BoxRec

.....However....if Mike is allowed to ride in to each of his matches on the back of Rodan ...then of course that's something else again.

Flump wrote:

Seamus wrote:To those who said no, I ask the question, why ?

Tyson in his prime had excellent hand speed, knockout power in both hands, very good head movement, and a solid chin.

Because it transpired through his career that he couldn't turn around a fight he was losing, surely essential if we're talking GOAT.

Erm.. Not, it did NOT "Transpire through his career".

It transpired at the end of his career, where may i point out, he was 9-4 after Prison, in contrast to 41-1 Before Prison

Prison is probably much more a symptom of what the problem was rather than the cause of anything.

Though prison can exacerbate more often than it can resolve or alleviate issues.

BoxBuzz wrote:Prison is probably much more a symptom of what the problem was rather than the cause of anything.

Though prison can exacerbate more often than it can resolve or alleviate issues.

Stop acting senile, you're not that old !

J/K

Obviously, when comparing anyone, it's always hypothetical.

So if say "You can't say that about Tyson", then you can't say anything about anyone. Like saying Ali won't beat Wlad. Because it didn't happen etc.

When comparing ones Primes i.e. Their Strengths and their weakness AT THAT SPECIFIC POINT in their career, i dont see why Tyson can't make the top 10.

What happened Post-Prison and his antics eventually destroying him were his own fault i agree, but that should not stain what he did when he was in his prime.

Much like Pac's early losses mean little when comparing his Prime to another boxers.

dajuggernaut wrote:

Robinson wrote:To many he is.

He is the best ever to all the uneducated fans. Ask them to name one fighter who he beat and they can't.

I think that's some-what of an exaggeration. I'm a massive Tyson fan, am to certain degree, biased towards him, but I do not think he's the greatest HW ever. Could he have been? Sure he could have! He was highly gifted, no doubt about that!

As a Tyson fan, what is rather annoying is when people try say Tyson is not even in the top 10 or 15 of all time great HW's!

H2H, IMO, he's right up there & would have beaten many HW's at his peak! I'd go so far to day that maybe only three or four other all-time great HW's would have beaten a peak Tyson!

The debate about his place or non-place among the HW greats will go on forever, but he was a special fighter, without question!

Flump wrote:Because it transpired through his career that he couldn't turn around a fight he was losing, surely essential if we're talking GOAT.

- Just how many fights did Louis or Ali turn around when they were losing?

Ali turned around a single fight he was losing on the cards when the ref stopped Lyle from ropadoping Ali, although we know Ali lost plenty of fights that he "won," just not on the cards. Louis won the Walcott rematch, and that's it.

Mike "won" the Douglas bout by putting his guy down for 14 sec. 99 of 100x that wins the fight, Tyson just wasn't credited. That's longer than Walcott stayed down and of course Lyle never went down.

Why is Tyson held to a higher standard that they can't really achieve? Do you ever think about what you say or is it just stream of consciousness?

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: grunt, grunt, fart, belch, whine & grunt

Any updates on you and that other eejit tracking down the secret fight between Jack Dempsey and Jack Johnson?

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Flump wrote:Because it transpired through his career that he couldn't turn around a fight he was losing, surely essential if we're talking GOAT.

- Just how many fights did Louis or Ali turn around when they were losing?

Ali turned around a single fight he was losing on the cards when the ref stopped Lyle from ropadoping Ali, although we know Ali lost plenty of fights that he "won," just not on the cards. Louis won the Walcott rematch, and that's it.

Mike "won" the Douglas bout by putting his guy down for 14 sec. 99 of 100x that wins the fight, Tyson just wasn't credited. That's longer than Walcott stayed down and of course Lyle never went down.

Why is Tyson held to a higher standard that they can't really achieve? Do you ever think about what you say or is it just stream of consciousness?

Hmm, well there's a very famous fight between Joe Louis and Billy Conn you might want to look up, ask someone who knows something about boxing to tell you about it. And I think you could argue that the fight in Manila was slipping away from Ali. You could also say he pulled it out against Norton twice and Shavers, whatever you may think of the decisions.

Too bad you weren't around in 1990, Don King and the WBC could have used you.

Tyson is not held to a higher standard, he just demonstrated a mental fragilility that Louis and Ali didn't.

Tyson would have been the greatest heavyweight in history only if he and Butterbean were the only heavyweights in history.

Flump wrote: Hmm, well there's a very famous fight between Joe Louis and Billy Conn you might want to look up, ask someone who knows something about boxing to tell you about it. And I think you could argue that the fight in Manila was slipping away from Ali. You could also say he pulled it out against Norton twice and Shavers, whatever you may think of the decisions.

Too bad you weren't around in 1990, Don King and the WBC could have used you.

Tyson is not held to a higher standard, he just demonstrated a mental fragilility that Louis and Ali didn't.

- I don't have access to the Conn/Louis scores, so as far as Louis truly being behind in that fight goes it's up there with the Pep winning a round without landing a punch myth until I see different. I suspect had Louis won 13-15 rds on the cards, it would've been a UD with with two cards being at least 2 points difference, not hopelessly behind.

The scores were wide for Ali in Manila and fairly wide against Shavers. There's no evidence Ali was ever "behind" in the Norton rematches enough to "turn it around" on the cards.

In my unofficial capacity, the ref turned it around for Ali in the Shavers fight and Norton rematches. Tyson never once benefited from truly controversial decisions though there was a briefly a squeak about the Ruddock stoppage after Tyson had beat him to a pulp, knocked him down and busted his ribs. He was never behind and only handed out a worse beating and a broken jaw to add insult in the rematch.

Interesting that some feel a fighter has to show the weakness of being outclassed to be considered great. Would have thought it was just the opposite. When Mike won, he won hands down, and when he lost, he lost. He didn't play around with fanciful nuance for elaborate postmortem fight dissections by meathead critics.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Flump wrote: Hmm, well there's a very famous fight between Joe Louis and Billy Conn you might want to look up, ask someone who knows something about boxing to tell you about it. And I think you could argue that the fight in Manila was slipping away from Ali. You could also say he pulled it out against Norton twice and Shavers, whatever you may think of the decisions.

Too bad you weren't around in 1990, Don King and the WBC could have used you.

Tyson is not held to a higher standard, he just demonstrated a mental fragilility that Louis and Ali didn't.

- I don't have access to the Conn/Louis scores, so as far as Louis truly being behind in that fight goes it's up there with the Pep winning a round without landing a punch myth until I see different. I suspect had Louis won 13-15 rds on the cards, it would've been a UD with with two cards being at least 2 points difference, not hopelessly behind.

The scores were wide for Ali in Manila and fairly wide against Shavers. There's no evidence Ali was ever "behind" in the Norton rematches enough to "turn it around" on the cards.

In my unofficial capacity, the ref turned it around for Ali in the Shavers fight and Norton rematches. Tyson never once benefited from truly controversial decisions though there was a briefly a squeak about the Ruddock stoppage after Tyson had beat him to a pulp, knocked him down and busted his ribs. He was never behind and only handed out a worse beating and a broken jaw to add insult in the rematch.

Interesting that some feel a fighter has to show the weakness of being outclassed to be considered great. Would have thought it was just the opposite. When Mike won, he won hands down, and when he lost, he lost. He didn't play around with fanciful nuance for elaborate postmortem fight dissections by meathead critics.

So much ignorance from you.

Some refs have quick counts . . others short counts . . that is boxing. Douglas was up before the ref's count of 10, end of story.

Louis came back on the scorecards vs Walcott and back from several knockdowns during his championship reign. When did Tyson ever get off the canvas to win?

I'm pretty sure Frazier was in the lead or even with Ali around the 11th round in Manilla . . .whatever the judges, he was in the hole in that fight and fought out of it.

He was also down in the Norton rematch and won the fight with a great 12th round.

Tyson never in a controversial fight? If you want to call the Ali-Norton rematch 'controversial' which I personally scored a draw, you have to include Tyson-Tillis, which I also scored a draw, and only the flash KD of Tillis prevented Tyson from losing that fight, in which Mike was thoroughly outboxed down the stretch.

dempseyfire wrote: I'm pretty sure Frazier was in the lead or even with Ali around the 11th round in Manilla . . .whatever the judges, he was in the hole in that fight and fought out of it.

- Don't know what hole you're in that you can't be more than pretty sure about something beyond your grasp.

This is the boxrec forum where one click puts you on the boxer records. The rest of your post was equally vacuous. Your were one of the first ones to attack me when I joined the forum, and thus far you seldom have anything of substance to back up your poor constructions.

BRR seems to be a Bobby Boxbuzz type of historian.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:thus far you seldom have anything of substance to back up your poor constructions.

DF

NO comment re the Norton-Ali fights...but I think Ali was ahead in Manilla
at the time of the stoppage.
And as for the Tillis-Tyson fight being a draw...well there you go.

dempseyfire wrote: When did Tyson ever get off the canvas to win?

I had to get out my abacus on this one, I've also checked the record and ran the data through the mighty Univac.

It appears that the answer is nada/nill/zip/zero. However to be fair, 0 is considered the most amazing "number" within the entire study of higher math including algebra, geometry, calculus, and quantum physics.

So it appears to be a rather amazing achievement in that regard.

Seamus wrote:To those who said no, I ask the question, why ?

Tyson in his prime had excellent hand speed, knockout power in both hands, very good head movement, and a solid chin.

Why? -

Buster Douglas!!!!!!!!!

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Flump wrote:Because it transpired through his career that he couldn't turn around a fight he was losing, surely essential if we're talking GOAT.

- Just how many fights did Louis or Ali turn around when they were losing?

Ali turned around a single fight he was losing on the cards when the ref stopped Lyle from ropadoping Ali, although we know Ali lost plenty of fights that he "won," just not on the cards. Louis won the Walcott rematch, and that's it.

Mike "won" the Douglas bout by putting his guy down for 14 sec. 99 of 100x that wins the fight, Tyson just wasn't credited. That's longer than Walcott stayed down and of course Lyle never went down.

Why is Tyson held to a higher standard that they can't really achieve? Do you ever think about what you say or is it just stream of consciousness?

what r u on? in the post fight interview with both tyson and douglas they showed the two counts side by side timed. and guess what? tyson got a longer count than douglas.

watch the counts for yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHcbFUTIslI

kingfinn wrote:
what r u on? in the post fight interview with both tyson and douglas they showed the two counts side by side timed. and guess what? tyson got a longer count than douglas.

watch the counts for yourself

- Jacko, I'll take whatever you're smoking next time I want to go off half baked.

That's for proving my point that the ref was an incompetent boob who messed his shorts twice not to mention let Buster get away with several vicious free shots on the break the few rounds prior that softened the heavily medicated Mike up.

Like I stated Jacko, 99 of 100x putting a fighter on the deck for 14 sec after a clean, hard KD will result in a KO ruling by the ref and please do try to remember who's KD came first.

Here one may compare the counts given to Douglas and to Tyson, and they seem to be fairly the same:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHcbFUTIslI

Douglas used the whole count, but that does not mean he wouldn't be able to get up earlier. I think he would have no problem with that. And with only a couple of seconds to the end of the round, this wouldn't make the difference either.

Also, it looks like in the middle of the cound the referee turns around for a moment and commands Mike to the neutral corner (although view from another angle would be appreciated to confirm it). AFAIR, in such a case the counting is being paused before the fighter goes back to the proper distance and so on.

All i'm saying is, when someone is knocked down. Every second counts.

Robinson wrote:DF

NO comment re the Norton-Ali fights...but I think Ali was ahead in Manilla
at the time of the stoppage.
And as for the Tillis-Tyson fight being a draw...well there you go.

I said around the 10th-11th rounds, not at the time of the stoppage.

Are you insinuating that scoring the Tillis fight a draw is ridiculous? The judges had it 6-4 . . .you mean it's impossible to give Tillis another round or two? Tyson looked awful in that fight, plodded forward, one shot at a time . .Tillis was giving him angles and counter-punching well all night.

The thing that everyone overlooks when they talk about a fighter being an all time great or the best ever is would their style/ability work against fighters of all eras? People say that Ali revolutionized the sport with his style. Tyson did the same but gets no credit, because few fighters can truly use the peek-a-boo style of boxing that Cus D'Amato taught, but Tyson perfected it.
How would a prime Mike have done in any generation? Probably the same if not better than he did in his generation. Put him with Ali, Foreman or Frazier and he causes each of them major problems. Put him with Dempsey or Primo, Valuev or Briggs and the result would most likely have been the same.
Tyson's hand speed, foot work, upper body movement and power could not be matched for his size. Just because he had a down turn at the end doesn't mean he couldn't have beaten the best in his prime. Even Ali went 1-3 in his last four fights.

slugadore wrote:The thing that everyone overlooks when they talk about a fighter being an all time great or the best ever is would their style/ability work against fighters of all eras?

Really? I would have thought that was the main criteria people employ for saying someone is an all time great.

Collins2000 wrote:

slugadore wrote:The thing that everyone overlooks when they talk about a fighter being an all time great or the best ever is would their style/ability work against fighters of all eras?

Really? I would have thought that was the main criteria people employ for saying someone is an all time great.

Then this wouldn't be a discussion. No one saw a heavyweight fighter move like Tyson and hit as hard as he did. No one had upper body movement and use the peek-a-boo style before so how would Ali or Foreman possibly adapt to that before they were KO'd