Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

Heavyweight Boxing

1259260262264265286

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 47,954 ✭✭✭✭ walshb


    Age wise Tyson wasn’t old in the mid 1990s. But he was clearly past his performance/fighting peak, which was only as far as 1989/1990.

    He went to prison 1992. Was there 3 years or thereabouts.

    He was still quite good post prison, but to anyone who knows boxing and followed him, it was very clear he was not the same fighter in the mid 90s compared to pre 1990s.

    I don’t think the poster meant old in the late 30s early 40s sense. I think the poster meant what I have said here.

    Post edited by walshb on


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,478 ✭✭✭✭ OmegaGene


    Hammer retired with a torn bicep, the commentators were mentioning Dubois and Chisora for Hughie, don’t fancy his chances with those boys



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,093 ✭✭✭✭ AckwelFoley


    Yea. Exactly what I mean. I don't accept his opponents weren't good. He fought very good fighters.


    All heavyweights hit hard. But what made him unique was his explosive speed coupled with his power. 30 isn't old for a cerebral fighter. He just wasn't the same when he fought Evander. He was that touch slower, that in my opinion meant all the difference when you don't have another weapon in your arsenal. His frustration was clear in that fightn and it was his beginning of the end.

    People change. The really really great hall of fame fighters adapted their fighting style over time. When Ali fought Archie Moore in the early 60s he was a completely different athlete to the man that lay on the ropes against Foreman in Zaire 10 years later.


    Ali, was well over the hill by the time he was Tyson Furys age and he's considered the 'greatest" boxer of all time by many (Not me)


    My point is If Ali in his early 30s with all his skills is past his best, tyson at 30 was well past his best



  • Registered Users Posts: 47,954 ✭✭✭✭ walshb


    He’s just really basic. Even a washed up Chisora should be too much for him.



  • Registered Users Posts: 47,954 ✭✭✭✭ walshb


    Eubank’s joke of an opponent just quit after a few rounds. Wasn’t in the mood, from what it looks!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,478 ✭✭✭✭ OmegaGene


    Eubanks opponent was never going to be a match for him unfortunately, the southpaw aspect seemed to trouble Eubank for a while



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭ badabing106



    It surprises me that no one ever gives credit to Evander holyfield for his absolutely flawless performance . He was the complete underdog

    Mike tyson was bizarrely 1/25 odds on favourite to beat Evander holyfield

    I think the public and media created an "invincible boxer". So to lose to holyfield was because Mike tyson was well past his prime, not because holyfield was a fantastic boxer/fighter!


    Holyfield would have beaten tyson everytime all the time . All credit has to go to Holyfield for winning those fights.



  • Registered Users Posts: 47,954 ✭✭✭✭ walshb


    The Holyfield odds were ridiculous. But he was seen at the time as shopworn, jaded and a bit punchy..throw in the heart condition.

    Tyson and Holyfield peak to peak never happened..

    fantasy wise it’s 1986-1988 Tyson vs 1990-1992 Holyfield. I’m backing Tyson.

    Clearly faster, fitter and more ferocious than the 1996 version. Better defense as well. No way Evander stops this version, and if Bert Copper can badly hurt Holyfield, Mike absolutely can..and could finish it..

    funny, the slightly heavier and more bulked up 1996 Holyfield probably does better vs the 1986-1988 Tyson than the 1990-1992 Holyfield. 1996 version was physically stronger.

    Post edited by walshb on


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,716 ✭✭✭ squinn2912


    Was just thinking that while reading the first part of your comment. I think the bigger Holyfield is a tough proposition for any version of Tyson. Very hard one to call.Holyfield was one durable man.

    I think head on the block I’m going for Tyson. He never fought beast Tyson and from what I remember in the 11 (?) rounds Tyson gave him plenty of trouble in a topsy turvy enough fight. Tyson what nothing like the finisher after he came out of prison. He hadn’t the same believe either and often looked distracted as his career went on. By the end they were queueing up to have his name on their record.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,129 ✭✭✭ megadodge


    "My point is If Ali in his early 30s with all his skills is past his best, tyson at 30 was well past his best"


    Tyson was only TWENTY THREE when the very underwhelming Buster Douglas beat the living daylights out of him.

    Of course the Tyson fanboys continuosly ignore that FACT.

    Nobody is past their best at 23.... except 'Prime' Mike Tyson of course!


    There is absolutely no honest reason for ignoring the Douglas fight, but it's like it's been airbrushed out of boxing history. Excuse after excuse after excuse.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,093 ✭✭✭✭ AckwelFoley


    Tyson didn't train for that fight

    He was far from perfect. But Mike tyson at his best beats Holyfield



  • Registered Users Posts: 47,954 ✭✭✭✭ walshb


    And I’d add that Buster was for that fight at his best. He was very impressive that night. Age and career wise Tyson was at his peak, or close to it, but his life was spiralling from mid 1988 onwards.

    He was definitely distracted, affected and clearly a step or two off. It’s there to see for anyone following boxing and Tyson. Add this to a very well prepared and effective Douglas, and there you have it.

    Huge credit to Buster; but I don’t think Buster wins had he met the 1986-1988 Rooney prepared Tyson. I’d be very confident that this Tyson beats Buster 99/100 times



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,093 ✭✭✭✭ AckwelFoley


    Douglas got up off the canvas for that fight. He was a tidy enough fighter but tyson was so dominant that the betting odds were nuts again him.


    It was one of the greatest upsets in sporting history for a reason. Because of tysons ability.


    Ruiz beating AJ. Was a surprise but will be forgotten about for the same reason



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,666 ✭✭✭ The Nal


    Yeah the leeway Tyson is given by some is odd. Its an age profile thing I suppose. Growing up with Tyson as the man.

    Sensational fighter early in his career. The HW division was in the bin when he started though. The worst since the 50s. Maybe with the exception of Spinks. A light HW.

    Tyson lost to any really good fighter he faced, got KO'd by Buster Douglas (yeah he didnt train but part of being great is to train!), never avenged any of his defeats, never walk through fire, never got off the floor to win and was KO'd more times than any other heavyweight champion apart from Buster Douglas and a couple of other flash in the pans. Granted, the last few fights were a shambles. Not close to the top 10 heavyweights ever never mind top boxers.

    That said, a 1988/89 Kevin Rooney trained Tyson, who knows. Could've retired undefeated. 60-0. 70-0. Looked unbeatable. Will go down as one of the biggest ever mistakes in sport, firing Rooney. But saying Tyson is one of the best HWs (top 5) because he domainted the division for 4 years is like saying Joshua is one of the best because he did the same.

    Above mostly nicked (from myself!) from below thread which is worth a read/resurrection. Always a good conversation!

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2057758457/would-mike-tyson-have-had-sustained-success-against-todays-super-heavy-weights/p1



  • Registered Users Posts: 47,954 ✭✭✭✭ walshb


    Tyson gets eff all leeway. If anything he is generally more harshly assessed than others. Buster fight he lost. We get it. But he was not the same fighter that night. He just wasn’t. It’s not an excuse. It’s just an observation .

    Other than the above, he usually gets slated as fighting nobodies and bums, despite him cleaning out the division and beating all the top rated guys , and going 10–1 (championship fights) or thereabouts up to and including the loss to Douglas.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,093 ✭✭✭✭ AckwelFoley


    Fighter like tyson never retires undefeated. Regardless of who trains him. If he stayed where he was and kept in the right head space.. Douglas was a 4 round fight and probably doesn't go to jail either. I still think he loses his fights that he lost towards the end.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,666 ✭✭✭ The Nal


    Impossible to know I suppose. Don King ruined him.

    I suppose Tyson has beaten Roy Jones Jnr now so that'll jump him up a place!



  • Registered Users Posts: 47,954 ✭✭✭✭ walshb


    Do you think prime Tyson beats prime AJ/Wilder/Fury?



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,666 ✭✭✭ The Nal


    AJ in about 30 seconds.

    Wilder and Fury, not sure. Theyre so big and fight so big, but prime Tyson probably could get inside them yeah.



  • Registered Users Posts: 47,954 ✭✭✭✭ walshb


    I nearly read that as AJ wins inside 30 seconds..

    Tyson definitely gets to Wilder. No doubt...takes him out early. Feet and hands too fast. Wilder's poor feet and movement never allow him escape.

    Fury has the best chance



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,666 ✭✭✭ The Nal


    Yeah probably. Wilder is 6ft 7 though. Who was the tallest Tyson fought? Lewis?



  • Registered Users Posts: 47,954 ✭✭✭✭ walshb


    Tucker was 6 feet5/6…and came to survive and spoil. And was clearly beaten.

    anyway, even if Tyson couldn’t connect clean to head (which I believe very unlikely), he’d cripple Wilder in close to the body..

    if it goes 12, expect a clear points win for prime Tyson. Tyson could box very well with plan B points when he could not get the KO. No way 10-20 punches per round Wilder (who always looks terrified to get hit) outpoints Tyson

    Wilder’s height here will be more advantageous to Tyson than to Wilder..



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,478 ✭✭✭✭ OmegaGene




  • Registered Users Posts: 15,150 ✭✭✭✭ Mantis Toboggan


    You'd imagine at some stage wilder will land that right hand, would Tyson survive? Who knows.



  • Registered Users Posts: 47,954 ✭✭✭✭ walshb


    Tyson took a helluva shot. Took Buster 10 rds of steady pasting to finally put Tyson away. And still Tyson was trying to get up. Wilder lands far far less than Buster did. Buster could actually throw combinations inside and outside. Wilder can’t

    Wlider has a straight right hand. Against Tyson, who was far shorter, this shot is just not the shot for Wilder. Take the jab. A very important shot to set up your combinations, or to keep your foe at range. Wilder has no jab, at least not one that will be effective vs Tyson

    Added to this is Wilder’s lack of punch variation, as well as his lack of punch mechanics and variability. He’s an upright stiff single shot power puncher. No real punch/body manoeuvrability.

    Take a Bowe or Lewis. Both 6 inches taller than Mike, but both had far better punch variation and punch selection. And excellent jabs! As well as damaging inside games. They could punch standing tall, short and mid. They had far better body mechanics than Wilder.

    I cannot at all see the straight right power shot being a winner for Wilder. Tyson is on him all night and hitting him really hard from all sides/angles. 3 rds tops



  • Registered Users Posts: 46 reclose


    Has anyone any opinions on why we haven’t seen any new heavyweights attempt to fight in Mike Tyson’s style?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,716 ✭✭✭ squinn2912


    Was just gonna mention Frazier when you talked about Patterson. I liked Patterson but his back gave in on him and he had serious self belief problems.

    on aj, wilder and fury question earlier…

    yes, yes and probably. Of the three Tyson finds wilder the easiest and would wipe him out. It would look awful, maybe a one rounder. Wilder would have to try and spoil and he’s dung ar that.

    aj combos and uppercut give him some faint hope.

    fury would need some kinda clever plan but I think I favour Tyson here too



  • Registered Users Posts: 47,954 ✭✭✭✭ walshb


    Yes, I agree. Wilder easiest of the three. He has no way to win for me. I am not even considering his right hand. Just doesn’t work for me.

    AJ a very close second easiest. He has far better overall punching than Wilder, but vs Tyson it means eff all. He no way makes it 12 doing it and not getting tagged. AJ is not at all difficult to tag, and for such an aggressive fighter like Tyson, this proves deadly. No chin, and no survival/spoiling instincts/abilities. Tyson had a great chin. You had to hammer him to put him away.

    Fury makes a proper go of it due to height and size and ring IQ/intangibles.

    Post edited by walshb on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,716 ✭✭✭ squinn2912


    That’s the exact right way to put it no way. I picture him lying crumpled on the canvass writhing in agony after a huge body assault and that’s if he’s lucky enough to go down then. The uppercut to the head doesn’t bear thinking about.

    with aj I reckon he has some (not much) bit of footwork and stance but the fool would likely try to box him and get flattened. Best chance is to throw. Might absorb hits to last 3-5 rounds.

    fury I think is about 35-40% chance so I still favour Tyson by a distance but I can see ways he might win.

    point of all of this is we’re judging them against the very prime Mike not other versions though. I would probably favour prime Mike against anyone but that doesn’t mean he’s a better boxer that has to be judged over a career and in that scenario or discussion Tyson does t get off the hook for all the things that detract from his legacy. Fact that as you say he’d never have kept it up anyway for the longer term means others would have always been voted above him. Think I’m making sense



Advertisement