighters of that era would beat Tyson and why


I think tyson had a 3 year peak. inside that 3 year peak he beats all of them- no question. after that you can not rely on him. post 1990 tyson would struggle, self distruct as he did in his own time zone. difrent time zone same problems.

[Jorodz]

yeah good points all. tyson was like mcgovern: destined to flash bright and fade quickly. from 1986-1988 he beats 99.9% of heavyweights ever. but he didn't have the style or the longevity that holmes did, the kind that may be needed to stay at the top for a decade. if he can squeeze them all into 3-5 years as choklab said, sure. but otherwise, over time, tyson slows, his style becomes less effective with age and he loses to someone he clearly shouldn't.

[la-califa]

Depends on if Don King gets to him. Or if Cus & Jimmy Jacobs lived throughout Tysons career. He would dominate in any era. But if King did his voodoo. Then Snipes or Witherspoon would be the new"Buster Douglas"

[Longhhorn71]

I don't count Shavers out against anyone who stands in front of him and trys to trade.

Shavers in the first 5 rounds just might "poleaxe" Tyson.

[Bummy Davis]

If Don King did not get his hooks into Tyson and Iron Mike remained focused I dont think 10-12 years is a long time fighting as Young as he started. If Cus D'mato + friends were still alive and protected Mike from the Predators and Pimps and Mike avoided the 3 year prison loss...I think Mike does a lot more...Yes he still had to overcome getting off the floor to win and a late round KO to be compaerd to the ATG 15 rd Heavyweights but how many out of the best goes past 8 rds with Mike?...the ones that would beat Mike are the tough chinned and willed and strong minded guys able to take Mike past 8 rds and stay in or the cute boxers with power to keep him at bay and take him deep.

Tyson can also be Ko;d early by someone so there is always the posibility he gets flat KO'd but most of the time he is the one with the advantage early

[ripcity]

Lary Holmes is a great boxer and would do very well in any eara. He is capple of beating any heavyweight (Please note that I am not saying that he would beat any heavyweight) in history. However he fought in an otherwise week eara for the heavyweight devision. I do not see anyone who would give Mike Tyson any probblems. He would probbly get to the 50-0 mark.

[frankenfrank]

I think Tyson walks through all of the heavyweights of Holmes era and even KO's the fighters Holmes did not fight such as Tate,Coetzee,Page,Dokes and the better version of Weaver. He makes quick work of Cooney and Shavers and Snipes, Witherspoon was an underachiever and most of his wins were squeakers, I see a repeat of the 2nd bone-crusher Smith fight with Tyson starting fast. Tyson had a good chin and the type of fights that beat him are the durable good stamina fighters that can either move well with power to keep him at bay or the attrition fighters.

I think some would give him a few rougher fights but don't see anyone beating him from that era.


But that my opinion. Any thoughts on the subject and if so which fighters of that era would beat Tyson and why
my opinion too. tyson>holmes , base it on whatever you like : their fight , their fights against spinks , holmes fight against norton as opposed to what would have happened to norton had he ever fought tyson , common opponents , but weirdly enough , holmes stopped smith twice and tyson could/did not.
cumming to think about it : holmes also survived holyfield while tyson did not.

[duran duran]

the only man tyson couldnt beat was himself he murders all the heavyweights from holmes era

[mr. magoo]

If he stays focussed, then yes. If his management team falls apart along with his whole life outside the ring, then there were plenty of guys back then who could have done a Buster Douglas on him....

[Unforgiven]

I think the Tyson of the Douglas fight would have beaten the vast majority of Holmes' title opposition.

[mr. magoo]

I think the Tyson of the Douglas fight would have beaten the vast majority of Holmes' title opposition.


I don't know if the Tyson who fought Douglas could have beaten Bozo the clown. :smoke

[Son of Gaul]

I think Tyson walks through all of the heavyweights of Holmes era and even KO's the fighters Holmes did not fight such as Tate,Coetzee,Page,Dokes and the better version of Weaver. He makes quick work of Cooney and Shavers and Snipes, Witherspoon was an underachiever and most of his wins were squeakers, I see a repeat of the 2nd bone-crusher Smith fight with Tyson starting fast. Tyson had a good chin and the type of fights that beat him are the durable good stamina fighters that can either move well with power to keep him at bay or the attrition fighters.

I think some would give him a few rougher fights but don't see anyone beating him from that era.


But that my opinion. Any thoughts on the subject and if so which fighters of that era would beat Tyson and why

You really think Tyson would walk through Norton?

[Bummy Davis]

You really think Tyson would walk through Norton?


I am Sure of it

[Hookie]

my opinion too. tyson>holmes , base it on whatever you like : their fight , their fights against spinks , holmes fight against norton as opposed to what would have happened to norton had he ever fought tyson , common opponents , but weirdly enough , holmes stopped smith twice and tyson could/did not.. When Holmes fought Tyson in 88 he had not fought in 2 years or won a fight in 3. He didn't take Tyson serious(dumb) and even recorded on album during training camp. When Holmes fought Holyfield he had won 6 in a row including a shut out win over a prime Mercer. Holmes was able to trouble Holyfield and last the distance , Tyson was not.

[choklab]

I don't know if the Tyson who fought Douglas could have beaten Bozo the clown. :smoke




tyson was in excelent shape against douglas. it was a war. there is no way anything but a world class athlete could edure the beating he took (and nearly pull off a great come from behind win with that long count) unless he was in his prime. mike was simply as good that night as he was most of his reign only douglas had an answer for every damn thing tyson did-that night.
The trouble with tyson was that like liston and louis his talent was such that he got too far too quick without paying his dues within the ranks. Louis had the resolve to get over it but the other two did not.
most top stars find themselves in a real fight, down on the cards against a live hungry fighter before the stakes are quite so high but tysons sheer talent prevented him from benefiting from this.
mike was a kid with no answers. instead of sucking it up and forcing his will on the guy hed stand around waiting for something to happen and get frustrated. he never regained that focus or faith in a gameplan after that, relying on power and intimidation he declined rather than adapt a more economical veterans style. it was "shit or bust" tactics from that point on in his career, with his power it worked most of time but there was nothing much to fall back on.

[mr. magoo]

tyson was in excelent shape against douglas. it was a war. there is no way anything but a world class athlete could edure the beating he took (and nearly pull off a great come from behind win with that long count) unless he was in his prime. mike was simply as good that night as he was most of his reign only douglas had an answer for every damn thing tyson did-that night.
The trouble with tyson was that like liston and louis his talent was such that he got too far too quick without paying his dues within the ranks. Louis had the resolve to get over it but the other two did not.
most top stars find themselves in a real fight, down on the cards against a live hungry fighter before the stakes are quite so high but tysons sheer talent prevented him from benefiting from this.
mike was a kid with no answers. instead of sucking it up and forcing his will on the guy hed stand around waiting for something to happen and get frustrated. he never regained that focus or faith in a gameplan after that, relying on power and intimidation he declined rather than adapt a more economical veterans style. it was "shit or bust" tactics from that point on in his career, with his power it worked most of time but there was nothing much to fall back on.

That fight was anything BUT a war.. You had one man sporting the best performance of his career while the other was hardly fighting back.. For me, a war is something to the effect of Holyfield vs Dokes, Holyfield vs Bowe, Foreman vs Lyle, Marciano vs Walcott..... Those were fights where BOTH men traded life and death.... Tyson vs Douglas was no where near a battle of those proportions. I also disagree that he was in excellent shape for that match... Physically, he might have been okay, but psychologically he was not there, and his corner people did a terrible job in between rounds. His comp leading up to the Douglas fight wasn't exactly stellar, but most of those men were no worse than Douglas himself... In fact, Tony Tucker was a better fighter who even beat him.. Some of the other points you make are valid though.

[djanders]

Tyson's prime was too short to fight the Holmes schedule without running into several losses later on...in my opinion.

[frankenfrank]

You really think Tyson would walk through Norton?
shavers could , so tyson whom had about the same punching power and a better chin could also
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[choklab]

That fight was anything BUT a war.. You had one man sporting the best performance of his career while the other was hardly fighting back.. For me, a war is something to the effect of Holyfield vs Dokes, Holyfield vs Bowe, Foreman vs Lyle, Marciano vs Walcott..... Those were fights where BOTH men traded life and death.... Tyson vs Douglas was no where near a battle of those proportions. I also disagree that he was in excellent shape for that match... Physically, he might have been okay, but psychologically he was not there, and his corner people did a terrible job in between rounds. His comp leading up to the Douglas fight wasn't exactly stellar, but most of those men were no worse than Douglas himself... In fact, Tony Tucker was a better fighter who even beat him.. Some of the other points you make are valid though.

we just disagree. IMO tyson came out of the blocks with speed and head movement against douglas. buster took it all away. tyson bought feints all night. buster feinted a jab and would skip to one side timing a counter combination to mikes response to the dummy. he made mike pay all night. it was like schmeling louis where a good gameplan overcomes talent. without being able to counter his way in mike was a sitting duck on the outside and he ran out of ideas. give him his due, he took his lumps that time and kept trying. it wasnt a landslide in the scoring. it wasnt all one way, at that time evryone was so used to a tyson blow out that they were shoked into thinking it was going all busters way. Tyson-douglass is a great fight.

[I am Legion]

I just love the way all you Tyson lovers ignore the larger part of his career and focus just on the early days and his bum of the month campaign.

Judge him on his whole career and what do you have? A few good wins and some savage defeats. No ATG record is it? - facts are facts you can't re-write history to suit your own view point.
:good:hi::happy

[The Morlocks]

:good:goodI just love the way all you Tyson lovers ignore the larger part of his career and focus just on the early days and his bum of the month campaign.

Judge him on his whole career and what do you have? A few good wins and some savage defeats. No ATG record is it? - facts are facts you can't re-write history to suit your own view point.
:good:hi::happy

[clark]

Though not Tyson's fault, his destruction of Spinks was not impressive.
Spinks was so overhyped it was a joke. Probably all of the ATG fighters would have massacred Spinks that night and the Berbick of '86. Too bad Tyson
didn't get a real test in '88. No doubt Tyson would of done well with many of the opponents Holmes fought but I agree that he(Tyson) would not
have lasted as long at the top.

[Muchmoore]

Though not Tyson's fault, his destruction of Spinks was not impressive.
Spinks was so overhyped it was a joke.

This is outrageous.

[clark]

Spinks was fine at light heavyweight. Holmes was not the same in '85
and Cooney had mental problems. Tyson was ready to pounce.
Spinks couldn't have made Tyson blink. (and didn't)

[choklab]

I just love the way all you Tyson lovers ignore the larger part of his career and focus just on the early days and his bum of the month campaign.

Judge him on his whole career and what do you have? A few good wins and some savage defeats. No ATG record is it? - facts are facts you can't re-write history to suit your own view point.
:good:hi::happy


although i do subscribe to the maxim that great fighters win great fights against great fighters there is no doubting tyson beat a lot of world class performers easily. establishing himself as the best of his time. be they belt holders or just worldclass fighters tyson was impresive enough beating them all.

that said, tyson never won a truly great fight, thats my one gripe with him. he was in great fights against holyfield and douglas but he didnt win those fights.

[mr. magoo]

we just disagree. IMO tyson came out of the blocks with speed and head movement against douglas. buster took it all away. tyson bought feints all night. buster feinted a jab and would skip to one side timing a counter combination to mikes response to the dummy. he made mike pay all night. it was like schmeling louis where a good gameplan overcomes talent. without being able to counter his way in mike was a sitting duck on the outside and he ran out of ideas. give him his due, he took his lumps that time and kept trying. it wasnt a landslide in the scoring. it wasnt all one way, at that time evryone was so used to a tyson blow out that they were shoked into thinking it was going all busters way. Tyson-douglass is a great fight.

Do you mind if I ask you three questions?

1. How old are you?

2. Did you REALLY see this fight, or are you going by short clips and the testimony of others?

3. Assuming you DID see Tyson vs Douglas, did you see any of his earlier fights to have something to compare it with?

[Kalasinn]

Hey chocklab, while i'm sorry to discover from your warped idea that Tyson's skills and technique never changed, that you watch Tyson's fights blindfolded, perhaps you could have a gander at this 1991 article by Ring magazine, which describes in detail how Tyson changed from a technical perspective post-Rooney.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Enjoy.

[mr. magoo]

Hey chocklab, while i'm sorry to discover from your warped idea that Tyson's skills and technique never changed, that you watch Tyson's fights blindfolded, perhaps you could have a gander at this 1991 article by Ring magazine, which describes in detail how Tyson changed from a technical perspective post-Rooney.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Enjoy.


Great article... I remember reading it 20 years ago..

Based on the replies and posts that I've seen around here over the past 3 years, I really don't think that there are very many posters on this site who

A. Saw that fight

B. Watched it with objectivity

C. Viewed many of Tyson's other matches to contrast it with.


I hear a lot of shit like " Tokyo Douglas beats any version of Tyson." So its like okay, you guys are willing to give one man the benefit of the doubt that he stepped outside of his usual self for one single night, but not awarding the same benefit of the doubt to the other? I mean really..... To some of these guys, Tyson went from being the greatest fighter of all time to a champion who barely deserves to be rated on an all time list, whereas Douglas went from being an average fringe contender to having every bit as much talent as Muhammad Ali, all in the course of one evening......

[TIGEREDGE]

I don't count Shavers out against anyone who stands in front of him and trys to trade.

Shavers in the first 5 rounds just might "poleaxe" Tyson.

Tyson in his prime used to take guys aparts with attcking boxing and head movement. later years he was a slugger

[duran duran]

Tyson in his prime used to take guys aparts with attcking boxing and head movement. later years he was a sluggeryoure bang on the money tigeredge tyson to me was more of a boxer than a slugger at his peak the tyson of 89 onwards bore no comparison to the one under rooney even in the stewart fight in 90 he looked crap it was one punch at a time no combinations no jab no head movement and he was clinching too easily i think it all came down him falling out of love with the game sadly:patsch

[choklab]

Do you mind if I ask you three questions?

1. How old are you?

2. Did you REALLY see this fight, or are you going by short clips and the testimony of others?

3. Assuming you DID see Tyson vs Douglas, did you see any of his earlier fights to have something to compare it with?


aproachng midle age. ive been involved with boxing my whole life, bought the tee shirt etc. boxed, judged, time keeper etc..

I have watched the fight many, many times in full.

I have watched tyson entire career lived through it and the holmes era. i know what im talking about and accept that we never stop learning.

and i went from having "valid points" to being a snotty kid in one evening .. thanks!! lol!

[choklab]

Hey chocklab, while i'm sorry to discover from your warped idea that Tyson's skills and technique never changed, that you watch Tyson's fights blindfolded, perhaps you could have a gander at this 1991 article by Ring magazine, which describes in detail how Tyson changed from a technical perspective post-Rooney.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Enjoy.

tyson lived boxing and at one time had control in himself in the ring. he went from that to the guy who needed mood controling drugs. that is a fact. it effected his ring performances post 1990. im sorry but that is how it is. im not saying he wasnt great he could still be breath taking stuff for moments after that but the guy was not stable and his game suffered.

[mr. magoo]

Tyson in his prime used to take guys aparts with attcking boxing and head movement. later years he was a slugger


Agreed,

When we look at his earlier bouts from perhaps the James Tillis Match to the Spinks fight, we see a lot of bobing, weaving, jabbing and meticulous throwing of combinations... In most of his post-Rooney fights, we see Tyson searching for that one bomb.. Tyson has become criminally underrated as a technician.

[choklab]

When we look at his earlier bouts from perhaps the James Tillis Match to the Spinks fight, we see a lot of bobing, weaving, jabbing and meticulous throwing of combinations... In most of his post-Rooney fights, we see Tyson searching for that one bomb.. Tyson has become criminally underrated as a technician.


tyson was an excelent technician under rooney during his 3 year purple patch. later he was an excelent technician for a round or two when he wanted to be but would become either too tired too quick to sustain the fast footed angle changes his combinations required or simply chose to resort to bomb searching. was it down to leaving rooney? was it down to not being bothered? was it to do with his life spiraling out of control? we cant say. what we can say is rooney never produced another tyson.

[Bummy Davis]

Tyson was more raw power and speed but he listened to his corner. When he went with King he had Rory Holiday a friend who knew nothing about the fight game. I am aware of Mike shortcomings and the fact that in really tough fights or vs a foe with no fear, it was Mike who gave in but in reality he never really matured and we never saw his full potential...and his ending was poor

[zadfrak]

That's true.

I agree w/ you regarding the Holmes opposition for Tyson as well. The thing is, Tyson would've blown out a lot of those guys early & how many of them had the tools to evade that early Tyson assault? The only guys that could were likely the guys not on the Holmes dossier anyway.

The Tyson problem is longevity but instead of facing a Douglas who surprised him after some years at the top of the heap, you'd have matches like Leon Spinks. Scott Frank. David Bey. Lucien Rodriguez. Bonecrusher Smith. Carl Williams. Mike Spinks.

The only guy that looks like a threat was Witherspoon. Maybe some folks think Cooney has a shot, but I don't. So, overall, it wasn't exactly a minefield out there to deal with and none of those guys had the size and lateral movement Douglas had anyway. I think Mike can show up with his B game and get those guys out of there.

[Titan1]

Tyson would beat most of the Holmes' era heavyweights, but someone like a focused Page would give him hell, might beat him.

[red cobra]

I am Sure of it
So am I.

[Sardu]

I recall a Ring magazine cover article from June 1986 - Tyson vs Cooney - Who would win? The author predicted a first round kayo for Tyson. He explained that that was not a knock on Cooney. But that is just the kind of fight it would have been. Norton, who fought an electrifying give and take barnburner in the 1978 fight of the year against Holmes, most likely does not last past the first or second round vs Tyson. Once again, that is not a knock against Norton, but that is just indicative of how their styles would mesh.

A young focused Tyson would most likely mow down men like Norton, much lesser Holmes early title defenses like Evangelista, Ocasio, Leroy Jones, etc. But fellows like Shavers and Weaver would have a puncher's chance of upseting Iron Mike. Cooney is someone who would probably freeze and be a sitting duck when he got nailed by Tyson. Cobb woukld soak up punishment and have the fight stopped in all likelyhood.

Later defenses with the likes of Witherspoon could become more problematic. Spoon' was only 25 years old when he fought Holmes in 83' and he had attributes that could carry the day against Tyson - those being a great jab, an excellent chin, and a huge right hand. I would give Witherspoon the best chance of beating Tyson out of all the men he defended against.

[Gander Tasco]

Tyson could most likely beat every fighter Holmes fought from 1973-1985... but 12 1/2 years is a long time to go without a loss.

Tyson went a little less than 5 years without a defeat. Could Tyson go 12+ years without a loss?

With that said, I could see Tyson having an off night vs. the likes of a determined Tim Witherspoon, Renaldo Snipes, or even Gerry Cooney. Sure, Tyson was better than those guys but could Tyson reign for 7+ years as champ without slipping up? I doubt it.

Tyson had a short reign but he fought a lot. He had 30+ fights within a 5 year span, and 10 title defenses.