Tyson

[margaret thatcher]

i dont think people have morrison as some crazy destroyer at all. to me it seems the consensus is more like he was an offensively explosive fighter with the left hand, but flawed in many other ways which prevented him from ever really being a consistent threat to top guys. id say thats pretty accurate

[keithmoonhangover]

i dont think people have morrison as some crazy destroyer at all. to me it seems the consensus is more like he was an offensively explosive fighter with the left hand, but flawed in many other ways which prevented him from ever really being a consistent threat to top guys. id say thats pretty accurate

Some posters ignore the Bentt fight and give him a pass for it. I'm not leveling that accusation at you, Mrs Thatcher.

[margaret thatcher]

i think the loss to bentt fits morrison's profile as an explosive but flawed fighter. he was defo better than bentt overall and beat/went longer with better fighters than him, but of course it was a legit loss.

[DrDuke]

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.

Morrison was a legit top fighter, but he definitely had a good promotion, that made him overrated. He was raised by the Mike Tyson promoter in the same style, he got a role in the Rocky movie before having the first big success in sport. All that stuff was before the Mercer fight, where he was favored because of his popularity. Anyway, his biggest achievement is a Foreman win and there he showed good boxing.

[Cojimar 1946]

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.

Seems like lack of conditioning was a problem for Tyson as he was winning both fights early. But that may well be due to poor training habits rather than age. In the early rounds of both fights he was winning handily.

[Cojimar 1946]

A lot of Tysons legacy rests on how fights with Holyfield and Lewis play out if he fights them earlier

A loss to Holyfield in 1989 would be devastating legacy wise and probably make it hard to make a case for him being a top 10 heavyweight since his apologists wouldn't have the prison excuse

[Ambling Alp II]

Tyson does have "apologists'. They have excuses for all of his losses. Then there those like you who go the other extreme.

Douglas fought a trmendous fight in beating him. However, he still lost.

He was still only 30 when he fought a 34-yar old Holyfield. True he had been out of the ring for three years and he was never going to be as good as he once was. Still at 30, he was closer to his prime than Holyfield was to his and he lost.

Tyson doesn't really have one win over a great hw in his prime. But he has a lot of wins over very good fighters, mostly (but not always winning easily. This includes wins over Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs, Bruno (2x), and Ruddock (2x).

Is enough for him to be worthy of being in the Top 10?

Ali, Louis, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Johnson, Holyfield and Lewis have to be a head of him. That is 8 guys.
It goes down to Dempsey, Marciano, and Liston. (He is clearly ahead of everyone else) He would have to be ranked ahead of at least two of these three to be in the top 10. Tyson is either just inside the Top 10, or just outside of it.

[Cojimar 1946]

Putting him ahead of Wladimir requires obsessive focus on losses which doesn't make a lot of sense given Tysons losses to McBride and Williams.

But putting that aside you still have guys like Jeffries who was on top longer than Tyson and Charles who was on top for roughly 3 years and has an equal number of title defenses (9) while beating a similar number of top contenders.

Tyson is also the size of today's cruiserweights so maybe it makes more sense to rate him in that division

[Controversial]

Tyson is also the size of today's cruiserweights so maybe it makes more sense to rate him in that division

Eh? The lightest Tyson he ever weighed was 212 when he was just 18. Using that logic you might as well say it makes sense to rate Marciano as a SMW or even MW.

Marciano weighed as low as 178 when he was 25 years old
and only weighed just over 190 three times in his entire career.


.

[Jaywheel]

Putting him ahead of Wladimir requires obsessive focus on losses which doesn't make a lot of sense given Tysons losses to McBride and Williams.

But putting that aside you still have guys like Jeffries who was on top longer than Tyson and Charles who was on top for roughly 3 years and has an equal number of title defenses (9) while beating a similar number of top contenders.

Tyson is also the size of today's cruiserweights so maybe it makes more sense to rate him in that division

[keithmoonhangover]

Putting him ahead of Wladimir requires obsessive focus on losses which doesn't make a lot of sense given Tysons losses to McBride and Williams.

But putting that aside you still have guys like Jeffries who was on top longer than Tyson and Charles who was on top for roughly 3 years and has an equal number of title defenses (9) while beating a similar number of top contenders.

Tyson is also the size of today's cruiserweights so maybe it makes more sense to rate him in that division

You never posted which retired boxers you've spoken to.

[Jaywheel]

Putting Ali ahead of Wlad requires obsessive focus on losses which doesn't make a lot of sense given Alis losses to Spinks and Berbick.

Wlad #1 ever!!!

[Cojimar 1946]

Tyson is also the size of today's cruiserweights so maybe it makes more sense to rate him in that division

Eh? The lightest Tyson he ever weighed was 212 when he was just 18. Using that logic you might as well say it makes sense to rate Marciano as a SMW or even MW.

Marciano weighed as low as 178 when he was 25 years old
and only weighed just over 190 three times in his entire career.


.

Maciano would probably fight at light heavyweight today

[Controversial]

Tyson is also the size of today's cruiserweights so maybe it makes more sense to rate him in that division

Eh? The lightest Tyson he ever weighed was 212 when he was just 18. Using that logic you might as well say it makes sense to rate Marciano as a SMW or even MW.

Marciano weighed as low as 178 when he was 25 years old
and only weighed just over 190 three times in his entire career.


.

Maciano would probably fight at light heavyweight today

But you wouldn’t rate Marciano as a LHW would you in the same way you can’t rate Tyson as a CW

[Ambling Alp II]

Putting him ahead of Wladimir requires obsessive focus on losses which doesn't make a lot of sense given Tysons losses to McBride and Williams.

But putting that aside you still have guys like Jeffries who was on top longer than Tyson and Charles who was on top for roughly 3 years and has an equal number of title defenses (9) while beating a similar number of top contenders.

Tyson is also the size of today's cruiserweights so maybe it makes more sense to rate him in that division

No. Tyson's losses aren't as embarrassing. (Nobody but you thinks the McBride and Williams fights means anything.) But there is more to it. His victories are much more impressive than Klitschko. It is ridiculous that you even try to argue about this.

You can be on top for 10 years and not be as good as someone who was on top for a year or never on top. Yes, like many others, Jefferies and Charles were better than Klitschko. Not as good as Tyson.

Let me tell you the mathematical way that you should use title defenses. Multiply the number of title defenses by zero. That is how important the sheer number of title defenses means.

The today's cruiser weights comment is idiotic.

[Cojimar 1946]

Putting him ahead of Wladimir requires obsessive focus on losses which doesn't make a lot of sense given Tysons losses to McBride and Williams.

But putting that aside you still have guys like Jeffries who was on top longer than Tyson and Charles who was on top for roughly 3 years and has an equal number of title defenses (9) while beating a similar number of top contenders.

Tyson is also the size of today's cruiserweights so maybe it makes more sense to rate him in that division

You never posted which retired boxers you've spoken to.

Ross Purrity, Shannon Briggs, and Tim Witherspoon have all posted on boxingforum24

[Cojimar 1946]

People are bringing up Fury's fight with Ngannou when he was years past his prime and horribly out of shape. If people are going to make a fuss about a shot, horribly out of shape Fury performing badly vs Ngannou than the McBride and Williams fights should be fair game as well. If you don't want Tyson's non-prime losses brought up than don't bring up non-prime losses for other fighters. Accomplishments in your own era are objective facts while comparisons between eras are far more subjective.

If Tyson is around today he likely fights at cruiserweight given the massive size difference he would encounter at heavyweight. With early weigh ins and rehydration he could easily make weight

As far as Wlad's losses go, Wlad's just one fighter and I don't think his situation is comparable to all the top guys having bad losses throughout their careers. If Tyson lost to Douglas but Holyfield didn't lose to Bowe and Moorer and Lewis didn't lose to McCall and Rahman I'd see that as a big improvement and the rate the era as a whole higher. Wlad didn't beat a number of top fighters of his era including Fury, Wilder, Vitali, Ortiz, etc so I don't know how badly his losses should impact the guys he didn't beat.

[Controversial]

People are bringing up Fury's fight with Ngannou when he was years past his prime and horribly out of shape. If people are going to make a fuss about a shot, horribly out of shape Fury performing badly vs Ngannou than the McBride and Williams fights should be fair game as well. If you don't want Tyson's non-prime losses brought up than don't bring up non-prime losses for other fighters. Accomplishments in your own era are objective facts while comparisons between eras are far more subjective.

If Tyson is around today he likely fights at cruiserweight given the massive size difference he would encounter at heavyweight. With early weigh ins and rehydration he could easily make weight

Fury is on the slide but still able to compete at a world level and he didn’t lose that fight. Yes he looked crap but not the same as being stopped by journeymen, big difference. I’m still not sure where the “Tyson would be a CW today” theory is coming from? Yes he’s short but he was built like a tank. At his very lightest aged 18 he was almost a stone over the CW limit, by the time he was in his 20s he was regularly weighing around 220lbs. Usyk is currently the number HW and he weighs around 220 too. You might as well say Muhammad Ali would’ve been a CW today, he was under 200 for several fights and didn’t weigh 220 until his 33rd fight.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

A lot of Tysons legacy rests on how fights with Holyfield and Lewis play out if he fights them earlier

A loss to Holyfield in 1989 would be devastating legacy wise and probably make it hard to make a case for him being a top 10 heavyweight since his apologists wouldn't have the prison excuse

- Nothing like Tyson and the Kbros to melt soft addled castratos as history has shown for decades now.

Field was going life and death with Shot Dokes in 1989. Alex Stewart gave him all he could handle as well, but Mike dispatched Stewart inside the first round. Surely a flat on your face jest, yes?

This notion that Tyson was a prime fighter after his failed marriage to gold digger Givens and signing with crooked DKing who promptly lifted his $50mil retirement annuity while Tyson on dangerous psychotropic experimental sedatives is the height of abject idiocy. He now entered his heavily sedated Zombie stage vs Douglas as I could predict in advance from training camp reports, yet still got robbed by the well greased Mexican ref who retired shortly after with a total of 41 bouts officiated.

Tyson went through handlers and lawyers and girls who tried to reign him in so they could clear 10s of million$ from his fights that were an equivalent to a 4 round fighter in training habits and style, not a prime fighter. In fact, he was due to fight Butterbean at one point. No fighter has been so exploited in history that I recall in a sport of exploitation.

It's was like a lightning bolt when a clip of him beating a heavy bag went viral. That has led to his lucrative exhibition stage now maturing on the Boxrec data base as a sanctioned bout against Jake Paul. At his age, 58, Ali was as a doddering, shaking leaf, Field falling down, and Foreman well retired after his legendary comeback.

Pray tell us what were you doing or will be doing at age 58?

[Cojimar 1946]

Fury is on the slide but still able to compete at a world level and he didn’t lose that fight. Yes he looked crap but not the same as being stopped by journeymen, big difference. I’m still not sure where the “Tyson would be a CW today” theory is coming from? Yes he’s short but he was built like a tank. At his very lightest aged 18 he was almost a stone over the CW limit, by the time he was in his 20s he was regularly weighing around 220lbs. Usyk is currently the number HW and he weighs around 220 too. You might as well say Muhammad Ali would’ve been a CW today, he was under 200 for several fights and didn’t weigh 220 until his 33rd fight.
[/quote]

I don't see why anyone would bring the fight up if we are focusing on Fury at his best as that was a clearly post-prime version of Fury in addition to being horribly out of shape. It reeks of bias. Ngannou is absolutely a journeyman or worse in boxing terms.

Fighters at light heavyweight routinely rehydrate 15-20 pounds so Tyson should be able to make cruiser comfortably. Its been more than 30 years since someone his height and reach was the top heavyweight so I'm skeptical of it being possible given the increased size of heavyweights. Usyk unified cruiserweight before moving up to heavyweight so he seems like a bd example.

[Controversial]

Fury is on the slide but still able to compete at a world level and he didn’t lose that fight. Yes he looked crap but not the same as being stopped by journeymen, big difference. I’m still not sure where the “Tyson would be a CW today” theory is coming from? Yes he’s short but he was built like a tank. At his very lightest aged 18 he was almost a stone over the CW limit, by the time he was in his 20s he was regularly weighing around 220lbs. Usyk is currently the number HW and he weighs around 220 too. You might as well say Muhammad Ali would’ve been a CW today, he was under 200 for several fights and didn’t weigh 220 until his 33rd fight.

I don't see why anyone would bring the fight up if we are focusing on Fury at his best as that was a clearly post-prime version of Fury in addition to being horribly out of shape. It reeks of bias. Ngannou is absolutely a journeyman or worse in boxing terms.

Fighters at light heavyweight routinely rehydrate 15-20 pounds so Tyson should be able to make cruiser comfortably. Its been more than 30 years since someone his height and reach was the top heavyweight so I'm skeptical of it being possible given the increased size of heavyweights. Usyk unified cruiserweight before moving up to heavyweight so he seems like a bd example.

Fury isn't shot like Tyson was when he was getting knocked out by McBride and Williams. So yes I agree they are incomparable.

Tyson has shown he can beat big genuine HWs and as big as AJ is he wouldn't last a round against him. So do you think Ali would be a CW too as he was often a lot lighter than Tyson?

[Cojimar 1946]

Fury is on the slide but still able to compete at a world level and he didn’t lose that fight. Yes he looked crap but not the same as being stopped by journeymen, big difference. I’m still not sure where the “Tyson would be a CW today” theory is coming from? Yes he’s short but he was built like a tank. At his very lightest aged 18 he was almost a stone over the CW limit, by the time he was in his 20s he was regularly weighing around 220lbs. Usyk is currently the number HW and he weighs around 220 too. You might as well say Muhammad Ali would’ve been a CW today, he was under 200 for several fights and didn’t weigh 220 until his 33rd fight.

I don't see why anyone would bring the fight up if we are focusing on Fury at his best as that was a clearly post-prime version of Fury in addition to being horribly out of shape. It reeks of bias. Ngannou is absolutely a journeyman or worse in boxing terms.

Fighters at light heavyweight routinely rehydrate 15-20 pounds so Tyson should be able to make cruiser comfortably. Its been more than 30 years since someone his height and reach was the top heavyweight so I'm skeptical of it being possible given the increased size of heavyweights. Usyk unified cruiserweight before moving up to heavyweight so he seems like a bd example.

Fury isn't shot like Tyson was when he was getting knocked out by McBride and Williams. So yes I agree they are incomparable.

Tyson has shown he can beat big genuine HWs and as big as AJ is he wouldn't last a round against him. So do you think Ali would be a CW too as he was often a lot lighter than Tyson?

The fact that he is still enjoying some level of success doesn't negate the fact that he is massively diminished from his prime self. Holyfield beat Oquendo in 2006 and was arguably robbed against Valuev in 2008. Does this mean he wasn't shot against Toney and Donald and those losses should be considered when assessing his legacy?

What about Duran who beat Jorge Castro in his 40s? Does this mean his losses to Camcho and Lawlor are relevant when assessing his legacy? If ability to score big wins means your still in your prime that seems like bad news for Duran and Holyfield legacy wise.

[Controversial]

Fury is on the slide but still able to compete at a world level and he didn’t lose that fight. Yes he looked crap but not the same as being stopped by journeymen, big difference. I’m still not sure where the “Tyson would be a CW today” theory is coming from? Yes he’s short but he was built like a tank. At his very lightest aged 18 he was almost a stone over the CW limit, by the time he was in his 20s he was regularly weighing around 220lbs. Usyk is currently the number HW and he weighs around 220 too. You might as well say Muhammad Ali would’ve been a CW today, he was under 200 for several fights and didn’t weigh 220 until his 33rd fight.

I don't see why anyone would bring the fight up if we are focusing on Fury at his best as that was a clearly post-prime version of Fury in addition to being horribly out of shape. It reeks of bias. Ngannou is absolutely a journeyman or worse in boxing terms.

Fighters at light heavyweight routinely rehydrate 15-20 pounds so Tyson should be able to make cruiser comfortably. Its been more than 30 years since someone his height and reach was the top heavyweight so I'm skeptical of it being possible given the increased size of heavyweights. Usyk unified cruiserweight before moving up to heavyweight so he seems like a bd example.

Fury isn't shot like Tyson was when he was getting knocked out by McBride and Williams. So yes I agree they are incomparable.

Tyson has shown he can beat big genuine HWs and as big as AJ is he wouldn't last a round against him. So do you think Ali would be a CW too as he was often a lot lighter than Tyson?

The fact that he is still enjoying some level of success doesn't negate the fact that he is massively diminished from his prime self. Holyfield beat Oquendo in 2006 and was arguably robbed against Valuev in 2008. Does this mean he wasn't shot against Toney and Donald and those losses should be considered when assessing his legacy?

What about Duran who beat Jorge Castro in his 40s? Does this mean his losses to Camcho and Lawlor are relevant when assessing his legacy? If ability to score big wins means your still in your prime that seems like bad news for Duran and Holyfield legacy wise.

I don’t know what point you are arguing? Fury isn’t the fighter he was but still took the number one HW in the world to a split decision so still world class albeit on the slide. Tyson was stopped three times in his last 4 fights, the last two times against guys he would’ve flattened in his hey day without breaking a sweat.

You didn't answer the Muhammad Ali question, do you think he would be a CW too? He would've been a CW when he turned pro if that division existed then, he weighed between 188-199 in his first 15 pro fights.

[Cojimar 1946]

[/quote]

I don’t know what point you are arguing? Fury isn’t the fighter he was but still took the number one HW in the world to a split decision so still world class albeit on the slide. Tyson was stopped three times in his last 4 fights, the last two times against guys he would’ve flattened in his hey day without breaking a sweat.

You didn't answer the Muhammad Ali question, do you think he would be a CW too? He would've been a CW when he turned pro if that division existed then, he weighed between 188-199 in his first 15 pro fights.
[/quote]

You don't have to be Tyson-McBride level shot for fights not to matter legacy wise. I think its ridiculous to hold the Ngannou or McDermott fights against Fury because as I pointed out Holyfield had good performances post Toney/Donald and those fights are rarely brought up to disparage him. Same with Duran in the late 80s/early 90s despite the Castro win.

Fury is largely fighting other faded past-prime fighters like Whyte, Chisora, Usyk who are his age or older. If he was facing young prime contenders he'd probably have a lot more trouble. I'm also skeptical that the 2024 Usyk is the best heavyweight in the world given he hasn't fought most of the young prime guys like Wardley, Itauma, etc. A few years ago he was probably number one but maybe not anymore.

Ali probably starts at cruiserweight and might move up after unifying. He has a lot of height and reach on Tyson and can fight well backing up so he probably does better at heavyweight than Tyson

[Controversial]

You don't have to be Tyson-McBride level shot for fights not to matter legacy wise. I think its ridiculous to hold the Ngannou or McDermott fights against Fury because as I pointed out Holyfield had good performances post Toney/Donald and those fights are rarely brought up to disparage him. Same with Duran in the late 80s/early 90s despite the Castro win.

Fury is largely fighting other faded past-prime fighters like Whyte, Chisora, Usyk who are his age or older. If he was facing young prime contenders he'd probably have a lot more trouble. I'm also skeptical that the 2024 Usyk is the best heavyweight in the world given he hasn't fought most of the young prime guys like Wardley, Itauma, etc. A few years ago he was probably number one but maybe not anymore.

Ali probably starts at cruiserweight and might move up after unifying. He has a lot of height and reach on Tyson and can fight well backing up so he probably does better at heavyweight than Tyson

Usyk knocked out Dubois who is young, fit, strong and who just smashed AJ to bits. Usyk also beat AJ twice plus Fury. Itauma and Wardley are untested, that’s a silly argument. Usyk clearly the number one HW based on his achievements so far. You could say this about every fighter, there’s always a new kid on the block who in theory could give the champ a hard fight.

Your Ali argument makes no sense, you are saying Tyson is too small yet he was heavier than Ali. Ali didn’t weigh 220 until his 33rd fight and he was around 6’2” so not a giant like a lot of other HWs