BoxRec

Dentsun4228 wrote:I think most people who saw that fight recognize that Tyson wasn't in the kind of physical shape typical of his title defenses. He also fought a lot differently than usual.

He fought differently because Douglas MADE him fight differently. And you are correct that Douglas lost to Tucker. Douglas controlled the first half of the fight and then ran out of gas and got stopped. It was a typical Douglas performance, and entirely irrelevant to the Tyson-Douglas discussion.

The Great John L wrote:

Dentsun4228 wrote:I think most people who saw that fight recognize that Tyson wasn't in the kind of physical shape typical of his title defenses. He also fought a lot differently than usual.

He fought differently because Douglas MADE him fight differently. And you are correct that Douglas lost to Tucker. Douglas controlled the first half of the fight and then ran out of gas and got stopped. It was a typical Douglas performance, and entirely irrelevant to the Tyson-Douglas discussion.

Bullcrap...trying to justify disdain for Tyson by making it seem like he really was in shape but simply outfought by Buster. Everybody knows that Buster was a 10-1 underdog and Tyson underestimated him. Everybody who saw the fight knows that Tyson was out of shape. Buster didn't do anything but beat a poorly conditioned fighter. I don't think that's a secret in the boxing world. There are stories of Tyson partying late the night before the fight, romancing the Japanese ladies. He OBVIOUSLY wasn't in shape. Anyone who says he was has an obvious agenda. So, Buster was able surpass the efforts of Tucker, Tubbs, Holmes, Spinks, Williams and guys that were much better than he? You're lying to yourself. I saw the Tucker-Buster fight. Buster started fast, but Tucker gradually took him apart. Like someone else said, Buster was journeyman and nothing more...The only way he could have beaten Tyson was by capitalizing on Tyson's lack of preparation for the fight...I mean, that is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE!

As far as Holyfield goes, Tyson was returning to boxing after a 4 year absence. He wasn't physically or mentally conditioned and he even stated several times after fights that he didn't really feel up to it anymore. Tyson's greatest strength was his mental approach and when that went, he was barely a shadow of himself. He was past his prime at that point and had lost a lot of the skill and conditioning he had back in the late 80's. He was still able to knock off guys like Bruno & Mathis, but he wasn't the fighter he once was.

To call Tyson a fornicating moron reveals a lot. If it's a personal distaste for the man himself then one should really refrain from commenting on Tyson posts. Your personal feelings and dislikes for people are not an issue on these boards. None of us are perfect, so it's fornicating moronic to be judgemental of anybody but yourself. Besides, this is a boxing board. Keep your comments relevant to the fighters performances in the ring cause you don't know shit about them as people.

Dentsun4228 wrote:Bullcrap...trying to justify disdain for Tyson by making it seem like he really was in shape but simply outfought by Buster. Everybody knows that Buster was a 10-1 underdog and Tyson underestimated him.

Actually, he was more like a 40-1 underdog. Are you sure you know anything about this?

Dentsun4228 wrote: Everybody who saw the fight knows that Tyson was out of shape.

Obviously this statement isn’t true since there are a few posters on this forum questioning it.

Dentsun4228 wrote:He OBVIOUSLY wasn't in shape. Anyone who says he was has an obvious agenda.

An agenda!??! What exactly do you mean?

Dentsun4228 wrote:I saw the Tucker-Buster fight. Buster started fast, but Tucker gradually took him apart.

Yes, exactly what I said. Tucker stopped him after he tired. He was notorious for a lack of focus and poor training habits. However, he was in shape for Tyson, which is why he kicked his butt.

Dentsun4228 wrote:To call Tyson a smeg moron reveals a lot. If it's a personal distaste for the man himself then one should really refrain from commenting on Tyson posts. Your personal feelings and dislikes for people are not an issue on these boards. None of us are perfect, so it's smeg moronic to be judgemental of anybody but yourself. Besides, this is a boxing board. Keep your comments relevant to the fighters performances in the ring cause you don't know shit about them as people.

What the hell are you talking about!??! When did I call Tyson a moron? You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills before you make yourself look even more foolish.

Decagon wrote:Part of how you judge a fighter is how he adapts to being past his prime. Muhammad Ali lost to Joe Frazier because he didn't have the skills he'd had earlier on. So, he went back to the drawing board and found a fighting style compatible with his eroding physical condition. Then he used that new style to beat a better crop of fighters than any heavyweight has before or since:

• Jimmy Ellis
• George Chuvalo
• Jerry Quarry
• Floyd Patterson
• Bob Foster
• Ken Norton
• Joe Frazier
• George Foreman
• Ron Lyle
• Joe Frazier
• Earnie Shavers
• Leon Spinks

!

Granted, that is part of how you judge a fighter...but just part. Longevity is also important as someone else said earlier. But those things are only important as side notes to how they performed in their prime. To say Ali who came back from the 3 year exile was in his prime would be false. We know that in his post-exile years he would have been hardpressed to beat some of the other greats in boxing history. After all, he fought 3 life-and-death struggles with frazier and 3 life-and-death struggles with Norton. Neither of those guys would fall into most people's top 10 heavywts of all time. My point is: A prime Tyson would have beat a post-exile Ali. So what does it matter that Ali had more longevity? As far as your little list is concerned, check this out.

• George Chuvalo was not nearly as good as Trevor Berbick.
  Jerry Quarry vs Razor Ruddock...who wins? I say Ruddock decapitates him.
  Floyd Patterson (little guy w soft chin) vs Bonecrusher Smith (6-4, 225 brute wasn't called bonecrusher for nothing). Floyd would be lucky to make it out of round 1.
  Jimmy Ellis. Tony Tucker...Tony Tubbs...Tyrell Biggs. They'd all beat "soft touch" Ellis.
  Bob foster. Mike Spinks was a better lightheavywt.
  Ken Norton. He was OK...I think he'd have trouble with Pinklon Thomas or Frank Bruno.
  Joe Frazier...you have him twice...were you dropped on your head as a child? Hey, Frazier went 1-2 with Ali. Styles make fights, because Foreman blew him out in 2. Was he great or lousy? I think if he had fought in the Tyson era and battled Bruno, Thomas and smith instead of Mathis sr, Ellis, Stander and Foster, he'd have a shorter reign...after all, look what Bonavena did to him.
  Foreman was an all time great...his strength was his...strength. Bigger and more powerful than most of the other guys around at the time, he'd be an average sized heavywt in the Tyson era...and you saw what tyson did to the 6-4, 225 lb guys he faced in his prime. Foreman's win over Frazier is almost an aberration. Didn't he get stopped by Ali, beaten by Young and barely survive a knockdown dragout against Lyle?
  Ron Lyle...you're kidding, right?
  Shavers. A huge punch...kinda like Bonecrusher smith, but without the skill.
  Leon Spinks. Not a good look for an all-time great to get beaten by an olympian with 8 pro fights...I'll pretend you didn't type that guy's name.

Dentsun4228 wrote:"]To call Tyson a smeg moron reveals a lot. If it's a personal distaste for the man himself then one should really refrain from commenting on Tyson posts. Your personal feelings and dislikes for people are not an issue on these boards. None of us are perfect, so it's smeg moronic to be judgemental of anybody but yourself. Besides, this is a boxing board. Keep your comments relevant to the fighters performances in the ring cause you don't know shit about them as people.

What the hell are you talking about!??! When did I call Tyson a moron? You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills before you make yourself look even more foolish. [/quote]
You didn't call him a moron. Decagon did...My bad for not being clear who that paragraph was directed at. However, I thought you were following the whole thread which is why I didn't think it was necessary. Anyway, just look up any authoritative report on the Tyson-Douglas fight and it's sure to say that Tyson was not in shape for the fight. I know that it takes some deep denial to say that he was, because if you watch that fight, you KNOW he wasn't in shape...still you will come on these boards and say that Tyson was in shape because you have an agenda. What agenda? To undermine Tyson's greatness...to say that he beat the best of his division but some 40-1 (your words) underdog, journeyman simply exposed him by doing what? Hitting him with a jab and not being scared of him? Bullcrap...watch the Tyson fights again...None of his opponents were scared. They all had a plan and all believed they could win until they got hit. Douglas was just a lucky s.o.b who caught Tyson when he was at his worst.

Marciano did fight in an especially weak era...The fact that the top contenders in the Marciano era were Roland lastarza, don cockell, Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott is ample evidence. Charles and Walcott fought 4 CONSECUTIVE TIMES for the title before Marciano-Walcott...why? Because there was NOBODY ELSE AROUND! Marciano made out due to very weak comp after the war which devastated the pool of talent that he would otherwise have had to face...Marciano was no great. Anyone who knows boxing can tell that from watching his tapes. He was short and small (185lbs) in his prime, yet surprisingly slow and clumsy. He cut easy and got dropped by guys like archie moore and walcott. Even Louis had him on queer street. He was lucky to catch Walcott and Charles when he did...a couple of years earlier he would have been target practice for both of them.

pretty sad, so much wrong info falsely spread by dentsun

Dentsun4228 wrote:You didn't call him a moron. Decagon did...My bad for not being clear who that paragraph was directed at. However, I thought you were following the whole thread which is why I didn't think it was necessary.

Your venom was directed at me, so you made no mistake other than to become so emotionally clouded as to be unable to read clearly.

Dentsun4228 wrote:Anyway, just look up any authoritative report on the Tyson-Douglas fight and it's sure to say that Tyson was not in shape for the fight. I know that it takes some deep denial to say that he was, because if you watch that fight, you KNOW he wasn't in shape...

I don’t need to check any “authorotative sources”, because they would be no more “authorotative” thaqn my own personal observations and opinions. Tyson prepared for that fight no differently than he did for his previous few defenses. I suggest you objectively watch a few of his fights again and notice how less effective he always after about 4-5 rounds.

Dentsun4228 wrote:still you will come on these boards and say that Tyson was in shape because you have an agenda. What agenda? To undermine Tyson's greatness...

Buddy, you need to get a life. What’s you’re agenda? Did you perhaps personally know Tyson when he was in prison?

Dentsun4228 wrote:...watch the Tyson fights again...None of his opponents were scared.

Really?? I think you should check a few “authoritative sources” and you’ll learn that there were a few opponents that entered the ring intimidated by Tyson. Have you actually seen any of his fights?

Dentsun4228 wrote:Douglas was just a lucky s.o.b who caught Tyson when he was at his worst.

If you think that was Tyson at his worst, then I think perhaps you’ve proven that you haven’t actually seen many Tyson fights.

Dentsun wrote

Floyd Patterson (little guy w soft chin) vs Bonecrusher Smith (6-4, 225 brute wasn't called bonecrusher for nothing). Floyd would be lucky to make it out of round 1.

Ali ranks so highly because he dominated the division for such a long period of time and beat virtually all the top heavyweights of his era. Guys like Marciano, Tyson and even Lewis were less dominant because they failed to clean out the divisions as thoroughly as Ali did.

Ali was still fairly dominant in the 1970s regardless of whether or not he was past his prime. Tyson and others rank below him because 1) they did not stay on top as long as Ali did and 2) they did not clean out their divisions to the extent that Ali did.

The Great John L wrote:

Dentsun4228 wrote:You didn't call him a moron. Decagon did...My bad for not being clear who that paragraph was directed at. However, I thought you were following the whole thread which is why I didn't think it was necessary.

Your venom was directed at me, so you made no mistake other than to become so emotionally clouded as to be unable to read clearly.

Dentsun4228 wrote:Anyway, just look up any authoritative report on the Tyson-Douglas fight and it's sure to say that Tyson was not in shape for the fight. I know that it takes some deep denial to say that he was, because if you watch that fight, you KNOW he wasn't in shape...

I don’t need to check any “authorotative sources”, because they would be no more “authorotative” thaqn my own personal observations and opinions. Tyson prepared for that fight no differently than he did for his previous few defenses. I suggest you objectively watch a few of his fights again and notice how less effective he always after about 4-5 rounds.

Dentsun4228 wrote:still you will come on these boards and say that Tyson was in shape because you have an agenda. What agenda? To undermine Tyson's greatness...

Buddy, you need to get a life. What’s you’re agenda? Did you perhaps personally know Tyson when he was in prison?

Dentsun4228 wrote:...watch the Tyson fights again...None of his opponents were scared.

Really?? I think you should check a few “authoritative sources” and you’ll learn that there were a few opponents that entered the ring intimidated by Tyson. Have you actually seen any of his fights?

Dentsun4228 wrote:Douglas was just a lucky s.o.b who caught Tyson when he was at his worst.

If you think that was Tyson at his worst, then I think perhaps you’ve proven that you haven’t actually seen many Tyson fights.

I could show you a number of articles and links where it was reported before the fight that Tyson was sluggish and unfocused in training and seemed to be taking Buster very lightly. It's been reported again and again about Tyson's poor conditioning for the fight. It was almost a foregone conclusion that he would stop Buster in a couple of rounds...Just go to Google and type "Tyson Buster preparation" and see all the links that prove that Tyson was not prepared mentally or physically for a fight.

My agenda is that of any REAL fight fan...To recognize greatness when I see it. Not to dis and undermine because of envy, fear or some other hang-up. Boxing has enough problems without it's true greats always being put down and discredited...it does nothing but hurt the image of the sport and turns potential supporters away. Growing up, I was never a Tyson fan, but I'd be lying to myself if I were not to acknowledge that he's the greatest heavywt I've ever seen.

All fighters are scared before a big fight...Tyson must have been scared before his fights as well. But lemme tell you something: If you're a world class boxer and you're so intimidated by Tyson that you can't perform, well, how the hell did you get to be a world class boxer in the first place?

I've seen all of Tyson's fights...he looked a mess in the Buster fight. From the second round he was breathing hard...He was out of shape. Stop the b.s. denial. Oh yeah, and as I said, I was talking to Decagon who called Tyson a f-king moron.

Dentsun4228 wrote:

Les Darcy wrote:I watched the Tyson-Douglas fight the other day. Tyson is as in shape as he is normally, there's a good chance he wasn't 100% there mentally with some of the things going on in his life around the time, but physically I thought Tyson was fine. He just didn't seem to have a counter for Douglas' jab, maybe that was down to being underprepared, but if Douglas could do that to Tyson, imagine what Ali or Holmes could of done to Tyson if he fought them in their primes. Tyson's a borderline top 10 fighter on the all-time list, top 3 is mental.

I think most people who saw that fight recognize that Tyson wasn't in the kind of physical shape typical of his title defenses. He also fought a lot differently than usual. From the first round, it was noted by the commentators and fans that Tyson appeared lethargic and unfocused. Douglas didn't show Tyson anything that he hadn't seen before from better fighters than Douglas...Tony Tucker was a much better fighter than Buster. It was Tucker who knocked Buster out for the title. Tony Tubbs, Tyrell Biggs, Spinks, Carl Williams, even Larry Holmes in his post-prime had better jabs than Buster and were certainly all a level higher. Buster was a no-hoper who Tyson took lightly and didn't prepare for. Buster got lucky and he still technically lost, since he was on the deck for longer than 10 seconds.

Buster didn't technically lose to Tyson because he was down for ten seconds. That is irrelevant. That's not how it works.
Tyson lost because his opponent fought a great fight and Tyson never beat a great fighter.

Dentsun4228 wrote:

Decagon wrote:Part of how you judge a fighter is how he adapts to being past his prime. Muhammad Ali lost to Joe Frazier because he didn't have the skills he'd had earlier on. So, he went back to the drawing board and found a fighting style compatible with his eroding physical condition. Then he used that new style to beat a better crop of fighters than any heavyweight has before or since:

• Jimmy Ellis
• George Chuvalo
• Jerry Quarry
• Floyd Patterson
• Bob Foster
• Ken Norton
• Joe Frazier
• George Foreman
• Ron Lyle
• Joe Frazier
• Earnie Shavers
• Leon Spinks

!

Granted, that is part of how you judge a fighter...but just part. Longevity is also important as someone else said earlier. But those things are only important as side notes to how they performed in their prime. To say Ali who came back from the 3 year exile was in his prime would be false. We know that in his post-exile years he would have been hardpressed to beat some of the other greats in boxing history. After all, he fought 3 life-and-death struggles with frazier and 3 life-and-death struggles with Norton. Neither of those guys would fall into most people's top 10 heavywts of all time. My point is: A prime Tyson would have beat a post-exile Ali. So what does it matter that Ali had more longevity? As far as your little list is concerned, check this out.

• George Chuvalo was not nearly as good as Trevor Berbick.
  Jerry Quarry vs Razor Ruddock...who wins? I say Ruddock decapitates him.
  Floyd Patterson (little guy w soft chin) vs Bonecrusher Smith (6-4, 225 brute wasn't called bonecrusher for nothing). Floyd would be lucky to make it out of round 1.
  Jimmy Ellis. Tony Tucker...Tony Tubbs...Tyrell Biggs. They'd all beat "soft touch" Ellis.
  Bob foster. Mike Spinks was a better lightheavywt.
  Ken Norton. He was OK...I think he'd have trouble with Pinklon Thomas or Frank Bruno.
  Joe Frazier...you have him twice...were you dropped on your head as a child? Hey, Frazier went 1-2 with Ali. Styles make fights, because Foreman blew him out in 2. Was he great or lousy? I think if he had fought in the Tyson era and battled Bruno, Thomas and smith instead of Mathis sr, Ellis, Stander and Foster, he'd have a shorter reign...after all, look what Bonavena did to him.
  Foreman was an all time great...his strength was his...strength. Bigger and more powerful than most of the other guys around at the time, he'd be an average sized heavywt in the Tyson era...and you saw what tyson did to the 6-4, 225 lb guys he faced in his prime. Foreman's win over Frazier is almost an aberration. Didn't he get stopped by Ali, beaten by Young and barely survive a knockdown dragout against Lyle?
  Ron Lyle...you're kidding, right?
  Shavers. A huge punch...kinda like Bonecrusher smith, but without the skill.
  Leon Spinks. Not a good look for an all-time great to get beaten by an olympian with 8 pro fights...I'll pretend you didn't type that guy's name.

You seriously think that Joe Frazier would have struggled with Frank Bruno and Pinklon Thomas? You don't think Frazier is considered by most people to be top 10 all time? Here is a news flash for you, most people know that Joe Frazier was one of the top 10 ever.
Jimmy Ellis would have toyed with Tyrell Biggs. He was a great boxer.
I don't think he was kidding about Ron Lyle. Try watching some of his fights.
Earnie Shavers punched much, much harder than James Smith.

You seem to be under the impression that the 1980's heavyweights were really good. Outside of Holmes in the early 1980's and Tyson in the late 1980's, they weren't very good. Maybe you are too young to remember, but in the 1980's most people were completely disappointed with the heavyweights after watching so many good heavyweight fights in the 1970's. Occasionally one of them have an impressive performance, but most of the time when the top heavyweights of the 1980's fought each other it was a boring fight with little action.

Answer this question, name one great heavyweight fight from the 1980's?

I remember when I used to be like Dentsun, I think I was 14 at the time. A few 100 thrashings on message boards later and I saw the light, hopefully Dentsun at least has the ability to learn something from the whippings he is getting.

[/quote]

You seriously think that Joe Frazier would have struggled with Frank Bruno and Pinklon Thomas? You don't think Frazier is considered by most people to be top 10 all time? Here is a news flash for you, most people know that Joe Frazier was one of the top 10 ever.
Jimmy Ellis would have toyed with Tyrell Biggs. He was a great boxer.
I don't think he was kidding about Ron Lyle. Try watching some of his fights.
Earnie Shavers punched much, much harder than James Smith.

You seem to be under the impression that the 1980's heavyweights were really good. Outside of Holmes in the early 1980's and Tyson in the late 1980's, they weren't very good. Maybe you are too young to remember, but in the 1980's most people were completely disappointed with the heavyweights after watching so many good heavyweight fights in the 1970's. Occasionally one of them have an impressive performance, but most of the time when the top heavyweights of the 1980's fought each other it was a boring fight with little action.

Answer this question, name one great heavyweight fight from the 1980's?[/quote]

Well I was around during the 80's and I remember it as being a non-too inspiring era for heavywt boxing...I think much of that had to do with the letdown of Ali's departure from the scene and the 80's generation of fighters who dulled in comparison to the drama and excitement and color of the Ali/Foreman/Frazier/Quarry era. OK, so they weren't a very bright and charismatic lot (Holmes & co)...and they often stunk out the joint with dull performances. But what they did have for the most part was a high level of technical skill (compared to most other eras) and great size and strength (moreso on average than any era before or since)...and with some notable exceptions (page, Dokes) they were usually hungry for success.

The 80's heavywts suffered from a dinosaur syndrome. They were so big and strong that they often seemed slower and more deliberate than the smaller, busier guys in the 60's and 70's. In retrospect, when I see heavywt fights with Ali and Tyson on ESPN classic these days and I have a lot more respect for the fighters of the 80's. Too bad they lived in the shadow of the most celebrated figure in modern American history. In any other era many of them would have done very well.

I've seen a few tapes of Jimmy Ellis. I really wasn't impressed. Ali toyed with him...Frazier blew him out. I know of Earnie Shaver's legendary power, but Holmes once said the Bonecrusher hit as hard as Shavers. I've also seen tape of Ron Lyle...especially the Foreman fight which has been shown a number of times. Lyle was a decent guy, but overall I don't think he really stacks up next to the other guys on the list.

I can name you a couple of great heavywt fights from the 80's. How about Bruno-Witherspoon? I'd watch that one again. How about Holmes-Witherspoon? How about Page-Coetzee?...None of them is exactly Ali-Frazier, but then how many other eras had heavywt battles as intense as Ali-Frazier?

Decagon wrote:The 1900s had Johnson-Jeffries
The 1910s had Dempsey-Willard
The 1920s had Tunney-Dempsey II
The 1930s had Louis-Schmeling II
The 1940s had Louis-Conn I
The 1950s had Marciano-Walcott I
The 1960s had Clay-Liston I
The 1970s had Ali-Frazier I and III, among others
The 1990s had Holyfield-Bowe I, Holyfield-Tyson I and others

The 1980s had Bruno-Witherspoon?!?!?!?!

Which proves the old boxing truism that 2 carthorses can still make a good race.

Decagon wrote:The 1900s had Johnson-Jeffries
The 1910s had Dempsey-Willard
The 1920s had Tunney-Dempsey II
The 1930s had Louis-Schmeling II
The 1940s had Louis-Conn I
The 1950s had Marciano-Walcott I
The 1960s had Clay-Liston I
The 1970s had Ali-Frazier I and III, among others
The 1990s had Holyfield-Bowe I, Holyfield-Tyson I and others

The 1980s had Bruno-Witherspoon?!?!?!?!

I thought we were talking "great" fights...Only Marciano-Walcott I even comes close...OK, maybe Holy-Bowe too. But both paled in comparison to Ali-Frazier. Bruno-Witherspoon and Holmes-Witherspoon were actually more competititive and entertaining than a few on your list

Decagon wrote:If the fighters actually having some skill isn't a criterion of what a great match is - nor is historical significance - what's the point of using "great fights" as a criterion of how great a division is at a particular time. Aside from Kostya Tszyu, the 140-pound division of 2000 was very weak. Do a bunch of entertaining but skill-less fights mean that the division was better then than in the times of Chavez, Ross, Canzoneri, Cervantes, Loche or Pryor?

Sorry, but two great fighters can make for a lousy fight (DLH-Tito & tapia-romero come to mind) ...and some highly significant matchups have been true stinkers. Ambling Alp was asking about great heavywt bouts from the 80's because his point was that the 80's heavywts sucked because they were less fit or more lackadaiscal than fighters of other eras...and tended to produce matchups that were boring and lacked action. I was pointing out that there were competitive, exciting fights back then too. Having exciting, competitive matchups is one criteria for determining the strength fo the divison, but there are other factors too...