BoxRec

Scottrf wrote:If just facing great boxers was enough, journeymen would be thought of as legends.

That’s still not what I’m saying, Scott.

I’m saying being a journeyman is better than not fighting at all.

A 0-50 record has to be better than a 0-0 record.

I accept that most don’t see it that way. people like their stats etc… But boxing isn’t football where everyone plays each other home and away.

We wouldn't talk about someone who hadn't fought at all.

So you mean 40-10 is better than 40-0? In which case I don't agree. Anyway this is going nowhere and I think my position is contained in my posts above if they are taken in context.

Scottrf wrote:We wouldn't talk about someone who hadn't fought at all.

So you mean 40-10 is better than 40-0? In which case I don't agree. Anyway this is going nowhere and I think my position is contained in my posts above if they are taken in context.

Did they fight exactly the same people?

In the same time-frame?

At the same point in their careers?

All in neutral venues?

etc...

Essentially it's nothing to do with numbers. My point is that not fighting someone in your weight class should be considered more damning than fighting them and losing.

Back to Tyson.

He was a formidable fighter. His title run-in was as good as you'll see.

I don't think he was particularly adapatable in the ring. I also don't think he was the strongest mentally.

BUT in most cases these two issues would never become apparent.

Ezzard wrote:Back to Tyson.

He was a formidable fighter. His title run-in was as good as you'll see.

I don't think he was particularly adapatable in the ring. I also don't think he was the strongest mentally.

BUT in most cases these two issues would never become apparent.

Agreed, mostly --- especially with your final sentence.

I would probably find a place for him at the back-end of my top-10 of all-time. I couldn't see him any higher than 8 or 9, though. He wouldn't slip any lower than about 12-13. Considering the regard I have for his talent, I think of his resume as amazingly thin.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Back to Tyson.

He was a formidable fighter. His title run-in was as good as you'll see.

I don't think he was particularly adapatable in the ring. I also don't think he was the strongest mentally.

BUT in most cases these two issues would never become apparent.

Agreed, mostly --- especially with your final sentence.

I would probably find a place for him at the back-end of my top-10 of all-time. I couldn't see him any higher than 8 or 9, though. He wouldn't slip any lower than about 12-13. Considering the regard I have for his talent, I think of his resume as amazingly thin.

Pretty much agree though there are plenty of thin resumes in that top 20.

elmersalsa wrote:What would the great Mike Tyson's legacy would be if he would have retired and never come back after demolishing the great Michael Spinks in only 91 seconds?

He threatened the media about retiring after the fight because his life in 1988 was in so much turnmoil.

Would he be in the class of the heavyweight greats like Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Rocky Marciano, Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis?

Would he be called an all-time top 10 pound per pound great? In 1988, he was considered the greatest fighter pound per pound in the world. The Baddest Man in the Planet.

it is very simple: the greatest of all time by 3o% of the interested
crowd. among the top 5 by next 65% and an overrated lucky guy
who had beaten old men by the last 5%.

i believe tyson was very, very good as long as he was moving much.
when he turned stable and only trusted in his strength he was doomed.
overconfidence had his price. but when he was facing intimitated
opponents like spinks he just could go forward, since they did not even
dare to try hurting him. short jabs, hooks without body, the typical
thing by fighters who are not really present. i remember the weird first
round in holyfield I when evander lost balance early on but came back
and fought immediately - really trying to make his mark.

the puncher tyson would have been victim to quite a number of ATGs.
louis, ali, foreman (maybe, but could have been like foreman-lyle as well),
of course holyfield and in my book lewis as well.

to me the ultimate bout would be foreman (before the ali bout) against
tyson (after spinks). just imagine ...

Ezzard wrote:Back to Tyson.

He was a formidable fighter. His title run-in was as good as you'll see.

I don't think he was particularly adapatable in the ring. I also don't think he was the strongest mentally.

BUT in most cases these two issues would never become apparent.

I think this sums up Tyson perfectly, hence why I don't have him amongst my top 10 HWs of all-time, although, curiously, I do believe that on his day, he maybe the most dangerous HW champ of all-time.

not matter what anyone says a prime tyson would give all the great hw's a good fight and beating most of them

keithmoonhangover wrote:Lennox Lewis is a good case in point. His two losses are very hard to forget in terms of his career.

could not disagree more. he lost decisively, he
avenged decisively. nothing wrong with being
caught by a big shot in a heavy weight bout.
nothing whatsoever. i cannot see how these two
can affect his legacy in a negative way. despite
being koed he went after rahman from the getgo
and took him out impressively ... no caution, no
fear. what else to ask from a champ?