BoxRec

Whatever. I'll let you chaps moan about Evan Field's poor heavy title record, 10-7-2. Apparently he was supposed to be 19-0, but didn't get the email. No wonder you gentlemen are so upset!

Truth hurts!

Brilliant! Broughtonrules has discovered the only relevant factor in rating fighters. Just look at their title records. That's all that is necessary.
(Other fights must be completely meaningless.)
Quality of competition must not mean anything.
The stage of the fighters careers don't mean anything.
Obviously Holyfield's fight against Valuev is just as important as his fights with Douglas, Bowe,Tyson etc were.

Ray Robinson was only 8-6-1 in middleweight title fights. He must not have been a very good middleweight at all.

Ambling Alp wrote:Ray Robinson was only 8-6-1 in middleweight title fights. He must not have been a very good middleweight at all.

- Ray way overrated at middle. Good at the start of the run up to challenging Maxim for the LH crown and then he retired. Very uneven after that, though thrilling to the end. Ray's career excellence was as light/welter mainly where he was as closer to perfection than any fighter ever, save Tyson in his abbreviated heyday. After that he becomes one of the boys.

It's you sweet things who ignore Tyson's stellar comp, skills, exquisite training and natural talent in his heyday. After prison he's mainly challenging fringe contender types for big money in clubfighter type performances, yet you insist that his impaired mental capacity requiring medication which limits his ability to train and fight should be held against him because he's still of prime age and has less hard rounds than Mr. Field. I guess same deal if he had a frontal lob or legs cut off at the knees.

Funny how Tyson is such a threat to some. Reminds me when he approached Lewis at that presser and Lewis' guards panic and start throwing punches, starting a riot. Funny stuff, but of course I wouldn't want him approaching me either looking like that!

Of course Robinson was better at welterweight. However, he was still a great middleweight.

As for Tyson, he should get credit for his strengths and his accomplishments.
He was certainly better than the majority of heavyweight champions.

However, he should also be criticized for his weaknesses and performances instead of weak excuses being made for him.

When a fighter is old/been in a lot of ring wars, that is one thing. Obviously, Tyson's losses to Danny Williams and McBride don't mean anything.

However, you lose credibility when you use the crybaby excuses for him (like trying to dismiss a 30 year old Tyson losing to a 34 year old Holyfield who had much more wear and tear) and then hold Holyfield's losses when he was in his 40's against Holyfield.

A credible person uses the same criteria for judging both fighters that they like and and those that they dislike.

Grow up.

Ambling Alp wrote: However, you lose credibility when you use the crybaby excuses for him (like trying to dismiss a 30 year old Tyson losing to a 34 year old Holyfield who had much more wear and tear) and then hold Holyfield's losses when he was in his 40's against Holyfield.

A credible person uses the same criteria for judging both fighters that they like and and those that they dislike.

Grow up.

- What's your mental age? All this nonsense about Tyson the bully leads me to conclude many of you are still fresh from your playground scars.

Boxing includes a bully element. Ali, Tyson, Jeffries, Willard, Robinson, little Jimmy Wilde, they use their physical prowess to bully less formidable fighters into submission. This is evident in both subtle or overt manner in pressers and such from the beginning of the sport.

What on earth ever gave you the impression that I "like" Tyson? I don't care for either of these fighters on a personal level, but I used to have more favorable impressions of both. The maturity level of some of these responses is questionable.

Ibro ranks them almost equally with Tyson having the edge for now. Rank ain't set in stone. They go up and down and are as fluid as the time trickling through life's tap everyday. Nobody knows where Chinese fans or Russian historians are going to rank them 50 yrs from now.

Tyson was blessed with some of the greatest boxing mentors ever at an impressionable age, incredible natural talents and attributes, and had the heart, the grit, and the hugely formidable discipline to become a storied HOF heavy champion for ages by the time he was 21 yrs of age. Mr. Field the lesser but still fine talent blessed with more stable mental attributes that enables him to overcome the gulf in talent later in their careers for two wins. On his record. Look it up. End of save this thread.

That some want to rank Mr. Field over Tyson fine with me. I'm just pointing out that his heavy record is uneven without Tyson and not that much better with Tyson on it considering the state Tyson was in. A great cruiser to damn with faint praise and HOF worthy heavy, not the elite. Then there are the nagging sporting questions that he has yet to answer for.

Interesting how both have been suspended from various boxing jurisdictions for different reasons. Have you chaps ever bothered to consider the reasons?

All of the evidence points to Holyfield. He beat him twice when further past his best. He also had a better career. He beat better fighters. He had a bigger heart.

If they both fought the best ever 50 HWs Holyfield would win more than Tyson but Tyson's wins would be more conclusive.

People arguing for Tyson have their points, fair enough, but it's quite a leap of faith to go with Tyson. The manner of Tyson's wins always blinds people to his shortcomings.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:Whatever. I'll let you chaps moan about Evan Field's poor heavy title record, 10-7-2.

That's an argument in Tyson's favor?

Tyson wasn't even good enough to get that many title fights.

My2Sense wrote:

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:Whatever. I'll let you chaps moan about Evan Field's poor heavy title record, 10-7-2.

That's an argument in Tyson's favor?

Tyson wasn't even good enough to get that many title fights.

- In Mae West's first scene of her first ever movie, Night after Night with George Raft, a hat check girl exclaims, "Goodness, what lovely diamonds." West replies, "Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie."

Tyson for all his considerable faults was never passed around like Mr. Field was by a pair of Russians for sport.

Tyson turned down more title offers than Mr. Field ever fought after Tyson's Lewis fiasco, a fight he admitted that he was not properly trained for months before it was signed. Tyson could come out of retirement today and secure a challenge to Valuev or the White Tyson pretender and who knows, maybe some terrible day he will carry on the trainwreck that Mr. Field insists upon acting out in Tyson's long absence.

I'll let the hat check girls ooooooooh and aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh over Mr. Evan Field's belts that Tyson did yeoman's work in unifying for him when Mr. Field was busy sporting the cruiser diapers being sold as championship belts back then.

As I stated previous, my objection is the characterization of Tyson as a bum on this board when he has a better heavy title record and career record than Mr. Field. If Mr. Field had truly been a better fighter, he would've been able to challenge Tyson before 96 and Lewis before 2002 in the sticks of Memphis, Tennessee. Lewis at least has a fine title record, better than Tyson's and of course no heavy in history has come close to Mr. Field's record title losses.

Ever heard of Jersey Joe Walcott? He had 6 losses and only two wins in title fights.
Of course Walcott got hooked one one decision and fought some pretty good competition in those title fights; not that it would mean anything to someone who doesn't seem to understand that there is a lot more to take into consideration in evaluating how good a fighter is than simply his win/loss record in title fights.

Ambling Alp wrote:Ever heard of Jersey Joe Walcott? He had 6 losses and only two wins in title fights.
Of course Walcott got hooked one one decision and fought some pretty good competition in those title fights; not that it would mean anything to someone who doesn't seem to understand that there is a lot more to take into consideration in evaluating how good a fighter is than simply his win/loss record in title fights.

- Ever hear of Peter Jackson? 0-0-0 in title fights. Same with Sam Langford. I take quite a bit into evalution in responses that pass right over your heads.

Time for you to start again at the top. Evan Field was nowhere near Tyson's class when Tyson was in full swing. It appears records mean nothing when your guy falls short of the mark. Since records don't mean much to you, maybe you think Battling Jim Johnson is better than Mr. Field since he had more fights against HOFers. Or Joe Grimm.

Doesn't bother me a bit if you rank Mr. Field over Tyson. Only reason I'm on the thread is because you chaps are doing such a poor job representing Mr. Field. I almost want to take over that duty for you, but it's not the same fun arguing with myself.

So in that spirit, gonna toss out another nugget for you to chew on. Bowe obviously wasn't keen on fighting the dangermen of the era, Tyson, Lewis, Morrison, Mercer, Foreman, but slimy Rock Neuman was always ready for a go against Mr. Field. I'll let you contemplate the reasons.

More red herring horseshit. Yawn

Frankly, I think you should be grateful to get the responses you do. It's patently clear to me you enjoy a wind-up game. Have at it, mate.

Evan Field?

There is something not quite right about fellows who make up pet names for fighters.

One clown kept talking about "Bugs". I thought he meant that pesky wabbit. Turned out it was his pet name for Joe Bugner. Fekkin weirdo.

Im not trying to be mean to Broughton..but some times his posts come
across as a drooling drunken rant that one heres on the bus or in
the front bar at closing time.

I do agree on some things he says, as I also disagree with other things
but having said that...i am easily confused mid rant.

Evan Field was the name used by Holyfield when he registered with some agency for steroids... I don't have the details but that's the gist of it. As if Tyson was somehow clean (add Jones, Toney, Mosely, etc...)!

Borughton would be a great guy to meet in a bar and discuss boxing with. On a forum like this though...

I doubt many elite athletes...boxers or not are free of PES..whether steroids,
HGH, etc....

From the 60s to the 70s, heck it was only 'illegal' in the late 1980s, before that.

Robinson wrote:I doubt many elite athletes...boxers or not are free of PES..whether steroids,
HGH, etc....

From the 60s to the 70s, heck it was only 'illegal' in the late 1980s, before that.

I always remember a pretty strange comment(well i thought it was strange at the time)coming from Lennox Lewis when talking about his domination of the Heavyweight scene and his time as Champ.
He was bigging himself up saying he was a pugillistic professor etc, but he made a point of mentioning that he did it all without the use of anything else.
I suspect a huge portion of Heavyweight's used PES and probably still do.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:More red herring horseshit. Yawn

Frankly, I think you should be grateful to get the responses you do. It's patently clear to me you enjoy a wind-up game. Have at it, mate.

- I can do without winding up the hundreds of Evan Field's exes.

I do enjoy making GRANDE sweeping pronouncements by viewing select observations out of a fighters career to counter glibless inanity. The summation of Mr. Field's supporters is that 1. Mr. Field is better than Tyson because of 2 fights and 2. Tyson is pants because Mr. Field owned him and he was nothing but bully. If their logic held water, then Moorer and Ruiz are at least equal to Mr. Field as a fighter, and Donald, Byrd, Toney, Bowe, Iggy, Niko all rated over him. Of course Lewis already proved his class over him.

Now, I'm willing to respect the choice to rank Mr. Field over Tyson, but I will skewer any notion that somehow Tyson is not worthy of being ranked and any notion that Mr. Field is worthy of top 10 heavies. I back this up with Ibro ratings which in general I find to be in my own ballpark and represent a consensus by a large panel of committed enthusiasts. When I object to any ratings, I cite strength and weaknesses of records that any fighter has.

As a p4p fighter moving up from lightheavy, Mr. Field made a name for himself, but only if we ignore the obvious source of his bulk and strengthening that allows him to exist in the heavy division. The actual ranking of Mr. Field becomes even more problematic since he becomes a very uneven fighter after the Foreman bout, typically whitewashed as the result of mysterious health woes.

There is a thread devoted to Tyson in the Current Scene, but it's boring rah rah stuff that you could go and stir the pot before the subject matter sticks to the bottom like this thread was doing.

Why are you entertaining the forum troll?

Hes not here to debate, learn, or have fun -- he's here to annoy, provoke and agitate. He steers around arguments and keeps calling out 'Evan Fields, Evan Fields, EVAN FIELDS!' in the classic style of a Tyson fanatic with no solid argument fighting a losing battle.

Holyfield has boxed professionally for 25 years. He's never been charged with nor convicted of anything. Therfore repeatedly using the name Evan Fields is as deeply flawed a position and annoying as every other tactic our latest Tyson Freak has attempted. (blind title fight numbers with no regard for quality of opposition, theories about people who don't like Tyson were bullied as children, etc)

The Evan Fields tabloid story that disappeared as soon as it appeared with absolutely nothing happening must be a real blessing for Tyson Freaks desperate to atone for their icons embarrassing back to back losses.

Why are you all feeding the latest troll? When we don't feed them, they always go away. REMEMBER?

overhand_right wrote:Why are you entertaining the forum troll?

- Dear Troll Hunter,

Resident Troll here, glad to finally make your acquaintance. May I address you as Hunty? Why thank you, Hunty it is, and you can call me Georgie, as in pudd'n pie.

Now Hunty, in the interest of greater sportsmanship, I'm going to allow you to set your best trap, but in the interest of sportsmanship, I feel compelled to advise you that your pop gun and sharped toothpicks are simply inadequate to subdue a hungry troll.

Now, to lay the tracks down for you to follow so as to know where to set the trap at, Ibro ranks Tyson 13th, Mr. Evan Holy Field 14th, a freebie to get the troll hunting properly rolling.

yiddo14 wrote:

Robinson wrote:I doubt many elite athletes...boxers or not are free of PES..whether steroids,
HGH, etc....

From the 60s to the 70s, heck it was only 'illegal' in the late 1980s, before that.

I always remember a pretty strange comment(well i thought it was strange at the time)coming from Lennox Lewis when talking about his domination of the Heavyweight scene and his time as Champ.
He was bigging himself up saying he was a pugillistic professor etc, but he made a point of mentioning that he did it all without the use of anything else.
I suspect a huge portion of Heavyweight's used PES and probably still do.

I know of non HWs as well in boxing, kickboxing and MMA here in Oz that are high profule
that use PES.

It is rampant. It is a fact of any sport. Past and present. That much stress on the body
needs a bit extra to help maintain training.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

overhand_right wrote:Why are you entertaining the forum troll?

- Dear Troll Hunter,

Resident Troll here, glad to finally make your acquaintance. May I address you as Hunty? Why thank you, Hunty it is, and you can call me Georgie, as in pudd'n pie.

Now Hunty, in the interest of greater sportsmanship, I'm going to allow you to set your best trap, but in the interest of sportsmanship, I feel compelled to advise you that your pop gun and sharped toothpicks are simply inadequate to subdue a hungry troll.

Now, to lay the tracks down for you to follow so as to know where to set the trap at, Ibro ranks Tyson 13th, Mr. Evan Holy Field 14th, a freebie to get the troll hunting properly rolling.

I'm sure you couldn't stop giggling while nutting out this little gem. At least you're entertained.

With regards to when Tyson was in his prime, shouldn't it be possible to objectively determine how the 1980s Tyson compared with the post-prison version in speed by analyzing videos of him? If the speed of the film is known, couldn't the speed of Tyson's punches be determined and compared?

Megaforce...1982

I would love to see these two in their pomp put an end to the klitscho madness. Holyfield is probably a better fighter. Tyson could not keep his head together. Nevertheless Tyson made the heavyweight championship important. Tyson did what everyone else today talks about putting prestige amongst the heavyweight championship. The heavyweight championship felt important when these two were in thier prime.

Now we have a rehash division. Were people like Briggs, Rahman, Maskaev get rehashed. A shot Holyfield beat Rhaman just as quick as fricken Wlad did.

Both are infinately better fighters than the heavyweights today. Thanks for the memories.

Last time I checked the HW championship was important long before
Tyson unified the belts.