due to another thread, i decided to make this one

a lot of people questioning tyson's opposition, but let's jusr respectfully break it down

Note in my view both were great fighters, and this is not a hate post on Louis

first of let's start with mike. ill select all the top names, from both records

Pinklon Thomas 29-1-1. Praised for his Sonny liston like jab, and solid chin. decision over Tim Witherspoon, and ko over Mike Weaver

Tony Tucker 35-0. Clean record, tall rangy boxer, set to unify titles with tyson, forr the piece of the undisputed crown

Tyrell Biggs 15-0, gold medalist trained by Lou Duva. nothing flashy in terms of record, but a solid decision win over veteran James Tillis

Larry Hoolmes 48-2. Considered to be past his prime. Yet he foguth on for 14 years after the tyson loss. Shutting Down undefeated Ray Mercer 18-0

Tony Tubbs 24-1 a quick, talented heavyweight. Wins over Greg Page, and James Smith. The only blemish a 15 round decision loss to Tim Witherspoon. After the tyson fight, bounced back to loose a fight many people thought he won against Riddick Bowe

Michael Spinks 31-0. Undefeated record, one of the greatest light heavyweights, 2 wins over holmes, and a win over Gerry Cooney. pay attention to the double standardwhen he was knocked out by tyson everyone said he was a blown up light heavy, even though favouring him to win against tyson in the first place

double standard> a guy like Billy Conn gets no **** for loosing to Louis twice, and gets praised for being a good opponent. Spinks would have easily whooped him at heavyweight, yet he gets criticised for being a small stuffed duck in the pond. see a double standard?

Frank Bruno 32-2. Hard puncher, good boxer. Gave hell Lennox Lewis before the stoppage

Carl Williams 22-2 A tall boxer, held wins over bert cooper, james tillis (then 30-4), trevor berbick, and loosing to larry holmes. a fight many thought he won

Alex Stewart 26-1 all kos. The only loss to Evander Holyfield

Donovan Ruddock 24-1-1 a dangerous hard hitting left hooker with wins over Mike Weaver, James Broad, James Smith, and near murder of Michael Dokes

Andrew Golota 36-4 Not the best heavyweight, but a damn good one. He did have his way against Riddick Bowe twice before he lost his head and got DQ'd

now compare to Joe Louis's opponents

Primo Carnera 82-7 considered a circus act. many questionable wins due to him being tied to the mob

Max Baer 40-8 Possesed one of the greatest right hands. But his Playboy lifestyle, his lazy approach in the ring, effected his legacy. Max spent more time clowning in the ring than actually fighting

Jack Sharkey 38-13-3: it's safe to say that a fighter with that many losses proves that he's not a world beater, regardless of historians praising him for being something he's not


Jim Braddock 50-25-7: Gave a wormanlike performace, a tough irishman, wins over Corn Griffin, Art Lasky and a no-decision over Maxie Rosenbloom. gets beat by about any opponent tyson has faced to make it fair

Tommy Farr 66-20-13 Not a particularly hard puncher, but a decent boxer. Wins over Max Baer, and Tommy Loughran. Good opponent

Max Schmeling 52-7-4 rematch. no need to explain, a good fighter, knocked louis out in the first fight

Tony Galento 76-23-5 he was a character, but that doesnt make up for being a fat butteball bum

Arturo Godoy 53-8-7 No complaints, solid veteran, lost to louis first time by decision, and ko in the rematch

Buddy Baer 53-5-0 A good fighter, but not as popular as his brother. pretty stuffed record. First DQ loss, and then ko in the rematch

Billy Conn 59-10-0 Good fighter, but weighing in at 174 to Louis 199. come on. i already mentioned the double standard people use for spinks. LOL imagine if a guy like spinks came in at 174 against tyson, the critics would have taken mike's head off

Jersey Joe Walcott 44-12-2 We know about the first fight. but im not gonna point fingers, it was a good opponent

so i dont understand how tyson's opponents were any worse than the fighters Louis has faced.

Joe, more than anything, gets the biggest credit for his title defences

I pay a lot of attention to the circumstances of the fighters and the quality. Larry Holmes was coming off of a two year lay off. Spinks was a blown up light heavyweight with questionable wins over Larry Holmes ect. Tyson avoided all of the elite names of his era, Louis fought and beat all of the elites and fought everyone. Tyson avoided fighting Evander in his prime, Lewis in his prime, Ray Mercer, Witherspoon, the Foreman of the 90s, Riddock Bowe and a lot of others. He was protected and with the exception of Witherspoon, i would have favored all of them over Tyson.

He also didn't react well to being pushed backward and being in hard fights, which is why i couldn't see him matching well against he all time great tough guys.

I pay a lot of attention to the circumstances of the fighters and the quality. Larry Holmes was coming off of a two year lay off. Spinks was a blown up light heavyweight with questionable wins over Larry Holmes ect. Tyson avoided all of the elite names of his era, Louis fought and beat all of the elites and fought everyone. Tyson avoided fighting Evander in his prime, Lewis in his prime, Ray Mercer, Witherspoon, the Foreman of the 90s, Riddock Bowe and a lot of others. He was protected and with the exception of Witherspoon, i would have favored all of them over Tyson.

He also didn' react well to being pushed backward and being in hard fights, which is why i couldn't see him matching well against he all time great tough guys. first of did you read what i wrote?

with that if michael spinks was a blown up light heavy then so was Billy Conn. there's a double standard that exists for louis fighting conn, and tyson fighting spinks. Fair is fair

second where's the evidence that tyson ducked those challengers? for the holyfield the fight was set but fell through because he went to prison

where's the evidence that the fights went to presser but didnt happen, other than the rants and assumptions from fans?

due to another thread, i decided to make this one

a lot of people questioning tyson's opposition, but let's jusr respectfully break it down

Note in my view both were great fighters, and this is not a hate post on Louis

first of let's start with mike. ill select all the top names, from both records

Pinklon Thomas 29-1-1. Praised for his Sonny liston like jab, and solid chin. decision over Tim Witherspoon, and ko over Mike Weaver

Tony Tucker 35-0. Clean record, tall rangy boxer, set to unify titles with tyson, forr the piece of the undisputed crown

Tyrell Biggs 15-0, gold medalist trained by Lou Duva. nothing flashy in terms of record, but a solid decision win over veteran James Tillis

Larry Hoolmes 48-2. Considered to be past his prime. Yet he foguth on for 14 years after the tyson loss. Shutting Down undefeated Ray Mercer 18-0

Tony Tubbs 24-1 a quick, talented heavyweight. Wins over Greg Page, and James Smith. The only blemish a 15 round decision loss to Tim Witherspoon. After the tyson fight, bounced back to loose a fight many people thought he won against Riddick Bowe

Michael Spinks 31-0. Undefeated record, one of the greatest light heavyweights, 2 wins over holmes, and a win over Gerry Cooney. pay attention to the double standardwhen he was knocked out by tyson everyone said he was a blown up light heavy, even though favouring him to win against tyson in the first place

double standard> a guy like Billy Conn gets no **** for loosing to Louis twice, and gets praised for being a good opponent. Spinks would have easily whooped him at heavyweight, yet he gets criticised for being a small stuffed duck in the pond. see a double standard?

Frank Bruno 32-2. Hard puncher, good boxer. Gave hell Lennox Lewis before the stoppage

Carl Williams 22-2 A tall boxer, held wins over bert cooper, james tillis (then 30-4), trevor berbick, and loosing to larry holmes. a fight many thought he won

Alex Stewart 26-1 all kos. The only loss to Evander Holyfield

Donovan Ruddock 24-1-1 a dangerous hard hitting left hooker with wins over Mike Weaver, James Broad, James Smith, and near murder of Michael Dokes

Andrew Golota 36-4 Not the best heavyweight, but a damn good one. He did have his way against Riddick Bowe twice before he lost his head and got DQ'd

now compare to Joe Louis's opponents

Primo Carnera 82-7 considered a circus act. many questionable wins due to him being tied to the mob

Max Baer 40-8 Possesed one of the greatest right hands. But his Playboy lifestyle, his lazy approach in the ring, effected his legacy. Max spent more time clowning in the ring than actually fighting

Jack Sharkey 38-13-3: it's safe to say that a fighter with that many losses proves that he's not a world beater, regardless of historians praising him for being something he's not


Jim Braddock 50-25-7: Gave a wormanlike performace, a tough irishman, wins over Corn Griffin, Art Lasky and a no-decision over Maxie Rosenbloom. gets beat by about any opponent tyson has faced to make it fair

Tommy Farr 66-20-13 Not a particularly hard puncher, but a decent boxer. Wins over Max Baer, and Tommy Loughran. Good opponent

Max Schmeling 52-7-4 rematch. no need to explain, a good fighter, knocked louis out in the first fight

Tony Galento 76-23-5 he was a character, but that doesnt make up for being a fat butteball bum

Arturo Godoy 53-8-7 No complaints, solid veteran, lost to louis first time by decision, and ko in the rematch

Buddy Baer 53-5-0 A good fighter, but not as popular as his brother. pretty stuffed record. First DQ loss, and then ko in the rematch

Billy Conn 59-10-0 Good fighter, but weighing in at 174 to Louis 199. come on. i already mentioned the double standard people use for spinks. LOL imagine if a guy like spinks came in at 174 against tyson, the critics would have taken mike's head off

Jersey Joe Walcott 44-12-2 We know about the first fight. but im not gonna point fingers, it was a good opponent

so i dont understand how tyson's opponents were any worse than the fighters Louis has faced.

Joe, more than anything, gets the biggest credit for his title defences
I dont really have time to give an educated opinion, but I think this is a good question. Louis and Tysons reigns are similar in the way the reigns started.

The heavyweight division was in shambles. Pre-Louis you had a bunch of champions where nobody could establish more than a couple of defenses. The best post-Dempsey/Tunney - pre-Louis was definetely Max Schmeling. When Louis was climbing up the rankings he kayo'ed nearly all the previous belt-holders.

The post-Holmes era was the same. You had a bunch of mediocre alphabet-titleholders and Tyson came around and knocked nearly all of them out. Difference to Louis was that Tyson got a belt when he fought the first mediocre champion in Berbick. In reality he (arguably) first became the real champ when he KO'ed Spinks.

I am on my way to bed. I might check back on this if I get some energy......

first of did you read what i wrote?

with that if michael spinks was a blown up light heavy then so was Billy Conn. there's a double standard that exists for louis fighting conn, and tyson fighting spinks. Fair is fair

second where's the evidence that tyson ducked those challengers? for the holyfield the fight was set but fell through because he went to prison

where's the evidence that the fights went to presser but didnt happen, other than the rants and assumptions from fans?

There is no comparison in resume's. Louis fought and beat tougher and better opponents and he looked more impressive while doing it. Tyson ducked, Louis didn't avoid anyone and he fougnt and one of the most talented filled divisions in heavyweight history. Answer this, what elite fighter did Tyson beat? None, that my point. Louis beat every great heavyweight of his time and never lost to a fighter of the caliber of James buster Douglas.

Also, Tyson pulled out of a fight with Holyfield plenty of times. He claimed that he had an injury the first time. Then he went to prison. He was matched very carefully and was only put against fighter in which his team were confident of beating. We can compare their 10 best wins and the circumstances if you want to.

There is no comparison in resume's. Louis fought and beat tougher and better opponents and he looked more impressive while doing it. Tyson ducked, Louis didn't avoid anyone and he fougnt and one of the most talented filled divisions in heavyweight history. Answer this, what elite fighter did Tyson beat? None, that my point. Louis beat every great heavyweight of his time and never lost to a fighter of the caliber of James buster Douglas.

Also, Tyson pulled out of a fight with Holyfield plenty of times. He claimed that he had an injury the first time. Then he went to prison. He was matched very carefully and was only put against fighter in which his team were confident of beating. We can compare their 10 best wins and the circumstances if you want to.
you couldnt be more wrong. the best heavyweight division was in the 70s, ali faced all the best heavyweights, not louis or tyson

you're asking me what solid wins tyson had? look at what i wrote, im 100% sure you didnt read what i wrote, im sure of it

again you talking words. i asked for evidence and you're giving me opinion. where's direct proof tyson ducked the guys you've mentioned?

you couldnt be more wrong. the best heavyweight division was in the 70s, ali faced all the best heavyweights, not louis or tyson

you're asking me what solid wins tyson had? look at what i wrote, im 100% sure you didnt read what i wrote, im sure of it

again you talking words. i asked for evidence and you're giving me opinion. where's direct proof tyson ducked the guys you've mentioned?

Yes, i read your entire post. You showed some sort of bias while sizing up their best wins. How can you put down Louis wins over Walcott and Baer and pump up Tyson's wins over Razor Ruddock and Andrew Golata? Its just laughable, especially since Walcott and Baer are all time greats and neither Golata or Ruddock was ever champions. Both were fighters that were known for being good contenders and looking impressive while lossing their fights. Tyson was not in Joe Louis league when it comes to overall toughness, confidence or resume's. Frank bruno was probably the best fighter that Tyson has beaten that was at his best. Which speaks for itself considering the fact that he was no where near great. Every name fighter that Tyson was put against, he has always came up short. Evander Holyfield dominated him twice and was on his way to stopping him in the rematch. Douglas dominated and many other fighters give him fits by simply fighting him back when he was in his prime.

Yes, i read your entire post. You showed some sort of bias while sizing up their best wins. How can you put down Louis wins over Walcott and Baer and pump up Tyson's wins over Razor Ruddock and Andrew Golata? Its just laughable, especially since Walcott and Baer are all time greats and neither Golata or Ruddock was ever champions. Both were fighters that were known for being good contenders and looking impressive while lossing their fights. Tyson was not in Joe Louis league when it comes to overall toughness, confidence or resume's. Frank bruno was probably the best fighter that Tyson has beaten that was at his best. Which speaks for itself considering the fact that he was no where near great. Every name fighter that Tyson was put against, he has always came up short. Evander Holyfield dominated him twice and was on his way to stopping him in the rematch. Douglas dominated and many other fighters give him fits by simply fighting him back when he was in his prime. first of all i tried to be as fair as possible in my assesment. and you're isolating my comparrison, i didnt compare golota, and rudock to anyone, i simply stated each man's opponents.

i broke everything down, and didnt try to make my posts too opininated. now it's your turn

tell me xactly what makes max baer, and jersey joe wallcot better or all time greats? try to keep the pattern i set. tell me about their biggest victories, and their overall quality.

i dont need your opinion, give me facts, the history. just like i did, and then ill consider your response serious

first of all i tried to be as fair as possible in my assesment. and you're isolating my comparrison, i didnt compare golota, and rudock to anyone, i simply stated each man's opponents.

i broke everything down, and didnt try to make my posts too opininated. now it's your turn

tell me xactly what makes max baer, and jersey joe wallcot better or all time greats? try to keep the pattern i set. tell me about their biggest victories, and their overall quality.

i dont need your opinion, give me facts, the history. just like i did, and then ill consider your response serious

You tried to be fair in your assestment? I must have missed something. How did you break anything down? Look at the way you put down Louis's performance and tried to pump up Tyson's wins like they were somthing that they weren't. you discribed the Spinks fight as being a great performance, then you put down Louis win over Conn and stated that Conn weighed in a light heavyweight. You talk about Louis loss to Scmelling, but never mentioned the fact that Tyson was knocked out by James buster Douglas and couldn't get rid of Mitch Green, Jesse Fuergeson, Tony Tucker, James Tillis and other non elite boxers that gave tyson problems by simply fighting him back.

What makes them all time greats? The plenty of fights that they had and their resume's. They fought anyone and under any circumstances and both captured the heavyweight title in one of the best era's. Walcott has some great wins and was a natural light heavyweight. Two wins over Charles, Harold Johnsn, Joey maxim and Joe Louis(in my opinion). He was definitely a great fighter. Bruno, Thomas, Tucker, Ruddock and Golota looks foolish when compared to them.

Okay, this is bordering on the rediculous now. Crusaders belong back in the Middle Ages not in the 21st century on a boxing forum.


due to another thread, i decided to make this one

a lot of people questioning tyson's opposition, but let's jusr respectfully break it down

Note in my view both were great fighters, and this is not a hate post on Louis

first of let's start with mike. ill select all the top names, from both records

Pinklon Thomas 29-1-1. Praised for his Sonny liston like jab, and solid chin. decision over Tim Witherspoon, and ko over Mike Weaver

A fighter who squandered his talent via cocaine use.

Tony Tucker 35-0. Clean record, tall rangy boxer, set to unify titles with tyson, forr the piece of the undisputed crown

Broke his hand in the second round and STILL made a close fight of it with Tyson. Notice Iron Mike never fought him again?

Tyrell Biggs 15-0, gold medalist trained by Lou Duva. nothing flashy in terms of record, but a solid decision win over veteran James Tillis

Considered the biggest flop of the 84 Olympic team. If there was ever a "never was" among Tyson's title challengers this guy was it.

Larry Hoolmes 48-2. Considered to be past his prime. Yet he foguth on for 14 years after the tyson loss. Shutting Down undefeated Ray Mercer 18-0

Solidly past his prime AND coming off a 2 year layoff. The fact that he fought another 14 years doesn't change the fact that it was another 14 years past his prime.

Tony Tubbs 24-1 a quick, talented heavyweight. Wins over Greg Page, and James Smith. The only blemish a 15 round decision loss to Tim Witherspoon. After the tyson fight, bounced back to loose a fight many people thought he won against Riddick Bowe

This is the obese joke that Tyson had trouble landing on.

Michael Spinks 31-0. Undefeated record, one of the greatest light heavyweights, 2 wins over holmes, and a win over Gerry Cooney. pay attention to the double standardwhen he was knocked out by tyson everyone said he was a blown up light heavy, even though favouring him to win against tyson in the first place

A natural Light-Heavy with NO impressive wins at Heavyweight. Was the recipient of questionable judging against Holmes and was fortunate enough to catch Gerry Cooney after he became a mental basket case.

double standard> a guy like Billy Conn gets no **** for loosing to Louis twice, and gets praised for being a good opponent. Spinks would have easily whooped him at heavyweight, yet he gets criticised for being a small stuffed duck in the pond. see a double standard?

Conn didn't get wacked out in 90 seconds after pissing himself from fear on his way to the ring.

Frank Bruno 32-2. Hard puncher, good boxer. Gave hell Lennox Lewis before the stoppage

This was a good win for Tyson. I have a lot of respect for Bruno but I've never laboured under the impression that he was a top flight Heavyweight.

Carl Williams 22-2 A tall boxer, held wins over bert cooper, james tillis (then 30-4), trevor berbick, and loosing to larry holmes. a fight many thought he won

I'm actually shocked anybody would have the gonads to bring this fight up considering the ref stopped the fight after Tyson gave Williams a dirty look.

Alex Stewart 26-1 all kos. The only loss to Evander Holyfield

Stewart had just had the s*** beat out of him by Evander Holyfield and its seriously questionable if had recovered by the time of the Tyson fight. As it is Stewart rolled over with little resistance in the first round.

Donovan Ruddock 24-1-1 a dangerous hard hitting left hooker with wins over Mike Weaver, James Broad, James Smith, and near murder of Michael Dokes

These, I believe, are Tyson's finest performances and among my favorite all-time fights. I certainly don't have any critiscism for Mike on these.

Andrew Golota 36-4 Not the best heavyweight, but a damn good one. He did have his way against Riddick Bowe twice before he lost his head and got DQ'd

This one has me scratching my head. Boxing's biggest head-case Golota quits on his stool early against a shop-worn Tyson and it gets used?

now compare to Joe Louis's opponents

Primo Carnera 82-7 considered a circus act. many questionable wins due to him being tied to the mob

Strawman. No one ever brings this fight up because no one considers Carnera a worthy opponent. Comparable to Tyrell Biggs in quality, if not size.

Max Baer 40-8 Possesed one of the greatest right hands. But his Playboy lifestyle, his lazy approach in the ring, effected his legacy. Max spent more time clowning in the ring than actually fighting

Max Baer was an extremely dangerous opponent with one punch KO power who killed 3 men in the ring. Comparable to Ruddock, maybe a bit better.

Jack Sharkey 38-13-3: it's safe to say that a fighter with that many losses proves that he's not a world beater, regardless of historians praising him for being something he's not

An up and down fighter who, when he was on, could outbox anyone. Comparable to Quick Tillis.


Jim Braddock 50-25-7: Gave a wormanlike performace, a tough irishman, wins over Corn Griffin, Art Lasky and a no-decision over Maxie Rosenbloom. gets beat by about any opponent tyson has faced to make it fair

A journeyman who, again, isn't usually brought up because he was an accidental champion. Comparable to Trevor Berbick, probably better.

Tommy Farr 66-20-13 Not a particularly hard puncher, but a decent boxer. Wins over Max Baer, and Tommy Loughran. Good opponent[/QUOTE]

Good boxer, fine defensive skills. No one really similer on Tyson's resume

Max Schmeling 52-7-4 rematch. no need to explain, a good fighter, knocked louis out in the first fight[/QUOTE]

A very underated fighter who was a fine boxer-puncher. Comparable to Tony Tucker but no where near as tall.

Tony Galento 76-23-5 he was a character, but that doesnt make up for being a fat butteball bum

Not a lot of talent but a VERY dangerous puncher who could take beating as well. Another comparable to Bonecrusher Smith but not quite as good.

Arturo Godoy 53-8-7 No complaints, solid veteran, lost to louis first time by decision, and ko in the rematch

Tough, frustrating fighter who could soke up punishment and frequently outlast his opponent. No one really similer on Tyson's record.

Buddy Baer 53-5-0 A good fighter, but not as popular as his brother. pretty stuffed record. First DQ loss, and then ko in the rematch

Another dangerous puncher. Not as talented as his brother. Similer to Frank Bruno though I think Bruno was better.

Billy Conn 59-10-0 Good fighter, but weighing in at 174 to Louis 199. come on. i already mentioned the double standard people use for spinks. LOL imagine if a guy like spinks came in at 174 against tyson, the critics would have taken mike's head off

A lightning fast fighter who could out-box anyone (something Michael Spinks couldn't claim). Also more gonads by far than Spinks. Again, there really isn't any slick boxers on Tyson's record to compare him to.

Jersey Joe Walcott 44-12-2 We know about the first fight. but im not gonna point fingers, it was a good opponent

Louis was past his prime when he faced Walcott. Still, Walcott was a fine fighter, a VERY clever boxer-puncher who was a problem for anyone. Comparable to the past-prime Holmes of Tyson's record.

so i dont understand how tyson's opponents were any worse than the fighters Louis has faced.

Joe, more than anything, gets the biggest credit for his title defences

Becoming a single father after the death of his girlfriend, Michael Spinks was only a part time boxer after the very close Holmes' fights. Two fights in as many years and over a year off before facing Tyson. Spinks gave up his title because he refused to fight the dangerous Tucker and instead knocked out the equally inactive Cooney for bigger money, who was a shell of his former self which wasn't that great to begin with. Tyson's people literally dragged Spinks back into the ring to have the name and recognition for his resume, little else. Tyson had much better wins.


Billy Conn was busy and undefeated in the past three years leading up to the Louis fight and made a great account of himself.

You tried to be fair in your assestment? I must have missed something. How did you break anything down? Look at the way you put down Louis's performance and tried to pump up Tyson's wins like they were somthing that they weren't. you discribed the Spinks fight as being a great performance, then you put down Louis win over Conn and stated that Conn weighed in a light heavyweight. You talk about Louis loss to Scmelling, but never mentioned the fact that Tyson was knocked out by James buster Douglas and couldn't get rid of Mitch Green, Jesse Fuergeson, Tony Tucker, James Tillis and other non elite boxers that gave tyson problems by simply fighting him back.

What makes them all time greats? The plenty of fights that they had and their resume's. They fought anyone and under any circumstances and both captured the heavyweight title in one of the best era's. Walcott has some great wins and was a natural light heavyweight. Two wins over Charles, Harold Johnsn, Joey maxim and Joe Louis(in my opinion). He was definitely a great fighter. Bruno, Thomas, Tucker, Ruddock and Golota looks foolish when compared to them.
okay dude, you reaching far too in. i didnt pump anything or anyone. i didnt include losses. you make it seem like i put it in big bold letters that louis got knocked out by schmeling. i simply said good fighter, who knocked out louis in the first fight, that's it. because i mentioned him as an opponent in the rematch so i brought it up as part of his wins. you are just putting words in my mouth

the thing between conn and spinks wasnt a comparisson, i mentioned that there was a double standard between them.

ill say it again, whenever conn is brought up in the discussion of louis everyone says that he was a good fighter, because he gave a difficult fight to louis. i bet you if he would have been knocked out in the first round by louis people would be saying the same thing that they said about spinks, a blown up light heavyweight. because tyson made it an easy fight, all of a sudden spinks is a small guy.....WTF is that buddy?

spinks fought holmes in 30 rounds total. a blown up lightheavyweight couldnt do that. Spinks also climbed into the ring, with dangerous and hard hitting 6'5 240 pounds Gerry Cooney. and although cooney was past it, he was much larger than tyson, and physically presented much more danger to the smaller spinks who knocked him out brutaly. size was not an issue for spinks

if he was such a blown up clown, than why is it people were still picking him to win againt tyson????


max baer, and joe walcott are all time greats? wishful thinking. baer was considered a clown and a womanizer, and spent a great deal partying and out drinking when he should have been training. a ton of physical talent, one of the greatest right hands, but no heart in what he was doing. even in his title fight with max schmeling he was clowning. a good fighter, but not even close to all time great. i reckon he would have been even greater than louis if he had actually dedicated his time to boxing, but he didnt, and his legacy is diminished because of it

walcott is famous for his fights with charles, his so called robbery and rematch with louis, and of course the 13th round with rocky. he hasnt won any big fights officially, so dont try to make him into something he wasnt. a good fgihter, but not an all time great. ill say very good fighter, but nothing above that

tell me, if the division was as good as you claim, then how come historians called louis title defences as bum of the month club?

you misinterpet a lot of what i say, and turn it around without providing any facts to your arguements. so far everything what you said was your own opinion and how you view everything. that;s not enough, and hardly is the truth

Becoming a single father after the death of his girlfriend, Michael Spinks was only a part time boxer after the very close Holmes' fights. Two fights in as many years and over a year off before facing Tyson. Spinks gave up his title because he refused to fight the dangerous Tucker and instead knocked out the equally inactive Cooney for bigger money, who was a shell of his former self which wasn't that great to begin with. Tyson's people literally dragged Spinks back into the ring to have the name and recognition for his resume, little else. Tyson had much better wins.


Billy Conn was busy and undefeated in the past three years leading up to the Louis fight and made a great account of himself. no one dragged anyone into the ring. it was an event in the making. Spinks was stripped off his IBF belt for not facing Tucker, but it was an offer for only $1.5 million to cooney's 5 million. which would you take? do the math. after that, spinks retained his recognition as a linear world chamion

the wait for tyson meant more money, the event was built as "Once and for all". alot of people picked the so called blown up light heavy to knock out mike.

i appreciate the fact you took your time to go over my post piece by piece. but still i see biase in your posts, it's like you completely refuse to give tyson the nod, and forcefully say that guys like ruddock and bruno were good. at least you picked 2 opponents to give praise for. SUCCESS

but you say how thomas blew his career on cocaine, i agree he did. but leading up to the fight, he cleaned up, called angelo back in his corner and wanted to rise to the occasion. the fact that he wanted angelo to be in his corner speaks volumes about his motivation to beat tyson. he didnt show up for a payday, he showed up to win. he couldnt, because tyson was just too good, give the man some credit, is that so hard??

you say tucker broke his right hand, that's just talk. where's proof, he banged his hand up so what? the fight wasnt that close, tyson outjabbed him, and besides the uppercut in the first round was in no danger at any other time in the fight. he didnt want to fight him again>>? what you're talking about, after the tyson loss, tucker dissapeared for 2 years and came in at 250 pounds for his next fight, fighting cans for the rest of his career. again this is proof that you refuse to give tyson any credit what so ever, and accusing him of ducking tony, when he wasnt even around after that.

yes holmes was definetly past it. had he been in his prime the fight would have went a little differenty, even i admit it. but even if he was past his prime for the next 14 years, he did have some moments. hilite win over undefeated ray mercer, who later would put lennox lewis through hell. against ray, he was able to use his classic jab, tyson wouldnt allow it. dont you think tyson had a little bit to do with that? again no credit....

and yes tubbs showed up overweight, and got his ass banged up for that. do you still think tony tubbs was still a bad fighter??? you just dont want to face it do you, poet?

read what i said about michael spinks in my other post, but it would be pointless, because i doubt you'd change your opinion

and you're right about conn, he didnt get knocked in 91 seconds, instead he banged louis up around the ring like a rag doll, literally. imagine what tyson would have done to louis. and PLEASE dont even imply that conn was better than tyson, im asking you not to do it, because it would be plain redicilous. ill ask you again to not even put conn into the same lague with tyson, OKAY?

it's their problem if stewart, and williams went down in the first round. the fight with carl was a questionable stoppage, i admit. but i doubt had the fight went on, anything would have been different.

you refusing to give the nod to tyson for stewart. the recovery after holyfield had nothing to do with it, mike's right hand did. here you are clearly refusing to give mike credit with your speculations

andrew golota was a mental case, but he was no bum and nowhere near it. definetly not a great, but it was a great win for tyson. deal with it

still you wont admit that the majority of fighters tyson faced were bigger than the opponents louis has faced. getting thrown around the ring by 174 pound conn was embarassing.

This article is very spot on.

http://arcaneknowledge.org/sports/linealprob.htm


"When Michael Spinks refused to fight the eminently capable Tony Tucker, he opened the road to forfeiture of the title. If ducking Tucker was not sufficient grounds for stripping Spinks, the accomplishments of Mike Tyson in convincingly winning the championships of all three sanctioning bodies made him the undisputed champion. It is unrealistic to insist that Spinks continued to be the true champion after Tyson had won universal public acclaim and offical recognition as champion by defeating Tucker. No knowledgeable boxing fan seriously believed Spinks could defeat Tyson, who was considered invincible at the time. Had the Tyson-Spinks “Superfight” never occurred, Tyson would have been recognized as the undisputed champion by virtue of unifying the titles. Thus it is revisionist to make Spinks the champion until his defeat by Tyson in 1988. Spinks’ first-round knockout loss to Tyson reinforces the likelihood that Spinks would have been an incapable opponent even against Tucker. Thus the Tyson-Tucker fight was a fight between the top two heavyweights in addition to being a title unification bout, and Tyson emerged as the true and undisputed champion. "


Article from the day that describes Tyson and King chasing Butch Lewis and Spinks, who were giving them the run around until the money was too good to turn down.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEEDC1F3AF937A15752C0A96E9482 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

When the fight did happen the odds were lopsided, 6-1 in Tyson's favor. Few gave Spinks a chance.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEED91F30F934A15755C0A96E9482 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

For someone who makes himself out to be older you certainly have a bad memory of something that really didn't happen that long ago.

This article is very spot on.

http://arcaneknowledge.org/sports/linealprob.htm


"When Michael Spinks refused to fight the eminently capable Tony Tucker, he opened the road to forfeiture of the title. If ducking Tucker was not sufficient grounds for stripping Spinks, the accomplishments of Mike Tyson in convincingly winning the championships of all three sanctioning bodies made him the undisputed champion. It is unrealistic to insist that Spinks continued to be the true champion after Tyson had won universal public acclaim and offical recognition as champion by defeating Tucker. No knowledgeable boxing fan seriously believed Spinks could defeat Tyson, who was considered invincible at the time. Had the Tyson-Spinks “Superfight” never occurred, Tyson would have been recognized as the undisputed champion by virtue of unifying the titles. Thus it is revisionist to make Spinks the champion until his defeat by Tyson in 1988. Spinks’ first-round knockout loss to Tyson reinforces the likelihood that Spinks would have been an incapable opponent even against Tucker. Thus the Tyson-Tucker fight was a fight between the top two heavyweights in addition to being a title unification bout, and Tyson emerged as the true and undisputed champion. "


Article from the day that describes Tyson and King chasing Butch Lewis and Spinks, who were giving them the run around until the money was too good to turn down.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEEDC1F3AF937A15752C0A96E9482 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

When the fight did happen the odds were lopsided, 6-1 in Tyson's favor. since when does someone's opinion count for truth. which is what the author is aiming for. the article makes spinks into a ducker which he clearly wasnt. a smart businessman maybe. gerry cooney, despite being past his prime, presented more danger physically for spinks, being bigger and more powerful than tucker. the only danger tucker presented was a low pay day, and his boxing skill. that's not as scary as having cooney's 5 million dollar left hook to the face.

spinks was given a good chance against tyson

why dont you tell me about the real subject thunder lips, instead of focusing on one thing. were joe louis opponents better than tyson's. i absoloutely do not think so.

since when does someone's opinion count for truth. which is what the author is aiming for. the article makes spinks into a ducker which he clearly wasnt. a smart businessman maybe. gerry cooney, despite being past his prime, presented more danger physically for spinks, being bigger and more powerful than tucker. the only danger tucker presented was a low pay day, and his boxing skill. that's not as scary as having cooney's 5 million dollar left hook to the face.

spinks was given a good chance against tyson

why dont you tell me about the real subject thunder lips, instead of focusing on one thing. were joe louis opponents better than tyson's. i absoloutely do not think so.

The NY Times article pretty much confirms everything as well so it goes beyond one man's opinion. Yeah, Spinks was given a good chance against Tyson. :nonono: The fight was hyped but almost everyone knew who was walking out the winner, Tyson had already fooled many saps like myself into thinking he was an Invincible God.

The NY Times article pretty much confirms everything as well so it goes beyond one man's opinion. Yeah, Spinks was given a good chance against Tyson. :nonono: The fight was hyped but almost everyone knew who was walking out the winner, Tyson had already fooled many saps like myself into thinking he was an Invincible God.

still the question remains

why dont you tell me about the real subject thunder lips, instead of focusing on one thing. were joe louis opponents better than tyson's? i absoloutely do not think so.

care to comment?

still you wont admit that the majority of fighters tyson faced were bigger than the oppoenets louis has faced. getting thrown around the ring by 174 pound conn was embarassing.

** Not really embarrassing. More like Louis probably overtrained so as to not appear to be too big next to Conn and was over confident in his capabilities.

It's curious that you forget about the final result, that of Conn absorbing a brutal KO. It's no different than what you are saying that Tyson's opponents were better than those of Louis. You framed your argument wrong though and don't have enough knowledge to comeback on the Tyson haters who have forgotten how spectacular he was. He made people forget about Ali, he did.

Any fighter can be picked apart, but for Tyson's first 4 yrs, he was the most perfect heavyweight ever invented for the pro game. Nobody's record can stand up, not even close. Then his world blown asunder, and boom, he's just a big punching journeyman fighter making hundreds of millions of dollars on his reputation.

You need to understand, Tony Tucker beats every fighter on most any heavy champion's record, but he'll never be in the HOF like Fitz, Corbett, Peter Jackson, Sailor Tom, and Choynski were for Jeffries. So it becomes heresy to suggest Tucker's better than them.

Does anyone really think that Folley, Terrell, Chuvalo, Patterson, London, Cooper, Mildenberger, Williams, or even Liston that Ali fought would have a chance against the Tucker that Tyson put on the run and won a lopsided victory? It's heresy to suggest Tucker is better than them because this is Ali and many consider him the greatest thing since lamb chops met teriyaki.

You really need to big up another fighter other than Tyson. The guy destroyed the best career in boxing history before he turned 22. He became the ex-con/WWE/3 ring circus act that used to be known as Mike Tyson, the greatest heavyweight in history.

His recent history is too pitiable to garner rational debate. The bible on Tyson has yet to be written. It cannot be written until everyone dies and researchers have access to the full range of documents they need since most everyone associated with Tyson cannot be trusted to tell the truth today. Even so, much will be destroyed. Too much liability and reputation involved.

** Not really embarrassing. More like Louis probably overtrained so as to not appear to be too big next to Conn and was over confident in his capabilities.

It's curious that you forget about the final result, that of Conn absorbing a brutal KO. It's no different than what you are saying that Tyson's opponents were better than those of Louis. You framed your argument wrong though and don't have enough knowledge to comeback on the Tyson haters who have forgotten how spectacular he was. He made people forget about Ali, he did.

Any fighter can be picked apart, but for Tyson's first 4 yrs, he was the most perfect heavyweight ever invented for the pro game. Nobody's record can stand up, not even close. Then his world blown asunder, and boom, he's just a big punching journeyman fighter making hundreds of millions of dollars on his reputation.

You need to understand, Tony Tucker beats every fighter on most any heavy champion's record, but he'll never be in the HOF like Fitz, Corbett, Peter Jackson, Sailor Tom, and Choynski were for Jeffries. So it becomes heresy to suggest Tucker's better than them.

Does anyone really think that Folley, Terrell, Chuvalo, Patterson, London, Cooper, Mildenberger, Williams, or even Liston that Ali fought would have a chance against the Tucker that Tyson put on the run and won a lopsided victory? It's heresy to suggest Tucker is better than them because this is Ali and many consider him the greatest thing since lamb chops met teriyaki.

You really need to big up another fighter other than Tyson. The guy destroyed the best career in boxing history before he turned 22. He became the ex-con/WWE/3 ring circus act that used to be known as Mike Tyson, the greatest heavyweight in history.

His recent history is too pitiable to garner rational debate. The bible on Tyson has yet to be written. It cannot be written until everyone dies and researchers have access to the full range of documents they need since most everyone associated with Tyson cannot be trusted to tell the truth today. Even so, much will be destroyed. Too much liability and reputation involved.
i like reading your posts, and i agree, but let's not make the man into some science project. those who love the sport, and appreciate boxing for what it is, for the beauty of the violence, dont need anyone telling them how great mike was. those like Poet have a different prefrence on the situation, far fetched from reality.

and i was exactly on point with my conn arguement. i did not forget about the brutal ko, either in the first or second encounter. but ko, at least to me, and id bet for many viewers, was not as graphic, or as fascinating as it was to watch a much smaller man doing his hit and run work for the previous 12 rounds. and having his way too. i did not forget the ko at all, it's more likely that people forgot the sustained action that proceeded before that. the bombing of the bomber.

and of course there's the double standard as ive mentioned before. i reckon had spinks gone at least 7 rounds with tyson there wouldnt be any talk of him being "blown up". but tyson made it easy for him in those 91, and had to suffer in the process. maybe in fact he did walk out of that fight a looser, not spinks.

in truth i cannot grasp why tyson get tossed so viciously around the palookaville. the man was great. i hate this talk of him folding under pressure. simply not true. mike had the heart, maybe not enough desire, but certainly enough heart.

P.S ill get back to you on the wills dempsey subject when i have the time, interesting piece you wrote, but that's another story

Tyson has a better record, and Tyson did not Duck Lewis, Lewis ducked Tyson. When Tyson was fighting for belts Lewis was an amateur and would have been smashed by Tyson. Only when Tyson is beat up and worn out does Lewis fight him.

Louis fought weak opponents, all white clowns like "galento" and "Primo Carnera"

People only like to see numbers such as "25 title defenses" and bs like that. If Tyson Decided to fight some bum instead of a number 1 ranked contender I'm sure he'd have 25 title defenses to.

I'm not saying Tyson is unbeatable but he would have crushed defenseless Joe Louis who never liked to cover up.

Tyson has a better record, and Tyson did not Duck Lewis, Lewis ducked Tyson. When Tyson was fighting for belts Lewis was an amateur and would have been smashed by Tyson. Only when Tyson is beat up and worn out does Lewis fight him.

Louis fought weak opponents, all white clowns like "galento" and "Primo Carnera"

People only like to see numbers such as "25 title defenses" and bs like that. If Tyson Decided to fight some bum instead of a number 1 ranked contender I'm sure he'd have 25 title defenses to.

I'm not saying Tyson is unbeatable but he would have crushed defenseless Joe Louis who never liked to cover up. good post, i agree. call tyson what you want, a rapist, coward, punk, whatever. but he was never a ducker. this kid, slicksouthpaw is either an idiot or just pretending. according to him tyson ducked the whole heavyweight division. i wonder how the **** he became the undisputed champ then?

when tyson was an undisputed champion Lennox was still fighting for his gold medal. according to slick tyson should have went back to the amateurs and fought lenny there.

tyson was already in jail when bowe entered the rankings, and 4 years after his release riddick was already done as a fighter. slicksouthpaw also stated tyson avoided holyfield and foreman. it's strange that the fight was already set but tyson was locked up. i guess mike was really ducking....behind bars

foreman was fighting for moorer's title won from holyfield when mike was still doing his time. how is that ducking?

slicksouthpaw also declared that the era in which louis fought had the best heavyweights. more like the worst. maybe he never heard of the seventies.

he also said max baer and joe walcott were all time greats....after that i pretty much lost all the respect for him as a poster. but it's okay, he's only 17, ill give him a pass.

and as i've stated before people look at numbers more than anything. 25 title defenses, that's all louis is remembered for, and the fact that he fought schmeling to defeat that whole nazi bs, there was historic significance there

there's no doubt in my mind had tyson fought the guys louis fought, he might have actually killed some people. and i dont mean killed as in beat up pretty bad, i mean kill like put away into the morgue.

it's a trend nowadays to put tyson at the very back of the list of former heavyweight greats. just look at what Poet wrote about him. the biggest bull**** ive read.

poets a complete asswipe. anything written by him should be disregarded entirely.

he has such an old time Bias he would probably pick Tony Galento over Holyfield.

unbelieveable that 12 people voted for louis, shows that they are still centuries behind and hold the view that anything old is better

Mike Tyson on Joe Louis:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5FhGt1slnRw&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5FhGt1slnRw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EUdGs364xBA&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EUdGs364xBA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Mike Tyson on Joe Louis:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5FhGt1slnRw&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5FhGt1slnRw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EUdGs364xBA&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EUdGs364xBA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> i've seen that already. we all know how mike was in front of the cameras manchine, he even looks like he practiced that speech lol

but come on, louis is remembered today for his defences and the defeat of schmeling, the whole racial devide situation.

im not discrediting louis, he was a great fighter. but there are a lot of ignorant people, like poet, who completely refuse to give tyson the credit he deserves

im of the opinion that tyson's opponents were no worse than any of the ones joe has beaten

and personally i see mike knocking out a prime joe louis. 174 pound light punching billy conn had joe going. i laugh when i hear people say that louis would have knocked out 'that bum tyson'. disrespectful and ridicilous

i've seen that already. we all know how mike was in front of the cameras manchine, he even looks like he practiced that speech lol

but come on, louis is remembered today for his defences and the defeat of schmeling, the whole racial devide situation.

im not discrediting louis, he was a great fighter. but there are a lot of ignorant people, like poet, who completely refuse to give tyson the credit he deserves

im of the opinion that tyson's opponents were no worse than any of the ones joe has beaten

and personally i see mike knocking out a prime joe louis. 174 pound light punching billy conn had joe going. i laugh when i hear people say that louis would have knocked out 'that bum tyson'. disrespectful and ridicilous

It's disrespectful (although poet has given credit for Tyson in the past) but like Tyson himself said, longevity and ability to come back from a beating shows true greatness.

Tyson unfortunately never showed these qualities.

To me, they both faced a wide variety of opponents both large and small, quick and powerful, great and not-so-great, Louis just dominated for a longer period of time. That's all.

It's disrespectful (although poet has given credit for Tyson in the past) but like Tyson himself said, longevity and ability to come back from a beating shows true greatness.

Tyson unfortunately never showed these qualities.

To me, they both faced a wide variety of opponents both large and small, quick and powerful, great and not-so-great, Louis just dominated for a longer period of time.
never seen that, Poet is the biggest tyson hater ive ever run into. completely blind, pure hate and anger to the maximum. impossible to argue with, very ignorant individual. ive seen him on other boxing sites, just beating tyson down relentlessly. a sad, sad man

with that being said, you're right. maybe joe got up more than tyson did, and fought back in return more succesfully. but joe never took punches from lennox lewis, or another big heavyweight who could use his size.

joe had longevity over tyson, that much is clear. although put tyson in joe's era and you have the same outcome to be fair. and tyson would fit right in to make it a fair contest, because he wasnt a modern sized heavyweight, although he would be slightly bigger than some opponents.

also i could argue that tyson had more developed gifts than louis did, and more power too. in their primes, them fighting together, i dont see it lasting very long. and i favor tyson.

accomplishment wise louis brings more to the table. but i dont like it when people take it to the extreme, and say that louis had a better resume, and that he would have beaten tyson. that's unnecessary, and uncalled for. all done just to further downgrade tyson's status as an all time great.

good post, i agree. call tyson what you want, a rapist, coward, punk, whatever. but he was never a ducker. this kid, slicksouthpaw is either an idiot or just pretending.


unbelieveable that 12 people voted for louis, shows that they are still centuries behind and hold the view that anything old is better

No, in other words, its unbelieveable that 12 people have sense. What great fighter has Tyson beaten that were in their primes? I can name plenty that Louis has beaten. All you have to do is looks what is right there in front of your eyes. Louis has cleary beaten the better line of fighters and Tyson was matched carefully.

PS, I am not suprised at this though. Ive seen your other thread. ''Tyson in his prime would have knocked out Frazier''. LOL

slicksouthpaw also declared that the era in which louis fought had the best heavyweights. more like the worst. maybe he never heard of the seventies.

he also said max baer and joe walcott were all time greats....after that i pretty much lost all the respect for him as a poster. but it's okay, he's only 17, ill give him a pass.
.

I also laugh at the way you question my boxing knowledge. The hell does being 17 have to do with anyone's knowledge? I get the better of 40+ guys on here at this forum and east-side boxing in debates. Boxing history runs in my family kid. You need to revisit Louis.

Some of their opponents are comparable but Louis fought and beat more ATG's.

unbelieveable that 12 people voted for louis, shows that they are still centuries behind and hold the view that anything old is better

This coming from someone who thinks everything NEW is better :nono:

Poet

i appreciate the fact you took your time to go over my post piece by piece. but still i see biase in your posts, it's like you completely refuse to give tyson the nod, and forcefully say that guys like ruddock and bruno were good. at least you picked 2 opponents to give praise for. SUCCESS

but you say how thomas blew his career on cocaine, i agree he did. but leading up to the fight, he cleaned up, called angelo back in his corner and wanted to rise to the occasion. the fact that he wanted angelo to be in his corner speaks volumes about his motivation to beat tyson. he didnt show up for a payday, he showed up to win. he couldnt, because tyson was just too good, give the man some credit, is that so hard??

you say tucker broke his right hand, that's just talk. where's proof, he banged his hand up so what? the fight wasnt that close, tyson outjabbed him, and besides the uppercut in the first round was in no danger at any other time in the fight. he didnt want to fight him again>>? what you're talking about, after the tyson loss, tucker dissapeared for 2 years and came in at 250 pounds for his next fight, fighting cans for the rest of his career. again this is proof that you refuse to give tyson any credit what so ever, and accusing him of ducking tony, when he wasnt even around after that.

yes holmes was definetly past it. had he been in his prime the fight would have went a little differenty, even i admit it. but even if he was past his prime for the next 14 years, he did have some moments. hilite win over undefeated ray mercer, who later would put lennox lewis through hell. against ray, he was able to use his classic jab, tyson wouldnt allow it. dont you think tyson had a little bit to do with that? again no credit....

and yes tubbs showed up overweight, and got his ass banged up for that. do you still think tony tubbs was still a bad fighter??? you just dont want to face it do you, poet?

read what i said about michael spinks in my other post, but it would be pointless, because i doubt you'd change your opinion

and you're right about conn, he didnt get knocked in 91 seconds, instead he banged louis up around the ring like a rag doll, literally. imagine what tyson would have done to louis. and PLEASE dont even imply that conn was better than tyson, im asking you not to do it, because it would be plain redicilous. ill ask you again to not even put conn into the same lague with tyson, OKAY?

it's their problem if stewart, and williams went down in the first round. the fight with carl was a questionable stoppage, i admit. but i doubt had the fight went on, anything would have been different.

you refusing to give the nod to tyson for stewart. the recovery after holyfield had nothing to do with it, mike's right hand did. here you are clearly refusing to give mike credit with your speculations

andrew golota was a mental case, but he was no bum and nowhere near it. definetly not a great, but it was a great win for tyson. deal with it

still you wont admit that the majority of fighters tyson faced were bigger than the opponents louis has faced. getting thrown around the ring by 174 pound conn was embarassing.

I DID answer your post: You simply didn't like the answer so, as usual, you disregarded it. The truth is fanboys like you BORE me ****less anymore and I really can't be arsed to give anal leeches the time of day: Consider yourself lucky I even bothered to respond to you at all. You can suck on Tyson's rectum all you want but I prefer to discuss boxing with people that actually think. Nuthuggers I have no time for.

Ps. Saying Joe Walcott was NOT a great fighter proves that you either no nothing about boxing or you're too blinded by your predjudices to make any kind of rational evaluation of boxers.

PPs. You seem aweful hung up on size. Are you overcompensating in some way for physical deficiancies you may have? If size was as important as YOU seem to think it is, then A. Valuev would be undefeated Heavyweight champion, and B. You would deparately running around in search of your first lay :owned:

Poet

slicksouthpaw also declared that the era in which louis fought had the best heavyweights. more like the worst. maybe he never heard of the seventies.

he also said max baer and joe walcott were all time greats....after that i pretty much lost all the respect for him as a poster. but it's okay, he's only 17, ill give him a pass.
.

Seems like you are the only one thats losing respect around here.:nonono: When people agree with you on something, then you are fine with them. But when they disagree, you call them childish names and doesn't respect their opinion. Its interesting, especially since few people agree with you on this subject.

Seems like you are the only one thats losing respect around here.:nonono: When people agree with you on something, then you are fine with them. But when they disagree, you call them childish names and doesn't respect their opinion. Its interesting, especially since few people agree with you on this subject.

No kidding right? It's one thing to take shots at Baer: Hell Max never took himself all that seriously. Walcott is a different story: In addition to being a great fighter he was one of the most respected men the sport's ever produced. NO ONE should be dissing Jersey Joe.

Poet

Spinks was a solid heavyweight, He beat Holmes in the first fight although he should have lost that second one, And i thought Spinks did well in the Cooney fight he got hit a few times by Cooney and it never seemed to hurt him. I think he gets a bit underrated at heavyweight because of what Tyson did to him.

No kidding right? It's one thing to take shots at Baer: Hell Max never took himself all that seriously. Walcott is a different story: In addition to being a great fighter he was one of the most respected men the sport's ever produced. NO ONE should be dissing Jersey Joe.

Poet

Exactly, he would be clowned on any forum if he was to doubt Walcott's greatness. There are even fighters today like Hopkins ect that has styles that resemble Walcott. The funny thing is and the reason why i laugh at this thread, is the fact that he pumps up contenders like Golota and Ruddock and make them seem like all time greats when they were never champions. :rofl: Then he goes and bash Conn, Baer, Walcott, Galento( who was called a bum by prospect) and Braddock. All of these fighters are known and certainly has a higher status than Ruddock or Golota. An example of a biased poster at his best.

Exactly, he would be clowned on any forum if he was to doubt Walcott's greatness. There are even fighters today like Hopkins ect that has styles that resemble Walcott. The funny thing is and the reason why i laugh at this thread, is the fact that he pumps up contenders like Golota and Ruddock and make them seem like all time greats when they were never champions. :rofl: Then he goes and bash Conn, Baer, Walcott, Galento( who was called a bum by prospect) and Braddock. All of these fighters are known and certainly has a higher status than Ruddock or Golota. An example of a biased poster at his best.

Golota WAS a good fighter who had all the tools to be an ATG.....that being said, he was also a head case who quit in every big fight he was in. All the talent in the world gets you nowhere when you're quitting on your stool or delibrately getting yourself DQed.

Poet

Exactly, he would be clowned on any forum if he was to doubt Walcott's greatness. There are even fighters today like Hopkins ect that has styles that resemble Walcott. The funny thing is and the reason why i laugh at this thread, is the fact that he pumps up contenders like Golota and Ruddock and make them seem like all time greats when they were never champions. :rofl: Then he goes and bash Conn, Baer, Walcott, Galento( who was called a bum by prospect) and Braddock. All of these fighters are known and certainly has a higher status than Ruddock or Golota. An example of a biased poster at his best.
i give credit and respect anyone who can come up with valid points, which you havent done.

also why are you lying, how am i pumping anyone up, i guess you're illeterate or didnt read what i wrote, here's what i wrote about golota and ruddock

Donovan Ruddock 24-1-1 a dangerous hard hitting left hooker with wins over Mike Weaver, James Broad, James Smith, and near murder of Michael Dokes

Andrew Golota 36-4 Not the best heavyweight, but a damn good one. He did have his way against Riddick Bowe twice before he lost his head and got DQ'd
can you read the text???? now look at what i wrote about walcott and max baer
Max Baer 40-8 Possesed one of the greatest right hands. But his Playboy lifestyle, his lazy approach in the ring, effected his legacy. Max spent more time clowning in the ring than actually fighting

Jersey Joe Walcott 44-12-2 We know about the first fight. but im not gonna point fingers, it was a good opponent
it appears i gave them (walcott and baer) more credit. this has nothing to do with puming anyone up, i simply pointed their best wins.

i also included braddock, galento, and carnera on louis record.....am i pumping them up for louis?

also why are you picking out the names golota and ruddock for comparisson (they were solid wins) why not pick holmes, spinks, or tony tucker.

you showed your lack of knowledge when you declared tyson ducked half of the division, when half of those guys were still not around, or just came fresh on the scene when tyson went away. this proves you were talking out of your ass and didnt even bother to check you facts

you're also said that louis fought in the best heavyweight era :rolleyes: i dont know whether to call you an idiot or a retard (sorry but i just couldnt help it)

and you said baer and walcott were all time greats, i already commented on them and gave them all the credit they deserve. they didnt have enough stats to be all time greats. max baer never took his career serious. joe walcott was considered to be a journeyman, even when joe's promoters matched him for the fight. among many of his losses he lost to a guy 11-15 you call that an all time great?

outside of beating light heavyweight ezzard charles (and also loosing to him twice) what else has he done?

consider yourself :owned:son

I DID answer your post: You simply didn't like the answer so, as usual, you disregarded it. The truth is fanboys like you BORE me ****less anymore and I really can't be arsed to give anal leeches the time of day: Consider yourself lucky I even bothered to respond to you at all. You can suck on Tyson's rectum all you want but I prefer to discuss boxing with people that actually think. Nuthuggers I have no time for.

Ps. Saying Joe Walcott was NOT a great fighter proves that you either no nothing about boxing or you're too blinded by your predjudices to make any kind of rational evaluation of boxers.

PPs. You seem aweful hung up on size. Are you overcompensating in some way for physical deficiancies you may have? If size was as important as YOU seem to think it is, then A. Valuev would be undefeated Heavyweight champion, and B. You would deparately running around in search of your first lay :owned:

Poeti like how you used valuev as an example of a big guy, but you never included all the good big guys like lewis, bowe, among others

i dont reply to insults, or retarded and idiotic posts, basically you've showed your bias when you pinned your lies on tyson

i agree with themapples, you're a ****sack, who doesnt deserve the time of day

goodbye

Every other sport in the world has progressed and bettered previous records, why the hell should boxing be any different. It's plain obvious that Tyson was faster, more physically powerful and technical than Louis. Louis was good in his heyday but wouldn't last 2 rounds with a guy like Tyson, Holyfield or Lewis.

i give credit and respect anyone who can come up with valid points, which you havent done.

LOL, :rofl: way to lie. Me and Poet both politely disagreed with you and what did you do? You was overcome by your love of Tyson and started to call us childish names like Idiot, calling is biased and claiming to lose respect. Thats laughable, especially since few people agree with you in this thread. I have came up with valid points, but of course you ignored them and continued to pump up Tyson's resume like an all time great one.

also why are you lying, how am i pumping anyone up, i guess you're illeterate or didnt read what i wrote, here's what i wrote about golota and ruddock


can you read the text???? now look at what i wrote about walcott and max baer

it appears i gave them (walcott and baer) more credit. this has nothing to do with puming anyone up, i simply pointed their best wins.

i also included braddock, galento, and carnera on louis record.....am i pumping them up for louis?
I seriously wonder if you even read the stuff that you spewing out. First, your view on Louis's resume of fighters.

Jim Braddock 50-25-7: Gets beat by about any opponent tyson has faced to make it fair.

You are owning yourself, this is too much. :rofl:

Tony Galento 76-23-5 he was a character, but that doesnt make up for being a fat butteball bum

Billy Conn 59-10-0 Good fighter, but weighing in at 174 to Louis 199. come on. i already mentioned the double standard people use for spinks. LOL imagine if a guy like spinks came in at 174 against tyson, the critics would have taken mike's head off

Was this not an example of discrediting a resume and pumping up another one? Second, here's how you sized up Tyson's resume.

Donovan Ruddock 24-1-1 a dangerous hard hitting left hooker with wins over Mike Weaver, James Broad, James Smith, and near murder of Michael Dokes

Notice how Ruddock was stopped by both Morrison and Lewis? Yet he had two fights with Tyson in which Tyson struggled badly? Thats the heart of Tyson. If you fight him back, and back him up, then he does not look impressive. Thats why i would have had fun seeing him in against a young Mercer and Bowe would have definitely beaten him.

Tony Tucker 35-0. Clean record, tall rangy boxer, set to unify titles with tyson, forr the piece of the undisputed crown

Hmmm, you don't mention the fact that Tucker was being out boxed by an unmotivated Douglas before Douglas ran out of gas. tucker wa a paper champion that fought zero quality opposition. He wasn't anything special before or after his fight with Tyson.

Larry Hoolmes 48-2. Considered to be past his prime. Yet he foguth on for 14 years after the tyson loss. Shutting Down undefeated Ray Mercer 18-0

You show your lack of respect, pumping up a past his prime Larry holmes and completely forgetting the fact that he was past his prime and had been inactive for two years. When he foguht Ray Mercer, he had tune ups and was actually in shape and motivated. A few boxing observers that i spoke to stated that Holmes actually had a shot at upsetting Tyson had he come in prepared. At least Tyson stated himself that he wouldn't have a chance against a peak Holmes. At least he knows the truth, unlike slobbing fans such as you.


also why are you picking out the names golota and ruddock for comparisson (they were solid wins) why not pick holmes, spinks, or tony tucker.

you showed your lack of knowledge when you declared tyson ducked half of the division, when half of those guys were still not around, or just came fresh on the scene when tyson went away. this proves you were talking out of your ass and didnt even bother to check you facts

Becuase Golota was never a champion and head a case. Ruddock was known for being in good fights, but was never an elite fighter nor champion. How in the hell does he compare to Walcott(who ****s on Tyson's resume alone), Baer, Scmelling, Conn ect. Its the circumstances in which the fighters were in as well. Any idiot could look at Holmes on Tyson's record and say ""Oh he beat Larry Holmes'' and not think about ring rust/inactivity on TOP of being years past his prime.

You still have yet to give me a great fighter that was their prime that Tyson beat. I love the way you ignore posts.

you're also said that louis fought in the best heavyweight era :rolleyes: i dont know whether to call you an idiot or a retard (sorry but i just couldnt help it)

and you said baer and walcott were all time greats, i already commented on them and gave them all the credit they deserve. they didnt have enough stats to be all time greats. max baer never took his career serious. joe walcott was considered to be a journeyman, even when joe's promoters matched him for the fight. among many of his losses he lost to a guy 11-15 you call that an all time great?outside of beating light heavyweight ezzard charles (and also loosing to him twice) what else has he done?


Another post where you show your lack of knowledge. Those guys fought at least 10 times a year. It could burn you out, especially since Walcott didn't get a shot at a title until he was past his true prime. Him and Louis were the exact same age and louis was 23 when he got his first shot and Tommy Farr for the heavyweight championship. Walcott was 33 when he first got an oppurtunity for the title. It was motivatation.

I am enjoying seeing you blow your credibilty by disrepecting greats and showing no respect towards legends. You are offically :owned2:

LOL, way to lie. Me and Poet both politely disagreed with you and what did you do? You was overcome by your love of Tyson and started to call us childish names like Idiot, calling is biased and claiming to lose respect. Thats laughable, especially since few people agree with you in this thread. I have came up with valid points, but of course you ignored them and continued to pump up Tyson's resume like an all time great one.


I seriously wonder if you even read the stuff that you spewing out. First, your view on Louis's resume of fighters.



You are owning yourself, this is too much.





Was this not an example of discrediting a resume and pumping up another one? Second, here's how you sized up Tyson's resume.



Notice how Ruddock was stopped by both Morrison and Lewis? Yet he had two fights with Tyson in which Tyson struggled badly? Thats the heart of Tyson. If you fight him back, and back him up, then he does not look impressive. Thats why i would have had fun seeing him in against a young Mercer and Bowe would have definitely beaten him.



Hmmm, you don't mention the fact that Tucker was being out boxed by an unmotivated Douglas before Douglas ran out of gas. tucker wa a paper champion that fought zero quality opposition. He wasn't anything special before or after his fight with Tyson.



You show your lack of respect, pumping up a past his prime Larry holmes and completely forgetting the fact that he was past his prime and had been inactive for two years. When he foguht Ray Mercer, he had tune ups and was actually in shape and motivated. A few boxing observers that i spoke to stated that Holmes actually had a shot at upsetting Tyson had he come in prepared. At least Tyson stated himself that he wouldn't have a chance against a peak Holmes. At least he knows the truth, unlike slobbing fans such as you.




Becuase Golota was never a champion and head a case. Ruddock was known for being in good fights, but was never an elite fighter nor champion. How in the hell does he compare to Walcott(who ****s on Tyson's resume alone), Baer, Scmelling, Conn ect. Its the circumstances in which the fighters were in as well. Any idiot could look at Holmes on Tyson's record and say ""Oh he beat Larry Holmes'' and not think about ring rust/inactivity on TOP of being years past his prime.

You still have yet to give me a great fighter that was their prime that Tyson beat. I love the way you ignore posts.



Another post where you show your lack of knowledge. Those guys fought at least 10 times a year. It could burn you out, especially since Walcott didn't get a shot at a title until he was past his true prime. Him and Louis were the exact same age and louis was 23 when he got his first shot and Tommy Farr for the heavyweight championship. Walcott was 33 when he first got an oppurtunity for the title. It was motivatation.

I am enjoying seeing you blow your credibilty by disrepecting greats and showing no respect towards legends. You are offically LMFAOOO, i love how you bring 'activity' into equation and blame it on losses of fighters. this is why what im about to tell you will be especially satisfying, pay attention.
in the period of 1938 walcott only fought 6 times and lost twice to unheralded opponents, (those 2 losses were part of those 6 fights) your arguement about 'staying active and burning out' goes out the window. fighting those 6 times didnt not burn him out to get 2 losses.

but that's not all , after fighting only twice in 1944 (that's a huge activity right there:ugh:) and after that, having 2 fights in 1945 he lost to a fighter with 15 losses and 13 wins LOL, i wonder what you gonna say now, that he wasnt staying too active? this is too easy, at least learn about the fighter you're defending :owned:

you talk about me avoiding you and not giving you answers, you still havent answered whom walcott has beat to get 'an all time great' status. you're using a strong choice of words and basically giving out the word 'great' as if it's a candy. you qualify a fighter as an all time great when all he did was go 2-2 with blown up ezzard charles (and yeah i use blown up the way your ignorant ass uses the word 'blown up' to describe guys like spinks) the fact that he had a good showing in fights with louis and rocky, and didnt beat neither, makes him an all time great. LOL the man was a journeyman. you cant give me any other opponent because you know it's true, you're just too thick headed to admit it....and too stubborn.

so you're saying im being disrespectful to Jim Braddock when i say every fighter on Tyson's record beats him??? HAHAHA. you're trying to make a case that braddock was a solid fighter, who between 1930-1933 (exactly 3 years) lost 21 fights????? and you making a case for him?? are you out of your mind, braddock was below journeyman status, relax dude, dont embarass yourself. he lost every other fight to opponents who had double the amount of losses on their records. again not bothering at all to get your facts straight

did you see tony galento's record? im asking a serious question, then you saying im disrespecting him. i strongly suggest you check his losses, and the losses of the opponents he beat, i gurantee you the numbers will surprise you. only in the ****iest era of heavyweights like that could galento be a contender. sorry but :owned:gain, and this time owned big.

yeah donovan ruddock lost to lewis and morrison twice, but again you fail to point out that he got those losses after the tyson fights, before that he had only one loss and beat bonecrusher smith, james broad, former hard punching champion mike weaver, and nearly killed Michael dokes who just a year earlier gave holyfield the toughest fight since qawi, (i recommend you check that fight out) again you're :owned: are you not tired of this? and since when loosing to a guy like lewis or morrison (2 and then 4 years later) is emberassing? id rather loose to them than some shmuck with 20 losses. then you try to compare him to guys like braddock, baer, galento and walcott. you're a joke. even Poet, the biggest tyson hater on the planet earth, admits that razor ruddock was a solid fighter, and says that it's tyson's best wins.

here have a look

These, I believe, are Tyson's finest performances and among my favorite all-time fights. I certainly don't have any critiscism for Mike on these. This is coming from the man who has nothing but blind hate towards tyson, but even he, unlike you, was big enough to admit, and give credit to ruddock, and tyson's victory over him.


you say walcott's resume ****s on tyson's???? BUHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HHHHAA. GODAAAAAAMNNNNNNN, i should put that **** on signature......i mean godaaaaymmmnnnn. WOW. and then you talk about my credibility??? you got no ****ing credability on this site, with this **** you wrote......like i said it makes sense, you're 17. i cant believe im trying to have a reasonable discussion with a toddler.

i dont need to give you any great names tyson has beat, look at the list i gave you and you'll understand everything there's to know. they may not have been all time greats, but neither the guys you've mentioned, not even close, but they did have solid credentials, and were tougher than the majoriy of the competition louis has faced.

i believe that after this **** you wrote, you should leave this site and never come back here. what you wrote, and the reasons you came up with are beyond despicable

[QUOTE=boxing_prospect;3614664]LMFAOOO, i love how you bring 'activity' into equation and blame it on losses of fighters. this is why what im about to tell you will be especially satisfying, pay attention.
in the period of 1938 walcott only fought 6 times and lost twice to unheralded opponents, (those 2 losses were part of those 6 fights) your arguement about 'staying active and burning out' goes out the window. fighting those 6 times didnt not burn him out to get 2 losses.

:rofl: So was Tyson being as active as Walcott? Hes was matched soft, very soft. Him not fighting any elite boxer shows you this. What i find so luaghable and why i am enjoying this comedy, is the fact that you fail to bring up Tyson's losses. Do you notice what all of his losses have in common? The fact that he fought someone that actally fought him back.

Walcott was clearly unmotivated. Notice that when ever he reached the upper echlon, he didn't lose to any ''unhearalded'' opposition? Thats my point. Walcott has very good names on his resume and did not get a shot at the belt until he was 33 years old. I (and many other people) had him beating Joe Louis. He has very impressive names on his record such as Harold Johnson (who is underrated and has impressive names on his record such as Bob Scatterfield, Archie Moore and a peak Ezzard Charles) Ezzard Charles, Joey Maxim ect. He is cleary great and only a true morn would question that. In fact, we should post a poll asking if Baer and Walcott are great. You would again, make yourself look like a fool if front the entire forum.

but that's not all after fighting only twice in 1944 (that's a huge activity right there and after that, having 2 fights in 1945 he lost to a fighter with 15 losses and 13 wins LOL, i wonder what you gonna say now, that he wasnt staying too active? this is too easy, at least learn about the fighter you're defending

I didn't say a damn thing about Walcott being inactive. I said that he was TOO active and fought 10 times a month, which could very well burn a fighter out. Fighter today does not even fight 10 times in 3 years. Read my posts.

you talk about me avoiding you and not giving you answers, you still havent answered whom walcott has beat to get 'an all time great' status. you're using a strong choice of words and basically giving out the word 'great' as if it's a candy. you qualify a fighter as an all time great when all he did was go 2-2 with blown up ezzard charles (and yeah i use blown up the way your ignorant ass uses the word 'blown up' to describe guys like spinks) the fact that he had a good showing in fights with louis and rocky, and didnt beat neither, makes him an all time great. LOL the man was a journeyman. you cant give me any other opponent because you know it's true, you're just too thick headed to admit it....and too proud.

See above. I listed Walcott's opposition.

so you're saying im being disrespectful to Jim Braddock when i say every fighter on Tyson's record beats him??? HAHAHA. you're trying to make a case that braddock was a solid fighter, who between 1930-1933 (exactly 3 years) lost 21 fights????? and you making a case for him?? are you out of your mind, braddock was below journeyman status, relax dude, dont embarass yourself. he lost every other fight to opponents who had double the amount of losses on their records. again not bothering at all to get your facts straight

It was the way you said it that was very disrespectful. Braddock was not great by no means, but his upset win over Max Baer was very impressive. His cinderella story is one of the most known in boxing today.

yeah donovan ruddock lost to lewis and morrison twice, but again you fail to point out that he got those losses after the tyson fights, before that he had only one loss and beat bonecrusher smith, james broad, former hard punching champion mike weaver, and nearly killed Michael dokes who just a year earlier gave holyfield the toughest fight since qawi, (i recommend you check that fight out) again you're are you not tired of this? and since when loosing to a guy like lewis or morrison (2 and then 4 years later) is emberassing? id rather loose to them than some shmuck with 20 losses. then you try to compare him to guys like braddock, baer, galento and walcott. you're a joke. even Poet, the biggest tyson hater on the planet earth, admits that razor ruddock was a solid fighter, and says that it's tyson's best wins.

I just laugh when people claim that Tyson broke Ruddock. Ruddock was out boxing Morrison and knocked out down as well before the stoppage. Wouldn't you think that his knockout lossess came into the hands of fighters that has more heart than Tyson does and more will power?

Also, Dokes didn't give Holyfield his toughest fight since Qawi. Cooper gave Evander a tougher fight. He put up a decent fight, but he was systematically broken down and stopped as well. Now i see you are trying to lie to support you pathetic arguements. Very nice. You are cleary a joke and i am wasting my time here.

you say walcott's resume ****s on tyson's???? WOW. and then you talk about my credibility??? you got no ****ing credability on this site, with this **** you wrote......like i said it makes sense, you're 17. i cant believe im trying to have a reasonable discussion with a toddler.

I said that Walcott is better than anyone that Tyson has beaten. Read my posts.

i dont need to give you any great names tyson has beat, look at the list i gave you and you'll understand everything there's to know.

:rofl: :rofl: i should welcome you to my sig for that. Thats classic

they may not have been all time greats, but neither the guys you've mentioned, not even close, but they did have solid credentials, and were tougher than the majoriy of the competition louis has faced.

This would look even better in my sig.


i believe that after this **** you wrote, you should leave this site and never come back here. what you wrote, and the reasons you came up with are beyond despicable

lol, are you serious? 15 people disagree with you and only 3 agree. Thats saying something kid. :owned:

The person who started this threat is probably the most intelligent Tyson fan i ever seen.You know why people praise Louis opponents and put down Tyson's?Because they have no clue about boxing and will believe anything they hear.Most of these old school so call boxing experts act like Louis,Robinson,Lamotta and Marciano are some type of gods.They could fight bum after bum but get praised for it and no matter who Tyson fought he got bashed for it.
You made some interesting points like comparing Billy Conn and Michael Spinks.You forgot to mention Billy Conn couldn't punch worth a damn (66 wins 11 knockouts)yet it took Louis 14 or so rounds to knock him out and not to mention Conn almost knocked Louis out.You failed to mention that Louis was knocked down numerous times in his career with one punch by lesser fighters than Tyson's opponents.You forgot to mention Louis pretty much avoided fighting black fighters with he exception of Ezzard Charles a blown up middleweight and Jersey Joe Walcott a cruiserweight.
The only fighters Tyson actually ducked was Foreman.I never heard of a Tyson vs Mercer fight or any other fighters you claim he ducked.Tyson is overrated like i said before...if you think he is the hardest puncher that ever lived then you are a idiot.Holyfield said Foreman punched harder than Tyson and he fought him.If you think Tyson was unbeatable then you are a fool because no man is unbeatable but Tyson on the other hand gets shafted by most boxing historians.Tyson is a top 10 heavyweight fighter.Tyson would destroy any heavyweight before Ali with ease.

[QUOTE]

So was Tyson being as active as Walcott? Hes was matched soft, very soft. Him not fighting any elite boxer shows you this. What i find so luaghable and why i am enjoying this comedy, is the fact that you fail to bring up Tyson's losses. Do you notice what all of his losses have in common? The fact that he fought someone that actally fought him back.

Walcott was clearly unmotivated. Notice that when ever he reached the upper echlon, he didn't lose to any ''unhearalded'' opposition? Thats my point. Walcott has very good names on his resume and did not get a shot at the belt until he was 33 years old. I (and many other people) had him beating Joe Louis. He has very impressive names on his record such as Harold Johnson (who is underrated and has impressive names on his record such as Bob Scatterfield, Archie Moore and a peak Ezzard Charles) Ezzard Charles, Joey Maxim ect. He is cleary great and only a true morn would question that. In fact, we should post a poll asking if Baer and Walcott are great. You would again, make yourself look like a fool if front the entire forum.



I didn't say a damn thing about Walcott being inactive. I said that he was TOO active and fought 10 times a month, which could very well burn a fighter out. Fighter today does not even fight 10 times in 3 years. Read my posts.



See above. I listed Walcott's opposition.



It was the way you said it that was very disrespectful. Braddock was not great by no means, but his upset win over Max Baer was very impressive. His cinderella story is one of the most known in boxing today.



I just laugh when people claim that Tyson broke Ruddock. Ruddock was out boxing Morrison and knocked out down as well before the stoppage. Wouldn't you think that his knockout lossess came into the hands of fighters that has more heart than Tyson does and more will power?

Also, Dokes didn't give Holyfield his toughest fight since Qawi. Cooper gave Evander a tougher fight. He put up a decent fight, but he was systematically broken down and stopped as well. Now i see you are trying to lie to support you pathetic arguements. Very nice. You are cleary a joke and i am wasting my time here.



I said that Walcott is better than anyone that Tyson has beaten. Read my posts.



:rofl: :rofl: i should welcome you to my sig for that. Thats classic



This would look even better in my sig.




lol, are you serious? 15 people disagree with you and only 3 agree. Thats saying something kid. :owned:

i thought you'd shut the **** up already because i :owned: already straight up and down. to think that i would spend an extra second to argue with you is ridicilous. you have shown that your reading skills are a thing of beauty. im done with you 17 year old snot eater.

You also failed to tell me the GREAT fighters that Tyson has beaten, even though i answered all of your questions and went throught the great fighters that Louis has beaten. Thats what lets me know that you are a joke.:kiss:

I'd rather see fighters that have won against great opposition then a 0 on the record from someone that probably fought no ones.

you named joe maxim who was a ligth heavyweight

seriously get help. i like how you put me on ignore so i cant reply to your sorry pathetic thread. wow that's mature, at least i gave a you a chance to explain yourself, but i see it was usuless. you got a lot more growing up to do

and please tell them that i was the one who said they were not all time greats. i understand that most people will vote for them cuz they fought louis, ooohohoh wooooo, they were those warrior from the past, YEAH YEAH, bring back the old days. evryone that fought in the 50s is an all time great. **** lets slap each other on the ass

you're a pathetic joke, who knows **** about this sport. my discussion with you is over

lol and this idiot slicksouthpaw says that walcott fought 20 times a month, what a freakin idiot seriously. i made the post saying that he had 5 fights in one year alone and lost to a fighter with 15 losses, and slick says he lost because he was burn out fighting too much LMFAOOO

it's interesting how he was burnt out fighting those 6 times, what an idiot, WOW

and that little ***** has me on ignore, clearly i owned him to the max

:nonono:

Walcott was not groomed for greatness, he was a talented but raw journeyman/part-time boxer for many years when he picked up most of his losses. He was a family man who worked in the shipyards for crying out loud. He didn't even have a real trainer until Blackburn, which was only for a brief period of time. He was semi-retired when Felix Bocchicchio became his manager in 45, saving his career. It was in this time he developed into a great Championship caliber fighter. This is why people shouldn't just read records, there is usually more going on than just numbers. Walcott is one of boxing's great stories; Marciano, Louis, and the underrated Layne were the only losses he didn't revenge once he hit his stride and he still managed to give all three very tough fights in the process.

If your gonna bash a late bloomer like Walcott's legacy because of the way he started his career, we might as well bash Tyson because of the way he ended his career:


http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Mike-Tyson.article.jpg

:nonono:

Walcott was not groomed for greatness, he was a talented but raw journeyman/part-time boxer for many years when he picked up most of his losses. He was a family man who worked in the shipyards for crying out loud. He didn't even have a real trainer until Blackburn, which was only for a brief period of time. He was semi-retired when Felix Bocchicchio became his manager in 45, saving his career. It was in this time he developed into a great Championship caliber fighter. This is why people shouldn't just read records, there is usually more going on than just numbers. Walcott is one of boxing's great stories; Marciano, Louis, and the underrated Layne were the only losses he didn't revenge once he hit his stride and he still managed to give all three very tough fights in the process.

If your gonna bash a late bloomer like Walcott's legacy because of the way he started his career, we might as well bash Tyson because of the way he ended his career:


http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Mike-Tyson.article.jpg
you're the same guy who voted baer and walcott were all time greats.

let's get this straight Thunder Lips i know you dont like me, that's fine, but if you think your witty posts, or pictures are gonna get me mad then you're wrong

personally i dont give a ****, im on this forum to communicate, and trade opinions, im not here to get on anyone's bad side. i know what i know, that is enough for me to believe what's right is right because it's true. many people have an ideal view on what greatness represents. i know your take on the tyson subject, that's fine. you stopped having a normal boxing discussion with me a long time ago

if i may, id like to say a couple of things. unfourtanetly slicksouthpaw has me on his ignore, so i cant come in into his thread and tell him what wonderfull fighters max baer and joe walcott are.

so ill say it here. they were not all time greats. they were damn good fighters, but no where near the 'great' status.

just because as you said walcott had a chilling ko over a blown up lightheavyweight it dont mean much. ezzard charles best weight was 175 pounds. he also beat joe twice. outside of his victories walcott doesnt have much to back up whatever credentials he has.

i already said that walcott's record is sketchy. he had good showings againt some good fighters but he came up short. while you may be right that he wasnt groomed to be a champ, it doesn mean that because he gave tough fights to louis and maciano than he needs to be considered great. that's in fairy tales

max baer had potential to be even greater than joe louis in his era. but a win over schmeling does not get you an 'all time great' status. it gives you recognition. if we're talking like that, than hasim rahman deserves to be great for what he did to lennox

I pay a lot of attention to the circumstances of the fighters and the quality. Larry Holmes was coming off of a two year lay off. Spinks was a blown up light heavyweight with questionable wins over Larry Holmes ect. Tyson avoided all of the elite names of his era, Louis fought and beat all of the elites and fought everyone. Tyson avoided fighting Evander in his prime, Lewis in his prime, Ray Mercer, Witherspoon, the Foreman of the 90s, Riddock Bowe and a lot of others. He was protected and with the exception of Witherspoon, i would have favored all of them over Tyson.

He also didn't react well to being pushed backward and being in hard fights, which is why i couldn't see him matching well against he all time great tough guys.

That was probably Tyson's biggest weakness, which might have been the difference between an ATG, and an elite fighter.

I pay a lot of attention to the circumstances of the fighters and the quality. Larry Holmes was coming off of a two year lay off. Spinks was a blown up light heavyweight with questionable wins over Larry Holmes ect. Tyson avoided all of the elite names of his era, Louis fought and beat all of the elites and fought everyone. Tyson avoided fighting Evander in his prime, Lewis in his prime, Ray Mercer, Witherspoon, the Foreman of the 90s, Riddock Bowe and a lot of others. He was protected and with the exception of Witherspoon, i would have favored all of them over Tyson.

He also didn't react well to being pushed backward and being in hard fights, which is why i couldn't see him matching well against he all time great tough guys.

Excellent post. Can't believe the thread didn't stop right here. Some people are just too hard headed to accept the truth.

Excellent post. Can't believe the thread didn't stop right here. Some people are just too hard headed to accept the truth.
you're the biggest tyson hater next to Poet, what makes you think that i would want your biased pathetic and hateful opinion? thanks for the one star Jim, that was very sweet of you. and another moronic idiot who thinks tyson avoided lewis when he was still fighting for his gold medal when tyson was the undisputed champ. bowe and mercer were not even around. you're :owned:

P.S i cant believe your bar is back to being green again, you should be in red forever for your stupidity

Tyson fought better fighters than Louis. Most of the people Louis beat where farmers who trained by drinking beer.

you're the biggest tyson hater next to Poet, what makes you think that i would want your biased pathetic and hateful opinion? thanks for the one star Jim, that was very sweet of you. and another moronic idiot who thinks tyson avoided lewis when he was still fighting for his gold medal when tyson was the undisputed champ. bowe and mercer were not even around. you're :owned:

P.S i cant believe your bar is back to being green again, you should be in red forever for your stupidity

Nice job getting banned.:owned::owned::owned:

I wouldnt say Tyson fought a better standard of fighter than Joe Louis did. Louis did fight some cans but he did fight everybody and anybody. Tyson granted fought some aswell, but people forget he was very young heavyweight and it was all part of the learning experience. But i will say this, people concentrate alot on the standard of fighter tyson fought but are forgetting they were much better than the fighters Holmes, Marciano, Dempsey and Johnson fought!. Too much is made of the people tyson fought, and blasting people out in 3 rounds doesnt usualy help with peoples perception of the fighter.

louis fought quality boxers tyson fought washed up boxers

louis fought quality boxers tyson fought washed up boxers
a silly statement to make on your first post, dont you think so? it's a common reply from someone who's not knowledgeable but says the first dumb thing that comes to mind