Would Mike Tyson have had sustained success against today's Super Heavy weights?

walshb · 02-07-2017 11:23AM

In relation to peak and prime, Tyson's 4 year prime for me was 1986-1989 inclusive.

Is this "short" span all that different than many other great champions?

Ali, for example had a prine of 4-5 years from 1964-1968 or so.

Yes, Vietnam got involved, but he was at his best in this years I felt.

Holmes was maybe 5-6 years from 1979-1984

I could list so many others across loads of divisions that were really only at prime for a few years..

Same with athletes in loads of sports. Their prime is usually only a few years.

ThinkProgress · 02-07-2017 05:05PM

When you talk about "prime" Tyson, you are not just talking about Mike... because you are also talking about the genius of Cus D'amato.

Cus turned what should have been a weakness (Tyson's small stature), into a devastating strength. His peek-a-boo strategy, essentially made Tyson into an aggressive pressure fighter, who was almost impossible for opponents to hit with a clean shot coming in!

Of course, that strategy was incredibly difficult to implement in the ring. Tyson was the perfect mixture of power, speed and aggression... combined with a very clever fight strategy. But under Cus, Tyson basically lived like a monk. His training regime was insane... (inhuman is another word you could use to describe it)

Cus's philosophy, was that "speed kills"... he focused on workouts that would build explosive speed, while also building endurance too. Tyson was almost never allowed to lift weights, because Cus believed that weights slowed you down. He did do massive amounts of calisthenics though... he was known for doing up to 2,000 sit-ups, 500 push-ups, 800 dips etc etc... (per day!!!)

But he also did a lot of road work and lots of sparring, heavy bag, skipping and endurance work on a stationary bike.

This meant Tyson had amazing power, but also the speed and stamina of a much smaller fighter!

Later in his career, after Cus had died... trainers had him doing more mainstream training methods (including lots of weight-lifting). This dramatically slowed him down, and made him much easier to hit. He also stopped using the strategy Cus had drilled into him... meaning he was often standing square on with much bigger guys, and trading shots with them.

You can look at Cus D'amato as being an old, out of touch dinosaur of the past... but I personally think the man was a genius. He turned a shy unconfident raw talent, into the youngest HW world champion in history. For me, he played a huge role in the Iron Mike we saw in those early years!! Tyson was his parting gift to the sport he loved. One last great masterpiece!

Plus he genuinely cared about the kid... Mike was like a lost soul for a long time after Cus died.

thierry14 · 02-07-2017 08:50PM

robfowler78 wrote: »

The fact with Tyson is no one will every know how good he could have been. In his early career he was clearly unstoppable in his division. He had beaten everyone put up in front of him. He never really ducked anyone he just happened to go of the rails before he was to fight holyfield. After his release he still had enough to beat some of the heavy weights around including two champions. He was clearly not the same fighter he had no stamina and his movement was nonexistent. Yet he was able to go more then 10 rounds with Lewis and holyfield. I think that shows that even a bad Tyson was dangerous to today's heavyweights. Tyson biggest problem was money and yes men any boxing person can see he completely changed once he had money and fame.

That's why Mike deserves to be talked as a great

He was shot against Lewis etc but still gave him problems early on

The Ronaldinho of boxing ðŸ˜‰

robfowler78 · 02-07-2017 09:25PM

thierry14 wrote: »

That's why Mike deserves to be talked as a great

He was shot against Lewis etc but still gave him problems early on

The Ronaldinho of boxing ðŸ˜‰

Exactly my point the Tyson after prison was still classed as a top ten heavyweight. He had lost at least 50% of what he was but could still beat alot of the heavyweights around .

walshb · 02-07-2017 10:13PM

Kevin Rooney was as much if not more influential in Mike's success/career than Cus. As soon as Rooney was fired, Mike noticeably declined bed.

Jimmy Jacobs another very important and guiding figure.

walshb · 03-07-2017 11:36AM

thierry14 wrote: »

That's why Mike deserves to be talked as a great

He was shot against Lewis etc but still gave him problems early on

The Ronaldinho of boxing &#55357;&#56841;

Absolutely shot, yet you will always get numpties using this loss as a reason why he wasn't all that great

Like me using Ali's Berbick loss in 1981 as a stick to beat him with.

For me a prime Tyson takes a prime Lewis 8-10 times, and by KO.

The Nal · 31-08-2017 11:28AM

walshb wrote: »

Absolutely shot, yet you will always get numpties using this loss as a reason why he wasn't all that great

Sensational fighter early in his career but he really only beat bums then. The HW division was in the bin when he started. Maybe with the exception of Spinks.

Lost to any good fighter he faced, got KO'd by James Buster Fúcking Douglas, never avenged any of his defeats, never got off the floor to win and was KO'd more times than any other heavyweight champion apart from Buster Douglas. Not close to the top 10 heavyweights ever never mind top boxers.

That said, a 1988/89 Kevin Rooney trained Tyson would stand up to anyone including the modern superheavyweights.

walshb · 31-08-2017 12:07PM

The Nal wrote: »

Sensational fighter early in his career but he really only beat bums then. The HW division was in the bin when he started. Maybe with the exception of Spinks.

Lost to any good fighter he faced, got KO'd by James Buster Fúcking Douglas, never avenged any of his defeats, never got off the floor to win and was KO'd more times than any other heavyweight champion apart from Buster Douglas. Not close to the top 10 heavyweights ever never mind top boxers.

That said, a 1988/89 Kevin Rooney trained Tyson would stand up to anyone including the modern superheavyweights.

Yet Spinks was his easiest night. Spinks was a small and weak HW.

Tyson had far tougher men to beat.

The whole bums thing is constantly rolled out. It's nonsense. He beat the best men on earth during a 4 year reign. A very dominant reign.

Anyway, at his best he would be a very successful and dominant champion today and recently...

I can only personally think of Vitali giving him real trouble....

Sweet Science · 31-08-2017 01:29PM

All i know for sure is there will never ever be another boxer like him.

Ever

The Nal · 31-08-2017 02:10PM

walshb wrote: »

The whole bums thing is constantly rolled out. It's nonsense. He beat the best men on earth during a 4 year reign. A very dominant reign.

He beat James Smith, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, a then retired 38 year old Larry Holmes, Tony Tubbs, Michael Spinks, Frank Bruno, Carl Williams and then got KO'd by Buster Douglas. Dodged Riddick Bowe.

Hardly a glittering run compared to the other greats.

walshb · 31-08-2017 02:18PM

The Nal wrote: »

He beat James Smith, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, a then retired 38 year old Larry Holmes, Tony Tubbs, Michael Spinks, Frank Bruno, Carl Williams and then got KO'd by Buster Douglas.

Hardly a glittering run.

Well, I could call out other champions and their hardly glittering run as well.

He was devastating in dispatching many of them. Never came close to getting beaten.

Take Holyfield.....he beat an even farther past his prime Holmes and took 12 rds to do it.

He also beat a past his prime slower Foreman in 1991.

Bert Cooper? C'mon....

then he met a quality big HW and was beaten. Clearly beaten in an excellent fight and an excellent display from both

Lost to Michael Moorer for chrissake...Tyson would have whacked Moorer in two rds tops.

People can nit pick here and there on many areas and aspects of fighters' careers.

I prefer to focus on and discuss and assess them when at prime...Holyfield as well. Holyfield at prime was brilliant.

Tyson's prime was a 4 years reign where he lost once. He lost to a big and committed and excellently put together Douglas. That night Douglas fought brilliantly, as well as having all the tools necessary. Mike fought well, but was definitely not the same Tyson as regards preparation and focus. Just read up on it...

Who today and recently would have been superior to Mike? Who would have beaten him? I can only think of Vitali, and IMO Vitali if he wins damn well earns it against a prime Tyson.

The Nal · 31-08-2017 02:48PM

walshb wrote: »

Mike fought well, but was definitely not the same Tyson as regards preparation and focus. Just read up on it...

Oh I know yeah. Water in rubber glove instead of an ice pack etc. Preparation and focus are all part of being an all time great though.

walshb wrote: »

Who today and recently would have been superior to Mike? Who would have beaten him? I can only think of Vitali, and IMO Vitali if he wins damn well earns it against a prime Tyson.

Its a short list. Post Tyson is arguably the worst period ever for HW boxing. Post Joe Louis maybe the only worse era.

walshb · 31-08-2017 02:50PM

The Nal wrote: »

Oh I know yeah. Water in rubber glove instead of an ice pack etc. Preparation and focus are all part of being an all time great though.
.

And plenty of ATGs had off nights and losses and poor performances for varieties of reasons.

When you look through Tyson's whole career he is a first balloT HOF fighter. He is a legitimately and deserved ATG at HW!

The Nal · 31-08-2017 02:57PM

walshb wrote: »

He is a legitimately and deserved ATG at HW!

No question. Top 15 for me.

Maravilla33 · 31-08-2017 02:59PM

The Nal wrote: »

He beat James Smith, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, a then retired 38 year old Larry Holmes, Tony Tubbs, Michael Spinks, Frank Bruno, Carl Williams and then got KO'd by Buster Douglas. Dodged Riddick Bowe.

Hardly a glittering run compared to the other greats.

Really? Tyson won the title in 86. By the time he lost it in 1990 vs Douglas, Bowe was a 14-0 novice who'd fought nobody. Tyson then went to jail and Bowe won the titles. By the time Tyson fought Holyfield Bowe was pretty much done. Their peaks didn't overlap, there was never a time they should have fought but didn't. Think Tyson said he wanted to fight him but wouldn't because they were friends but I'd have little interest in a shot Tyson fighting an on his way out Bowe.

The Nal · 31-08-2017 03:09PM

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Really? Tyson won the title in 86. By the time he lost it in 1990 vs Douglas, Bowe was a 14-0 novice who'd fought nobody. Tyson then went to jail and Bowe won the titles. By the time Tyson fought Holyfield Bowe was pretty much done. Their peaks didn't overlap, there was never a time they should have fought but didn't. Think Tyson said he wanted to fight him but wouldn't because they were friends but I'd have little interest in a shot Tyson fighting an on his way out Bowe.

Sorry should've added that it wasn't in the initial run when he dodged him.

Holyfield lost to Bowe a year before he beat Tyson. So Bowe was on the way out then apparently but he beat Holyfield who then went on to beat Tyson.

Tyson vs Bowe would've been two 29/30 year olds against each other.

I agree Bowe had a very short prime though.

walshb · 31-08-2017 03:10PM

The Nal wrote: »

No question. Top 15 for me.

ATG fighter period I should have said.

walshb · 31-08-2017 03:13PM

The Nal wrote: »

Sorry should've added that it wasn't in the initial run when he dodged him.

Holyfield lost to Bowe a year before he beat Tyson. So Bowe was on the way out then apparently but he beat Holyfield who then went on to beat Tyson.

Tyson vs Bowe would've been two 29/30 year olds against each other.

I agree Bowe had a very short prime though.

When did he dodge him though, and who says he dodged him? There is no real evidence to back that up.

We know Bowe dodged LL. That was real, genuine, tangible. Tyson dodging Bowe? I never even heard that mentioned till now...

Maravilla33 · 31-08-2017 03:21PM

The Nal wrote: »

Sorry should've added that it wasn't in the initial run when he dodged him.

Holyfield lost to Bowe a year before he beat Tyson. So Bowe was on the way out then apparently but he beat Holyfield who then went on to beat Tyson.

Tyson vs Bowe would've been two 29/30 year olds against each other.

I agree Bowe had a very short prime though.

Sounds good but we both know Tyson was done by then and Bowe wasn't far off. Can dress it up however we want but it was never really a viable fight and can hardly say Tyson dodged him. Just seems like another stick to beat Tyson with. I agree with some of your points about him but then others seem a bit too simplistic/twisted to suit the argument. I'm far from a Tyson fan boy but think he gets a raw deal from some and is ridiculously worshipped by others. Very little middle ground.

walshb · 31-08-2017 03:26PM

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Sounds good but we both know Tyson was done by then and Bowe wasn't far off. Can dress it up however we want but it was never really a viable fight and can hardly say Tyson dodged him. Just seems like another stick to beat Tyson with. I agree with some of your points about him but then others seem a bit too simplistic/twisted to suit the argument. I'm far from a Tyson fan boy but think he gets a raw deal from some and is ridiculously worshipped by others. Very little middle ground.

I agree. Slated OTT by some and made into a god by others....

My biggest issue is how he gets criticized for x, y and z when you could apply x, y and z to many greats fighters..

Some of the points and criticisms used to slate Mike are juts bonkers, and reek of a dislike for the man as a fighter.

You hear people, talk about his LL loss and his McBride loss as evidence that he was a quitter and not that good......

His record speaks for itself at peak....

Utterly dominant and utterly successful, and over 4 years. It's a fairly decent stretch.

He also had success post Douglas, and post prison when clearly past his peak. Several good wins on the resume.

The Nal · 31-08-2017 03:49PM

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Sounds good but we both know Tyson was done by then and Bowe wasn't far off. Can dress it up however we want but it was never really a viable fight and can hardly say Tyson dodged him. Just seems like another stick to beat Tyson with. I agree with some of your points about him but then others seem a bit too simplistic/twisted to suit the argument. I'm far from a Tyson fan boy but think he gets a raw deal from some and is ridiculously worshipped by others. Very little middle ground.

"Best boxer ever" is the one you usually hear. :rolleyes:

I'm middle ground. I'm a huge fan of him. Always have been. Don't think theres been a fighter I've stayed up late to watch more. Entertaining in and outside of the ring. Press conferences, promos etc all great.

All I'm saying is that hes not an all time top 10 heavyweight.

walshb · 31-08-2017 03:50PM

The Nal wrote: »

"Best boxer ever" is the one you usually hear. :rolleyes:

I'm middle ground. I'm a huge fan of him. Always have been. Don't think theres been a fighter I've stayed up late to watch more. Entertaining in and outside of the ring. Press conferences, promos etc all great.

All I'm saying is that hes not an all time top 10 heavyweight.

What's your top ten? And you can bet plenty would argue with it....

Tyson for me is definitely top ten.

In a tournament of all the best HWs at peak he would be top 5 no doubt!

The Nal · 31-08-2017 04:02PM

walshb wrote: »

What's your top ten?

In no particular order, well, a sort of order.

Ali
Louis
Holmes
Johnson
Marciano
Dempsey
Frazier
Foreman
Lewis
Holyfield

Then you're into Klitschko, Tunney, Liston, Tyson etc.

walshb wrote: »

Utterly dominant and utterly successful, and over 4 years. It's a fairly decent stretch.
.

I agree. "Fairly decent" over 4 years though doesn't make him an all timer IMO.

Btw it was less than 3 years from when he won vs Berbick to winning against Williams which was the fight before Douglas. Nov 86 to July 89.

walshb wrote: »

In a tournament of all the best HWs at peak he would be top 5 no doubt!

Oh sure but thats not how Id rank an all time top 10. I'm comparing them against fighters of their era, their achievements, who of their peers they beat, how many greats they fought, did they get up off the floor and win, did they avenge any defeats. Tyson never avenged any defeats. Huge minus points there. Huge.

But yes, 1988 Mike Tyson may well have destroyed anyone in the list above.

walshb · 31-08-2017 04:09PM

The Nal wrote: »

In no particular order, well, a sort of order.

Ali
Louis
Holmes
Johnson
Marciano
Dempsey
Frazier
Foreman
Lewis
Holyfield

Then you're into Klitschko, Tunney, Liston, Tyson etc.

I agree. "Fairly decent" over 4 years though doesn't make him an all timer IMO.

Btw it was less than 3 years from when he won vs Berbick to winning against Williams which was the fight before Douglas. Nov 86 to July 89.

Oh sure but thats not how Id rank an all time top 10. I'm comparing them against fighters of their era, their achievements, who of their peers they beat, how many greats they fought, did they get up off the floor and win, did they avenge any defeats. Tyson never avenged any defeats. Huge minus points there. Huge.

But yes, 1988 Mike Tyson may well have destroyed anyone in the list above.

Tunney? How can you out him ahead of Mike....or maybe you aren't?

There's just no reasons whatsoever, as well as Mike obliterating him within a minute of the first rd...

Frazier? Sorry, tough as they come, but hardly a brilliant reign.

Dempsey? Who exactly did he beat? Again, Mike wipes him out early.

Louis gets wiped out early as well....bum of the month club?

The Nal · 31-08-2017 04:25PM

walshb wrote: »

Tunney? How can you out him ahead of Mike....or maybe you aren't?

There's just no reasons whatsoever, as well as Mike obliterating him within a minute of the first rd...

Last few aren't in order no. Tunney was 85-1-1. Beat Jack Dempsey twice. His fighting style changed heavyweight boxing.

I'm not saying Tyson wouldn't beat him. I'm not comparing him like that. Era vs era. Tyson would've destroyed him but thats because the game had moved on. As it always does. A modest modern day journeyman would probably beat Tunney now.

walshb wrote: »

Frazier? Sorry, tough as they come, but hardly a brilliant reign.

5 year reign in a very competitive division, beat Ali fair and square. Beat better fighters in his era than Tyson did in his.

walshb wrote: »

Dempsey? Who exactly did he beat? Again, Mike wipes him out early.

Again, not comparing fantasy "what if" fights like that. Dempsey changed boxing. One of the greatest punchers ever. As much of a sensation in the 20s as Tyson was in the 80s/early 90s.

walshb wrote: »

Louis gets wiped out early as well....bum of the month club?

66-3. 2 of those losses coming against Ezzard Charles and Marciano during his half arsed comeback well into his 30s and were just to pay off tax bills.

25 title defences, the most ever, he was the heavyweight champion for 12 years.

The bum of the month club fighters were mainly good fighters by the way. Heavyweight contenders.

Simply put, Tyson never beat another great from his era in their prime. Not one. Thats not to say if he fought Lewis, Bowe and Holyfield in a row in 1988 he wouldn't have whopped all three. But he didn't.

Maravilla33 · 01-09-2017 07:42AM

The Nal wrote: »

Last few aren't in order no. Tunney was 85-1-1. Beat Jack Dempsey twice. His fighting style changed heavyweight boxing.

I'm not saying Tyson wouldn't beat him. I'm not comparing him like that. Era vs era. Tyson would've destroyed him but thats because the game had moved on. As it always does. A modest modern day journeyman would probably beat Tunney now.

5 year reign in a very competitive division, beat Ali fair and square. Beat better fighters in his era than Tyson did in his.

Again, not comparing fantasy "what if" fights like that. Dempsey changed boxing. One of the greatest punchers ever. As much of a sensation in the 20s as Tyson was in the 80s/early 90s.

66-3. 2 of those losses coming against Ezzard Charles and Marciano during his half arsed comeback well into his 30s and were just to pay off tax bills.

25 title defences, the most ever, he was the heavyweight champion for 12 years.

The bum of the month club fighters were mainly good fighters by the way. Heavyweight contenders.

Simply put, Tyson never beat another great from his era in their prime. Not one. Thats not to say if he fought Lewis, Bowe and Holyfield in a row in 1988 he wouldn't have whopped all three. But he didn't.

Haven't attempted to make a top 10 list in years. I like yours but usually don't have Lewis or Holy in there. Will have a think about top 10.

Also agree with your defence of the guys above. Only bit that made me laugh was the bit in bold. You could say the exact same about Tyson's opponents who you originally called bums.

walshb · 01-09-2017 08:13AM

I don't give a toss for Tunney's record. His HW reign was nothing. He did next to nothing in it.

Louis deserves a top ten ranking, no doubt.

But as Maravilla said, criticisms of Tyson are not afforded to others. Louis' opponents were the best of his era, and Mike's were the best of his ear. Why diss Tyson only here?

Mike was the youngest HW champion, unified the divisions, won 10 title fights (through a 4 year calendar period) before he lost to Douglas in 1990.
Came back and won a few fights. Two against a prime Razor Ruddock, who was a big and powerful and capable HW in 1992.

Tyson then went to jail and all bets are off then, even though he came out and won the title again.

12/3 in world title fights is quite an impressive record. And ONE loss when at prime. His two Holyfield losses were when he was clearly past his prime.

I personally think a prime Tyson from the 80s beats a prime Holyfield. A clear past peak Tyson went 11 tough rds in fight 1. Yes, that was a past prime Holyfield, but it was what looked like a bulked up "juiced" up very durable and strong Holyfield. Impervious to punches it seemed.

Tyson from 1986-1989 beats the early 90s Holyfield. Bert Cooper tells me that. Tyson hits too hard and is too intense on offence. As well as having an excellent chin, better defence than the 1996 Tyson, faster than the 1996 Tyson, and fitter than the 1996 Tyson.

Plus. For me the main reason Holyfield beat Mike in 1996 was Holyfiled's strength and body. He was like an oak tree.

The early 90s Holyfield was not as physically impressive or strong.

Mike is for me clearly ahead of Frazier, as well as Mike beating Joe Fraizer via KO in my view.

Clearly more impressive than Jack Dempsey, who Tyson would have smashed as well.

Definitely top ten in my book.

Maravilla33 · 01-09-2017 08:14AM

Ali
Louis
Holmes
Johnson
Liston
Dempsey
Marciano
Foreman
Frazier
Tyson

Happy enough with the names in there. Based on achievements, style, legacy, impact on the division etc rather than just H2H which would be a different list. Order changes but top 2 always the same. I think Tyson is interchangeable with Lewis or Holyfield tbh but I personally prefer his claims now. Wasn't always the case. Always told I have Liston too high (plenty don't have him top 10) which could be fair but nailed on top 10 for me and always been a big fan.

The Nal · 01-09-2017 09:09AM

walshb wrote: »

I don't give a toss for Tunney's record. His HW reign was nothing. He did next to nothing in it.

Louis deserves a top ten ranking, no doubt.

But as Maravilla said, criticisms of Tyson are not afforded to others. Louis' opponents were the best of his era, and Mike were the best of his ear. Why diss Tyson only here?

Because Tyson lost to them. Lost to Holyfield twice. Lost to Buster Douglas.

Im baffled by your lack of acknowledgment for Joe Louis by the way.

walshb wrote: »

Mike was the youngest HW champion, unified the divisions, won 10 title fights (through a 4 year calendar period) before he lost to Douglas in 1990.
Came back and won a few fights. Two against a prime Razor Ruddock, who was a big and powerful and capable HW in 1992.

Thats not a top 10 record, sorry.

Youngest HW champion to hold a belt by the way. No the youngest heavyweight champion ever. Thats Floyd Patterson. But yeah, unified the division with ease.

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Ali
Louis
Holmes
Johnson
Liston
Dempsey
Marciano
Foreman
Frazier
Tyson

Happy enough with the names in there. Based on achievements, style, legacy, impact on the division etc rather than just H2H which would be a different list. Order changes but top 2 always the same. I think Tyson is interchangeable with Lewis or Holyfield tbh but I personally prefer his claims now. Wasn't always the case. Always told I have Liston too high (plenty don't have him top 10) which could be fair but nailed on top 10 for me and always been a big fan.

Good top 10. Big fan of Liston yeah. Defo top 10. Beat Patterson twice, Cleveland Williams twice. An animal. Very entertaining fighter too. The Williams I fight is a great watch for as short as it is.

I find it difficult to see how Tyson gets ahead of Lewis considering Lewis beat Tyson, beat Evander who beat Tyson, he avenged his two defeats (Tyson never avenged one), and beat all the same guys Tyson did aswell - Biggs, Ruddock, Tucker, Bruno etc. And he beat Vitali.

Yet Tyson is ahead of him in the all time list somehow?!

walshb · 01-09-2017 09:15AM

The Nal wrote: »

Because Tyson lost to them. Lost to Holyfield twice. Lost to Buster Douglas.

Im baffled by your lack of acknowledgment for Joe Louis by the way.

I did not "not acknowledge" Louis. Absolute top 5 IMO. But he was smashed when close to peak by Schmeling and he also was beaten by Charles and Marciano. You using Tyson's past peak losses to Holyfield. I will use Joe's past peak losses to Charles and Marciano.

This is exactly the silly logic used to criticize one whilst failing to use the same logic to assess another.

I clearly said that Joe beat the best of his era. His reign and success across many years is amazing.

I simply said that Tyson smashes him in a fight, and that the slating of Mike's opposition could be applied to Joe's. They both beat the best in their era, so your slating Tyson's opposition is wrong in that regard.

Tyson's post prison losses and wins do not deserve as much weight and analysis as his reign through the 1980s.

He is is still 12/3 in world title fights, and that is more impressive than Dempsey, Frazier, Marciano, Foreman and Jack Johnson. Yes, Marciano is 7/0 in world title fights, but Tyson went 10-0, and also had a another coupe title wins in career two.

Would Mike Tyson have had sustained success against today's Super Heavy weights?

Comments