Tyson

[Ezzard]

I remember before the Vitali fight Lewis saying that wh1te HWs were a joke. And if he ever lost to one it would be embarassing. He was never going to rematch VK.

[Cojimar 1946]

It was his 25th pro fight after a lengthy amateur career. He was 22 years old. You can't use the "wasn't in his prime" excuse when he loses to a journeyman at that stage of his career. Guys with similar or less experience were world champions at this stage. Like Tyson who you like to rip.
Name a great fighter who lost to someone like that at that stage of their career and gets a free pass like you want to give Klitschko. Name some. I am guessing that you will duck this as you usually do when you get asked a question that makes your case look weak. Go ahead. Name some guys.

Of course I can. The 25 fights were against poor opposition, nobody in or close to the rankings and he probably learned very little from fighting such poor opponents. Amateur fights are 3 rounds and would not have taught him to pace himself for a 12 round fight and he had never been past 8 rounds. A guy who has never faced anyone in the top 10, has never been past 8 rounds and is still unranked is probably not prime. In 2010 Wlad was considered the number 1/2 heavyweight in the world while he wasn't even ranked n 1998.

If you want to argue its a bad loss despite being out of prime thats a different argument and more reasonable. But Tyson still should have easily beaten McBride and Williams despite being past it. Most faded 38 year olds still easily win those fights and those are reflected in the fight odds which heavily favored Tyson. A 38 year old Holyfield or even a 40 year old Holyfield would still win those fights. Likewise Jones losses to Tarver and Johnson hurt his reputation despite being past prime because they suggest he didn't have a good chin and wasn't kayoed earlier because opponents didn't land. A loss can be non-prime and still be humiliating. Like Duran quitting against Pat Lawlor.

Wlad's losses are similar to Jones losses in that people interpret them differently. Some dismiss them and some see them as proving both were overrated.

[Ambling Alp II]

I remember before the Vitali fight Lewis saying that wh1te HWs were a joke. And if he ever lost to one it would be embarassing. He was never going to rematch VK.

Well at last we are getting to what some of this is really about.

[Ambling Alp II]

It was his 25th pro fight after a lengthy amateur career. He was 22 years old. You can't use the "wasn't in his prime" excuse when he loses to a journeyman at that stage of his career. Guys with similar or less experience were world champions at this stage. Like Tyson who you like to rip.
Name a great fighter who lost to someone like that at that stage of their career and gets a free pass like you want to give Klitschko. Name some. I am guessing that you will duck this as you usually do when you get asked a question that makes your case look weak. Go ahead. Name some guys.

Of course I can. The 25 fights were against poor opposition, nobody in or close to the rankings and he probably learned very little from fighting such poor opponents. Amateur fights are 3 rounds and would not have taught him to pace himself for a 12 round fight and he had never been past 8 rounds. A guy who has never faced anyone in the top 10, has never been past 8 rounds and is still unranked is probably not prime. In 2010 Wlad was considered the number 1/2 heavyweight in the world while he wasn't even ranked n 1998.

If you want to argue its a bad loss despite being out of prime thats a different argument and more reasonable. But Tyson still should have easily beaten McBride and Williams despite being past it. Most faded 38 year olds still easily win those fights and those are reflected in the fight odds which heavily favored Tyson. A 38 year old Holyfield or even a 40 year old Holyfield would still win those fights. Likewise Jones losses to Tarver and Johnson hurt his reputation despite being past prime because they suggest he didn't have a good chin and wasn't kayoed earlier because opponents didn't land. A loss can be non-prime and still be humiliating. Like Duran quitting against Pat Lawlor.

Wlad's losses are similar to Jones losses in that people interpret them differently. Some dismiss them and some see them as proving both were overrated.

Surely you know that you can't go entirely by a fighter's age as to how far past his prime he is. The amount of punishment that a fighter takes matters a lot. Tyson fought against a lot of good fighters over a long period of time.
The fact that you even have to bring up McBride and Williams says a lot. Even Tyson' biggest detractors don't do that.
So what if Tyson was old he was worse than someone else who was old? So what? Should we just say that no one else won the title when they were 46 so Foreman was the best?

Purrity lost to several other fighters who were not more experienced than Klitschko. A guy who is 22, who had a long amateur career, should be able to beat a journeyman like Ross Purrity. Ridiculous that you can't see that.

I will ask again, since you ducked my question: Name a great fighter who lost to someone like that at that stage of their career and gets a free pass like you want to give Klitschko. Name some. I am guessing that you will duck this as you usually do when you get asked a question that makes your case look weak. Go ahead. Name some guys.

[margaret thatcher]

so 'reluctant' to discuss the bros as he pumps out his 20th paragraph of the day about them

[Ezzard]

I remember before the Vitali fight Lewis saying that wh1te HWs were a joke. And if he ever lost to one it would be embarassing. He was never going to rematch VK.

Well at last we are getting to what some of this is really about.

Looks like we have a winner.

[Cojimar 1946]

It was his 25th pro fight after a lengthy amateur career. He was 22 years old. You can't use the "wasn't in his prime" excuse when he loses to a journeyman at that stage of his career. Guys with similar or less experience were world champions at this stage. Like Tyson who you like to rip.
Name a great fighter who lost to someone like that at that stage of their career and gets a free pass like you want to give Klitschko. Name some. I am guessing that you will duck this as you usually do when you get asked a question that makes your case look weak. Go ahead. Name some guys.

Of course I can. The 25 fights were against poor opposition, nobody in or close to the rankings and he probably learned very little from fighting such poor opponents. Amateur fights are 3 rounds and would not have taught him to pace himself for a 12 round fight and he had never been past 8 rounds. A guy who has never faced anyone in the top 10, has never been past 8 rounds and is still unranked is probably not prime. In 2010 Wlad was considered the number 1/2 heavyweight in the world while he wasn't even ranked n 1998.

If you want to argue its a bad loss despite being out of prime thats a different argument and more reasonable. But Tyson still should have easily beaten McBride and Williams despite being past it. Most faded 38 year olds still easily win those fights and those are reflected in the fight odds which heavily favored Tyson. A 38 year old Holyfield or even a 40 year old Holyfield would still win those fights. Likewise Jones losses to Tarver and Johnson hurt his reputation despite being past prime because they suggest he didn't have a good chin and wasn't kayoed earlier because opponents didn't land. A loss can be non-prime and still be humiliating. Like Duran quitting against Pat Lawlor.

Wlad's losses are similar to Jones losses in that people interpret them differently. Some dismiss them and some see them as proving both were overrated.

Surely you know that you can't go entirely by a fighter's age as to how far past his prime he is. The amount of punishment that a fighter takes matters a lot. Tyson fought against a lot of good fighters over a long period of time.
The fact that you even have to bring up McBride and Williams says a lot. Even Tyson' biggest detractors don't do that.
So what if Tyson was old he was worse than someone else who was old? So what? Should we just say that no one else won the title when they were 46 so Foreman was the best?

Purrity lost to several other fighters who were not more experienced than Klitschko. A guy who is 22, who had a long amateur career, should be able to beat a journeyman like Ross Purrity. Ridiculous that you can't see that.

I will ask again, since you ducked my question: Name a great fighter who lost to someone like that at that stage of their career and gets a free pass like you want to give Klitschko. Name some. I am guessing that you will duck this as you usually do when you get asked a question that makes your case look weak. Go ahead. Name some guys.

Pacquaio is an obvious recent example with positively horrendous losses to Sangsurat and Torrecampo early in his career both via knockout.
Jose Napoles vs LC Morgan
Carlos Monzon losing to a 3 fight Alberto Massi

[keithmoonhangover]

Of course I can. The 25 fights were against poor opposition

Yeah, Purrity was another one of them and Wlad lost. You're making excuses.

[Cojimar 1946]

Of course I can. The 25 fights were against poor opposition

Yeah, Purrity was another one of them and Wlad lost. You're making excuses.

If Wlad's inexperience doesn't excuse the loss than Tyson's age shouldn't excuse his losses to McBride and Williams. People can obsess over it if they choose but it seems pretty silly.

Tyson critics are free to view McBride and Williams as proof he was never any good and not much you can do about it.

[Ezzard]

Of course I can. The 25 fights were against poor opposition

Yeah, Purrity was another one of them and Wlad lost. You're making excuses.

If Wlad's inexperience doesn't excuse the loss than Tyson's age shouldn't excuse his losses to McBride and Williams. People can obsess over it if they choose but it seems pretty silly.

Tyson critics are free to view McBride and Williams as proof he was never any good and not much you can do about it.

There's something to what you say, for sure.

But you don't need to excuse the loss or any loss. Tyson/Wlad lost fights they should have won. But they are still great fighters. It's churlish to think otherwise.

[keithmoonhangover]

Of course I can. The 25 fights were against poor opposition

Yeah, Purrity was another one of them and Wlad lost. You're making excuses.

If Wlad's inexperience doesn't excuse the loss than Tyson's age shouldn't excuse his losses to McBride and Williams. People can obsess over it if they choose but it seems pretty silly.

Tyson critics are free to view McBride and Williams as proof he was never any good and not much you can do about it.

If you think a boxer who is shot to pieces at the end of his career has the same punch resistance as he did at the start of his career, you're a 24 carat idiot.

[Cojimar 1946]

Yeah, Purrity was another one of them and Wlad lost. You're making excuses.

If Wlad's inexperience doesn't excuse the loss than Tyson's age shouldn't excuse his losses to McBride and Williams. People can obsess over it if they choose but it seems pretty silly.

Tyson critics are free to view McBride and Williams as proof he was never any good and not much you can do about it.

If you think a boxer who is shot to pieces at the end of his career has the same punch resistance as he did at the start of his career, you're a 24 carat idiot.

Sounds like an excuse. Plenty of fighters retain their punch resistance at 38. Moreover, since when is punch resistance the sole factor in the outcome of fights? Skill, experience, conditioning are all important. Tyson was a huge favorite vs McBride and Williams despite his age.

Golota fought and beat McBride at 39, even older than Tyson when he lost to McBride and somehow won despite this diminished punch resistance you whine about.

[keithmoonhangover]

If Wlad's inexperience doesn't excuse the loss than Tyson's age shouldn't excuse his losses to McBride and Williams. People can obsess over it if they choose but it seems pretty silly.

Tyson critics are free to view McBride and Williams as proof he was never any good and not much you can do about it.

If you think a boxer who is shot to pieces at the end of his career has the same punch resistance as he did at the start of his career, you're a 24 carat idiot.

Sounds like an excuse. Plenty of fighters retain their punch resistance at 38. Moreover, since when is punch resistance the sole factor in the outcome of fights? Skill, experience, conditioning are all important. Tyson was a huge favorite vs McBride and Williams despite his age.

Golota fought and beat McBride at 39, even older than Tyson when he lost to McBride and somehow won despite this diminished punch resistance you whine about.

Questions.

1. Have you even been in a boxing ring?
2. Have you ever spoken to any retired boxers?

[Cojimar 1946]

If you think a boxer who is shot to pieces at the end of his career has the same punch resistance as he did at the start of his career, you're a 24 carat idiot.

Sounds like an excuse. Plenty of fighters retain their punch resistance at 38. Moreover, since when is punch resistance the sole factor in the outcome of fights? Skill, experience, conditioning are all important. Tyson was a huge favorite vs McBride and Williams despite his age.

Golota fought and beat McBride at 39, even older than Tyson when he lost to McBride and somehow won despite this diminished punch resistance you whine about.

Questions.

1. Have you even been in a boxing ring?
2. Have you ever spoken to any retired boxers?

Haven't boxed have spoken to boxers.
If Tyson being past prime excuses the loss to McBride then how did an even older Golota beat McBride? Nobody's claiming Golota was prime vs McBride but he still won.

[keithmoonhangover]

If Tyson being past prime

Do you think Tyson was in his prime when he lost to McBride?

[Cojimar 1946]

If Tyson being past prime

Do you think Tyson was in his prime when he lost to McBride?

Of course not. He still should have been able to win regardless. Tyson was in his late 30s, he wasn't that far past it and was winning prior to quitting.

[keithmoonhangover]

If Tyson being past prime

Do you think Tyson was in his prime when he lost to McBride?

Of course not. He still should have been able to win regardless. Tyson was in his late 30s, he wasn't that far past it and was winning prior to quitting.

Which retired boxers have you spoken to?

[Controversial]

Sounds like an excuse. Plenty of fighters retain their punch resistance at 38. Moreover, since when is punch resistance the sole factor in the outcome of fights? Skill, experience, conditioning are all important. Tyson was a huge favorite vs McBride and Williams despite his age.

Golota fought and beat McBride at 39, even older than Tyson when he lost to McBride and somehow won despite this diminished punch resistance you whine about.

Questions.

1. Have you even been in a boxing ring?
2. Have you ever spoken to any retired boxers?

Haven't boxed have spoken to boxers.
If Tyson being past prime excuses the loss to McBride then how did an even older Golota beat McBride? Nobody's claiming Golota was prime vs McBride but he still won.

It doesn’t work like that. People age differently, some fighters have tougher careers, lose interest more than others, have more money than others so not such an incentive to fight on etc etc. McGuigan retired at 28 as he felt he was past it, Hopkins was still fighting at world level in his late 40s.

[Ambling Alp II]

I remember before the Vitali fight Lewis saying that wh1te HWs were a joke. And if he ever lost to one it would be embarassing. He was never going to rematch VK.

Well at last we are getting to what some of this is really about.

Looks like we have a winner.

Let's just say it. Klitschko being white has something to do with some people overrating so badly.

[margaret thatcher]

omg yall are so racist !

i wonder if racism is also why usyk is leading this poll: viewtopic.php?t=257692

[Ambling Alp II]

Questions.

1. Have you even been in a boxing ring?
2. Have you ever spoken to any retired boxers?

Haven't boxed have spoken to boxers.
If Tyson being past prime excuses the loss to McBride then how did an even older Golota beat McBride? Nobody's claiming Golota was prime vs McBride but he still won.

It doesn’t work like that. People age differently, some fighters have tougher careers, lose interest more than others, have more money than others so not such an incentive to fight on etc etc. McGuigan retired at 28 as he felt he was past it, Hopkins was still fighting at world level in his late 40s.

Age is a factor. Even Hopkins wasn't as nearly good in his 40s as he was when he was younger. A lot has to do with wear and tear. Tyson took a lot of punishment over a long period of time.

It is quite a reach to make a big deal about how far a fighter declines in his late 30s anyway. It is what happens when a guy is close to his prime that counts.

[margaret thatcher]

If that's not the ultimate proof that Alp somehow just has an axe to grind against this entire era of Boxers I don't know what is.

By any logical argument ranking Toney over Usyk just makes no kinda sense.

Toney is one of my Top 5 all time favorite boxers to watch, and I can't even imagine forming an argument that he's better than Usyk as a Cruiserweight as a hypothetical example of what one might sound like. Usyk is leaps and bounds ahead of Toney as a Cruiserweight.

Wait a minute. Usyk is Ukrainian and The Klitschko's are Ukrainian...is it possible to be a Bigot towards Ukrainians? Is Alp Russian?

Nailed it! Alpy is a racist.

say it aint so, reluctant one

[Ezzard]

Well at last we are getting to what some of this is really about.

Looks like we have a winner.

Let's just say it. Klitschko being white has something to do with some people overrating so badly.

Doubling down deserves another trophy.

[margaret thatcher]

so i guess alp's obsession with the klitschkos also has some greater moral meaning to him - fighting all those racists!! get em alp

[keithmoonhangover]

omg yall are so racist !

i wonder if racism is also why usyk is leading this poll: viewtopic.php?t=257692

I think Tommy Morrison is overrated for the same reason. People have him as some crazy destroyer with a left hook made of hydrogen. In reality he never beat a contender in their prime and feasted on hasbeens and neverwasses.

It's impossible for me to be a racist, because I'm rating him solely on his boxing ability.