Tyson

[keithmoonhangover]

Can't wait for the answer.

Doesn't look like I'm getting one.

[elmersalsa]

I don't care what people say, Mike Tyson was a great fighter. Probably, top 15 at heavyweight and a top 100 all time pound per pound great. His contributions to the game will always be recognized as his influence and and historical impact on the sport of boxing was second to none.

To be honest, I think that he is terribly underrated today in terms of history (not to be confused with fame). Realistically, he is probably top 5, but his PR is terrible, there is no boxer whose achievements would be more deprecated, but if you think about it, this is a trend caused by his terrible relations with publicists starting with Bert Sugar, Larry Merchant, Teddy Atlas etc. Trainers, his rivals and professionals usually rate him much, much higher

150 years from now l, and Mike Tyson's name will be mentioned. A true legend of boxing.

[Cojimar 1946]

Mercer-Holyfield was not compelling. Ok, it is official. You don't know anything about the sport.
All you do is cherry pick things that favor your guys.

Some parts were compelling, others were not. I don't rate it as highly as some other 90s heavyweight bouts, fine if you disagree.

Are there any 90s heavyweights who cracked the top 10 who you don't rate over Dubois, Fury, Joshua? Do you have them beating Norris, Hunter, Zolkin, Bruno, Mercer, just curious. Mercer is among the less accomplished guys to break into the top 10 during the 1990s so by suggesting he's a harder task than Fury and company it gives the impression that you rate literally everybody who cracked the top 10 over the best heavyweights today barring Usyk.

A fighter can break into the Top 10 for a short period of time and not be that good. He fights someone good and gets exposed. Nobody thinks that Norris, Hunter, or Zolkin were anywhere near the Top 10 for the decade.

But yes, I think Mercer and Bruno, were better than Tyson Fury. Are they Top 10 for the decade? Arguable. They weren't perfect. Mercer has some performances that weren't good. Bruno has several big fights, won some and lost some.

Of course, since they were before your time, you are going to just focus on losses/bad performances and pretend the big wins/good performances did not happen. That is what you do.

i

Sure, but at some point you have to look at quality of wins. Mercer fought in the 1990s but didn't score wins over any of the top guys. His best win is probably Damaini in a fight he was far behind in before scoring a flukey come from behind kayo in which he broke Damiani's nose. Damiani was somehow ranked in the top 10 by Ring Magazine but doesn't have any impressive wins so its a bit of a mystery to me how he got that ranking and whether he deserved it. He beat Biggs but post Tyson Biggs was losing to everybody so it doesn't mean much. It's hard to see an argument for that win being as good as Dubois over Joshua and even Fury's over Wilder.

If you think Damiani is Mercer's best win can you explain how its better than Fury and Dubois best wins?

[Cojimar 1946]

Why do you think Holmes and Spinks were first ballot inductees and Haye, Byrd, Mormeck and Povetkin weren't?
[/quote]

Because Holmes had a better career when he was young and in his prime and not because he was better as a faded 38 year old coming out of retirement who hadn't scored a win in years
Spinks because he had a good career at light heavyweight not because he was a better heavyweight

[Ambling Alp II]

Some parts were compelling, others were not. I don't rate it as highly as some other 90s heavyweight bouts, fine if you disagree.

Are there any 90s heavyweights who cracked the top 10 who you don't rate over Dubois, Fury, Joshua? Do you have them beating Norris, Hunter, Zolkin, Bruno, Mercer, just curious. Mercer is among the less accomplished guys to break into the top 10 during the 1990s so by suggesting he's a harder task than Fury and company it gives the impression that you rate literally everybody who cracked the top 10 over the best heavyweights today barring Usyk.

A fighter can break into the Top 10 for a short period of time and not be that good. He fights someone good and gets exposed. Nobody thinks that Norris, Hunter, or Zolkin were anywhere near the Top 10 for the decade.

But yes, I think Mercer and Bruno, were better than Tyson Fury. Are they Top 10 for the decade? Arguable. They weren't perfect. Mercer has some performances that weren't good. Bruno has several big fights, won some and lost some.

Of course, since they were before your time, you are going to just focus on losses/bad performances and pretend the big wins/good performances did not happen. That is what you do.

i

Sure, but at some point you have to look at quality of wins. Mercer fought in the 1990s but didn't score wins over any of the top guys. His best win is probably Damaini in a fight he was far behind in before scoring a flukey come from behind kayo in which he broke Damiani's nose. Damiani was somehow ranked in the top 10 by Ring Magazine but doesn't have any impressive wins so its a bit of a mystery to me how he got that ranking and whether he deserved it. He beat Biggs but post Tyson Biggs was losing to everybody so it doesn't mean much. It's hard to see an argument for that win being as good as Dubois over Joshua and even Fury's over Wilder.

If you think Damiani is Mercer's best win can you explain how its better than Fury and Dubois best wins?

Damiani was pretty good for a short period of time. Mercer beat him. Mercer also beat Morrison.
Mercer very easily could have got the decision over Lewis. If he does, he would be thought of more highly. Like everyone, had his pluses and minuses.
Weigh the Damiani, Morrison and Lewis fights (in his favor) against the Ferguson and Holmes fights, (not in his favor).

Or you can do what you normally do and do whatever favors the guy from your era.

[Cojimar 1946]

Damiani was pretty good for a short period of time. Mercer beat him. Mercer also beat Morrison.
Mercer very easily could have got the decision over Lewis. If he does, he would be thought of more highly. Like everyone, had his pluses and minuses.
Weigh the Damiani, Morrison and Lewis fights (in his favor) against the Ferguson and Holmes fights, (not in his favor).

Or you can do what you normally do and do whatever favors the guy from your era.
[/quote]

No way to know how good Damiani was given his level of competition. I can't give him too much credit for the Lewis fight because most people feel the decision was fair and he lost 6-4/7-3. Its not a bad decision by any means. Good display of chin though.

I'd say Vitali Klitschkos wins over Hide and Donald are comparable to Mercer's best wins and he also beat Purrity who fought evenly with Morrison. Even if we focus on Vitali's results against 90s heavyweights they strongly suggest he was at least at least at Bruno level and more likely Bowe level. Stopping Donald and Hide the way he did is impressive and he stopped Bean who Moorer couldn't kayo.

This is where era overlap comes in. We have enough common opponents to suggest Vitali was on par or better than Mercer and enough common oipponents to suggest Fury is better than Vitali.

[Ambling Alp II]

No way to know how good Damiani was? how about actually watching him fight. He was not a legend, but almost anyone that saw him fight could tell he had some ability.

"No way to know how good Damiani was given his level of competition. I can't give him too much credit for the Lewis fight because most people feel the decision was fair and he lost 6-4/7-3."
Once again you have no idea of what you are talking about. There was a ton of controversy following the Lewis-Mercer fight. Many people thought Mercer deserved the decision. It was a very good fight that could have gone to Mercer way or at least a draw.
You should also factor in that Mercer was fighting a prime Lennox Lewis and going tooth and nail.
Klitschko was fighting a past it Lewis and could not make it past the 6th round. (spare me the usual Klitschko excuses)

Klitschko's win over Hide and Donald? seriously? Hide was very inconsistent. He had some power but was easy to hit.
Hide also got stopped by someone named Joseph Chingangu in two rounds not long after this.

Donald had some ability but was way past it by the time he fought Klitschko. not that long before the Klitschko fight, Donald looked terrible in losing to Kirk Johnson. He could only get a draw with Obed Sullivan.

Ross Purrity? so you are going to count the draw against Morrison for Purity and ignore a zillion losses that he had just to try to make Klitschko look good?
It speaks volumes that you have to resort to pointing to Hide, a washed-up Donald, and Ross Purritty as Klitschko's best wins.

Once again you are cherry picking. You don't look at the both the positives and the negatives of a fighter's career as well as looking at the stages of fighter's careers when it hurts your case.
None of these guys are perfect. some are much better than others. You tell how good someone was by being informed, as unbiased as you can, and weigh the positives against the negatives for each guy. you are not informed, you are extremely biased, and you don't count nearly all that you should.

You just pick things that make a good look either good or bad, whatever helps your case.

[LeRoiDuRing]

People see him like a Demigod of boxing but in reality he was just one hyped fighter. He fought in a weak era , went 12 rounds against guys like Tillis, Green, Smith and Tucker who I think is Tyson's best win. When he faced better competition, he got knocked out. And his fanboys should stop with that past-prime schit . Dude was a young full of juice mofo when he got knocked out by Buster and when he got stopped by Holyfield. So many gullible people are so nostalgic and emotional about a very hyped fighter. Lennox, Holy, Bowe, Tua, Ike were the real deals. This man is being too much arse kissed mostly because of his hyped aura.

His handlers knew how "good" he is, so they avoided an immediate big money rematch with Buster. Pretty sure that they had a big rematch clause in that contract. They fed him with more stiffs to put him back in the hype-train and then cash in vs Holyfield. Man, Don King was a big marketing genius.

I'm not a Tyson fan, in fact, quite the opposite, he's a scumbag rapist. If you think that he was still at his peak after four years out, you're just plain wrong. The fact is, Tyson before the layoff beat two hall of famers.

1) let's not make personnal lives matter in judging someone's career as fighters and athletes in general can be very fucked up people

2) There's a very high probability that Desiree Washington lied about the whole ordeal

3) Tyson could've become an homeless drug addict but learned his lesson, had his shot at redemption and took it and that's admirable imo and not being a piece of shit.

Yeah Tyson is overhyped but he was a social phenomenon and you have to respect that especially after the terrible gap Ali made after retiring, Holmes and Witherspoon were never quite able to fill that gap like Tyson did. He was the best of his generation, a weak generation for sure but still and also he was very fun to watch. Also he was fighting very regularly even after getting the title explaining the overall low quality of opposition at times.

Still a personal favorite and certainly in the top 30 heavyweight lists imo

[Cojimar 1946]

No way to know how good Damiani was? how about actually watching him fight. He was not a legend, but almost anyone that saw him fight could tell he had some ability.

"No way to know how good Damiani was given his level of competition. I can't give him too much credit for the Lewis fight because most people feel the decision was fair and he lost 6-4/7-3."
Once again you have no idea of what you are talking about. There was a ton of controversy following the Lewis-Mercer fight. Many people thought Mercer deserved the decision. It was a very good fight that could have gone to Mercer way or at least a draw.
You should also factor in that Mercer was fighting a prime Lennox Lewis and going tooth and nail.
Klitschko was fighting a past it Lewis and could not make it past the 6th round. (spare me the usual Klitschko excuses)

Klitschko's win over Hide and Donald? seriously? Hide was very inconsistent. He had some power but was easy to hit.
Hide also got stopped by someone named Joseph Chingangu in two rounds not long after this.

Donald had some ability but was way past it by the time he fought Klitschko. not that long before the Klitschko fight, Donald looked terrible in losing to Kirk Johnson. He could only get a draw with Obed Sullivan.

Ross Purrity? so you are going to count the draw against Morrison for Purity and ignore a zillion losses that he had just to try to make Klitschko look good?
It speaks volumes that you have to resort to pointing to Hide, a washed-up Donald, and Ross Purritty as Klitschko's best wins.

Once again you are cherry picking. You don't look at the both the positives and the negatives of a fighter's career as well as looking at the stages of fighter's careers when it hurts your case.
None of these guys are perfect. some are much better than others. You tell how good someone was by being informed, as unbiased as you can, and weigh the positives against the negatives for each guy. you are not informed, you are extremely biased, and you don't count nearly all that you should.

You just pick things that make a good look either good or bad, whatever helps your case.

Hide was inconsistant but so was Morrison who you cite as a good win for Mercer. I think they were comparable fighters both powerful but chinny and inconsistant.

As for Donald, he was in much better shape for Klitschko (225) than he was for Johnson (245) and Sullivan (239). I think there's a good argument for Donald being better than Damiani. I find his wins more impressive and he was also more impressive in defeat going the distance with a prime Bowe as a novice whereas Damiani was stopped in both his losses. Many had him beating Vauev years later.

I'd rate Kirk Johnson as better than anyone Damiani ever beat. So how is losing to him some mark against Donald? Ray Maercer lost to Jesse Fergson and should have lost to Marion Wilson but your criticizing Donald for losing to Johnson?

[Ambling Alp II]

Morrison was inconsistent, but overall, he was better than Hide.
Donald may have weighed less against Klitschko, but he was even further past his prime by then.
Kirk Johnson had some ability. He could have had a little better career than he did.
My point about Donald losing to Johnson was that he was past it by that point. Did you see the Johnson-Donald fight? Of course you didn't. It was a terrible pillow fight.

Yes, as everyone knows Mercer had bad performances. Everyone should be criticized not beating to an inferior fighter. For the one millionth time, none of these guys are perfect. They all had bad losses and bad performances.

Yes, you can cherry-pick and just point to things that favor your guy and ignore what doesn't.

For the one millionth time, you have to weigh the good wins/good performances against the bad loss/bad performances.

[Caractacus]

3

[Cojimar 1946]

Morrison was inconsistent, but overall, he was better than Hide.
Donald may have weighed less against Klitschko, but he was even further past his prime by then.
Kirk Johnson had some ability. He could have had a little better career than he did.
My point about Donald losing to Johnson was that he was past it by that point. Did you see the Johnson-Donald fight? Of course you didn't. It was a terrible pillow fight.

Yes, as everyone knows Mercer had bad performances. Everyone should be criticized not beating to an inferior fighter. For the one millionth time, none of these guys are perfect. They all had bad losses and bad performances.

Yes, you can cherry-pick and just point to things that favor your guy and ignore what doesn't.

For the one millionth time, you have to weigh the good wins/good performances against the bad loss/bad performances.

It's possible Donald was past prime. Still stopping him and Bean is extremely impressive as nobody else was able to stop either one even when old. Even if you say they were past prime nobody else who was able to knock them out. Maybe Bruno could beat the guys Vitali beat but I wouldn't expect him to be able to win as decisively or stop Donald and Bean.

If Fury was as bad as you think I would expect more guys from lighter divisions to call him out. There's guys I would heavily favor to beat Bruno in lighter divisions who haven't tried to fight Fury. Maybe they overestimated him?

Do you think Bivol, Gassiev, Breidis, Opetaia would beat Fury?

[Ambling Alp II]

Stop. Just stop.

[keithmoonhangover]

Stop. Just stop.

There's a fine line between stupid and clever.

[624100]

Tyson would;nt beat a 70's Foreman.

Tyson would beat the comeback Foreman by UD before he went to prison.

Tyson is a hard one. He stuffed up he knows it but the man had talent.

[Controversial]

There are upsets all the time in boxing and no one is unbeatable. I've made this point before, how many predictions by the so called experts, fans and ourselves are correct? Not many. There are numerous prediction threads on this site and very knowledgeable posters get it wrong all the time so to argue back and forth is kind of pointless because at the end of the day no one knows. On paper lots of fights there appears to be a clear winner and then the "favourite" loses, struggles or gets a gift decision. Even when a winner is declared we sometimes still argue over it and say the other guy won. To give a hard hitting fast puncher like Tyson no chance in any fight is crazy, it only takes one punch especially at HW.

[Riddick Bowie]

Interesting how the Boxing History forum always has one attention seeking revisionist to drag out threads with obviously bad takes and illogical justifications.

Think about it. One pops up, is at it a year or two, fades away when the act gets old, and then, bang! A new one pops up right away to replace him

Granberry, tarep, yancey, kalen, cojimar. Life's too short, gentlemen... Put this guy on block and debate boxing with people doing so in good faith.

[Jaywheel]

At least the og's had some knowledge of the history of the sport despite twisting it to fit their agenda. The kalan and cojimar of this world are talking about fighters they have never seen fight and only read about. An elmeritus of some sort.

[Cojimar 1946]

Stop. Just stop.

There's a fine line between stupid and clever.

Does he have Usyk ahead of Bruno at least?

[Cojimar 1946]

There are upsets all the time in boxing and no one is unbeatable. I've made this point before, how many predictions by the so called experts, fans and ourselves are correct? Not many. There are numerous prediction threads on this site and very knowledgeable posters get it wrong all the time so to argue back and forth is kind of pointless because at the end of the day no one knows. On paper lots of fights there appears to be a clear winner and then the "favourite" loses, struggles or gets a gift decision. Even when a winner is declared we sometimes still argue over it and say the other guy won. To give a hard hitting fast puncher like Tyson no chance in any fight is crazy, it only takes one punch especially at HW.

Tyson could have cemented his status as a great heavyweight by beating Holyfield and Lewis because great heavyweights establish themselves by beating the best of their era. It's not rocket science why people are questioning his greatness. Beating them would have made Tyson great.

He beats them he makes the top 10 without question

[Caractacus]

yeah, but let's face it.
he didn't look too good fighting Bonecrusher Smith
and Tony Tucker, and he was in his prime then.

[Controversial]

yeah, but let's face it.
he didn't look too good fighting Bonecrusher Smith
and Tony Tucker, and he was in his prime then.

You can say that about lots of fighters though, all I remember from the Smith fight was him holding Tyson a lot

[keithmoonhangover]

yeah, but let's face it.
he didn't look too good fighting Bonecrusher Smith
and Tony Tucker, and he was in his prime then.

He won almost every round against both. You could say Usyk didn't look too good against Witherspoon and Chisora.

[Cojimar 1946]

yeah, but let's face it.
he didn't look too good fighting Bonecrusher Smith
and Tony Tucker, and he was in his prime then.

He won almost every round against both. You could say Usyk didn't look too good against Witherspoon and Chisora.

Usyk has yet to lose to anyone let alone a 42 to 1 underdog

One thing I find disappointing is people underrating Tysons predecessors like Charles, Jeffries etc. it seems like they want to kick those guys out of the top 10 just to make way for more recent guys like Tyson and Lewis.

Charles has as many title defenses as Tyson and was on top for roughly 3 years but Tyson rating higher is somehow a given? I don't see it

[Ambling Alp II]

You don't see a lot of stuff that is right in front of you.

You want to talk numbers?

Charles got knocked down more than any heavyweight champion in history.
Usyk has 23 fights in his entire career. Tyson had that many when he was 19 years old.
Jeffries even had less fights than Usyk.

Of course, there is a lot more things to consider besides numbers.
Tyson had a lot of nice wins, none over great fighters near their best.
Yes, he lost to Douglas. That version of Douglas would have beaten almost anyone, including everyone that we have been talking about recently.
Jeffries has some good wins, but not enough to put him above Tyson. He had a lot of trouble against past their primes Corbett and Fitzsimmons.
Charles obviously has good wins and a good performance in a loss to Marciano, and losses to Layne, Valdes, Johnson.

Again, nobody is saying that Tyson is the best of all time. I have him borderline Top 10. Don't think anyone hear is putting him much higher. Jeffries and Charles aren't that far behind, but they are not Top 10.

Stop cherry picking and look at the positives and negatives of everyone, whether you like them or not.