He bit Tyrell Biggs too.silkov wrote:Tell me another all time great who actually bit his opponent :x :x :x , twice too!...
That never seems to get mentioned these days.
Tyson Could've Been The Greatest, Hands Down.
-
Syntax Error
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9007
- Joined: 22 Apr 2005, 08:00
re
>>>Tell me another all time great who actually bit his opponent<<<
So you think punching an opponent in the balls is dignified and forgivable? Punching someone in the balls if more "punk" than biting them! At least with biting the fighter is not really physically injured. When a fighter goes for a nut-shot, he does so with intent to do serious damage and to completely incompacitate the opponent and that is a lot more "punk" than biting an opponent, but like I said, it's doesn't matter and it is just bias and plain wrong to damn one man and excuse another, which is exactly what you are doing!
So you think punching an opponent in the balls is dignified and forgivable? Punching someone in the balls if more "punk" than biting them! At least with biting the fighter is not really physically injured. When a fighter goes for a nut-shot, he does so with intent to do serious damage and to completely incompacitate the opponent and that is a lot more "punk" than biting an opponent, but like I said, it's doesn't matter and it is just bias and plain wrong to damn one man and excuse another, which is exactly what you are doing!
Re: re
Who's making up shit??... I'm saying what Tyson did was not exactly a courageous act. Courage is one of the main aspects of a great fighter.barry wrote:>>>I don't think it was a big heart that made Tyson bite Holyfield twice...<<<
Please don't tell me that you are going to start trying to make up shit now? What did I say, I said that Tyson bit Holyfield twice because he is nuts...plain and simple...the exact same "nuts" that he has went over the edge with countless times before and after that incident...it's not like it was an isolated occurence!
Why is is when someone disagrees with you they are accused of 'making up shit?'...this is a boxing debate not a personal argument Barry...
Re: re
I don't admire fighters that repeadedly hit low but it is certainly more acceptable than biting someones ear off in my book. Hitting low is something that can happen accidently in fights, biting is something different altogether... I don't see why you can't see this?....barry wrote:>>>Tell me another all time great who actually bit his opponent<<<
So you think punching an opponent in the balls is dignified and forgivable? Punching someone in the balls if more "punk" than biting them! At least with biting the fighter is not really physically injured. When a fighter goes for a nut-shot, he does so with intent to do serious damage and to completely incompacitate the opponent and that is a lot more "punk" than biting an opponent, but like I said, it's doesn't matter and it is just bias and plain wrong to damn one man and excuse another, which is exactly what you are doing!
You still haven't said how Leonards accidentail foul compares with what Tyson did?....
Re: re
This is a huge get out for Mike and I seriously doubt that any psychologist would accept this. Mike was always on the edge, I agree with you on that. BUT Tyson quit. His pride wouldn't let him turn around and say no mas so he found a different way of doing it.barry wrote:>>>he knew he would be disqualified and thats what he wanted...<<<
No, he just lost his mind, he didn't want to quit...hell he was doing pretty good up to that early point in the bout, he just plain and simply lost his mind, just like he did with Savarese, just like he did with Orlin Norris, just like he did with Botha, and just like he did in several other instances, it's not like it was new that Tyson was a lunatic.
When you say "lost his mind" you're trying to divorce his actions from his motives. Consciously or unconsciously this was Tyson's way of quitting.
Last edited by Ezzard on 10 Feb 2006, 09:53, edited 1 time in total.
I'm saying it was a lack of heart that made Tyson do what he did. That might not sound nice to someone who is a fan of Mike, but thats what I think. Obviously all fighters have heart, but their are varying degrees and Tyson didn't want to get beaten again against Holyfield and thats why he did what he did. He didn't do it to try and win the fight did he?.barry wrote:Well if you are not trying to make up shit then why did you even say,
"I don't think it was a big heart that made Tyson bite Holyfield twice..."
It has absolutely no bearing on the conversatiopn and no one was talking about it until you all of a sudden brought it up!
As for me being against Tyson I was a huge fan of his in the 80s and still enjoy watching his early fights, but Tyson didnt have the mental stability to reach greatness, ...simple as that imo
Re: re
Tyson knew exactly what he was doing... his actions were clearly focused and controlled and he did just about the only thing that would get him disqualified in such a big fight... and even then he had to do it twice!!....Ezzard wrote:This is a huge get out for Mike and I seriously doubt that any psychologist would accept this. Mike was always on the edge, I agree with you on that. BUT Tyson quit. His prode wouldn't let him turn around and say no mas so he found a different way of doing it.barry wrote:>>>he knew he would be disqualified and thats what he wanted...<<<
No, he just lost his mind, he didn't want to quit...hell he was doing pretty good up to that early point in the bout, he just plain and simply lost his mind, just like he did with Savarese, just like he did with Orlin Norris, just like he did with Botha, and just like he did in several other instances, it's not like it was new that Tyson was a lunatic.
When you say "lost his mind" you're trying to divorce his actions from his motives. Consciously or unconsciously this was Tyson's way of quitting.
re
>>>I don't admire fighters that repeadedly hit low but it is certainly more acceptable than biting someones ear off in my book. Hitting low is something that can happen accidently in fights, biting is something different altogether... I don't see why you can't see this?....
You still haven't said how Leonards accidentail foul compares with what Tyson did?....<<<
I'm not talking about accidental low-blows...accidental low blows do not get a fighter DQ'd.
>>>You still haven't said how Leonards accidentail foul compares with what Tyson did?....<<<
Well it was believed by some to be accidental and believed by others to have been on purpose, if it was accidental then he should not have been DQ'd, but if it was on purpose then it is no different than Tyson! But like I already said, it has no bearing whatsoever...if a fighter is DQ'd for purposely hitting low, it is just as "punk" as biting and it most certainly is not more viably forgivable and if you want to make a just a correct argument then you have to hold one fighter just as accountable as the other!! Forget Leonard, I could go back and track down several other greats who have broken the rules, but it would be useless as I'm sure you would make excuses for them as well! Fritzie Zivic-Al Davis, Willie Pep-Sandy Saddler...very, very dirty brawls in which each one of the four purposely fouled on several occasions!
>>>When you say "lost his mind" you're trying to divorce his actions from his motives. Consciously or unconsciously this was Tyson's way of quitting.<<<
No I'm not! Tyson was doing well in the fight, some even say he was getting the better of Holyfield...Tyson simply came loose at the hinges, which as he has demonstrated over and over, time and time again, it doesn't take much for him to slip over that line. Now if he had been someone who had never been associated with any kind of odd, or reckless behavior then yes, I would certainly say that he did it only because he wanted out, but due to his consistent history of unstable and vicious behavior, I thought then just like I think now that he lost his mind, which again I reinterate...he has done on many other occasions, not just that one time!
You still haven't said how Leonards accidentail foul compares with what Tyson did?....<<<
I'm not talking about accidental low-blows...accidental low blows do not get a fighter DQ'd.
>>>You still haven't said how Leonards accidentail foul compares with what Tyson did?....<<<
Well it was believed by some to be accidental and believed by others to have been on purpose, if it was accidental then he should not have been DQ'd, but if it was on purpose then it is no different than Tyson! But like I already said, it has no bearing whatsoever...if a fighter is DQ'd for purposely hitting low, it is just as "punk" as biting and it most certainly is not more viably forgivable and if you want to make a just a correct argument then you have to hold one fighter just as accountable as the other!! Forget Leonard, I could go back and track down several other greats who have broken the rules, but it would be useless as I'm sure you would make excuses for them as well! Fritzie Zivic-Al Davis, Willie Pep-Sandy Saddler...very, very dirty brawls in which each one of the four purposely fouled on several occasions!
>>>When you say "lost his mind" you're trying to divorce his actions from his motives. Consciously or unconsciously this was Tyson's way of quitting.<<<
No I'm not! Tyson was doing well in the fight, some even say he was getting the better of Holyfield...Tyson simply came loose at the hinges, which as he has demonstrated over and over, time and time again, it doesn't take much for him to slip over that line. Now if he had been someone who had never been associated with any kind of odd, or reckless behavior then yes, I would certainly say that he did it only because he wanted out, but due to his consistent history of unstable and vicious behavior, I thought then just like I think now that he lost his mind, which again I reinterate...he has done on many other occasions, not just that one time!
Barry have they got brains where you come from? Biting is not meant to reallly injure someone? Are you serious? HAHAHAHAH 
Now I know you know absolutely nothing! Ask Holyfield if he felt injured afetr part of his ear was bite off! Tyson bottled it and bite to get DQ. A low punch, headbutt is unfortunately part of boxing. It happens all the time and no-one agrees with it. But biting is completely different.
I can't belivee you love a rapist, cowardly, bully so much!
IMO Lewis would win this fight no matter when, where etc etc. Lewis was just too good. I would have loved to have seen it when Lewis was a bit raw circa Razor Ruddock, before Manny took over and before Lewis became a more complete, tactically astute boxer. Why? Because he was less cautious and I think Lewis would have taken him out inside 3 rounds like he did with the dangerous Ruddock who Tyson had trouble with twice.
I think this is a good comparison as arguebly Ruddock was in his prime or even better when he fought Lewis and look at how Tyson and Lewis coped. Tyson won on points/controversial stoppage and Lewis destroyed him! So for me Lewis would win anyway he pleased. Early KO or by late KO after giving him a boxing lesson.
By the way Barry do you want to discuss you merits as to why you are such a great bpxing critic? Have you ever steeped into the ring mate? Or are you one of the muppets who talks a good game but when it comes to it has no balls?
Now I know you know absolutely nothing! Ask Holyfield if he felt injured afetr part of his ear was bite off! Tyson bottled it and bite to get DQ. A low punch, headbutt is unfortunately part of boxing. It happens all the time and no-one agrees with it. But biting is completely different.
I can't belivee you love a rapist, cowardly, bully so much!
IMO Lewis would win this fight no matter when, where etc etc. Lewis was just too good. I would have loved to have seen it when Lewis was a bit raw circa Razor Ruddock, before Manny took over and before Lewis became a more complete, tactically astute boxer. Why? Because he was less cautious and I think Lewis would have taken him out inside 3 rounds like he did with the dangerous Ruddock who Tyson had trouble with twice.
I think this is a good comparison as arguebly Ruddock was in his prime or even better when he fought Lewis and look at how Tyson and Lewis coped. Tyson won on points/controversial stoppage and Lewis destroyed him! So for me Lewis would win anyway he pleased. Early KO or by late KO after giving him a boxing lesson.
By the way Barry do you want to discuss you merits as to why you are such a great bpxing critic? Have you ever steeped into the ring mate? Or are you one of the muppets who talks a good game but when it comes to it has no balls?
It's interesting to put his career next to Liston's and Foreman's. All 3 were considered to be unbeatable monsters and all lost in major upsets. They were probably the 3 most intimidating HWs of all time and certainly 3 of the biggest hitters. They all won the title in extremely convincing fashion and all lost it in major upsets.
When I watch Liston lose to Clay/Ali he doesn't seem like the same fighter. I've read interesting posts on BoxRec from posters pointing out just how little competitive action Liston had running up to those 2 fights. Liston's reputation was dirt for a long time after these losses and only in maybe the last 10-20 years have boxing writers started tio recognise his greatness. Remember people were so shocked by the defeat that there had to be a reason for Liston losing (hence the fixed fights denate).
Foreman also looked like a different fighter when he lost to Ali. He never really recovered from that bout either. Foreman came back though and his is a happy ending.
Tyson also looked like a different fighter when getting beaten by Douglas. But his legacy seems to continue with people making a thread like this one. Why has Tyson's mystique survived whilst the other 2's hasn't? There's no evidence in his record or on film that he was significantly better than either of these two great champions.
I think that Ali being so charismatic, and so great, gave fans a focus after these two monsters were tamed. There hasn't been such a charismatic figure since Tyson. Liston and Foreman were also beaten by a truly great fighter for the title. Tyson wasn't. I think this has allowed the myth to continue. If an Ali had beaten Tyson there's be no such talk of he could have been the greatest.
I'd rank Foreman 1st out of these 3 simply because he regained the title which is a massive achievement. Liston and Tyson are on a par. they cleaned out the division before beating a terrified champion. They both then underestimated a challenger and were soundly beaten.
Is Mike a great? I think he is. He's not in the top echelon of HW greats though, not even close. Lots of fighters have looked unbeatable for stretches in their career just like Mike, but it doesn't mean they could have been the greatest ever.
When I watch Liston lose to Clay/Ali he doesn't seem like the same fighter. I've read interesting posts on BoxRec from posters pointing out just how little competitive action Liston had running up to those 2 fights. Liston's reputation was dirt for a long time after these losses and only in maybe the last 10-20 years have boxing writers started tio recognise his greatness. Remember people were so shocked by the defeat that there had to be a reason for Liston losing (hence the fixed fights denate).
Foreman also looked like a different fighter when he lost to Ali. He never really recovered from that bout either. Foreman came back though and his is a happy ending.
Tyson also looked like a different fighter when getting beaten by Douglas. But his legacy seems to continue with people making a thread like this one. Why has Tyson's mystique survived whilst the other 2's hasn't? There's no evidence in his record or on film that he was significantly better than either of these two great champions.
I think that Ali being so charismatic, and so great, gave fans a focus after these two monsters were tamed. There hasn't been such a charismatic figure since Tyson. Liston and Foreman were also beaten by a truly great fighter for the title. Tyson wasn't. I think this has allowed the myth to continue. If an Ali had beaten Tyson there's be no such talk of he could have been the greatest.
I'd rank Foreman 1st out of these 3 simply because he regained the title which is a massive achievement. Liston and Tyson are on a par. they cleaned out the division before beating a terrified champion. They both then underestimated a challenger and were soundly beaten.
Is Mike a great? I think he is. He's not in the top echelon of HW greats though, not even close. Lots of fighters have looked unbeatable for stretches in their career just like Mike, but it doesn't mean they could have been the greatest ever.
re
>>>Barry I can't believe you think Tyson was getting the better of Holyfield.<<<
Like I said Arsenal, this debate has progressed higher than your limited intelligence can comprehend...so even making up shit isn't going to help your cause now...which I forgot, you need a picture to help you understand...I guess I should have drawn a picture for people like you when I stated that "some people actually think that Tyson was getting the better of Holyfield," but I don't really have time to explain such to simple minds like yourself, but thanks for again showing that when losing, you go back to making up things!
Like I said Arsenal, this debate has progressed higher than your limited intelligence can comprehend...so even making up shit isn't going to help your cause now...which I forgot, you need a picture to help you understand...I guess I should have drawn a picture for people like you when I stated that "some people actually think that Tyson was getting the better of Holyfield," but I don't really have time to explain such to simple minds like yourself, but thanks for again showing that when losing, you go back to making up things!
Barry lets just agree to disagree. I have said that Tyson was a great fighter and it wasn't his fault that he had no-one to really beat. However I just don't think he was one of the greatest but I would still have him in my top 15-20. And despite question marks about his heart it takes balls to step into the ring whether its once or a 100 times especially when you know you are not at your best. I actually feel sorry for Tyson and the way his career turned out.
Re: re
Thanks Barrybarry wrote:Ezzard---Very solid post!
I have reconsdiered Tyson and when I compare him to Liston and remember the early years then he deserves a lot of plaudits for steamrolling the division.
I just can't accept that Tyson is a top 5 ATG at HW thoguh. I can't even put him in the top 10 but I can just about tolerate that placing.
I also find it hard to accept that Tyson deserves to be ranked higher than Holyfield.
Last edited by Ezzard on 10 Feb 2006, 10:29, edited 1 time in total.
re
With that is very reasonable...and agreeable. But I have a hard time feeling sorry for him. I feel sorry about how some people took advantage of him, but most of the other things he has no one to blame but himself. Like the bankruptcy from 300+ million...that's just makes me mad that someone that rich would still end up broke...which I don't think he is broke, but he certainly does not have 300 million. As to his opponents...his opposition were just as good as anyone holmes fought, it was just as good as that which Lewis face, as good as anything holyfield went against and the same can be said about many others as well, but there are very few who made the impact and just simply destryoed opponents the way that tyson did at his best, which certainly in my eye's makes him an all-time great and which will also make him a first ballot Hall of Famer when the time comes!
re
>>>I just can't accept that Tyson is a top 5 ATG at HW thoguh.<<<
I don't list him top 5 either...I have him at 6. As far as ranking Holyfield higher...I just don't think Holyfield accomplished as much at heavyweight and he certainly did not look nearly as good at heavyweight as compared to when he fought at cruiser. He looked great against Tyson, but both were quite a bit pass their primes. He starched Douglas and thent against Bert Cooper, and two goldie-oldies in Holmes and Foreman and had trouble in all three bouts. He looked good in two fights with the under-achieving Bowe, but other than that holyfield fought a lot like an old man. He had one of the biggest hearts that ever stepped in the ring, but he was not the destroyer-type that captures the public...like the Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Liston and Foreman and although he was well past his prime he had some of the same kind of difficulties against inferior opponents in the same manner that Tyson did at the end. For Tyson it was Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis, Williams and McBride...for Holyfield it was Bowe, Moorer, Lewis, Byrd, Ruiz, Toney and Donald!
I don't list him top 5 either...I have him at 6. As far as ranking Holyfield higher...I just don't think Holyfield accomplished as much at heavyweight and he certainly did not look nearly as good at heavyweight as compared to when he fought at cruiser. He looked great against Tyson, but both were quite a bit pass their primes. He starched Douglas and thent against Bert Cooper, and two goldie-oldies in Holmes and Foreman and had trouble in all three bouts. He looked good in two fights with the under-achieving Bowe, but other than that holyfield fought a lot like an old man. He had one of the biggest hearts that ever stepped in the ring, but he was not the destroyer-type that captures the public...like the Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Liston and Foreman and although he was well past his prime he had some of the same kind of difficulties against inferior opponents in the same manner that Tyson did at the end. For Tyson it was Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis, Williams and McBride...for Holyfield it was Bowe, Moorer, Lewis, Byrd, Ruiz, Toney and Donald!
re
>>>Hahaha Lewis inferior..I thought this was a boxing forum not a comedy one. Lewis in most people top 10 or top15 and you calll him inferior?<<<
You're such a child and now you are really reaching trying to make shit to fit the stupid-ass comments you make. But I see that you now say "top 10, or top 15," whereas it was just top 10, that is before I corrected you, but again I ask you, what actual proof do you have to back the statements that you just cluelessly made? Anything?
The best thing you can do is shut up and move on before I really make you look like an idiot!
You're such a child and now you are really reaching trying to make shit to fit the stupid-ass comments you make. But I see that you now say "top 10, or top 15," whereas it was just top 10, that is before I corrected you, but again I ask you, what actual proof do you have to back the statements that you just cluelessly made? Anything?
The best thing you can do is shut up and move on before I really make you look like an idiot!
Arsenal wrote:Barry I can't believe you think Tyson was getting the better of Holyfield. Have you seen the fight? You are the most bias opinionated person I have ever come across. 'Tyson was getting on top'...are you seriously on this planet?
You watch the fight again. I gave round 1 and the first half of round 3 to Tyson. Dont get thrown away by the crowd cheers cose most of the first round Holy didn't connect at all. All the BIG stuff and combos all missed Tyson's head even if people though that Tyson was in trouble. NOW
Holyfield headbutted threee times.. in the first round he allready bloodyd Tyson's eye. Isn't that an Injury, didn't that deserve something like DQ. And that action continued troughout second and third round. Holy did it in the first fight and now he get's away again. You can poke someone eye out in trying to headbutt with bad intentions.
AND he fouled with grazy holding while Tyson had to put lot of effort to get rid of that 200 hundred pound meat that kept holding like Ruiz.
Holy was a bitch in both fights .. don't you damn right defend him.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
IMO Lewis would win this fight no matter when, where etc etc. Lewis was just too good. I would have loved to have seen it when Lewis was a bit raw circa Razor Ruddock, before Manny took over and before Lewis became a more complete, tactically astute boxer. Why? Because he was less cautious and I think Lewis would have taken him out inside 3 rounds like he did with the dangerous Ruddock who Tyson had trouble with twice.
disagree,
tyson was too fast, skilled, and powerful for the very vunerable lewis.
Re: re
barry wrote:>>>I just can't accept that Tyson is a top 5 ATG at HW thoguh.<<<
I don't list him top 5 either...I have him at 6. As far as ranking Holyfield higher...I just don't think Holyfield accomplished as much at heavyweight and he certainly did not look nearly as good at heavyweight as compared to when he fought at cruiser. He looked great against Tyson, but both were quite a bit pass their primes. He starched Douglas and thent against Bert Cooper, and two goldie-oldies in Holmes and Foreman and had trouble in all three bouts. He looked good in two fights with the under-achieving Bowe, but other than that holyfield fought a lot like an old man. He had one of the biggest hearts that ever stepped in the ring, but he was not the destroyer-type that captures the public...like the Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Liston and Foreman and although he was well past his prime he had some of the same kind of difficulties against inferior opponents in the same manner that Tyson did at the end. For Tyson it was Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis, Williams and McBride...for Holyfield it was Bowe, Moorer, Lewis, Byrd, Ruiz, Toney and Donald!
Tyson at 6!!!.... no way imo... Liston and Foreman had their faults but neither ever stooped to biting their opponents ears off and both Liston and Foreman came up against a certain Ali... I can only imagine how Tyson would react to Ali...