Page 2 of 2
Re: why is boxrec.com listing the jake paul vs mike tyson fight ?
Posted: 17 Nov 2024, 10:50
by Syntax Error
I don't understand why Tyson would want this on his professional record?
It clearly wasn't a legitimate contest, so why have it on your pro record?
The only positive I can see is it allows Tyson to say that he did actually lose on points in his career, if you can call that a positive.
I will never consider this anything other than an exhibition.
Re: why is boxrec.com listing the jake paul vs mike tyson fight ?
Posted: 17 Nov 2024, 11:48
by Ruthless-RKO
Syntax Error wrote: ↑17 Nov 2024, 10:50
The only positive I can see is it allows Tyson to say that he did actually lose on points in his career, if you can call that a positive.
That’s literally the only positive and it’s just about a positive too.
I mean he didn’t lose all his bouts via stoppage.
One was DQ
Re: why is boxrec.com listing the jake paul vs mike tyson fight ?
Posted: 17 Nov 2024, 14:15
by Syntax Error
Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑17 Nov 2024, 11:48
Syntax Error wrote: ↑17 Nov 2024, 10:50
The only positive I can see is it allows Tyson to say that he did actually lose on points in his career, if you can call that a positive.
That’s literally the only positive and it’s just about a positive too.
I mean he didn’t lose all his bouts via stoppage.
One was DQ
Yes, fair point.
The other thing is, without having looked it up, he must be up there for the career span record between his first and last fights, 39 years.
Has anyone beaten that?
Re: why is boxrec.com listing the jake paul vs mike tyson fight ?
Posted: 17 Nov 2024, 14:32
by Ruthless-RKO
Syntax Error wrote: ↑17 Nov 2024, 14:15
Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑17 Nov 2024, 11:48
Syntax Error wrote: ↑17 Nov 2024, 10:50
The only positive I can see is it allows Tyson to say that he did actually lose on points in his career, if you can call that a positive.
That’s literally the only positive and it’s just about a positive too.
I mean he didn’t lose all his bouts via stoppage.
One was DQ
Yes, fair point.
The other thing is, without having looked it up, he must be up there for the career span record between his first and last fights, 39 years.
Has anyone beaten that?
40 years?
Re: why is boxrec.com listing the jake paul vs mike tyson fight ?
Posted: 17 Nov 2024, 14:33
by Ruthless-RKO
Probably the biggest gap too between fights.
Re: why is boxrec.com listing the jake paul vs mike tyson fight ?
Posted: 17 Nov 2024, 15:38
by Syntax Error
Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑17 Nov 2024, 14:33
Probably the biggest gap too between fights.
It's got to be, although I think if it is a record, it will be short-lived, because Ibeabuchi is scheduled to fight next month and if so, that will be a 25 year gap between bouts.
Re: why is boxrec.com listing the jake paul vs mike tyson fight ?
Posted: 17 Nov 2024, 17:24
by margaret thatcher
i wonder how many other boxers have had an official pro bout while already inducted to the hall of fame?
saoul mamby had a 39 year stretch but tyson's a few months longer
Re: why is boxrec.com listing the jake paul vs mike tyson fight ?
Posted: 17 Nov 2024, 18:42
by RScarf1
dawudboxer wrote: ↑16 Nov 2024, 01:58
RScarf1 wrote: ↑15 Nov 2024, 17:35
It was originally going to be an exhibition bout, but the promoter asked the Texas commission if it could be sanctioned with the two minute rounds and larger ounce gloves. The Texas commission allowed it to be sanctioned and therefore has to go on their official records.
Boxrec doesn’t need to accept it. Even the fact that they accept the fights on Tommy Morrisons record when he was clearly HIV positive is a joke.
Magic Johnson was HIV positive, but he still played in the Olympics and the United States won a gold medal in basketball.
Re: why is boxrec.com listing the jake paul vs mike tyson fight ?
Posted: 17 Nov 2024, 19:08
by RScarf1
gilgamesh wrote: ↑16 Nov 2024, 02:54
Does it really matter? Does that 1 more loss on Mike's record bring his historical standing down any? If it does...that's actually good. He's somebody that's been put on a pedestal that he didn't belong on for far too long honestly, but I don't think this hurts the way people see him any. The only thing it changes is how much more money is in his bank account, and given the amount that is, I'd say it was more than a worthwhile tradeoff.
I think Tyson's all-time rating at heavyweight dropped on BoxRec. He is now No. 24 just above Jack Dempsey who is No. 25. They both have 7 losses. I think Tyson used to be around No. 15, but his historical standing is going to be about the same. In his prime, he could beat almost anyone with the exception of Muhammad Ali in his prime, but his whole career has to be considered. Before he was inducted into the Hall of Fame, there were some people thinking that he should not be inducted and there was at least one article about it. I think he deserved to be inducted, but I think most people would not consider him to be a top ten all-time heavyweight based on his entire career. Regarding some people saying that this loss should not be on his official record, there are fights that boxers have taken a dive or let the other boxer win that are on their records.
Re: why is boxrec.com listing the jake paul vs mike tyson fight ?
Posted: 17 Nov 2024, 20:39
by goose 5
Joe Frazier, Willie Pep, Ray Leonard, Azumah Nelson, Jeff Fenech, Roy Jones. All fought after being elected to the Hall of Fame.
Re: why is boxrec.com listing the jake paul vs mike tyson fight ?
Posted: 17 Nov 2024, 21:13
by gilgamesh
RScarf1 wrote: ↑17 Nov 2024, 19:08
gilgamesh wrote: ↑16 Nov 2024, 02:54
Does it really matter? Does that 1 more loss on Mike's record bring his historical standing down any? If it does...that's actually good. He's somebody that's been put on a pedestal that he didn't belong on for far too long honestly, but I don't think this hurts the way people see him any. The only thing it changes is how much more money is in his bank account, and given the amount that is, I'd say it was more than a worthwhile tradeoff.
I think Tyson's all-time rating at heavyweight dropped on BoxRec. He is now No. 24 just above Jack Dempsey who is No. 25. They both have 7 losses. I think Tyson used to be around No. 15, but his historical standing is going to be about the same. In his prime, he could beat almost anyone with the exception of Muhammad Ali in his prime, but his whole career has to be considered. Before he was inducted into the Hall of Fame, there were some people thinking that he should not be inducted and there was at least one article about it. I think he deserved to be inducted, but I think most people would not consider him to be a top ten all-time heavyweight based on his entire career. Regarding some people saying that this loss should not be on his official record, there are fights that boxers have taken a dive or let the other boxer win that are on their records.
I mean honestly losing a decision to Jake Paul at 58 isn't as embarrassing a loss to go out on as the Kevin McBride one was, and it damn sure paid better.
I'm not saying Jake Paul is better than McBride, but at least Mike didn't quit on his stool this time. He saw it through to the end.
Re: why is boxrec.com listing the jake paul vs mike tyson fight ?
Posted: 17 Nov 2024, 22:48
by RScarf1
gilgamesh wrote: ↑17 Nov 2024, 21:13
I mean honestly losing a decision to Jake Paul at 58 isn't as embarrassing a loss to go out on as the Kevin McBride one was, and it damn sure paid better.
I'm not saying Jake Paul is better than McBride, but at least Mike didn't quit on his stool this time. He saw it through to the end.
Jake Paul admitted to not going for the knockout and he maybe could have knocked Tyson out. Tyson said that he almost died a few months before the fight. He had eight blood transfusions. By the way, people may have forgot or were unaware of this, but Tyson got the covid vaccine and he did not want to, but he had to get it in order to travel internationally. I don't think Tyson will ever fight again.
Re: why is boxrec.com listing the jake paul vs mike tyson fight ?
Posted: 20 Nov 2024, 14:11
by dawudboxer
RScarf1 wrote: ↑17 Nov 2024, 18:42
dawudboxer wrote: ↑16 Nov 2024, 01:58
RScarf1 wrote: ↑15 Nov 2024, 17:35
It was originally going to be an exhibition bout, but the promoter asked the Texas commission if it could be sanctioned with the two minute rounds and larger ounce gloves. The Texas commission allowed it to be sanctioned and therefore has to go on their official records.
Boxrec doesn’t need to accept it. Even the fact that they accept the fights on Tommy Morrisons record when he was clearly HIV positive is a joke.
Magic Johnson was HIV positive, but he still played in the Olympics and the United States won a gold medal in basketball.
And since when has basketball been a blood sport where the aim is to punch ppl in the face? Do basketball players often get nose bleeds and cuts and get into clinches rubbing their bloody faces together?
Re: why is boxrec.com listing the jake paul vs mike tyson fight ?
Posted: 20 Nov 2024, 14:12
by dawudboxer
Review of the fight.
The bout was somehow sanctioned by the Texas boxing commission. Tyson, who only months before had almost died from a stomach ulcer and needed 8 blood transfusions to save his life, was sanctioned to fight a 27 year old. Tyson also had a bad knee and hadn’t boxed professionally for 19 years! Both boxers wore 14 ounce gloves and the bout was contested over 8x2 minute rounds. It turned out that to be nothing more than an exhibition where Paul carried Tyson the 8 rounds like it was a sparring session, yet as it was sanctioned by Texas, it has now been included on Tyson’s record as an extra defeat. A sorry night for boxing, and all those involved and who accept it as a real bout should take a look at themselves and take a step away from the sport.
Re: why is boxrec.com listing the jake paul vs mike tyson fight ?
Posted: 20 Nov 2024, 14:13
by dawudboxer
Now watch this post be deleted
Re: why is boxrec.com listing the jake paul vs mike tyson fight ?
Posted: 20 Nov 2024, 14:46
by ace_of_clubs
I read somewhere that Tyson asked for the bout to be sanctioned. It was awhile back before the first fight was canceled because of the ulcer issue. I'm thinking Tyson felt he could really beat Paul at that point and it probably would have been more competitive before the health issue. Either way this fight should not have been sanctioned.