TYSON Greatest Fighting Machine To Have Ever Lived

[foxdog1923]

Mike Tyson at the age of 20 was the the greatest fighting machine ever lived. So the greatest fighting machine only lived for a year IMO cos after that he was slowly diminishing in his attributes except power which he still has to this day.

Tyson was a thugster and Kevin Rooney wasn't cool enough for Mike. So just like Mikes financial decisions, he decides Rooneys got nothing else to teach him and that he'd be fine without him.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Henry Armstrong. The end.

[jamesmcdonnell]

What a refreshing thread. Amazed no one has ever done it before. Maybe later on someone will point out how mikes career would have unfolded "if cus had lived". That would be an eye opening topic that often gets overlooked by Tyson fans.

Mike was responsible for his own career... He lost to Buster Douglas, Evander Holyfield (twice), and Lennox Lewis - nobody else. They were all older than Mike... but they were all bigger, taller, stronger, and more skilled than him.

So he beat Peter McNeeley and Danny Williams did he? Admittedly he was well past his prime, but he still has those two losses.

[Syntax Error]

Henry Armstrong. The end.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Henry Armstrong. The end.

http://boxrec.com/boxer/9018

Look at his record in his prime, unbelievable, 20 defences at welterweight, 19 stoppages. The most incredible record in boxing in my opinion.

[Chepppaaa]

Henry Armstrong. The end.

you know that armstrong was always open, going into exchanges head first, being totaly open for attacks. hearns, valero, pacquiao would have crushed him.

[dberry]

It's not Roy it's Tyson! Nobody in the history of the sport beats Prime Tyson! Too much skill, defense, offense, power, etc.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2RxpsS639I

Buster Douglas and Evander Holyfield beg to differ, and don't tell me Mike Tyson was past prime that early, it's funny his "prime" seams to ebb when his level of opposition is stepped up.

[Syntax Error]

It's not Roy it's Tyson! Nobody in the history of the sport beats Prime Tyson! Too much skill, defense, offense, power, etc.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2RxpsS639I

Buster Douglas and Evander Holyfield beg to differ, and don't tell me Mike Tyson was past prime that early, it's funny his "prime" seams to ebb when his level of opposition is stepped up.

That's true.

Tyson was a 42-1 favourite going in against Douglas & this despite all the goings on in '89 & his performance against Bruno etc, yet as soon as he loses, he's past his prime?

OK, I accept he wasn't doing the basics anymore; the stuff that made him the fighter he was, but that's nothing to do with being past his prime: that was purely down to being a lazy twit & believing his own hype & finally going up against someone who not only was not afraid, but was prepared to fight back.

[Kalan]

Holyfield headbutts Tyson; Tyson ... bites him, but which one will cry to the referee & try to get out of the fight?

Tyson deliberately fouled out.. How many referee's let you CONTINUE a fight after you BITE off a piece of your opponent's ear??? When Mills Lane allowed the fight to continue I LMAO - because WHO would allow a fight to continue after that??? Tyson was determined to foul out so he munched on Evander's other ear.. Mills Lane belatedly DQ'd Tyson at that point.. Is he going to take another point ... and wait for Tyson to bite Evander's NOSE OFF???

[Badhusker]

Henry Armstrong. The end.

you know that armstrong was always open, going into exchanges head first, being totaly open for attacks. hearns, valero, pacquiao would have crushed him.

Better get Kalan's opinion on Armstrong. He was probably ringside like he was for many of Robinson's fights.

[Kalan]

armstrong was always open, going into exchanges head first, being totaly open for attacks. hearns, valero, pacquiao would have crushed him.

I agree. Armstrong lost 10 fights in his first 10 years as a pro. Eventually he found a style that worked for him. He pushed and shoved with his head, shoulder, and arms to get leverage and attacked steadily. He was allowed to foul 15 times a minute in some cases. The referees of the day allowed these types of fights because promoters wanted action fights. This permissive refereeing style has been carried forward with a lot of holding, wrestling, pushing, illegal head use and other fouling tactics that mar boxing matches today in the West.

This lax attitude has infected our amateur programs and America don't medals anymore because there's not an emphasis on fundamental boxing skills. You hear trainers shout "tie him up" or "push him back" and "put a head on this guy" and "we need to take it to the streets." ... A lot of international fighters like Golovkin, Kovalev, Lomachenko, Ortiz, and Joshua, you notice they don't repeatedly hold, grab, wrestle, push, brawl, and foul. They're clean fighters who work steadily on mastering the fundamentals: stance, footwork, jab, right hand, left hook, uppercuts, combinations, body punching, feinting, defense, and strategy. They don't engage in ring wars in the gym for fun. They're there for learning and advancing their fundamental skills. They try to be better every day rather than try to be rough and tough and swagger around and brag about how good they are. People say Boxing isn't a game you play. But it is. You master the skills. You follow the rules. You win the game.

[Butterbean]

Henry Armstrong. The end.

http://boxrec.com/boxer/9018

Look at his record in his prime, unbelievable, 20 defences at welterweight, 19 stoppages. The most incredible record in boxing in my opinion.

thats about to. e matched !

[jamesmcdonnell]

Henry Armstrong. The end.

http://boxrec.com/boxer/9018

Look at his record in his prime, unbelievable, 20 defences at welterweight, 19 stoppages. The most incredible record in boxing in my opinion.

thats about to. e matched !

Yes, that could well be true.

[Chepppaaa]

armstrong was always open, going into exchanges head first, being totaly open for attacks. hearns, valero, pacquiao would have crushed him.

I agree. Armstrong lost 10 fights in his first 10 years as a pro. Eventually he found a style that worked for him. He pushed and shoved with his head, shoulder, and arms to get leverage and attacked steadily. He was allowed to foul 15 times a minute in some cases. The referees of the day allowed these types of fights because promoters wanted action fights. This permissive refereeing style has been carried forward with a lot of holding, wrestling, pushing, illegal head use and other fouling tactics that mar boxing matches today in the West.

This lax attitude has infected our amateur programs and America don't medals anymore because there's not an emphasis on fundamental boxing skills. You hear trainers shout "tie him up" or "push him back" and "put a head on this guy" and "we need to take it to the streets." ... A lot of international fighters like Golovkin, Kovalev, Lomachenko, Ortiz, and Joshua, you notice they don't repeatedly hold, grab, wrestle, push, brawl, and foul. They're clean fighters who work steadily on mastering the fundamentals: stance, footwork, jab, right hand, left hook, uppercuts, combinations, body punching, feinting, defense, and strategy. They don't engage in ring wars in the gym for fun. They're there for learning and advancing their fundamental skills. They try to be better every day rather than try to be rough and tough and swagger around and brag about how good they are. People say Boxing isn't a game you play. But it is. You master the skills. You follow the rules. You win the game.

good post, made sense.

[Othro]

Henry Armstrong. The end.

you know that armstrong was always open, going into exchanges head first, being totaly open for attacks. hearns, valero, pacquiao would have crushed him.

You know a few years back when I used to post on the regular they used to say the current scene had gone to sh1t . Edwin Valero would have crushed one Henry Armstrong is an amazing statement . I'm gonna go do some hard drugs and think about life.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Henry Armstrong. The end.

you know that armstrong was always open, going into exchanges head first, being totaly open for attacks. hearns, valero, pacquiao would have crushed him.

You know a few years back when I used to post on the regular they used to say the current scene had gone to sh1t . Edwin Valero would have crushed one Henry Armstrong is an amazing statement . I'm gonna go do some hard drugs and think about life.

I chose to not even bother responding.

A young Ray Robinson didn't stop him, yet Valero would have crushed him.....oh deary me.

[Chepppaaa]

Henry Armstrong. The end.

you know that armstrong was always open, going into exchanges head first, being totaly open for attacks. hearns, valero, pacquiao would have crushed him.

You know a few years back when I used to post on the regular they used to say the current scene had gone to sh1t . Edwin Valero would have crushed one Henry Armstrong is an amazing statement . I'm gonna go do some hard drugs and think about life.

did armstrong go inside without much defence, with head first or not?

would a a+ puncher like valero or prime pacquiao take the chance to land bombs, when you go in exchange head first, yes or no?

would these punches put damage on armstrong?

[jamesmcdonnell]

you know that armstrong was always open, going into exchanges head first, being totaly open for attacks. hearns, valero, pacquiao would have crushed him.

You know a few years back when I used to post on the regular they used to say the current scene had gone to sh1t . Edwin Valero would have crushed one Henry Armstrong is an amazing statement . I'm gonna go do some hard drugs and think about life.

did armstrong go inside without much defence, with head first or not?

would a a+ puncher like valero or prime pacquiao take the chance to land bombs, when you go in exchange head first, yes or no?

would these punches put damage on armstrong?

You honestly think a guy that had no defence would possibly have compiled a record like that? Wake up.

[Chepppaaa]

You know a few years back when I used to post on the regular they used to say the current scene had gone to sh1t . Edwin Valero would have crushed one Henry Armstrong is an amazing statement . I'm gonna go do some hard drugs and think about life.

did armstrong go inside without much defence, with head first or not?

would a a+ puncher like valero or prime pacquiao take the chance to land bombs, when you go in exchange head first, yes or no?

would these punches put damage on armstrong?

You honestly think a guy that had no defence would possibly have compiled a record like that? Wake up.

what kind of record? a record with 21 losses and 9 draws, a record with 70 % of the opponents paid sparring partners with 11-25-8 records or worse?

[jamesmcdonnell]

did armstrong go inside without much defence, with head first or not?

would a a+ puncher like valero or prime pacquiao take the chance to land bombs, when you go in exchange head first, yes or no?

would these punches put damage on armstrong?

You honestly think a guy that had no defence would possibly have compiled a record like that? Wake up.

what kind of record? a record with 21 losses and 9 draws, a record with 70 % of the opponents paid sparring partners with 11-25-8 records or worse?

Armstrong fought against the best of his era, everyone had loads of shite opponents on their records back then, because they had to fight all the time to make any money.

Read fight reports by columnists at the time of Armstrong's career, or read well respected boxing pundits, and they will all say the same, that Armstrong was a remarkable fighting man. Armstrong used to fight twice a month, sometimes more often, and would have had to have taken opponents at short notice on a regular basis.

Doug fischer - one of the younger pundits who is regularly on a lot of the 24/7 shows, had Armstrong ahead of Robinson as the greatest fighter who ever lived, and pretty much anyone in the business will have him top 10 all time. But you are entitled to your opinion, however deluded.

The talent pool of boxing overall, was way bigger in Armstrong's era than it is now, and that, more than anything is what produces outstanding competitors. Modern day fighters have it way way easier. Longer training camps,. more time to prepare, picking and choosing their competition.

[Chepppaaa]

You honestly think a guy that had no defence would possibly have compiled a record like that? Wake up.

what kind of record? a record with 21 losses and 9 draws, a record with 70 % of the opponents paid sparring partners with 11-25-8 records or worse?

Armstrong fought against the best of his era, everyone had loads of shite opponents on their records back then, because they had to fight all the time to make any money.

Read fight reports by columnists at the time of Armstrong's career, or read well respected boxing pundits, and they will all say the same, that Armstrong was a remarkable fighting man. Armstrong used to fight twice a month, sometimes more often, and would have had to have taken opponents at short notice on a regular basis.

Doug fischer - one of the younger pundits who is regularly on a lot of the 24/7 shows, had Armstrong ahead of Robinson as the greatest fighter who ever lived, and pretty much anyone in the business will have him top 10 all time. But you are entitled to your opinion, however deluded.

The talent pool of boxing overall, was way bigger in Armstrong's era than it is now, and that, more than anything is what produces outstanding competitors. Modern day fighters have it way way easier. Longer training camps,. more time to prepare, picking and choosing their competition.

exactly, so armstrongs record would be around 60-70 fights, similar to jones or hopkins record. leaving all the shyte opponent cause of money aside.

the thing is this. yes armstrong is a very good boxer. but please, if you want me to take you seriously, than dont hide yourself behind doug or any other journalist.

i am a boxing expert, i dont need 100 of so called experts to teach me boxing, are you an expert, if yes, than think about what would happen to any boxer who would come into an exchange with his head wide open and starting to brawl. that wouldnt go well with hard punchers, thats why most elite boxers like pernell, roy, floyd, leonard stand in position, duck under or move sideways, simply protect the head, they rarely moved into exchanges with the head open or goin in head first. if leonard had done that with hearns or hagler he would ve gotten put to sleep. and if u dont beieve me go to youttube watch armstrong fights and watch how he goes into it, slugging, no defence, just head first, some hooks.

[jamesmcdonnell]

what kind of record? a record with 21 losses and 9 draws, a record with 70 % of the opponents paid sparring partners with 11-25-8 records or worse?

Armstrong fought against the best of his era, everyone had loads of shite opponents on their records back then, because they had to fight all the time to make any money.

Read fight reports by columnists at the time of Armstrong's career, or read well respected boxing pundits, and they will all say the same, that Armstrong was a remarkable fighting man. Armstrong used to fight twice a month, sometimes more often, and would have had to have taken opponents at short notice on a regular basis.

Doug fischer - one of the younger pundits who is regularly on a lot of the 24/7 shows, had Armstrong ahead of Robinson as the greatest fighter who ever lived, and pretty much anyone in the business will have him top 10 all time. But you are entitled to your opinion, however deluded.

The talent pool of boxing overall, was way bigger in Armstrong's era than it is now, and that, more than anything is what produces outstanding competitors. Modern day fighters have it way way easier. Longer training camps,. more time to prepare, picking and choosing their competition.

exactly, so armstrongs record would be around 60-70 fights, similar to jones or hopkins record. leaving all the shyte opponent cause of money aside.

the thing is this. yes armstrong is a very good boxer. but please, if you want me to take you seriously, than dont hide yourself behind doug or any other journalist.

i am a boxing expert, i dont need 100 of so called experts to teach me boxing, are you an expert, if yes, than think about what would happen to any boxer who would come into an exchange with his head wide open and starting to brawl. that wouldnt go well with hard punchers, thats why most elite boxers like pernell, roy, floyd, leonard stand in position, duck under or move sideways, simply protect the head, they rarely moved into exchanges with the head open or goin in head first. if leonard had done that with hearns or hagler he would ve gotten put to sleep.

You are no boxing expert mate. who told you that? Over the years I put in many thousands of hours of research into boxing, watching and reading about fighters of the past, watching and reading about fighters of my own era.

I suggest you do the same rather than just make assumptions based on a totally bald reading of someone's fight stats. Half of the records on the old timers records aren't even complete, a lot of their opponents records weren't well kept, and in the real world it's not as simple as it looks. If you can't see how good Armstrong was, or how amazing his record is, then you really don't know a 10th of what you think you know.

If Jones had had to fight 5-6 times a month, he'd have had many more losses, so would Mayweather, so would anyone fighting in that era. These guys fought with constant injuries, at short notice against unknown opponents. It was a much tougher sport.

The majority of Armstrong's losses came early in his career and late on, same with SRR.

Armstrong had an all action style, that doesn't mean he had zero defence. He was so successful because he was able to fight and an unbelievable pace round after round, was tough, and could hit, he had every punch in the book too, and was tough to dissuade. You don't have to be a defensive wizard to be a great fighter.

Bear in mind that fighters of the past had to put on exciting shows, they couldn't really afford dull fights as nobody wanted to watch them.

[Chepppaaa]

Armstrong fought against the best of his era, everyone had loads of shite opponents on their records back then, because they had to fight all the time to make any money.

Read fight reports by columnists at the time of Armstrong's career, or read well respected boxing pundits, and they will all say the same, that Armstrong was a remarkable fighting man. Armstrong used to fight twice a month, sometimes more often, and would have had to have taken opponents at short notice on a regular basis.

Doug fischer - one of the younger pundits who is regularly on a lot of the 24/7 shows, had Armstrong ahead of Robinson as the greatest fighter who ever lived, and pretty much anyone in the business will have him top 10 all time. But you are entitled to your opinion, however deluded.

The talent pool of boxing overall, was way bigger in Armstrong's era than it is now, and that, more than anything is what produces outstanding competitors. Modern day fighters have it way way easier. Longer training camps,. more time to prepare, picking and choosing their competition.

exactly, so armstrongs record would be around 60-70 fights, similar to jones or hopkins record. leaving all the shyte opponent cause of money aside.

the thing is this. yes armstrong is a very good boxer. but please, if you want me to take you seriously, than dont hide yourself behind doug or any other journalist.

i am a boxing expert, i dont need 100 of so called experts to teach me boxing, are you an expert, if yes, than think about what would happen to any boxer who would come into an exchange with his head wide open and starting to brawl. that wouldnt go well with hard punchers, thats why most elite boxers like pernell, roy, floyd, leonard stand in position, duck under or move sideways, simply protect the head, they rarely moved into exchanges with the head open or goin in head first. if leonard had done that with hearns or hagler he would ve gotten put to sleep.

You are no boxing expert mate. who told you that? Over the years I put in many thousands of hours of research into boxing, watching and reading about fighters of the past, watching and reading about fighters of my own era.

I suggest you do the same rather than just make assumptions based on a totally bald reading of someone's fight stats. Half of the records on the old timers records aren't even complete, a lot of their opponents records weren't well kept, and in the real world it's not as simple as it looks. If you can't see how good Armstrong was, or how amazing his record is, then you really don't know a 10th of what you think you know.

If Jones had had to fight 5-6 times a month, he'd have had many more losses, so would Mayweather, so would anyone fighting in that era. These guys fought with constant injuries, at short notice against unknown opponents. It was a much tougher sport.

The majority of Armstrong's losses came early in his career and late on, same with SRR.

Armstrong had an all action style, that doesn't mean he had zero defence. He was so successful because he was able to fight and an unbelievable pace round after round, was tough, and could hit, he had every punch in the book too, and was tough to dissuade. You don't have to be a defensive wizard to be a great fighter.

Bear in mind that fighters of the past had to put on exciting shows, they couldn't really afford dull fights as nobody wanted to watch them.

i am not taking away that he was no good, he was real good. but beatable by todays standards, cause of the reasons i wrote down.

[jas80s]

I have to say, after reading this discussion, I wanted to watch a little of Henry Armstrong again as, somewhat paradoxically, he is one of my favorite fighters. But, truth be told, while I greatly admire fighters of the past, I don't watch a ton of old fights, maybe I am just too used to our HD world and I have a hard time with the grainy images...

Anyway, here is what I saw in his fight with Barney Ross at 147 pounds. Incidentally, Armstrong gave away 8 and a half pounds to Ross in the fight. Like many great inside fighters, his defense was actually quite good, but it was subtle. He was crouched down, had his chin tucked behind his left shoulder, he moved his head repeatedly, and he had his right glove tucked in under his chin to guard against uppercuts. Ross was a hall of famer and an accurate puncher and he missed most of his punches. Armstrong crowded you to prevent you from jabbing, he stayed low to guard against crosses, and he employed a crab defense to guard against uppercuts, and he repeatedly ducked under left hooks. Was he hittable? Sure somewhat, so was Hagler at times, and he was every bit as hard to hit (harder if you ask me) than Manny Pacquiao, for example. But, he didn't make it easy by any stretch and he did so as part of his overall plan of pushing a pace he knew his opponents could not sustain for long fights. I'm no expert, but I have to say, I was actually pretty impressed by the defensive technique of a guy who was a devastating offensive fighter.

[jamesmcdonnell]

exactly, so armstrongs record would be around 60-70 fights, similar to jones or hopkins record. leaving all the shyte opponent cause of money aside.

the thing is this. yes armstrong is a very good boxer. but please, if you want me to take you seriously, than dont hide yourself behind doug or any other journalist.

i am a boxing expert, i dont need 100 of so called experts to teach me boxing, are you an expert, if yes, than think about what would happen to any boxer who would come into an exchange with his head wide open and starting to brawl. that wouldnt go well with hard punchers, thats why most elite boxers like pernell, roy, floyd, leonard stand in position, duck under or move sideways, simply protect the head, they rarely moved into exchanges with the head open or goin in head first. if leonard had done that with hearns or hagler he would ve gotten put to sleep.

You are no boxing expert mate. who told you that? Over the years I put in many thousands of hours of research into boxing, watching and reading about fighters of the past, watching and reading about fighters of my own era.

I suggest you do the same rather than just make assumptions based on a totally bald reading of someone's fight stats. Half of the records on the old timers records aren't even complete, a lot of their opponents records weren't well kept, and in the real world it's not as simple as it looks. If you can't see how good Armstrong was, or how amazing his record is, then you really don't know a 10th of what you think you know.

If Jones had had to fight 5-6 times a month, he'd have had many more losses, so would Mayweather, so would anyone fighting in that era. These guys fought with constant injuries, at short notice against unknown opponents. It was a much tougher sport.

The majority of Armstrong's losses came early in his career and late on, same with SRR.

Armstrong had an all action style, that doesn't mean he had zero defence. He was so successful because he was able to fight and an unbelievable pace round after round, was tough, and could hit, he had every punch in the book too, and was tough to dissuade. You don't have to be a defensive wizard to be a great fighter.

Bear in mind that fighters of the past had to put on exciting shows, they couldn't really afford dull fights as nobody wanted to watch them.

i am not taking away that he was no good, he was real good. but beatable by todays standards, cause of the reasons i wrote down.

Everyone is beatable, your statement means nothing.

Armstrong fought in an era crammed with talent under very difficult conditions. He wasn't some Olympic golden boy with a multi million contract when he turned pro.

He'd have risen to the top in any era, sure, might have lost a few with his style, but so what? Having an unbeaten record is one of the most overrated things people focus on.