Tyson

[apollo creed]

But Tua didn't fight either of them, that's just speculation. I'm dealing in cold hard facts. Tyson beat two hall of famer and he didn't just beat them, he obliterated them.

Tua went 12 rds with Lennox, Mike was KO'ed by Lennox. Tua was so hard to be beaten. He was like a freight train. I have no doubt that 90's Tua would give to any version of Mike a very hard fight.

Tyson was way past his best when he fought Lewis, he must've been 36/37. Tua was in his prime years when he fought him. Tua didn't have that many good wins either, his best was his quick KO of Moorer. Other than that he beat Ruiz and Rahman (they fought to a draw in the rematch) so his record wasn't that great.

If you look at Tua's fights when he lost, his opponents put a big effort to beat him. He was no cakewalk by any means. Its very hard to beat an iron chained strong warrior like Tua. Stylistically wise Tua vs Tyson would be a great match but between these two guys, Mike had a softer chin. Mike would be in a tough fight. Ike and Foreman of the 90's would be tough fights for Mike too.

[Controversial]

Tua went 12 rds with Lennox, Mike was KO'ed by Lennox. Tua was so hard to be beaten. He was like a freight train. I have no doubt that 90's Tua would give to any version of Mike a very hard fight.

Tyson was way past his best when he fought Lewis, he must've been 36/37. Tua was in his prime years when he fought him. Tua didn't have that many good wins either, his best was his quick KO of Moorer. Other than that he beat Ruiz and Rahman (they fought to a draw in the rematch) so his record wasn't that great.

If you look at Tua's fights when he lost, his opponents put a big effort to beat him. He was no cakewalk by any means. Its very hard to beat an iron chained strong warrior like Tua. Stylistically wise Tua vs Tyson would be a great match but between these two guys, Mike had a softer chin. Mike would be in a tough fight. Ike and Foreman of the 90's would be tough fights for Mike too.

But he still lost, he had very few decent wins.

[apollo creed]

Tyson was way past his best when he fought Lewis, he must've been 36/37. Tua was in his prime years when he fought him. Tua didn't have that many good wins either, his best was his quick KO of Moorer. Other than that he beat Ruiz and Rahman (they fought to a draw in the rematch) so his record wasn't that great.

If you look at Tua's fights when he lost, his opponents put a big effort to beat him. He was no cakewalk by any means. Its very hard to beat an iron chained strong warrior like Tua. Stylistically wise Tua vs Tyson would be a great match but between these two guys, Mike had a softer chin. Mike would be in a tough fight. Ike and Foreman of the 90's would be tough fights for Mike too.

But he still lost, he had very few decent wins.

Not in the same manner as Mike. Mike was stopped.

[Controversial]

If you look at Tua's fights when he lost, his opponents put a big effort to beat him. He was no cakewalk by any means. Its very hard to beat an iron chained strong warrior like Tua. Stylistically wise Tua vs Tyson would be a great match but between these two guys, Mike had a softer chin. Mike would be in a tough fight. Ike and Foreman of the 90's would be tough fights for Mike too.

But he still lost, he had very few decent wins.

Not in the same manner as Mike. Mike was stopped.

So what Tyson fought better opposition, easy looking tough when you are fighting nobodies.

[apollo creed]

But he still lost, he had very few decent wins.

Not in the same manner as Mike. Mike was stopped.

So what Tyson fought better opposition, easy looking tough when you are fighting nobodies.

I'd not call Lennox, Ike, Rahman or Byrd nobodies. Check your facts.

[keithmoonhangover]

Not in the same manner as Mike. Mike was stopped.

So what Tyson fought better opposition, easy looking tough when you are fighting nobodies.

I'd not call Lennox, Ike, Rahman or Byrd nobodies. Check your facts.

I love Tua, he's a Kiwi like me, but with all due respect, and I mean this in the best possible way, you're talking complete bollocks.

[apollo creed]

So what Tyson fought better opposition, easy looking tough when you are fighting nobodies.

I'd not call Lennox, Ike, Rahman or Byrd nobodies. Check your facts.

I love Tua, he's a Kiwi like me, but with all due respect, and I mean this in the best possible way, you're talking complete bollocks.

I doubt you're a kiwi son, otherwise you'd praise such a strong fighter like Tua. Kiwis are loyal and appreciative to their sport legends. Tua would give your hero-Mike a pasting like Buster did.

[Controversial]

Not in the same manner as Mike. Mike was stopped.

So what Tyson fought better opposition, easy looking tough when you are fighting nobodies.

I'd not call Lennox, Ike, Rahman or Byrd nobodies. Check your facts.

Point proven, lost to 3 of those 4. Tua couldn’t even win a world title

[Ambling Alp II]

Tua had a great chin. And a great left hook. The problem was that was about it. He often spent most of a fight looking to land the haymaker. He lost easily to Byrd. Lost easily to Lewis. Just because he went the distance doesn't mean much if he loses almost every round. He was even losing to Fres Oquendo.

I'm sure Tua would have had his moments here and there in the 19880, scoring the occasion big KO. But he would have lost some lopsided decision as well.

If you want to argue Tyson is not as good as Lewis and Holyfield, that is one thing. But people saying that he was only as good as David Tua or Tim Witherspoon are way off base.

[keithmoonhangover]

I'd not call Lennox, Ike, Rahman or Byrd nobodies. Check your facts.

I love Tua, he's a Kiwi like me, but with all due respect, and I mean this in the best possible way, you're talking complete bollocks.

I doubt you're a kiwi son, otherwise you'd praise such a strong fighter like Tua. Kiwis are loyal and appreciative to their sport legends. Tua would give your hero-Mike a pasting like Buster did.

Doubt all you like. I was christened in Christchurch Methodist Church, because it was the nearest one to the pub. I love Tua, I hate Tyson, that does not effect how I rate them. Tyson rates miiiiiiiiiiiles above Tua in the all time heavyweight rankings by everyone except, well, you.

[apollo creed]

So what Tyson fought better opposition, easy looking tough when you are fighting nobodies.

I'd not call Lennox, Ike, Rahman or Byrd nobodies. Check your facts.

Point proven, lost to 3 of those 4. Tua couldn’t even win a world title

yeah, I've proven to you that Tua wasn't fighting nobodies, if you think Lennox, Ike , Rahman or Byrd were nobodies.

[apollo creed]

Tua had a great chin. And a great left hook. The problem was that was about it. He often spent most of a fight looking to land the haymaker. He lost easily to Byrd. Lost easily to Lewis. Just because he went the distance doesn't mean much if he loses almost every round. He was even losing to Fres Oquendo.

I'm sure Tua would have had his moments here and there in the 19880, scoring the occasion big KO. But he would have lost some lopsided decision as well.

If you want to argue Tyson is not as good as Lewis and Holyfield, that is one thing. But people saying that he was only as good as David Tua or Tim Witherspoon are way off base.

lol, you're trying to play the card of objectivity to gain some sympathy but none of Tua's opponents had an 'easy' fight with him. Put some goggles and watch the full fights!

[Cojimar 1946]

You mean apart from beating Larry Holmes twice.

A Holmes who was blatantly ducking the best and most feel lost to Carl Williams.
I'd have to see a whole lot more from Spinks at heavyweight to consider beating him a great win. A win over a faded champ doesn't make you a great heavyweight. If Spinks beats Tucker, Thomas, Ruddock, and Bruno then we could start talking about it as a great win but he didn't.

Leon Spinks beat a faded Ali but I don't view Coetzee's win over him as a huge accomplishment.

Spinks didn't beat them, but Tyson did.

What's your point exactly? Witherspoon was better then Tyson?

No, I'd put Tyson ahead on the basis of consistency though I think Witherspoon at his best probably would beat everyone Tyson beat though less impressively with fewer knockouts.

[apollo creed]

I love Tua, he's a Kiwi like me, but with all due respect, and I mean this in the best possible way, you're talking complete bollocks.

I doubt you're a kiwi son, otherwise you'd praise such a strong fighter like Tua. Kiwis are loyal and appreciative to their sport legends. Tua would give your hero-Mike a pasting like Buster did.

Doubt all you like. I was christened in Christchurch Methodist Church, because it was the nearest one to the pub. I love Tua, I hate Tyson, that does not effect how I rate them. Tyson rates miiiiiiiiiiiles above Tua in the all time heavyweight rankings by everyone except, well, you.

yeah son, you're very objective and very truthful , just don't forget that your hero-Mike was exposed by Buster

[Ambling Alp II]

He just said that he hated Tyson, and you said that Tyson was his hero.

It is possible to rate a guy highly whom you don't like if you think he should be rated highly. Actually, that is what people should do. Tyson was a sleaze. No question about it. But he was a lot better than David Tau or Tim Witherspoon or Glassjaw and his brother who never beat anyone worth mentioning. These should not be tough calls.

[Controversial]

I'd not call Lennox, Ike, Rahman or Byrd nobodies. Check your facts.

Point proven, lost to 3 of those 4. Tua couldn’t even win a world title

yeah, I've proven to you that Tua wasn't fighting nobodies, if you think Lennox, Ike , Rahman or Byrd were nobodies.

You forget to add the past it Monte Barrett who David Haye flattened two years earlier but who dropped and beat Tua

[apollo creed]

He just said that he hated Tyson, and you said that Tyson was his hero.

It is possible to rate a guy highly whom you don't like if you think he should be rated highly. Actually, that is what people should do. Tyson was a sleaze. No question about it. But he was a lot better than David Tau or Tim Witherspoon or Glassjaw and his brother who never beat anyone worth mentioning. These should not be tough calls.

Alt, just admit it that your 'invincible' hero was exposed by Buster.

[Cojimar 1946]

No they were not clearcut. Witherspoon barely beat Page and Tubbs. The fight with Snipes could have been scored the other way as well.
No, your biggest win is not the only factor when rating fighters. however, it is the biggest factor. You also have to look at losses. Bowe had the big fights with Holyfield and no bad losses. That does not make him the best of all time of course. However, it puts him well ahead of Tim Witherspoon.
you mentioned Galss jaw and his brother. Wladimir has three embarrassing losses. His brother has no decent wins at all. Sayin g that would destroy anyone decent is quite a stretch since they never did it in real life.

And you can keep saying that Tyson as only on top for 18 months, but that doesn't make it so. He was regarded as the top hw for a lot longer than that. So stop saying it.

bottom line is that Tyson and Bowe were a lot better than Witherspoon. Witherspoon did not stand out from Thomas, Dokes, smith, Page etc.

Bowe barely fought anyone aside from Holyfield himself so had less opportunity for bad losses. Obviously it's more difficult to suffer bad losses when you refuse to fight top contenders. However, I would say the Golota fights are bad regardless of official results given he was losing both fights even prior to the low blows and was dropped in fight 2 prior to any low punches being thrown. If Wlads losses to Brewster and Sanders are bad I would reasonably think Holyfield's losses to Moorer and Bowe are bad by the same criteria given in both cases the winners accomplished very little in their careers outside beating Wlad/Holyfield. It seems like a clear case of bias.

The top 1990s heavyweights were extremely inconsistent and you have people trying to hype up everyone they lost/struggled with as being great but objectively it seems more likely they were overrated/inconsistent. If Bowe, Moorer, McCall, and Rahman were great fighters one would have expected them to have better careers outside their upset wins.

Bowe's best opponent was obivously Holyfield, But he beat, not once but twice. Ahd lost in a great fight in their second by a very close decision that could have gone his way. He beat Tubbs when he was inexperienced. Stopped Seldon in the first round. At a certain you have to actually watch the fights and see his ability. And Bowe did not avoid anyone. He signed to Lennox Lewis. He was set to fight Mercer as well, but Mercer was upset by Ferguson.

You are comparing Klitschko losses to Brewster and Sanders to Holyfield's losses to Bowe and Moorer? How stupid can you be?
Brewster and Sanders were not even ranked in the top 10 when Klitschko got beat by them. Moorer and Bowe were highly ranked contenders.
Klitschko suffered embarrassing knockouts. Holyfield lost to Bowe in a great fight and the loss to Moorer was close.
Klitschko also somehow got stopped by Ross Purrity as well.

Again, watch the fights sometime. Watch Klitschko get humiliated by Ross Purrity. Then watch Holyfield against Moorer. See who looks better.
Watch Klitschko get embarrassed against Brewster. Then watch Holyfield lose to Bowe in their first fight. See who looks better.
Start using some common sense.

I can see based on his fights that Bowe was very easy to hit which may be part of the reason he didn't face big punchers like Lewis, Tyson, Tua, Sanders, etc. Holyfield was probably a better matchup because he lacked the power of these other guys and was less able to capitalize on Bowe's defensive liabilities. He was good offensively but very subpar defensively. Also we can't credit him with fighting Mercer, Lewis, etc when the fights didn't happen.

Yes, the manner of the Sanders and Brewster losses were worse than Holyfield's losses. I just pointed out that the winners in all four cases didn't do a lot at heavyweight outside of those wins. The manner of the losses are almost identical to Lewis's losses to McCall and Rahman however.

[keithmoonhangover]

He just said that he hated Tyson, and you said that Tyson was his hero.

It is possible to rate a guy highly whom you don't like if you think he should be rated highly. Actually, that is what people should do. Tyson was a sleaze. No question about it. But he was a lot better than David Tau or Tim Witherspoon or Glassjaw and his brother who never beat anyone worth mentioning. These should not be tough calls.

Alt, just admit it that your 'invincible' hero was exposed by Buster.

How old are you? 12?

[Ambling Alp II]

Bowe barely fought anyone aside from Holyfield himself so had less opportunity for bad losses. Obviously it's more difficult to suffer bad losses when you refuse to fight top contenders. However, I would say the Golota fights are bad regardless of official results given he was losing both fights even prior to the low blows and was dropped in fight 2 prior to any low punches being thrown. If Wlads losses to Brewster and Sanders are bad I would reasonably think Holyfield's losses to Moorer and Bowe are bad by the same criteria given in both cases the winners accomplished very little in their careers outside beating Wlad/Holyfield. It seems like a clear case of bias.

The top 1990s heavyweights were extremely inconsistent and you have people trying to hype up everyone they lost/struggled with as being great but objectively it seems more likely they were overrated/inconsistent. If Bowe, Moorer, McCall, and Rahman were great fighters one would have expected them to have better careers outside their upset wins.

Bowe's best opponent was obivously Holyfield, But he beat, not once but twice. Ahd lost in a great fight in their second by a very close decision that could have gone his way. He beat Tubbs when he was inexperienced. Stopped Seldon in the first round. At a certain you have to actually watch the fights and see his ability. And Bowe did not avoid anyone. He signed to Lennox Lewis. He was set to fight Mercer as well, but Mercer was upset by Ferguson.

You are comparing Klitschko losses to Brewster and Sanders to Holyfield's losses to Bowe and Moorer? How stupid can you be?
Brewster and Sanders were not even ranked in the top 10 when Klitschko got beat by them. Moorer and Bowe were highly ranked contenders.
Klitschko suffered embarrassing knockouts. Holyfield lost to Bowe in a great fight and the loss to Moorer was close.
Klitschko also somehow got stopped by Ross Purrity as well.

Again, watch the fights sometime. Watch Klitschko get humiliated by Ross Purrity. Then watch Holyfield against Moorer. See who looks better.
Watch Klitschko get embarrassed against Brewster. Then watch Holyfield lose to Bowe in their first fight. See who looks better.
Start using some common sense.

I can see based on his fights that Bowe was very easy to hit which may be part of the reason he didn't face big punchers like Lewis, Tyson, Tua, Sanders, etc. Holyfield was probably a better matchup because he lacked the power of these other guys and was less able to capitalize on Bowe's defensive liabilities. He was good offensively but very subpar defensively. Also we can't credit him with fighting Mercer, Lewis, etc when the fights didn't happen.

Yes, the manner of the Sanders and Brewster losses were worse than Holyfield's losses. I just pointed out that the winners in all four cases didn't do a lot at heavyweight outside of those wins. The manner of the losses are almost identical to Lewis's losses to McCall and Rahman however.

It's not Bowe's fault Lewis, Tyson didn't fight him.
Corrie Sanders? Wasn't even a ranked contender until after he beat Klitschko.

Yes the losses that Lewis had to Rahman and McCall should count against him. However, they were a lot better than Sanders, Brewster and frikkin Ross Purrity. And of course, the wins that Lewis had were much, much more impressive than Klitschko.
Let me make this clear. you have to count the wins and the losses. to a lesser extent, factor in how competitive the fights were. Take into consideration the stages of the fighters careers as well as their opponents.
Lewis, Bowe, and Tyson were a lot better than the Klitschkos or Tim Witherspoon.

[apollo creed]

After Tyson got badly exposed by Buster and everyone was shocked, Tyson's genius promoter ,King, took Tyson's career to a different route to re-build his image of KO artist for a potential big fight with Holyfield. Of course that they were very reluctant at a risky rematch with Buster that could've ruined Tyson career and other future big paydays. Tua, Foreman, McCall, Bowe were risky fights too.

[keithmoonhangover]

After Tyson got badly exposed by Buster and everyone was shocked, Tyson's genius promoter ,King, took Tyson's career to a different route to re-build his image of KO artist for a potential big fight with Holyfield. Of course that they were very reluctant at a risky rematch with Buster that could've ruined Tyson career and other future big paydays. Tua, Foreman, McCall, Bowe were risky fights too.

Back in the real world. Tyson and King wanted the rematch, but Buster Douglas chose to take the Holyfield fight. Then Holyfield fought Foreman and Holmes. Tyson signed to fight Holyfield immediately after the fight in Tokyo, but lost to Buster. He signed to fight Evander again after the the two Ruddock fights, but went to prison for raping a woman.

apollo, you're either trolling or as thick as mince.

[apollo creed]

After Tyson got badly exposed by Buster and everyone was shocked, Tyson's genius promoter ,King, took Tyson's career to a different route to re-build his image of KO artist for a potential big fight with Holyfield. Of course that they were very reluctant at a risky rematch with Buster that could've ruined Tyson career and other future big paydays. Tua, Foreman, McCall, Bowe were risky fights too.

Back in the real world. Tyson and King wanted the rematch, but Buster Douglas chose to take the Holyfield fight. Then Holyfield fought Foreman and Holmes. Tyson signed to fight Holyfield immediately after the fight in Tokyo, but lost to Buster. He signed to fight Evander again after the the two Ruddock fights, but went to prison for raping a woman.

apollo, you're either trolling or as thick as mince.

son, use your brain a little and stop eating all the internet stories! Buster would've made much more money from a rematch with Tyson, bc at that time Tyson was the biggest golden goose of boxing! Why the hell he would be that stupid and ignorant to not chase the rematch ?? Tyson's handlers took another direction to avoid another possible loss with Buster. A much more confident Buster was not an option for team Tyson at that time!

[keithmoonhangover]

After Tyson got badly exposed by Buster and everyone was shocked, Tyson's genius promoter ,King, took Tyson's career to a different route to re-build his image of KO artist for a potential big fight with Holyfield. Of course that they were very reluctant at a risky rematch with Buster that could've ruined Tyson career and other future big paydays. Tua, Foreman, McCall, Bowe were risky fights too.

Back in the real world. Tyson and King wanted the rematch, but Buster Douglas chose to take the Holyfield fight. Then Holyfield fought Foreman and Holmes. Tyson signed to fight Holyfield immediately after the fight in Tokyo, but lost to Buster. He signed to fight Evander again after the the two Ruddock fights, but went to prison for raping a woman.

apollo, you're either trolling or as thick as mince.

son, use your brain a little and stop eating all the internet stories! Buster would've made much more money from a rematch with Tyson, bc at that time Tyson was the biggest golden goose of boxing! Why the hell he would be that stupid and ignorant to not chase the rematch ?? Tyson's handlers took another direction to avoid another possible loss with Buster. A much more confident Buster was not an option for team Tyson at that time!

Buster didn't want to deal with Don King and opted for Holyfield for which he received the then highest purse in boxing history. Here's a couple of articles from the NY Times with direct quotes, just for you.

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/14/spor ... match.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/19/spor ... field.html

If you disagree, show me some evidence that backs up your outlandish claims.

[apollo creed]

Buster was very diplomat. Be sure that he wanted the rematch but as I said, Tyson's handlers took Tyson to another route and rebuilt his KO artist profile. What I'm trying to say is that King didn't want to risk again their golden goose against an already confident Buster or other tough fighter like Bowe, Foreman, Tua or McCall. It was all about business and protecting their investment i.e Tyson. At that time Tyson's handlers were so confident that Tyson would KO Buster that they didn't put a rematch clause in the contract which was a foolish mistake and when Mike got stopped by Buster the reality check stroke them hard. Anyway , even after that fiasco they found a good way to milk Mike's KO artist profile and make millions. Contrary to the stories from the internet that King was a very slimy-sly-villian, King made Tyson super-rich because King was a very savvy businessman. It wasn't King fault that Mike blew up most of his money and had a bad entourage, full of lychees and hyenas.