Which would do best against prime Mike Tyson? And how well would he do? Do any win? Like Spinks, I think Jones, Moorer, Foster, Calzaghe, Loughran, Lewis, Hill, Johnson & Conn all bite the dust in the first. Guys like Tunney, Maxim, Bivens & Rosenbloom have the craft and durability to last a few rounds, but I don't think they have the firepower to get Mike's respect and their fate is ultimately just as violent & unpleasant. Given his unorthodox wiliness & power, Moore is obviously a more interesting prospect, and I think does far better than the above. I still think he gets stretched after 8 though, granted after stealing a round or three & generally bamboozling Mike at times and making him look very uncouth. From all I've read, Young Stribling had a combination of power, extreme durability & down right dirtiness which might have made him a very awkward opponent for Mike. I simply don't know enough about this guy to further comment. Leaving Langford & Charles. As superficial as the answer is Im afraid I think at 5'7 Langford is just too damn small to overcome the size differential and gets stopped after 5 rounds where all his craft only permits delaying the inevitable. Of course, how Mike adapts his style to somebody shorter than him is a big question mark and open to speculation. And dagmanit, I'd make Charles an underdog and pick against him being bullied into losing an ugly clinch filled closish decision, too. Bottom line - I wouldn't pick any of histories 175lbers to beat Mike circa 88. But I do have a soft spot for Ol' Mike and may be wilfully extrapolating far too much from how he dealt with Spinks
I would not rule out a younger Charles than the one who fought Marciano, or Conn, who was a whole lot better than Tillis, or Biggs, & anyone else who lasted a while with Tyson via boxing. Conn couldn't finish with Louis because Louis had unshakeable self-belief & focus in the ring --- even at the worst of times. However, Tyson was stylistically different, & probably more difficult to overcome than the slightly more patient Louis. Moore, too, could make life difficult. If I had to choose a best bet, it would be Tunney. Yes. Thinking about it, Tunney is my man below 175 if I favour anyone. He was smarter than smart, tougher than tough, very quick with an under-rated short, sharp right hand (Dempsey was sure to remark about it in his bio), & he could out-think Tyson with a bottle of liquor coursing through his veins. However, a faded Dempsey lacked Tyson's swiftness of assault, & that's a big, big factor. I don't hold it against Tunney too much that he was caught out by Dempsey's deceptively speedy attack for that one moment in twenty rounds, but I would not be surprised if Tyson's speed stunned him, & he never fully recovered. It's difficult for me to pick any of them outright over Tyson. I don't think I would.
I wont even for one second look at the list of fighters you've given. No need to. Peak Tyson would destroy all of them with ease. Case closed.
He couldn't destroy Tillis. He couldn't destroy Green, or Biggs. Even a fading Thomas lasted six. No one should be expected to win every fight in two rounds, & I will disagree with anyone who says Tyson wasn't one of the most impressive fighters, at the peak of his powers, in the division's history --- but it's true the man is sometimes put on a pedestal beyond his means. If some of these guys, whose size is more than negated by their plainly-inferior talents & skills, can either be competitive or last extended periods with Tyson, I think writing off guys like Tunney, Moore, Conn & Charles is irresponsible. That's my take, anyway. Three of those men in particular were utterly exceptional at exploiting weaknesses, & Tyson's were as damaging to a fighter as any.
Tyson fought arguably the best ever Light Heavyweight and wasted him in 1 round. Bob Foster, another argument for greatest Lightheavyweight, whose chin was no where near as proven as Michael Spinks, wouldn't have lasted longer tha a round either. Then There's ezzard Charles, who many pick for top spot. he was KO'd by Walcott in 5 before Marciano (only 185lbs) got to him. Tyson would ruin him. Conn. He wouldn't be able to dance around Tyson the way he did Louis. Tyson was faster of foot than Louis and a faster starter, typically. Moorer? Foreman. End of story. Gene Tunney would have the best chance I think though but Tyson shoudl catch up to him eventually. the rest? No chance.
They all get KO'd... some, like Charles or Tunney or COnn or Jones Jr. , had the legs and skills to last a bit longer but every one of them gets blasted out
I would also pick Tyson against all of the greatest Middleweights and Welterweights as well. And the Lightweights?? Forget it!
Just a note on Charles (who went in seven against Walcott, not five)... Is Douglas a better fighter than Tyson? He's 1-0 against him, &, in fact, their fight wasn't even a competitive one --- Douglas washed him. Charles was a hundred times the fighter Douglas ever was. A thousand times. He was monumentally better than Tillis. Could've beaten Biggs with his eyes shut. Green & an old Thomas couldn't even dream of being on Charles' level. Twenty pounds doesn't negate a disparity in ability & execution that great. Not by a long shot. Same story with the Walcott loss --- except Charles beat Walcott twice officially, & probably won three of their four bouts, while Tyson never once got the better of Douglas. Point being, anyone can look bad in one fight, or one moment. Charles was pretty well-done by the time he had lost to Marciano the second time, too. I wouldn't pick any of the great LHW's over Tyson, but natural Cruiser Holyfield juiced up, bullied him, & threw him around like a ragdoll (at a time when both were well past-it, not just Tyson), while others had success disrupting the rhythm of a younger, more explosive & committed Tyson with a long, straight jab & effective tying up at close range. What all had in common was that they weren't a patch on Ezzard Charles, or Gene Tunney. This much, & I still say (an aged) Spinks tanked it. He didn't want to be there, & took the first available out.
Except almost all dominant light heavyweights try their hand at heavyweight at least once. And arguably Tyson's best win was against a lightheavyweight, who some consider the best ever, drawing natural comparisons on what others might have.:dunno:
Tyson's career competition is also drastically, drastically inferior to the men faced & beaten by fighters such as Tunney, Charles, & co. as well. Yes, size is a signficant issue, but not necessarily a debate-ending one here, IMO. Tyson's resume compared with Charles', for one, is a wasteland of non-events. That has to count for something.
As HEAVYWEIGHTS Im not so sure the comparisons are between Tyson & Charles' best wins are so cut and dry, at all. Walcot edges it for Charles, but beyond that it's much of a muchness.
In Mythical matchups we assume teh fighter when he was at his best. Tyson was obviously not at his best the night he fought Douglas. Undertrained and overconfident. That Tyson wouldn't have been able to beat Razor Ruddock for example. Unfair to bring that up IMO.
Well...considering the failure of 99.9% of Lightheavies at challenging heavyweight champs, I would think the odds are considerably in favor of Tyson against any of them. It took many, many years for a Light-Heavy to beat a Heavy Champ...and even in that case it was one of the 5 best LH's ever against a Heavy champ who was ready to retire. And then, of course, there is the sheer bummishness of Ruiz who managed to get his butt kicked twice by fighters who started their careers even lower than Light-Heavyweight. And I don't know that I would consider Spinks as Tyson's best win. The biggest name, perhaps, but Spinks was not the best fighter Tyson beat as champ. Spinks was the lineal champ, but he was like Floyd Patterson trying to delay a certain KO loss against Sonny Liston as long as he could.
Tyson's win against the trunk-sh*tting scared-as-f*ck Michael Spinks is the most overrated victory in boxing history IMO. Spinks didn't come to fight at all. The guy puked in the locker room wishing he could leave out the back door as opposed to coming to the ring to fight. It's why he retired immediately after, knowing the disgrace he became with such a sh*tty effort in a world title fight. He came to lose! Pure and simple. Put a gun to the motherf*cker's head or threaten to kill his mother and watch him give Tyson as good a fight as inferior fighters like Buster, Ruddock, and Tucker did. Tyson beat Spinks purely through intimidation. The whole fight was a joke. The Seldon farce was the same thing. Seldon didn't even get hit, he fell from a phantom punch in fear and quit. Tyson was the best intimidator ever. Didn't really look all that hot when guys didn't sh*t themselves at his presence.
It depends how much you think the weight off-sets ability, in the end, & that's always going to have an air of subjectivity to it. Charles beat Bivins, Moore, Walcott, Yarosz, Layne, Maxim, Louis, Lesnevich, Marshall etc, while Tyson defeated Spinks, Holmes, Bruno, Biggs, Williams & the like. That's a pretty wide disparity in ability in Charles' favour, but also a fair size gulf in Tyson's.
