If tyson fought in Clay/ali time he would be greater than he is now.

[leff]

tyson was great in a bad division and would be now means be better in a better division simply because he would lose a lot more.

[BSD]

The contenders of the seventies were far worse than those of the eighties. But there were more great champs in the seventies. Tyson had no great rival during his dominance.
That doesn't mean Tyson would not have dominated a decade earlier. He destroyed good fighters. If you watch the fights of the seventies, you see champs like Ali and Frazier in long, tiring fights with mediocre fighters. Fighters that didn't know how to throw punches with power or proper technique.
Tyson tore up better fighters. People were laughing at his first fight out of prison because McNeeley was a joke. The joke is relative, however. A fighter of McNeeley's caliber would have gotten a world title shot in the seventies based on his 36-1 record.

[Brassangel]

You're correct BSD. The journeymen and mid-range fighters of the 70's were nowhere near the caliber that they were in the 80's and 90's. The fighters of the latter period were in far better shape, better conditioned, with better training. If Tyson had to compete with them, he likely would have rolled to the top like he did in the 80's, and he probably would have done really well. I highly doubt, however, that he would have beaten Ali (at least not twice). Muhammad Ali could figure out most fighters and would have adapted to Tyson accordingly (after their first fight).

[Brassangel]

@NextRocky: We know that you hate Tyson. He was still great despite what happened to his career. It's not excuses, it's more of a hypothetical "what-if".

[Da Iceman]

i dont hate him i just dont like him and i dont like that people try to make him seem like a god or the g.o.a.t, when he always loses to somebody that trys to fight back. you think ali, foreman, liston, frazier, marciano, louis, holyfield, johnson wouldve lost to some bum like douglas? hell no

[BadMagick]

I don't know if "no chance" is the safe play here. His fighting style wasn't too far from Frazier's, and Frazier fought well against Ali all three times. Tyson would have given Ali trouble, but Ali would have beaten Tyson at least 2 out of 3. If, and I mean if Tyson would have beaten Ali, it would have been during their first fight when he had surprise on his side.

I believe Tyson would have beaten Frazier. Mike had more weapons, and he could lay it on more aggressively than George Foreman did to Frazier.

Foreman's mummy-like fighting style might have been difficult for Mike for the same reasons James 'Buster' Douglas's was. George can also hit harder than Douglas could.

Mike would have demolished Ernie Shavers, as Ernie had the weakest chin of that era (vs. Tex Cobb, anyone?).

Chuvalo and various others are difficult to gauge, as those fighters were always tough vs. any opponent.

All in all, I think that Mike Tyson probably would have posted a better career during that time period because of the richness of the hall-of-famers. While there weren't as many fighters in amazing shape during that time frame, there were more big names and styled fighters. After all, style makes the fight. This could have made Tyson more of an oiled machine, and it may have given him the discipline he needed to stay on top. Fighting a bunch of guys who don't pose a threat probably lead to a serious case of arrogance, and lack of preparedness. If all would have gone as we've discussed above, Tyson could have been 50-4 or so, with more quality victories. His career would have been heralded, instead of hotly disputed. Just a theory.

He lost to Douglas because he had no heart. He saw that Douglas was going to stay in there and take his punches, and continue to hit him. Ali would do the same thing. He'd take his shots, and he'd hit him back. The formula for beating Tyson was to stand your ground, and break his heart. Ali would have done that perfectly.

Tyson would have been broken by Foreman.

The Fraizer fights would be interesting, and maybe Tyson wins, because of a similar style and faster movement.

[Keleneki]

i dont hate him i just dont like him and i dont like that people try to make him seem like a god or the g.o.a.t, when he always loses to somebody that trys to fight back. you think ali, foreman, liston, frazier, marciano, louis, holyfield, johnson wouldve lost to some bum like douglas? hell no

I think that almost all heavyweights in history would have lost to James "Buster" Douglas if it was the Douglas that fought Tyson on February 11, 1990. He was fighting for his mother who had recently passed away. He had such great balance and timing that night. That was his moment, where he was nigh unstoppable, in boxing history. Just my opnion.

[Brassangel]

Most fighters would have lost to a Douglas that looked as good as he did that night, I agree. He was in the best shape of his career, while Tyson was starting to lose heart in his own career. Mike fought poorly, compared to what he and everybody else was used to, while James fought brilliantly. He was accurate, quick, and smart. While Tyson was clearly beaten that night, there were a lot of unusual circumstances on both sides that allowed for such a set of results.

Tyson wasn't always weak of heart. Most people gauge his heart on that fight, and his post-prison career. We're talking about a focused and disciplined Tyson, during the short span between 1985-1988, maybe 89. If that Tyson, the one with potential, would have been placed in the 60's and 70's, he would have had a far more astounding career, in theory. Which is really what this whole post is: theory.

[Brassangel]

Besides, what kind of heart did you expect a guy to have when every opponent kept collapsing to his onslaught? Haven't you watched that ESPN, "Top 5 reasons you can't blame Mike Tyson for losing to Buster Douglas.." special? It wasn't an excuse bank for him, it merely explained that a situation like his could have happened to anybody. Unfortunately it happened to the most promising career anyone had seen in a long time. Had Mike Tyson been given a string of opponents with heart, it retroactively would have built up his own. Don King and the camp full of ******s basically poured garbage into Mike's ear like, "These guys are nothing; they don't even deserve to be in the same ring with you..." and so on. He was conditioned to expect every fighter to lay down once he looked at them before the bell; it started to show in 88-89, and climaxed in the Douglas fight.

[Keleneki]

I hear you, Brassangel. I have to agree that the "prime" Mike Tyson sure appeared to be close to unstoppable. Back in those days, I used to wonder who in history could ever beat him (I thought he was going to continue to improve, but alas, all those things started to happen). Hrm, in a series of trilogies, I do believe that Tyson would have won at least one of the fights against almost all of those top boxers of the time. I do think that he might have come up short against both Charles "Sonny" Liston and "Big" George Foreman though, because of the style matchup.

I was just replying to the post that seemed to me to be putting down "Buster" Douglas. Sure he had his shortcomings (who doesn't?), but on that night, he was as good as he could be and I personally have the utmost respect for the effort that he put forth on his biggest night in boxing.