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

The Nal · 31-08-2017 3:49pm

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 3:50pm

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 4:02pm

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 4:09pm

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 4:25pm

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 7:42am

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 8:13am

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 8:14am

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 9:09am

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 9:15am

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.

The Nal · 01-09-2017 9:35am

walshb wrote: »

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.

Holyfield x 2 and James Buster Douglas. A bum in comparison. Louis losing to Charles and Marciano is as relevant as Tyson losing to McBride and Williams - ie its not.

The Buster Douglas loss puts Tyson outside the top 10 by default. Not just a loss, but a KO too.

walshb · 01-09-2017 9:47am

The Nal wrote: »

Holyfield x 2 and James Buster Douglas. A bum in comparison. Louis losing to Charles and Marciano is as relevant as Tyson losing to McBride and Williams - ie its not.

The Buster Douglas loss puts Tyson outside the top 10 by default. Not just a loss, but a KO too.

That's a silly way to look at it

Ok, Louis getting knocked out by Schmelling puts him outside the top ten as well...

Buster at 6 feet 4, 230 lbs and fighting out of his skin, as well as being a top contender was no bum in 1990. If you want to use that nonsense then I'll call all Joes' HW victims bums.

Joe lost to Marciano and Charles. Past his peak. Tyson lost to Holyfield. Tyson past his peak. The same situation. Both Joe and Mike were not at their peaks. Clearly past their best days.

Maravilla33 · 01-09-2017 9:49am

The Nal wrote: »

Holyfield x 2 and James Buster Douglas. A bum in comparison. Louis losing to Charles and Marciano is as relevant as Tyson losing to McBride and Williams - ie its not.

The Buster Douglas loss puts Tyson outside the top 10 by default. Not just a loss, but a KO too.

I d think you are overly harsh on Tyson. Max Schmeling has a cool name and a cool story but is no better than Douglas in the grand scheme of things? His record was 48- 7- 4 when he beat Louis by KO. Doesn't come close to putting him outside the top 10 by default does it?

Maravilla33 · 01-09-2017 10:01am

I can understand you not having Tyson in your top 10 btw. I disagree but don't think wow that lad is crazy. His prime was relatively short, he didn't beat any elite HWs in their prime (few have?) and did lose to Douglas. Douglas fight is held against him more as it was a prolonged beat down and eventual stoppage rather than a one shot KO from nowhere which are easier to forgive, especially at HW. However, Tyson clearly wasn't at his best, had not prepared as he should have (I hold all this against him, not excuses) and he probably came seconds away from winning with his own knock down anyway.

The Nal · 01-09-2017 10:28am

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I can understand you not having Tyson in your top 10 btw. I disagree but don't think wow that lad is crazy. His prime was relatively short, he didn't beat any elite HWs in their prime (few have?) and did lose to Douglas. Douglas fight is held against him more as it was a prolonged beat down and eventual stoppage rather than a one shot KO from nowhere which are easier to forgive, especially at HW. However, Tyson clearly wasn't at his best, had not prepared as he should have (I hold all this against him, not excuses) and he probably came seconds away from winning with his own knock down anyway.

Agree with all that but the fact remains he didn't beat him. Douglas got off the floor to win, something Tyson never did.

I'm not bashing him for no reason. Hes one of my favourite boxers of all time. Im speaking purely in a historical context based on facts. Not the fact that he was completely sensational and I grew up watching him. I don't remember a time before Tyson.

And you're right, it rarely happens that boxers fight both in their prime but the bit highlighted above - the few who did win against others in their prime is the reason they're all ahead of him in the all time rankings.

Ali beat Frazier, Frazier beat Ali, Foreman beat Frazier, Ali beat Foreman, Tunney beat Dempsey, Dempsey beat Willard who beat Jack Johnson, Marciano beat Charles, Walcott and Archie Moore, Liston beat Patterson and Williams (before he was shot), Holmes beat Shavers and Norton, Lewis beat Holyfield and Vitali, Holyfield beat Tyson, Tyson.... well..... he didn't beat one of them.

Tyson being past his prime aged 30 against a 34 year old Holyfield. Lots of reasons for it sure, prison, his mental health etc but not allowing that to happen is all part of being a top guy.

Ush1 · 01-09-2017 10:33am

Tyson beat Holmes who beat Ali.

Maravilla33 · 01-09-2017 10:34am

The Nal wrote: »

Agree with all that but the fact remains he didn't beat him. Douglas got off the floor to win, something Tyson never did.

I'm not bashing him for no reason. Hes one of my favourite boxers of all time. Im speaking purely in a historical context based on facts. Not the fact that he was completely sensational and I grew up watching him. I don't remember a time before Tyson.

And you're right, it rarely happens that boxers fight both in their prime but the bit highlighted above - the few who did win against others in their prime is the reason they're all ahead of him in the all time rankings.

Ali beat Frazier, Frazier beat Ali, Foreman beat Frazier, Ali beat Foreman, Tunney beat Dempsey, Dempsey beat Willard who beat Jack Johnson, Marciano beat Charles, Walcott and Archie Moore, Liston beat Patterson and Williams (before he was shot), Holmes beat Shavers and Norton, Lewis beat Holyfield, Holyfield beat Tyson, Tyson.... well..... he didn't beat one of them.

Tyson being past his prime aged 30 against a 34 year old Holyfield. Lots of reasons for it sure, prison, his mental health etc but not allowing that to happen is all part of being a top guy.

Fair comment and TBF I think Holyfield could have been just as past it here also. Plenty thought Holy was going to get murdered in that fight.

Maravilla33 · 01-09-2017 10:36am

Ush1 wrote: »

Tyson beat Holmes who beat Ali.

Tyson beat a past it Holmes who beat an even more past it Ali. Don't think Holmes would take any credit for that win himself.

walshb · 01-09-2017 10:36am

The Nal wrote: »

Agree with all that but the fact remains he didn't beat him. Douglas got off the floor to win, something Tyson never did.

I'm not bashing him for no reason. Hes one of my favourite boxers of all time. But the bit highlighted above - the few who did win against others in their prime is the reason they're all ahead of him in the all time rankings.

Ali beat Frazier, Frazier beat Ali, Foreman beat Frazier, Ali beat Foreman, Tunney beat Dempsey, Dempsey beat Willard who beat Jack Johnson, Marciano beat Charles, Walcott, Archie, Moore, Liston beat Patterson, Williams, Holmes beat Shavers, Norton, Lewis beat Holyfield, Holyfield beat Tyson, Tyson.... well..... he didn't beat one of them.

Tyson being past his prime aged 30 against a 34 year old Holyfield. Lots of reasons for it sure, prison, his mental health etc but thats all part of being a top guy.

Tyson beat 11 men in title fights.....Tyson didn't beat any? Yes, he did. He beat 11. And any? What about Spinks then? He was the lineal champions and Tyson destroyed him. He also unified the title. He beat the other champions. They were the champions at THAT time, but again, you want to trot out the "bum" line.....

Dempsey beat Willard? Is Willard not a bum? If Tucker and Smith and Berbick are bums, why not Willard? Your logic is purely based on discrediting one man to bolster others. It's nonsensical.

Holmes beat Shavers? Yes, and so did a heap of others. Is Shavers supposed to be some great now?

Lewis beat Holyfield? Yes, he did. A washed up version. Not near prime.

Liston beat how many? He beat a blown up MW Patterson, one of HWs weakest ever champions.

Frazier beat how many?

Tunney beat Dempsey. Big deal....He did nothing to place him on Tysons's levels other than his wins over Dempsey.

Holmes lost twice to a LHW who moved up, the same LHW that Mike blasted in one rd, as well as Mike blasting Holmes in 4 rds.

Seriously, looking at this you are placing all your dissing on ONE loss in Mike's prime. Douglas. You also want to throw in "he was a bum" to suit this narrative, failing to give the man an ounce of credit for a really brilliant performance. Big hard hitting man who fought all night long to break Tyson down. A top ranked fighter was Douglas in 1989 and 1990.

The Nal · 01-09-2017 10:37am

Maravilla33 wrote: »

[/B]

Fair comment and TBF I think Holyfield could have been just as past it here also. Plenty thought Holy was going to get murdered in that fight.

Including me. Thought the same about the 2nd fight aswell haha! I had complete blind faith in Tyson around then.

01-09-2017 10:39am

Littlehorny wrote: »

This debate is exactly why Tyson must be the most talked about fighter since Ali, he is a riddle wrapped in a puzzle. We all seen his highlight reels when he was young and in love with the sport, his speed, movement, power and ferocity has us lining up to watch his fights. Even if they only lasted a round!
But when you talk of Tyson you also have to be balanced in your analysis.
1. He beat good fighters, no greats, when he met the two best of his era (Holyfield and Lewis) he lost.
2. He never came from behind to win a real war in his career.
3. He was finished and "past it" at 24, no other fighter in the world gets to use this as an excuse, when i here the words "prime Tyson" it makes my teeth curl. What does it mean?
4. He was made to look human by a few lesser fighters in his early twenties (James Tillis, Mitch Green,Tony Tucker)
Saying that Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis would be competitive in any era and if they were around today we would be the better for it. The Klitchko's have done enough to be part of this debate but the rest have done fub all to convince me that Tyson wouldn't blow them away.

Jaysus Bruno rocked him bloody hard. Tyson was not this flawless machine people remember, he was just a class above most of the fighters of his own time

The Nal · 01-09-2017 10:40am

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Tyson beat a past it Holmes who beat an even more past it Ali. Don't think Holmes would take any credit for that win himself.

Yeah I didn't include Holmes win against Ali. Ali had Parkinsons and was also up to his tits on thyroid pills. Gassed after a round and a half.

Ush1 · 01-09-2017 10:41am

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Tyson beat a past it Holmes who beat an even more past it Ali. Don't think Holmes would take any credit for that win himself.

I know but my point was that boxing maths doesn't tell the full story.

walshb · 01-09-2017 10:41am

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Tyson beat a past it Holmes who beat an even more past it Ali. Don't think Holmes would take any credit for that win himself.

Past his best days yes, but absolutely obliterated him. Holmes still had some impressive displays post 1988.

I am one who believes no version of Holmes withstands Tyson. Look at Holmes vulnerabilities pre Tyson fight and you will see why.

If Shavers and Snipes almost get it done, then the far deadlier hitter, Tyson always gets it done.

walshb · 01-09-2017 10:44am

Deleted User wrote: »

Jaysus Bruno rocked him bloody hard. Tyson was not this flawless machine people remember, he was just a class above most of the fighters of his own time

So, a big hard hitting HW happened to momentarily rock another man....no way.....How could that be?

The Nal · 01-09-2017 10:48am

walshb wrote: »

Past his best days yes, but absolutely obliterated him. Holmes still had some impressive displays post 1988.

I am one who believes no version of Holmes withstands Tyson. Look at Holmes vulnerabilities pre Tyson fight and you will see why.

If Shavers and Snipes almost get it done, then the far deadlier hitter, Tyson always gets it done.

But he didn't because they didn't fight at that time because time travel doesn't exist.

I think you're coming at this from a "peak Tyson" vs other fighters fantasy type match. And I don't disagree that he may have obliterated anyone in history. Who knows?

Thats not what top 10s are based on though. Its cold hard facts on paper. All of the others in various forms came from behind to win fights, got off the floor to win, avenged defeats, beat other top top guys in their prime etc etc. He never did any of those things. Not one. Doesn't meet any of that criteria.

Maravilla33 · 01-09-2017 10:48am

Another thing I forgot to ask Mr Nal. You have Lewis in your top 10 but surely a top 10er shouldn't be getting stopped by Rahman and McCall if we go by your Douglas/Tyson comment? He avenged them but shouldn't be getting sparked by a Rahman no?

Reading your comments you come across as a Tyson fan but then seem to judge him harshly compared to others even in the same measuring criteria..

Maravilla33 · 01-09-2017 10:52am

walshb wrote: »

So, a big hard hitting HW happened to momentarily rock another man....no way.....How could that be?

Bruno was also outboxing and out jabbing Lewis in their fight. He still lost.

Some people do seem to have one rule for Tyson and one for everybody else.

walshb · 01-09-2017 10:52am

The Nal wrote: »

But he didn't because they didn't fight at that time because time travel doesn't exist.

I think you're coming at this from a "peak Tyson" vs other fighters fantasy type match. And I don't disagree that he may have obliterated anyone in history. Who knows?

Thats not what top 10s are based on though. Its cold hard facts on paper. All of the others in various forms came from behind to win fights, got off the floor to win, avenged defeats, beat other top top guys in their prime etc etc. He never did any of those things. Not one. Doesn't meet any of that criteria.

Did Holmes avenge his loss to Spinks? No....

Dempsey avenge to Tunney? No

Louis to Charles and Marciano? No

Patterson to Liston? No

Liston to Ali? No

Foreman to Ali? No

Ali to Holmes? No.

Holyfield to Lewis? No

You logic is bonkers.

Tyson beat several men in their primes during his first reign. This "top guys" nonsense. They were the top ranked guys in the 1980s...Get over it.

Who were the "top guys" or "in their prime" guys that Dempsey and Louis and Marciano and Liston and Holmes beat, to name a few?

Holmes beat who was around, and that is all that matters, and exactly like Tyson when he was fighting and beating men in the 1980s reign as HW champions. Same for the others I asked of...

The Nal · 01-09-2017 10:55am

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Another thing I forgot to ask Mr Nal. You have Lewis in your top 10 but surely a top 10er shouldn't be getting stopped by Rahman and McCall if we go by your Douglas/Tyson comment? He avenged them but shouldn't be getting sparked by a Rahman no?

Reading your comments you come across as a Tyson fan but then seem to judge him harshly compared to others even in the same measuring criteria..

I hated Lewis at the time and was delighted when he got dropped by Rahman. Smiling at him and then getting proper sparked out. Beautiful.

The fact he only lost 2 and avenged them both has him ahead of Mike. I still think the McCall stoppage was harsh. Also, at the same age, Lewis beat Tyson and was beating Vitali when Tyson was losing to Danny Williams.

I don't think I judge him harshly. I just feel that him being such a sensation blinds people from the facts and his place in history. Can't tell you how many times I've heard "Tyson" to the "best boxer ever?" question. Not heavyweight, but boxer, in any weight.

walshb wrote: »

Did Holmes avenge his loss to Spinks? No....

Avenging defeats is only part of being great. Add in the other things I've mentioned countless times and you can't say Tyson did any of them can you? Yes he beat the guys around over a 3 and a half year period from aged 20 to aged 24 and then that was basically it. The next 12 odd years was a bit of a freak show.

walshb · 01-09-2017 10:57am

I can understand arguing him not to be the best ever. But to diss him for x, y and z when you ignore the exact same for others is wrong, and just shows a real want to be shown to be right.

Maravilla33 · 01-09-2017 11:02am

The Nal wrote: »

I hated Lewis at the time and was delighted when he got dropped by Rahman. Smiling at him and then getting proper sparked out. Beautiful.

The fact he only lost 2 and avenged them both has him ahead of Mike. I still think the McCall stoppage was harsh. Also, at the same age, Lewis beat Tyson and was beating Vitali when Tyson was losing to Danny Williams.

I don't think I judge him harshly. I just feel that him being such a sensation blinds people from the facts and his place in history. Can't tell you how many times I've heard "Tyson" to the "best boxer ever?" question. Not heavyweight, boxer, in any weight.

Could never warm to Lewis either and felt sick hearing people claim his win over Tyson was some sort of achievement. Still top 10-15 HW.

I think Mike's prime (cliche or not) as walshb describes it is enough for him to make my top 10. But he is only at 10. Dominated the division, in serious style beating everyone he could have at the time. It was a short prime but it was quality.

Edit: plus I could tear apart most of the top 10s legacy if I tried and had all day........

walshb · 01-09-2017 11:08am

The Nal wrote: »

Avenging defeats is only part of being great. Add in the other things I've mentioned countless times and you can't say Tyson did any of them can you? Yes he beat the guys around over a 3 and a half year period from aged 20 to aged 24 and then that was basically it. The next 12 odd years was a bit of a freak show.

Sorry, some of the guys I mentioned hardly did "great" things that Tyson didn't do.

They are all champions and all great IMO. Start judging them equally as regards bias, or lack of.

Tyson's reign was 4 years at the top. He had a few years after this at the top.

Looking through history, some of the men you hold in higher regard did not do anything that stands out as greater or more worthy than Tyson.

Came from behind to win fights, got off the floor to win?

Well, Tyson was that good in his prime that he didn't need to do that.

He almost scored the come frim behind KO on Buster.

He then went to prison and was past it.

So, 10-0 in title fights that he dominated......then lost his 11th title fight in a real warrior like fashion.

Now, take your men like Tunney and Dempsey...what exactly was more impressive in their less title wins careers?

The Nal · 01-09-2017 11:15am

walshb wrote: »

I can understand arguing him not to be the best ever. But to diss him for x, y and z when you ignore the exact same for others is wrong, and just shows a real want to be shown to be right.

Not at all. A great fighter, one of the best HWs ever. He was my guy growing up. Just not top 10 for me looking objectively. Slightly outside. And I do wish I could say otherwise.

My Dempsey and Tunney picks aren't controversial by the way. Heres Ring Magazines top 25 ever. Tyson at 14. Place or two lower than I'd have him. This is from 1999 so before Lewis beat Holyfield, Tyson and Vitali. They had him at 32 then.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Evander Holyfield
4. George Foreman
5. Larry Holmes
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Sonny Liston
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Johnson
10. Jack Dempsey
11. Ezzard Charles
12. James J. Jeffries
13. Jersey Joe Walcott
14. Mike Tyson
15. Gene Tunney
16. Harry Wills
17. Sam Langford
18. John L. Sullivan
19. Max Schmeling
20. Max Baer
21. Floyd Patterson
22. Ken Norton
23. Riddick Bowe
24. Bob Fitzsimmons
25. Joe Jeannette

Maravilla33 · 01-09-2017 11:28am

The Nal wrote: »

Not at all. A great fighter, one of the best HWs ever. He was my guy growing up. Just not top 10 for me looking objectively. Slightly outside. And I do wish I could say otherwise.

My Dempsey and Tunney picks aren't controversial by the way. Heres Ring Magazines top 25 ever. Tyson at 14. Place or two lower than I'd have him. This is from 1999 so before Lewis beat Holyfield, Tyson and Vitali. They had him at 32 then.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Evander Holyfield
4. George Foreman
5. Larry Holmes
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Sonny Liston
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Johnson
10. Jack Dempsey
11. Ezzard Charles
12. James J. Jeffries
13. Jersey Joe Walcott
14. Mike Tyson
15. Gene Tunney
16. Harry Wills
17. Sam Langford
18. John L. Sullivan
19. Max Schmeling
20. Max Baer
21. Floyd Patterson
22. Ken Norton
23. Riddick Bowe
24. Bob Fitzsimmons
25. Joe Jeannette

Holyfield at 3? Yikes..

The Nal · 01-09-2017 11:32am

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Holyfield at 3? Yikes..

Flavour of the month. Was the champ at the time and had just come off the two Tyson wins and the Moorer win.

Bananas placement though yeah.

Maravilla33 · 01-09-2017 1:59pm

The Nal wrote: »

Flavour of the month. Was the champ at the time and had just come off the two Tyson wins and the Moorer win.

Bananas placement though yeah.

I give you the new Ring ATG HW list.

1. ANTHONY JOSHUA
2. As you were...

The Nal · 04-09-2017 9:40am

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I give you the new Ring ATG HW list.

1. ANTHONY JOSHUA
2. As you were...

At least hes got off the floor to win!

Maravilla33 · 05-09-2017 10:21am

The Nal wrote: »

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I give you the new Ring ATG HW list.

1. ANTHONY JOSHUA
2. As you were...

At least hes got off the floor to win!

To be fair you pretty much had to beat Mike to a pulp to stop him. He could take a serious beating. So think that stat is a bit misleading. Took a lot more to put him down than plenty. So when he was down he was generally out. Wouldn't use that as a stick to question his heart.
This thread showing me I'm more of a Tyson fan than I thought :O

walshb · 05-09-2017 11:06am

Maravilla33 wrote: »

To be fair you pretty much had to beat Mike to a pulp to stop him. He could take a serious beating. So think that stat is a bit misleading. Took a lot more to put him down than plenty. So when he was down he was generally out. Wouldn't use that as a stick to question his heart.
This thread showing me I'm more of a Tyson fan than I thought :O

He had a granite chin. Protected by that 20 inch shock absorber neck.

The Nal · 05-09-2017 12:20pm

walshb wrote: »

He had a granite chin. Protected by that 20 inch shock absorber neck.

He did in fairness. Any time he was put down, Douglas and Holyfield, they had to give him a complete hiding to do so. He got hit quite a lot even in some of the earlier fights because of his style.

walshb · 05-09-2017 12:30pm

The Nal wrote: »

He did in fairness. Any time he was put down, Douglas and Holyfield, they had to give him a complete hiding to do so. He got hit quite a lot even in some of the earlier fights because of his style.

Plus he slipped and bobbed and weaved excellently as well. For single shot absorption very very few men took a better shot than Tyson.

nacho libre · 05-09-2017 4:18pm

I always felt Tyson was overrated. I don't buy that crap he was past it when he fought Lewis. He beat good fighters, not great ones. As soon as he faced the best he lost. That said he would beat most of the heavyweight of the last 20 years, but that's not saying much. Vitali would beat him and possibly AJ. Joshua proved he has a very good chin and solid defense, i would give him a chance of a mid to late round stoppage. Fury would be destroyed- as would the windmill puncher Wilder.

walshb · 05-09-2017 4:23pm

nacho libre wrote: »

I always felt Tyson was overrated. I don't buy that crap he was past it when he fought Lewis. He beat good fighters, not great ones. As soon as he faced the best he lost. That said he would beat most of the heavyweight of the last 20 years, but that's not saying much. Vitali would beat him and possibly AJ. Joshua proved he has a very good chin and solid defense, i would give him a chance of a mid to late round stoppage. Fury would be destroyed- as would the windmill puncher Wilder.

You really don't see that in 2002 Tyson was was past it?

What versions were you watching in the 1980s and early 1990s? The differences are stark!

Like watching Ali in the 60s vs. the late 70s...

robfowler78 · 05-09-2017 4:32pm

walshb wrote: »

You really don't see that in 2002 Tyson was was past it?

What versions wee you watching in the 1980s and early 1990s? The differences are stark!

Like watching Ali in the 60s vs. the late 70s...

Even watching Tyson vs Bruno 1 and 2 you can see a big difference. It's amazing how people can't see that the Tyson that fought Lewis was way passed his best

nacho libre · 05-09-2017 4:54pm

walshb wrote: »

You really don't see that in 2002 Tyson was was past it?

What versions wee you watching in the 1980s and early 1990s? The differences are stark!

Like watching Ali in the 60s vs. the late 70s...

People were trying to make out he was past it at 24. Lewis, i feel, would have beaten him at any stage, if he was focused. Tyson had tremendous power and a solid chin i will give him that, but the opposition he faced in the late 80s and early 90s flattered him somewhat.

walshb · 05-09-2017 5:00pm

nacho libre wrote: »

People were trying to make out he was past it at 24. Lewis, i feel, would have beaten him at any stage, if he was focused. Tyson had tremendous power and a solid chin i will give him that, but the opposition he faced in the late 80s and early 90s flattered him somewhat.

That's a different discussion. Age wise he was not past it at 24. I agree. He did have a bad camp and a poorer preparation for Buster. It's been well documented. He then went to prison in 1992. That pretty much closed the show on the best Tyson. He was not the same fighter when he came out. How could he have been?

You mentioned his bout with Lewis in 2002 when he must have been close to 36 or so, as well as having had a fairly long career up until that point, with a few years of inactivity due to jail time.

That was a well past his best Tyson....

But, peak Tyson vs. peak Lewis. I'd take Tyson. I don't have enough confidence in LL chin. Tyson's chin was grade A. LL has to win on points, and that means not getting whacked clean for 12 rds. I cannot see that happening. Tyson KO within 5 rds or so. Tyson's far faster feet and hands in the 1980s allows him to get in close enough to land wicked power shots that LL will not take.

The Nal · 05-09-2017 5:13pm

Tyson was well past it by the Lewis fight yeah. Theyre about the same age but Tyson was HW champ before Lewis made his pro debut.

Actually cant think of HW fighter who made such a late sprint for greatness like Lewis did. Its usually the other way around. Eg Tysons career where they stay in the game for too long.

robfowler78 · 05-09-2017 5:26pm

Lets not forget Lewis was beaten in his prime by two very average heavyweights. Also Tyson was small for heavyweight. Holyfield boxed at cruiserweight before heavyweight and he was bigger then Tyson.

walshb · 05-09-2017 5:34pm

robfowler78 wrote: »

Lets not forget Lewis was beaten in his prime by two very average heavyweights. Also Tyson was small for heavyweight. Holyfield boxed at cruiserweight before heavyweight and he was bigger then Tyson.

Well, Mike was a HW (200 lbs) as an amateur and Holyfield was at 178 lbs in LA 1984. Tyson was every bit as big if not naturally bigger than Evander in the 1980s. Evander had a height advantage, but Mike was a solid 215-220 lbs aged 19 and 20. Holyfield when he won the belt was no more than 210, and against Bowe in fight 1 he was just over 200 lbs I think.

LL peak weight was between 230-245 lbs. He would have a weight advantage but when does he use it against Tyson apart from the inside close exchanges.

LL to win needs to keep the jab in Mike's face and keep Mike at long range. Problem being that LL jab was not all that fast, and could definitely be read and timed by Mike to get inside with a KO shot(s)

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

Comments