BoxRec

dempseyfire wrote:Tyson loses to Douglas with Cus alive or not.

Personally I think Tyson's status as an ATG is currently very harsh. The Tyson of 86-88 was an incredible fighting machine and as good as almost any fighter in history. Unfortunately he had a very short peak but then again so did many other fighters who are nearly always rated higher than him in history.

A perfect example is Marciano, who is one of the most overated fighters of all time. His three year reign as champion consisted of only six defences mainly against fighters mostly past their prime and blown up light-heavyweight greats, also past their best. Because he had the sense to retire as unbeaten champion though is status in history is blown way out of proportion, had Tyson done the same after mauling Spinks I dare say he would appear on most, so called historians, P4P all time top 10. Whilst Michael Spinks is no ATG Heavyweight, how many of the ones who are could you imagine blowing him away in 90 seconds?

I think that the only fighters who could have beaten the prime Tyson are Muhammed Ali for definate, probably the peak Larry Holmes (most underated ATG ever!) possibly a peak Lewis had the size, strength, athletic ability etc to do it and a prime Holyfield would always give Tyson a hard night, although I'm still not sure he would've coped with Tyson at his best.

I really hope history is kinder to Tyson, because he did light up the sport in an amazing way and at his best was a near perfect fighting machine.

llabwons wrote:Personally I think Tyson's status as an ATG is currently very harsh. The Tyson of 86-88 was an incredible fighting machine and as good as almost any fighter in history. Unfortunately he had a very short peak but then again so did many other fighters who are nearly always rated higher than him in history.

A perfect example is Marciano, who is one of the most overated fighters of all time. His three year reign as champion consisted of only six defences mainly against fighters mostly past their prime and blown up light-heavyweight greats, also past their best. Because he had the sense to retire as unbeaten champion though is status in history is blown way out of proportion, had Tyson done the same after mauling Spinks I dare say he would appear on most, so called historians, P4P all time top 10. Whilst Michael Spinks is no ATG Heavyweight, how many of the ones who are could you imagine blowing him away in 90 seconds?

I think that the only fighters who could have beaten the prime Tyson are Muhammed Ali for definate, probably the peak Larry Holmes (most underated ATG ever!) possibly a peak Lewis had the size, strength, athletic ability etc to do it and a prime Holyfield would always give Tyson a hard night, although I'm still not sure he would've coped with Tyson at his best.

I really hope history is kinder to Tyson, because he did light up the sport in an amazing way and at his best was a near perfect fighting machine.

As opposed to Tyson, whose two-year reign consisted of two defenses --- one against Carl Williams, & the other, Frank Bruno. Now let's see you make the case Williams & Bruno were more credible than even old versions of Walcott, Charles, Moore, as well as LaStarza. No thank you. LOL.

BTW, Marciano ws Champion for four years, not three.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

llabwons wrote:Personally I think Tyson's status as an ATG is currently very harsh. The Tyson of 86-88 was an incredible fighting machine and as good as almost any fighter in history. Unfortunately he had a very short peak but then again so did many other fighters who are nearly always rated higher than him in history.

A perfect example is Marciano, who is one of the most overated fighters of all time. His three year reign as champion consisted of only six defences mainly against fighters mostly past their prime and blown up light-heavyweight greats, also past their best. Because he had the sense to retire as unbeaten champion though is status in history is blown way out of proportion, had Tyson done the same after mauling Spinks I dare say he would appear on most, so called historians, P4P all time top 10. Whilst Michael Spinks is no ATG Heavyweight, how many of the ones who are could you imagine blowing him away in 90 seconds?

I think that the only fighters who could have beaten the prime Tyson are Muhammed Ali for definate, probably the peak Larry Holmes (most underated ATG ever!) possibly a peak Lewis had the size, strength, athletic ability etc to do it and a prime Holyfield would always give Tyson a hard night, although I'm still not sure he would've coped with Tyson at his best.

I really hope history is kinder to Tyson, because he did light up the sport in an amazing way and at his best was a near perfect fighting machine.

As opposed to Tyson, whose two-year reign consisted of two defenses --- one against Carl Williams, & the other, Frank Bruno. Now let's see you make the case Williams & Bruno were more credible than even old versions of Walcott, Charles, Moore, as well as LaStarza. No thank you. LOL.

BTW, Marciano ws Champion for four years, not three.

Ignoring Tysons pre Spinks title fights is ludicrous in this day and age, multiple governing bodies are an unfortunate part of our sport.

I accept Tyson's level of opposition as champion, like Marciano's, was mediocre. The difference was Tyson annihilated his challengers whereas Rocky had life and death struggles with his!

Even a peak Tyson always had a harder time with tall guys with good jabs. I know he beat a fair amount of taller guys also, but he almost always had a harder time with them if they were 6'4 or taller. I suppose because he had a harder time hitting with as much force while punching upward.

llabwons wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

llabwons wrote:Personally I think Tyson's status as an ATG is currently very harsh. The Tyson of 86-88 was an incredible fighting machine and as good as almost any fighter in history. Unfortunately he had a very short peak but then again so did many other fighters who are nearly always rated higher than him in history.

A perfect example is Marciano, who is one of the most overated fighters of all time. His three year reign as champion consisted of only six defences mainly against fighters mostly past their prime and blown up light-heavyweight greats, also past their best. Because he had the sense to retire as unbeaten champion though is status in history is blown way out of proportion, had Tyson done the same after mauling Spinks I dare say he would appear on most, so called historians, P4P all time top 10. Whilst Michael Spinks is no ATG Heavyweight, how many of the ones who are could you imagine blowing him away in 90 seconds?

I think that the only fighters who could have beaten the prime Tyson are Muhammed Ali for definate, probably the peak Larry Holmes (most underated ATG ever!) possibly a peak Lewis had the size, strength, athletic ability etc to do it and a prime Holyfield would always give Tyson a hard night, although I'm still not sure he would've coped with Tyson at his best.

I really hope history is kinder to Tyson, because he did light up the sport in an amazing way and at his best was a near perfect fighting machine.

As opposed to Tyson, whose two-year reign consisted of two defenses --- one against Carl Williams, & the other, Frank Bruno. Now let's see you make the case Williams & Bruno were more credible than even old versions of Walcott, Charles, Moore, as well as LaStarza. No thank you. LOL.

BTW, Marciano ws Champion for four years, not three.

Ignoring Tysons pre Spinks title fights is ludicrous in this day and age, multiple governing bodies are an unfortunate part of our sport.

I accept Tyson's level of opposition as champion, like Marciano's, was mediocre. The difference was Tyson annihilated his challengers whereas Rocky had life and death struggles with his!

There were no multiple belts in Marciano's day as there were in the 80's. This isn't opinion, this is, I'm about to say, is fact --- you don't become the champion, until you beat the man --- Tyson starts with Spinks, that's a fact. That's two defenses in two years, against inferior rivals to the ones (for the most part) Marciano defeated in six defenses spanning six years.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

llabwons wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: As opposed to Tyson, whose two-year reign consisted of two defenses --- one against Carl Williams, & the other, Frank Bruno. Now let's see you make the case Williams & Bruno were more credible than even old versions of Walcott, Charles, Moore, as well as LaStarza. No thank you. LOL.

BTW, Marciano ws Champion for four years, not three.

Ignoring Tysons pre Spinks title fights is ludicrous in this day and age, multiple governing bodies are an unfortunate part of our sport.

I accept Tyson's level of opposition as champion, like Marciano's, was mediocre. The difference was Tyson annihilated his challengers whereas Rocky had life and death struggles with his!

There were no multiple belts in Marciano's day as there were in the 80's. This isn't opinion, this is, I'm about to say, is fact --- you don't become the champion, until you beat the man --- Tyson starts with Spinks, that's a fact. That's two defenses in two years, against inferior rivals to the ones (for the most part) Marciano defeated in six defenses spanning six years.

I'm fully aware there were no multiple belts back then as there is today and would give anything to go back to one champ per division. Thats whats almost killed off our sport, but thats not the fighters fault and you cant hold it against them when assessing their place in history. If you live by that rule most of todays fighters will never be classed as champions and we haven't had a heavyweight champion since 2004 and probably never will again (although I have to say the heavyweights since Lewis wouldn't make my top 50 anyway, they're all garbage!)

Where do you get the defences spread over six years from anyway, as far as I am aware Rocky won the title in September 1952 and made his last defence against Moore in September 1955.

As fantastic a fighter as Marciano was back then in that era, if you think a 188 pound man would have a prayer against Tyson, Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Lewis etc you need to get the old tapes out and watch them again without the rose tinted glasses on.

llabwons wrote:As fantastic a fighter as Marciano was back then in that era, if you think a 188 pound man would have a prayer against Tyson, Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Lewis etc you need to get the old tapes out and watch them again

Marciano wouldhave killed Lewis... If the likes fo Rahamn can KO Lewis (in the years of his prime). Then The Rock would hurt him big time!!!

llabwons wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

llabwons wrote:
Ignoring Tysons pre Spinks title fights is ludicrous in this day and age, multiple governing bodies are an unfortunate part of our sport.

I accept Tyson's level of opposition as champion, like Marciano's, was mediocre. The difference was Tyson annihilated his challengers whereas Rocky had life and death struggles with his!

There were no multiple belts in Marciano's day as there were in the 80's. This isn't opinion, this is, I'm about to say, is fact --- you don't become the champion, until you beat the man --- Tyson starts with Spinks, that's a fact. That's two defenses in two years, against inferior rivals to the ones (for the most part) Marciano defeated in six defenses spanning six years.

I'm fully aware there were no multiple belts back then as there is today and would give anything to go back to one champ per division. Thats whats almost killed off our sport, but thats not the fighters fault and you cant hold it against them when assessing their place in history. If you live by that rule most of todays fighters will never be classed as champions and we haven't had a heavyweight champion since 2004 and probably never will again (although I have to say the heavyweights since Lewis wouldn't make my top 50 anyway, they're all garbage!)

Where do you get the defences spread over six years from anyway, as far as I am aware Rocky won the title in September 1952 and made his last defence against Moore in September 1955.

As fantastic a fighter as Marciano was back then in that era, if you think a 188 pound man would have a prayer against Tyson, Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Lewis etc you need to get the old tapes out and watch them again without the rose tinted glasses on.

I meant to say four years, which was his reign, not six. I never breathed a word about how Marciano would fare against anyone in history. The contention is that Tyson was only Champ from 1988-90, & that's not a discussion. If you want to count from Berbick onwards because it was for this or that belt, that's really an unfair way to do things. After all, if there were three major belts floating around, whose to say Marciano wouldn't have beaten somebody who held one by, say, 1950? He didn't have that option & the fact is Tyson wasn't Champ until 88, anyway. His resume as a Champion is inferior to Marciano's.

Crease wrote:

llabwons wrote:As fantastic a fighter as Marciano was back then in that era, if you think a 188 pound man would have a prayer against Tyson, Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Lewis etc you need to get the old tapes out and watch them again

Marciano wouldhave killed Lewis... If the likes fo Rahamn can KO Lewis (in the years of his prime). Then The Rock would hurt him big time!!!

DD

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

llabwons wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: There were no multiple belts in Marciano's day as there were in the 80's. This isn't opinion, this is, I'm about to say, is fact --- you don't become the champion, until you beat the man --- Tyson starts with Spinks, that's a fact. That's two defenses in two years, against inferior rivals to the ones (for the most part) Marciano defeated in six defenses spanning six years.

I'm fully aware there were no multiple belts back then as there is today and would give anything to go back to one champ per division. Thats whats almost killed off our sport, but thats not the fighters fault and you cant hold it against them when assessing their place in history. If you live by that rule most of todays fighters will never be classed as champions and we haven't had a heavyweight champion since 2004 and probably never will again (although I have to say the heavyweights since Lewis wouldn't make my top 50 anyway, they're all garbage!)

Where do you get the defences spread over six years from anyway, as far as I am aware Rocky won the title in September 1952 and made his last defence against Moore in September 1955.

As fantastic a fighter as Marciano was back then in that era, if you think a 188 pound man would have a prayer against Tyson, Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Lewis etc you need to get the old tapes out and watch them again without the rose tinted glasses on.

I meant to say four years, which was his reign, not six. I never breathed a word about how Marciano would fare against anyone in history. The contention is that Tyson was only Champ from 1988-90, & that's not a discussion. If you want to count from Berbick onwards because it was for this or that belt, that's really an unfair way to do things. After all, if there were three major belts floating around, whose to say Marciano wouldn't have beaten somebody who held one by, say, 1950? He didn't have that option & the fact is Tyson wasn't Champ until 88, anyway. His resume as a Champion is inferior to Marciano's.

My point is not about who was champion for the longest. What I'm saying that as much as I love to watch Marciano myself and thought he was a fantastic fighter for the era he was in, he would've been no match for the peak Tyson. Tyson was bigger, stronger, faster, hit harder he just would've mauled him. The fighters in history that would be able to beat a peak Tyson would be the taller boxer types with speed, a great jab and the ability to take a shot. A peak Tyson would be too much for Joe Louis for the same reasons but Joe Louis is a far better ATG. The original question was which fighters could beat a peak Tyson and thats what I gave my answer to.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Douglas beat Tyson in his prime, nobody in the corner changes that. If he managed to win ,Holyfield would have slaughtered him in his next fight.

Bowe & Lewis also would have beat him. And I would have been highly interested to see him fight Mercer.

Edit: Actually thinking about how scared Lewis looked in the first round and a half against a shot Tyson. There is a pretty good chance he doesn't last that long earlier.

IF Tyson managed to pull it out the bag against Douglas, do you not feel that would have been the warning to Mike that he had to train hard for each fight, no matter who he was facing? Therefore, he would have trained hard & prepared accordingly for Holyfield, who was scheduled to face Tyson in June 1990, had Mike beaten Douglas?

Oy vey. Bowe would have been cannon fodder for Tyson. He was a very good fighter, but his defense was always suspect, not just against Golota. Golota was just the one who got to expose his shortcomings.

If Cus was alive Tyson would not have been inactive for 8 months like he was prior to Douglas. Holyfield is the only fighter to beat an active Tyson. Douglas did it after Tyson had an 8 month break, Lewis did it after a year of inactivity as did the last two at the end of his career. If Tyson stayed with Rooney he would have fought and beaten Bruno at Wembly probably in September of 88. And then fought Carl Williams and Ruddock by the end of June 1989. Tyson would have UD Foreman in September 89 and received a massive pay day in the process. Douglas probably never gets he shot its not like he was a mandatory or there was any public demand for his shot, his mother's death happens why he fights another top 10 fighter and by the time he would get that shot he would be emotionally deflated. Holyfield Tyson happens as a mega fight to kick of the decade in the states. Who would win well we could go on for ever and a day, but at least tyson would have at least two more title defences to his name and we could have seen the Foreman fight. Also like to thing that the division would have been more structured even if Tyson loses to Holyfield. Tyson would still prevent the likes of Moorer and Botha getting shots. The nineties would have been the best decade ever if Lewis Tyson, and Bowe had fought in the first half of the decade oh what might have been.

llabwons wrote:A perfect example is Marciano, who is one of the most overated fighters of all time.

You do realise that Marciano beat HOFer after HOFer after HOFer.

Crease wrote:

llabwons wrote:A perfect example is Marciano, who is one of the most overated fighters of all time.

You do realise that Marciano beat HOFer after HOFer after HOFer.

Yes I do, when everyone of them was past their best or fighting above their natural weight division. I still think he was a great fighter but no match for many that came after him. The unbeaten record gives him a higher standing than what he deserves.

Ali beats Tyson he a smart boxer, I do not think Tyson had it in him to go to decision, or an Ali-Tyson II or III for more chances

Who knows, Tyson can slip many punches and throw a stinger

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

llabwons wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: As opposed to Tyson, whose two-year reign consisted of two defenses --- one against Carl Williams, & the other, Frank Bruno. Now let's see you make the case Williams & Bruno were more credible than even old versions of Walcott, Charles, Moore, as well as LaStarza. No thank you. LOL.

BTW, Marciano ws Champion for four years, not three.

Ignoring Tysons pre Spinks title fights is ludicrous in this day and age, multiple governing bodies are an unfortunate part of our sport.

I accept Tyson's level of opposition as champion, like Marciano's, was mediocre. The difference was Tyson annihilated his challengers whereas Rocky had life and death struggles with his!

There were no multiple belts in Marciano's day as there were in the 80's. This isn't opinion, this is, I'm about to say, is fact --- you don't become the champion, until you beat the man --- Tyson starts with Spinks, that's a fact. That's two defenses in two years, against inferior rivals to the ones (for the most part) Marciano defeated in six defenses spanning six years.

When you are the undisputed champion you are the man-Fact!
And using that logic,Larry Holmes, never made any title defenses,cos he never unified the titles.
Looking at Holyfield or Lewis according to this criteria, they barely made defenses too.Actually,according to this criteria Lewis made 5 defenses and Holyfield 3.Tyson made 6 title defenses after becoming the undisputed champ.
In the 70's there were 2 titles,so you have to apply your logic to the golden era too.

It does get complicated with all of the WBS titles.

I (and probably most people at the time) considered Tyson to be "the man" before he fought Spinks.
Spinks pulled out of the HBO tournament so that he could have easier paydays. Maybe a good business move, but once he did that, he was no longer the "man".
Tyson beat three good fighters to win the tournament, which made him the real champion.

Ambling Alp wrote:It does get complicated with all of the WBS titles.

I (and probably most people at the time) considered Tyson to be "the man" before he fought Spinks.
Spinks pulled out of the HBO tournament so that he could have easier paydays. Maybe a good business move, but once he did that, he was no longer the "man".
Tyson beat three good fighters to win the tournament, which made him the real champion.

It's not enough to be considered the best. You have to beat the top dog, otherwise it's all just conjecture. Tyson didn't do that until he defeated Spinks.

I totally agree with Irene

There have been countless occasions when the champion was not the best fighter. But before the WBX he just went along beating up other contenders. The WBX should not change anything. But if it does then let’s go back to the very start and redefine the world championships. When exactly did Sam Langford become the world champ? Because he was the best in the world at various weights. And then when exactly did he lose it?

It’s just a can of worms that would echo on and on with no conclusion…

Here’s a great example… After beating Mike Weaver KO magazine decided that Pinklon Thomas was now “the man” at HW and installed him as their number 1 with Holmes slipping down the list. Next fight Berbick beats Thomas. And now they decide they got it wrong… As annoying as it may seem the best way to decide who the champ is to select the guy who beats him. It’s never been a perfect system and never will be.

Crease wrote:

llabwons wrote:As fantastic a fighter as Marciano was back then in that era, if you think a 188 pound man would have a prayer against Tyson, Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Lewis etc you need to get the old tapes out and watch them again

Marciano wouldhave killed Lewis... If the likes fo Rahamn can KO Lewis (in the years of his prime). Then The Rock would hurt him big time!!!

You do realize Rahamn weighed fifty pounds more than Rocky , was nearly six inches, taller, and had a twelve kinch longer reach, and had a very different style.

Ezzard wrote:I totally agree with Irene

There have been countless occasions when the champion was not the best fighter. But before the WBX he just went along beating up other contenders. The WBX should not change anything. But if it does then let’s go back to the very start and redefine the world championships. When exactly did Sam Langford become the world champ? Because he was the best in the world at various weights. And then when exactly did he lose it?

It’s just a can of worms that would echo on and on with no conclusion…

Here’s a great example… After beating Mike Weaver KO magazine decided that Pinklon Thomas was now “the man” at HW and installed him as their number 1 with Holmes slipping down the list. Next fight Berbick beats Thomas. And now they decide they got it wrong… As annoying as it may seem the best way to decide who the champ is to select the guy who beats him. It’s never been a perfect system and never will be.

I cannot believe, frankly, people would even want to deviate from it.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I totally agree with Irene

There have been countless occasions when the champion was not the best fighter. But before the WBX he just went along beating up other contenders. The WBX should not change anything. But if it does then let’s go back to the very start and redefine the world championships. When exactly did Sam Langford become the world champ? Because he was the best in the world at various weights. And then when exactly did he lose it?

It’s just a can of worms that would echo on and on with no conclusion…

Here’s a great example… After beating Mike Weaver KO magazine decided that Pinklon Thomas was now “the man” at HW and installed him as their number 1 with Holmes slipping down the list. Next fight Berbick beats Thomas. And now they decide they got it wrong… As annoying as it may seem the best way to decide who the champ is to select the guy who beats him. It’s never been a perfect system and never will be.

I cannot believe, frankly, people would even want to deviate from it.

If it’s their favourite they’ll say anything.

I think that because Tyson was the money, the fame and the favourite that this gets confused with who was the champ.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:It does get complicated with all of the WBS titles.

I (and probably most people at the time) considered Tyson to be "the man" before he fought Spinks.
Spinks pulled out of the HBO tournament so that he could have easier paydays. Maybe a good business move, but once he did that, he was no longer the "man".
Tyson beat three good fighters to win the tournament, which made him the real champion.

It's not enough to be considered the best. You have to beat the top dog, otherwise it's all just conjecture. Tyson didn't do that until he defeated Spinks.

Spinks was no longer the "top dog." He pulled out of the tournament which he had comitted to, to get an easier payday against weaker competition. There is more to being the real champion than just winning the title. You have to defend it against the best available.

I like Spinks and detest Tyson. Spinks already did more than most thought he would do by beating Holmes. However, by not continuing to fight the best, he gave up the claim as being the "man or top dog or whatever you want to call it.

Tyson was the real champion after winning that tournament.