Could any 20-year old fighter beat the Tyson who beat Berbick? [Archive]

Bokaj

07-01-2008, 06:03 PM

And could any 22-year old beat the Tyson who beat Spinks?

Personally, I can't think of any fighter who at 20 years of age would have much chance against the Tyson who beat Berbick. The only 22-year old I would give a good chance of beating the Tyson who beat Spinks is probably Cassius Clay/Ali.

Rob3

07-01-2008, 06:16 PM

Simply look for the fighters who reached their prime at a relatively young age. Jeffries, Paterson, Ali.

Not that they'd neccesarily win but they'd stand a better chance than others.

Sweet Pea

07-01-2008, 07:35 PM

SuzieQ49

07-01-2008, 07:53 PM

Marciano would have knocked out tyson with a knee to the balls similiar to the henry lester fight.

Hatesrats

07-01-2008, 09:43 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
18 year Old.

Russell

07-01-2008, 09:45 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
18 year Old.

:rofl:rofl:rofl

We should include some oft he 18 year olds he wasted his time banging in Tokyo being Buster beat his ass into the canvas.

Longhhorn71

07-01-2008, 10:17 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
18 year Old.

Typical "little head" making decisions for the "Big Head"
per Teddy Atlas on recent FNF.

:good

ironchamp

07-01-2008, 10:19 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
18 year Old.

She wasn't 20 or 22 so it doesnt count.

The truth is, at the age of 20 no HW fighter past or present would have ever beaten the Tyson that fought Berbick. And there is absolutely no 22 year old that would have beaten the Tyson that fought Spinks.

Hatesrats

07-01-2008, 10:26 PM

She wasn't 20 or 22 so it doesnt count.

The truth is, at the age of 20 no HW fighter past or present would have ever beaten the Tyson that fought Berbick. And there is absolutely no 22 year old that would have beaten the Tyson that fought Spinks.
All kidding aside, I agree Tyson was the MAN.
[I still can't beat Mega Tyson on Punch-out!]

Hatesrats

07-01-2008, 10:39 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

chump
U Cheated....:yikes

Bokaj

07-02-2008, 05:49 AM

The young Ali in the earlier stages of his career that was defensively very open and getting knocked down by guys like Cooper, Banks, and hurt by Doug Jones is going to beat the peak Tyson of the late 80's? Tyson by KO over that Ali.

I'm talking about the Clay/ALI who beat Liston. I would give him a good chance over the Tyson that beat Spinks.

The Clay who faced Banks would with all probability be beaten by the Tyson who beat Berbick. That Tyson is to my mind without a doubt the best 20-year old HW who ever lived. Maybe the best 20-year old fighter p4p as well.

janitor

07-02-2008, 04:46 PM

The Joe Louis who beat Primo Carnera at 21 might have been able to beat the Tyson of the Berbick fight.

Sam McVea aged 20 would make a good oponent for young Mike.

That is about as close as I can get.

Bokaj

07-02-2008, 04:51 PM

He really was a freak of nature, Tyson. He was not just extremely developed physically at 19-20, but technically as well. To me he never looked better than he did against Berbick. Spinks didn't put up enough of a fight to really ask any questions, but Berbick was very game. And Tyson completely outclassed him. Impressive.

Vanboxingfan

07-02-2008, 05:06 PM

I think to suggest that no fighter could ever have beaten a prime Tyson is border line absurd, but I certainly don't think any 20 year old ATG heavy could have beaten a 20 year old Tyson, but a prime Ali, Lewis, Foreman, Liston, and to a lesser extent, Holmes, Holyfield, and Louis, all could have beaten him at their respective primes. Not saying they would, but the might have.

prime

07-02-2008, 05:13 PM

No. This is why he is the youngest heavyweight champion ever.

Mike Tyson against Berbick is an exhibition of close-to-the-greatest heavyweight fighter that ever lived.

It is good to see the "Tyson-was-nothing-but-a hyped-up-front-runner" crowd mostly silenced around these parts for some time now.

a) Berbick was a solid, seasoned, proud fighter who was defending his crown. No other man besides that 20-year-old kid gave Trevor Berbick such a merciless beating.

b) Tyson had the required 8 to 10 years of going at a pursuit hammer and tongs to achieve greatness. Though 20, he himself was already a seasoned fighter, not only benefiting from the schooling of an all-time great trainer, but also from enviable access to the film and thus essence of the greatest ring gladiators of all time.

c) His heart was in the right place: he would do it for the only man he ever loved as a father. Idealism and dreams of glory were the mental makeup that powered the awesome physical equipment.

d) None of Berbick's veteran tactics as much as slowed Tyson, a clear indication of Kid Dynamite's roundedness at that moment. In contrast, though 5 years older, Foreman showed his lack of fundamentals in his pathetic showing against the cunning Ali. Tyson rampaged through all the baloney and would do the same in many a fantasy matchup.

Bokaj

07-02-2008, 05:21 PM

It is good to see the "Tyson-was-nothing-but-a hyped-up-front-runner" crowd mostly silenced around these parts for some time now.

I would say that the view on Tyson is quite balanced nowadays. Most recognize that he was really great in his prime, and there aren't too many left who insists that "Mega Tyson" was unbeatable either (with notable exceptions). I think the discussion is very balanced around here overall, even if it is a bit less so on some subjects IMO.

prime

07-02-2008, 06:10 PM

I would say that the view on Tyson is quite balanced nowadays. Most recognize that he was really great in his prime, and there aren't too many left who insists that "Mega Tyson" was unbeatable either (with notable exceptions). I think the discussion is very balanced around here overall, even if it is a bit less so on some subjects IMO.

True.

My personal experience was Tyson's simply looking better on film than hallowed past greats (Tyson over Spinks impressing me more than Louis over Schmeling), discovering this site, reading quite a few dismissive, high-and-mighty opinions on Mike, lowering my opinion of him, feeling like something was amiss suddenly picking 15 guys over Tyson, going back to the film, confirming my prior observations and forever consolidating my respect for this awesome fighter.

Bokaj

07-02-2008, 06:38 PM

True.

My personal experience was Tyson's simply looking better on film than hallowed past greats (Tyson over Spinks impressing me more than Louis over Schmeling), discovering this site, reading quite a few dismissive, high-and-mighty opinions on Mike, lowering my opinion of him, feeling like something was amiss suddenly picking 15 guys over Tyson, going back to the film, confirming my prior observations and forever consolidating my respect for this awesome fighter.

It's good that you have conviction in your opinions. Many guys here are so knowledgable and argue so well that sometimes you can get to doubt things you really think are self-evident.

Personally, I have been somewhat guilty of dismissing Tyson in the past, mainly because I was so fed up with those who hyped him. I think he showed true greatness at times (Berbick, Spinks for example), but I also think he showed weaknesses against guys like Douglas and Holyfield that just can't be discarded with "that wasn't the real Tyson". I do agree, however, that Tyson wasn't at his best in those fights. Against Holyfield he was definitely some way past his prime, but so was Holyfield.

Awesome as he looked in finishing P. Thomas I couldn't help but wonder how the fight would have looked if Thomas had moved more behind that excellent jab and straight right. And it's hard not to feel that the fight against Douglas gave at least some hint to the answer of that question.

But still, I have Tyson very high in a h2h sense. The only one I would pick quite comfortably over him is Ali, and maybe Foreman.

Holmes' Jab

07-03-2008, 05:10 AM

I don't think there's ever been a heavyweight of such a young age as great as Tyson was circa 86/87.

Holmes' Jab

07-03-2008, 05:15 AM

Whilst Berbick was the better opponent I've thought for a long time that the most brutal, dominating and sharp Tyson ever looked was perhaps during the Biggs fight. He could've easily forced the stoppage at virtually anytime long before the 7th

DamonD

07-03-2008, 05:45 AM

I've said before that the Biggs fight is actually one of my favourite Tyson performances because (even if it's just bourne out of wanting to torture Biggs) the more methodical and precise pace Tyson sets in that fight really gave him a chance to show off more than just the bulldozer approach.

radianttwilight

07-31-2008, 01:14 AM

It is funny how even today dumb dumbs still think Tyson was unbeatable at 20 or 22 because he beat Berbick and Spinks a man smaller than he was.

Wanna know something special?

Spinks 212 for his fight with Tyson.

Foreman was 217 for his title-winning performance against Frazier in 1973.

Tyson was 218lbs for the Spinks fight...

If Michael Spinks wasn't a credible opponent because he was "smaller" than Tyson, then maybe prime Foreman wouldn't be a credible opponent either? Since weight = ability, after all.

Seamus

07-31-2008, 01:18 AM

Let's remember Berbick was a fairly limited and well... crappy heavyweight. And that era was horrible.

Loewe

07-31-2008, 02:55 AM

No. This is why he is the youngest heavyweight champion ever.

Mike Tyson against Berbick is an exhibition of close-to-the-greatest heavyweight fighter that ever lived.

Both is wrong, watch Clay-Williams or Louis-Schmeling. Those are nearer on what you suggest.
Also, Tyson maybe the youngest beltholder ever but when he became champ he was older than Patterson was when he became champ.

Holmes' Jab

07-31-2008, 04:32 AM

The young Ali in the earlier stages of his career that was defensively very open and getting knocked down by guys like Cooper, Banks, and hurt by Doug Jones is going to beat the peak Tyson of the late 80's? Tyson by KO over that Ali.

I don't think that Ali would show the same clowning and carelessness against Tyson. If he did he'd be in trouble, otherwise he'd win a closely contested UD.

Ezzard

07-31-2008, 04:45 AM

How many thread topics can be devised to try and manipulate a situation where Tyson is the greatest ever fighter?

Loewe

07-31-2008, 04:46 AM

How many thread topics can be devised to try and manipulate a situation where Tyson is the greatest ever fighter?

Just wait and watch and you´ll see them all. :yep

Holmes' Jab

07-31-2008, 05:16 AM

Ezzard

07-31-2008, 07:18 AM

Tyson certainly ain't the greatest ever, but a peak period version would make for a very tough assignment for virtually any great. You're kidding youself if you think otherwise IMO. I think he'd beat some of 'em.

Agreed. That's how I see it. But he's not one of the elite top drawer HWs no matter how you try to splice it.

Holmes' Jab

07-31-2008, 07:27 AM

he's not one of the elite top drawer HWs no matter how you try to splice it.

If you count the 'top drawer heavyweights' to be 'top 10' then he's there in my view. I've him at #8 infact and think that's fair. Obviously he's a bit below the likes of Holmes, Lewis, Liston even further behind the consensus 'top 2'.

prime

07-31-2008, 11:56 AM

Both is wrong, watch Clay-Williams or Louis-Schmeling. Those are nearer on what you suggest.
Also, Tyson maybe the youngest beltholder ever but when he became champ he was older than Patterson was when he became champ.

"Wrong" should perhaps only be reserved for the realm of facts, not opinions like ours on 20-year-old Tyson. My opinion is Tyson's dismantling in 5 minutes of a 31-year-old, 218-pound, durable champion such as Berbick (in the end with one punch that knocked him down three times!) is just as awesome as the hallowed and very impressive crushing victory of Louis over a 32-year-old, 193-pound, more worn, ex-champion in Schmeling.

As much as I love Ali's showing against Williams, it is still true Ali failed to keep the literally shot Big Cat on the canvas, the fight being stopped in fact with Williams on his feet, so, again, Tyson's exhibition holds up pretty well against your other option.

And Tyson was officially announced at the close of the Berbick fight as the youngest heavyweight champion, and was the consensus most formidable among all the belt holders at that moment, as he would soon prove.

Loewe

07-31-2008, 12:02 PM

"Wrong" should perhaps only be reserved for the realm of facts, not opinions like ours on 20-year-old Tyson. My opinion is Tyson's dismantling in 5 minutes of a 31-year-old, 218-pound, durable champion such as Berbick (in the end with one punch that knocked him down three times!) is just as awesome as the hallowed and very impressive crushing victory of Louis over a 32-year-old, 193-pound, more worn, ex-champion in Schmeling.

As much as I love Ali's showing against Williams, it is still true Ali failed to keep the literally shot Big Cat on the canvas, the fight being stopped in fact with Williams on his feet, so, again, Tyson's exhibition holds up pretty well against your other option.

Okay, here we can agree to have a different view of things.

And Tyson was officially announced at the close of the Berbick fight as the youngest heavyweight champion, and was the consensus most formidable among all the belt holders at that moment, as he would soon prove.

It doesn´t matter what was announced. Fact is, Tyson didn´t become hw champion till he beat Spinks and at that time he was older than Patterson.

PowerPuncher

07-31-2008, 01:58 PM

I doubt it, no other 20 year old heavyweight was as both well schooled and as powerful and quick as that Tyson. Ali as 20yo possibly could pull it off, but this is a pre-prime Ali who made more mistakes and wasnt physically mature.

Most top modern heavyweights hadnt started their pro careers at the age of 20 so it is a slightly scewed, not like with like question

prime

07-31-2008, 05:14 PM

Tyson didn´t become hw champion till he beat Spinks.

By your definition, Larry Holmes was never the heavyweight champion, Alexis Arguello challenged Aaron Pryor for a million dollars worth of blue sky, and of course right now we have no heavyweight champion.

This has been discussed here before; my take is, at the time Tyson was a huge, exciting prospect who, if successful against Berbick, would most likely be good enough to unify the belts soon at a moment when the boxing world was just as hungry as it is today for a unified heavy champ.

The way he defeated Berbick left no doubt Mike Tyson was the real thing and he soon proved it when he unified against Tucker. After this fight, incidentally, Tyson himself said he felt like the champ when he beat Berbick. By the way, Berbick held the WBC version, arguably the most prestigious of the three belts at the time.

So: Tyson is the youngest heavyweight ever to hold a belt; and, yes, Patterson is still the youngest unified champ.

janitor

07-31-2008, 05:24 PM

Agreed. That's how I see it. But he's not one of the elite top drawer HWs no matter how you try to splice it.

On paper he is.

If you ranked the all time great heavyweights, by the number of (curently ranked fighters) they beat, Tyson would do prety well.

He would not match Louis, Ali, Langford or even Harry Wills for number and quality of bodies beaten.

He would however pass the likes of Dempsey, Marciano, Hollyfield, and yes Sharkey (just).

Tyson was not a flash in the pan.

He blazed his trail, but after he fell, he continued to beat ranked contenders at a stage of his career where most heavyweights were enjoying the easy life/fighting bums.

Bokaj

08-03-2008, 05:42 AM

By your definition, Larry Holmes was never the heavyweight champion

Holmes beat Ali, the lineal champion before him. This is the same as Tyson beating Spinks.

Unforgiven

08-03-2008, 06:39 AM

On paper he is.

If you ranked the all time great heavyweights, by the number of (curently ranked fighters) they beat, Tyson would do prety well.

He would not match Louis, Ali, Langford or even Harry Wills for number and quality of bodies beaten.

He would however pass the likes of Dempsey, Marciano, Hollyfield, and yes Sharkey (just).

Tyson was not a flash in the pan.

He blazed his trail, but after he fell, he continued to beat ranked contenders at a stage of his career where most heavyweights were enjoying the easy life/fighting bums.

How do you define "currently ranked fighters" ? Which rankings do you use ?

mcvey

08-03-2008, 07:15 AM

He was certainly impressive ,but Berbick fought a stupid fight,I prefer Tyson against Thomas ,his combos were devastating that night.

My dinner with Conteh

08-03-2008, 10:25 AM

Probably not.

prime

08-03-2008, 11:17 AM

Holmes beat Ali, the lineal champion before him. This is the same as Tyson beating Spinks.

The man who beat the man, huh? Agreed. But one caveat: Holmes' legitimacy was not dependent at all on his beating up on a comfortably retired, fat, terribly diminished Ali, who made the mistake of coming back and challenging the young WBC champ. Very few, if any, said when Dundee wig-wagged his hands at the close of the Last Hurrah that NOW Holmes is the real champion.

My point was a guy can hold a belt and be considered the real champion, the best fighter in the world, the baddest man on the planet, even if he doesn't or hasn't unified.

Bokaj

08-03-2008, 11:41 AM

The man who beat the man, huh? Agreed. But one caveat: Holmes' legitimacy was not dependent at all on his beating up on a comfortably retired, fat, terribly diminished Ali, who made the mistake of coming back and challenging the young WBC champ. Very few, if any, said when Dundee wig-wagged his hands at the close of the Last Hurrah that NOW Holmes is the real champion.

My point was a guy can hold a belt and be considered the real champion, the best fighter in the world, the baddest man on the planet, even if he doesn't or hasn't unified.

Yeah, sure. I was just pointing out that there's a consistency in saying that Tyson became champion when he beat Spinks and that Holmes became champion when he beat Ali. If that's the definition one wants to use.

Loewe

08-03-2008, 12:19 PM