BoxRec

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

pringle wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Your stats are worthless. Tyson's opponents were X per cent bigger?

How compelling.

Worthless? Your mother is Worthless.

LOL, what a loser! LOL Take a hike you drama queen before I spank you.

I guess we know now why the bulk of your posts & threads are constrained to Other Sports. At least you're generating more attention here than you manage to there.

While you're running numbers on who won a greater percentage of their fights against completely different opposition, at various stages of everybody's career, & measuring fighters' biceps, the rest of us will reserve our homework for the tale of the fight, rather than the tale of the tape.

"The rest of US........"? So how many others are sitting with you right now, Douche? Does anyone else see these friends of yours? Perhaps they are imaginary "friends" left over from your lonely, desolate childhood. Perhaps you're referring to a case of tapeworms, don't know, don't care.
Look, I'm sorry your parents hated you and abandoned you, but I wasn't there and it's not my fault. Now why don't you be a good little psycho and go back to playing with those body parts you have stored in your closet and leave us adults to our business.

dajuggernaut wrote:BRR is the dumbest poster on this site.

Why ?
I disagree with him a lot. BUT...he makes arguments for his case,
as obscure as some of the things have been.

If we all sat around and agreed, what fun would that be.

I am here to discuss and argue boxing. I have seen plenty more say some
pretty generic and 'dumber' things.

I think BRR problem is that he has not fully realised the greatness of Holmes.

Robinson wrote:

dajuggernaut wrote:BRR is the dumbest poster on this site.

Why ?
I disagree with him a lot. BUT...he makes arguments for his case,
as obscure as some of the things have been.

If we all sat around and agreed, what fun would that be.

I am here to discuss and argue boxing. I have seen plenty more say some
pretty generic and 'dumber' things.

I think BRR problem is that he has not fully realised the greatness of Holmes.

Thank you. I think people are way to quick to start name calling. To me it's an indication that the name caller doesn't have any sound ground to argue his point, hence the cheap shot(s).

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Love to place a bet with someone if we could build a time-machine & match the Spinks who beat Ali against the McBride who defeated Tyson, if that person is banking on McBride to win.

Easy money. C'mon, at least Spinks had some talent & a little fire in his belly at some point.

Build a time machine? Oh really now, is this some of the "homework" you mentioned above? Exactly how insane are you?

The Tyson -v- Ali has raged for over 20 years & will probably rage long after man is extinct!

dajuggernaut wrote:BRR is the dumbest poster on this site.

- Not much needed to whup the likes of you and your ilk. IFF at least makes the scratch line for some weak sport.

Now imagine the stick Tyson would get had he been knocked stupid by Banks and Cooper and fought a 50 yr old Archie Moore? Would've been the death penalty and summary firing squad for Iron Mike by these nattering ninnies.

pringle wrote:I think people are way to quick to start name calling. To me it's an indication that the name caller doesn't have any sound ground to argue his point, hence the cheap shot(s).

pringle wrote:

pringle wrote: Worthless? Your mother is Worthless.

LOL, what a loser! LOL Take a hike you drama queen before I spank you.

"The rest of US........"? So how many others are sitting with you right now, Douche? Does anyone else see these friends of yours? Perhaps they are imaginary "friends" left over from your lonely, desolate childhood. Perhaps you're referring to a case of tapeworms, don't know, don't care.
Look, I'm sorry your parents hated you and abandoned you, but I wasn't there and it's not my fault. Now why don't you be a good little psycho and go back to playing with those body parts you have stored in your closet and leave us adults to our business.

Miserable fail.

Ali was very good very early. Patterson and Tyson are the only Heavyweights who won the title at younger ages than Clay did, while Ali was able to hold a title pretty late into his career which they were unable to do (though Floyd came close against Ellis). No one claims that Clay was great at 21, he was learning and he was not yet a serious fighter with a serious mindset and focus. He wanted a fight with Liston, and it was really getting the shot at Liston and then winning the title that made him a serious fighter. Winning a title often makes you a better fighter with greater focus, unless your name is Buster Douglas, and Ali got better and better as champion.
Surely Tyson fans can't criticize Ali for picking on one old fighter when he was only 15-0. Who was Tyson fighting at 15-0...

dajuggernaut wrote:BRR is the dumbest poster on this site.

More delusional than 'dumb', I think.

Considering his limited knowldge of boxing (and baseball apparently), he is doing OK.

He's good at poring over statistics (he probably has no real life) and picking out the bits that support his 'theories' while ignoring the bigger picture totally.

His main problem is he lets his blind hatred of certain fighters completely cloud his judgement and then, like all haters, he ends up becoming an object of derision.

He doesn't seem to mind being laughed at continually. Like all nutters he believes he is 100% right and the rest of us are too dim to see the light.

I find his posts amusing in a naive sort of way.

Don't think Pringle's coming back from that, Jaywheel

I Feel Fine wrote: Surely Tyson fans can't criticize Ali for picking on one old fighter when he was only 15-0. Who was Tyson fighting at 15-0...

- Are we to now feel all weepy for the unseemly spectacle of the virile 20 yr old Olympic gold medalist hammering a 50 yr old beloved legend that Rocky took a lot of stick for beating up some 8 yrs earlier?

Nobody takes more heat than Tyson who is heavily criticized for knocking down an experienced 28 yr old fringe contender holding wins over Shavers and Standers as well as mixed in with many of Holmes' title comp and several WBA champs that Holmes ducked. Tyson was not the Olympic gold medalist, only 19 yrs old, winning a substantial UD, yet is derided for being unable to KO Quick Tillis. Same deal with Bonecrusher Smith whom he won a wide UD and Mitch Green.

Those fights tell you right there something is terribly unbalanced and out of whack with typical Tyson critics where any fight less than a perfect 1 rd KO result is mocked. At the age Ali knocks out 50 yr old Moore, Tyson had already disposed of Berbick, Smith, and Thomas, consolidating the WBA/WBC strap for the first time since Leon was champ, but it ain't good enough for whacko critics.

For the record, Robinson the only one who tackled the mismatches in the thread header, substantially agreeing with my results. I could run Tyson's pre title comp against Ali's also, but it's not nearly so interesting to match up Jimmy Robinson who lost almost every fight he was in, usually by KO against Ricardo Spain, same deal. Much more fun to slap whacko Tyson critics around and have a good laugh.

Cry me a river.
Tyson gets plenty of credit for his rise. No one has ever claimed that Ali's win over Moore means anything, though peak for peak Ali would surely beat Moore. Clay was doing with Moore what Tyson was doing with the tomato cans that he fought for the first couple of years of his career. Learning. Gaining experience.
Nitpicking the career of a young fighter in his first 20 or so fights is a sign that you're running out of arguments. I have nothing bad to say about Tyson for his pre-title fights, I love his knockout of that Johnson character, and I do not claim that Clay's win over Moore was anything more than on-the-job training, not an important win. You're grasping at straws.
Wanna analyze their amateur careers, while you're at it? I don't think you do.
By the way... good form, you spent half this thread bitching about us talking about Tyson-Douglas (because you're afraid to), yet at the first sign of trouble you start talking about Clay before he turned 22, which isn't part of the thread's focus either. Putz.

I Feel Fine wrote:Tyson's title reign had an icing of poop on its cake.

GoodnightIrene... you said something about the content of icing (cocaine...) on Michael Dokes' cake the other day in the Michael Dokes thread, or something to that effect. Funny image. Just wanted to let you know that I wasn't stealing that "icing" imagery from your post, I hadn't seen your post until now. Not important, just didn't want it to look like I was ripping something off your post.

pringle wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Your stats are worthless. Tyson's opponents were X per cent bigger?

How compelling.

Worthless? Your mother is Worthless.

LOL, what a loser! LOL Take a hike you drama queen before I spank you.

Nice to see you're being mature, Cancer Crisp.

pringle wrote:Look, I'm sorry your parents hated you and abandoned you, but I wasn't there and it's not my fault. Now why don't you be a good little psycho and go back to playing with those body parts you have stored in your closet and leave us adults to our business.

Did Stacy Goodson get your log in details?

Jaywheel wrote:

pringle wrote:I think people are way to quick to start name calling. To me it's an indication that the name caller doesn't have any sound ground to argue his point, hence the cheap shot(s).

pringle wrote:

pringle wrote: Worthless? Your mother is Worthless.

LOL, what a loser! LOL Take a hike you drama queen before I spank you.

"The rest of US........"? So how many others are sitting with you right now, Douche? Does anyone else see these friends of yours? Perhaps they are imaginary "friends" left over from your lonely, desolate childhood. Perhaps you're referring to a case of tapeworms, don't know, don't care.
Look, I'm sorry your parents hated you and abandoned you, but I wasn't there and it's not my fault. Now why don't you be a good little psycho and go back to playing with those body parts you have stored in your closet and leave us adults to our business.

Miserable fail.

I Feel Fine wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Tyson's title reign had an icing of poop on its cake.

GoodnightIrene... you said something about the content of icing (cocaine...) on Michael Dokes' cake the other day in the Michael Dokes thread, or something to that effect. Funny image. Just wanted to let you know that I wasn't stealing that "icing" imagery from your post, I hadn't seen your post until now. Not important, just didn't want it to look like I was ripping something off your post.

I Feel Fine wrote: Wanna analyze their amateur careers, while you're at it? I don't think you do..

- Why would I want to do that when thus far you've been shown to be terminally ill prepared to address the most storied 3 yr slices of heavyweight history in context to each other?

I'll let you create your own thread to wax rhapsodic over the spectacular 12 yr old feets of Clay. Technically, Tyson started off as a pro anyways and was only reformed into an amateur. Completely different style......... 8)

I have failed to analyze them in context... was that when I began to cite Clay's fights with Banks at 20 and Cooper I at 21 as part of the discussion on what he did from 22-25? Was that when I removed Douglas from Tyson's title reign? Was that when I myopically compared Tyrell Biggs to Ali, calling him a bigger stronger clone? Was that when I said that Liston was told to quit in the first fight, contrary to official accounts where Liston tells his corner that he's finished, after having had his face torn up, despite the assumption of his corner that he was going to continue? Was that when I ignored the fact that Ali was forced to fight London and Cooper, considering also that the original question dealt with their opponent selection and how good it was? Or was that perhaps when I suggested that Carl Williams was a KO specialist, when his best KO victims were Jesse Ferguson and Bert Cooper?

These are indeed concrete indications that I am ill prepared. Not to mention that I was the one to create this one-dimensional format. The greatness of Ali's opposition in his 60s title reign is after all concentrated most especially in Liston I, Patterson and to a lesser extent Terrell, which means that this format is more favorable to Tyson whose title reign is a bit more balanced. Ali has three great slots (though one of these is an automatic loss since we agree that Liston II was a dive), one above average slot, three average slots, three subpar slots. Tyson has basically ten average slots. This benefits Tyson head to head, despite the fact that their list of opponents balances out and is all together about even, and it especially benefits Mike when with a great deal of bias it is presumed that Ali's average opponents will mostly lose close fights, based on little more than a gut feeling... or when it is presumed that the Liston of the first fight quits against Berbick for no reason, as though Berbick would be the frustrating opponent that Clay was... and this of course is all forgetting that Tyson was a paper belt holder for at least some of that time, not a legitimate champion, and this is, again, forgetting that he fought Douglas. Talk about lack of context.
What was I thinking when I started this thread?

I Feel Fine wrote: The greatness of Ali's opposition in his 60s title reign is after all concentrated most especially in Liston I, Patterson and to a lesser extent Terrell, which means that this format is more favorable to Tyson whose title reign is a bit more balanced. Ali has three great slots (though one of these is an automatic loss since we agree that Liston II was a dive), one above average slot, three average slots, three subpar slots. Tyson has basically ten average slots. This benefits Tyson head to head, despite the fact that their list of opponents balances out and is all together about even, and it especially benefits Mike when with a great deal of bias it is presumed that Ali's average opponents will mostly lose close fights, based on little more than a gut feeling... or when it is presumed that the Liston of the first fight quits against Berbick for no reason, as though Berbick would be the frustrating opponent that Clay was... and this of course is all forgetting that Tyson was a paper belt holder for at least some of that time, not a legitimate champion, and this is, again, forgetting that he fought Douglas. Talk about lack of context.
What was I thinking when I started this thread?

- Proper question would be what were your parents drinking when they made you up. Should be patented, distilled, and airdropped enmasse into enemy states rendering them toothless and incompetent within a generation.

Ali was not considered an all time great by the close of the 60s by most credible lists, Fleischer's being most prominent. Tyson was considered an all time great by many at the close of the 80s, often cited as the best ever in a sort of default acquiescence to the brilliance of his shooting star. The difference is that Ali had a stench of several fights of dubious character and results, whereas Tyson's were all blow outs without question.

Holmes near the same age as Liston was for Ali with much more acclaim and fanfare in spite of having his perfect record mullered by Spinks. Spinks himself a vastly better champion than the weak Patterson, God bless him. Floyd wrapped in cotton wool for his title run with the worst balance of any heavy champ in history and the weakest chin of any champ not named Leon on top of being cursed with a back needing traction in a hospital bed.

Terrell was the only truly credible prime contender that Ali beat, but one could easily argue that Tucker, Thomas, Biggs were bigger, stronger, more dangerous opponents than the skinny Terrell, nicknamed the Octopus because his fighting style was so limited.

This notion that Ali "cleaned out the 60s" simply doesn't wash since all you have to do is look at the prime contender types that Frazier was fighting then in conjunction with the 60s elimination tourney names.

That Ali makes a greater comeback from personal out of ring setbacks to stake his claim in the pantheon is without question and a separate thread. The purpose of this thread header was to compare and contrast what many consider to be the finest examples of prime heavyweights in history. Prime being a narrow window of time by definition.

No different from running a Dempsey/Louis or Louis/Rocky comparison natural era peers or comparing Jeffries title comp to Johnson's as another natural era comparison. Modern comparison would be to match Lewis against the Klitschkos since they have the overlap of a new era of heavyweight dreadnaughts that has seemingly changed the division forever.

Citing what people thought at the time is inconsequential. Plenty of great figures in history did not get the recognition they deserved until after their time, whether it be in sports or otherwise. Ali in the late 60s was hated by the press, probably more than any other champion since Jack Johnson, and Fleischer refused to name him fighter of the year in '66 and gave out no award because he felt that Ali was a bad role model. I do recall Don Dunphy saying after Ali beat Folley that he would like to see Ali vs. Joe Louis (fantasy, of course) to decide who the best Heavyweight was, so certainly there were some people who thought highly of Ali.
Calling Spinks a better champion than Patterson is ridiculous. Patterson spent the majority of his career fighting much bigger men, Spinks spent most of his career at 175 where he was bigger than most of his opponents. I have little doubt that Patterson at his peak takes the title from the Holmes that Spinks beat. Patterson's best wins were mostly after his title reign, as you acknowledged in the other thread when it was expedient for you. Saying that Spinks had a better chin is questionable, and even if it is true it is also true that Patterson is the bigger puncher with better combinations and faster hands.
Terrell was more experienced than Tucker and certainly more capable than Thomas. I'm not going to make Terrell out to be a hall of famer or anything, but I don't think I'm reaching by saying that he was better than they were, he certainly had better wins. Terrell may have been limited but he had a pretty successful run as a paper belt holder, actually probably one of the better paper title reigns, better than most of the paper WBA and post-Holmes WBC belt holders in the 80s before Tyson came around. Again, I'm not trying to make Terrell sound like a great fighter, but I don't think that this is unfair to say. He was above average, as I said. You really have a hard on for Biggs, but he really wasn't successful as a pro.
Saying that Ali didn't clean out the 60s division is revisionist history. Ali had beaten all the established names and he wasn't given a chance to beat the young up and comers. It reminds me of a thread a year or so ago where someone said that in their view Tyson had finished cleaning out the division by beating Spinks. I didn't agree at first, thinking of Holyfield, but Holyfield had only just entered the division around the time that Tyson beat Spinks. I think it is fair, then, to say that Tyson had beaten all the established names in '88 and therefore did clean out the division by that year, despite the fact that some new names were entering the Heavyweight picture, and the same is true of Ali by '67.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:
Ali was not considered an all time great by the close of the 60s by most credible lists, Fleischer's being most prominent. Tyson was considered an all time great by many at the close of the 80s, often cited as the best ever in a sort of default acquiescence to the brilliance of his shooting star. The difference is that Ali had a stench of several fights of dubious character and results, whereas Tyson's were all blow outs without question.

Neither Tyson at the end of the 80s nor Ali/Clay at the end of the 60s had the resume of an alltime great.

I will disagree with you there wouter. 29-0 with nine Heavyweight title defenses with wins over three hall of famers, two of whom were Heavyweight champions, will get you in the hall of fame. James Jeffries, for instance, was 18-1 with seven defenses and also with wins over three hall of famers, two of whom were Heavyweight champions. I don't think anyone doubts him as an all time great.

I Feel Fine wrote:I will disagree with you there wouter. 29-0 with nine Heavyweight title defenses with wins over three hall of famers, two of whom were Heavyweight champions, will get you in the hall of fame. James Jeffries, for instance, was 18-1 with seven defenses and also with wins over three hall of famers, two of whom were Heavyweight champions. I don't think anyone doubts him as an all time great.

- Looks like you disagree with everyone, but most especially your self:

No one has ever claimed that Ali's win over Moore means anything,

Got this part right:

I don't think

Jeffries retired with 7 wins and 1 draw against 5 HOFers. Near 50% of his career against HOFers. The HOFer who finally beat him has a much poorer record against common opposition, yet received massive credit and legacy points for beating Jeffries 6 yrs after Jeff had passed from the scene.

Never could figure out that one, but I'm sure the unified dumbkoff code will be cracked by a future megalith super computer that will right all these dundernoggined mutterings that dumb down the global IQ.

Like claiming one of Ali's biggest supporters, Fleischer really hated him, or that Spinks reign as LH and heavy champ was somehow inferior to Patterson's and that somehow in Spink's entire career of never even being knocked down much less out until Tyson that Floyd's shaky chin might be considered better would be perfectly laughable if it weren't dumbing down the global IQ below God's own design limits.

Qawi knocked Spinks down, and it hardly matters that Spinks only had one knockdown at Light Heavyweight because he was at Light Heavyweight, this proves nothing in terms of his having a better chin than Patterson as a Heavyweight, and even if Spinksdid have a better chin Patterson was superior in other fields. If Patterson had stayed at Light Heavyweight he would have had at least as dominant a run as Spinks, instead he fought most of his career at Heavyweight against bigger men while Spinks spent most of his career at 175 against smaller men. Trying to say that Spinks is a better Heavyweight than Patterson is such incredible stupidity, even you don't believe this when you suggest it.
Ali did beat three Hall of Famers in the sixties. It would have been incorrect if I had said two, so I emphasized that two were Heavyweight champions. You're right about Jefrries having five, not three, I wasn't aware that Sharkey and Jackson were in the hall of fame, but I think my point still stands about 60s Ali being a hall of famer, Ali had more wins and more defenses than Jeffries and beat Liston and Patterson.
And yes, Jeffries' loss to Johnson is meaningless, as is Ali's loss to Spinks.
Fleischer did say that Ali in effect was a bad role model and that he shouldn't win that award. Maybe Fleischer didn't hate him, but Ali was very much hated by the majority of the press at the time, your statement about few people ranking him as a great is irrelevant.