BoxRec

Controversial wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 02:48

gilgamesh wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 02:29 Up until Holyfield beat him Tyson had only lost once. Holyfield had been beaten 3 times. So if Holyfield was fresher somehow, that's only because he was always better. He had taken more punishment than Mike. He had had a tougher schedule of bouts than Mike. He was older than Mike.

Mike should've had every advantage in the fight. He didn't because Holyfield was better than him, and there just wasn't anything that was gonna change that.

I don’t think you can compare fighters like that, every fighter is different, some can have loads of fights and still be good in later years, others are shot after 25 fights at a younger age. Too many variables involved. But yes Holyfield was seen as being on the decline, Bowe had stopped him and he looked far from good vs Czyz, I for one thought Mike would win even with Tyson only having a few rounds in the bank since being out the ring for over 4 years.

You're wasting your time.

Gilgamesh cannot wrap his head around variables, context or nuance.

In this very thread he argued that Corrie Sanders is a better fighter than Ken Norton because... Sanders had 4 losses and Norton had 7. Seriously. Look it up. This type of thinking is reflected in literally all his takes.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 04:26 Mike Tyson only ever fought 1 way. He was coming at you. Guns blazing going for the KO. Once people began to figure out his style, and once he began to lose a step it wasn't as effective. Holyfield was able to make adjustments to different kinds of styles as opposed to simply always relying on imposing the same style on people the way Tyson did.

It usually worked for Tyson to his credit. It just didn't work against a fighter the caliber of Evander Holyfield.

The art and nuance of what he was doing in the 80s, under Kevin Rooney are, predictably, lost on you.

You can clearly see by the 90s that technique has gone out of the window. Clearly. Astute observers noted this in their ringside reports, such as Graham Houston in 1991.

That you can't see this, and can't understand that four years in prison would disadvantage any athlete in elite sports, says it all.

From now on I'm only debating intelligent posters. You're just too stupid to interact with.

overhand_right wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 04:32

gilgamesh wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 04:26 Mike Tyson only ever fought 1 way. He was coming at you. Guns blazing going for the KO. Once people began to figure out his style, and once he began to lose a step it wasn't as effective. Holyfield was able to make adjustments to different kinds of styles as opposed to simply always relying on imposing the same style on people the way Tyson did.

It usually worked for Tyson to his credit. It just didn't work against a fighter the caliber of Evander Holyfield.

The art and nuance of what he was doing in the 80s, under Kevin Rooney are, predictably, lost on you.

You can clearly see by the 90s that technique has gone out of the window. Clearly. Astute observers noted this in their ringside reports, such as Graham Houston in 1991.

That you can't see this, and can't understand that four years in prison would disadvantage any athlete in elite sports, says it all.

From now on I'm only debating intelligent posters. You're just too stupid to interact with.

Did I say that 4 years in Prison didn't disadvantage him? I don't recall saying that.

Did I say that Mike Tyson in 1996 was as good as Mike Tyson in 1988? I don't recall saying that.

overhand_right wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 04:26

Controversial wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 02:48

gilgamesh wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 02:29 Up until Holyfield beat him Tyson had only lost once. Holyfield had been beaten 3 times. So if Holyfield was fresher somehow, that's only because he was always better. He had taken more punishment than Mike. He had had a tougher schedule of bouts than Mike. He was older than Mike.

Mike should've had every advantage in the fight. He didn't because Holyfield was better than him, and there just wasn't anything that was gonna change that.

I don’t think you can compare fighters like that, every fighter is different, some can have loads of fights and still be good in later years, others are shot after 25 fights at a younger age. Too many variables involved. But yes Holyfield was seen as being on the decline, Bowe had stopped him and he looked far from good vs Czyz, I for one thought Mike would win even with Tyson only having a few rounds in the bank since being out the ring for over 4 years.

You're wasting your time.

Gilgamesh cannot wrap his head around variables, context or nuance.

In this very thread he argued that Corrie Sanders is a better fighter than Ken Norton because... Sanders had 4 losses and Norton had 7. Seriously. Look it up. This type of thinking is reflected in literally all his takes.

I don't think that Corrie Sanders is a better fighter than Ken Norton exactly, but I do rate him ever so slightly higher on my All time list, but the margin is so thin as to suggest I see them as being on pretty much an even level. I do think Sanders would've won between them head to head. They each have 2 entirely different styles that would serve them well against different opponents.

Sanders could lose to people that Norton would've beaten and vice versa. Either could've won in a head to head match.

570295 wrote: ↑11 Oct 2026, 23:32

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑11 Oct 2026, 12:23

Controversial wrote: ↑03 Jul 2007, 18:18 Lots of people now dismiss Tyson as an overated fighter, a bully, someone who fought in a weak era etc..etc...

But honestly, how many of you thought Mike Tyson was overated when he was 37-0 (33 ko's)?

If you thought he was overated then, what made you think that?

I don't see why he would rate ahead of Naseem Hamed who also had a great run prior to his first loss.

But these days Hamed is widely viewed as a hypehob

Now we're just getting silly.

For one, Tyson was undisputed. Hamed wasn't. In fact, most of his "reign" was spent defending his WBO belt, which wasn't even recognized as a legitimate title at the time. Secondly, Tyson actually had a career after his first loss, albeit a spotty one. Hamed didn't.

Hamed was the consensus top guy at featherweight for years and largely cleaned out the division.

He beat Medina, Vazquez, Soto, Kelley, etc. Who else should he have fought?

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 14:53

570295 wrote: ↑11 Oct 2026, 23:32

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑11 Oct 2026, 12:23

I don't see why he would rate ahead of Naseem Hamed who also had a great run prior to his first loss.

But these days Hamed is widely viewed as a hypehob

Now we're just getting silly.

For one, Tyson was undisputed. Hamed wasn't. In fact, most of his "reign" was spent defending his WBO belt, which wasn't even recognized as a legitimate title at the time. Secondly, Tyson actually had a career after his first loss, albeit a spotty one. Hamed didn't.

Hamed was the consensus top guy at featherweight for years and largely cleaned out the division.

He beat Medina, Vazquez, Soto, Kelley, etc. Who else should he have fought?

Morales or Barrera were obviously the big 2. He fought Barrera. It's a shame we never saw him in there with Morales. That would've been awesome.

He also blatantly avoided Juan Manuel Marquez who was his mandatory for a long, long time before getting his shot.

overhand_right wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 04:20

gilgamesh wrote: ↑11 Oct 2026, 17:42

overhand_right wrote: ↑11 Oct 2026, 17:33

You think perhaps 4 years in prison might have diminished him somehow? He lost to Holyfield in 96 and 97 -- 8 and 9 years after 1988!

If Cleveland Williams was Ali's peak then that period of time elapsing is him versus Jimmy Young. If Ken Norton was Larry Holmes' peak that period of time is him eking past Carl Williams and losing to Spinks. How was Joe Frazier looking 8,9 years after Ali in 71? Oh that's right he was retired.

Some people on boxing forums really can't wrap their head around the passage of time.

Tyson was the younger man than Holyfield. Holyfield was being written off as an old man with a bad heart (literally. Like a heart condition and medical issues).

Don't make excuses for Mike losing to Holyfield. He lost to Holyfield because Holyfield is better than him. Period.

Mike was the 25 to 1 betting favorite entering their 1st fight.

You can argue that Holyfield was better than Tyson, that's a defensible position, but your reasons are specious in the extreme.

Re: age. All fighters are different and have different primes, some styles age better than others, plus there are a thousand-and-one other variables: ringwear, lifestyle, lay offs, injuries, professionalism etc. Seriously Gilgamesh. I don't mean to be rude but this is stuff you learn in your first year following boxing.

The heart issue was a misdiagnosis. It was debunked in 1994.

Yes Holyfield was perceived as being used up and a sacrificial lamb, and it turned out everyone, including Tyson, underestimated him. That does not prove he was always the better fighter.

Tyson spent four years out of the ring, in prison. To pretend that wouldn't have a hugely deleterious effect on the performance of an athlete at elite level is, at best, inconceivably naive.

Sometimes it doesn't have any effect. Vitali came back from a 4 year retirement looking exactly the same as before.

Fury was out for 3 years and seemed to regain his old form.

There are plenty of exceptions

overhand_right wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 04:26

Controversial wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 02:48

gilgamesh wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 02:29 Up until Holyfield beat him Tyson had only lost once. Holyfield had been beaten 3 times. So if Holyfield was fresher somehow, that's only because he was always better. He had taken more punishment than Mike. He had had a tougher schedule of bouts than Mike. He was older than Mike.

Mike should've had every advantage in the fight. He didn't because Holyfield was better than him, and there just wasn't anything that was gonna change that.

I don’t think you can compare fighters like that, every fighter is different, some can have loads of fights and still be good in later years, others are shot after 25 fights at a younger age. Too many variables involved. But yes Holyfield was seen as being on the decline, Bowe had stopped him and he looked far from good vs Czyz, I for one thought Mike would win even with Tyson only having a few rounds in the bank since being out the ring for over 4 years.

You're wasting your time.

Gilgamesh cannot wrap his head around variables, context or nuance.

In this very thread he argued that Corrie Sanders is a better fighter than Ken Norton because... Sanders had 4 losses and Norton had 7. Seriously. Look it up. This type of thinking is reflected in literally all his takes.

I hear you.
I have gone back and forth with him a lot in the last several months. Much more since he came out with his silly ranking system.
How about him ranking Tommy Morrison higher than Norton as well?
He actually brought up Morrosin having asuccessful title defense and Norton not having one. Morrison beat a club fighter who was a last minute subsitutue. norton lost a great fight to Larry Holmes!

He actually gives Morrison more credit for beat Tim Tomashek than Ron Lyle or Pinklon Thomas gets for their entire careers.!

Lyle gets no points for beating Bonavena or Bugner. Jerry Quarry gets nothing for beating Mathis.

Jersey Joe Walcott gets docked for losing a fight when he's 16 years old!! Demspey gets docked for a loss when he had been a pro for 8 months.
It just goes on and on.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 20:12

overhand_right wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 04:26

Controversial wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 02:48

I don’t think you can compare fighters like that, every fighter is different, some can have loads of fights and still be good in later years, others are shot after 25 fights at a younger age. Too many variables involved. But yes Holyfield was seen as being on the decline, Bowe had stopped him and he looked far from good vs Czyz, I for one thought Mike would win even with Tyson only having a few rounds in the bank since being out the ring for over 4 years.

You're wasting your time.

Gilgamesh cannot wrap his head around variables, context or nuance.

In this very thread he argued that Corrie Sanders is a better fighter than Ken Norton because... Sanders had 4 losses and Norton had 7. Seriously. Look it up. This type of thinking is reflected in literally all his takes.

I hear you.
I have gone back and forth with him a lot in the last several months. Much more since he came out with his silly ranking system.
How about him ranking Tommy Morrison higher than Norton as well?
He actually brought up Morrosin having asuccessful title defense and Norton not having one. Morrison beat a club fighter who was a last minute subsitutue. norton lost a great fight to Larry Holmes!

He actually gives Morrison more credit for beat Tim Tomashek than Ron Lyle or Pinklon Thomas gets for their entire careers.!

Lyle gets no points for beating Bonavena or Bugner. Jerry Quarry gets nothing for beating Mathis.

Jersey Joe Walcott gets docked for losing a fight when he's 16 years old!! Demspey gets docked for a loss when he had been a pro for 8 months.
It just goes on and on.

Every fighter gets docked for almost every loss. It takes an exceptional performance against an exceptional opponent not to get docked for a loss.

I don't have my notebook in front of me, but I can tell you with certainty that Lyle in fact did receive points for beating Bonavena and Bugner along with everyone else he beat.

Pinklon Thomas received more points for his victory over Tim Witherspoon than Morrison got for his victory over Tomashek. Most of Pinklon's points on the positive side of the ledger are offset by his many KO defeats, and the lack of video accompaniment for many of his wins doesn't help either.

As an example Samuel Peter and Pinklon Thomas are only separated by 1 point, but since the vast majority of Peter's bouts are available to be seen while the vast majority of Pinklon's bouts are not. It's a safe assumption that if that additional video were available the gap between them would be wider.
.
This same thing applies in the cases of Morrison, Sanders and Norton respectively. The vast majority of Norton's early career is not available on video. Whereas almost every fight is available for Sanders and Morrison both. Yet still they're not separated by all that much.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 14:56

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 14:53

570295 wrote: ↑11 Oct 2026, 23:32
Now we're just getting silly.

For one, Tyson was undisputed. Hamed wasn't. In fact, most of his "reign" was spent defending his WBO belt, which wasn't even recognized as a legitimate title at the time. Secondly, Tyson actually had a career after his first loss, albeit a spotty one. Hamed didn't.

Hamed was the consensus top guy at featherweight for years and largely cleaned out the division.

He beat Medina, Vazquez, Soto, Kelley, etc. Who else should he have fought?

Morales or Barrera were obviously the big 2. He fought Barrera. It's a shame we never saw him in there with Morales. That would've been awesome.

He also blatantly avoided Juan Manuel Marquez who was his mandatory for a long, long time before getting his shot.

Morales only moved to featherweight a few months before Hamed lost to Barrera so there wasn't time to make that fight realistically.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 22:01

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 20:12

overhand_right wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 04:26

You're wasting your time.

Gilgamesh cannot wrap his head around variables, context or nuance.

In this very thread he argued that Corrie Sanders is a better fighter than Ken Norton because... Sanders had 4 losses and Norton had 7. Seriously. Look it up. This type of thinking is reflected in literally all his takes.

I hear you.
I have gone back and forth with him a lot in the last several months. Much more since he came out with his silly ranking system.
How about him ranking Tommy Morrison higher than Norton as well?
He actually brought up Morrosin having asuccessful title defense and Norton not having one. Morrison beat a club fighter who was a last minute subsitutue. norton lost a great fight to Larry Holmes!

He actually gives Morrison more credit for beat Tim Tomashek than Ron Lyle or Pinklon Thomas gets for their entire careers.!

Lyle gets no points for beating Bonavena or Bugner. Jerry Quarry gets nothing for beating Mathis.

Jersey Joe Walcott gets docked for losing a fight when he's 16 years old!! Demspey gets docked for a loss when he had been a pro for 8 months.
It just goes on and on.

Every fighter gets docked for almost every loss. It takes an exceptional performance against an exceptional opponent not to get docked for a loss.

I don't have my notebook in front of me, but I can tell you with certainty that Lyle in fact did receive points for beating Bonavena and Bugner along with everyone else he beat.

Pinklon Thomas received more points for his victory over Tim Witherspoon than Morrison got for his victory over Tomashek. Most of Pinklon's points on the positive side of the ledger are offset by his many KO defeats, and the lack of video accompaniment for many of his wins doesn't help either.

As an example Samuel Peter and Pinklon Thomas are only separated by 1 point, but since the vast majority of Peter's bouts are available to be seen while the vast majority of Pinklon's bouts are not. It's a safe assumption that if that additional video were available the gap between them would be wider.
.
This same thing applies in the cases of Morrison, Sanders and Norton respectively. The vast majority of Norton's early career is not available on video. Whereas almost every fight is available for Sanders and Morrison both. Yet still they're not separated by all that much.

You said that Lyle had quality wins over Shavers and Ellis. Total of 6 points for his entire career. There was no mention of Bonavena and Bugner in your post. You overlooked them. Admit.

Your super system gives too much reward to if a fight is on Youtube. None of Harry Grebs fights are. (Unless one has recently become available.) But if a guy beats someone that you know is great, ot should be a big deal even if it's not on video.

And of course there is the title defense nonsense. Just because a fight is for a title doesn't by itself mean anything.
Look at what happened in the Morrison "title defense: against Tomasek.

1. The fight was for the WBO title. That was not a major title at the time. It would like if you counted a WBF or IBO or whatever title fight now.
2. By the WBO's own rules, the fight should not have been a "title" fight. Tomasek was not ranked by the WBO or anyone. Their own rules state that the contender has to be ranked.
3. Tomasek was a club fighter.
4. Tomasek took the fight way too late. He literally didn't know he was going to fight the day before. (some reports less that 2 hours before the fight)

You are never going to really understand the sport until you understand some things such as:
- The importance of the stages of the fighter's careers when the fight took place.
- That the WBS Organizations are just corrupt organization trying make $. They should not be taken seriously.
Guys like Quarry, Lyle, Young, Shavers etc. would have been WBS champions in an era where there are 4 belts. fights between guys like them were a lot more important than many WBS title fights.

- Statistics in boxing are much less reliable than in other sports.
- A tough loss against a great fighter is more impressive than a win over a mediocre one.

I know you think you know everything. You don't.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Oct 2026, 14:30

gilgamesh wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 22:01

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑12 Oct 2026, 20:12
I hear you.
I have gone back and forth with him a lot in the last several months. Much more since he came out with his silly ranking system.
How about him ranking Tommy Morrison higher than Norton as well?
He actually brought up Morrosin having asuccessful title defense and Norton not having one. Morrison beat a club fighter who was a last minute subsitutue. norton lost a great fight to Larry Holmes!

He actually gives Morrison more credit for beat Tim Tomashek than Ron Lyle or Pinklon Thomas gets for their entire careers.!

Lyle gets no points for beating Bonavena or Bugner. Jerry Quarry gets nothing for beating Mathis.

Jersey Joe Walcott gets docked for losing a fight when he's 16 years old!! Demspey gets docked for a loss when he had been a pro for 8 months.
It just goes on and on.

Every fighter gets docked for almost every loss. It takes an exceptional performance against an exceptional opponent not to get docked for a loss.

I don't have my notebook in front of me, but I can tell you with certainty that Lyle in fact did receive points for beating Bonavena and Bugner along with everyone else he beat.

Pinklon Thomas received more points for his victory over Tim Witherspoon than Morrison got for his victory over Tomashek. Most of Pinklon's points on the positive side of the ledger are offset by his many KO defeats, and the lack of video accompaniment for many of his wins doesn't help either.

As an example Samuel Peter and Pinklon Thomas are only separated by 1 point, but since the vast majority of Peter's bouts are available to be seen while the vast majority of Pinklon's bouts are not. It's a safe assumption that if that additional video were available the gap between them would be wider.
.
This same thing applies in the cases of Morrison, Sanders and Norton respectively. The vast majority of Norton's early career is not available on video. Whereas almost every fight is available for Sanders and Morrison both. Yet still they're not separated by all that much.

You said that Lyle had quality wins over Shavers and Ellis. Total of 6 points for his entire career. There was no mention of Bonavena and Bugner in your post. You overlooked them. Admit.

Your super system gives too much reward to if a fight is on Youtube. None of Harry Grebs fights are. (Unless one has recently become available.) But if a guy beats someone that you know is great, ot should be a big deal even if it's not on video.

And of course there is the title defense nonsense. Just because a fight is for a title doesn't by itself mean anything.
Look at what happened in the Morrison "title defense: against Tomasek.

1. The fight was for the WBO title. That was not a major title at the time. It would like if you counted a WBF or IBO or whatever title fight now.
2. By the WBO's own rules, the fight should not have been a "title" fight. Tomasek was not ranked by the WBO or anyone. Their own rules state that the contender has to be ranked.
3. Tomasek was a club fighter.
4. Tomasek took the fight way too late. He literally didn't know he was going to fight the day before. (some reports less that 2 hours before the fight)

You are never going to really understand the sport until you understand some things such as:
- The importance of the stages of the fighter's careers when the fight took place.
- That the WBS Organizations are just corrupt organization trying make $. They should not be taken seriously.
Guys like Quarry, Lyle, Young, Shavers etc. would have been WBS champions in an era where there are 4 belts. fights between guys like them were a lot more important than many WBS title fights.

- Statistics in boxing are much less reliable than in other sports.
- A tough loss against a great fighter is more impressive than a win over a mediocre one.

I know you think you know everything. You don't.

I consider both Bonavena and Bugner to be Fringe Contenders. So I acknowledge Lyle's victories over them, but I don't consider them Quality opponents to have beaten, they're just below the cut. Also to your point I acknowledge Jimmy Ellis as a quality victory for Lyle in spite of the fact that there is no video accompaniment of that bout. So there ya go.

Lyle's score winds up taking such a tumble due to the 7 losses on his record. The 1st round KO loss to Cooney and the 2nd round KO loss to Lynn Ball particularly lower his rating.

As for the guys like Greb who's fights aren't available on YouTube. I simply will leave those kinds of fighters in a category of their own. Their legacy is almost Mythical, and incredible to read about, but obviously we can never see with our own eyes how truly great Greb or Langford or other greats from that time were, and it's unfortunate for us, but those names are not forgotten. Certainly not around here.

As for all the other stuff I'm not ever really going to understand....I mean how many times did the Mailman have to deliver the mail before you realized that he knew where you lived? I don't have to prove my Boxing knowledge to you. It's all over this forum.

Wow.

Wow what? I acknowledged everything you just said or have already discussed it with you multiple times before.

You are never going to really understand the sport until you understand some things such as:
- The importance of the stages of the fighter's careers when the fight took place.

I figured this one out something like 25 years ago when I first started following the sport. Telling me I need to learn this is the equivalent of telling a College student they need to learn their ABC's.

- That the WBS Organizations are just corrupt organization trying make $. They should not be taken seriously.

I figured this out in short order as well when I saw Champions stripped of belts for this reason or that, and that belt in turn being rewarded to a lesser Champion.

Guys like Quarry, Lyle, Young, Shavers etc. would have been WBS champions in an era where there are 4 belts. fights between guys like them were a lot more important than many WBS title fights.

A Good win over a Good fighter is Good in any era. In many cases when the big names fought Quarry, Lyle, Young or Shavers it was in fact a title fight.

Ali fought all 4 of them in World Title fights. (The Quarry rematch was a Non title bout however)

I consider Frazier, Norton and Ali's wins over Quarry to be Gold star victories. So your constant whining of "It should be worth more than a WBS title fight" IT IS!!!! For the Umpteenth time. IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU GET THAT? CAN YOU GET THAT?

As for Lyle, Young and Shavers they were good fighters. They weren't great. Beating them is the same as beating other Good fighters in any era. They're good. Many eras have good fighters. They're not World beaters.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑13 Oct 2026, 16:51 You are never going to really understand the sport until you understand some things such as:
- The importance of the stages of the fighter's careers when the fight took place.

I figured this one out something like 25 years ago when I first started following the sport. Telling me I need to learn this is the equivalent of telling a College student they need to learn their ABC's.

Can I just ask a question. You took 10 points of Hasim Rahman for his recent loss aged 56. How many points did you take off him for the John Ruiz loss 23 years earlier?

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑14 Oct 2026, 15:37

gilgamesh wrote: ↑13 Oct 2026, 16:51 You are never going to really understand the sport until you understand some things such as:
- The importance of the stages of the fighter's careers when the fight took place.

I figured this one out something like 25 years ago when I first started following the sport. Telling me I need to learn this is the equivalent of telling a College student they need to learn their ABC's.

Can I just ask a question. You took 10 points of Hasim Rahman for his recent loss aged 56. How many points did you take off him for the John Ruiz loss 23 years earlier?

For the John Ruiz loss. He lost 10 points
For the Lewis and Klitschko KO losses. He lost 20 points for each
For the Alexander Povetkin loss. He lost 30 points for the quick and devastating fashion in which he lost
For the Evander Holyfield Technical Decision loss. He lost 5 points
For the 2 Oleg Maskaev KO losses. He loses 20 points for each

For the David Tua TKO loss. He loses only 10 points because even though it was a TKO loss, he has a legitimate gripe there that Tua had hit him after the bell in the previous round, and he had fought well the entire fight up until then.

For the Anthony Nansen Prizefighter loss. He loses 3 points.

And for his most recent defeat against Phillip Tryintofeelya which I hadn't even added to my notebook I'm realizing. He lost 10 points.

And for the record if Rahman had lost to a man to a man like Triantafillo in his prime. It would've been an embarrassing defeat causing him to lose an additional 10.

For instance Shannon Briggs for his split decision loss to Sedreck Fields loses an additional 10 points along with the -5 of a SD loss. Because I mean come on....Sedreck Fields?

That reminded me about Maskaev knocking Rahman through the ropes, out the ring and down through the ringside tables. It was like he’d gone down the drain.

JC wrote: ↑14 Oct 2026, 17:06 That reminded me about Maskaev knocking Rahman through the ropes, out the ring and down through the ringside tables. It was like he’d gone down the drain.

I remember while the officials are checking in on Rahman someone in the audience chunks a Chair and hits one of em in the back of the head.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑13 Oct 2026, 16:51 Wow what? I acknowledged everything you just said or have already discussed it with you multiple times before.

You are never going to really understand the sport until you understand some things such as:
- The importance of the stages of the fighter's careers when the fight took place.

I figured this one out something like 25 years ago when I first started following the sport. Telling me I need to learn this is the equivalent of telling a College student they need to learn their ABC's.

- That the WBS Organizations are just corrupt organization trying make $. They should not be taken seriously.

I figured this out in short order as well when I saw Champions stripped of belts for this reason or that, and that belt in turn being rewarded to a lesser Champion.

Guys like Quarry, Lyle, Young, Shavers etc. would have been WBS champions in an era where there are 4 belts. fights between guys like them were a lot more important than many WBS title fights.

A Good win over a Good fighter is Good in any era. In many cases when the big names fought Quarry, Lyle, Young or Shavers it was in fact a title fight.


Ali fought all 4 of them in World Title fights. (The Quarry rematch was a Non title bout however)

I consider Frazier, Norton and Ali's wins over Quarry to be Gold star victories. So your constant whining of "It should be worth more than a WBS title fight" IT IS!!!! For the Umpteenth time. IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU GET THAT? CAN YOU GET THAT?

As for Lyle, Young and Shavers they were good fighters. They weren't great. Beating them is the same as beating other Good fighters in any era. They're good. Many eras have good fighters. They're not World beaters.

Why wow? first your sheer arrogance. Sayin g that you rpove your knowledge all over the forum. Please.

- No you have not figured out the importance of the stages of fighter's career. Otherwise you would not be pointing out loses a guy had when he was 16 or had been a pro for less than a year. Or think it's a big deal to beat a washed up fighter.


You are constantly making a big deal about WBS titles and title defenses.

A win over Bonavena or Bugner is over a fringe contender? They were ranked in the Top 10 in the strongest era ever.

Speaking of fringe contenders, how about Morrsion and Corrie Sanders? That is what they were.
Both have one win in their entire careers over a ranked opponent. One.
But they won a meaningless title that nobody cared about and you retroactively made it out to be a big deal. They were not champions. They were titleholders. There is a huge difference.

Amount of years that Norton was in the Top 10? 8
Quarry ? - 8
Lyle? 6
Young? 4
Shavers? 4


How many years in their entire career was Morrison in the Top 10? Two.

How many for Sanders? One frikkin year.

Quarry, Lyle, Shavers, and Young were not legends. But they were very good fighters. Norton was great.

They weren't just fringe contenders like Sanders and Morrison.

You're right that they weren't like Sanders and Morrison. Sanders and Morrison won a World title.

You constantly act like I don't understand things when I understand them just fine and have built my system to compensate for and consider all those things I supposedly don't understand.

While you were scoff laughing at Usyk fighting a Kickboxer and what a joke that fignt was. I was telling people that it was going to be a much harder night for Usyk than anybody expected. Because I pay attention to the little details the nuances. Not just who's winning. Who's gonna win. But why? How?

I don't always call things like that, but there aren't many subtleties I'm missing save for some of the ones you could only know by being in the ring. And I even have some minor experience with that. Enough to be able to tell you a low blow right on the belt line still hurts

gilgamesh wrote: ↑14 Oct 2026, 15:49

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑14 Oct 2026, 15:37

gilgamesh wrote: ↑13 Oct 2026, 16:51 You are never going to really understand the sport until you understand some things such as:
- The importance of the stages of the fighter's careers when the fight took place.

I figured this one out something like 25 years ago when I first started following the sport. Telling me I need to learn this is the equivalent of telling a College student they need to learn their ABC's.

Can I just ask a question. You took 10 points of Hasim Rahman for his recent loss aged 56. How many points did you take off him for the John Ruiz loss 23 years earlier?

For the John Ruiz loss. He lost 10 points
For the Lewis and Klitschko KO losses. He lost 20 points for each
For the Alexander Povetkin loss. He lost 30 points for the quick and devastating fashion in which he lost
For the Evander Holyfield Technical Decision loss. He lost 5 points
For the 2 Oleg Maskaev KO losses. He loses 20 points for each

For the David Tua TKO loss. He loses only 10 points because even though it was a TKO loss, he has a legitimate gripe there that Tua had hit him after the bell in the previous round, and he had fought well the entire fight up until then.

For the Anthony Nansen Prizefighter loss. He loses 3 points.

And for his most recent defeat against Phillip Tryintofeelya which I hadn't even added to my notebook I'm realizing. He lost 10 points.

But losing to Ruiz is not the same as losing when you're 56. These are clear examples of Rahman being at different stages of his career. Shouldn't they be allocated a different points total because of that?

No. A loss is a loss is a loss is a loss.

A loss is never any less embarrassing for the man who suffered it. People make excuses for a loss always and age is another one. However it isn't always the same achievement for the man who wins it either.

Ruiz's win over Rahman is noteworthy. Traintafillo's win over Rahman isn't. There will not be a page in my book dedicated to Tryintofeelya. There is one dedicated to John Ruiz. That's the difference. Beating a name fighter when he mattered means you matter. Beating a name fighter when he's washed up means you beat an old washed up fighter.

That's why Ken Norton's win over Ali is an All Time Great win and Trevor Berbick's is simply a win.

The new series on Netflix about Tyson is good so far, some footage I've not seen before and new interviews with Tyson and others. I'm up to the Douglas fight, they interviewed R&B singer Bobby Brown as he was good friends with Tyson and on tour in Japan when Tyson fought Douglas, he was saying they were out partying, getting drunk and taking drugs the night before the fight. Worth a watch.

Tyson was a special fighter and one of ATGs. Only haters can disagree with that. Slaughtering Holmes, Spinks and Berbick like that was, is and always will be something special