BoxRec

Kalan wrote:

jbizzle20 wrote:Williams beat a Tyson that suffered the worst beating of his career, by Lewis, two years prior. Also, Tyson's knee went out on him in the middle of the Williams fight. Mike was actually fighting fairly well prior to that injury.

Tyson had a knee in the Williams fight... But before that injury his punches weren't having a big effect on the much larger Williams... In his his last fight Tyson fought the 271-pound McBride and couldn't hurt him. It was a joke. Lewis, Williams, and McBride averaged over 260 pounds and Tyson was a small Heavyweight.. I think he found out how small in the Buster Douglas fight because he was only 23 and gave up height, weight, reach, speed and skill.. Tyson was 38 when he fought Williams and McBride -- but I also don't think Mike gave himself the best chance to win in some of his fights and he needs to get dinged for losing 6.. Wladimir looked very slow and unsure of himself in his last fight. He was afraid to punch. Let's see if he can compensate for whatever age related problems he has by being more aggressive, committing to a more intense preparation, or figuring something else out. It would elevate him if he won at his age, but I think he's toast.

Tyson had back issues going into the Etienne fight but the knee issues showed up in the Williams fight. I remember being able to see exactly when the knee goes out. He leans over in an odd fashion and grimaces. From that point on, he just stops. Looked like a Jekyll and Hyde act. For Wlad, I think he can do it. He's a highly skilled and strong fighter who can handle Fury's size but, the thing is, Fury's hands were held so low in that fight that I was literally screaming at the TV for Wlad to throw the overhand and end it. I couldn't believe how lazy Fury got with his defense. Just watch that fight and see how glaringly wide open his face is. I hope at least Johnathon Banks was paying attention to the tape.

Kalan wrote:

jbizzle20 wrote:Williams beat a Tyson that suffered the worst beating of his career, by Lewis, two years prior. Also, Tyson's knee went out on him in the middle of the Williams fight. Mike was actually fighting fairly well prior to that injury.

Tyson had a knee in the Williams fight... But before that injury his punches weren't having a big effect on the much larger Williams... In his his last fight Tyson fought the 271-pound McBride and couldn't hurt him. It was a joke. Lewis, Williams, and McBride averaged over 260 pounds and Tyson was a small Heavyweight.. I think he found out how small in the Buster Douglas fight because he was only 23 and gave up height, weight, reach, speed and skill.. Tyson was 38 when he fought Williams and McBride -- but I also don't think Mike gave himself the best chance to win in some of his fights and he needs to get dinged for losing 6.. Wladimir looked very slow and unsure of himself in his last fight. He was afraid to punch. Let's see if he can compensate for whatever age related problems he has by being more aggressive, committing to a more intense preparation, or figuring something else out. It would elevate him if he won at his age, but I think he's toast.

I also wonder if Mike didn't first develop knee issues in the Lewis fight. I remember thinking that, in the first knockdown, he went down awkwardly on his knee. Looked like it would really hurt.

jbizzle20 wrote:

Kalan wrote:

jbizzle20 wrote:Williams beat a Tyson that suffered the worst beating of his career, by Lewis, two years prior. Also, Tyson's knee went out on him in the middle of the Williams fight. Mike was actually fighting fairly well prior to that injury.

Tyson had a knee in the Williams fight... But before that injury his punches weren't having a big effect on the much larger Williams... In his his last fight Tyson fought the 271-pound McBride and couldn't hurt him. It was a joke. Lewis, Williams, and McBride averaged over 260 pounds and Tyson was a small Heavyweight.. I think he found out how small in the Buster Douglas fight because he was only 23 and gave up height, weight, reach, speed and skill.. Tyson was 38 when he fought Williams and McBride -- but I also don't think Mike gave himself the best chance to win in some of his fights and he needs to get dinged for losing 6.. Wladimir looked very slow and unsure of himself in his last fight. He was afraid to punch. Let's see if he can compensate for whatever age related problems he has by being more aggressive, committing to a more intense preparation, or figuring something else out. It would elevate him if he won at his age, but I think he's toast.

Tyson had back issues going into the Etienne fight but the knee issues showed up in the Williams fight. I remember being able to see exactly when the knee goes out. He leans over in an odd fashion and grimaces. From that point on, he just stops. Looked like a Jekyll and Hyde act. For Wlad, I think he can do it. He's a highly skilled and strong fighter who can handle Fury's size but, the thing is, Fury's hands were held so low in that fight that I was literally screaming at the TV for Wlad to throw the overhand and end it. I couldn't believe how lazy Fury got with his defense. Just watch that fight and see how glaringly wide open his face is. I hope at least Johnathon Banks was paying attention to the tape.

Even past an overhand, when Fury sticks his chin out to jab to the body he's insanely open for a counter hook or even an uppercut. He couldn't get away with that against a 50 year old Holyfield.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

jbizzle20 wrote:

Kalan wrote:
Tyson had a knee in the Williams fight... But before that injury his punches weren't having a big effect on the much larger Williams... In his his last fight Tyson fought the 271-pound McBride and couldn't hurt him. It was a joke. Lewis, Williams, and McBride averaged over 260 pounds and Tyson was a small Heavyweight.. I think he found out how small in the Buster Douglas fight because he was only 23 and gave up height, weight, reach, speed and skill.. Tyson was 38 when he fought Williams and McBride -- but I also don't think Mike gave himself the best chance to win in some of his fights and he needs to get dinged for losing 6.. Wladimir looked very slow and unsure of himself in his last fight. He was afraid to punch. Let's see if he can compensate for whatever age related problems he has by being more aggressive, committing to a more intense preparation, or figuring something else out. It would elevate him if he won at his age, but I think he's toast.

Tyson had back issues going into the Etienne fight but the knee issues showed up in the Williams fight. I remember being able to see exactly when the knee goes out. He leans over in an odd fashion and grimaces. From that point on, he just stops. Looked like a Jekyll and Hyde act. For Wlad, I think he can do it. He's a highly skilled and strong fighter who can handle Fury's size but, the thing is, Fury's hands were held so low in that fight that I was literally screaming at the TV for Wlad to throw the overhand and end it. I couldn't believe how lazy Fury got with his defense. Just watch that fight and see how glaringly wide open his face is. I hope at least Johnathon Banks was paying attention to the tape.

Even past an overhand, when Fury sticks his chin out to jab to the body he's insanely open for a counter hook or even an uppercut. He couldn't get away with that against a 50 year old Holyfield.

Yeah, I just don't know what planet Wlad was on, in that fight.

Fury kept trying to get Wladimir to engage all night... If your opponent won't throw there's no fight... It's not much fun for you or the fans... Wladimir refused to throw and Fury was easily winning every round... Fury tried to get some action going inside and Wladimir just tried to grab him and kept getting turned around because Fury is too tall to grab -- necessitating Tony Weeks jumping so Wlad could right himself.

I think Fury's strategy for this fight was to be really fat at the first press conference... Weighing over 300 pounds and taking his shirt off showing all his fat and flab... He was getting fans to think Wladimir would be fighting a fat man -- and would blow him out in the rematch.. That way at least the fans would show up... Who would pay to see a repeat of the last fight???? ... But I think a repeat is what we're going to get.. It's just taking too damned long -- it's like the Chinese water torture waiting for this freakin' fight. Let's get it over with.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'm not interested in repeating the same stuff over and over. I'll just leave you with this, it's also clear as day that he'd beat Lewis 10 out of 10 if Lewis promised not to hit him hard. Byrd is 1-0, superficial, disingenuous, biased, blah, blah, blah. It wasn't a bad decision that doesn't deserve recognition. Vitali could not continue and as easy as you want to make it out to be, he was never looking for a rematch.

well, your own choice if you want
to repeat semi-smart things. you
are right though on the rematch
thing. was the most ridiculous
strategy of the brothers to avenge
each other's losses. weird idea.

yet who thinks byrd would have
beaten vitali is outright delusional.

man wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'm not interested in repeating the same stuff over and over. I'll just leave you with this, it's also clear as day that he'd beat Lewis 10 out of 10 if Lewis promised not to hit him hard. Byrd is 1-0, superficial, disingenuous, biased, blah, blah, blah. It wasn't a bad decision that doesn't deserve recognition. Vitali could not continue and as easy as you want to make it out to be, he was never looking for a rematch.

well, your own choice if you want
to repeat semi-smart things. you
are right though on the rematch
thing. was the most ridiculous
strategy of the brothers to avenge
each other's losses. weird idea.

yet who thinks byrd would have
beaten vitali is outright delusional.

So now you're moving on to inventing your own points? A sure sign that the conversation is dead. I never said I'd pick Byrd to beat vitali. The real delusion is you continually acting like vitali didn't lose the fight. Pages on end? Get a hold of yourself. You're not this dense.

man wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'm not interested in repeating the same stuff over and over. I'll just leave you with this, it's also clear as day that he'd beat Lewis 10 out of 10 if Lewis promised not to hit him hard. Byrd is 1-0, superficial, disingenuous, biased, blah, blah, blah. It wasn't a bad decision that doesn't deserve recognition. Vitali could not continue and as easy as you want to make it out to be, he was never looking for a rematch.

well, your own choice if you want
to repeat semi-smart things. you
are right though on the rematch
thing. was the most ridiculous
strategy of the brothers to avenge
each other's losses. weird idea.

yet who thinks byrd would have
beaten vitali is outright delusional.

Delusional is right... It would have been completely insane for Byrd to rematch Vitali. Byrd got a miracle win against a 1-armed man who had won every round until his left arm was nearly useless in the 8th. Vitali kept going until his rotator cuff was in 2 pieces. The surgeon said the rotator cuff was completely severed and he had never seen that before. Byrd wasn't about to face a vengeful Vitali and wipe out the best win he ever had.

Byrd's only other top win came versus a lethargic and disinterested David Tua, who never owned a World Title. Byrd's win over an aged Holyfield is meaningless. CB faced the lesser K Bro and couldn't win a round in 2 tries. Ibeabuchi destroyed him. Byrd is NOWHERE historically compared to Vitali Klitschko. He couldn't even beat Golota, who would have been a 1-round job for either Klitschko -- and getting stopped by Povetkin, who had 13 pro fights, was ridiculous. Byrd had nothing to lose rematching Wladimir. He looked like crap in the first fight.

- OK, I get this yet another thread of poorly tutored, shiftless, bullies ganging up on a single poster. However, given this site is the ennobling creation of the historical record of boxing as envisioned by it's founders, I will attempt to set the record straight for future gens a century from now looking for more than banal buffoonery in the archives.

Numero uno, Joe Louis, was a one off historic game changer, nobody else could've done it, so note that the IBRO folks agree with me. The #2-5 are well back and can scrap for those debatable places.

Second, the modern backdrop was Vitali coming to the US to secure his dream fight against Tyson and others to no avail, thus they cannot be in his record. He later sued Lewis 3x to fight him to no avail until Lewis invited him to take Tyson's place on the undercard that was supposed to be the promotion for their rematch that nobody wanted, so he up and flew the coup. Vitali had been inactive because of all the legalities, yet immediately flew transcontinental on 3 weeks notice to substitute and went into training. One week later Kirk Johnson hurt his titties and withdrew from the Lewis fight, thus upgrading Vitali to the new challenger that, surprise, surprise, conveniently settled the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, Lewis freshly empowered with having pummeled a shot Tyson, noted that he had invited Manny Stewert to England for a pretraining session months in advance and was in tremendous shape for this fight that would be the first of 5 before his retirement, his checkmating chess mind glazing over with Cottoncandy dreams of being the best and the richest ever.

The fight was epic by any standard requiring Lewis to pull out every dirty trick in the book in spite of the freak Vitali injury. Post fight HBO went through their footage that finally isolated the first cut on Vitali from a missed Lewis right that had a trailing piece of tape slicing open the side of the eye like a razor, the whole reason refs stop fights to secure such flapping tape, but not this time.

It was a decent stoppage in that Vitali had fair warning like Rocky against Charles, but he being more of a beatdown artist than slugger couldn't quite pull it off. No biggie, the HBO suits secured the guaranteed rematch with offers of the sun and the moon, so their futures were oozing in lucre once the eye healed save for Lewis delaying tactics to hold on to his last belt that reduced him to being threatened with strippage if he didn't follow through.

The end of his fairy tale has Lewis the Lion retiring 4 fights early as a bleating Lamb in advance of his biggest payday. Vitali and Wlad went on to historically upend Arum and King and the old heavyweight boxing model with epic runs of knockouts and dominations. Vitali has the better record, 45-2, his 41 KOs matching Lewis' wins, 41-2-1, 32 KO and analogous title record, 15-2 to Lewis 15-2-1, and of course Wlad still in the middle of breaking or tying Joe Louis records. Vitali even retired for 4 years to lure Lewis back from his retirement, but nope. Lewis won their single bout, but Vitali won the War, so that's the way the history will swing.

Oh, and Foreman was a feared main player in two golden eras of boxing, the 70s and 90s, whereas Holmes one of many in the 80s era of crack and splitting belts that Tyson ended up cleaning up. Lar could never carry Rocky or George's jockstrap, but moaners are gonna moan for him and his 0-5 record against standing champs. Read it and weep or creep thee under that unholy rock from which all things that scurry and crawl emanate.

Wilt agrees...

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I never said I'd pick Byrd to beat vitali.

right, you just said about vitali:

"The two best fighters he faced beat him."

it is a different thing to "beat"
someone or win by injury and
that is not hairsplitting, that is
the very substance of this entire
conversation. you imply that
vitali ain't no good, because he
got beaten by the two best guys
he faced, with one being a mediocre
paper champ.

but since you won't admit that
for another five pages let's bring
this to an end right here.

no further interest in this dialogue.

Kalan wrote:Byrd's win over an aged Holyfield is meaningless.

Exactly, and so is Holmes win over an aged and sick Muhammad Ali.

man wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I never said I'd pick Byrd to beat vitali.

right, you just said about vitali:

"The two best fighters he faced beat him."

it is a different thing to "beat"
someone or win by injury and
that is not hairsplitting, that is
the very substance of this entire
conversation. you imply that
vitali ain't no good, because he
got beaten by the two best guys
he faced, with one being a mediocre
paper champ.

but since you won't admit that
for another five pages let's bring
this to an end right here.

no further interest in this dialogue.

LOL, I never said Vitali isn't any good. I said his resume is shallow. By all means, stop regurgitating the same incorrect nonsense. The two best fighters Vitali faced he lost. That is an unequivocal fact and it has been during every post where you try to manipulate words and facts. I was right, you were wrong. Until the next time.

SteveO wrote:

Kalan wrote:Byrd's win over an aged Holyfield is meaningless.

Exactly, and so is Holmes win over an aged and sick Muhammad Ali.

Yeah...pretty much.. They were both old and slow... But it wouldn't have been so meaningless if Ali hadn't ducked Holmes in favor of fighting Leon Spinks twice... When Ali came back 2 years later, most people knew it wasn't going to be a fight. But if Fury scores 2 wins over Wladimir they may have some meaning -- just how much I'm not sure. I think the feeling is that Waldimir isn't completely shot and maybe he just looked really slow and hesitant for his last fight for whatever reason. He was a heavy favorite, regardless of age, going into the Fury fight.

Kalan wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

man wrote: ... he lost on two injuries being ahead
on all cards. the only two losses in his
career.

but i get it, you are as biased against
the ks as kalan is in their favor.

His losses were both caused by injuries, but it doesn't help his standing in All Time Heavyweights lists that those 2 losses also happened to be against the 2 best fighters he ever faced by a huge margin. The best opponent he ever beat who is...Corrie Sanders or maybe Sam Peter I guess? Those 2 guys would've lost to Chris Byrd 10 times out of 10 every time they fought him, and Chris Byrd is the lesser of the 2 guys with a win over Vitali, and wouldn't crack any Heavyweight all time Top 40 list.

So gilgamesh.... By your reasoning Ali would not make the top 40 because Norton and Spinks wouldn't??? ... And Lewis wouldn't make the top 40 because Rahman and McCall wouldn't??? And Louis wouldn't make the top 10 by because Schmeling wouldn't??? And their losses all went away because they were afforded rematches and Klitschko WASN'T??? ... In that case I think you should take the nature of Vitali's losses into consideration -- because although he was half blinded in one loss and suffered a disabled left arm in his other loss, ALL of the judges had him winning both contests on points at the conclusion of those contests.

Besides... Larry Holmes and George Foreman lost to Michael Spinks and Jimmy Young respectively and NEVER avenged their losses... You can't undo a loss---but you CAN say "Alright..he lost. But he was beating the guys he lost to when the fights were stopped because of injuries... I also do NOT think the American boxers given the top spots by old fart American "experts" come without a great deal of national bias and generational prejudice.

The problem with Vitali is not who he lost to, but who he beat. And he never beat anyone much good. Which may not have been his fault, but he didn't.

Someone with a lot of wins over guys a lot better than anyone Vitali ever fought ranks above him, even if there are a couple of losses in there as well.

man wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I never said I'd pick Byrd to beat vitali.

right, you just said about vitali:

"The two best fighters he faced beat him."

it is a different thing to "beat"
someone or win by injury and
that is not hairsplitting, that is
the very substance of this entire
conversation. you imply that
vitali ain't no good, because he
got beaten by the two best guys
he faced, with one being a mediocre
paper champ.

but since you won't admit that
for another five pages let's bring
this to an end right here.

no further interest in this dialogue.

They did beat him. The Lewis fight on cuts you can't dismiss as injury. But I'd happily let you dismiss the Byrd fight as injury. You can't give him a win for that though, you have to assume it never happened. Which still leaves Vitali without any decent wins. Even if you call the Lewis fight a no contest, it sill leaves Vitali without any decent wins.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:- OK, I get this yet another thread of poorly tutored, shiftless, bullies ganging up on a single poster.

If I say 2 + 2 =5, and say it to everyone I meet, repeatedly, and they all tell me I'm wrong, then that isn't because they are "ganging up".

gp. wrote:... I'd happily let you dismiss the Byrd fight as injury. You can't give him a win for that though, you have to assume it never happened.

Melvina Lathan 88-83
Dr Ruben M Garcia 89-82
Joachim Jacobsen 88-83

you do not think these scorecards
are somewhat an indication for who
was the better man? scorecards which
tell that byrd needed a knockout to
win that fight? against a man who
neither before nor after went down
in his career, not even against lennox
lewis?

so in order to assess who is the better
boxer we "assume it never happened".

fascinating indeed.

Yes, that's right.

gp. wrote:Yes, that's right.

Odd how confused he is. In mythical fights I'd pick Vitali over a bunch of guys with better resumes. If you're compiling a list a h2h opinion should only come into play if you can't separate the resumes. I'd pick Vitali over Quarry confidently, but he never beat anyone near that good.

Let's say Wlad retired last year. Could you imagine the ridicule on here someone would get predicting Tyson Fury to outbox him? We're all wrong all the time.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: We're all wrong all the time.

I think partially it's my nature and I am quicker to see shades of grey than I am to see black and white, in general, but still its crazy how rarely I feel 100% that one guy or another wins any kind of 60-40 fight. There are quite a few variables either way, it seems to me, and the style match doesn't always play the way we might expect. With respect to that, judging on how people seem prepared to be unequivocal on upcoming fights or hypotheticals, I can only assume either there's a bunch of dudes on here who must be making serious money betting on their penetrating insights.... Or somehow they just forget, how often they have got it wrong. Ward-Kovalev is a great example. Its (IMO) a 55/45 fight at most, but it seems like 80% insist its a foregone conclusion one way or another. Strikes me as crazy, I cant get my head around it.

Counter-puncher wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: We're all wrong all the time.

I think partially it's my nature and I am quicker to see shades of grey than I am to see black and white, in general, but still its crazy how rarely I feel 100% that one guy or another wins any kind of 60-40 fight. There are quite a few variables either way, it seems to me, and the style match doesn't always play the way we might expect. With respect to that, judging on how people seem prepared to be unequivocal on upcoming fights or hypotheticals, I can only assume either there's a bunch of dudes on here who must be making serious money betting on their penetrating insights.... Or somehow they just forget, how often they have got it wrong. Ward-Kovalev is a great example. Its (IMO) a 55/45 fight at most, but it seems like 80% insist its a foregone conclusion one way or another. Strikes me as crazy, I cant get my head around it.

Same, when I am that confident I am usually right. Maidana/Broner I was 100%, I honestly have no strong feelings on Kovalev/Ward. I have a huge cheering interest though.

Thats true actually, on the odd occasions I feel really strongly either way in a supposedly close fight, id say I'm right 2/3.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: We're all wrong all the time.

I think partially it's my nature and I am quicker to see shades of grey than I am to see black and white, in general, but still its crazy how rarely I feel 100% that one guy or another wins any kind of 60-40 fight. There are quite a few variables either way, it seems to me, and the style match doesn't always play the way we might expect. With respect to that, judging on how people seem prepared to be unequivocal on upcoming fights or hypotheticals, I can only assume either there's a bunch of dudes on here who must be making serious money betting on their penetrating insights.... Or somehow they just forget, how often they have got it wrong. Ward-Kovalev is a great example. Its (IMO) a 55/45 fight at most, but it seems like 80% insist its a foregone conclusion one way or another. Strikes me as crazy, I cant get my head around it.

Same, when I am that confident I am usually right. Maidana/Broner I was 100%, I honestly have no strong feelings on Kovalev/Ward. I have a huge cheering interest though.

Yeah Kovalev vs Ward is a real 50/50 fight. I could see Ward boxing exceptionally well and winning a clear decision, I could see Ward boxing just well enough to take a narrow decision, I could see Kovalev knocking down Ward a few times, and taking a close decision or I could see Kovalev's power getting to Ward in a big way and him getting a stoppage.

Really a fight where almost anything could happen.

gp. wrote:Yes, that's right.

well, that's pretty silly.

No it isn't, going over Byrd's resume you wouldn't cite that as some great victory. It's not a bad loss for Vitali either. Far more common sense than it is silly.