Top Ten Heavyweights of all time

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 31 Oct 2005, 18:31

James Tillis took a prime Tyson 10 rounds. A year later he was stopped by Frank Bruno. The Tyson myth is gradually falling apart!

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 31 Oct 2005, 19:06

Arsenal wrote:Barry and Rory how can you rate Tyson so highly? Holyfield was a blown up heavyweight who destroyed Tyson. He may have been past his peak but he still got destroyed by Lewis and Holyfield. You could argue Holyfield was past his prime. Tyson beat most people before they even got into the ring. Thats why he was good not his boxing ability. Spinks and Holmes were well past their prime and not that good anyway. As for Lewis dominating in a poor era how about Tyson's era? It wasn't much better. I posted a question in an earlier thread so I'll ask it again. Take out his defeats, which he never avenged and I think someone pointed out before this is what a great champion does, and the big, decent fighters who were not scared of him and went the distance: Ruddock, Tucker, Smith, Willis and than name a quality fighter Tyson beat? I'll think you'll find none! By the way I looked through Buster Douglas's record on this site and he was a lot better than people gave him credit for. He did get bashed by Holyfield though. Another fighter who blew the 'a big fighter will always beat a smaller fighter myth' out the water.

tyson was about 5/6 years removed from his prime.. holyfield wasnt just a blown up heavyweight, he was a great fight top 15 IMO... but i think its generally agreed that a prime tyson destroys holyfield

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 31 Oct 2005, 19:06

Arsenal wrote:James Tillis took a prime Tyson 10 rounds. A year later he was stopped by Frank Bruno. The Tyson myth is gradually falling apart!

ur taking a shot at tyson because 1 guy went the distence? ur a hard man to please...

UpWithEvil · Post by **UpWithEvil** » 31 Oct 2005, 19:11

tyson was about 5/6 years removed from his prime

Tyson was 30 when he fought Holyfield (Evander was 34). If Tyson's "prime" ends with his KO at the hands of Buster Douglas at the age of 24, then I think it is easy to remove him from consideration as an all-time great. If you're going to peak so young, you'd better pull a Stanley Ketchel if you don't want your "decline" to count against your career accomplishments.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 31 Oct 2005, 19:14

well yeah.. he was 30, but age doesnt mean much when ur considering primes.. look at fighters like moore and walcott. tyson is an alltime great because of the unbeleivable talent he had n the greatness he showed in the ring. at such a young age. he was almost unbeatable. he had his fair share of defenses as well. and also, just because ur prime is over, doesnt mean ur career is over, he had wins after the buster fight.. he was just never the same tyson that fouhgt in 87 or 88 or 89 or 86

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 31 Oct 2005, 19:18

Arsenal wrote:James Tillis took a prime Tyson 10 rounds. A year later he was stopped by Frank Bruno. The Tyson myth is gradually falling apart!

Tyson was 19 fight novice and Bruno a 30 fight veteran contender who beat former champion Gerrie Coetzee and challenged for a world title against Tim Witherspoon when they challenged Tillis. What, would you expect Tyson to beat Larry Holmes in his pro debut? Tyson was still learning the ropes, and Tillis was a great measuring stick for him.

Ali was dropped by Sonny Banks early in his career and was nearly stopped by the first heavyweight veteran he fought in Henry Cooper. You need to stop nitpicking. Nobody says you have to like Tyson nor rate him top ten. I love Tyson and agree with you he's not top ten, but he was one of the most physically talented fighters ever, and is definetely one of the top 15 heavyweights ever.

TheRiverCityHippy · Post by **TheRiverCityHippy** » 31 Oct 2005, 19:50

Sherlock wrote:
Arsenal wrote:James Tillis took a prime Tyson 10 rounds. A year later he was stopped by Frank Bruno. The Tyson myth is gradually falling apart!
Tyson was 19 fight novice and Bruno a 30 fight veteran contender who beat former champion Gerrie Coetzee and challenged for a world title against Tim Witherspoon when they challenged Tillis. What, would you expect Tyson to beat Larry Holmes in his pro debut? Tyson was still learning the ropes, and Tillis was a great measuring stick for him.

Ali was dropped by Sonny Banks early in his career and was nearly stopped by the first heavyweight veteran he fought in Henry Cooper. You need to stop nitpicking. Nobody says you have to like Tyson nor rate him top ten. I love Tyson and agree with you he's not top ten, but he was one of the most physically talented fighters ever, and is definetely one of the top 15 heavyweights ever.

tyson just had problems with people who fought back.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 31 Oct 2005, 20:00

headhunter wrote: tyson just had problems with people who fought back.

That's true, but only to a degree. Against Tillis, you have to take into account that Tyson was still a youngster learning the ropes, and Tillis was a wily veteran who made him fight to win. Mitch Green fought back, and took a beating in return. Tyson never really showed the fighting instinct when he came back from prison, and Holyfield definetly took what was left out of Tyson. He was never more than a B or even C fighter after that, struggling against Botha long before losing to Lewis, Williams, and McBride.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 31 Oct 2005, 20:03

tyson still did well in the nineties despite being well past his prime

Professor X · Post by **Professor X** » 01 Nov 2005, 05:04

[quote="Rory McCloskey"][quote="Arsenal"]Barry and Rory how can you rate Tyson so highly? Holyfield was a blown up heavyweight who destroyed Tyson. He may have been past his peak but he still got destroyed by Lewis and Holyfield. You could argue Holyfield was past his prime. Tyson beat most people before they even got into the ring. Thats why he was good not his boxing ability. Spinks and Holmes were well past their prime and not that good anyway. As for Lewis dominating in a poor era how about Tyson's era? It wasn't much better. I posted a question in an earlier thread so I'll ask it again. Take out his defeats, which he never avenged and I think someone pointed out before this is what a great champion does, and the big, decent fighters who were not scared of him and went the distance: Ruddock, Tucker, Smith, Willis and than name a quality fighter Tyson beat? I'll think you'll find none! By the way I looked through Buster Douglas's record on this site and he was a lot better than people gave him credit for. He did get bashed by Holyfield though. Another fighter who blew the 'a big fighter will always beat a smaller fighter myth' out the water.[/quote]

but i think its generally agreed that a prime tyson destroys holyfield[/quote]

I don't know if that utter that bullshit is agreed upon or not, Rory (it sure never was by me). But if it is, there's many stupid boxing fans out there (including the oldtimers, as far as this subject goes, who seem to identify with Mikey, and ALL of whom, ALL of them, picked Tyson by homicide...they're still pissed off and can't come to grips with it).

Tyson fans saying Spinks was a great heavyweight is like when Jones' fans were saying he was a great heavyweight (after the Ruiz fight). It's not true.

Professor X · Post by **Professor X** » 01 Nov 2005, 05:22

[quote="Rory McCloskey"]proffesor X.. im only 17 so i dont see how i could be an old timer... i can def. see rocky beating lewis.

as for holyfield.. alright obviously his 2 biggest wins of his career were over tyson. but lets not forget the tyson he was fighting. a past the prime tyson. tyson was never the same after buster douglas, and i think we can all agree that tyson would have eaten all of evander instead of just his ear if they fought say 1986/87.and i wouldnt rank him in my top 5 P4P fighters.... maybe not even my top 10..i think many people overrate him n lewis. they were basically the only good heavyweights in the 90's IMO and i think the 90's were a very weak time for the heavyweight division.[/quote]

Oh, I believe you're seventeen. Tyson is the most overrated heavyweight champion by young and old alike...I already know that.

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 01 Nov 2005, 05:58

tyson was about 5/6 years removed from his prime.. holyfield wasnt just a blown up heavyweight, he was a great fight top 15 IMO... but i think its generally agreed that a prime tyson destroys holyfield[/quote]

Generally agreed by who? Holyfield was past his prime when he fought Tyson. He would beat Tyson anytime. Yes he was a great fighter but not a genuine heavyweight. If he fought now with the cruiserweight limit moved up he would be unbeatable then again he was an undefeated cruiseweight anyway.

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 01 Nov 2005, 06:01

Tyson was 19 fight novice...

You kidding me? Some people win world titles after that many fights. So are you saying Bruno was better than Tyson because he had more fights? Tyson won a World Title a year or so later.

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 01 Nov 2005, 06:19

Lets take Tyson's record before the Douglas defeat as this is when his fans say he went downhill. 27 fights before he became world champion (Lewis done this in 21 fights). 37 wins in a 5 year period. 24 when he finally got beat by a massive underdog. Quality heavyweights he fought: Tillis, Smith, Tucker and Douglas. Maybe you can argue for Tubbs, Biggs and Thomas. 10 defences and rules for 3 years against mediorce oppenents(Lewis dominated for 10 years and 5 years as champion). Never avenges any defeats. I would have him in my top 20 definately maybe top 15 but not top 10. Can we really say a washed up 24 year who dominated a poor era for 3 years is an all time great? I don't think so.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 01 Nov 2005, 07:52

Arsenal wrote:Tyson was 19 fight novice...

You kidding me? Some people win world titles after that many fights. So are you saying Bruno was better than Tyson because he had more fights? Tyson won a World Title a year or so later.

No, I'm saying Bruno had fought better opposition and was clearly more experienced, which means he had seen more styles, learned more in the gym, had been tested to the limit to win. Tyson had yet to fight anyone who had fallen from his punches. Tillis was a great learning experience. It more not be his best fight nor a glorious name on his record, but it got him ready for the opposition he would fight later on. Isn't that the point of a journeyman, to provide a tough test early on? Tyson passed the test and would go on to win the title. He learned he couldn't knock everyone out and had to improve his stamina and control the pace of a fight.

Yes, a lot of fighter take on a champion before they have 20 fights. Look at David Reid, Fernando Vargas, Marvis Frazier, Tyrell Biggs, Pete Rademacher, etc. They were all shot or exposed in the spotlight by 2-3 years when they should have been in their primes because they were overmatched and didn't have the experience to know how to adapt.

And No, I'm not saying fighters should fight 40 times like Valuev before challenging for a title, but 25 fights is pretty normal, maybe earlier if they were moved on carefully and not overmatched, a loss is nothing major. Fighters should be matched up to test them, but should never be thrown in with a guy they aren't ready to handle. That can lead to injury or even travesty.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 01 Nov 2005, 11:22

In terms of top 10 heavyweights did people rate Foreman as top 10 before the comeback win? I didn't.

I always considered him to have been the hardest hitting champion but with poor stamina, an inability to pace himself and psychologically quite brittle. It would have been great if he'd have got a rematch with Ali. I also think a fight with Holmes would have been a classic.

If you consider 1970s Foreman (physically) with Old George (mentally) then you have quite a fighter.

barry · Post by **barry** » 02 Nov 2005, 10:21

>>>Tyson fans saying Spinks was a great heavyweight is like when Jones' fans were saying he was a great heavyweight (after the Ruiz fight). It's not true.<<<

Based on what?

Tyson was past his prime not because of age, but because he was out of the ring for over four years! Four years that should have been part of his prime. When a fighter does not fight, or train properly; you and your boxing skills deteriorate, especially over four years of inactivity, that just common sense, no argument needed, unless you’re trying to reach out for something negative! There has been one exception to that rule…Muhammad Ali, as I said, that is part of the reason he is considered by most to be the greatest.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 02 Nov 2005, 20:03

everything pre-fight went in favor of douglas... and tyson was winning on the cards IMO, i think douglas just found a tiny opening and got lucky. if tyson wasnt so unbeatable then why would it be the greatest upset of all time?

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 03 Nov 2005, 03:52

Rory have you ever seen the fight? Was you old enough? Douglas was all over Tyson despite what the cards said. Having said that one had Douglas 6 in front, one had Tyson 1 in front and one had it a draw so get your facts straight. Tyson was out on his feet abit like against Lewis. Douglas took the 3 round onslaught unlike alot of fighters and then came and took over the fight. Having said that I think Douglas was slightly underated. As for the greatest upset of all time? Not sure on that. One of yes but the biggest, no. Turpin against Robinson, Ali - Forman, Ali- Liston, to name a few.