BoxRec

Jaybee From The Castle wrote:I'll be sure to come to you if ever I need to know what the snivelling youth of today is saying.

I have to go work out now...Mostly free weights and stuff but there is a heavy bag...I shall strike it a number of times in your honor...As Socrates said to be a well rounded person one must be physically, intelectually, and morally fit...

Do not fret, Jaybee From The Castle, my friend I shall return later to resume your education...Consider yourself Emile and me Rousseau...

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

Jaybee From The Castle wrote:I'll be sure to come to you if ever I need to know what the snivelling youth of today is saying.

I have to go work out now...Mostly free weights and stuff but there is a heavy bag...I shall strike it a number of times in your honor...As Socrates said to be a well rounded person one must be physically, intelectually, and morally fit...

Do not fret, Jaybee From The Castle, my friend I shall return later to resume your education...Consider yourself Emile and me Rousseau...

My that, was a fast reply. You DO spend a great deal of time here, don't you? School's out for summer, eh And for just the briefest of moments, I thought you wrote "I have to go work now", not "work out". I was a bit surprised.

But then I reread, and, true enough, yet another in a long line of my suspicions about you has been confirmed.

And PLEASE spell 'intellectually' correctly. It's about quality in life, not quantity.
:)

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

Respectfully, while I do not have the vast knowledge of boxing some here possess I have read all the posts on Mr. Tyson, and being roughly the same age I have watched his rise and fall in real time...He was for a short time the most feared man on the planet and then he was exposed. That is how it was and that is how it shall always be despite the most earnest work of his fans and revisionists...

He lost to Buster Douglas, a mediocre fighter at best, at twenty four years old...I have seen the argument made that it is unfair to judge an athlete at such a young age for he or she has not reached their prime and learned all the tools of their craft. But I have not ever seen the argument that a twenty four year old athlete is beyond his or her prime barring serious injury...He lost to Evander Holyfield at 30 and 31, an age that most athletes are in their prime*...And let's not forget Holyfield was 34 and 35 in those fights and was supposed to be the shot fighter comming off losses against Riddick Bowe and Michael Moorer...

Mike Tyson has unavenged defeats against Buster Douglas, Evander Holyfield, Lenox Lewis, Danny Williams, and Kevin McBride...We shall ignore the latter fights for Mr. Tyson was well past his prime but it's impossible to ignore the former ones...Perhaps that's why almost every top ten heavyweight list assembled by "experts" excludes Mike Tyson or puts him somewhere in the rear...

Perhaps we are debating, discussing, arguing,whatever on parallel tracks...If your argument is that Mike Tyson on the best night of his life could have beat an Ali, a Frazier, a Foreman, or a Joe Louis you have no argument from me but I could say that about a fair amount of fighters...

When I look at an athlete, an artist, a musician I look at their body of work and Michael Gerard Tyson's body of work is found wanting...

*Mike Tyson brought his lay off, sabbatical, hiatus, whatever from boxing on himself for sexually assaulting the frigid beauty queen...

Jaybee From The Castle wrote:

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

Jaybee From The Castle wrote:I'll be sure to come to you if ever I need to know what the snivelling youth of today is saying.

I have to go work out now...Mostly free weights and stuff but there is a heavy bag...I shall strike it a number of times in your honor...As Socrates said to be a well rounded person one must be physically, intelectually, and morally fit...

Do not fret, Jaybee From The Castle, my friend I shall return later to resume your education...Consider yourself Emile and me Rousseau...

My that, was a fast reply. You DO spend a great deal of time here, don't you? School's out for summer, eh And for just the briefest of moments, I thought you wrote "I have to go work now", not "work out". I was a bit surprised.

But then I reread, and, true enough, yet another in a long line of my suspicions about you has been confirmed.

And PLEASE spell 'intellectually' correctly. It's about quality in life, not quantity.
:)

You confuse a typographical error for a genuine spelling mistake but the more I read your posts and your desperate attempts to posit an argument that carries the day the more I learn you are confused about a lot of things...But don't fret I have slayed better men than yourself...For "If I have seen a little further , it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

I shall return later, my friend, a slightly bigger and hopefully better man...
PEACE

What happened to, "I have to go to work now" - SORRY, "go work OUT now?" Five minutes jumping rope, followed by 5 minutes working the speedbag?

Given the timestamps that was either a very quick workout, or you just continued posting. 23 posts per day since stowing away on the good ship Boxrec. Lemme guess, seriously now...unemployed? Student? Either way, clearly not a great deal going on for you out there, eh?

Lad, don't let Compulsive Posting Disorder interfere with your "life" offline.

Jaybee From The Castle wrote:What happened to, "I have to go to work now" - SORRY, "go work OUT now?" Five minutes jumping rope, followed by 5 minutes working the speedbag?

Given the timestamps that was either a very quick workout, or you just continued posting. 23 posts per day since stowing away on the good ship Boxrec. Lemme guess, seriously now...unemployed? Student? Either way, clearly not a great deal going on for you out there, eh?

Lad, don't let Compulsive Posting Disorder interfere with your "life" offline.

I'm independently wealthy, having spent my twenties and thirties quite wisely...

You are a compelling adversary, like Lex Luthor, if you will...But as I said, don't let your heart be troubled, I shall return to continue your education...To paraphrase an ancient Chines proverb, having a conversation with a wise man on the internet is worth reading a thousand books.

PEACE

Both of you are idiots for hijacking this thread. Shut the fuck up, both of you.

Big Bad John wrote:Both of you are idiots for hijacking this thread. Shut the fuck up, both of you.

Why would I hijack my own thread?

It all started when JayBeeFromTheCastle said Mike Tyson would knock Muhammad Ali out within four rounds...When I took umbrage at his silly assertion he attributed it to a lack of boxing knowledge on my part...It was incumbent upon to me to show the young man the error of his ways...

Ezzard 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.

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.

I think every man is beatable, just some harder than others. As you no doubt agree.

I think what makes Tyson so captivating and him almost mythic to many is
that for the most part he more than so many other HW's is so damned
dangerous.
I think this so called 'fear' that his opponents apparently had before each
fight was a respect and wariness of getting caught when they opened up.

But the whole notion of Tyson beating most of his opponents before the opening
bell through sheer fear sells books for some so called 'experts' and satisfies
some of the fellow posters on here as they stay up until 6am hiding in mum and
dad's spare room using sister's lap top jumping from forum to forum while the
comforting glow of infomercials on the TV softens their unshaven face.

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?

Well for starters many of these greats would never have faced these fighters you mentioned
in the first place for the colour of their skin.

The second part alot of the historical greats also went for great periods as
a champion without ever defending the belt.

I really wish, like so many that Tyson would have rematched Douglas.
But to my knowledge Holyfield was the instant mandatory, and well
the rest is history.

I think that to many here and else where alot of opinions of 'great'
fighters are based on what other's have written and what they have
been told as opposed to what they themselves have observed.

Robinson wrote:I really wish, like so many that Tyson would have rematched Douglas.
But to my knowledge Holyfield was the instant mandatory, and well
the rest is history.

Holyfield was the #1 contender for two years by the time he faced Douglas. If Tyson hadn't been ducking him for all those years, he would have lost the title to Holyfield before he'd even faced Douglas.

Big Bad John wrote:

Robinson wrote:I really wish, like so many that Tyson would have rematched Douglas.
But to my knowledge Holyfield was the instant mandatory, and well
the rest is history.

Holyfield was the #1 contender for two years by the time he faced Douglas. If Tyson hadn't been ducking him for all those years, he would have lost the title to Holyfield before he'd even faced Douglas.

Maybe he thought Holyfield was shot like the majority of the boxing world did at the time...

Yes and if I am not mistaken he was the
next challenger.

And while i do agree that I feel Holyfield
had a damned good chance at beating
Tyson. At the same time, he was not
overly favoured going in and for some
reason did not garner enough interest
to many.

Even as champion, Holyfield was not that
popular...it seems in more recent times
after his losses and his back and forth
battles that many have revised the ways
that he was viewed then.

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

Big Bad John wrote:

Robinson wrote:I really wish, like so many that Tyson would have rematched Douglas.
But to my knowledge Holyfield was the instant mandatory, and well
the rest is history.

Holyfield was the #1 contender for two years by the time he faced Douglas. If Tyson hadn't been ducking him for all those years, he would have lost the title to Holyfield before he'd even faced Douglas.

Maybe he thought Holyfield was shot like the majority of the boxing world did at the time...

That is stupid and wrong. We were talking about 1990. Please don't interrupt this thread with your mindless banter.

I am referring to 1996 when they first met and was referring to this:

Holyfield was the #1 contender for two years by the time he faced Douglas. If Tyson hadn't been ducking him for all those years, he would have lost the title to Holyfield before he'd even faced Douglas.

In that context my remarks make perfect sense, your ad hominem attack notwithstanding...I am scrupulously careful about opining on things I know nothing about...

We were obviously talking about 1990, when Tyson had already been ducking Holyfield for two years. Please pay attention to the thread, or don't contribute at all.

Big Bad John wrote:We were obviously talking about 1990, when Tyson had already been ducking Holyfield for two years. Please pay attention to the thread, or don't contribute at all.

Res ipsa loquitur

If Tyson hadn't been ducking him for all those years, he would have lost the title to Holyfield before he'd even faced Douglas.

-You

Maybe he thought Holyfield was shot like the majority of the boxing world did at the time...

-Me

Robinson wrote:Yes and if I am not mistaken he was the
next challenger.

And while i do agree that I feel Holyfield
had a damned good chance at beating
Tyson. At the same time, he was not
overly favoured going in and for some
reason did not garner enough interest
to many.

Even as champion, Holyfield was not that
popular...it seems in more recent times
after his losses and his back and forth
battles that many have revised the ways
that he was viewed then.

Oh, but Holyfield was very popular here in the USA. Boxers don't usually get mainstream endorsement deals, but Holyfield did. Most of the time boxers only get endorsement deals from boxing companies like Everlast. However, Evander had a few outside of boxing. BurgerKing for instance! Not all heavyweight champions can say that. However, at the time he was to fight Tyson, before Tyson fought Douglas, he had yet to reach that level of popularity.

Before Tyson got out of prison, Holyfield was the biggest draw boxing had ever seen.

But in 1989-1990 ?

He was a much vaunted and respected
fighter. But the biggest draw in boxing ?

The number one contender. For TWO YEARS! No one Tyson fought besides Spinks was a bigger draw at heavyweight. Tyson was clearly afraid of him.

Big Bad John wrote:The number one contender. For TWO YEARS! No one Tyson fought besides Spinks was a bigger draw at heavyweight. Tyson was clearly afraid of him.

Oh clearly. You are absolutely right.

Mum get those stains out of your underwear?

So I take it you've completely given up posting about boxing in this thread. Sad.

Mate boxing left this thread along time ago.

I think it tends to when you hop on.

Actually, we were talking about boxing, and you changed subjects 30 seconds after I completely owned you.