BoxRec

I brought up the thread. It's at the top now, so you can see the quote for yourself, which is easier. Page 1.

Someone else named Ringsider who joined the same date you did?

Hmmm....I don't know why I would have said "ala Micheal Moore" ......

I'm trying to figure out why you would roll your eyes at someone for saying Liston & Holmes had two of the best jabs in HW history. Or why you would nominate the likes of Tyson & Charles ahead of them in the jab department.

Hey, we all have our shortcomings on boxing knowledge. But don't go around acting as if you are exasperated by the stupidity of others when you are as human & as flawed in your knowledge as the rest of us. It's totally uncalled for.

A) D'Amato said Foreman would beat all swarmers. Unless you disagree Tyson was a swarmer in style, this includes him. He's a short fighter coming out of a crouch, looking to get under the jab & fight, for the most part, at close range given his lack of height & reach. Sounds like a swarmer to me. Catskill is a bit far for me to travel, though.

B) So D'Amato said Tyson would be invincible? I'm sure you'll agree that while D'Amato is undoubtedly above me, this proves he is human & gets carried away as we all do. Tyson had barely fought pro when D'Amato died, so that statement was premature in the extreme. Proof here that his word, like anybody's, shouldn't be taken as gospel. Also, Tyson didn't become the linear (legitimate, undisputed in this case) champ until he beat Spinks, which didn't occur until 1988.

C) I never said the 90's Foreman would beat Tyson in real-time, though. What I said was Tyson feared him, & didn't want to fight him. This has been substantiated by a published document (it was on here as a talking point recently, I'll try to bring it up later for you if you'd like to see it) & as someone rightly pointed out, the publisher would've been sued if he were making up the conversations, which asserted from those close to the Tyson camp that he was afraid to face Foreman. I don't agree Tyson should have been afraid of the old Foreman, but that is something you'll have to take up with Mike.

D) I agree, the peak Tyson would've beaten Frazier & Norton both in my book. However, this is not the point. He didn't face them. Tyson did not have one genuinely great opponent before or during his championship reign, like Foreman did. It's also worth pointing out that Foreman arguably faced better competition in Tyson's era, than Tyson did at the time, & when coming through the ranks, Foreman faced & bested better competition than did Tyson.

This is not Tyson's fault. He could only fight what was available at the time. Agreed that up until possibly the 1974 Ali, Tyson is better than anyone Foreman faced at that time. However, Foreman is miles better than anyone Tyson met circa 1985-1990. This fight would be a huge step up in class for Tyson. Not so for Foreman, who beat great Heavyweights in Frazier & Norton, & what's more, did it easily on both occasions.

E) I would like to see some supporting documentation that Foreman ducked Holmes, Shavers & a rematch with Lyle. I'm not trying to call you out on this or asserting anything against you, I'm just saying I have never heard anything beyond rumours about Holmes (& have not even heard that he ducked a rematch with Lyle or a fight with a third-rater like Shavers).


A) D'Amato said Foreman would beat all swarmers except Tyson
but Tyson in many fights was a boxer puncher not a swarmer tyson with D'amato fighting system was much more than an ordinary swarmer and he had extra-power.
Honest people in Catskill told me the truth i'm talking about people betrayed by tyson, they don't even like tyson but they are honest and fair real professionals when they state or judge something.
B)Tyson had barely fought pro fights and D'amato said Tyson would become world champion and the best of all time if he respected his fighting system principles which he didn't.
he also said lennox would be a good rival for tyson.
D'Amato was a visionary a real genius.
Cus also said:On Mike’s progress in the short time:
“The boy can do everything a champion is required to do, and if he does everything that he’s capable of doing, I tell you he may go down as one of the greatest fighters of all time…as a professional my judgment of a fighter are detached. I never allow my personal feelings to get involved, no matter how much affection I may have for him, and I can honestly say I have a very deep affection for him, and an admiration, having watched him come from where he was to what he is, because I know what it takes to do what he’s done and what he’s doing. I feel I was a part of it. It’s almost like watching yourself. You never know how much you contributed to it, but the result is there and you like to think you had something to do with it.”
Later Cus said he would become the best of all time under his rules unfortunately he broke them.
Many guys don't remember or don't know but when tyson came up everybody said Tyson had the potential to become the best heavyweight
of all time.
CRooney told me that story is a lie.
Rooney also told me he wanted Tyson to fight foreman in 87-88 and all of them
were furious with foreman statements about how easy it would be to beat tyson plus ring magazine states after prison george refused to fight against mike i can show you the link later.
D)I agree

E)A third-rater like shavers koed norton and floored larry holmes and ali he would be a tougher opponent than norton or frazier.
just watch larry holmes statements and beyond the glory where holmes states foreman always ducked him.
About lyle rematch you can check wikipedia and a espn special about lyle
the same goes for shavers.

chiricahua wrote:A) D'Amato said Foreman would beat all swarmers. Unless you disagree Tyson was a swarmer in style, this includes him. He's a short fighter coming out of a crouch, looking to get under the jab & fight, for the most part, at close range given his lack of height & reach. Sounds like a swarmer to me. Catskill is a bit far for me to travel, though.

B) So D'Amato said Tyson would be invincible? I'm sure you'll agree that while D'Amato is undoubtedly above me, this proves he is human & gets carried away as we all do. Tyson had barely fought pro when D'Amato died, so that statement was premature in the extreme. Proof here that his word, like anybody's, shouldn't be taken as gospel. Also, Tyson didn't become the linear (legitimate, undisputed in this case) champ until he beat Spinks, which didn't occur until 1988.

C) I never said the 90's Foreman would beat Tyson in real-time, though. What I said was Tyson feared him, & didn't want to fight him. This has been substantiated by a published document (it was on here as a talking point recently, I'll try to bring it up later for you if you'd like to see it) & as someone rightly pointed out, the publisher would've been sued if he were making up the conversations, which asserted from those close to the Tyson camp that he was afraid to face Foreman. I don't agree Tyson should have been afraid of the old Foreman, but that is something you'll have to take up with Mike.

D) I agree, the peak Tyson would've beaten Frazier & Norton both in my book. However, this is not the point. He didn't face them. Tyson did not have one genuinely great opponent before or during his championship reign, like Foreman did. It's also worth pointing out that Foreman arguably faced better competition in Tyson's era, than Tyson did at the time, & when coming through the ranks, Foreman faced & bested better competition than did Tyson.

This is not Tyson's fault. He could only fight what was available at the time. Agreed that up until possibly the 1974 Ali, Tyson is better than anyone Foreman faced at that time. However, Foreman is miles better than anyone Tyson met circa 1985-1990. This fight would be a huge step up in class for Tyson. Not so for Foreman, who beat great Heavyweights in Frazier & Norton, & what's more, did it easily on both occasions.

E) I would like to see some supporting documentation that Foreman ducked Holmes, Shavers & a rematch with Lyle. I'm not trying to call you out on this or asserting anything against you, I'm just saying I have never heard anything beyond rumours about Holmes (& have not even heard that he ducked a rematch with Lyle or a fight with a third-rater like Shavers).


A) D'Amato said Foreman would beat all swarmers except Tyson
but Tyson in many fights was a boxer puncher not a swarmer tyson with D'amato fighting system was much more than an ordinary swarmer and he had extra-power.
Honest people in Catskill told me the truth i'm talking about people betrayed by tyson, they don't even like tyson but they are honest and fair real professionals when they state or judge something.
B)Tyson had barely fought pro fights and D'amato said Tyson would become world champion and the best of all time if he respected his fighting system principles which he didn't.
he also said lennox would be a good rival for tyson.
D'Amato was a visionary a real genius.
Cus also said:On Mike’s progress in the short time:
“The boy can do everything a champion is required to do, and if he does everything that he’s capable of doing, I tell you he may go down as one of the greatest fighters of all time…as a professional my judgment of a fighter are detached. I never allow my personal feelings to get involved, no matter how much affection I may have for him, and I can honestly say I have a very deep affection for him, and an admiration, having watched him come from where he was to what he is, because I know what it takes to do what he’s done and what he’s doing. I feel I was a part of it. It’s almost like watching yourself. You never know how much you contributed to it, but the result is there and you like to think you had something to do with it.”
Later Cus said he would become the best of all time under his rules unfortunately he broke them.
Many guys don't remember or don't know but when tyson came up everybody said Tyson had the potential to become the best heavyweight
of all time.
CRooney told me that story is a lie.
Rooney also told me he wanted Tyson to fight foreman in 87-88 and all of them
were furious with foreman statements about how easy it would be to beat tyson plus ring magazine states after prison george refused to fight against mike i can show you the link later.
D)I agree

E)A third-rater like shavers koed norton and floored larry holmes and ali he would be a tougher opponent than norton or frazier.
just watch larry holmes statements and beyond the glory where holmes states foreman always ducked him.
About lyle rematch you can check wikipedia and a espn special about lyle
the same goes for shavers.

Indeed, Cus D'Amato also predicted global warming, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Britney Spears' insanity.

dempseyfire wrote:

chiricahua wrote:A) D'Amato said Foreman would beat all swarmers. Unless you disagree Tyson was a swarmer in style, this includes him. He's a short fighter coming out of a crouch, looking to get under the jab & fight, for the most part, at close range given his lack of height & reach. Sounds like a swarmer to me. Catskill is a bit far for me to travel, though.

B) So D'Amato said Tyson would be invincible? I'm sure you'll agree that while D'Amato is undoubtedly above me, this proves he is human & gets carried away as we all do. Tyson had barely fought pro when D'Amato died, so that statement was premature in the extreme. Proof here that his word, like anybody's, shouldn't be taken as gospel. Also, Tyson didn't become the linear (legitimate, undisputed in this case) champ until he beat Spinks, which didn't occur until 1988.

C) I never said the 90's Foreman would beat Tyson in real-time, though. What I said was Tyson feared him, & didn't want to fight him. This has been substantiated by a published document (it was on here as a talking point recently, I'll try to bring it up later for you if you'd like to see it) & as someone rightly pointed out, the publisher would've been sued if he were making up the conversations, which asserted from those close to the Tyson camp that he was afraid to face Foreman. I don't agree Tyson should have been afraid of the old Foreman, but that is something you'll have to take up with Mike.

D) I agree, the peak Tyson would've beaten Frazier & Norton both in my book. However, this is not the point. He didn't face them. Tyson did not have one genuinely great opponent before or during his championship reign, like Foreman did. It's also worth pointing out that Foreman arguably faced better competition in Tyson's era, than Tyson did at the time, & when coming through the ranks, Foreman faced & bested better competition than did Tyson.

This is not Tyson's fault. He could only fight what was available at the time. Agreed that up until possibly the 1974 Ali, Tyson is better than anyone Foreman faced at that time. However, Foreman is miles better than anyone Tyson met circa 1985-1990. This fight would be a huge step up in class for Tyson. Not so for Foreman, who beat great Heavyweights in Frazier & Norton, & what's more, did it easily on both occasions.

E) I would like to see some supporting documentation that Foreman ducked Holmes, Shavers & a rematch with Lyle. I'm not trying to call you out on this or asserting anything against you, I'm just saying I have never heard anything beyond rumours about Holmes (& have not even heard that he ducked a rematch with Lyle or a fight with a third-rater like Shavers).


A) D'Amato said Foreman would beat all swarmers except Tyson
but Tyson in many fights was a boxer puncher not a swarmer tyson with D'amato fighting system was much more than an ordinary swarmer and he had extra-power.
Honest people in Catskill told me the truth i'm talking about people betrayed by tyson, they don't even like tyson but they are honest and fair real professionals when they state or judge something.
B)Tyson had barely fought pro fights and D'amato said Tyson would become world champion and the best of all time if he respected his fighting system principles which he didn't.
he also said lennox would be a good rival for tyson.
D'Amato was a visionary a real genius.
Cus also said:On Mike’s progress in the short time:
“The boy can do everything a champion is required to do, and if he does everything that he’s capable of doing, I tell you he may go down as one of the greatest fighters of all time…as a professional my judgment of a fighter are detached. I never allow my personal feelings to get involved, no matter how much affection I may have for him, and I can honestly say I have a very deep affection for him, and an admiration, having watched him come from where he was to what he is, because I know what it takes to do what he’s done and what he’s doing. I feel I was a part of it. It’s almost like watching yourself. You never know how much you contributed to it, but the result is there and you like to think you had something to do with it.”
Later Cus said he would become the best of all time under his rules unfortunately he broke them.
Many guys don't remember or don't know but when tyson came up everybody said Tyson had the potential to become the best heavyweight
of all time.
CRooney told me that story is a lie.
Rooney also told me he wanted Tyson to fight foreman in 87-88 and all of them
were furious with foreman statements about how easy it would be to beat tyson plus ring magazine states after prison george refused to fight against mike i can show you the link later.
D)I agree

E)A third-rater like shavers koed norton and floored larry holmes and ali he would be a tougher opponent than norton or frazier.
just watch larry holmes statements and beyond the glory where holmes states foreman always ducked him.
About lyle rematch you can check wikipedia and a espn special about lyle
the same goes for shavers.

Indeed, Cus D'Amato also predicted global warming, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Britney Spears' insanity.

Sure he also predicted some guys who can't understand nothing about boxing compared with Cus will say nonsense all the time to discredit what a genius like him said.

The "check Wikipedia" statement confirms it. He is a feebe.

[/b]

Some decent points there Chiricahua except two points of my own I would make...

Never, but never trust the word of Wikipedia or Larry Holmes. Wiki is open to public editing. You can try this yourself. A few months back I took a bet with a mate sure I was right about something. Lo & behold, I was wrong. So I simply edited the Wiki page to say what I wanted it to & could have collected on the bet, but I announced it as a joke & paid up.

Larry Holmes is still bitter about the 1999 Birthday Bash not going ahead. He is still bitter Foreman gets more respect when he was (Larry feels) an inferior fighter. He's still bitter about being in Muhammad Ali's shadow. He's still bitter about the time the attendant didn't ask him if he wanted extra sauce with his fries at McDonald's in '82.

& Holmes is helpless at separating his objective opinion from his personal feelings.

chiricahua wrote: …It's also worth pointing out that Foreman arguably faced better competition in Tyson's era, than Tyson did at the time...

I’m not sure what you were trying to get at with this comment, but at least you qualified it with “arguably”. The topic was Foreman vs ’88 Tyson, so if we look at who the two fought around that time, I think most would agree that there is clearly room for argument.

March ’87 thru ’88 Tyson
Smith
Thomas
Tucker
Biggs
Holmes
Tubbs
Spinks

March ’87 thru ’88 Foreman
Zouski
Hostetter
Crabtree
Anderson
Sekorski
Trimm
Trane
Qawi
Lux
Hernandez
Mijangos
Hitz
Fulilangi
Jaco

If you want to expand the comparison to include Foreman’s entire 2nd career, it looks a bit better, but I still say that most knowledgeable boxing people would rate Tyson’s competition as markedly better than Foreman’s during the same era.

I would agree that Foreman’s pre-title competition after he turned pro was slightly better than Tyson’s, but neither was really matched with any top ranked opponents prior to stepping up for a title. And of course Foreman actually fought a great champion when he stepped up, while Tyson had to face a hodge podge of “title holders”.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Some decent points there Chiricahua except two points of my own I would make...

Never, but never trust the word of Wikipedia or Larry Holmes. Wiki is open to public editing. You can try this yourself. A few months back I took a bet with a mate sure I was right about something. Lo & behold, I was wrong. So I simply edited the Wiki page to say what I wanted it to & could have collected on the bet, but I announced it as a joke & paid up.

Larry Holmes is still bitter about the 1999 Birthday Bash not going ahead. He is still bitter Foreman gets more respect when he was (Larry feels) an inferior fighter. He's still bitter about being in Muhammad Ali's shadow. He's still bitter about the time the attendant didn't ask him if he wanted extra sauce with his fries at McDonald's in '82.

& Holmes is helpless at separating his objective opinion from his personal feelings.

Wow your starting to use a bit of granberry's writing style....however in this case I more' less agree with the substance of the statement.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Some decent points there Chiricahua except two points of my own I would make...

Never, but never trust the word of Wikipedia or Larry Holmes. Wiki is open to public editing. You can try this yourself. A few months back I took a bet with a mate sure I was right about something. Lo & behold, I was wrong. So I simply edited the Wiki page to say what I wanted it to & could have collected on the bet, but I announced it as a joke & paid up.

Larry Holmes is still bitter about the 1999 Birthday Bash not going ahead. He is still bitter Foreman gets more respect when he was (Larry feels) an inferior fighter. He's still bitter about being in Muhammad Ali's shadow. He's still bitter about the time the attendant didn't ask him if he wanted extra sauce with his fries at McDonald's in '82.

& Holmes is helpless at separating his objective opinion from his personal feelings.

I don't trust wikipedia but sometimes she is right however my main source was beyond the glory.
But i agree with you about holmes and i like george a lot he is one of my favourites.

WAR!!!

What a great (and destructive) fight this would be... BUT, I would predict:

FOREMAN WINS BY KO round 6.

The Great John L wrote:

chiricahua wrote: …It's also worth pointing out that Foreman arguably faced better competition in Tyson's era, than Tyson did at the time...

I’m not sure what you were trying to get at with this comment, but at least you qualified it with “arguably”. The topic was Foreman vs ’88 Tyson, so if we look at who the two fought around that time, I think most would agree that there is clearly room for argument.

March ’87 thru ’88 Tyson
Smith
Thomas
Tucker
Biggs
Holmes
Tubbs
Spinks

March ’87 thru ’88 Foreman
Zouski
Hostetter
Crabtree
Anderson
Sekorski
Trimm
Trane
Qawi
Lux
Hernandez
Mijangos
Hitz
Fulilangi
Jaco

If you want to expand the comparison to include Foreman’s entire 2nd career, it looks a bit better, but I still say that most knowledgeable boxing people would rate Tyson’s competition as markedly better than Foreman’s during the same era.

I would agree that Foreman’s pre-title competition after he turned pro was slightly better than Tyson’s, but neither was really matched with any top ranked opponents prior to stepping up for a title. And of course Foreman actually fought a great champion when he stepped up, while Tyson had to face a hodge podge of “title holders”.

John L.

I was actually referring to the competition faced by Foreman & Tyson in the 90's, not the late 80's where, agreed, Tyson's competition was better.

I think its much and much

Tyson 1990s
Douglas(Loss), Tillman (win), Steward(win), Ruddock(two wins), McNeeley(win), Mathis Jr(win), Bruno (win), Seldon(win), Holyfield (two losses), Botha (win) and Norris (win-NC)

Foreman 1990s
Cooney(win), Jameson(win), Rodrigues(win), Lakusta(win), Anderson(win), Holyfield(loss), Ellis(win), Stewarty(win), Coetzer(win), Morrison(loss), Moorer(win), Shulz(win), Grimsely(win), Savarese(win), Briggs(loss)

I think Tyson faced better men in this period of the 1990s and was more decisive in his victories over these men. Aside from the first 'stoppage' versus Ruddock his wins were not as controversial as to who the winner was. Foremans biggest win is against Moorer and it was onlye when his shot dropped Moorer that the fight really was his.


I think it can be argued any way. Tyson was more inactive due to idiocy. Foreman was in-active due to age.

Interesting views on this one, but for me, if Foreman doesn't get Tyson out of there within three, four rounds, then the fight would be slipping away from George.

Whether Tyson's hand-speed was faster than Patterson's or not, is open to debate, but Mike's hand speed was greatly faster than Foreman's, that's for sure!

Tyson was a much better boxer than people gave him credit for when at his peak. He would thrown combinations that were accurate, he had a competent jab & great timing. At his peak, Tyson didn;t waste too many punches.

My view is that for the first three rounds or so, Tyson uses his better defense to great benefit. Foreman had great power, but even so, Tyson had a solid chin. He would no just bowl over if Foreman connected.

For me. the real key is the body attack & Tyson using enough head movement to get inside & fire off combinations that would be fast & powerful.

For me, Tyson TKO's Foreman is about eight.

By the way, I have HBO footage of Tyson in training for his defense against Holmes. While on the heavy bag with Rooney, Mike throws four punches in under a second. I would say that's pretty dam fast, wouldn't you?

Tantum wrote:I will agree on one thing regarding Patterson's speed.

He did not use it consistantly, he used it in bursts.

This is why many people thought/think Ali was faster than Patterson by viewing their fight.

But when those flashes* came they were amazing.




*Yes, I am patronizing you right back, Buzz.

Patterson's best was over as of his first title defense vs Hurricane Jackson.

He never had his original speed again.

Yet Henry Cooper, who fought Ali twice during Ali's supposed best period,

said the Patterson who knocked him (Cooper) out for a ten count

was faster with his hands than Ali.

He also said Patterson hit harder.

And that was a Patterson definitely past his best.

The Ali shills whine about their hero not being "in shape" whenever he took a beating.

But they have nothing to say about Patterson going into the first Ali fight with a back so sore he couldn't stand up straight.

In his corner between rounds his cornermen tried to give him chiropractic adjustments to his back.

Yet Ali, who had just supposedly "knocked out" Liston with a single punch in his PREVIOUS fight,

showed zero punching power in that very next bout against sore-backed Patterson.

Patterson looks much faster than Tyson. In most of his earlier fights this is apparent. Against Henry Cooper he looked fantastic.

Patterson's defence and skills were also very appareny against Moore and Jackson during the mid-late 50's.

Tyson was an improved Patterson, with a better chin, more size and better one shot power. Both men had great defence in the peek-a-boo style BUT both men, used this style less as they got older. Perhaps it really is a young man's way to fight.

For me Tyson is really a heavier super charged Patterson with serious up-grades. BUT they both are really different men in and out of the ring.

Kym

By the way, I have HBO footage of Tyson in training for his defense against Holmes. While on the heavy bag with Rooney, Mike throws four punches in under a second. I would say that's pretty dam fast, wouldn't you?

i saw something Similar...

They were not simple Punches too.... He Hit the Bag pretty Strong..