BoxRec

I wouldn't even mention Tyson as an honorable mention. Is this serious? The greatest five year stretch in Boxing history was by a man who didn't beat a great fighter? That's absolute madness. And don't even bother telling me that version of Holmes or the crippled, terrified guy looking for a reason to fall down approached great at the time Mike faced them.

Charles from 46-50 shits all over Tyson. Hell, Ezzard out did Mike's five years in one year.

Boilermaker wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:1985-90 is five years. It corresponds to Ali's 1972-77 period.

Not, to be clear, that its a game-changer. Even if you look at Tyson 85-89, it isnt even within striking distance of what Ali did.

Year 1 - 1985
Year 2 - 1986
Year 3 - 1987
Year 4 - 1988
Year 5- 1989

To be fair though, it means that Tyson was not fighting professionally for a month or two in that period. I wonder whether he had any amateur losses/wins that need to be factored in if that is the period being used.

If you take the five years from the day he beat Berbick (which seems to be the best comparison here, as the period under debate in Ali's case precludes nearly a career's worth of work in the 60's) you have Tyson from the day he beat Berbick to the Ruddock rematch.

1 - 22 Nov 1986 - 21 Nov 1987
2 - 22 Nov 1987 - 21 Nov 1988
3 - 22 Nov 1988 - 21 Nov 1989
4 - 22 Nov 1989 - 21 Nov 1990
5 - 22 Nov 1990 - 21 Nov 1991

Yes, the Douglas loss is relevant. Some will argue that Tyson was no longer at his peak, but in the context of this discussion, Ali also declined during his 5 year period.
Would the Douglas who beat up Tyson do the same to Ali at a corresponding time during the 5 year period? (meaning early 1976)
Ali's best wins, Foreman, Frazier, Norton.
Tyson's best win, Holmes, Spinks, Tucker, Biggs.
Obviously a great 5 year stretch for both guys, but I lean towards Ali. (even though the Douglasfeb'90 v Ali feb'76 question is starting to nag at me)

Crease wrote:For me Mike Tyson's period of dominance is the Heavyweight Division was very impressive. While it strictly wasn't five years long - it is remarkable nontheless: The period I am talking about is: November 1986 through to July 1989:

Nov 1986 - beat Trevor Berick for the WBC Title
Mar 1987 - beat "Bonecrusher" Smith to unify with the WBA Title
May 1987 - beat Pinklon Thomas is a joint title defence
Aug 1987 - beat Tony Tucker to unify with the IBF Title
Oct 1987 - beat Tyrell Briggs in a unified title defence
Jan 1988 - beat Larry Holmes in a unified title defence
Mar 1988 - beat Tony Tubbs in a unified title defence
June 1988- beat Michael Spinks in a unified title defence
Feb 1989 - beat Frank Bruno in a unified title defence
July 1989 - beat Carl "The Truth" Williams in a unified title defence



(Though I suppose if you wanted to make it a five year stretch you could go way back to his professional debut in March 1985)

Dempsey's 1918

Carl Morris W (x2)
Jim Flynn W
Brennan W
Miske W, D
Dan Flynn W (x2)
Fulton W
Meehan L
Gunboat Smith W
Levinsky W

Some of these were only 4 round fights but a pretty good year.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I wouldn't even mention Tyson as an honorable mention. Is this serious? The greatest five year stretch in Boxing history was by a man who didn't beat a great fighter? That's absolute madness. And don't even bother telling me that version of Holmes or the crippled, terrified guy looking for a reason to fall down approached great at the time Mike faced them.

Charles from 46-50 shits all over Tyson. Hell, Ezzard out did Mike's five years in one year.

Well Ali was more impressive from 63 to to 67 than he was in his 70s stretch, i would have thought. That is the Ali that is the number one ranked fighter of all time.

And i hope the reference to Ezzard as a heavy was just to make some type of point. He doesnt come close to the all time great records. Louis from August 36 or a a year or so earlier if you want to overlook the Schmelling loss like you did for Ali. Or even Marciano from 1951 to 55. Jeffries from 1899 to 1904 was untouchable and when he retired there was no one left for him to fight. Johnson from 1906 to 1910 was phenomenal.

Boilermaker wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I wouldn't even mention Tyson as an honorable mention. Is this serious? The greatest five year stretch in Boxing history was by a man who didn't beat a great fighter? That's absolute madness. And don't even bother telling me that version of Holmes or the crippled, terrified guy looking for a reason to fall down approached great at the time Mike faced them.

Charles from 46-50 shits all over Tyson. Hell, Ezzard out did Mike's five years in one year.

Well Ali was more impressive from 63 to to 67 than he was in his 70s stretch, i would have thought. That is the Ali that is the number one ranked fighter of all time.

And i hope the reference to Ezzard as a heavy was just to make some type of point. He doesnt come close to the all time great records. Louis from August 36 or a a year or so earlier if you want to overlook the Schmelling loss like you did for Ali. Or even Marciano from 1951 to 55. Jeffries from 1899 to 1904 was untouchable and when he retired there was no one left for him to fight. Johnson from 1906 to 1910 was phenomenal.

I didn't make a reference to Ezzard as a heavy and I haven't mentioned Ali at all. But it's good to see you're still inventing what you want to read.

Boilermaker wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I wouldn't even mention Tyson as an honorable mention. Is this serious? The greatest five year stretch in Boxing history was by a man who didn't beat a great fighter? That's absolute madness. And don't even bother telling me that version of Holmes or the crippled, terrified guy looking for a reason to fall down approached great at the time Mike faced them.

Charles from 46-50 shits all over Tyson. Hell, Ezzard out did Mike's five years in one year.

Well Ali was more impressive from 63 to to 67 than he was in his 70s stretch, i would have thought. That is the Ali that is the number one ranked fighter of all time.

And i hope the reference to Ezzard as a heavy was just to make some type of point. He doesnt come close to the all time great records. Louis from August 36 or a a year or so earlier if you want to overlook the Schmelling loss like you did for Ali. Or even Marciano from 1951 to 55. Jeffries from 1899 to 1904 was untouchable and when he retired there was no one left for him to fight. Johnson from 1906 to 1910 was phenomenal.

That was his prime, but for actual achievements (and factoring results mean more when youre past-it), 1972-77 was better.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I wouldn't even mention Tyson as an honorable mention. Is this serious? The greatest five year stretch in Boxing history was by a man who didn't beat a great fighter? That's absolute madness. And don't even bother telling me that version of Holmes or the crippled, terrified guy looking for a reason to fall down approached great at the time Mike faced them.

Charles from 46-50 shits all over Tyson. Hell, Ezzard out did Mike's five years in one year.

Well Ali was more impressive from 63 to to 67 than he was in his 70s stretch, i would have thought. That is the Ali that is the number one ranked fighter of all time.

And i hope the reference to Ezzard as a heavy was just to make some type of point. He doesnt come close to the all time great records. Louis from August 36 or a a year or so earlier if you want to overlook the Schmelling loss like you did for Ali. Or even Marciano from 1951 to 55. Jeffries from 1899 to 1904 was untouchable and when he retired there was no one left for him to fight. Johnson from 1906 to 1910 was phenomenal.

I didn't make a reference to Ezzard as a heavy and I haven't mentioned Ali at all. But it's good to see you're still inventing what you want to read.

Obviously i printed quote instead of reply. I wasnt referring to anyone directly. Still, i am not surprised you were the one that mentioned Ezzard as a heavyweight now. Which 5 years do you say puts him in the same class as Tyson, ali and the other great heavyweights mentioned?

Roberto Duran period between 1973 to June 1980 was one of the best ever. Won 41 straight fights, made 12 successful title defenses, retiring undefeated champ, and 10 straight title defenses won by KO (a world record at the time until the great Wilfredo Gomez broke it) unified the world lightweight title and won the WBC Welter crown as well. This gotta be one of the greatest runs in boxing history.

Also:
Felix "Tito" Trinidad run from 1993 to 2001...Very impressive stuff. Won 3 world crowns in 3 weight classes, 15 title defenses at ww, winning 20 or 19 title fights in a row.
Pernell Whitaker and Julio Cesar Chavez runs were also impressive.

1973-80?

1993-01?

Are you having trouble with your sums again Elmer?

Boilermaker wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Boilermaker wrote: Well Ali was more impressive from 63 to to 67 than he was in his 70s stretch, i would have thought. That is the Ali that is the number one ranked fighter of all time.

And i hope the reference to Ezzard as a heavy was just to make some type of point. He doesnt come close to the all time great records. Louis from August 36 or a a year or so earlier if you want to overlook the Schmelling loss like you did for Ali. Or even Marciano from 1951 to 55. Jeffries from 1899 to 1904 was untouchable and when he retired there was no one left for him to fight. Johnson from 1906 to 1910 was phenomenal.

I didn't make a reference to Ezzard as a heavy and I haven't mentioned Ali at all. But it's good to see you're still inventing what you want to read.

Obviously i printed quote instead of reply. I wasnt referring to anyone directly. Still, i am not surprised you were the one that mentioned Ezzard as a heavyweight now. Which 5 years do you say puts him in the same class as Tyson, ali and the other great heavyweights mentioned?

The thread isn't about Heavyweights and I clearly stated the years I put up for Charles. Only the tail end of that was at heavyweight. But then again, you're a trolling buffoon.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:1973-80?

1993-01?

Are you having trouble with your sums again Elmer?

Sweet, Elmer can't calculate the years and Boilermaker thinks it's exclusive to heavyweights. Reading is far from fundamental for these two nitwits.

I don't think Tyson '85-'89 is the best run ever. I was defending it becaue Irene is acting like Tyson being in his prime diminishes from his run. IMO, his abnormally young age adds to the run. Even though that period was his prime (which it isn't age-wise for most HW's), it is amazing to accomplish what he did at such a young age. People love to diminish his win over Holmes, but its a fact that no one, even in many years afterward, did to Holmes what Tyson did. As for Spinks, he may have been crapping himself, but you can't fault Tyson for taking care of business the best way possible. I think Tyson is vastly overrated in general, but on BOTP it's quite the opposite. Also, maybe the entertainment value of the run was not considered by others, but Tyson in the '80s was nothing if not entertaining.

With that out of the way, these are some of my favorites (and better than Tyson's run):
Ali '63-'67 was a fine artist of pain. Carlos Monzon '71-'75 deserves a big shout. Saad is definitely right about Ezzard Charles '46-50'. Louis '37-'41 is a great run with really high activity for a champ.
Its pretty hard to decide what the best 5 year ever run is...

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I wouldn't even mention Tyson as an honorable mention. Is this serious? The greatest five year stretch in Boxing history was by a man who didn't beat a great fighter? That's absolute madness. And don't even bother telling me that version of Holmes or the crippled, terrified guy looking for a reason to fall down approached great at the time Mike faced them.

Charles from 46-50 shits all over Tyson. Hell, Ezzard out did Mike's five years in one year.

What great fighter did Louis beat

scallum wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I wouldn't even mention Tyson as an honorable mention. Is this serious? The greatest five year stretch in Boxing history was by a man who didn't beat a great fighter? That's absolute madness. And don't even bother telling me that version of Holmes or the crippled, terrified guy looking for a reason to fall down approached great at the time Mike faced them.

Charles from 46-50 shits all over Tyson. Hell, Ezzard out did Mike's five years in one year.

What great fighter did Louis beat

Walcott, Conn & Schmeling were all great fighters.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

scallum wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I wouldn't even mention Tyson as an honorable mention. Is this serious? The greatest five year stretch in Boxing history was by a man who didn't beat a great fighter? That's absolute madness. And don't even bother telling me that version of Holmes or the crippled, terrified guy looking for a reason to fall down approached great at the time Mike faced them.

Charles from 46-50 shits all over Tyson. Hell, Ezzard out did Mike's five years in one year.

What great fighter did Louis beat

Walcott, Conn & Schmeling were all great fighters.

One of those is not like the others imo

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

scallum wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I wouldn't even mention Tyson as an honorable mention. Is this serious? The greatest five year stretch in Boxing history was by a man who didn't beat a great fighter? That's absolute madness. And don't even bother telling me that version of Holmes or the crippled, terrified guy looking for a reason to fall down approached great at the time Mike faced them.

Charles from 46-50 shits all over Tyson. Hell, Ezzard out did Mike's five years in one year.

What great fighter did Louis beat

Walcott, Conn & Schmeling were all great fighters.

If you consider Billy Conn a great fighter, how is Mike Spinks not even close to a great fighter according to you?

chucktaylor wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

scallum wrote: What great fighter did Louis beat

Walcott, Conn & Schmeling were all great fighters.

If you consider Billy Conn a great fighter, how is Mike Spinks not even close to a great fighter according to you?

Imo Spinks is great fighter so is Conn. Spinks beat the second best heavyweight ever plus was unbeaten in his class . I would not agree on Schemling

scallum wrote:

chucktaylor wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: Walcott, Conn & Schmeling were all great fighters.

If you consider Billy Conn a great fighter, how is Mike Spinks not even close to a great fighter according to you?

Imo Spinks is great fighter so is Conn. Spinks beat the second best heavyweight ever plus was unbeaten in his class . I would not agree on Schemling

Second Best ever?

Schmelling beat the best ever!

If Spinks is great, Schmelling is definitely great.

In only four year span Ortiz did way more than Tyson his whole career if you ask me.
The always under-rated Carlos Ortiz from 1964 to 1967. In four years, he accomplished more than most fighters in a lifetime.
Flash Elorde (2x)
Kane Lane
Ismael Laguna (3x) won two and lost a close MD.
Sugar Ramos (2x)
Johnny Bizzarro
Nicolino Locche draw but everyone knows he was robbed.

elmersalsa wrote:Roberto Duran period between 1973 to June 1980 was one of the best ever. Won 41 straight fights, made 12 successful title defenses, retiring undefeated champ, and 10 straight title defenses won by KO (a world record at the time until the great Wilfredo Gomez broke it) unified the world lightweight title and won the WBC Welter crown as well. This gotta be one of the greatest runs in boxing history.

Also:
Felix "Tito" Trinidad run from 1993 to 2001...Very impressive stuff. Won 3 world crowns in 3 weight classes, 15 title defenses at ww, winning 20 or 19 title fights in a row.
Pernell Whitaker and Julio Cesar Chavez runs were also impressive.

elmer you might want to go back to the library and pick up a math book.

BTW did you post your top 100 p4p? I want to see that list.

chucktaylor wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

scallum wrote: What great fighter did Louis beat

Walcott, Conn & Schmeling were all great fighters.

If you consider Billy Conn a great fighter, how is Mike Spinks not even close to a great fighter according to you?

I never said Spinks wasn't a great fighter, he just wasn't a great fighter by the time he faced Tyson. And he gave very little effort.

He laid down in a total non-effort, and I just dont rate the guy at HW even on his best day. Either did his management, incidentally.