Tyson

[Caractacus]

Howard Cosell and Mike Tyson-the Hype Be-Gins !
-June 1984-

[littlepug]

Tyson was a bloody good fighter, no real marquee wins but a bunch of impressive wins over good/decent opposition, however the mental side of his game was weak and he wasn’t great when up against it, that being said I wouldn’t argue him being in the top 10 of all time heavies.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Top 3 is way too high. You are only looking at good points and overrating it at that. He beat WBS Champions. Good fighters, none were close to being the best in the world. Beating Olympic Champions means next to nothing. Yes he stopped an ancient Larry Holmes. you can't count that and then ignore the McBride fight. (I ignore both)
he managed to lose to Buster Douglas.

He isn't close to Ali and Louis.
Ranking Holyfield #3 is a reach and Tyson was clearly not as good as him. Don't see how he can be higher than Holmes, Frazier, Lewis etc. either.

Again, you have to weigh the good against the bad.

I dont see how you ignore holmes considering holmes fought damn well against prime holyfield 4 years later

Was he at his best? No way
But he wasnt totally shot by any stretch and tyson dominated

[Ambling Alp II]

Holmes was 37 and had not fought for almost two years, and took the fight on short notice against Tyson.

True, he was even older when he fought Holyfield and went the distance. However, Holmes was fighting regularly at the time and had just fought Mercer four months earlier. He was better against Holyfield. Certainly not saying Holyfield looked great in that fight. He should not get credit for that win either.

If you are going to count the Holmes for Tyson, than you have to count the McBride fight as well, which nobody does.

[Jakub079]

After all, he could have lost 10 fights in a row against McBride, what does that have to do with his victories in the 1980s? The more times he loses, the more important he loses? When Holmes fought regularly, he couldn't finish Berbick, Carl Williams, Michael Spinks, with the last two fights being close to a draw, and he had 60 full rounds or 3 hours of fighting. Tyson needed about 8 minutes on all of them. You really don't see the difference between Tyson and the rest?

[Ambling Alp II]

My point about McBride (or Danny Williams for that matter) is that Tyson was clearly well past it by then and those fights don't mean much. Same with Tyson's win over Holmes. Or Holmes win over Ali. Or Marciano's over louis etc.

Tyson should get credit for the wins you mentioned as well as others. They weren't great opponents, but they were good and Tyson beat them easily. They should count in his favor. However other guys (like Holmes himself) had wins like this as well. You have to weigh these wins against losses/bad performances. He was not impressive against James Tillis. Or Bonecrusher Smith. He had too much trouble against Tucker who hurt his hand. Of course, the Douglas loss. He didn't look terrible in the first Holyfield fight, but it showed that Holyfield was better and cast doubt if Tyson could actually beat a great fighter anywhere near his prime, which he never did.

Tyson certainly had most moments. But not enough to rank him close to the Top 3 of all time.

[Jakub079]

I still can't understand what McBride has against Holmes. If McBride wasn't there, would the fight with Holmes count differently? can you explain it to me?
Why are you discrediting the Tyson-Holmes fight? Larry was 38 years old, he hadn't fought for almost 2 years, but as he himself claimed before the fight, the break was good for him and he felt fresher, more ready. Of course, today it is said that this break was harmful to him and that Holmes would have destroyed Tyson without it. I wonder if he would have destroyed it... like Spinks or like Williams? or maybe like Berbick? when he was young and fought regularly...
4 years later Holmes gave a good fight to Prime Holyfield and beat Mercer much more clearly than Prime Lewis. So let's not exaggerate with age.
Now Holyfield-Tyson. When Mike went out to Evander he had 4 fights in 5 years, none of them went beyond the 3rd round, the only rival who really fought him was a bum named Peter McNelley and it lasted about one minute. Bruno fought for survival, Mathis also only defended himself and Seldon withdrew as soon as he had the opportunity, did you watch these fights? If you say Holmes had rust on him before Tyson, what did Tyson have before Holy? in the 1980s Tyson was 37-0, including 10-0 in belt fights, in the 1990s he was 8-3 and 2-3 in belt fights. After leaving prison, Tyson looked physically good, but look how many warnings and scandals he had in the ring, wringing hands, biting, hitting the gong, attacking the referee and attacking his opponent. See how his mentality and cardio have changed. I'm leaving aside the techniques when he became a one-armed warrior without the combinations that were necessary for class rivals. There's a lot of it

[Controversial]

Now Holyfield-Tyson. When Mike went out to Evander he had 4 fights in 5 years

To be fair Holyfield looked past it coming into the first Tyson fight. I remember people being concerned for his health, lots thought he'd lose. Holyfield lost to Moorer and retired afterwards with a “heart condition” only to return a year later and get stopped by Bowe. He then looked pretty average against blown up LHW Bobby Czyz so going into the Tyson fight he looked like a fighter on the decline. But saying that Tyson was never really the same fighter after being out the ring for 4 years and I think he'd always struggle against Holyfield.

[Jakub079]

Ok but its only appearances. the fight with Czyz was a good test for Tyson. the fight with Seldon was what it was for Tyson. ? I think that Holy could be what Norton was to Ali, but I don't see a moment when he was at the same level as Tyson 1986-1988. He just wasn't there. Likewise, Norton was always a little lower than prime Ali even if he had his way with him.

[Controversial]

Ok but its only appearances. the fight with Czyz was a good test for Tyson. the fight with Seldon was what it was for Tyson. ? I think that Holy could be what Norton was to Ali, but I don't see a moment when he was at the same level as Tyson 1986-1988. He just wasn't there. Likewise, Norton was always a little lower than prime Ali even if he had his way with him.

You mean Czyz was a good test for Holyfield? Not really, Czyz was really a light HW and Holyfield didn’t look great against him and this was the fight before fighting Tyson for the first time. That combined with being stopped by Bowe and losing to Moorer meant lots of people assumed Holyfield was past it.

[margaret thatcher]

the great kev mcbride

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Holmes was 37 and had not fought for almost two years, and took the fight on short notice against Tyson.

True, he was even older when he fought Holyfield and went the distance. However, Holmes was fighting regularly at the time and had just fought Mercer four months earlier. He was better against Holyfield. Certainly not saying Holyfield looked great in that fight. He should not get credit for that win either.

If you are going to count the Holmes for Tyson, than you have to count the McBride fight as well, which nobody does.

- Now, Alpsy, there you go again!!!'

Holmes had built his own gym on his farm residence so he could train for Tyson. He'd been in public attendance at every title fight for a year being interviews slurring Mike, saying he was ducking Lar, what a lousy fighter he was, often cursing him when not belittling him. Mike was busy unifying the titles and grabbing the Ring with his Spinks blowout, you know, the Spinks who made Tubby Lar drop Rocky's jockstrap on his big stupid feets, tripping him up badly.

So Mike crucified Lar so bad he retired again and only came back after Big George started breaking the bank, but nobody wanted to watch an ol' single belt holder, so finally he had an ol'timers tourney with Weaver and Bonecrusher that we all laughed at. Humiliated, he resorted to slurring 4 rounder Butterbean who was making more than Tubby Lar who hadn't been skinny in a looooong time. He had to run from 335lb Bean who had never been more than 4 rds. Bean began mocking him, laughing, and having a grand time. Last seconds of the last rd, Lar finally comes into fight, so Bean smacks him to the canvas. Shocked, shamed, and humiliated, Lar rises to turn his back to the ref while using the ropes to stay upright as he flees to the opposite corner, a clear TKO or DQ, dependent on the ref who was about a low on the totem pole of refs that could be had then. Lucky Lar got his gift to finally retire as a surly squeak mouse...yeah...

[Controversial]

My point about McBride (or Danny Williams for that matter) is that Tyson was clearly well past it by then and those fights don't mean much. Same with Tyson's win over Holmes. Or Holmes win over Ali. Or Marciano's over louis etc.

Holmes wasn't shot when he fought Tyson, shot fighters don't get better the more they fight. You can say Holmes wasn't as good as he used to be, or a bit ring rusty, but not shot. You can't compare Holmes to the version of Tyson that lost to McBride or Williams, totally different versions of each other. Shot fighters normally lose their ability to take a punch.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

I havent watched that fight in years. Did mcbride win any rounds or did tyson just quit?

I remember danny w. Beating tyson clearly but not mcbride

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

My point about McBride (or Danny Williams for that matter) is that Tyson was clearly well past it by then and those fights don't mean much. Same with Tyson's win over Holmes. Or Holmes win over Ali. Or Marciano's over louis etc.

Holmes wasn't shot when he fought Tyson, shot fighters don't get better the more they fight. You can say Holmes wasn't as good as he used to be, or a bit ring rusty, but not shot. You can't compare Holmes to the version of Tyson that lost to McBride or Williams, totally different versions of each other. Shot fighters normally lose their ability to take a punch.

That was my point too. A world class fighter who is now so bad he cant beat a journeyman is shot

Tyson beat an old holmes, but still world class fighter. Mcbride beat a totally shot tyson - mcbride was a journeyman level fighter

[margaret thatcher]

mike won the first 4 vs mcbride, lost the 5th, then down in the 6th and quits between rounds. he was on a downward spiral and faded way beyond what holmes was when larry fought tyson, alpy smoked too much for 4/20

[Ambling Alp II]

My point about McBride (or Danny Williams for that matter) is that Tyson was clearly well past it by then and those fights don't mean much. Same with Tyson's win over Holmes. Or Holmes win over Ali. Or Marciano's over louis etc.

Holmes wasn't shot when he fought Tyson, shot fighters don't get better the more they fight. You can say Holmes wasn't as good as he used to be, or a bit ring rusty, but not shot. You can't compare Holmes to the version of Tyson that lost to McBride or Williams, totally different versions of each other. Shot fighters normally lose their ability to take a punch.

Holmes was way past it as I explain earlier. Alot of guys could have beaten him that night. He took the fight on short notice and was very rusty. You have to be very desperate to pump up Tyson if you think that was a big deal.

[Controversial]

My point about McBride (or Danny Williams for that matter) is that Tyson was clearly well past it by then and those fights don't mean much. Same with Tyson's win over Holmes. Or Holmes win over Ali. Or Marciano's over louis etc.

Holmes wasn't shot when he fought Tyson, shot fighters don't get better the more they fight. You can say Holmes wasn't as good as he used to be, or a bit ring rusty, but not shot. You can't compare Holmes to the version of Tyson that lost to McBride or Williams, totally different versions of each other. Shot fighters normally lose their ability to take a punch.

Holmes was way past it as I explain earlier. Alot of guys could have beaten him that night. He took the fight on short notice and was very rusty. You have to be very desperate to pump up Tyson if you think that was a big deal.

He wasn't way past it or shot. Was he as good as he used to be, no, but he was still a decent fighter as he proved years later. You are comparing that Holmes to the version of Tyson that was getting knocked out by nobodies, completely different fighters. A well past it fighter doesn't take the unbeaten HW champ the distance 4 years later or beat unbeaten prospects. Holmes didn't take the fight at short notice either, Holmes was interviewed three months before they fought at the Tyson vs Biggs fight (October 1987) and Holmes spoke about fighting Tyson in January 1988. King was with Holmes and said he watched him box 15 rounds in training and how great he looked, it's a myth it was last minute.

[Caractacus]

-July 1984-

[Cojimar 1946]

Not really defending him.

Resume is solid, won titles, was exciting and skilled and would pulverise everything after Lennox Lewis's era.

Not the greatest or anything but a great fighter who fought decent men, was undisputed champ and lost some. That is it, really.

We can disagree, which is fine.

I think favoring Tyson over Wlad, Fury etc is based on nostalgia.. who did he beat as talented as either? He also never faced anyone as big as Fury. How would he land effectively?

[Cojimar 1946]

I still can't understand what McBride has against Holmes. If McBride wasn't there, would the fight with Holmes count differently? can you explain it to me?
Why are you discrediting the Tyson-Holmes fight? Larry was 38 years old, he hadn't fought for almost 2 years, but as he himself claimed before the fight, the break was good for him and he felt fresher, more ready. Of course, today it is said that this break was harmful to him and that Holmes would have destroyed Tyson without it. I wonder if he would have destroyed it... like Spinks or like Williams? or maybe like Berbick? when he was young and fought regularly...
4 years later Holmes gave a good fight to Prime Holyfield and beat Mercer much more clearly than Prime Lewis. So let's not exaggerate with age.
Now Holyfield-Tyson. When Mike went out to Evander he had 4 fights in 5 years, none of them went beyond the 3rd round, the only rival who really fought him was a bum named Peter McNelley and it lasted about one minute. Bruno fought for survival, Mathis also only defended himself and Seldon withdrew as soon as he had the opportunity, did you watch these fights? If you say Holmes had rust on him before Tyson, what did Tyson have before Holy? in the 1980s Tyson was 37-0, including 10-0 in belt fights, in the 1990s he was 8-3 and 2-3 in belt fights. After leaving prison, Tyson looked physically good, but look how many warnings and scandals he had in the ring, wringing hands, biting, hitting the gong, attacking the referee and attacking his opponent. See how his mentality and cardio have changed. I'm leaving aside the techniques when he became a one-armed warrior without the combinations that were necessary for class rivals. There's a lot of it

The Holmes fight is not seen as a big deal because plenty of guys would have beaten the 1988 Holmes. Nobody would have expected Holmes to win in the first place given his age.

And subsequently beating Ray Mercer hardly proves he had a lot left given Mercer lost to Jesse Ferguson and drew with Marion Wilson.

[Caractacus]

[Ambling Alp II]

Holmes wasn't shot when he fought Tyson, shot fighters don't get better the more they fight. You can say Holmes wasn't as good as he used to be, or a bit ring rusty, but not shot. You can't compare Holmes to the version of Tyson that lost to McBride or Williams, totally different versions of each other. Shot fighters normally lose their ability to take a punch.

Holmes was way past it as I explain earlier. Alot of guys could have beaten him that night. He took the fight on short notice and was very rusty. You have to be very desperate to pump up Tyson if you think that was a big deal.

He wasn't way past it or shot. Was he as good as he used to be, no, but he was still a decent fighter as he proved years later. You are comparing that Holmes to the version of Tyson that was getting knocked out by nobodies, completely different fighters. A well past it fighter doesn't take the unbeaten HW champ the distance 4 years later or beat unbeaten prospects. Holmes didn't take the fight at short notice either, Holmes was interviewed three months before they fought at the Tyson vs Biggs fight (October 1987) and Holmes spoke about fighting Tyson in January 1988. King was with Holmes and said he watched him box 15 rounds in training and how great he looked, it's a myth it was last minute.

When I say way past it, I mean way best his own prime.
Holmes a "decent fighter" at the time that he fought Tyson. Fair enough.

[Controversial]

The Holmes fight is not seen as a big deal because plenty of guys would have beaten the 1988 Holmes. Nobody would have expected Holmes to win in the first place given his age.

And subsequently beating Ray Mercer hardly proves he had a lot left given Mercer lost to Jesse Ferguson and drew with Marion Wilson.

I'm not sure how anyone can say plenty of people would have beaten Holmes in 1988. Tyson was at his peak and was like nothing Holmes had faced before, short, fast and powerful. He just blew Holmes away, that doesn't mean Holmes was incapable of beating others.

Also he fought Mercer in 1992 when Mercer was unbeaten, coming off the knockout of Tommy Morrison, he hadn't fought Ferguson or Wilson then but even if he did lots of fighters have occasional bad results, that doesn't mean they are useless.

[Controversial]

Holmes was way past it as I explain earlier. Alot of guys could have beaten him that night. He took the fight on short notice and was very rusty. You have to be very desperate to pump up Tyson if you think that was a big deal.

He wasn't way past it or shot. Was he as good as he used to be, no, but he was still a decent fighter as he proved years later. You are comparing that Holmes to the version of Tyson that was getting knocked out by nobodies, completely different fighters. A well past it fighter doesn't take the unbeaten HW champ the distance 4 years later or beat unbeaten prospects. Holmes didn't take the fight at short notice either, Holmes was interviewed three months before they fought at the Tyson vs Biggs fight (October 1987) and Holmes spoke about fighting Tyson in January 1988. King was with Holmes and said he watched him box 15 rounds in training and how great he looked, it's a myth it was last minute.

When I say way past it, I mean way best his own prime.
Holmes a "decent fighter" at the time that he fought Tyson. Fair enough.

Yep but still incomparable to the past it Tyson who was getting knocked out by McBride etc. We can say this about lots of fighters though, especially ones in their late 30s.