BoxRec

Lackeos wrote:Ali did say that Tyson was better than him. Take that for what it's worth.

Interesting one that, I've heard a few people make quite a big deal of it but it generally seems to stem from the below talk show segment. If you watch it, apart from the two of them generally goofing around, Ali doesn't clearly say Tyson was better but he does say thinks if Tyson caught him cleanly he could knock him out but he emphasizes the "if." Tyson also seems to acknowledge that the old champ is being modest. Not sure if it was pre-douglas or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki4UKsI8bms

If you're talking about a different occasion when Ali clearly says Tyson is a better fighter then apologies.

Edit - Just looked a again and it is pre douglas be interesting to hear if his view changed after Tyson got beat

Just thought I'd point this out as it seems to be the root of a fair bit of confusion.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson


2-100 anyone else you think is worthy and you'd probably get someone to agree but Robinson could fight in any era with his style and still have the same outcome.

Even in today's era, Robinson beats them all.

oldwarrior

J-C wrote:

Lackeos wrote:Ali did say that Tyson was better than him. Take that for what it's worth.

Interesting one that, I've heard a few people make quite a big deal of it but it generally seems to stem from the below talk show segment. If you watch it, apart from the two of them generally goofing around, Ali doesn't clearly say Tyson was better but he does say thinks if Tyson caught him cleanly he could knock him out but he emphasizes the "if." Tyson also seems to acknowledge that the old champ is being modest. Not sure if it was pre-douglas or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki4UKsI8bms

If you're talking about a different occasion when Ali clearly says Tyson is a better fighter then apologies.

Edit - Just looked a again and it is pre douglas be interesting to hear if his view changed after Tyson got beat

Just thought I'd point this out as it seems to be the root of a fair bit of confusion.

If Ali saw Tyson's entire career I don't see how he says Tyson beats him...He would be admitting that Douglas, Holy, and Lewis beat him too... I won't count McBride and Williams because Tyson was a shot fighter by then...

The greatest 5 pound per pound fighters of all-time in my view:
1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Sam Langford
4. Roberto Duran
5. Willie Pep

the other top 5:
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Joe Gans
8. Jimmy Wilde
9. Harry Greb
10. Joe Louis

The greatest boxer of all time was Muhammad Ali. Pound-for-pound, I'd go for Ali, Ray Robinson or Henry Armstrong.

Big Bad John wrote:The greatest boxer of all time was Muhammad Ali. Pound-for-pound, I'd go for Ali, Ray Robinson or Henry Armstrong.

Somehere granberry is simmering.

Come on now Douglas....it was just his night just like Rahman had his night with Lennox! Holyfield and lewis both got to Tyson after He lost his abilities in jail. Ali only said Tyson would beat him because Ali blocks like Rocky; with his face....not a good thing against Tyson

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

J-C wrote:

Lackeos wrote:Ali did say that Tyson was better than him. Take that for what it's worth.

Interesting one that, I've heard a few people make quite a big deal of it but it generally seems to stem from the below talk show segment. If you watch it, apart from the two of them generally goofing around, Ali doesn't clearly say Tyson was better but he does say thinks if Tyson caught him cleanly he could knock him out but he emphasizes the "if." Tyson also seems to acknowledge that the old champ is being modest. Not sure if it was pre-douglas or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki4UKsI8bms

If you're talking about a different occasion when Ali clearly says Tyson is a better fighter then apologies.

Edit - Just looked a again and it is pre douglas be interesting to hear if his view changed after Tyson got beat

Just thought I'd point this out as it seems to be the root of a fair bit of confusion.

If Ali saw Tyson's entire career I don't see how he says Tyson beats him...He would be admitting that Douglas, Holy, and Lewis beat him too... I won't count McBride and Williams because Tyson was a shot fighter by then...

optkliluzn wrote:I think the problem with Tyson is that there were not enough great fighters around during his PRIME to compare his skills with....like holyfield, lenox, riddick, but there was Foreman right? did they ever even fight? Tyson was very great against the people he fought but no other real threats were out there. OR am I wrong? You tell me

Holyfield was very much available for Tyson to match skills with, but Tyson wouldn't do it. He preferred to match skills with a series of far lesser regarded fighters. Along the way, he tried to match skills with Douglas, and failed miserably. Douglas then tried to match skills with Holyfield, and he then failed miserably. Tyson was then offered several more chances to match skills with Holy, but he turned them down a couple of times, and then when the fight was finally made, he pulled out with one of his infamous "injuries".

Tyson didn't finally try to match skills with Holyfield until after Holy had been forced to retire from an illness and then looked to be absolutely shot, done, finished. And guess what? Tyson still couldn't match skills with him.

Why does everyone say Sugar ray robinson? Yeah he won 173 fights but lost 19....he lost to Paul Pender twice...he could never beat him! Sure he should get GLADIATOR of the century but greatest of ALL-TIMES...no way!

He never had to face any roberto durans, sugar ray leonards, , de la hoya! Why should he get this crown if he has never had a challenge like that when he loses frequently spaced out in his career! Dont get me wrong NO other fighter that I can name, could ever go 173 fights though!

I wish that people would stop bringing up the fact that Ali said Tyson can beat him...He was already a middle age man with Parkinson's Syndrome trying to be gracious ...And that was before Douglas, Holy, and Lenox owned Tyson...


Ali also had a 3 1/2 year layoff but no excuses need be made for him since he beat Foreman, Frazier (2-1), Norton (2-1), and Earnie Shavers after his lay off...

Mike Tyson had four big fights and lost three of them ; Holy, Holy, and Lewis, and didn't avenge any of the losses...

Tyson was 30 and 31 when he fought Holy...Holy was 34 and 35!!!...Holy was supposed to be the shot fighter coming off losses against Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe...

Tyson is the Ricky Williams of boxing...Both were great for a short period and then burned out...

optkliluzn wrote:Come on now Douglas....it was just his night just like Rahman had his night with Lennox! Holyfield and lewis both got to Tyson after He lost his abilities in jail. Ali only said Tyson would beat him because Ali blocks like Rocky; with his face....not a good thing against Tyson

optkliluzn wrote:Why does everyone say Sugar ray robinson? Yeah he won 173 fights but lost 19....he lost to Paul Pender twice...he could never beat him! Sure he should get GLADIATOR of the century but greatest of ALL-TIMES...no way!

He never had to face any roberto durans, sugar ray leonards, , de la hoya! Why should he get this crown if he has never had a challenge like that when he loses frequently spaced out in his career! Dont get me wrong NO other fighter that I can name, could ever go 173 fights though!

Are you seriously saying Tyson should be excused for losing to Douglas smack in his prime, and then to a badly faded Holyfield when only slightly past his own best...

...but that Robinson shouldn't be excused for losing to a prime Pender at the age of 40-something??

And what about Robinson's time spent out of the ring? Are you saying that didn't erode his skills any??

My2Sense wrote:

optkliluzn wrote:Come on now Douglas....it was just his night just like Rahman had his night with Lennox! Holyfield and lewis both got to Tyson after He lost his abilities in jail. Ali only said Tyson would beat him because Ali blocks like Rocky; with his face....not a good thing against Tyson

optkliluzn wrote:Why does everyone say Sugar ray robinson? Yeah he won 173 fights but lost 19....he lost to Paul Pender twice...he could never beat him! Sure he should get GLADIATOR of the century but greatest of ALL-TIMES...no way!

He never had to face any roberto durans, sugar ray leonards, , de la hoya! Why should he get this crown if he has never had a challenge like that when he loses frequently spaced out in his career! Dont get me wrong NO other fighter that I can name, could ever go 173 fights though!

Are you seriously saying Tyson should be excused for losing to Douglas smack in his prime, and then to a badly faded Holyfield when only slightly past his own best...

...but that Robinson shouldn't be excused for losing to a prime Pender at the age of 40-something??

And what about Robinson's time spent out of the ring? Are you saying that didn't erode his skills any??

How about Ali's 3 1/2 year lay off?

Nobody needs to make excuses because Ali beat some great fighters after his layoff including Frazier (2-1), Norton (2-1), FOREMAN, and Shavers...

Holy was supposed to be a shot 34 and 35 year old fighter when he knocked out Tyson twice...He was coming off losses against Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe...

The only big fight Tyson won was when he knocked out Trevor Berbiock... He lost his big fights against Holy and Lenox and couldn't avenge them...

Ring Magazine had Tyson at 72:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_Magaz ... t_80_Years

yes, I think he should be excused for Douglas. He is a boxer he always had a punchers chance...look at Sugar Ray Robinson, in 1951 he boxed Randy Turpin who has NEVER went beyond 8 rounds before, this was Robinson's first title defense. They went 15 rounds in which Turpin dominated the fight and won the title only to lose it in the rematch. Sounds like Tyson but there was NO rematch his career was over.

Remember Tyson won the heavy weight title at 20, lost to douglas 4 years later then a year later went to jail for 4 years! He fought Evander holyfield when he was "30" THAT WAS NOT THE QUICK, STRONG TYSON ANYMORE!

My2Sense wrote:

optkliluzn wrote:Come on now Douglas....it was just his night just like Rahman had his night with Lennox! Holyfield and lewis both got to Tyson after He lost his abilities in jail. Ali only said Tyson would beat him because Ali blocks like Rocky; with his face....not a good thing against Tyson

optkliluzn wrote:Why does everyone say Sugar ray robinson? Yeah he won 173 fights but lost 19....he lost to Paul Pender twice...he could never beat him! Sure he should get GLADIATOR of the century but greatest of ALL-TIMES...no way!

He never had to face any roberto durans, sugar ray leonards, , de la hoya! Why should he get this crown if he has never had a challenge like that when he loses frequently spaced out in his career! Dont get me wrong NO other fighter that I can name, could ever go 173 fights though!

Are you seriously saying Tyson should be excused for losing to Douglas smack in his prime, and then to a badly faded Holyfield when only slightly past his own best...

...but that Robinson shouldn't be excused for losing to a prime Pender at the age of 40-something??

And what about Robinson's time spent out of the ring? Are you saying that didn't erode his skills any??

optkliluzn wrote:yes, I think he should be excused for Douglas. He is a boxer he always had a punchers chance...look at Sugar Ray Robinson, in 1951 he boxed Randy Turpin who has NEVER went beyond 8 rounds before, this was Robinson's first title defense. They went 15 rounds in which Turpin dominated the fight and won the title only to lose it in the rematch. Sounds like Tyson but there was NO rematch his career was over.

Tyson shouldn't be excused for losing to Douglas, and Robinson shouldn't be excused for losing to Turpin, but you have to realize that they were in different stages in their respective careers:

Sugar Ray Robinson:

• 31 years old
• Had fought six time in the previous seven weeks
• Was fighting the #4 contender, who'd been stopped once, when he was 20 years old
• Was still basically a welterweight or junior middlweight, weighing 154.5 for the bout.
• Was the veteran of 131 pro fights
• Turpin went on to dominate the European and Commonwealth middleweight and light heavyweight scenes for the rest of the decade
• Regained his title immediately
• Went on to become one of the greatest middleweights of all time

Mike Tyson:

• 24 years old
• Hadn't fought in seven months
• Was fighting the #6 contender who'd been stopped multiple times, including once by boxing oddity Mike "the Giant" White
• Was a full-fledged heavyweight
• Was the veteran of 37 pro fights
• Douglas went on to dominate the buffet for the rest of the decade and fall into a diabetic coma after weighing 400 pounds
• Tried to kill himself immediately
• Went on to become one of the biggest wastes of talent of all time

Yeah. I can see the similarities.

Big Bad John wrote:

optkliluzn wrote:yes, I think he should be excused for Douglas. He is a boxer he always had a punchers chance...look at Sugar Ray Robinson, in 1951 he boxed Randy Turpin who has NEVER went beyond 8 rounds before, this was Robinson's first title defense. They went 15 rounds in which Turpin dominated the fight and won the title only to lose it in the rematch. Sounds like Tyson but there was NO rematch his career was over.

Tyson shouldn't be excused for losing to Douglas, and Robinson shouldn't be excused for losing to Turpin, but you have to realize that they were in different stages in their respective careers:

Sugar Ray Robinson:

• 31 years old
• Had fought six time in the previous seven weeks
• Was fighting the #4 contender, who'd been stopped once, when he was 20 years old
• Was still basically a welterweight or junior middlweight, weighing 154.5 for the bout.
• Was the veteran of 131 pro fights
• Turpin went on to dominate the European and Commonwealth middleweight and light heavyweight scenes for the rest of the decade
• Regained his title immediately
• Went on to become one of the greatest middleweights of all time

Mike Tyson:

• 24 years old
• Hadn't fought in seven months
• Was fighting the #6 contender who'd been stopped multiple times, including once by boxing oddity Mike "the Giant" White
• Was a full-fledged heavyweight
• Was the veteran of 37 pro fights
• Douglas went on to dominate the buffet for the rest of the decade and fall into a diabetic coma after weighing 400 pounds
• Tried to kill himself immediately
• Went on to become one of the biggest wastes of talent of all time

Yeah. I can see the similarities.

You know, BBJohn, you do sometimes get a bee up your backside about certain fighters, and you can be rude for no apparent reason at times, but posts like this make me so glad that you're back...

Trying to compare Tyson to Robinson is like comparing soldiers of WWII to soldiers of today!

Robinson fought all the time because that how it was....no major training LIKE today.

They did not have HALF the knowledge fighters and trainers have now, or the supplements!

If your going to say a fighter who fights on an average of once a week or so is going to be able to go up against a fighter that has trained for months and not fought for a half a year then you need to wake up from the 50's and go to the nut house.

I can see how 19 loses 2 from Stan Harrington & 2 from Paul Pender which he never beat either, could equate to the greatest of all-time.....or could it be Harrington??????

optkliluzn wrote:Trying to compare Tyson to Robinson is like comparing soldiers of WWII to soldiers of today!

Robinson fought all the time because that how it was....no major training LIKE today.

They did not have HALF the knowledge fighters and trainers have now, or the supplements!

If your going to say a fighter who fights on an average of once a week or so is going to be able to go up against a fighter that has trained for months and not fought for a half a year then you need to wake up from the 50's and go to the nut house.

I can see how 19 loses 2 from Stan Harrington & 2 from Paul Pender which he never beat either, could equate to the greatest of all-time.....or could it be Harrington??????

Instead of denigrating Sugar Ray Robinson please make the case how the greatest boxer in the history of the sport has unavenged defeats to five boxers- Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis, McBride, and Williams...He was at or near his prime for Douglas and Holyfield and was younger than Lenox Lewis....

People say Joe Louis,Rocky Marciano, and Ali were the GOAT because they had no defeats or unavenged defeats in their prime...I give the nod to Ali because he fought better competition and had a variety of styles to choose from to beat Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano...

optkliluzn wrote:Trying to compare Tyson to Robinson is like comparing soldiers of WWII to soldiers of today!

Robinson fought all the time because that how it was....no major training LIKE today.

They did not have HALF the knowledge fighters and trainers have now, or the supplements!

If your going to say a fighter who fights on an average of once a week or so is going to be able to go up against a fighter that has trained for months and not fought for a half a year then you need to wake up from the 50's and go to the nut house.

I can see how 19 loses 2 from Stan Harrington & 2 from Paul Pender which he never beat either, could equate to the greatest of all-time.....or could it be Harrington??????

yeh good on ya i agree with BBJohn

p4p1 wrote:

optkliluzn wrote:Trying to compare Tyson to Robinson is like comparing soldiers of WWII to soldiers of today!

Robinson fought all the time because that how it was....no major training LIKE today.

They did not have HALF the knowledge fighters and trainers have now, or the supplements!

If your going to say a fighter who fights on an average of once a week or so is going to be able to go up against a fighter that has trained for months and not fought for a half a year then you need to wake up from the 50's and go to the nut house.

I can see how 19 loses 2 from Stan Harrington & 2 from Paul Pender which he never beat either, could equate to the greatest of all-time.....or could it be Harrington??????

yeh good on ya i agree with BBJohn

I can see how supplements and training can affect the heavyweights because they can be as big as they want to be but all the other weight classes still have to make weight...

optkliluzn wrote:
They did not have HALF the knowledge fighters and trainers have now, or the supplements!

No doubt that supplements (legal or otherwise) taint all sports making it very hard to make comparisons across eras... BUT if what you say is correct then the greatest fighter off all-time would be Wlad as he is thought to be the best of the current crop and would therefore know more than all the other fighters who went before him and have better access to all of the latest supplements.

So, in fact, the current incumbent would always be the greatest of all time.

Ezzard wrote:

optkliluzn wrote:
They did not have HALF the knowledge fighters and trainers have now, or the supplements!

No doubt that supplements (legal or otherwise) taint all sports making it very hard to make comparisons across eras... BUT if what you say is correct then the greatest fighter off all-time would be Wlad as he is thought to be the best of the current crop and would therefore know more than all the other fighters who went before him and have better access to all of the latest supplements.

So, in fact, the current incumbent would always be the greatest of all time.

IMHO, the Klitshko brothers would not be champs in any other era...

Big Bad John wrote:The greatest boxer of all time was Muhammad Ali. Pound-for-pound, I'd go for Ali, Ray Robinson or Henry Armstrong.

Thats pretty much how I see it as well. Ezzard Charles,Harry Greb,Carlos Monzon,Ray Leonard and Sam Langford would be right behind them.

It's difficult when you are talking about 8+ weight classes over a period of more than 100 years. Add to that the wide range of historical knowledge of people on this forum and that some people let biases influence their reasoning it's not surprising that there is a wide range of opinion here.

optkliluzn wrote:Trying to compare Tyson to Robinson is like comparing soldiers of WWII to soldiers of today!

Robinson fought all the time because that how it was....no major training LIKE today.

They did not have HALF the knowledge fighters and trainers have now, or the supplements!

If your going to say a fighter who fights on an average of once a week or so is going to be able to go up against a fighter that has trained for months and not fought for a half a year then you need to wake up from the 50's and go to the nut house.

I can see how 19 loses 2 from Stan Harrington & 2 from Paul Pender which he never beat either, could equate to the greatest of all-time.....or could it be Harrington??????

Robinson didn't do any major training? Laughable. You know nothing. Robinson didn't have half the knowledge Tyson did? Laughable. Mike Tyson didn't even know how to READ!

Also, Robinson loss to Harrington when he was 44, and Pender when he was 39. And they were a hell of a lot better than Danny Williams and Kevin McBride!

optkliluzn wrote:Why does everyone say Sugar ray robinson? Yeah he won 173 fights but lost 19....he lost to Paul Pender twice...he could never beat him! Sure he should get GLADIATOR of the century but greatest of ALL-TIMES...no way!

He never had to face any roberto durans, sugar ray leonards, , de la hoya! Why should he get this crown if he has never had a challenge like that when he loses frequently spaced out in his career! Dont get me wrong NO other fighter that I can name, could ever go 173 fights though!

Of Robinson's 19 losses, 16 were after he came out of retirement at age 34.

Of those 16 losses, 12 were when he past the age of 40.

Robinson has beaten more hall of famers than any other fighter.

optkliluzn wrote:Trying to compare Tyson to Robinson is like comparing soldiers of WWII to soldiers of today!

Robinson fought all the time because that how it was....no major training LIKE today.

They did not have HALF the knowledge fighters and trainers have now, or the supplements!

If your going to say a fighter who fights on an average of once a week or so is going to be able to go up against a fighter that has trained for months and not fought for a half a year then you need to wake up from the 50's and go to the nut house.

I can see how 19 loses 2 from Stan Harrington & 2 from Paul Pender which he never beat either, could equate to the greatest of all-time.....or could it be Harrington??????

Supplements mean nothing.
Your statement that "not fighting for half a year" makes you a better fighter is absurb.
Your post above is the worst I have ever read.
Thanks.