BoxRec

Alot of shoulda, woulda here . . .

"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas." - Joseph Don (Dandy Don) Meredith.

Geez John, if I hadn't known the phrase "Ugly American" was coined in 1958, I would have sworn they were talking about you.

BBJ
Their is English and American English. You work it out.

IFF
As for the 'extra time' Ali got with the knock down by
Cooper..who knows. You can argue rightly either way.

The fact is that Ali had the best ability to adapt from
a solid punch and the best recuperative powers nearly
ever displayed in the ring.
As for Tyson being floored by Henry cooper, I seriously
doubt that happening.

BBJ

thats great for you to have your own little rankings at home
sitting there in your underwear thinking back...but at the
time he WAS ranked in the Top 5. Hell he was the
HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION of the world. Regardless of the
'gift' decisions he may have recieved. (I say this as I have
never watched the Young fight in its entirety.)

Robinson wrote:BBJ

thats great for you to have your own little rankings at home
sitting there in your underwear thinking back...but at the
time he WAS ranked in the Top 5. Hell he was the
HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION of the world. Regardless of the
'gift' decisions he may have recieved. (I say this as I have
never watched the Young fight in its entirety.)

Well, he was ranked highly by Ring magazine, but given that the ABC Boxing Scandal of 1977 involved serious allegations of Ring magazine altering rankings to suit top promoters, we should take those rankings with a grain of salt:

From Time Magazine, May 2, 1977
Then the spotlight shifted to Ring, the most respected publication in boxing. Ring's rankings of fighters in every weight division have been boxing's heretofore unchallenged guidelines. ABC learned that the fighters' records listed in Ring were doctored to establish eligibility for booking in the King tournament. One boxer, Ike Fluellen, a Bellaire, Texas, policeman who had not fought in over a year, mysteriously found himself credited with wins in two phantom bouts held in Mexico. According to Fluellen, he was advised to switch managers in exchange for ranking and a tourney invitation. In all, the records of eleven fighters were misrepresented or falsified in the 1977 Ring ratings. Ring Editor Nat Loubet's unpersuasive defense: the magazine was dependent on unverifiable information supplied by managers.

It seems you don't know much about boxing rankings, either.

Robinson,

There is "there," and there is "their." You work it out. Heck, there's also "they're."

Steve Lott did an extensive study of the video of the Cooper-Clay fight, and Clay got an extra 8 seconds.

BBJ

Thanks for the tip. I appreciate it.

Yes Rings was involved in the scandal.

So tell me now then please, who has the
absolute authority to rank the fighters,
at that time ....

Your list ?

There never has been an absolute authority as to who can list fighter rankings. Throughout the history of boxing, from the 1920s on, various newspapers and publications posted different boxer rankings. Later on, the sanctioning bodies got into it. In the modern era, with the advent of instantaneous communication, anyone can have a go at it.

raylawpc wrote:Steve Lott did an extensive study of the video of the Cooper-Clay fight, and Clay got an extra 8 seconds.

More to the point, Clay was on his feet, dancing, 50 seconds after the 4th round ended.

Robinson wrote:BBJ
Their is English and American English. You work it out.

IFF
As for the 'extra time' Ali got with the knock down by
Cooper..who knows. You can argue rightly either way.

The fact is that Ali had the best ability to adapt from
a solid punch and the best recuperative powers nearly
ever displayed in the ring.
As for Tyson being floored by Henry cooper, I seriously
doubt that happening.

There's really nothing to debate; we can see it on film. 6-8 seconds didn't prevent Cooper from winning, its wishful thinking to say that it did. If anything, the real argument should be that Dundee over reacted, and that by messing with the glove he created unneeded controversy.

As I said above, I don't think Tyson gets knocked down by Cooper. Neither do I see a 30 year old Ali getting knocked down by that punch by Cooper. He was one fight away from becoming Heavyweight champion, but its not unfair to say that Ali was still developing and that in later years he showed more toughness. Ali had arguably the best chin of any Heavyweight champion, and he took much harder punches from bigger men in later years. It's an overrated fight. Its sort of like how people used to question De La Hoya's chin on the basis that he got knocked down a couple of times when he was a really young fighter. Having seen the rest of his career we know now that Oscar has a good chin, not sure what more Ali could have done to prove that he did as well. You would think Manila would have been enough, among other fights, but we keep hearing about Cooper. Its like people need to find anything that they can grab to criticize Ali for. If it hadn't been Cooper, they would have dug up something from his amateur days.

Ezzard wrote:Pinklon Thomas

But Thomas had gone through a divorce and had problems outside the ring so he wasn't 'prime'.

Trveor Berbick

Only Berbick was poisoned with gas in his hotel room.

Tony Tucker

Except that Tucker had loads of out of the ring problems with his management...

when you look at it 'prime' Tyson never met a 'prime' fighter... In fact it's amazing that any 2 fighters ever meet in their 'primes'... I beginning to wonder if any 2 ever have,

Great post.

raylawpc wrote:Alot of shoulda, woulda here . . .

"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas." - Joseph Don (Dandy Don) Meredith.

"If my aunty had balls, she'd be my uncle." - Bernard Manning

BBJ
so how is Ali not a top 5 fighter post Manilla?

Ambling Alp wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Pinklon Thomas

But Thomas had gone through a divorce and had problems outside the ring so he wasn't 'prime'.

Trveor Berbick

Only Berbick was poisoned with gas in his hotel room.

Tony Tucker

Except that Tucker had loads of out of the ring problems with his management...

when you look at it 'prime' Tyson never met a 'prime' fighter... In fact it's amazing that any 2 fighters ever meet in their 'primes'... I beginning to wonder if any 2 ever have,

Is that ever true.
Don't know if you remember something I said in another thread.
I said that a guy could go say 50-6, (remind you of anyone?) and his supporters will find excuses for the 6 losses.
It won't even occur to them to look at the reasons why in the 50 wins his opponents might have a reason for losing.

Age is one thing, but most of the time it's just excuses.
Tyson's losses to McBride and Williams shouldn't mean anything. Nor should the win against Holmes.
However, in the vast majority of his fights, what happened is very relevant to how Tyson should be rated.
He should get credit for beating Berbick,Tubbs,Thomas etc. On the other hand, the Douglas and Holyfield fights should be factored in as well.

Yes, totally agree...

I like to be genrous in my appraisals so if a guy loses early on in his career then I put it down to his learning his trade. It means something but it's not such a big deal... But I give proper credit to the guy who won the fight. So I think Jones' win over Hopkins is significant but I don't rate Hopkins down too harshly for it. A guy loses when moving up a whole weight division then I don't hold it against him too much. Spinks loses to Tyson then it's good win for Tyson but not worth grading Spinks down too severely... Robinson dominates la Motta in the series in terms of results... but Jake won one and those fights were all pretty close so I think Jake was good enough to beat him on one night, must be a great fighter... Also if a guy's past it but still champion then a win against him has got to count...if he's still the bets in the world it has to mean something...

The Douglas situation and the logic pretty much sums it allup for me... Tyson at 24 is past his prime and Douglas, on that night (his very own personal one fight 'prime'), would have probably beaten any other HW in history... It's like two shooting stars colliding on a night with a full moon and small amphibians falling from the heavens all at the same time...

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:To Jaybee From The Castle :

How can an athlete be over the hill or past his peak at twenty four years old?

I I never heard of such a thing, your obscurantist style of argument notwithstanding...

And living in the States I saw most of Tyson's fights in real time...

My young friend, given the glaring shortcomings in the knowledge that your questions and comments have exposed, previously both about Boxing and yet again now about athletes in general, I strongly doubt you're old enough to have been ALIVE at the time of those fights.

Nor do I argue, I simply state facts; what you NOW do with them will depend on your own maturity. But the bad news I have for you is this; I've decided not to continue educating you. I had hoped your question about whether an athletes can peak at 24 was tongue-in-cheek, but when to my horror you REPEATED it, my worst fears for you were confirmed. You'll need a teacher far more elemental than myself.

I wish you well.

Jaybee From The Castle wrote:

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:To Jaybee From The Castle :

How can an athlete be over the hill or past his peak at twenty four years old?

I I never heard of such a thing, your obscurantist style of argument notwithstanding...

And living in the States I saw most of Tyson's fights in real time...

My young friend, given the glaring shortcomings in the knowledge that your questions and comments have exposed, previously both about Boxing and yet again now about athletes in general, I strongly doubt you're old enough to have been ALIVE at the time of those fights.

Nor do I argue, I simply state facts; what you NOW do with them will depend on your own maturity. But the bad news I have for you is this; I've decided not to continue educating you. I had hoped your question about whether an athletes can peak at 24 was tongue-in-cheek, but when to my horror you REPEATED it, my worst fears for you were confirmed. You'll need a teacher far more elemental than myself.

I wish you well.

You are confusing assertion with persuasion and using that confusion to declare yourself the victor in an argument where you are being embarrassed ...Mike Tyson's career as a "great" boxer effectively ended at the age of twenty four years old...It is not my fault that no logical argument can disabuse you of the notion that he remained one. You have been challenged and found wanting...

And you still can't name an elite athelete whose career as such ended at twenty four years old barring a serious injury...

For my closing argument...You are suggesting Mike Tyson is the GOAT...The writers at Ring Magazine who know a thing or two about boxing have Michael Gerard Tyson rated at #72 among boxers of the last eighty years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_Magaz ... t_80_Years


TOUCHE

As far as I am concerned Tyson had some pretty good showings
against talented big men after Tokyo. He was not in tip top
form against Douglas, but he would go on ir-respective of
his out of ring activities, to put on some good victories against
decent calibre opponents.

I mean Tillman was a good revenge match for him.
Stopping Stewart in one was impressive considering he
had been in tough fights with Holyfield and Foreman.
Both Ruddock fights showed he could fight back against
a tough man who wants to fight.
Mathis Jr was an awkward guy, not great but a good win
for Tyson against a defensively decent foe.
Bruno while his last fight was a pretty decent and strong
man who did win a version of the belt.
The fights after Holyfield were up and down, but Tyson
still exhibited his sheer violent power. It seemed after
Lewis he just was not motivated and like past champions
was fighting to pay of bills, debts.

I am not convinced at all that Ali lost the Young, Norton, and Shavers fight...To be the man you have to beat the man and you don't beat the man by sticking your head out of the ring (twice) to avoid punishment as Jimmy Young did...He should have been disqualified right there...He never had Ali in trouble the entire fight...

As for Shavers-Ali, a well past it Ali proved he had a granite chin against one of the hardest punchers in heavyweight history and emerged victorious...Even his opponent said he won the fight, ergo:


"When the fight was over I thought at first that I had won. Then I watched the video twice and knew Ali had won. He was the world champion and I had to take it away from him, and I didn't. It was just a great honor to fight him to 15 rounds. People say what they think they want you to hear. Ali won that fight fair and square, he came out into the 15th round a different person and he won."

Every Norton-Ali fight was close...All three could have gone either way...But I don't think Norton ever visibly hurt Ali in the thirty nine rounds they fought, the broken jaw nothwithstanding as the judges could not see what was going on in Ali's mouth...

In every sport the referee's judgement is questioned when one does not like or agree with the outcome...That's just the way it is...

Robinson wrote:As far as I am concerned Tyson had some pretty good showings
against talented big men after Tokyo. He was not in tip top
form against Douglas, but he would go on ir-respective of
his out of ring activities, to put on some good victories against
decent calibre opponents.

I mean Tillman was a good revenge match for him.
Stopping Stewart in one was impressive considering he
had been in tough fights with Holyfield and Foreman.
Both Ruddock fights showed he could fight back against
a tough man who wants to fight.
Mathis Jr was an awkward guy, not great but a good win
for Tyson against a defensively decent foe.
Bruno while his last fight was a pretty decent and strong
man who did win a version of the belt.
The fights after Holyfield were up and down, but Tyson
still exhibited his sheer violent power. It seemed after
Lewis he just was not motivated and like past champions
was fighting to pay of bills, debts.

I can't see many disagreeing with you. I certainly do not.

I think Tyson was a great fighter, some don't, and I aporeciate why. i just don't think the 'prime' argument and the 'could have been' argument are really viable. I also think he was never unbeatable. I actually think no fighter is unbeatable. I also think his prowess are exagerrated. Great wins in there, some amazingly dramatic KO's but also some average performances against some not so great fighters. You can throw out everythig after Lewis and you can say the Lewis defeat doesn't really damage him... but the Holyfield defeats were undeniably significant as was Douglas... Just as Mccall and Rahman have significance for Lewis.

Robinson wrote:As far as I am concerned Tyson had some pretty good showings
against talented big men after Tokyo. He was not in tip top
form against Douglas, but he would go on ir-respective of
his out of ring activities, to put on some good victories against
decent calibre opponents.

I mean Tillman was a good revenge match for him.
Stopping Stewart in one was impressive considering he
had been in tough fights with Holyfield and Foreman.
Both Ruddock fights showed he could fight back against
a tough man who wants to fight.
Mathis Jr was an awkward guy, not great but a good win
for Tyson against a defensively decent foe.
Bruno while his last fight was a pretty decent and strong
man who did win a version of the belt.
The fights after Holyfield were up and down, but Tyson
still exhibited his sheer violent power. It seemed after
Lewis he just was not motivated and like past champions
was fighting to pay of bills, debts.

Nobody is saying Mike Tyson was an awful fighter...But folks are trying to put him in some historical context...His unavenged defeats against James Douglas, Evander Holyfield, and Lenox Lewis put him outside the pantheon of great fighters...

If Louis doesn't avenge his defeat against Schmelling, if Ali doesn't avenge his defeats against Norton and Frazier, if Sugar Ray Leonard doesn't avenge his defeat against Roberto Duran I suggest few people would refer to them as all time greats in their division if not all of boxing....

These conversations about Tyson always arise when an over exuberant fan says Tyson would have easily beat a prime Ali, a prime Joe Louis, a prime George Foreman, etcetera...

The first thing I ask myself is would any of those gentlemen have lost to Buster Douglas in their prime or a 34 and 35 year old Evander Holyfield in their near prime.

Why should the rules be suspended for Mike Tyson?

I am posting this for the edification/enlightenment/amusement of JaybeeFromThe Castle to acquaint him with the mentality/thought process/detachment from reality of the average Tyson fanboy:

The fights not for a couple more hours. So while we wait, over or under the fight lasting 2 rounds.
I'm going to go over and say McBride is KO'd in the 4th. It might take a couple of rounds for Tyson to get the right shot in.

Over..think this new guy training Tyson will want to get him some rounds. Mcbride is a pug..Tyson will get some work in before, LIGHTS OUT!

And then reality sets in:

I hate that Tyson quit but it must be hard fighting for others and not yourself.

http://www.raiderfans.net/forum/everyth ... ounds.html


That reminds me... On that night Ali was on the card (Laila) and even then Ali was the better boxer...

As the young kids say ROFLCOPTER

I'll be sure to come to you if ever I need to know what the snivelling youth of today is saying.

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

Robinson wrote:As far as I am concerned Tyson had some pretty good showings
against talented big men after Tokyo. He was not in tip top
form against Douglas, but he would go on ir-respective of
his out of ring activities, to put on some good victories against
decent calibre opponents.

I mean Tillman was a good revenge match for him.
Stopping Stewart in one was impressive considering he
had been in tough fights with Holyfield and Foreman.
Both Ruddock fights showed he could fight back against
a tough man who wants to fight.
Mathis Jr was an awkward guy, not great but a good win
for Tyson against a defensively decent foe.
Bruno while his last fight was a pretty decent and strong
man who did win a version of the belt.
The fights after Holyfield were up and down, but Tyson
still exhibited his sheer violent power. It seemed after
Lewis he just was not motivated and like past champions
was fighting to pay of bills, debts.

Nobody is saying Mike Tyson was an awful fighter...But folks are trying to put him in some historical context...His unavenged defeats against James Douglas, Evander Holyfield, and Lenox Lewis put him outside the pantheon of great fighters...

If Louis doesn't avenge his defeat against Schmelling, if Ali doesn't avenge his defeats against Norton and Frazier, if Sugar Ray Leonard doesn't avenge his defeat against Roberto Duran I suggest few people would refer to them as all time greats in their division if not all of boxing....

These conversations about Tyson always arise when an over exuberant fan says Tyson would have easily beat a prime Ali, a prime Joe Louis, a prime George Foreman, etcetera...

The first thing I ask myself is would any of those gentlemen have lost to Buster Douglas in their prime or a 34 and 35 year old Evander Holyfield in their near prime.

Why should the rules be suspended for Mike Tyson?

I do not think you have read the dozen posts made about Tyson and his History. You have failed to see the big picture with these fights