BoxRec

mugabi wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: Three words you need to learn.

Styles make fights.

A man who can't down or KO an ancient, fat, 40 year old Shannon Briggs and takes 10 to 11 rds to shift grossly overweight blobs isn't going to beat Mike Tyson. Klitschko looks like he's moving through treacle compared to Mike Tyson. The sheer speed that Mike Tyson could hook to the body and come up with an uppercut on 6'5, 6'6 guys was actually scary.

The way Vitali couldn't put down Obed Sullivan, Chris Byrd, Timo Hoffman, Vaughn Bean, an old fat Lennox Lewis, an old fat chinny Corrie Sanders, an old fat chinny Shannon Briggs, does not say good things about his reputed punch power. He's not making a dent on Mike freakin' Tyson.

Nice post loaded, I think you and Jamesmcdonnel broke this thing down with far greater eloquence than me.
I see a Tyson 88-Vitali matchup looking very much like Tysons mauling of Bruno the first time or a more prolonged beat down version of the Golota fight obviously without the histrionics of Golota.

desperados wrote: i see it a bit more like how the tyson-buster fight went, except without buster being knocked down, and Tyson not getting up at all rather than after 11.

loaded_gloves wrote:

desperados wrote: i see it a bit more like how the tyson-buster fight went, except without buster being knocked down, and Tyson not getting up at all rather than after 11.

Well you simply don't know what you are talking about. Vitali couldn't put chinny fat 40 year old men Shannon Briggs and Corrie Sanders down for the count, he couldn't even knock them down, yet he's going to somehow put a PEAK MIKE TYSON down for the count? You're living in pure fantasy!

The idea of Vitali Klitschko boxing with the speed, moves, skills, foot work, punch variety and clinical execution of Buster Douglas in 1990..... Jesus Christ, you are actually a loon!

Vitali moving like Buster Douglas. Will he do an Ali Shuffle as well? Perhaps throw a bolo punch? I think I have now heard EVERYTHING on this forum. Unreal.

loaded_gloves wrote:90% knockout ratio.... over who?

Brian Nielsen has a high KO ratio too. So?

The picture you're painting is pure fantasy.

They have 50lbs on Mike Tyson? Er, no they don't. More like 25lbs to 30lbs weight 'advantage' (muscle mass? advantage?) yes. And wow, it's not like we've ever seen weight advantages like that easily overcome in heavyweight boxing. Jack Dempsey/Jess Willard 60lbs, Max Baer/Primo Carnera 50lbs, Chagaev or Holyfield/Valuev 100lbs+ for a more modern example, Byrd/Klitschko 30lbs, Holyfield/Foreman 50lbs, RJJ/Ruiz 30lbs.....

Tyson hit plenty 6'5, 6'6 guys square in the mush, and has got past longer reaches than the K brothers, with men who had a greater variety of punches and a lot more speed and high work rate than the K goons.

"90% KO ratio", lol. His 90% KO ratio power failed to put Obed Sullivan, Chris Byrd, Timo Hoffman, Vaughn Bean, a fat nearly 40 year old Lennox Lewis, Corrie Sanders, Sam Peter, or Shannon Briggs on the floor ONE SINGLE TIME. Some 'puncher'!

mugabi wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:I know, between 1985 and the Lewis fight, a period of supposed austerity in the heavyweight ranks he didn't fight Morrison, Foreman, Witherspoon, Moorer, Bowe, Mercer, V. Klitschko, Tua, Byrd, Lewis, McCall, Briggs. Basically anyone with a punch and/or a chin and some bollacks. Some because they lost at crucial times but nevertheless when some of those fights were out there Tyson was either inside or fighting Savarese, Bruno, Norris, Etienne, McNeeley, Nielsen, Selden, Francis,

When faced with a guy who didn't crumble Tyson very swiftly ran out of ideas. He took his beatings; had a good chin and was a phenomenon who would have caused all of the above massive problems and likely beaten several of them.

Holyfield would always have his number aged 17 or 57.

But his resume lacks depth for all the retrospective credibility afforded the likes of Bruno - who is now canonised because he would have been a top 3 heavyweight in the currently bleak landscape - which is a bit like saying how good a leader of the Labour party Michael Foot was.

This post and that of the thread starter Jessi are the kind of revisionist crap you tend to find more on youtube. Ref the highlighted comments above which are ridiculous I give you two names.....Razor Ruddock......but of course he didnt have a punch or chin or bollocks as you so eloquently put it, I mean he was only universally considered the second most dangerous HW in the world in 1991 and Tyson didnt need to fight him but did so twice in a 4 month span!!!!! ruddock was a guy avoided by Foreman, Holyfield and all the other big names of the time you mentioned in your list, which really is such nonsense i cant be bothered to break it down one by one. Tyson was supposed to fight witherspoon but timmy got himself knocked out in 1 by bonecrusher who tyson than fought. Mercer was beaten in his prime by a fat old Larry Holmes who Tyson had beaten 4 years earlier. The same fat old Holmes pushed holyfield the distance. Tysons victory over Holmes and the manner he did it in was spectacular and that Holmes might have been inactive but he could still fight and that 38 year old Holmes would be one of the 3 best HWs in the world today. Mccall was Mikes sparring partner! If you have seen what Mercer was able to do to Morrisson , letting 1991 Tyson loose on Morrison would have been like that story about gerald mclellan feeding a tame petshop dog to his rottweiler.

Jessi, Tyson did have a short peak of really 2 years (autumn 86 to autumn 88) but he crammed so many names in there such a spectacular body of work. The Holmes, and Spinks victories beat anything Vitali or Wladmir have achieved,neither 1988 Holmes nor Spinks at HW would have lost to ross purrity ,corrie sanders or chris byrd and the less skilled but iron willed and chinned 89-91 Tyson rates very very highly as well, the Douglas loss really doesnt mean much to me, when u fire your manager,and trainer, and lose 40 lbs in 1 month on a diet of 5-6 japanese groupies a day, and arent training and getting floored by sparring partners u were murdering a few months earlier thats what happens.

The Tyson couldnt fight when someone fired or hit him back argument is usually one of the lazy cheap mind that has never stepped in the ring....actually watch Tysons fights with powerpunchers Bonecrusher, Bruno, and Ruddock during his 1986-91 run and often he was hit with shots that would kayo all of todays hw's yet Tyson shook them off instantly and came back with hellacious shots of his own. The man during this time was an incredible fighting animal with an incredible chin and will to win. Forget post prison Tyson, he neither had the will, hunger or aptitude anymore for fighting and his skills and legs were shot.

The old Holyfield would have beaten any Tyson is also utter tripe and lazy thinking. The 1988-1991 Tyson would always beat any version of Holyfield headbutts or not.

loaded_gloves wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:Christ, in this thread I've read Vitali Klitschko would beat Mike Tyson (Oh, the way Big Bro KOd a fat 40 year old Shannon Briggs, what a beast he is), and the division of today is SUPERIOR to that of the 80s!!

Unfreakinbelievable.

If I owned Boxrec I'd shut down the whole forum rather than allow people like this a platform to spew their insanity.

Three words you need to learn.

Styles make fights.

A man who can't down or KO an ancient, fat, 40 year old Shannon Briggs and takes 10 to 11 rds to shift grossly overweight blobs isn't going to beat Mike Tyson. Klitschko looks like he's moving through treacle compared to Mike Tyson. The sheer speed that Mike Tyson could hook to the body and come up with an uppercut on 6'5, 6'6 guys was actually scary.

The way Vitali couldn't put down Obed Sullivan, Chris Byrd, Timo Hoffman, Vaughn Bean, an old fat Lennox Lewis, an old fat chinny Corrie Sanders, an old fat chinny Shannon Briggs, does not say good things about his reputed punch power. He's not making a dent on Mike freakin' Tyson.

DavidPayne wrote:I'd happily be just as lazy undermining VK's resume, which really is awful. There isn't an opponent he's faced outside Haye and Adamek, both Cruiserweights, who don't merit the descriptive Fat or at the every least overweight and usually with added moniker of old and/or fkking useless.

Petaling Pete wrote:In his prime he beat everyone that was put against him, usually in devastating fashion. Holmes was never put down like that in his entire career and subsequently had a reletivally long and successful career at heavyweight, including a credible challenge to Holyfield over the distance

He was ready to face Holyfield in the early 90's but his incarceration put paid to that.

He was an accident waiting to happen from Bruno onwwards and this marked the beginning of his decline.

Post incarceration he was matched up safely against Peter McNeilly and Mathis Junior before he faced two of the worst champions of all time in Seldon and Bruno to regain his belts.

Holyfield was coming off a very lean patch in his career after sub-par performances against Moorer, Bowe and Bobby Czyc, but proved to be Tyson's nemesis. Thereafter it was purely Tysons punch and name that kept him going.

Lewis was not an entity in his first reign and Don King manipulated the ratings to keep him out of the frame for the mid nineties. It was only in 2003 he got his chance but that version of Tyson was shortly to be ripe for picking firstly by Danny Williams in a career best effort and sadye by Kevin McBride who was not fit to carry his jock strap.

A short sharp peak that saw him face anyone and everyone that dared get into the ring with him. In that peak I would have fancied him to beat peak Lewis's Bowe and Holyfield's.

loaded_gloves wrote:

desperados wrote: i see it a bit more like how the tyson-buster fight went, except without buster being knocked down, and Tyson not getting up at all rather than after 11.

Well you simply don't know what you are talking about. Vitali couldn't put chinny fat 40 year old men Shannon Briggs and Corrie Sanders down for the count, he couldn't even knock them down, yet he's going to somehow put a PEAK MIKE TYSON down for the count? You're living in pure fantasy!

The idea of Vitali Klitschko boxing with the speed, moves, skills, foot work, punch variety and clinical execution of Buster Douglas in 1990..... Jesus Christ, you are actually a loon!

Vitali moving like Buster Douglas. Will he do an Ali Shuffle as well? Perhaps throw a bolo punch? I think I have now heard EVERYTHING on this forum. Unreal.

DavidPayne wrote:

mugabi wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:I know, between 1985 and the Lewis fight, a period of supposed austerity in the heavyweight ranks he didn't fight Morrison, Foreman, Witherspoon, Moorer, Bowe, Mercer, V. Klitschko, Tua, Byrd, Lewis, McCall, Briggs. Basically anyone with a punch and/or a chin and some bollacks. Some because they lost at crucial times but nevertheless when some of those fights were out there Tyson was either inside or fighting Savarese, Bruno, Norris, Etienne, McNeeley, Nielsen, Selden, Francis,

When faced with a guy who didn't crumble Tyson very swiftly ran out of ideas. He took his beatings; had a good chin and was a phenomenon who would have caused all of the above massive problems and likely beaten several of them.

Holyfield would always have his number aged 17 or 57.

But his resume lacks depth for all the retrospective credibility afforded the likes of Bruno - who is now canonised because he would have been a top 3 heavyweight in the currently bleak landscape - which is a bit like saying how good a leader of the Labour party Michael Foot was.

This post and that of the thread starter Jessi are the kind of revisionist crap you tend to find more on youtube. Ref the highlighted comments above which are ridiculous I give you two names.....Razor Ruddock......but of course he didnt have a punch or chin or bollocks as you so eloquently put it, I mean he was only universally considered the second most dangerous HW in the world in 1991 and Tyson didnt need to fight him but did so twice in a 4 month span!!!!! ruddock was a guy avoided by Foreman, Holyfield and all the other big names of the time you mentioned in your list, which really is such nonsense i cant be bothered to break it down one by one. Tyson was supposed to fight witherspoon but timmy got himself knocked out in 1 by bonecrusher who tyson than fought. Mercer was beaten in his prime by a fat old Larry Holmes who Tyson had beaten 4 years earlier. The same fat old Holmes pushed holyfield the distance. Tysons victory over Holmes and the manner he did it in was spectacular and that Holmes might have been inactive but he could still fight and that 38 year old Holmes would be one of the 3 best HWs in the world today. Mccall was Mikes sparring partner! If you have seen what Mercer was able to do to Morrisson , letting 1991 Tyson loose on Morrison would have been like that story about gerald mclellan feeding a tame petshop dog to his rottweiler.

Jessi, Tyson did have a short peak of really 2 years (autumn 86 to autumn 88) but he crammed so many names in there such a spectacular body of work. The Holmes, and Spinks victories beat anything Vitali or Wladmir have achieved,neither 1988 Holmes nor Spinks at HW would have lost to ross purrity ,corrie sanders or chris byrd and the less skilled but iron willed and chinned 89-91 Tyson rates very very highly as well, the Douglas loss really doesnt mean much to me, when u fire your manager,and trainer, and lose 40 lbs in 1 month on a diet of 5-6 japanese groupies a day, and arent training and getting floored by sparring partners u were murdering a few months earlier thats what happens.

The Tyson couldnt fight when someone fired or hit him back argument is usually one of the lazy cheap mind that has never stepped in the ring....actually watch Tysons fights with powerpunchers Bonecrusher, Bruno, and Ruddock during his 1986-91 run and often he was hit with shots that would kayo all of todays hw's yet Tyson shook them off instantly and came back with hellacious shots of his own. The man during this time was an incredible fighting animal with an incredible chin and will to win. Forget post prison Tyson, he neither had the will, hunger or aptitude anymore for fighting and his skills and legs were shot.

The old Holyfield would have beaten any Tyson is also utter tripe and lazy thinking. The 1988-1991 Tyson would always beat any version of Holyfield headbutts or not.

Mugabi,

There is some laziness in my post - largely because I've done this topic so often - I'll concede that. However, you will also note my caveat that Tyson would have been competitive and likely beat many of the names I list -and additionally point to the fact some of them lost at key times ahead of possible bouts with Tyson - Witherspoon being the most glaring given his uncharacteristic knockout loss to Smith.

I don't think Tyson lacked courage or a chin, and suggest neither, and we're not presupposing Tyson was the matchmaker or his own protector are we? There were big fights missed which may or may not have been made without any input from Tyson. Lest we forget there was a commercial interest in risk management for all his comprehensive victories. Tyson got all his work of note done in the 1980's, but I also find it revisionist, to use your descriptive, to simply cast aside his career in the 1990's. Surely we have to judge the greater body of work and not just a purple period of 3 years? We have to judge Lewis with his defeats to McCall and Rahman, his struggles with Mercer do we not. We cannot merely select a three year period?

In short, I don't blame Tyson for not ensuring every heavy of significance featured on his resume during that period.

Whilst I appreciate your opinion on the Tyson would always lose to Holyfield debate, it is too general an assumption to make given their relative skills set but it is an opinion with as much substance as the counter-argument is it not - based as it is on Holyfield's messy scrap with Bert Cooper on the whole and Tyson previously impervious form. However, when heavily favoured, younger, fresher and on supposedly better form Tyson lost not once, but twice to Holyfield it offers infinitely more evidence that can be mustered to dissuade me from my view. When Holyfield wouldn't be bullied or subdued, Tyson didn't adapt, he opted out.

He was a sensational fighter, more than capable of beating every heavyweight that ever lived. But on balance of likelihood he cannot feature too high on my all time list and the implicit suggestion the original poster presents - that Tyson didn't actually beat many significant opponents is one that will always limit his place among his predecessors and successors.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Vitali's punch power is not what it was 5 years ago, and he relies now on volume of punches rather than individual big shots.

desperados wrote: 1. your "over who" argument holds no weight. writing off a fighters record as having faught bums plagues these sort of debates, and can be applied to any fighter. I've seen americans laugh of Joe Calzaghes record as having faught nobody, with his best name being a Kessler that Ward took to shreds. Infact the point of this thread is to take to pieces Tysons record.

loaded_gloves wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Vitali's punch power is not what it was 5 years ago, and he relies now on volume of punches rather than individual big shots.

Can you please point out his displays of big power shots James? He didn't down Obed Sullivan, Chris Byrd, Timo Hoffman, a fat old Lennox Lewis or a fat old chinny Corrie Sanders in his 'prime', and you'd think if he was a big puncher he would have scored at least ONE singular knock down against one of these men, right?

I mean, if you're gonna grind down a peak Mike Tyson you better be able to splatter at least a few of these men, surely?

palooka wrote:

Petaling Pete wrote:In his prime he beat everyone that was put against him, usually in devastating fashion. Holmes was never put down like that in his entire career and subsequently had a reletivally long and successful career at heavyweight, including a credible challenge to Holyfield over the distance

He was ready to face Holyfield in the early 90's but his incarceration put paid to that.

He was an accident waiting to happen from Bruno onwwards and this marked the beginning of his decline.

Post incarceration he was matched up safely against Peter McNeilly and Mathis Junior before he faced two of the worst champions of all time in Seldon and Bruno to regain his belts.

Holyfield was coming off a very lean patch in his career after sub-par performances against Moorer, Bowe and Bobby Czyc, but proved to be Tyson's nemesis. Thereafter it was purely Tysons punch and name that kept him going.

Lewis was not an entity in his first reign and Don King manipulated the ratings to keep him out of the frame for the mid nineties. It was only in 2003 he got his chance but that version of Tyson was shortly to be ripe for picking firstly by Danny Williams in a career best effort and sadye by Kevin McBride who was not fit to carry his jock strap.

A short sharp peak that saw him face anyone and everyone that dared get into the ring with him. In that peak I would have fancied him to beat peak Lewis's Bowe and Holyfield's.

I agree.

In perspective, that were 17 years after he'd won the title v Berbeck. The Lewis bout was awful.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

palooka wrote:

Petaling Pete wrote:In his prime he beat everyone that was put against him, usually in devastating fashion. Holmes was never put down like that in his entire career and subsequently had a reletivally long and successful career at heavyweight, including a credible challenge to Holyfield over the distance

He was ready to face Holyfield in the early 90's but his incarceration put paid to that.

He was an accident waiting to happen from Bruno onwwards and this marked the beginning of his decline.

Post incarceration he was matched up safely against Peter McNeilly and Mathis Junior before he faced two of the worst champions of all time in Seldon and Bruno to regain his belts.

Holyfield was coming off a very lean patch in his career after sub-par performances against Moorer, Bowe and Bobby Czyc, but proved to be Tyson's nemesis. Thereafter it was purely Tysons punch and name that kept him going.

Lewis was not an entity in his first reign and Don King manipulated the ratings to keep him out of the frame for the mid nineties. It was only in 2003 he got his chance but that version of Tyson was shortly to be ripe for picking firstly by Danny Williams in a career best effort and sadye by Kevin McBride who was not fit to carry his jock strap.

A short sharp peak that saw him face anyone and everyone that dared get into the ring with him. In that peak I would have fancied him to beat peak Lewis's Bowe and Holyfield's.

I agree.

In perspective, that were 17 years after he'd won the title v Berbeck. The Lewis bout was awful.

Lewis beat a shell of Tyson, he was finished by that point as an elite fighter, and nobody knew it more than Mike himself - he was fighting only because it was the only thing he knew how to do.