Tyson vs old time fighters

First topic message reminder :

Fighters before Tyson's time that could beat him h2h.

Only Ali is a fav in my head to head.

Holmes,Foreman and Liston might be 50-50 fights.

I think Mike beats the sh1t out of Frazier,Dempsey,Louis etc.

I know the hardcore readers, that love history will disagree with me. What I suggest is, watch old fighters without the rose tinted glasses and tell me, how these old time,lighter, slower fighters, deal with Mikes power and speed.

Don't point to his losses, we can do that with any fighter. Think of the olden time fighters at their best, and Tyson at his.

Deep down you will know Mike kills Rocky,Joe etc but will never admit it.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That seems to be the go to defence but we have no way of knowing how packing on extra affects Louis so it sort of fails as an argument, it's not as simple as saying he stays the same boxer just a bit heavier.

I don't see any real similarity in size between the two, considering the shorter man is the significantly heavier man the difference in muscle between the two is huge.

There are plenty of potions that can pack on a bit of muscle without compromising speed or stamina (side effects may include hair loss, mood swings and gappy teeth....cough cough).

If the overriding factor in these imaginary fights is weight then you may as well just rank fighters from heaviest on down and be done.

The weight disparity is equal to Ali-Frazier, only Tyson is shorter and more squat. It isn't a factor for me (in my own imaginary land).

WEIGHT IS A FACTOR, it's why there are weight divisions in the first place, it doesn't suddenly become redundant in the Heavyweight division nor have I ever suggested it is the only factor. Joe Louis for me doesn't have the ability or style to overcome a size disadvantage to other great Heavyweights and 20lbs is a significant difference. If weight isn't a factor why are there weight divisions?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That seems to be the go to defence but we have no way of knowing how packing on extra affects Louis so it sort of fails as an argument, it's not as simple as saying he stays the same boxer just a bit heavier.

I don't see any real similarity in size between the two, considering the shorter man is the significantly heavier man the difference in muscle between the two is huge.

There are plenty of potions that can pack on a bit of muscle without compromising speed or stamina (side effects may include hair loss, mood swings and gappy teeth....cough cough).

If the overriding factor in these imaginary fights is weight then you may as well just rank fighters from heaviest on down and be done.

The weight disparity is equal to Ali-Frazier, only Tyson is shorter and more squat. It isn't a factor for me (in my own imaginary land).

WEIGHT IS A FACTOR, it's why there are weight divisions in the first place, it doesn't suddenly become redundant in the Heavyweight division nor have I ever suggested it is the only factor. Joe Louis for me doesn't have the ability or style to overcome a size disadvantage to other great Heavyweights and 20lbs is a significant difference. If weight isn't a factor why are there weight divisions?

Hasim Rahman was outweighed by 15 pounds against Lennox Lewis. Sanders and Brewster 17 pounds against Klitschko. Firpo had 24 pounds on Dempsey. Willard had 58! Bowe outweighed Holyfield by almost 30 pounds in their rematch. Walcott had almost a stone on Marciano.

Great fighters meeting? Frazier spotted Ali 10 pounds. Ali spotted Liston almost 10 pounds in their rematch. Johnson gave away 19 pounds to Jeffries.

Louis giving up a stone to Tyson would not be a factor for me.

If you feel weight is the overriding factor in all of these pie in the sky fights, then why bother debating? The heavier guy wins.

Where have I even suggested it's the over riding factor, Louis does not possess the chin or defence to beat a heavier hitter as good as Tyson who outweighs him. The smaller can win but the ability to overcome that weight difference has to be taken into account, you seem to be fixated on a point I have never made.

Firpo and Willard were both generally crap, Jeffries was years past his best, Liston 'took a dive', Frazier had the chin and stamina to make Ali uncomfortable whereas Rahman, Sanders and Brewster could all be seen as being lucky. We'll flip it round and say that Bowe got the better of Holyfield twice because of his sheer size and strength inside, Wlad and Vitali largely due to their size, Frazier got obliterated by Foreman because of size and power.

Who's the better boxer, Floyd Mayweather or Carl Froch? Now because they're not Heavyweights we'd take into account their size and weight but oh no we can't do that with the Heavyweights because the old timers quickly get disadvantaged.

This is a good debate. Both you guys actually make good points.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Where have I even suggested it's the over riding factor, Louis does not possess the chin or defence to beat a heavier hitter as good as Tyson who outweighs him. The smaller can win but the ability to overcome that weight difference has to be taken into account, you seem to be fixated on a point I have never made.

Firpo and Willard were both generally crap, Jeffries was years past his best, Liston 'took a dive', Frazier had the chin and stamina to make Ali uncomfortable whereas Rahman, Sanders and Brewster could all be seen as being lucky. We'll flip it round and say that Bowe got the better of Holyfield twice because of his sheer size and strength inside, Wlad and Vitali largely due to their size, Frazier got obliterated by Foreman because of size and power.

Who's the better boxer, Floyd Mayweather or Carl Froch? Now because they're not Heavyweights we'd take into account their size and weight but oh no we can't do that with the Heavyweights because the old timers quickly get disadvantaged.

That's a poor comparison. Heavyweights have the power to render weight discrepancies irrelevant - that's a fairly fundamental boxing truism. Louis was a greater all-round fighter than Tyson and I'd venture he had the power to put Mike into his shell (I can't say for sure as this is all theoretical nonsense).

Tyson, Holyfield, Ali, Holmes etc. would all be giving away more weight to Klitschko than Louis would to Tyson. I'd take all of those (along with Frazier, Foreman and a whole host of others) to put Klitschko on his back.

I'd back them all to beat Wlad too Haz but that is because they possess a lot of important advantages over him, they have the resillience not to be deterred by his jab and would use their superior speed and punching range to force him back.

I back Tyson to beat Louis because I think he backs too big a punch and is more likely to take Louis' punch than the other way round, that comes from having a good 30lb of extra muscle most notably in his legs and neck. However I think Louis would use his combinations and slight footwork to get the better of Holmes, who doesn't have the power to really trouble him, isn't the quickest and could be a bit flat footed at times. Some styles weight makes a difference ala a Tyson or Foreman and sometimes it doesn't with Holmes or Holyfield.

Listen...people come up to me all the time and they say...'Steffan...you know all about boxing...was Tyson as good as Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano?' And I say to people...'He would of beat Joe Louis. Body shots would have won the fight...but as for Rocky Maciano...well Tyson gets knocked out. Marciano could hit and hit hard'

Regards

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'd back them all to beat Wlad too Haz but that is because they possess a lot of important advantages over him, they have the resillience not to be deterred by his jab and would use their superior speed and punching range to force him back.

I back Tyson to beat Louis because I think he backs too big a punch and is more likely to take Louis' punch than the other way round, that comes from having a good 30lb of extra muscle most notably in his legs and neck. However I think Louis would use his combinations and slight footwork to get the better of Holmes, who doesn't have the power to really trouble him, isn't the quickest and could be a bit flat footed at times. Some styles weight makes a difference ala a Tyson or Foreman and sometimes it doesn't with Holmes or Holyfield.

30 pounds? This gap's getting bigger. There was about a stone between them at their best (Louis around 202, Tyson 216-220).

I'm talking muscle as I quite clearly stated.

Tyson about 10 percent body fat. Louis around 15.

AdamT wrote:Tyson about 10 percent body fat. Louis around 15.

Where have you plucked that one from?

Rough guess. Been around gyms long enough and know a lot about training

I love boxing and I'm limited about knowledge. However to do with training and sh1t, I would say I'm clued up

Also it's pretty obvious Tyson is bigger and more defined. That means much less body fat. Tyson might even be closer to 8 at his very lightest.

I'd argue Louis was the naturally bigger man. Make of that what you will.

AdamT wrote:Rough guess. Been around gyms long enough and know a lot about training

I love boxing and I'm limited about knowledge. However to do with training and sh1t, I would say I'm clued up

How eerily familiar.....

You got me Haz, I am really Truss!

Seriously though, he is into bodybuilding, I myself am into powerliftng. They are as alike as mma and boxing.

hazharrison wrote:

3fingers wrote:

hazharrison wrote: Boxing isn't athletics....... ring craft has regressed.

Seriously, that is a bold statement, please explain.

I don't believe there's anything bold about it. Who today can boast outstanding ring craft? Floyd, Hopkins, Marquez. Ward maybe. Rigo perhaps.

Modern fighters don't actually fight much these days. They don't fight often enough to develop the ring savvy of fighters even from the 80s. Techniques have been lost down the generations. The likes of Hopkins and Ward are students of history, of men like Burley, Moore, Charles, Robinson etc. Look at how easily Hopkins can diffuse modern champions, who are rendered one-dimensional athletes after a few rounds with him. The likes of Bouie Fisher, Bill Miller and George Benton built Hopkins, Toney and Whitaker on old school foundations far more widespread in the 30's, 40's and 50's.

In every sport the skill of competitors is built on the foundations laid by those who went before them.
Taking a snapshot of modern greats who are active then comparing them to every boxer in history is not really a strong (or fair) argument to show that skill has regressed. All that can be said is that there were a handful of greats in every era whose skill far surpassed that of their contemporaries.

3fingers wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

3fingers wrote:

hazharrison wrote: Boxing isn't athletics....... ring craft has regressed.

Seriously, that is a bold statement, please explain.

I don't believe there's anything bold about it. Who today can boast outstanding ring craft? Floyd, Hopkins, Marquez. Ward maybe. Rigo perhaps.

Modern fighters don't actually fight much these days. They don't fight often enough to develop the ring savvy of fighters even from the 80s. Techniques have been lost down the generations. The likes of Hopkins and Ward are students of history, of men like Burley, Moore, Charles, Robinson etc. Look at how easily Hopkins can diffuse modern champions, who are rendered one-dimensional athletes after a few rounds with him. The likes of Bouie Fisher, Bill Miller and George Benton built Hopkins, Toney and Whitaker on old school foundations far more widespread in the 30's, 40's and 50's.

In every sport the skill of competitors is built on the foundations laid by those who went before them.
Taking a snapshot of modern greats who are active then comparing them to every boxer in history is not really a strong (or fair) argument to show that skill has regressed. All that can be said is that there were a  handful of greats in every era whose skill far surpassed that of their contemporaries.

I don't think that's a valid point at all. There are far less fighters around today than in bygone eras. Fighters fight less over shorter fights. They also fight fewer quality opponents. There is less strength in depth. Ezzard Charles was once termed a "journeyman". That term today denotes a punching bag on legs.

Who is the best trainer around today? Roach? Look at the impact Emanuel Steward had on the heavyweight division since '93. He made both Lewis and Klitschko by teaching them technique which, despite the likes of Banks carrying on his methods, will be diluted going forward.

It's no coincidence Klitschko, Ward, Hopkins and Mayweather have waltzed around opponents taking nary a punch in retaliation. Their footwork - once a cornerstone for success - is far too good for today's fighters who place far more emphasis on strength and power.

I am with Haz on this. The key factors for me are the infrequency with which fighters fight and the cautious nature of match making. Look at Hopkins, he was arguably a better fighter in his 40s than his 20s or 30s. Why is this? As any of us who are the wrong side of 40 will testify it sure as hell isn't that we get better physically post 40. So if that is not the reason it must be something else, which sensibly can only be experience and the knowledge he has gained over his 50 odd fights. So if it takes you 50 fights to learn the tricks Hopkins has made it does question how good he would be if he had gained that knowledge and experience by the time he was 25 rather than 45. The old timers had done just that.

Not only did they fight more frequently but in the eras before we were all obsessed by unbeaten records and promoters only relied on ticket sales to make their living they were matched a lot tougher on the way up. The aforementioned Ezzard Charles was put in with Charley Burley when barely out of his teens. Can you imagine a propsect being thrown in with someone as good and difficult to look good against now. Similarly Robinson was matched with Fritzie Zivic when barely a pro for two years. Promoters would avoid Zivic like the plague now, but as Robinson said he learned more in 24 rounds with Zivic than in every other fight prior to those.

Haz/Rowley, I agree with many of your points.

I don't have time to reply in full, so, for now, I'll keep it short.

Good reasoning as to why skill MAY have regressed, or COULD regress. But both posts fall short of providing proof that skill has regressed.

I think you both do a fine job in illustrating the dire state modern boxing finds itself in, though.

Haz,

Manny Stewart improved tactics, not so much technique.

I don’t think skills have completely regressed or disappeared. Talent is still talent and the likes of Mayweather and Ward would clearly be able to hold their own in any era you choose to chuck them in, but I certainly feel the level of skill is generally not as widespread as it once was. If you look at the middle or light heavy division of the early 40’s guys like Bivins, Burley and the Hogue twins were all contenders, those were guys who could really fight. Look at most divisions now and outside of a couple of guys in each division, how deep is the talent pool in most of them?

You don't think Lewis' jab was more authorative post-Manny? And that his technique improved to stop exposing his chin to that big overhand right Manny spotted for McCall??

Tactics. It was just employing the technique he already had but more often and at the right time.

3fingers wrote:Haz,

Manny Stewart improved tactics, not so much technique.

That's garbage................

He bulked Lewis up, stopped him from throwing his right hand from a field in Daytona...and worked on his balance............

Basically all he did was tighten Lewis up...

Lewis looked awful against Ruddock even though he stopped him and Mccall just waited for him to throw his right..

Steward completed a total overhaul of Lewis's technique. Shortened his right, stopped him leaning over to his right before throwing it, had him take half a step back after jabbing, tightened his guard. His tactics largely remained the same - his technique improved exponentially.

Very true..

Rowley wrote:I don’t think skills have completely regressed or disappeared. Talent is still talent and the likes of Mayweather and Ward would clearly be able to hold their own in any era you choose to chuck them in, but I certainly feel the level of skill is generally not as widespread as it once was. If you look at the middle or light heavy division of the early 40’s guys like Bivins, Burley and the Hogue twins were all contenders, those were guys who could really fight. Look at most divisions now and outside of a couple of guys in each division, how deep is the talent pool in most of them?

I know....but the more skilled fighters per division (if true) would be down to the greater number of fighters per division (there were more active fighters in total - competing in only 8 categories). Today the skill displayed as a percentage of active fighters in each division would be greater, I guess (that's if we could decide what skill is).

I blame Foreman for the current malaise...............Convinced any "less talented" old slob that they could make money and win things in the current era....

Heavyweight boxing is a disgrace at the moment.

I need to watch more pre and post Manny Lewis fights, including the Olympics, to say if he taught him new technique or simply taught him to employ his existing skills better, as part of a tactical plan.

I really didn't have the time to reply as much as I have already. I'll be back later..