Syntax Error wrote:Reading through this thread just brings back the frustration of the HW division in the 1980s.
Has there ever been a time when so many talented fighters existed at the same time & virtually all wasted their talents?
The 1980s could & should have been a heavyweight golden age, possibly as great, if not greater than the 70s & even better than the other unofficial HW golden age of the 90s.
I would go all with this. I never agree with the argument that the 1980s Heavyweight era was weak.
Ambling Alp wrote:Tillis was a notch below these guys. He was often competitive but just couldn't get over the hump.
No argument from me on that score.
It would be interesting to see how Tillis would fare against todays top heavyweights. Would be a good yardstick, considering he fought so many of the top guys.
Ambling Alp wrote:Tillis was a notch below these guys. He was often competitive but just couldn't get over the hump.
No argument from me on that score.
It would be interesting to see how Tillis would fare against todays top heavyweights. Would be a good yardstick, considering he fought so many of the top guys.
Ambling Alp wrote:Tillis was a notch below these guys. He was often competitive but just couldn't get over the hump.
No argument from me on that score.
It would be interesting to see how Tillis would fare against todays top heavyweights. Would be a good yardstick, considering he fought so many of the top guys.
are you a relation??
Duhhh!
I think I would be posting under a different username if that was the case!
witherspoon wrote:But seriously, I think I might take Tillis over Haye.
That's hilarious what you did there with that other poster name (Tillis).
I read what you said about revisiting the '80's and I feel the same way you do about that era of HW's.
Yes, I agree that Tillis on his best night beats Haye on his best night. Although I also think it's very possible for Haye to TKO Tillis as I feel Tillis got himself in those situations far too much for a fighter of his under-appreciated talent.
This thread is teaching me that I don't have to hide my appreciation of the heavyweights I grew up watching as if it's something to be ashamed of. Nice to to know that others feel the same.
hurlock wrote:where do people rate berbick.
I see him as a kind of wildcard of the decade. Potentially a tough fight for anyone with his awkward style and strength. But he beat enough of the better fighters of his day to be ranked in the top 10 heavy's of the 80's, in my opinion.
I am always shocked by how reckless he was against Tyson.
I see him as a kind of wildcard of the decade. Potentially a tough fight for anyone with his awkward style and strength. But he beat enough of the better fighters of his day to be ranked in the top 10 heavy's of the 80's, in my opinion.
I am always shocked by how reckless he was against Tyson.
Agree with the above analysis. But I do think the 4 boxers I have named at the start of the thread all had more ability and potential than Berbick.
I would see Berbick as more of the: "He did the best he could with what he had" cetegory.
Speaking about the title fight against Mike Tyson. I have always wondered what was going on in Berbick's head to try and stand toe-to-toe with Tyson, back when young Mike was a wrecking machine...
Did he think that he was stronger than Tyson? Or that he punched harder?
He had balls in this fight. Sadly no brains and it cost him...
What else was he going to do? It's not like Trevor could stick and move. He also was known for his chin. He probably thought he could wear Mike out. And lets not forget, Berbick was batshit crazy.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:What else was he going to do? It's not like Trevor could stick and move. He also was known for his chin. He probably thought he could wear Mike out. And lets not forget, Berbick was batshit crazy.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:What else was he going to do? It's not like Trevor could stick and move. He also was known for his chin. He probably thought he could wear Mike out. And lets not forget, Berbick was batshit crazy.
But he was, I think, physically stronger than Tyson. If he tried to hold on more and push Tyson around a little he could have lasted the distance. Who knew, at this point, how good Tyson really was? The only certainty was that he could knock you out with with one punch.
When I said he could have lasted the distance I was speaking with the benefit of hindsight.
I would never critisize a boxer for trying to win rather than last the course.
I think you are right though, Berbick probably thought (correctly) that he was Tysons strongest opponent up to that point
and his strategy was dictated by a combination of
a. contempt for Tysons abilities and past opponents (alot of whom Trevor had beaten himself)
b. being batshit crazy!
witherspoon wrote:But he was, I think, physically stronger than Tyson. If he tried to hold on more and push Tyson around a little he could have lasted the distance. Who knew, at this point, how good Tyson really was? The only certainty was that he could knock you out with with one punch.
Tat's a good point. Maybe Beerbick did think that roughing Tyson up a bit would have rattled "Iron Mike".
But in all honesty, I don't think that that Berbick's defence was ever good enough to evade or withstand Tyson's power.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I would never criticize a fighter for trying to win instead of lasting the distance.
I wasn't criticising Trevor Berbick. I just couldn't understand his reasoning for his strategy in that fight.
But maybe Witherspoon was right when he mentioned the "roughing up" tactic.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I would never criticize a fighter for trying to win instead of lasting the distance.
I wasn't criticising Trevor Berbick. I just couldn't understand his reasoning for his strategy in that fight.
But maybe Witherspoon was right when he mentioned the "roughing up" tactic.
I wasn't criticizing you. I just don't see what strategy you would want him to employ. He was what he was.
witherspoon wrote:But he was, I think, physically stronger than Tyson. If he tried to hold on more and push Tyson around a little he could have lasted the distance. Who knew, at this point, how good Tyson really was? The only certainty was that he could knock you out with with one punch.
Tat's a good point. Maybe Beerbick did think that roughing Tyson up a bit would have rattled "Iron Mike".
But in all honesty, I don't think that that Berbick's defence was ever good enough to evade or withstand Tyson's power.
I remember at the time, a few weeks before the bout, the match was pick-em. Late money went on Tyson and he was a warn favourite by bell time. But coming from Britain I had only seen the Frazier bout, and heard of the Tyson phenomenon though the Mags. I was not totally sold on Tyson yet, and watching at the time, Berbick initially fought very evenly with Tyson, and at the time it looked to me like either could go.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I wasn't criticizing you. I just don't see what strategy you would want him to employ. He was what he was.
Well, as I say... Whatever strategy he choose to employ, standing toe-to-toe with Tyson si probably thw worse one you could pick.
Not the worst, the only. Trevor wasn't exactly the most versatile fighter on the planet. he was a bit plodding and slow. His main attributes were his chin and stamina. He could have tried to hold and survive like Smith or Tucker. Kudos to him for trying to win.
