BOXING FANS: Muhammad Ali vs Mike Tyson

[L8k3r5]

Who would win in a boxing match in their primes
Muhammad Ali
http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/15/1544/1ABDD00Z/posters/muhammad-ali-vs-sonny-liston.jpg
Or Mike Tyson
http://www.ironmiketysonvideos.com/images/berbick.jpg
Discuss

[bagelred]

In before every single person says Ali.

But honestly, who knows. If Tyson catches Ali with a shot, even Ali's going down.

[dunksby]

In before every single person says Ali.

But honestly, who knows. If Tyson catches Ali with a shot, even Ali's going down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zUut60gfkU :no: :no:

[brownmamba00]

If Ali survives the first 5 rounds, he's taking Tyson down

[nathanjizzle]

tyson wins 5 out of 6 matches.

[Scoooter]

In before every single person says Ali.

But honestly, who knows. If Tyson catches Ali with a shot, even Ali's going down.
And popping right back up. Ali had an incredible chin.

[Flash88]

There's probably 2 boxers in history I'd favor over a prime Tyson, c. 1986-1988.

Prime Ali (1966-1967) and prime Foreman (1972-1974). I'd say Lewis/Tyson is a toss-up.

[TheGreatBlaze]

Tyson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtNneV6RKrw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[bagelred]

Larry Holmes defeats Muhammed Ali in 10 rounds

http://media.lehighvalleylive.com/today_impact/photo/-larry-holmes-muhammad-ali-cad45356feeb7e4c_large.jpg

Mike Tyson TKO's Larry Holmes in 4 rounds

http://www.onlinesports.com/images/ssg-umt-16l.gif




Using my flawless logic, since Holmes > Ali, and Tyson > Holmes, then logic dictates that Tyson > Ali. :pimp:




Close thread.

[L.Kizzle]

Clay has a chin Tyson didn't. Also, Clays trashtalk might get to Tyson.

[MMM]

I would go Ali but this got me thinking of boxers similar to Tyson. Liston seems like an obvious comparison imo.

[RedBlackAttack]

:facepalm

[Styles p]

charlie zelenoff would win.

[bada bing]

an aging ali took care of foreman. foreman was a beast back in the day. He could handle tyson. Prime tyson had a very thin skin. ali's trash talking and in ring antics would get to mike tyson every single time.

ali takes a prime tyson.

[28renyoy]

Ali beat prime Foreman, although it could be discussed as if the environment played a major part in that fight. Tyson ducked a 45 year old Foreman because he knows he would have been destroyed. Tyson was scared of Foreman, terrified.

[bdreason]

I'll give Tyson a punchers chance. Maybe 5-10%.

[PistonsFan#21]

Clay has a chin Tyson didn't. Also, Clays trashtalk might get to Tyson.

Its Ali. Not Clay

And Tyson did have a pretty good chin

[Sarcastic]

Mike Tyson with Cus D'amato in his corner > everyone else ever.

Mike Tyson once taking Don King got in his ear = hot trash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jehl9APHszM

[RedBlackAttack]

Mike Tyson with Cus D'amato in his corner > everyone else ever.

Mike Tyson once taking Don King got in his ear = hot trash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jehl9APHszM
:facepalm :facepalm















































:facepalm

[kentatm]

If Ali survives the first 5 rounds, he's taking Tyson down


this, and he wins by a TKO

and I would fully expect him to win 9 times out of 10 BTW

he was able to handle prime Foreman.

pretty sure that means he could handle a Tyson punch.

[RedBlackAttack]

Tyson is THE most overrated athlete in ANY sport to ever live. He was the 4th or 5th best heavyweight of his own damn era. The myth of the man is much more scary than the man himself... Who lost virtually every big fight against every contemporary elite that he ever faced.

This discussion is dumb.

[RedBlackAttack]

He really didn't have any competition in the mid/late 80's and once Douglas exposed him in 1990, his mystique vanished. Every fighter knew as long as you can go into the 6th and beyond, you can beat him.

From his era, Holyfield and Lewis were better but that's it. And Lewis is questionable since he beat Tyson when Tyson was already finished. Some athletes are like that...they'd dominate for some years and then washed up very quickly.

I see Tyson as Shaq for having a better prime, while Lewis is Dirk for having a better peak/longevity. You're not going to say Dirk is better than Shaq though.

It would have been nice if Tyson fought Lewis, Bowe and Moorer in the 90's.
Bowe was more accomplished and had bigger wins than Tyson. There really is no arguing that. I put Holyfield, Lewis and Bowe all safely ahead of Tyson.

What was Tyson's biggest win ever? Who the f#ck did he beat to become this mythological figure?

[kentatm]

What was Tyson's biggest win ever? Who the f#ck did he beat to become this mythological figure?


"Hurricane" Peter McNeeley :lol

[RedBlackAttack]

"Hurricane" Peter McNeeley :lol
People talk about "he was a different fighter under Cus."

Fact is, Cus died in November of 1985. He hadn't trained Tyson in probably a year prior to that because he had been ill for a long time.

But, even up to November of 1985, what was his biggest win?

Donnie Long? Michael "Jack" Johnson? Eddie Richardson?

When Cus died, Tyson had only fought a handful of guys with winning records, and those guys never amounted to anything.

Yes, Tyson was a 'different fighter' under Cus. That is probably because he had only fought tomato cans.

Cus had been in the ground for three years before he stepped into the ring against Michael Spinks, which was the biggest win of his career (not saying much).

People suspend all reality and all normal means of gauging a great fighter when it comes to Tyson. His career is the most excuse-filled, BS-filled myth ever in the history of sports.

And, I was a Tyson fan growing up.

[RedBlackAttack]

Bowe's claim to fame is beating Holyfield twice. Who else did he beat?

Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champion and first undisputed champion with three titles ever. Is it his fault that Berbick and Bonecrusher were the heavyweight champs during that era?
No, it's not his fault that he entered into the heavyweight division during arguably its weakest era ever. It is his fault that he was completely dominated any time that he ever stepped into the ring against a fellow elite fighter of his era.

That Evander Holyfield that you casually toss aside as "Bowe's claim to fame" p!ss pounded Tyson into submission once and was about to do it again until Mike found a way out of the fight.

Actually, he destroyed Tyson after Bowe had TKOed him in eight rounds.

[Scoooter]

Riddick Bowe beat Andrew Golota with his c*ck.

[bagelred]

So now Mike Tyson sucks balls? WTF? Are you guys too young to remember Tyson? WTF?

Before Tyson was washed up, he only lost to two people. Buster Douglas and Evander Holyfield.

It's hard to remember but Tyson said in his documentary that he really wasn't focused and had a lot of problems outside the ring before that Douglas fight. It's hard to remember. Nevertheless, the reason its one the greatest upsets of all time was because Tyson was THAT DOMINANT. 37-0 up to that point.

And the problems out of the ring started to mount. Comes out of prison for rape. Almost immediately wins the WBC and WBA titles again. No one had been out of professional boxing that long and won the titles besides Ali.

The Holyfield got to him, he just had Tyson's number........and Tyson clearly was not like his prime self.

But even so, Tyson doesn't lose again for another 5 years. By the time he got to Lennox Lewis, he was washed up......

So really just a fluke Douglas and Holyfield once....his only losses in my mind (not including Holyfield DQ).

50 wins, 44 KNOCKOUTS.....


In that respect, it was similar to Ali. Ali only lost to two people until he was washed up. Frazier and Ken Norton. So Tyson had Douglas and Holyfield.

Saying Tyson "didn't beat anyone" is absurd. Just because you didn't watch boxing back then and don't know their names, he beat tough fighters and made them look silly.

[Flash88]

Bowe was more accomplished and had bigger wins than Tyson. There really is no arguing that. I put Holyfield, Lewis and Bowe all safely ahead of Tyson.

What was Tyson's biggest win ever? Who the f#ck did he beat to become this mythological figure? You're clearly underrating Tyson. What he accomplished in the 1980s could be regarded as the most consistently dominant title reign ever by a champion.

There are a lot of champions who had a worse list than Tony Tucker, Trevor Berbick, Larry Holmes, Pinklon Thomas, Michael Spinks, Frank Bruno, Tyrell Biggs, Bonecrusher Smith, etc. It may not be a stellar list, but it's well above average and he won most of those fights in a far more decisive fashion that a lot of other champions have.

Thomas, Holmes (even in his advanced age), Berbick, and Tucker are particularly underrated by today's fans.

[bagelred]

You're clearly underrating Tyson. What he accomplished in the 1980s could be regarded as the most consistently dominant title reign ever by a champion.

There are a lot of champions who had a worse list than Tony Tucker, Trevor Berbick, Larry Holmes, Pinklon Thomas, Michael Spinks, Frank Bruno, Tyrell Biggs, Bonecrusher Smith, etc. It may not be a stellar list, but it's well above average and he won most of those fights in a far more decisive fashion that a lot of other champions have.

Thomas, Holmes (even in his advanced age), Berbick, and Tucker are particularly underrated by today's fans.

http://www.aworldofboxing.com/Boxers-Pages/Mike-Tyson/Tyson-Posters/mike_tyson_vs_michael_spinks_poster.jpg

This was a HUGE fight at the time. Tyson destroyed him in 90 seconds.

[RedBlackAttack]

You're clearly underrating Tyson. What he accomplished in the 1980s could be regarded as the most consistently dominant title reign ever by a champion.

There are a lot of champions who had a worse list than Tony Tucker, Trevor Berbick, Larry Holmes, Pinklon Thomas, Michael Spinks, Frank Bruno, Tyrell Biggs, Bonecrusher Smith, etc. It may not be a stellar list, but it's well above average and he won most of those fights in a far more decisive fashion that a lot of other champions have.

Thomas, Holmes (even in his advanced age), Berbick, and Tucker are particularly underrated by today's fans.
There are a lot of champions who have a worse resume than Tyson. There aren't any champions that have a worse resume than Tyson who are consistently called the greatest, most unstoppable fighter ever.

And, yeah... For someone who people are trying to compare to Muhammad Ali, that list of opponents is laughable.

For the record, Ali is also slightly overrated. No doubt, he is one of the greatest heavyweights of all-time, but I don't have him as my best ever and he shouldn't be in anyone's Top 5 all-time pound-for-pound.

[Flash88]

http://www.aworldofboxing.com/Boxers-Pages/Mike-Tyson/Tyson-Posters/mike_tyson_vs_michael_spinks_poster.jpg

This was a HUGE fight at the time. Tyson destroyed him in 90 seconds.Granted, most people thought Tyson would beat Spinks rather easily.

But Spinks was still the lineal champion and there were still people who thought Spinks' experience and awkward style would lead him to a decision win over Tyson.

[Flash88]

There are a lot of champions who have a worse resume than Tyson. There aren't any champions that have a worse resume than Tyson who are consistently called the greatest, most unstoppable fighter ever.Point taken, but I don't see how you can rationally make an argument that Bowe ranks ahead of Tyson unless you're ranking it strictly H2H... and even then the claim would be pretty tenuous.

[RedBlackAttack]

Granted, most people thought Tyson would beat Spinks rather easily.

But Spinks was still the lineal champion and there were still people who thought Spinks' experience and awkward style would lead him to a decision win over Tyson.
They didn't account for Spinks being scared sh!tless before he stepped through the ropes. Never in my life have I seen a fighter so obviously intimidated prior to a big fight. He wanted to be somewhere else.

[RedBlackAttack]

Point taken, but I don't see how you can rationally make an argument that Bowe ranks ahead of Tyson unless you're ranking it strictly H2H... and even then the claim would be pretty tenuous.
How so? When you have two wins over a prime Evander Holyfield, it accounts for A LOT. Yes, Bowe's prime was incredibly short and he didn't have much of a reign with the belts, but at least he beat a fellow elite fighter of his generation... Something Tyson cannot claim.

Even if you edge Tyson ahead of Bowe, Mike is still CLEARLY the 3rd best heavyweight of his own era. How does a guy like that end up in a conversation like this?

[RedBlackAttack]

Btw, Bowe also beat a lot of the guys that Tyson rolled through in the 80s... Tony Tubbs, Tyrell Biggs, Pinklon Thomas, Bruce Seldon, etc.

Basically, the question becomes are wins over Michael Spinks, an old Larry Holmes and Trevor Berbick better than beating Holyfield twice.

I say no.

[Flash88]

How so? When you have two wins over a prime Evander Holyfield, it accounts for A LOT. Yes, Bowe's prime was incredibly short and he didn't have much of a reign with the belts, but at least he beat a fellow elite fighter of his generation... Something Tyson cannot claim.

Even if you edge Tyson ahead of Bowe, Mike is still CLEARLY the 3rd best heavyweight of his own era. How does a guy like that end up in a conversation like this?That's poor reasoning. No one's running to put Vernon Forrest in the Top 20 welterweights of all time for beating a prime Mosley twice. Michael Moorer kicked a prime Evander's ass, FFS.

And Tyson should be considered part of two eras in my opinion -- pre and post prison. And I think it's unfair to denigrate Tyson that much for his post-prison reign when he was not the same fighter as he once was.

[Flash88]

Btw, Bowe also beat a lot of the guys that Tyson rolled through in the 80s... Tony Tubbs, Tyrell Biggs, Pinklon Thomas, Bruce Seldon, etc.

Basically, the question becomes are wins over Michael Spinks, an old Larry Holmes and Trevor Berbick better than beating Holyfield twice.

I say no.Thomas and Biggs were no longer the same fighter. Not to mention that the majority of boxing fans, including myself, thought Tubbs won a decision over Bowe.

[Sarcastic]

:facepalm :facepalm

:facepalm

Mike Tyson pre and post Cus D'Amato are almost two completely different fighters. Before he died, his peek a boo style was much better and he used combos extremely effectively. Once Cus died, he started just looking for single punch knockouts, and I think this was one of the main reasons he started to lose. If D'Amato didn't die when he did, I think the Mike Tyson story would have played out much differently.

[Flash88]

Mike Tyson pre and post Cus D'Amato are almost two completely different fighters. Before he died, his peek a boo style was much better and he used combos extremely effectively. Once Cus died, he started just looking for single punch knockouts, and I think this was one of the main reasons he started to lose. If D'Amato didn't die when he did, I think the Mike Tyson story would have played out much differently.I think you mean pre-Rooney and post-Rooney.

Cus died after Tyson's 10th pro fight, or somewhere around then.

[Sarcastic]

I think you mean pre-Rooney and post-Rooney.

Cus died after Tyson's 10th pro fight, or somewhere around then.

Was it really that early?

[Sarcastic]

If I remember correctly he fired Rooney once Don King took over. My point was, if D'Amato doesn't die so early on, he would have kept his entire training team. He would have been able to keep him in line, whereas King let him do whatever the hell he wanted.

[Zombles]

Tyson is the most overrated boxer in history, by all accounts 3rd or 4th best in his own division at a time the division was historically weak in what is the weakest division in boxing.

Comparing him to the best fighter of the best heavyweight division in history? What? You're talking about biggest wastes of boxing potential, I hear you. But you mention him with the true greats and you are high as shit. He coulda been one, maybe, sure. He wasn't. He lost to all the best fighters he faced, and lost badly.

[RedBlackAttack]

And Tyson should be considered part of two eras in my opinion -- pre and post prison. And I think it's unfair to denigrate Tyson that much for his post-prison reign when he was not the same fighter as he once was.
That is the exact reasoning that results in awful threads like this one. Tyson is the only fighter in boxing history to get old at 21.

It is funny that his incredible and massive decline seemed to completely align with his fighting a better level of competition. Funny how that works.

The heavyweight division that he fought in before going to prison and the one that existed when he exited prison were like night and day. But, I'm sure the Tyson that battled with Mitch 'Blood' Green in his pre-prison career would own Holyfield. :rolleyes:

No athlete in any sport gets as much leeway and is allowed as many excuses as Iron Mike. It took a good while before I could step back and look at his career objectively, because I was naturally a fan... Having grown up in the 80s.

But, when you see threads like this... Well, at some point, there should be some actual reasoning introduced, no?

The Mike Tyson that was completely out-classed by Holyfield was still dominant when he fought a lesser class of opponent. He KOed Bruce Seldon in the first round in the bout prior to facing Holyfield. His hype had built to what it was prior to his going to prison.

But, then he fought Holyfield... A level of fighter he never saw in his younger days. He was exposed as being a one-dimensional mental midget and, suddenly, he was old.... and/or his trainer wasn't up to par.

[Flash88]

The Mike Tyson that was completely out-classed by Holyfield was still dominant when he fought a lesser class of opponent. He KOed Bruce Seldon in the first round in the bout prior to facing Holyfield. His hype had built to what it was prior to his going to prison.

But, then he fought Holyfield... A level of fighter he never saw in his younger days. He was exposed as being a one-dimensional mental midget and, suddenly, he was old.... and/or his trainer wasn't up to par.You're not even addressing my points. No one's claiming that Tyson got old at 21. In fact, I won't even bring up the argument that Tyson wasn't the same after Rooney. But when we're talking prime Tyson, we're talking about 1986 to whenever he beat Ruddock the 2nd time. Thus when we're using Holyfield's wins over Tyson as a means to judge their rankings, it's somewhat skewed.

And for the record, I thought that the Tony Tucker that Mike dominated would've beaten the 1996 version of Mike and Evander.

[RedBlackAttack]

You're not even addressing my points. No one's claiming that Tyson got old at 21. In fact, I won't even bring up the argument that Tyson wasn't the same after Rooney. But when we're talking prime Tyson, we're talking about 1986 to whenever he beat Ruddock the 2nd time. Thus when we're using Holyfield's wins over Tyson as a means to judge their rankings, it's somewhat skewed.

And for the record, I thought that the Tony Tucker that Mike dominated would've beaten the 1996 version of Mike and Evander.
I thought that Tyson was the same guy... All the way up to the mid-90s. The only thing that changed over time was his aura of invincibility. Tyson relied on intimidation and guys being tentative against him. That would result in him overwhelming them in the first half of the fight (if it went that far).

Never one time did I see Mike Tyson ever adjust his plan in-fight or overcome adversity in the ring... The marks of a great fighter. In fact, generally, when Tyson faced adversity, he folded like a chair.

The 1986 version of Tony Tucker might well beat the '96 version of Tyson, because he gave him all he could handle when they fought in the mid-80s and Tyson's aura of invincibility was gone and his feeble mind was showing. But, that tells me more about Tyson's weaknesses as a fighter than anything else.

A 1986 Tucker would not beat Holyfield, though... Even a Holyfield that was getting older and had been in some wars.

The fact that Tucker may have been Tyson's best win speaks volumes for just how incredibly overrated he is during discussions like this one.

Please note, I'm not saying that Tyson was a bad fighter or that he wasn't a legitimate champion. He had some great years and he was a beast relative to most of his competition. But, people take it too far because they love knockout artists.

It is the same reason that everyone loved Jack Dempsey and hated Gene Tunney.

[Flash88]

I thought that Tyson was the same guy... All the way up to the mid-90s. The only thing that changed over time was his aura of invincibility. Tyson relied on intimidation and guys being tentative against him. That would result in him overwhelming them in the first half of the fight (if it went that far).

Never one time did I see Mike Tyson ever adjust his plan in-fight or overcome adversity in the ring... The marks of a great fighter. In fact, generally, when Tyson faced adversity, he folded like a chair.

The 1986 version of Tony Tucker might well beat the '96 version of Tyson, because he gave him all he could handle when they fought in the mid-80s and Tyson's aura of invincibility was gone and his feeble mind was showing. But, that tells me more about Tyson's weaknesses as a fighter than anything else.

A 1986 Tubbs would not beat Holyfield, though... Even a Holyfield that was getting older and had been in some wars.

The fact that Tubbs may have been Tyson's best win speaks volumes for just how incredibly overrated he is during discussions like this one.

Please note, I'm not saying that Tyson was a bad fighter or that he wasn't a legitimate champion. He had some great years and he was a beast relative to most of his competition. But, people take it too far because they love knockout artists.

It is the same reason that everyone loved Jack Dempsey and hated Gene Tunney.You really saw no difference between a pre-prison and post-prison Tyson? That's very surprising. And the "Tyson's aura of invincibility would him fights" argument is flawed. There were plenty of fighters who stood up to Tyson and still got handled, among them Ruddock and Tucker.

And I've never seen anyone argue that Tubbs may have been Tyson's best win. You're just making shit up with that one.

[raiderfan19]

You guys do realize that Tyson is younger than holyfield right? I realize not everyone ages the same way but i find it funny mike ducked holyfield then lost to him twice and yet it doesnt matter because he was "past his prime"

If you want to argue tyson over bowe i guess thats fine though id personally take bowe, but he was absolutely without question worse than holyfield and lewis. Which makes it odd that hes compared to all time greats.

[Sarcastic]

You guys do realize that Tyson is younger than holyfield right? I realize not everyone ages the same way but i find it funny mike ducked holyfield then lost to him twice and yet it doesnt matter because he was "past his prime"

If you want to argue tyson over bowe i guess thats fine though id personally take bowe, but he was absolutely without question worse than holyfield and lewis. Which makes it odd that hes compared to all time greats.

He never ducked Holyfield.

Holyfield fought at cruiserweight for most of the 1980s. When he finally moved to heavyweight, they were going to fight, but then a funny thing happened one night in Japan....

After that Tyson ended up going to jail, and the fight never happened.

[Crown&Coke]

:facepalm

any boxing discussion, I gotta concur with this dude.

plus, Ali was undefeated until the mf US gov't went after him about Vietnam.

Tyson beat cats with shear fear, one dude was crying in the ring against Tyson. Most dudes were intimated while Mike was walking into the ring with his black trunks and no socks.

Ali beat cats as soon as people knew there was a fight. He was a fukcing genious. Beat a prime Foreman by letting him hit him in the gut and using the ring as an advantage. Beat Smokin Joe by calling him a gorilla. Beat Liston by taking his best shot and continuing to smile and talk smack

Ali had it all; size, chin, power, speed, moxy, ring iq, and one of the best corners known to man...

Tyson was a G but if he didn't knock the shit out of you, you had a shot. but true heavyweights earned their strips back in the 70's. Ali did that against the best competition, and didn't back up an inch while doing it.

[bagelred]

You guys do realize that Tyson is younger than holyfield right? I realize not everyone ages the same way but i find it funny mike ducked holyfield then lost to him twice and yet it doesnt matter because he was "past his prime"


That's because Tyson's training habits were sh-t at that point. His off the ring life, including his prison time, basically f-cked up his career. He was still a dangerous fighter, considering he took back two title belts right after prison, but he wasn't pre Buster Douglas, Tyson. That's not taking anything away from Holyfield. Holyfield was still big underdog in first fight. But Tyson did NOT train like he used to. Too many problems.....and it hurt him.

Can I just say this too? Most people don't remember two things about Douglas-Tyson fight. (1) Buster Douglas had fight of his life. He looked FANTASTIC. Sometimes guys just step it up for a fight. Kudos. and (2) Tyson ALMOST WON THE FIGHT. In the 8th round, Tyson knocked Douglas down, and Douglas stood up at "9" on the count. It was controversial, because some thought it was a slow count and Don King and Tyson's people protested after fight.....to no avail. But Tyson, despite a sh-tty performance, STILL almost defeated Buster.

.

[RedBlackAttack]

You really saw no difference between a pre-prison and post-prison Tyson? That's very surprising. And the "Tyson's aura of invincibility would him fights" argument is flawed. There were plenty of fighters who stood up to Tyson and still got handled, among them Ruddock and Tucker.

And I've never seen anyone argue that Tubbs may have been Tyson's best win. You're just making shit up with that one.
You keep saying that arguments are 'flawed,' but you have failed to say why they are flawed.

And, if your criteria for a guy being mentally strong and able to adapt his gameplan in-fight while facing adversity are a couple of bouts against the likes of Razor Ruddock and Tony Tucker... And he melted down against other (better) competition later in his career... Well, that boxer has no business being compared to the greats in the division's history.

I meant Tucker, not Tubbs on the later reference... Got my "Tony's" confused... While the win over Tony Tucker in '86 doesn't have the gravity of beating Spinks or Berbick, I believe it may have been his 'best' win considering the task that he faced... The judges had it relatively close and he faced SOME adversity.

Whatever... Point is, Tyson has no business being compared to the best of his own era, let alone the best of the greatest heavyweight era ever.

[RedBlackAttack]

He never ducked Holyfield.

Holyfield fought at cruiserweight for most of the 1980s. When he finally moved to heavyweight, they were going to fight, but then a funny thing happened one night in Japan....

After that Tyson ended up going to jail, and the fight never happened.
The fight was set to happen after Tyson dispatched Buster Douglas. So, in a way, Tyson did duck him... By getting his @ss beat. :oldlol:

Seriously, the fight was basically signed and sealed. The loss by Tyson killed it.

[RedBlackAttack]

That's because Tyson's training habits were sh-t at that point. His off the ring life, including his prison time, basically f-cked up his career. He was still a dangerous fighter, considering he took back two title belts right after prison, but he wasn't pre Buster Douglas, Tyson. That's not taking anything away from Holyfield. Holyfield was still big underdog in first fight. But Tyson did NOT train like he used to. Too many problems.....and it hurt him.

Can I just say this too? Most people don't remember two things about Douglas-Tyson fight. (1) Buster Douglas had fight of his life. He looked FANTASTIC. Sometimes guys just step it up for a fight. Kudos. and (2) Tyson ALMOST WON THE FIGHT. In the 8th round, Tyson knocked Douglas down, and Douglas stood up at "9" on the count. It was controversial, because some thought it was a slow count and Don King and Tyson's people protested after fight.....to no avail. But Tyson, despite a sh-tty performance, STILL almost defeated Buster.

.
That was an absolute thrashing. Re-watch the fight.

Tyson caught him with an uppercut late in the fight and sent him down, but he wasn't really too hurt. He watched and waited for the ref to get to 8 and he calmly stood up. If the ref would have started the count a second or two earlier, he would have stood up a second or two earlier.

That is a smart boxer that has his barrings...

Buster Douglas had won damn near every round up to that point. A total @ss beating, that was. Brutal.

[Scoooter]

Yeah, that uppercut was Tyson's only real moment in the fight. Buster mushed him good. I think his mom had just died, so he was all hopped up on emotion or rage or something.

BTW, Julio Cesar Chavez's kid fought tonight.

[Flash88]

You keep saying that arguments are 'flawed,' but you have failed to say why they are flawed. Actually, I did say why it was flawed. How can it be a coherent argument when guys like Tucker and Ruddock showed that they weren't afraid of Tyson, and they still got dominated? That isn't to say that Tyson's intimidation factor didn't work at all (Bruno rematch, Spinks, Stewart, Tillman, etc), but to suggest that all you had to do was to stand up to Tyson and then he folds up like a slinky is backwards thinking.


And, if your criteria for a guy being mentally strong and able to adapt his gameplan in-fight while facing adversity are a couple of bouts against the likes of Razor Ruddock and Tony Tucker... And he melted down against other (better) competition later in his career... Well, that boxer has no business being compared to the greats in the division's history.Never claimed that Tyson was mentally strong. I was merely countering your claim of Tyson's magical "aura of invincibility" that allowed him to steamroll through the division in the late 1980s. It might've worked against some fighters (see above), but against the likes of Tillis, Green, Ruddock, Tucker, etc., that argument doesn't hold too much weight.


Whatever... Point is, Tyson has no business being compared to the best of his own era, let alone the best of the greatest heavyweight era ever.Agree that Tyson shouldn't be compared to Ali, at least in terms of resume. Regardless, Tyson is a top 10 heavyweight due to the consistency and dominance of his title reign throughout the 1980s. Of course guys like Ali, Foreman, Lewis, Marciano, Louis belong ahead of Tyson, but you can certainly argue that Tyson is a greater heavyweight than guys like Dempsey, Johnson, Holyfield, Liston, Jeffries, Patterson, Walcott, etc.

And perhaps my favorite quality of a prime Tyson -- the dude fought EVERYONE... except maybe Tim Witherspoon, but who gives a shit about him? Tyson was fighting and dominating guys that a prime Larry Holmes purposely avoided.

[Lebron23]

1980's Mike Tyson has a chance of beating Post prison Muhammad Ali. Tyson is definitely a top 10 heavyweight boxer of all time.

[raiderfan19]

1980's Mike Tyson has a chance of beating Post prison Muhammad Ali. Tyson is definitely a top 10 heavyweight boxer of all time.
Who did tyson fight that a "prime" larry holmes avoided.


And no you literally cant make an argument for tyson over evander. At least not a decent one. I also just realized you included holmes. You do realize holmes was 39 when they fought right? Holmes>tyson easily.

To be honest hes not all that dissimilar from the klitschkos in terms of career achievements.

[Flash88]

Who did tyson fight that a "prime" larry holmes avoided.Pinklon Thomas, for one. The guy still claims that Holmes relentlessly ducked him, and looking at the facts, it's hard to refute. Thomas was his #1 contender from 1984-1985 and Holmes made up weak ass excuses for not fighting Thomas, such as not wanting to fight a "cokehead". Holmes/Thomas would've been a pretty big fight, too. At the time, both were undefeated heavyweight titleholders.


And no you literally cant make an argument for tyson over evander. At least not a decent one. I also just realized you included holmes. You do realize holmes was 39 when they fought right? Holmes>tyson easily. Tyson didn't beat a prime Holmes, but it was a Holmes who had been training about half a year ahead of time, and who in his previous fight had beaten Spinks (in my opinion). Holmes was still a very good fighter at that point. And keep in mind that no one has ever dominated Holmes the way Tyson did, and this includes a prime Holyfield years after Holmes lost to Tyson.

[RedBlackAttack]

Tyson didn't beat a prime Holmes, but it was a Holmes who had been training about half a year ahead of time, and who in his previous fight had beaten Spinks (in my opinion). Holmes was still a very good fighter at that point. And keep in mind that no one has ever dominated Holmes the way Tyson did, and this includes a prime Holyfield years after Holmes lost to Tyson.
Holmes had taken two years off from boxing. He had lost his previous two fights. He weighed more against Tyson than ever had in any fight ever and he was never known as the most in-shape guy in the sport.

Holmes had been washed up well before he lost those two bouts to Spinks. A lot of people thought Carl 'The Truth' Williams beat him prior to the Spinks fights and his steady decline was well underway by that point (mid-85).

Holmes was at his best in the late-70s and MAYBE the very early-80s. He fought Tyson in 1988.

A win over a 40-year old that is 20 pounds overweight and hadn't fought in two years is nothing to write home about.

[Flash88]

Holmes had taken two years off from boxing. He had lost his previous two fights. He weighed more against Tyson than ever had in any fight ever and he was never known as the most in-shape guy in the sport.

Holmes had been washed up well before he lost those two bouts to Spinks. A lot of people thought Carl 'The Truth' Williams beat him prior to the Spinks fights and his steady decline was well underway by that point (mid-85).

Holmes was at his best in the late-70s and MAYBE the very early-80s. He fought Tyson in 1988.

A win over a 40-year old that is 20 pounds overweight and hadn't fought in two years is nothing to write home about.Like I said above, Holmes had been training/sparring long before the fight was even signed. And if you want to play semantics/boxrec warrior, then he outweighed his previous career high by a whopping 2 pounds.

Holmes looked like shit in the first fight against Spinks, but I thought he clearly beat him in the rematch. There's widespread belief that the judges were out to get Holmes for his comments criticizing the scoring from the first fight. Was Holmes in his prime? Nope. But he was still a good fighter.

And wonderful use of hyperbole with the claim of Holmes being 20 pounds overweight. I'm not claiming that Holmes was a great win for Tyson. It was a good win. Similar to Johnson knocking out Jeffries. But it was the manner in which Tyson beat Holmes that impressed me the most.

[bagelred]

Buster Douglas had won damn near every round up to that point. A total @ss beating, that was. Brutal.

Didn't I say Buster Douglas fought a great fight? Did you read my post? I said despite Buster fighting a great fight and Tyson clearly being "out of it" (he just did not look like himself), Tyson ALMOST won the fight. One second away from another knockdown/victory/title defense.

[bagelred]

After the Mike Tyson fight, Larry Holmes fought for a long time after and went 21-3. He went the distance against Holyfield, he beat Ray Mercer who was a former champion, he was still dangerous when he faced Tyson, Spinks was still the only man to ever beat Holmes up to that point.

Mike Tyson is the ONLY man EVER to knock out Larry Holmes. And he did it in the 4th round.

[raiderfan19]

You realize that you are making the case for holmes over tyson right?

One guy was still an effective fighter in his 40s. One guy was done by the age of 23.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Lets forget Larry Holmes was practically 40 years old and had lost his last two fights..which included UD's to Mike Spinks, who was KO"d by Tyson.

[bagelred]

You realize that you are making the case for holmes over tyson right?

One guy was still an effective fighter in his 40s. One guy was done by the age of 23.

Yeah, Tyson messed up end of his career. He didn't want it anymore like other guys who continue to fight. That doesn't take away how dominant Tyson was in the prime of his career. Tyson's knockout percentage is unreal. Tyson just had way too many real life problems.......

[raiderfan19]

Yeah, Tyson messed up end of his career. He didn't want it anymore like other guys who continue to fight. That doesn't take away how dominant Tyson was in the prime of his career. Tyson's knockout percentage is unreal.
Thats because he fought chumps. Klitschkos knockout percentage is the same(hes not as good as mike because his comp is even worse but i think hed beat mike) that said i think alot of you are forgetting how good "prime" holmes was. He beat an old ali(which has to count for more than an even older holmes and ken norton and trevor berbick among others. He was the king of a crappy era, but he was pretty easily better than mike

[bagelred]

Thats because he fought chumps. Klitschkos knockout percentage is the same(hes not as good as mike because his comp is even worse but i think hed beat mike) that said i think alot of you are forgetting how good "prime" holmes was. He beat an old ali(which has to count for more than an even older holmes and ken norton and trevor berbick among others. He was the king of a crappy era, but he was pretty easily better than mike

Its not just raw age....some guys can fight longer than others, either thru sheer will, training, or just good genes. Or a combination.

Tyson did not fight "chumps". He cleaned house in the whole heavyweight decision at the time, thru knockouts.

Holmes was clearly better at his stage of his career when he lost to Tyson than Ali was when he lost to Holmes. Larry Holmes had great longetivity. I do think Holmes is underrated also.....but he never had prime like Tyson where he would literally destroy people.

[lilojmayo]

Muhammad Ali is more of myth than Iron Mike Tyson.
gimme Tyson, all he had to do was catch you once. Good luck to Ali trying to last 12 rounds, when all it would take is one slip up and it is over.

[donald_trump]

give me lennox over both these guys. he would cause problems for both even at their primes. even though lewis isn't the best heavyweight of all time, or anywhere near it, i think he's the only guy who could hold his own and give problems to any heavyweight ever.

as for this comparison, it'd be close. if it goes more than 6 rounds give me ali. otherwise tyson. and i hate the "he fought bums" excuse. a lot of greats prevented others potentially becoming great.
tysons run and rise to the top was one of all time dominance.

[Flash88]

Thats because he fought chumps. Klitschkos knockout percentage is the same(hes not as good as mike because his comp is even worse but i think hed beat mike) that said i think alot of you are forgetting how good "prime" holmes was. He beat an old ali(which has to count for more than an even older holmes and ken norton and trevor berbick among others. He was the king of a crappy era, but he was pretty easily better than mikeNo one doubts how good a prime Holmes was, but his title reign was marred by him not taking on his top challengers. Dokes, Coetzee, Thomas, and Page were all at one time ranked by Ring Magazine as Holmes' top contender.

GTFO with an old Ali being a better with than Tyson's win over Holmes. Ali was already showing signs of Parkinsons in the leadup to the fight. Not to mention his overdose on Thyrolar screwed him over even more prior to the fight. Look at what Holmes managed to accomplish after his loss to Tyson and look what happened to Ali after Holmes.

Ken Norton was a good win for Holmes, but the two went life and death. A prime Tyson would've knocked out the chinny Norton in less than 6 rounds.

It's ironic how you're criticizing Tyson for fighting in a crappy era and then start praising Holmes. Holmes' heavyweight era was worse than Tyson's (1986-1991). Not to mention Tyson fought all challengers while Holmes was notorious for ducking his top contenders.

[AirTupac]

Muhammad Ali is more of myth than Iron Mike Tyson.
gimme Tyson, all he had to do was catch you once. Good luck to Ali trying to last 12 rounds, when all it would take is one slip up and it is over.

No white text? :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[raiderfan19]

The thing is "fighting all challengers" and losing nearly every big fight of your career isnt really all that impressive

[Flash88]

The thing is "fighting all challengers" and losing nearly every big fight of your career isnt really all that impressiveTyson is 1-3 in megafights (Spinks, Holyfield 2x, Lewis). But if you're taking the Lewis loss into consideration, then that's hypocritical especially since you discounted Tyson's win over Holmes... And the version of Holmes that Tyson beat was a lot better than the version of Tyson that Lewis beat.

Anyways, your claim that Holmes' win over Ali actually meant something is basically all I needed to hear... Even Larry himself rarely talks about that win except in the context of the win helping propel him out of Ali's shadow.

[raiderfan19]

I dont think the ali win matters, but the loss to tyson doesnt matter either though.

You seriously think a 22 year old beating a 39 year old is analagous to a 34 year old beating a 30 year old as far as relevance to peoples prime? Really?

[Flash88]

I dont think the ali win matters, but the loss to tyson doesnt matter either though.

You seriously think a 22 year old beating a 39 year old is analagous to a 34 year old beating a 30 year old as far as relevance to peoples prime? Really?Are you that naive to assume that a fighter can't be shot at 34 years old? Or that a fighter can't continue to be a good fighter into his 40's?

Just look at the facts. Holmes had a successful continuation of his career post-Tyson. In fact, his win over Mercer is probably one of his best wins. Meanwhile, Tyson was done after Lewis.

[bagelred]

Are you that naive to assume that a fighter can't be shot at 34 years old? Or that a fighter can't continue to be a good fighter into his 40's?

Just look at the facts. Holmes had a successful continuation of his career post-Tyson. In fact, his win over Mercer is probably one of his best wins. Meanwhile, Tyson was done after Lewis.

Tyson was done before Lewis.

[Flash88]

Tyson was done before Lewis.I agree. Physically, he was done after his layoff post Holyfield II. His career was done after Lewis.

[raiderfan19]

Are you that naive to assume that a fighter can't be shot at 34 years old? Or that a fighter can't continue to be a good fighter into his 40's?

Just look at the facts. Holmes had a successful continuation of his career post-Tyson. In fact, his win over Mercer is probably one of his best wins. Meanwhile, Tyson was done after Lewis.
Tyson was the 30 year old, holyfield was 34 in their fights. Tyson was 36 and lewis was 37 in their fights.

Its just amazing to me that guys who were older than him kicking his ass are discounted because he was past his prime. As for holmes still being good at 39/40 you realize that that matters right? If you are arguing that tyson was talented fine but as far as what he actually did he doesnt sniff the top ten heavyweights ever and he isnt top 100 p4p.

[TheGreatBlaze]

Tyson should have won that Buster Douglas fight anyway. He had Buster down for like 14 seconds in the 8th round, watch it yourself. Dumbass ref.

[raiderfan19]

Douglas was waiting out the count

[bagelred]

I agree. Physically, he was done after his layoff post Holyfield II. His career was done after Lewis.

He wasn't the same after jail. He wasn't the same Tyson that met Holyfield. But he still was enough of himself to compete. But as far against Lewis, he was done. That fight never should have happened. That was just a much needed payday for Tyson.

[TheGreatBlaze]

Douglas was waiting out the count
He was down for a good 2-3 seconds before the ref even started counting and then arguably didn't even beat the 10 count.

[raiderfan19]

He was down for a good 2-3 seconds before the ref even started counting and then arguably didn't even beat the 10 count.
Uh he absolutely clearly beat the count. He calmly waited and took his count like any boxer does in that scenario.

For the record, tyson got exactly the same count when he lost the difference is when he got up he clearly couldnt continue

[TheGreatBlaze]

Uh he absolutely clearly beat the count. He calmly waited and took his count like any boxer does in that scenario.

For the record, tyson got exactly the same count when he lost the difference is when he got up he clearly couldnt continue
Regardless if he beat the 10 count he was still on the canvas for more than 10 seconds. Tyson got screwed there.

[Flash88]

Its just amazing to me that guys who were older than him kicking his ass are discounted because he was past his prime. As for holmes still being good at 39/40 you realize that that matters right? If you are arguing that tyson was talented fine but as far as what he actually did he doesnt sniff the top ten heavyweights ever and he isnt top 100 p4p.Why is it amazing to you? Boxers age differently.

Tyson doesn't sniff the Top 10 heavyweights ever? That statement suggests that you can list 12+ heavyweights who were greater than him. Go right ahead, I'm curious.

[iamgine]

Mike Tyson was the Michael Jordan of boxing, up till he fired Kevin Rooney at 23 years old and lost his discipline. Mike didn't go past his prime because of age, lack of discipline did it.

[raiderfan19]

Regardless if he beat the 10 count he was still on the canvas for more than 10 seconds. Tyson got screwed there.
What part of he was waiting out the count like boxers are supposed to do you not get? Its not like he was struggling to get up and couldnt, he was clearly calmly waiting for the ref to get to 8 and then get up. If the count started earlier he would have gotten up earlier.

As for twelve better heavyweights than tyson flash, sure. In no order Louis, ali, marciano, Frazier, foreman, lewis, holyfield, Dempsey, johnson, walcott, Tunney, charles

[Flash88]

As for twelve better heavyweights than tyson flash, sure. In no order Louis, ali, marciano, Frazier, foreman, lewis, holyfield, Dempsey, johnson, walcott, Tunney, charles Now I know you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Tunney? LMAO! Who did he ever beat at heavyweight besides a past-his-prime Dempsey? I can count on one hand the number of heavyweight fights Gene Tunney has had... And this guy is better than Tyson? :oldlol: GTFO with that bullshit.

Charles being ahead of Tyson is a joke as well. The best light heavyweight in history and a top 5 P4P guy, sure. But being ranked ahead of Tyson in the heavyweight division? Sorry bro, but you don't know shit about boxing if you believe that. :facepalm

Neither Tunney nor Charles have the superior resume and they would both get the shit kicked out of them head-to-head by Tyson. So how do you actually rank them higher? The same goes for Walcott.

Explain yourself. I could use a good laugh.

[Flash88]

And how do you not have Liston in that group of 12?

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[raiderfan19]

And how do you not have Liston in that group of 12?

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
It was guys off the top of my head in no order who id have over tyson, not my hw top 12. Liston would also be above tyson

[Flash88]

It was guys off the top of my head in no order who id have over tyson, not my hw top 12. Liston would also be above tysonNow here's the part where you try to make a coherent argument that Tunney is better than Tyson at heavyweight, which I already know you can't do because I've never, ever heard anyone make the claim before.

[raiderfan19]

The reason i rank tunney higher is that he was clearly better and 2 of his most famous victories(outside of the greb wins id say they were his best) came at heavyweight. He had a few other hw fights and besides its not like tyson was a big hw. He could have easily fought at cruiser.

The clearly over the hill dempsey you mention was still only 31 and hadnt lost in 9 years. He also won the fight between the two tunney fights handily. In short despite fighting signifigantly less fights at hw, tunney still produced more worthwhile wins. Also everything iv read ranks him as a hw. Obviously i didnt watch him and like i said that list was off the top of my head. Also i do think what you did at a lightee weight class can be factored in. Manny pacquiao will be ranked fairly highly as a lw/ww when his careers over and hes never done much at either. If you demonstrate the ability to move up in weight without losing your skills i see no reason why everything else you did should be discounted

The big difference is how we rank tyson. I seriously dont think he would beat either klitshcko(the current vlad is basically a more athletic version of douglas from that fight). Hed catch vlad if they fought enough and theres no way vlad could take his punch but i just dont think tyson was that good.

[Flash88]

The reason i rank tunney higher is that he was clearly better and 2 of his most famous victories(outside of the greb wins id say they were his best) came at heavyweight. He had a few other hw fights and besides its not like tyson was a big hw. He could have easily fought at cruiser.Tyson had more championship fights than Tunney did heavyweight fights. And where do you come up with this "Tyson could have easily fought at cruiser" stuff? The guy weighed over 200 lbs as a teenager. He would come out of training camp at more than 210 lbs. And you think he could've dropped 20+ lbs to fight at cruiserweight? GTFO.


The clearly over the hill dempsey you mention was still only 31 and hadnt lost in 9 years. He also won the fight between the two tunney fights handily. In short despite fighting signifigantly less fights at hw, tunney still produced more worthwhile wins. Also everything iv read ranks him as a hw. Dempsey's age doesn't tell the whole story. The dude was busy making movies before his fight with Tunney and it's clear that Dempsey was past his best.

And no, Dempsey did not win the fight against Jack Sharkey "handily". Sharkey had taken an early lead and was up on points when Dempsey stopped him. Not to mention Dempsey later admitted that he thought Sharkey was going to knock him out before Dempsey's corner insisted that Dempsey continue attacking the body.

SMH... Come on, man. All you did was prove to me that you know how to use boxrec. These days people just look at a fighter's boxrec page and try to make their argument off of that.


Obviously i didnt watch him and like i said that list was off the top of my head. Also i do think what you did at a lightee weight class can be factored in. Manny pacquiao will be ranked fairly highly as a lw/ww when his careers over and hes never done much at either. If you demonstrate the ability to move up in weight without losing your skills i see no reason why everything else you did should be discountedWe're talking about who's the better heavyweight, not who's better P4P.

And no, Pacquiao won't be ranked highly as a lightweight/junior welterweight because he only had 1 fight at each weight. In order for you to be considered one of the best at that weight, you have to win consistently AT THAT WEIGHT.