BoxRec

duplicate post

dberry wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Wales wrote:Echo a lot of whats been said - biggest "what if" in boxing history.
List his best 10 wins.... Pretty shoddy list when you look at other resumes

Also, Tyson didnt have the heart when the going got tough.

Still he was an unbelievable talent, ruined by a combination of the greed of others and his own stupidity.

This makes him underrated. What he didn't have was a ring iq and the ability to excel inside. He had heart for days.

Saad, Im not saying that he lacked heart, I'm saying it sort of broke his heart if he couldn't get his opponent onto the back foot and hurt him.

He couldn't adapt in the ring. Usually when he was beat he'd just stride forward and take his beating. Though he did quit against Evander and tried to against Botha. The punishment he took against Douglas and Lewis was crazy.

stevedoc wrote:

magwitch wrote:I saw James Douglas beat Tyson on a VHS tape I got from an Oxfam shop. Watching it, I couldn't understand the surprise as "Buster" was hands down the best man on the night and certainly no fluke took place.
If anything I'm only surprised that Douglas isn't more well known or why didn't win more big fights. He was excellent that night and 100% deserved it.

I think Tyson would have stopped Lewis if the fought earlier but I agree that Holyfield probably would have always beaten him. Riddick Bowe too maybe.

i don't go along with the holyfield would of always beat him bit , holyfield was nearly ko'd by bert cooper and was by bowe but when he fought tyson some how he could take his shots and happened to of bulked up into the hulk and most likely full of PEDS . having said that if holyfield was his weakness it shouldn't make tyson a bad boxer look at ali norton had his number and won at least 2 out of 3 .

He wasn't nearly ko'd by Cooper. In that same round he landed about 50 uppercuts.

gilgamesh wrote:

Undefeated49-0 wrote:
My point wasn't whether it mattered or not, you're the jughead that came here contradicting yourself idiot.

Buster Douglas could've risen at the count of 5. He stayed down until the count of 9 to gather himself it's clear to see from the video footage that he could've gotten up basically as soon as he went down. He played it smart and stayed down to get his senses back. Anybody should be able to see that. He hits the canvas, and is clearly alert just seconds after hitting the canvas.

I disagree that he could've gotten up at the count of 5, because if he could have then I'm sure he would have. He stayed down until the count of 9 because although rocked he was coherent enough to continue speaking to the Ref and gesturing that he was ok so that he wouldn't be counted out, he was clearly rocked hard because even then it takes him an additional 5 seconds to get up thus taking the total time until he is fully upright at 14 seconds.

Alert doesn't mean able.

Roy Jones was starched by Tarver but while clearly alert to realize he needed to get to his feet he was unable to continue.
Zab Judah was clearly starched by Kostya but popped up too quickly but clearly shaken and literally out on his feet despite rising a second time.

Rahman was clearly starched by Lewis in the rematch but was able to move as though he was getting on his feet but ultimately crashed to his face, in all those cases each fighter was aware of what was going on but clearly unable to continue, point being that while being alert to what was going on none were able to be coherent enough to continue but had each had 14 seconds like Douglas then just maybe they all would've been able to.

While ultimately it doesn't matter if he wasn't counted out or not, the fact of the matter is that he clearly had more time than was required to recover and could've been counted out if the count was accurate.

The only thing that matters is he beat the referee's count, and I'll never believe he wouldn't have beaten the count even if it were a standard count. He beat Mike's ass all night. The punch that put Douglas down didn't have the same kinda effect on him that the shot that put down Rahman and Judah in the fights you mentioned did.

Douglas could've and would've beaten the count that night under any circumstances. It was his night.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

stevedoc wrote:

magwitch wrote:I saw James Douglas beat Tyson on a VHS tape I got from an Oxfam shop. Watching it, I couldn't understand the surprise as "Buster" was hands down the best man on the night and certainly no fluke took place.
If anything I'm only surprised that Douglas isn't more well known or why didn't win more big fights. He was excellent that night and 100% deserved it.

I think Tyson would have stopped Lewis if the fought earlier but I agree that Holyfield probably would have always beaten him. Riddick Bowe too maybe.

i don't go along with the holyfield would of always beat him bit , holyfield was nearly ko'd by bert cooper and was by bowe but when he fought tyson some how he could take his shots and happened to of bulked up into the hulk and most likely full of PEDS . having said that if holyfield was his weakness it shouldn't make tyson a bad boxer look at ali norton had his number and won at least 2 out of 3 .

He wasn't nearly ko'd by Cooper. In that same round he landed about 50 uppercuts.

He took a count and looked out cooper just didn't land again.

gilgamesh wrote:The only thing that matters is he beat the referee's count, and I'll never believe he wouldn't have beaten the count even if it were a standard count. He beat Mike's ass all night. The punch that put Douglas down didn't have the same kinda effect on him that the shot that put down Rahman and Judah in the fights you mentioned did.

Douglas could've and would've beaten the count that night under any circumstances. It was his night.

Agreed, and as I have mentioned in a previous post, both Douglas and Tyson where afforded the same amount of time for their counts in that fight.

For me it is not so much whether Tyson was great or not. It's the snobbery attached to the 'casual fan' comment. The nonsense is that if anyone dare think Tyson was a great fighter then they know nothing and if you can't see that you are a moron. Stop trying to sit yourself on the top table imparting your wisdom, it's flawed and conceited.

Roars Like Me wrote:For me it is not so much whether Tyson was great or not. It's the snobbery attached to the 'casual fan' comment. The nonsense is that if anyone dare think Tyson was a great fighter then they know nothing and if you can't see that you are a moron. Stop trying to sit yourself on the top table imparting your wisdom, it's flawed and conceited.

And no causal fans are mentioned by name either...It's likely a top secret society.

Roars Like Me wrote:For me it is not so much whether Tyson was great or not. It's the snobbery attached to the 'casual fan' comment. The nonsense is that if anyone dare think Tyson was a great fighter then they know nothing and if you can't see that you are a moron. Stop trying to sit yourself on the top table imparting your wisdom, it's flawed and conceited.

I think you're being a somewhat disingenuous here, no one is saying Mile Tyson wasn't a great fighter, in fact, some of the discussion here is in relation to his fights with other all-time heavyweight greats and just how good a boxer he actually was. The ocer theme seems to be that he was a great heavyweight, just not the greatest ever (who really is?) that casual fans and non-followers of the sport believe he is.

dberry wrote:

Roars Like Me wrote:For me it is not so much whether Tyson was great or not. It's the snobbery attached to the 'casual fan' comment. The nonsense is that if anyone dare think Tyson was a great fighter then they know nothing and if you can't see that you are a moron. Stop trying to sit yourself on the top table imparting your wisdom, it's flawed and conceited.

I think you're being a somewhat disingenuous here, no one is saying Mile Tyson wasn't a great fighter, in fact, some of the discussion here is in relation to his fights with other all-time heavyweight greats and just how good a boxer he actually was. The ocer theme seems to be that he was a great heavyweight, just not the greatest ever (who really is?) that casual fans and non-followers of the sport believe he is.

It goes both ways then. Over Rated and a Great Fighter at the same time? Just how over rated was Tyson then since we agree he was a great fighter?

MachoTime wrote:

dberry wrote:

Roars Like Me wrote:For me it is not so much whether Tyson was great or not. It's the snobbery attached to the 'casual fan' comment. The nonsense is that if anyone dare think Tyson was a great fighter then they know nothing and if you can't see that you are a moron. Stop trying to sit yourself on the top table imparting your wisdom, it's flawed and conceited.

I think you're being a somewhat disingenuous here, no one is saying Mile Tyson wasn't a great fighter, in fact, some of the discussion here is in relation to his fights with other all-time heavyweight greats and just how good a boxer he actually was. The ocer theme seems to be that he was a great heavyweight, just not the greatest ever (who really is?) that casual fans and non-followers of the sport believe he is.

It goes both ways then. Over Rated and a Great Fighter at the same time? Just how over rated was Tyson then since we agree he was a great fighter?

Well that's a fair question, what is your view? I believe he was a very competitive heavyweight in a great era of heavy weights. I certainly don't think he was the best of his era but he was up amongst it, the casuals that believed that Mike Tyson was the greatest of all time, that Hatton would have whupped Froch and are waiting for Mayweather Jr. to make a comeback to shut Tyson Fury up certainly had over rated him.

dberry wrote:

MachoTime wrote:

dberry wrote: I think you're being a somewhat disingenuous here, no one is saying Mile Tyson wasn't a great fighter, in fact, some of the discussion here is in relation to his fights with other all-time heavyweight greats and just how good a boxer he actually was. The ocer theme seems to be that he was a great heavyweight, just not the greatest ever (who really is?) that casual fans and non-followers of the sport believe he is.

It goes both ways then. Over Rated and a Great Fighter at the same time? Just how over rated was Tyson then since we agree he was a great fighter?

Well that's a fair question, what is your view? I believe he was a very competitive heavyweight in a great era of heavy weights. I certainly don't think he was the best of his era but he was up amongst it, the casuals that believed that Mike Tyson was the greatest of all time, that Hatton would have whupped Froch and are waiting for Mayweather Jr. to make a comeback to shut Tyson Fury up certainly had over rated him.

Tyson did lose 4 years of fighting. In his supposed prime. There is no telling how that version of Tyson would have done against Holyfield, Bowe or Lewis. Sure would have loved to have seen it.

MachoTime wrote:

dberry wrote:

MachoTime wrote:
It goes both ways then. Over Rated and a Great Fighter at the same time? Just how over rated was Tyson then since we agree he was a great fighter?

Well that's a fair question, what is your view? I believe he was a very competitive heavyweight in a great era of heavy weights. I certainly don't think he was the best of his era but he was up amongst it, the casuals that believed that Mike Tyson was the greatest of all time, that Hatton would have whupped Froch and are waiting for Mayweather Jr. to make a comeback to shut Tyson Fury up certainly had over rated him.

Tyson did lose 4 years of fighting. In his supposed prime. There is no telling how that version of Tyson would have done against Holyfield, Bowe or Lewis. Sure would have loved to have seen it.

This is what I believe also but there would've been some "IF" factors attached to that like:

1. If Tyson had just stayed with Rooney as his Trainer and Jacobs as his Manager he would've been in shape, focused and financially stable.
2. Never went with DK and his "bullsh*t" Muslims we all gotta stick together garbage
3. Never went to prison
4. Never married Givens and her gold digging hoochie moms

I believe had not all those things that happened negatively to him not happened then he would've been around to experience what would've been his true prime. I think Tyson got too cocky and reliant on his ability to smash fighters with one punch after the Spinx annihilation so he more than likely felt as though he didn't need to train and slacked off, plus by then he was doing coke like it was a regular part of his lifestyle.

I firmly believe we never got to really see a truly "primed" Tyson.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

MachoTime wrote:

dberry wrote: Well that's a fair question, what is your view? I believe he was a very competitive heavyweight in a great era of heavy weights. I certainly don't think he was the best of his era but he was up amongst it, the casuals that believed that Mike Tyson was the greatest of all time, that Hatton would have whupped Froch and are waiting for Mayweather Jr. to make a comeback to shut Tyson Fury up certainly had over rated him.

Tyson did lose 4 years of fighting. In his supposed prime. There is no telling how that version of Tyson would have done against Holyfield, Bowe or Lewis. Sure would have loved to have seen it.

This is what I believe also but there would've been some "IF" factors attached to that like:

1. If Tyson had just stayed with Rooney as his Trainer and Jacobs as his Manager he would've been in shape, focused and financially stable.
2. Never went with DK and his "bullsh*t" Muslims we all gotta stick together garbage
3. Never went to prison
4. Never married Givens and her gold digging hoochie moms

I believe had not all those things that happened negatively to him not happened then he would've been around to experience what would've been his true prime. I think Tyson got too cocky and reliant on his ability to smash fighters with one punch after the Spinx annihilation so he more than likely felt as though he didn't need to train and slacked off, plus by then he was doing coke like it was a regular part of his lifestyle.

I firmly believe we never got to really see a truly "primed" Tyson.

Tyson fought Razor Ruddock not once but twice before going to prison. Ruddock was a pretty damn good heavyweight at that time.

MachoTime wrote:Tyson fought Razor Ruddock not once but twice before going to prison. Ruddock was a pretty damn good heavyweight at that time.

No doubt but still Mike hadn't faced the fighters who were considered the very best at HW at that time: Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis are names that immediately come to mind; some will say Foreman deserved it but I have a hard time believing big George would've been able to take as many hits from MT as he took from the likes of Michael Moorer and still been standing.

No one is saying Iron Mike is undisputedly the best Heavy there ever was.

That just isn't true.

What is true is this:

The Tyson that destroyed Michael Spinks would be a problem for ANY heavyweight in history.

MachoTime wrote:

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

MachoTime wrote:
Tyson did lose 4 years of fighting. In his supposed prime. There is no telling how that version of Tyson would have done against Holyfield, Bowe or Lewis. Sure would have loved to have seen it.

This is what I believe also but there would've been some "IF" factors attached to that like:

1. If Tyson had just stayed with Rooney as his Trainer and Jacobs as his Manager he would've been in shape, focused and financially stable.
2. Never went with DK and his "bullsh*t" Muslims we all gotta stick together garbage
3. Never went to prison
4. Never married Givens and her gold digging hoochie moms

I believe had not all those things that happened negatively to him not happened then he would've been around to experience what would've been his true prime. I think Tyson got too cocky and reliant on his ability to smash fighters with one punch after the Spinx annihilation so he more than likely felt as though he didn't need to train and slacked off, plus by then he was doing coke like it was a regular part of his lifestyle.

I firmly believe we never got to really see a truly "primed" Tyson.

Tyson fought Razor Ruddock not once but twice before going to prison. Ruddock was a pretty damn good heavyweight at that time.

Ruddock was pretty damn good heavyweight, as was Bruno and Douglas, he went 3-1 with those guys, I would have loved to have seen him fight Bowe, Lewis and Holyfield instead of going to prison, I think those three are a fair step up from Ruddock, Bruno and Douglas though. Going through those names, along with some others such as the great George Foreman in his second coming, Moorer, Tucker,Mercer, McCall and the fantastic Tommy Morrison et. al. just shows how how good an era that was.

Tyson was incredible, maybe the best ever, at certain aspects of the sport (in HW terms). The thing was, while very effective, his style (like all styles) had its limitations.

There were very few HWs that could exploit those limitations, but he was bound to run into some eventually. I don't buy that his losses to Douglas and Holyfield were down to lack of focus or faded skills. Each found a way to negate Tyson's strengths for long periods of those fights.

IMO he is often overrated by people who say his big losses were all down to out of the ring factors, amazing fighting machine though.

Tyson's life was a car crash after he won the title, the money and fame ruined him. I don't even think he trained that hard for most of his fights after winning the title, he was too good without even trying too hard. His aura, bullying nature and menacing appearance won him most fights before the bell rang. It doesn't add up that someone with such a chaotic lifestyle outside the ring then trains properly. Someone out partying, drinking and taking coke isn't going to have the discipline to prepare for fights, that's just common sense. Even when they do train their hardcore lifestyle would take its toll so they would never be as fit as they could be.

Roars Like Me wrote:For me it is not so much whether Tyson was great or not. It's the snobbery attached to the 'casual fan' comment. The nonsense is that if anyone dare think Tyson was a great fighter then they know nothing and if you can't see that you are a moron. Stop trying to sit yourself on the top table imparting your wisdom, it's flawed and conceited.

Everyone who posts on internet forums & is arrogant enough to believe that their opinion on something that cannot be proved is a fact needs to read this.

think tyson lost his fear factor when beat,which was one of his best assets. i agree in a way, always herd bruno got destroyed to young to remember it,watching it back, thought he done alright looked like he caught mike in one of the rounds too wobbled him

brilo33 wrote:think tyson lost his fear factor when beat,which was one of his best assets. i agree in a way, always herd bruno got destroyed to young to remember it,watching it back, thought he done alright looked like he caught mike in one of the rounds too wobbled him

Bruno was a popular heavyweight in England. A true gentleman. I kind of felt sorry for him when Tyson beat him not once but both times. Bruno was one of those fighters at that time went in there against Tyson thinking he could win. Bruno didn't look intimidated at all. Much respect to Bruno..

J-C wrote:Tyson was incredible, maybe the best ever, at certain aspects of the sport (in HW terms). The thing was, while very effective, his style (like all styles) had its limitations.

There were very few HWs that could exploit those limitations, but he was bound to run into some eventually. I don't buy that his losses to Douglas and Holyfield were down to lack of focus or faded skills. Each found a way to negate Tyson's strengths for long periods of those fights.

IMO he is often overrated by people who say his big losses were all down to out of the ring factors, amazing fighting machine though.

Spot on, in my opinion.

Though, I would amend it just slightly enough to say, that I also disagree with those that say that his losses were ONLY due to lack of focus or faded skills (which I suspect is what you were saying anyway). I think he was a little diminished as a fighter by the time he had those fights. But, let's remember, focus, consistency, the ability to overcome adeversity and adjust and continue to perform at a high level? These are part of being great at something, and Tyson never had these qualitites, his remarkable physical ability notwithstanding.

stevedoc wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

stevedoc wrote:
i don't go along with the holyfield would of always beat him bit , holyfield was nearly ko'd by bert cooper and was by bowe but when he fought tyson some how he could take his shots and happened to of bulked up into the hulk and most likely full of PEDS . having said that if holyfield was his weakness it shouldn't make tyson a bad boxer look at ali norton had his number and won at least 2 out of 3 .

He wasn't nearly ko'd by Cooper. In that same round he landed about 50 uppercuts.

He took a count and looked out cooper just didn't land again.

He was briefly hurt, exciting moment but never nearly out. Hard round to score. Might have been worthy of 10-10.