BoxRec

He'll be a boxer of the past when Tyson has finished with him.

i do hope you have to eat these words. (Though I doubt it)
Quite where your irrantional hatred of Danny Williams comes fomr Im not sure. Seems a decent chap to me.
Still fair enough we all have our faves and not so faves.

You were wrong.

Guest wrote:You were wrong.

No you were wrong mate!... now your naff prediction is in the past. Try thinking for yourself and not following the Tyson crowd and you might learn something!... though I doubt that you have the capacity for that!... 8)

silkov wrote:

Guest wrote:You were wrong.

No you were wrong mate!... now your naff prediction is in the past. Try thinking for yourself and not following the Tyson crowd and you might learn something!... though I doubt that you have the capacity for that!... 8)

Silkov, I think you're confusing the real, unnamed Guest who first posted with the member who's registered with the name "Guest." I think Guest was actually responding to Guest in this case...

I think the reason some people thought Danny Williams would lose was though that Tyson was a has-been Williams is so shot he was almost a never-been. Williams seems to have so many confidence issues, and slow start issues that a lot of people never thought he'd be able to do it.

Speaking for myself it annoys me all these people who claim that Tyson is still at his prime just based on the fact that he is Mike Tyson. Quite knowledgable boxing fans bang on about how he's going to return to his prime of the 1980s. Plain silly. I still thought Danny would fold on the night, but he proved me wrong.

I was always the last person to rate Tyson nowadays believe me.

Guest wrote:I think the reason some people thought Danny Williams would lose was though that Tyson was a has-been Williams is so shot he was almost a never-been. Williams seems to have so many confidence issues, and slow start issues that a lot of people never thought he'd be able to do it.

Speaking for myself it annoys me all these people who claim that Tyson is still at his prime just based on the fact that he is Mike Tyson. Quite knowledgable boxing fans bang on about how he's going to return to his prime of the 1980s. Plain silly. I still thought Danny would fold on the night, but he proved me wrong.

Tyson was in better shape for this fight than his bout with Lewis..... he still has the power to beat many of the top heavyweights around... so give Danny credit!. As for Tysons 'prime' he has always had trouble with fighters who fight back and who have a decent jab and chin.... he was never as good as some beleive..... basically he's a front runner, a bully... when has he ever come from behind to win a fight or avenged a defeat?... never.... there you are.

You raise a good point about him never avenging a defeat. The only time he's ever had a rematch with somebody who defeated him was with Holyfield.

He had a contractual right to have a rematch with Lewis, but he wussed out of that one, big time.

Guest wrote:You raise a good point about him never avenging a defeat. The only time he's ever had a rematch with somebody who defeated him was with Holyfield.

He had a contractual right to have a rematch with Lewis, but he wussed out of that one, big time.

A while back on another thread I said that I considered Tyson to be a great puncher but not a great fighter or champion and quite a few people disagreed with me but if you look at Tysons career it falls short of greatness. Even Lennox Lewis who I wouldn't class as 'great' avenged his career defeats.... so I rate him higher than Tyson as an all timer.

I never questioned his ability in the 1980s, but know that he has been past it for a long, long time. Nobody seems to be able to see that now.

But he was really exposed in the 80s by Tillis, Green and BoneCrusher... although they lost all three guys showed how to beat Tyson and exposed how Tyson could get frustrated and lack ideas when he's faced with someone he cannot ko. Tyson has always gone to peices when his opponents stand up to him. And as a fighter technically he reached his peak at around 1988.... 8)

1988, you say. Only 16 years ago. Hey maybe Tyson CAN relive his prime

Guest wrote:1988, you say. Only 16 years ago. Hey maybe Tyson CAN relive his prime

Yep, and I'm a farm girl with pink pigtails!..... 8)

silkov wrote:But he was really exposed in the 80s by Tillis, Green and BoneCrusher... although they lost all three guys showed how to beat Tyson and exposed how Tyson could get frustrated and lack ideas when he's faced with someone he cannot ko. Tyson has always gone to peices when his opponents stand up to him. And as a fighter technically he reached his peak at around 1988.... 8)

Jesus silkov talk about revisionist history. These guys showed how to beat Tyson? Between the three of them they MIGHT have won four rounds. Thats not a way to beat a man. What they showed was how to survive Tyson, not how to beat him.

klompton wrote:

silkov wrote:But he was really exposed in the 80s by Tillis, Green and BoneCrusher... although they lost all three guys showed how to beat Tyson and exposed how Tyson could get frustrated and lack ideas when he's faced with someone he cannot ko. Tyson has always gone to peices when his opponents stand up to him. And as a fighter technically he reached his peak at around 1988.... 8)

Jesus silkov talk about revisionist history. These guys showed how to beat Tyson? Between the three of them they MIGHT have won four rounds. Thats not a way to beat a man. What they showed was how to survive Tyson, not how to beat him.

No they showed how to beat him. He had his flaws exposed in those fights and never developed from that point... I know those guys didn't beat Tyson but they showed how he could be beaten and they also exposed his fragile mentality when he couldn't get the ko.

Anonymous wrote:He'll be a boxer of the past when Tyson has finished with him.

oh dear oh dear.

you choked on those words yet?

Where's Nasty in all of this??

Boxingmad wrote:Where's Nasty in all of this??

who cares,.

Nasty is Probably hiding in bed right now!...