Mike Tyson vs. Heavyweights of the 1950s/1970s

[sr71ko]

How would Mike Tyson do against heavyweights of the 1950s/1970s? Tyson vs. Charles, Walcott, Archie Moore, and Rocky Marciano would have been great. However, the 1970s had Ali, Holmes, Quarry, Earnie Shavers, Lyle, Foreman, etc. I believe that Tyson would decimate the 1950s heavyweight division, but 1970s would test him more. Can you imagine a young Gerry Cooney vs. Mike Tyson? Tyson vs. Norton would be interesting too. I know that there are different schools of thought on Tyson. That is okay. I expect a divergence of opinions. I have my views, but I don't expect others to agree with me. I feel that the jab and grab tactics of LL and Holyfield would frustrate Tyson even in his prime, but the Louis, Liston, Holmes, Foreman, and Ali would have have the best chances IMO. Anyways, how would he do against those heavyweights?

[GorDoom]

Bottom line: When Tyson was pressured & getting in desperate straits he folded like an accordion every time. If he was in jeopardy against ANY of these heavyweights - & many were capable of placing him there - empirical evidence tells he'll cave just like he always did.

When push came to shove we discovered that Tyson like Roy Jones, ultimately had a heart the size of a dessicated raisin.

GorDoom

[walshb]

Well, if we are judging Tyson POST prison then it's easier to say he folds.

Pre prison and at peak, gimme a folding example?

Roy got knocked the fuck out, how does this equate to not having heart?

[Elwill7847]

Tyson took beatings from Buster Douglas and Evander Holyfield (1st fight) and tried to fight back so, at least up through the 1st Holyfield fight, I cant call Tyson a quitter. I do think he was a frontrunner, and, when things didnt go his way, he got discouraged and lost some steam.

In comparing him to the 1950's heavyweights, Walcott, Charles and Moore were all better fighters than Tyson, but I think he would have been too big for them. Marciano would have been a different story. Even though Rocky fought in the mid 180's, I believe he was uncommonly strong, just as Ali was uncommonly fast and quick for a big man. I think Rocky takes some early heat from Tyson, survives, and wears Tyson down, stopping him in the late rounds (somewhere between 10-13).

Tyson vs the 1970's crew offers him some serious problems. he absolutely loses to Ali, Frazier and Foreman. Ali fights him much like Douglas did and stops him late, Frazier survives an early Tyson onslaught and outguts Tyson, stopping him inside 9 rounds and Foreman bounces him around like a rubber ball inside 2-3 rounds. I also think Larry Holmes would have outboxed Tyson early and stopped him late in the fight.

I'd pick Tyson over Norton and Shavers, although Earnie would have a punchers chance. I think Ron Lyle would give him hell....Lyle might beat him. The Jerry Quarry that beat Thad Spencer, Mac Foster, Ron Lyle, Earnie Shavers and Buster Mathis may very well have outboxed Tyson early and then take him out late. Depends which Jerry showed up.

I also like some of the 1960's guys over Tyson. Liston would have pounded Tyson IMO and I wouldnt put it past Cleveland Williams to stop Mike.

No disrespect to Tyson, who may very well deserve to be in the bottom of the top 10 heavyweights, maybe 9th or 10th, certainly in the top 15.

[hagler04]

I'd strongly favor Charles and Walcott to box Mike's ears off . . .his size would be a non-factor, both Ezzard and Jersey Joe beat much larger men than Tyson, who at about 5'10, 216 at his peak was not a huge heavyweight.

Tyson would have his best chances vs the guys who had early defensive lapses. I'd favor Tyson over Norton and Patterson early for example. I think even if Tyson couldn't KO Shavers he'd outbox him. Quarry? Tough call there . . .Jerry would be hurt early, and hurt bad, but if he could get into his groove by the middle rounds he'd counter Tyson all over the ring.

[Surf-Bat]

Tyson ko1 Charles (Ez was a MIXER folks, not a Jimmy Young. No light heavy[which is basically what he was] mixer is going to last with Tyson. No way his chin withstands Mike's dynamite.)

Tyson ko4 Walcott (Walcott is slick enough to last a few rounds. But nobody who is ko'd by light heavyweights or Abe Simon is going to not get ko'd by Tyson. He was caught by an aging, slow-footed Joe Louis. He'd be caught by prime, quick-footed Tyson.)

Tyson ko1 Moore (Archie gets blitzed. He can't get out of the way. This ain't Nino Valdez or Bob Baker. It's Mike Tyson)

Tyson tko ? Marciano (Tyson bigger, stronger, faster and hits harder. Marciano's advantage in heart his undoing here)

Tyson ko2 Norton, Quarry(Norton always folds vs. sluggers. Quarry mixes.)
Tyson ko1 Shavers (A shaky chinned slugger beat Iron Mike? No.)
Tyson ko1 Cooney
Tyson ko7 Lyle (Lyle makes a good fight of it)
Tyson w12 Bonavena (Oscar's clinching, clubbing and mauling throw Mike off his game[clinchers usually did]. Mike looks bad in this one but wins clearly)
Tyson ko ? Frazier (Tyson has stronger chin and hits harder with BOTH hands. Joe learned the hard way once not to mix with a guy bigger, stronger and harder-hitting than you. Tyson would repeat the lesson)
Tyson ko3 Foreman (George too slow and too easy to hit. Tyson ducks and weaves easily under his looping shots and counters him with horrific blows)
Tyson w12 Holmes (Holmes not evasive enough imo. But a strong argument can be made the other way.)
Ali w12 Tyson

[Surf-Bat]

BTW, despite appearances, I don't really care all that much for Tyson and I would be rooting for almost ALL of these guys against him.

[hawk5ins]

Frazier and Foreman to KO Mike.

Foreman too strong and pushes Mike off and then drills him repeatedly at the end of his punches and stops Mike in 4.

Frazier knows HOW to fight inside and will and takes Mike's heart out of his chest cavity, shows it to him and eats it in front of him. KO 8 or 9.

Holmes and Ali by decision.

Holmes Tyson is more competitive, but Holmes takes over completely by round 6 and wins decisively. Mike is reduced to Lunging in with single shots and tying Holmes up whenever his momentum from these lunges, gets him close to Holmes. Second half of the bout his Holmes jabbing and potshotting and Mike repeated said scenario to no gain.

Tyson never gets comfortable with Ali and loses widely. Too Fast on the outside where the bout is held. Mike does NOTHING on the inside but clinch.

Gor's statement about Mike's heart is spot on imo. And for reasons such as that, I have a hard time picking Tyson over Marciano, when by all rights, he should be able to win decisively over the Rock.

Tyson doesn't annihilate Rocky early, Marciano storms back and stops Tyson.

Cooney and Shavers have punchers chances. But neither probably land first.

Charles is a Light Heavy. Same with Moore. Walcott too inconsistant and can be hit.

Bonavena, can INDEED be interesting, becuase when he wrestles and mauls with Mike, he will throw punches. Mike has virtually ZERO inside work.

I'll take Tyson by decision, but I think it's an ugly. whispered grumbling decision, in which Mike will tell everyone he would do much better in a rematch. One that we'd never see.

Lyle, is not going to be intimidated. But I don't think he works enough to really hurt Mike and Surf's take on this is probably pretty much how it goes.

Not a good matchup for Norton, and he has said so himself.

Quarry could be interesting. I could see him fighting a fight similar to the one he did agianst Lyle and really causing Mike fits. My guess though, is that we would have an unsatisfying TKO (cuts) stoppage that leave everyone pissed off and irritated, walking out of the area mummering: "If Only Jerry didn't cut so easily."

Young goes the route, but is not active enough over the first 5 or 6 rounds to make the decision at all debatable.

So give me 4 straight up over Mike. One "either or". One debatable decision goign in Mike's favor. ANd one cuts stoppage that pisses everyone off. Mike takes the rest.

Hawk

[walshb]

Tyson ko1 Charles (Ez was a MIXER folks, not a Jimmy Young. No light heavy[which is basically what he was] mixer is going to last with Tyson. No way his chin withstands Mike's dynamite.)

Tyson ko4 Walcott (Walcott is slick enough to last a few rounds. But nobody who is ko'd by light heavyweights or Abe Simon is going to not get ko'd by Tyson. He was caught by an aging, slow-footed Joe Louis. He'd be caught by prime, quick-footed Tyson.)

Tyson ko1 Moore (Archie gets blitzed. He can't get out of the way. This ain't Nino Valdez or Bob Baker. It's Mike Tyson)

Tyson tko ? Marciano (Tyson bigger, stronger, faster and hits harder. Marciano's advantage in heart his undoing here)

Tyson ko2 Norton, Quarry(Norton always folds vs. sluggers. Quarry mixes.)
Tyson ko1 Shavers (A shaky chinned slugger beat Iron Mike? No.)
Tyson ko1 Cooney
Tyson ko7 Lyle (Lyle makes a good fight of it)
Tyson w12 Bonavena (Oscar's clinching, clubbing and mauling throw Mike off his game[clinchers usually did]. Mike looks bad in this one but wins clearly)
Tyson ko ? Frazier (Tyson has stronger chin and hits harder with BOTH hands. Joe learned the hard way once not to mix with a guy bigger, stronger and harder-hitting than you. Tyson would repeat the lesson)
Tyson ko3 Foreman (George too slow and too easy to hit. Tyson ducks and weaves easily under his looping shots and counters him with horrific blows)
Tyson w12 Holmes (Holmes not evasive enough imo. But a strong argument can be made the other way.)
Ali w12 Tyson

Gotta' say Surf, I'm with you on all these, except I think Mike takes Larry Holmes out.
Holmes braveness and willingness to engage may see him take too much.
Perfect point about evasiveness/elusiveness. That is why Holmes loses.

None of the guys mentioned, Charles, Moore, Walcott will really hurt Mike to the
point where he is backing up. I cannot see them survive Tyson's shots. They weren't
big men either.

Quarry is tough, but I think not tough enough to withstand Tyson. Foreman-Tyson? I will go with Mike to finish what Lyle could not.

Of them all, I think Frazier's style lends to the best chance to win. That bobbing and weaving, that constant pressure, heart and stamina. I could see an upset here.

Oh, Ali's foot speed is the key to his win over Tyson, but hell, it would be
edge of the seat stuff, especially if Tyson connects flush, on any of them.

[robertk]

The thing that's tough to evaluate with a Tyson is the deterioration factor. When he lost a fight, he always came in is a guy that had obviously dropped a few rungs down the ladder.

If it's the 50's guys, the long sustained beating from a Marciano sure isn't going to help that form. I think Ezzard can pull an Evander type performance on the guy and is a dangerous opponent.

60's I think Liston gets the ko. Clay outboxes him in a 1 sided affair.

70's guys that absorption factor is really going to come into play. If the losses cause him to slide back say 25%, a guy like a Ron Lyle becomes a much much tougher fight. And you had a ton of top shelf trainers around back then that would and could exploit weaknesses exposed by other fighters.

Mike came along at a perfect time & cleaned up a mess of the division. I don't think he cleans up the talent pool of the early 90's either, come to think of it. He just came along at the right time when he did.

[hawk5ins]

Robert,

I do agree he came along at the right time. And I also agree with your point about, having to face multiple upper level fighters within an era or reign.

I took the view as Top Tier Mike vs each at thier best.

But facing many of these guys back to back as you did, is going to factor in lulls and focus issues.

Over the course of a reign, I also see other fighters pulling off the surprise showings as well if for instance, you plunked Tyson in an era and were asking him to compete with that era's fighters over the course of his career.

THat actually may be the more interesting way to view these things.

Hawk

[robertk]

I kind of looked at it as a time portal kind of thing.

What I really don't like with Tyson is his form after he lost a fight. Lulls/focus and physical deterioration are going to be very tough to deal with. The guy had them and I sure don't think the best of corners to try and steer him even if he did bother to listen. And those were things a 70's guy or any era had to deal afterall and couldn't circumvent the consequences of timing. I think a Leon Spinks does much better in a different era than the one he was in.

When you look at the talent pool of the 90's, I don't think Tyson handles that era either. And each loss subtracts things. Some fighters can handle losses like say Evander and still be highly effective. Not to nitpick on Tyson, I also think that factor comes into play with some other guys too. But it'd be hard to deny that each loss he suffered reduced his effectiveness a ton. Some guys slide back a little and some guys a ton. He was a guy that slides a ton & a decade with a deep talent pool would've been a bad era to be in.

[mrbig1]

Bottom line: When Tyson was pressured & getting in desperate straits he folded like an accordion every time. If he was in jeopardy against ANY of these heavyweights - & many were capable of placing him there - empirical evidence tells he'll cave just like he always did.

When push came to shove we discovered that Tyson like Roy Jones, ultimately had a heart the size of a dessicated raisin.

GorDoom

The voice of reason. He was great vs Frazier,Tubbs,and Briggs. When he had to fight a true Champion, Well we all saw what happen. Let's remember it was Holyfield who was the shot fighter. Evander lost 2 of his last 4 fights one by KO. When it came down to heart and will Tyson came up short. Ali would keep Tyson guessing. If Tyson had to stop and think that's when he's a whipped ass.

[hagler04]

The 'just a light heavyweight' Charles took big shots from Nino Valdez, Rocky Marciano, Bob Satterfield, Elmer Ray, Archie Moore, and Joe Louis. He's not suddenly going to be awed and outclassed by Mike Tyson, who I don't think hit any harder than Louis or Ray. The Tyson mystique runs amuk.

Ezzard Charles at his best, who faced the meanest, toughest men of the deepest era in boxing, would take a front running punk with the timable D-Amato style like Tyson, chew him up, and spit him out for breakfast.

[sr71ko]

Over the last 50 years (1960-2010), there have been only 2 boxing phenoms at the heavyweight level, and they were Ali and Tyson. These 2 have been the only ones to capture the entire imagination of the boxing world. Despite good/great champs such as Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Lewis, and Holyfield, only Ali and Tyson have energized the divison. What frustrates me about Tyson is despite his great hand speed and power we never really got a chance to see him answer all the tough criteria of an great champ. During his prime, I remember only Tillis, Bonecrusher, Ribalta, Tucker, and to a certain degree an aged Larry Holmes testing Tyson. Post Tokyo Tyson, he looked like a quitter/bully against Holyfield, a rusty medicated jackass against Lennox Lewis, and a hollow shell(may be even a diver) against Kevin McBride and Danny Williams. Post Tyson, there was a lack of focus/training, trouble with the law, and crazy behavior. This is contrary to the prime Tyson. If Cus Damato and Rooney had Tyson under their wings.... he would have achieved far more than what he did. I wish that Tyson had gotten a rematch with Buster to see if Tyson could overcome a defeat, but he did not. That is why we are left to wonder just how good he really was or was not. It would have been great to see how Tyson would have done against Frazier and Foreman. Even better could the Ali that fought both Norton and Frazier 3 times beaten a prime Tyson? The Tyson that first fought in 1985 with that great speed, hand speed, and power would have been real interesting. I don't know the answers for sure, but Tyson like Liston was perhaps better than what his critics thought. May be his potential was better than his actual abilities, but it is a damn shame that he was not thoroughly tested like Joe Louis, Holmes, and Ali.

[hagler04]

Over the last 50 years (1960-2010), there have been only 2 boxing phenoms at the heavyweight level, and they were Ali and Tyson. These 2 have been the only ones to capture the entire imagination of the boxing world. Despite good/great champs such as Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Lewis, and Holyfield, only Ali and Tyson have energized the divison. What frustrates me about Tyson is despite his great hand speed and power we never really got a chance to see him answer all the tough criteria of an great champ. During his prime, I remember only Tillis, Bonecrusher, Ribalta, Tucker, and to a certain degree an aged Larry Holmes testing Tyson. Post Tokyo Tyson, he looked like a quitter/bully against Holyfield, a rusty medicated jackass against Lennox Lewis, and a hollow shell(may be even a diver) against Kevin McBride and Danny Williams. Post Tyson, there was a lack of focus/training, trouble with the law, and crazy behavior. This is contrary to the prime Tyson. If Cus Damato and Rooney had Tyson under their wings.... he would have achieved far more than what he did. I wish that Tyson had gotten a rematch with Buster to see if Tyson could overcome a defeat, but he did not. That is why we are left to wonder just how good he really was or was not. It would have been great to see how Tyson would have done against Frazier and Foreman. Even better could the Ali that fought both Norton and Frazier 3 times beaten a prime Tyson? The Tyson that first fought in 1985 with that great speed, hand speed, and power would have been real interesting. I don't know the answers for sure, but Tyson like Liston was perhaps better than what his critics thought. May be his potential was better than his actual abilities, but it is a damn shame that he was not thoroughly tested like Joe Louis, Holmes, and Ali.

Tyson was not the first fighter to have focus issues in training, have trouble with women/management, or with staying out too late. His personal issues seem to be overly magnified as excuses for his bad performances b/c they have been the topic of numerous tabloid like exploitive exposes and quasi-pyscho analysis BS done by sports writers.

Tested in his prime? Yes, by one James Douglas.

[sr71ko]

Tyson was not the first fighter to have focus issues in training, have trouble with women/management, or with staying out too late. His personal issues seem to be overly magnified as excuses for his bad performances b/c they have been the topic of numerous tabloid like exploitive exposes and quasi-pyscho analysis BS done by sports writers.

Tested in his prime? Yes, by one James Douglas.

You are right he did fail his test against Douglas despite knocking him down. But Tyson did not fall apart against Tillis, Mitch Blood Green, BoneCrusher Smith, or Tony Tucker, all went the distance against Tyson. He took one hell of an uppercut in the 1st round.... he struggled at first then he and Rooney made adjustments and he proceeded to dominate Tucker the rest of the fight. A Buster Douglas rematch would have answered some if not all the questions about Tyson.

[GorDoom]

Elwill:

I did not write that Leg-Iron Mike was gutless, what I wrote was that he always folded under pressure. Big difference. Up through the first Hokyfield fights he indeed took his beatings like a man ...

But that wasn't my point. It was that EVERY time he was under duress he found a way to lose.That is unless you consider his distance decision over Tony Tucker some kind of epic war.

Tyson was the ultimate bully. An absolute destroyer when his opponent was intimidated or past his best & a complete underachiever when it was time to display a true warriors heart.

GorDoom

[hagler04]

You are right he did fail his test against Douglas despite knocking him down. But Tyson did not fall apart against Tillis, Mitch Blood Green, BoneCrusher Smith, or Tony Tucker, all went the distance against Tyson. He took one hell of an uppercut in the 1st round.... he struggled at first then he and Rooney made adjustments and he proceeded to dominate Tucker the rest of the fight. A Buster Douglas rematch would have answered some if not all the questions about Tyson.

Tyson had toughness without a doubt . . but like Gordoom I don't see the Tucker fight as some triumph over adversity. Tucker fought a smart fight in the early rounds, injured his right hand, and then fought a defensive, offensively sporadic fight the rest of the evening.

Smith and Green just fought to survive.


I seem to be in the minority in that I don't think Tyson beat Tillis, I scored their fight a draw.

[langford]

Tyson was a damn tough man to beat when young. He could hit and hit fast and set up that hook. He actually did try to move his head , and did it pretty well, and he did train hard when young. Of course, you always want to see the chin tested, and his was good, not great. But, he was never ever a "legitimate tough guy", a Saad Muhammed type who expected to get hit and came back again and again, or a Holyfield. So yes, he was beatable. I also like Charles over Tyson as well as Walcott. I think he beats Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Marciano but never Holyfield. Ali may not have won what with Tyson's head movement and left hook but Holmes may have won. Quarry I would make a small bet on as he had the heart and punching style to couter him and maybe take him out ala Lyle. The rest Tyson beats, imo - maybe.

[sr71ko]

Tyson had toughness without a doubt . . but like Gordoom I don't see the Tucker fight as some triumph over adversity. Tucker fought a smart fight in the early rounds, injured his right hand, and then fought a defensive, offensively sporadic fight the rest of the evening.

Smith and Green just fought to survive.


I seem to be in the minority in that I don't think Tyson beat Tillis, I scored their fight a draw.

You are not in the minority.... the knockdown was the only reason that Tyson got the decision. Tillis landed his share of shots... even to the body by Tyson's own admission. I was nervous about the decision. Tillis gave Buster the blueprint to defeat Tyson. Holmes employed some of the jab and grab stuff to frustrate Tyson and even gave a few flashes in the 3rd round with that jab that bloodied Tyson's nose. It was just beautiful to see Tyson solve Holmes... even an 38 year old one with that explosive combos in the 4th. I was using those examples of Tyson not folding, not panicking, or running out of gas like so many other sluggers or punchers have in the past when they are forced to the distance.

[Surf-Bat]

[QUOTE=hagler04]The 'just a light heavyweight' Charles took big shots from

Nino Valdez,
And this is the equivilant of taking shots from Tyson? Bad example. And according to the papers Nino didn't detonate anything particularly devastating off of Ez's chin(Ez LOST this fight, btw)

Rocky Marciano,
and got hurt several times, disfigured horribly and, in their second fight, knocked out.

Bob Satterfield,
Yes, a LIGHT-HEAVY(and a glass jawed one to boot) and one that couldn't even go a full 2 rounds. Again, hardly the equivilant to a Tyson assault. according to the papers Bob tried to land his big bombs in the first but couldn't. He landed "lighter" blows(which, from someone like Satterfield, is tantamount to hard blows from an average light heavy). Nothing to brag about here

Elmer Ray,
An excellent puncher but one who was hurt and ko'd from hard shots in his career(and I won't mentioned what little middleweight Charley Burley did to him in sparring). Ez's power kept him honest. It wouldn't be enough to keep Tyson honest(who took a much better shot than Ray and from much bigger punchers than Charles)

Archie Moore
Another LIGHT-HEAVY, Hags. A great fighter but nothing close to Tyson-power at heavyweight. ,

and Joe Louis.
Another bad example. Old plodding Louis hardly touched him the entire fight. When he did manage to tag Ez(in the 4th and 10th according to the reports) he was just too old and "finished" to follow up. Tyson would have followed up and FINISHED Ez.

He's not suddenly going to be awed and outclassed by Mike Tyson,
When he is in the center of the ring facing a man so much bigger, so much stronger, so much harder-hitting and yes EVERY BIT AS FAST as he is then yes, I think Ez would be very much awed.

This was a man who was knocked out by a single punch from Walcott. Knocked out by Lloyd Marshall(floored EIGHT times in their first fight, once in their second). Floored SEVEN times in losing to Jimmy Bivins(and floored AGAIN in their second fight). Floored by Ken Overlin(a LIGHT punching MIDDLEWEIGHT!)and Fitzie Fitzpatrick(who's he?) and was badly hurt by Jose Basora(a SMALL middleweight). So in all, he was hurt, floored and knocked stiff several times in his career by lesser punchers than Tyson. Not a good omen.

Tyson on the other hand took cannon shots from Razor Ruddock, Frank Bruno and Bonecrusher Smith, all of whom tested Tyson's chin more severely than the guys whom you mentioned as testing Charles' whiskers(these are big powerful heavyweights remember, not light punching middleweights or light heavyweights). Think a shot Charles could have taken as many Lennox Lewis bombs as a shot Tyson took?

who I don't think hit any harder than Louis or Ray.
Maybe, maybe not. But he sure as hell took a better shot than either man and sure as hell was a better finisher than Ray or the shot Louis who fought Ez. Prime Tyson was a much more dangerous fighter

Ezzard Charles at his best, who faced the meanest, toughest men of the deepest era in boxing,
Correction, the meanest, toughest men of the deepest LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT era. The guys he beat at heavyweight hardly constitute the "Deepest" that heavyweight history had to offer.

Ezzard Charles was the greatest light heavyweight who ever lived. But he was a second-tier heavyweight champion. What wins garner him the lofty HEAVYWEIGHT status you seem to have given him? Walcott? OK, good wins(also LOST twice to the guy). Anyone else? Do you really feel he was such a dominant heavyweight?

[walshb]

Spot on regarding Charles. A great fighter, but too small to bother Tyson.
He doesn't have the power to keep Mike honest.

I see this as a brutal loss for Charles once Mike finds the range and unloads.

If Charles thought that the Walcott shot was heavy, then he's in real trouble
when Tyson lands an uppercut, hook or straight right cross.

[robertk]

You are not in the minority.... the knockdown was the only reason that Tyson got the decision. Tillis landed his share of shots... even to the body by Tyson's own admission. I was nervous about the decision. Tillis gave Buster the blueprint to defeat Tyson. Holmes employed some of the jab and grab stuff to frustrate Tyson and even gave a few flashes in the 3rd round with that jab that bloodied Tyson's nose. It was just beautiful to see Tyson solve Holmes... even an 38 year old one with that explosive combos in the 4th. I was using those examples of Tyson not folding, not panicking, or running out of gas like so many other sluggers or punchers have in the past when they are forced to the distance.

If you were nervous, try being there giving those 10-1 odds. But it was just like going to some of those early Shavers bouts I went to---put a face first guy with no legs in there. Never ever a guy with mobility as the best part of their game.

[JLP 6]

I like Jersey Joe over Mike. Joe at his best is not going to be facing power heavier than that of Louis and I think because of his skill he can face down Tyson's early speed.

Walcott may present somewhat of a Holyfield-esque challenge to Mike. In and out, side to side, off speed, and his own very heavy punches.

[hagler04]

Watch Louis-Charles and Satterfield-Charles for yourself, they certainly do land hard shots on Ezzard and he takes them very well.

You keep bringing up these opponent's durability but that's a non-issue here. I'm talking about strict punching power. Moore's power hurt and KO'd quite a few top-level heavyweights but he lacked HW power?

KOs are much more about timing and precision than sheer power. No-one will argue Holyfield was in the same league as a puncher as Smith, Ruddock or Bruno but who did Tyson get stopped by? Charles was a much more dangerous fighter than Frank Bruno or Razor Ruddock b/c his sense of timing, finding oppenings and ability to pace himself and open up at the right times were second to none. Plus he hit hard enough in the upper 180s to knockout very big men. Ditto with Walcott. Charles would be able to avoid the ponderous bombs of a Bruno all night, but a very tricky fast Lloyd Marshall is a different story, regardless of weight.

Going by your logic there is no way James Toney should have ever went the distance with Rahman or Peter as he'd been floored by Jones Jr and Reggie Johnson.

[Surf-Bat]

[QUOTE=hagler04]

Plus he hit hard enough in the upper 180s to knockout very big men.
Who exactly?

Ditto with Walcott.
Again, who? I know that Walcott GOT knocked out by very big men (see: Abe Simon) but I don't see many ko's on his ledger over any top ranking heavyweights that anyone would consider "big".

Charles would be able to avoid the ponderous bombs of a Bruno all night
Avoiding Bruno's bombs and avoiding Tyson's missiles is a different story though

[mrbig1]

Going to prison was the best thing ever happen to Tyson. He missed out on fighting Bowe,Mercer,or Morrison.

[sr71ko]

Going to prison was the best thing ever happen to Tyson. He missed out on fighting Bowe,Mercer,or Morrison.

The beauty about Mike Tyson is that any could happen. Would fighters such as Charles, Walcott, Marciano, and other fighters from the 1950s have tested him? Could all of these guys have the possibility of beating Tyson? The answers to these questions are yes it is plausible either way. However, the prime Tyson that had devastating power and hand speed, along with head movement I would bet would kayo most heavyweight champs and most contenders regardless of the era. Look at the amount of 1st round kayos. I think only Earnie Shavers and Jack Dempsey had more at the heavyweight level. The 1970s would have provided the most tests for a prime Tyson. So opinions for his success or failure vs. these guys are plausible. It is well noted that post prime Tyson failed a lot of tests..... I don't deny that. At that stage he was more of a raw street figther than the athelete/gladiator from 1985-1989. However Tyson post prime or not would have kicked Bowe's, Mercer, and Morrison's asses. If Bert Cooper broke Mercer's jaw.... Tyson would have broke his ass. Morrison had power, some skills, but lacked the stamina, discipline, and chin to last long against Tyson. Now Bowe vs. Tyson would have been interesting. Slugging with Tyson like Bowe did against both Holyfield and Golata would be sucide against Tyson. Bowe had size, strength, power, but lack of discipline would hurt him. If he thought that Holyfield and Golata hit hard.... wait until Tyson would hit him. By the way I remember Tyson hitting Golata so hard that Golata was bleeding from the brain or at least that is what was reported when Tyson stopped him in 3 rounds. Tyson nearly broke Golata's neck with that devastating right hand bomb.

[Elwill7847]

Elwill:

I did not write that Leg-Iron Mike was gutless, what I wrote was that he always folded under pressure. Big difference. Up through the first Hokyfield fights he indeed took his beatings like a man ...

But that wasn't my point. It was that EVERY time he was under duress he found a way to lose.That is unless you consider his distance decision over Tony Tucker some kind of epic war.

Tyson was the ultimate bully. An absolute destroyer when his opponent was intimidated or past his best & a complete underachiever when it was time to display a true warriors heart.

GorDoom

Gor,

Didnt mean to insinuate that you called Tyson gutless. Was simply stating my opinion that I dont think he lacked guts. I actually agree w/your assessment that he came up short when someone was able to stand up to him.