Tyson was the unified heavyweight champion of the world and was undefeated. I personally believe that Douglas had a lot to do with that. I thought he showed a masterful display of talent, speed, ability and overall skills. This is what stops Tyson from becoming an all time geat IMO. You never seen Ali, Frazier, Holmes, Louis or Marciano lose to this kind of opponent even on thier worse days and they also had personal problems. I do not have a problem with Tyson and think that he was certainly one of the most talented heavyweights of all, but some people need to rethink putting him in the same sentence with Ali or Louis. Think about it, these men fought in a better division and their first losses came to great heavyweights. Tyson fought in a weaker division and loss to...................Buster Douglas. This is by no means a hate thread, but just a few thoughts that i needed to get out.

tyson wasn't past his prime. don king just ruined him and he stopped doing what made him successful

This is what stops Tyson from becoming an all time geat IMO. You never seen Ali, Frazier, Holmes, Louis or Marciano lose to this kind of opponent even on thier worse days and they also had personal problems. i think you're underestimating buster douglas' ability, and the events that sorrounded the fight. Douglas may have been a journeyman but he was a very very talented fighter. what makes him any different from Hasim Rahman who greased Lennox Lewis? i dont mean physically, but i mean their standing in this sport? Both beat great fighters, both were talented but lazy, and had eating issues. The only difference is that lexxox gets no **** for loosing to rahman, but all you ever hear about tyson is how he lost to that 42-1 bum

whether you want to believe it or not, but the buster douglas that showed up against Tyson, would have given a lot of problems to other elite heavyweights. I suspect that the tyson fight is the only fight you have seen with douglas. I recommend getting your hands on other fights so you can properly evaluate him

obviously tyson ****ed up, but you are the minority who doesnt consider mike great, even with everything he's done to make people hate him.

the difference in that fight is that one guy brought his best stuff on display, the other guy didnt

Tyson was in his prime years, But had not trained, and didn't even expect Douglas to see the end of the 1st round.

Tyson was at an age where most people would consider your prime. But as far as boxing ability goes and training/fitness levels he was not.The trainers he had and the people he had around him didnt have the same attitude as Cus did and Rooney did. He also had no decent advisers such as Lott and Jacobs. But it was also tysons fault to an extent, he believed his own hype, that he was unbeatable.
From the fight you can see the lack of head movement, punching in combinations ect. Ive seen an interview with Cayton saying tyson de-hydrated himself before to make weight, im not sure about the truth of this but cayton was later fired and i see no reason for him to lie.
As for Douglas he fought a brilliant fight, and he fought with heart something he didnt do in his other fights. I heard one commentator say this "Tyson could never hurt Buster as much as the death of his mother" he had nothing to lost and a massive insentive to fight. It was a combination of the two that made the greatest upset in sports history.

Ask yourself this, if tyson fought douglas in 1988 or even 91,92,96 what would have been the outcome? Almost certainly a tyson win.

i think you're underestimating buster douglas' ability, and the events that sorrounded the fight. Douglas may have been a journeyman but he was a very very talented fighter. what makes him any different from Hasim Rahman who greased Lennox Lewis? i dont mean physically, but i mean their standing in this sport? Both beat great fighters, both were talented but lazy, and had eating issues. The only difference is that lexxox gets no **** for loosing to rahman, but all you ever hear about tyson is how he lost to that 42-1 bum

whether you want to believe it or not, but the buster douglas that showed up against Tyson, would have given a lot of problems to other elite heavyweights. I suspect that the tyson fight is the only fight you have seen with douglas. I recommend getting your hands on other fights so you can properly evaluate him

obviously tyson ****ed up, but you are the minority who doesnt consider mike great, even with everything he's done to make people hate him.

the difference in that fight is that one guy brought his best stuff on display, the other guy didnt

Great heavyweights deal with adversity, something that Tyson has never shown in his peak years. For example, look at Ali against Cooper. Ali took him lightly and paid a price and was very badly hurt and seemingly on his way out, the difference is that he got up and proved that he was great by dealing with it, buckling down and coming back and stopping Cooper. I would have understood if Tyson was in the fight and it was close, but he was not only dominated but knocked out by this guy. I completely understand that Douglas was talented and had the tools and ability to do something, however it looks bad for Tyson for the simple fact that it was the best Douglas has ever looked in his entire career an he was not even close to being great nor elite. Evander Holyfield( an elite fighter and all time great) took Douglas apart in his very next fight. Look at the opposition that Ali, Louis, Frazier and Foreman lost to and look at Tyson's. My thing is that he has never shown me anything that indicated that he was great and every time that he stepped up against the elites, he lost. Again, the man had every tool to be one of if not the greatest, but talent and your accomplishments are very different.

Tyson kept fighting againsr douglas tho, and didnt give up. He knew into the fight he wasnt in great condition but kept going. The douglas that fought Holyfield was very different. Tyson fought back after being stunned by Bruno and in a very tough two fights against Ruddock (which was a very bad style match up for tyson). But i agree he doenst have as much heart as the other greats, but can u say for certain that Liston, Foreman and Lewis had better hearts?.

Tyson was one of the greatest, not the greatest but up there somewhere, but he is alittle more complicated than most boxers because evaluating his status requires alot more than looking at the usual.

Now i've heard so many excuses for Tyson, some of them are rubbish, some are fair points. Either way, i've never heard so many excuses for a single boxer.

If you ask me, there are two Mike Tysons. The "Cus' + Jacobs + Rooney" Tyson and then the "Don King" Tyson. The former was an amazing boxer, purely mind blowing. He ripped apart the Heavyweight Champion Trevor Berbick, about 1 minute into the 2nd round Tyson had won by K.O and left Berbick falling around the ring due to Tyson's intense power. He was the youngest Heavyweight Champion ever, aged only 20. He had immense punching power, awesome speed and reflexes which left people staggered. Sadly, the very fight that made Tyson, (Tyson vs. Berbick) was the very fight that sowed the seeds of chaos in one of Boxings most promising fighters, ever...He met Don King.

After Jacobs died and Rooney wad fired Tyson began to lose everything that made him amazing, even his trademark head movement seemed to slowly dissappear. Don King had made Tyson a money man, not a boxer. By the end of Tyson's career, he'd earnt over $500,000,000. Most of that was not from boxing. Come the Douglas fight Tyson was out of shape, had been out partying and didn't see Douglas as a contender. Douglas fought very well, Tyson was poor, to his standards. He managed to get a knock-down with an uppercut where the count actually lasted 14 seconds. However, this is no excuse, as if you watch Douglas on the floor you see him fully conscious, he hits the floor in frustration of leaving his guard open and begins to rise at the count of 7, a very standard thing to do. If the Ref's count had only lasted 8 actual seconds, Douglas would have no doubt risen at 7 then too. In regards to Holyfield, I genuinely believe he was butting Tyson, if you watch the 2nd fight again and watch the impact which cuts Tyson's eye, it's pretty obvious to me that such a movement could only be deliberate.

To cut this all short, Tyson's story tends to revolve around him not being at peak condition whilst in his biological peak. This, however is no excuse. A part of boxing is keeping yourself fit and capable. Would Ali have been so good if he didn't keep himself in peak condition?...No. None of the massive names would have been, yet, for some reason, Tyson manages to slide past that because fans use his fitness as an excuse for his sometimes sloppy performances and his rare loses. All of this simply means Tyson had the potential to be one of the best, but he wasn't because he didn't keep his fitness up. Butterbean is an extreme example, he was just a fat **** to be honest. 416lbs, massive amount of fat, and i'm serious, he was an actual fatty...His record stood at 77 (58) -7 - 4. That's pretty impressive, but he was **** at boxing, unfit, and his fights were only scheduled to be 4 rounds. He was not one of Boxings greatest, despite his impressive record.

So it depends on how you look at it. Do you look at his boxing ability? If so, Tyson was one of the greatest. Do you look at his potential if he had have kept up his Rooney training, kept fitness etc.? If so, Tyson could have been the greatest. Or do you look at the empirical facts behind him? If so, he was a very good boxer but was not a top 10 fighter.

If you ask me, Tyson was one of the greatest but wouldn't feature in the top 10, however, he had the potential and ability to be in the top 3. With Tyson, I don't think you can look at only 1 of the 3.

Ali vs Spinks.

I rest my case. The best lose and have off nights

tyson wasent passed his prime.. it was the case of overr confident, didnt train properly and a ****ing **** promoter AKA don king!

Ali vs Spinks.

I rest my case. The best lose and have off nights

Honestly and no offense, you have no case to rest. Ali was about 15 years past his prime and completely shot. Had no legs, deteriorated speed and was at a point in his career where he had to make his opponents tire themselves out on him so he could rally back. Even then he beat Spinks in the rematch. Two things that Tyson didn't do. He wasn't past his prime and he didn't want a rematch with Douglas.

Tyson kept fighting againsr douglas tho, and didnt give up. He knew into the fight he wasnt in great condition but kept going. The douglas that fought Holyfield was very different. Tyson fought back after being stunned by Bruno and in a very tough two fights against Ruddock (which was a very bad style match up for tyson). But i agree he doenst have as much heart as the other greats, but can u say for certain that Liston, Foreman and Lewis had better hearts?.

I didn't see Tyson do much other than the knock down. He seem like he was becoming passive and was just staring at Douglas. I agree that the Douglas that fought Holyfield was different, but Tyson was the only high quality win that Douglas has on his record and that does not look good for him. Douglas was known for being a journeyman and had lost to even Jesse Fuergeson in a fight earlier in his career. My uncle told me that both were prospects at the time and neither looked like much. The wins that Tyson had over Ruddock and Bruno actually really impressed me. He showed heart in the Ruddock fight and the ability to fight back when things are not going his way, something that he never shown in any other fight. I personally rank the Tyson's win over Bruno higher than the performance simply becuase he wasn't tested. Bruno was scared of Tyson and was only trying to tie Tyson up and did not really try to show any offense. All in all, great win for Tyson over a massive power puncher with good skills( even though they wern't on display on either of their fights).

As for your question, i really didn't see anything wrong with Lewis or Foreman's heart. Liston didn't show heart in either of his fights with Ali so you have a point there, but Lewis and Foreman both were very durabale and mentally strong, neither quit in a fight before. Where Lewis went wrong in his career was taking his opponents lightly and being caught cold by them. He didn't show a very sturdy chin in some fights.

I didn't see Tyson do much other than the knock down. He seem like he was becoming passive and was just staring at Douglas. I agree that the Douglas that fought Holyfield was different, but Tyson was the only high quality win that Douglas has on his record and that does not look good for him. Douglas was known for being a journeyman and had lost to even Jesse Fuergeson in a fight earlier in his career. My uncle told me that both were prospects at the time and neither looked like much. The wins that Tyson had over Ruddock and Bruno actually really impressed me. He showed heart in the Ruddock fight and the ability to fight back when things are not going his way, something that he never shown in any other fight. I personally rank the Tyson's win over Bruno higher than the performance simply becuase he wasn't tested. Bruno was scared of Tyson and was only trying to tie Tyson up and did not really try to show any offense. All in all, great win for Tyson over a massive power puncher with good skills( even though they wern't on display on either of their fights).

As for your question, i really didn't see anything wrong with Lewis or Foreman's heart. Liston didn't show heart in either of his fights with Ali so you have a point there, but Lewis and Foreman both were very durabale and mentally strong, neither quit in a fight before. Where Lewis went wrong in his career was taking his opponents lightly and being caught cold by them. He didn't show a very sturdy chin in some fights.

I watched the tyson douglas fight again last night, and tyson didnt give up all together. He just forgot about what he had been trained to do, there are a few instances when against the ropes he hits douglas with a good shot and forces him to hold.I know tyson is the only quality W on his record, but many boxing historians say he always had potential and that plus more came out in the tyson fight. I cannot say for sure if this is true i was much too young at the time. As you said tyson fought well and shows heart against Ruddock which shows he did have heart, but not as much as Holyfield, Ali, Marciano or Frazier but then again who does? Im not sure whether Bruno was scared of tyson, he just didnt want to let go of him when tyson was inside (and thats a decent tactic), Tyson got hit by a big hook (in brunos autobiography he said its the best hooks his thrown) and fought his way back to win. He was also rocked against Bonecrusher Smith and fought back to win a UD.
I agree Listons heart was no better than Tysons. As for Lewis i agree with you he had a good heart, thinking back he was behind against bruno and fought on for the win. As for foreman he never really proved he had a great heart. But what im trying to say is Tyson not having as good a heart as Ali or Frazier shouldnt mean his not an ATG because not many people did. Liston is considerd one and as you said he didnt have much of a heart either.

Ali Vs Spinks was nothing like Tyson Vs Douglas i agree with you fully there.

douglas got lucky cause tyson had other **** on his mind that night

i can relate to tyson because he's a dumb ****head like me

Great heavyweights deal with adversity, something that Tyson has never shown in his peak years.

What sort of adversity are you talking about? Losing the early rounds and needing to come on strong late in the fight? Having to get up to win?

If so, what you're doing is criticising Tyson for never having had a bad enough performance to need to do this. Yes, he dominated and scored early KOs, but that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

I've seen Jack Dempsey fights where he got hit and put down, but came back to win. Should this be rated above Tyson KOing people without taking much back because of his head movement? Not in my opinion.

For example, look at Ali against Cooper. Ali took him lightly and paid a price and was very badly hurt and seemingly on his way out, the difference is that he got up and proved that he was great by dealing with it, buckling down and coming back and stopping Cooper.

No, the main difference is that Tyson was dealing was a ref who couldn't count to 10, and Ali had a trainer who was able to buy him time when he was hurt. Ali then won because of a cut rather than a great comeback. Those bits of luck(/the rules not being followed correctly) mean that your comparison is very flawed in my opinion.

I would have understood if Tyson was in the fight and it was close, but he was not only dominated but knocked out by this guy. I completely understand that Douglas was talented and had the tools and ability to do something, however it looks bad for Tyson for the simple fact that it was the best Douglas has ever looked in his entire career an he was not even close to being great nor elite. Evander Holyfield( an elite fighter and all time great) took Douglas apart in his very next fight.

He simply was not in good shape for the Holyfield fight, as everyone noticed from the very start.

Look at the opposition that Ali, Louis, Frazier and Foreman lost to and look at Tyson's. My thing is that he has never shown me anything that indicated that he was great and every time that he stepped up against the elites, he lost. Again, the man had every tool to be one of if not the greatest, but talent and your accomplishments are very different.

Those examples do benefit your argument, but I don't feel that you addressed the example of Lennox Lewis, who twice lost to fighters that aren't much better than Douglas.

Spinks was a better fighter than Moorer at both HW and LHW, and Tyson destroyed Spinks whereas Holyfield lost to Moorer.

Tyson beat better fighters than Douglas, Tyson looked worse that night than ever before, and Douglas looked better than ever before. We consider someone to be past their prime when they are unable to win against someone that they previously would've beaten.

tyson was in his prime years but he didnt seem too prepared to fight and you cant take anything away from buster the man had the right plan and straight beat his ass.

It all stems down to one thing at the end of the day;

When Ali shouted "I am the greatest!" people used to reply "no you're not" and when he shouted out "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, your hands can't hit what you eyes can't see!" they said he floated like a butterfly but doubted that he could sting like a bee...So Ali proved them wrong, then when he said he was the greatest people said "yes! yes you are!" and when he chanted "float like a butterfly..." people chanted along. Now it's almost a taboo to suggest that Ali wasn't the greatest boxer of all time.

When Tyson said that when people step in the ring with him they're just as good as dead, people said "yes, you're right!" and that is the difference. Tyson never had to prove himself, he was entertaining to watch because he was just so powerful. Tyson said when he came out of a fight Cus' wouldn't only say how good he was in the ring, but what he was doing wrong. Tyson even noted himself that post Cus' death nobody was really telling him what he did wrong. Everybody just kept saying how amazing he was, which is why even now he supposedly gets frustrated when fans constantly go up to him to say he's amazing. Come the Don King era Tyson wasn't forced to be so grounded with his abilities and the Champ who was once a soft spoken shy young man who slept on a friend's setee had become an ego-filled young man with alot of money who did what most young males would do, spend it, fast. Tyson got caught up in Don King's world - promotion. He neglected his world - boxing and the two clashed. King was making alot of money so he wanted to keep it going, Tyson was making alot of money so he wanted to keep it going.

It all boiled down the fact that Tyson never had to really prove himself, people never really doubted him until he was older and people began to look back to his career.

As for whoever said Don King was a **** promotor, that's rubbish. King was probably the best promotor, he got what he wanted, when he wanted and scammed everyone who could be scammed in order to ensure that he and his fighters got the better deal. Some say that his fighters got a raw deal in comparison to him, but none the less, his fighters got a good deal in comparison to who they were fighting. King knew exactly what was going on and if there was a fight that didn't take place that people thought should have it was because King didn't want it to. The problem with the King era is that Tyson crossed from his world into King's and changed from focussed on boxing to focusing on promotion.

he was in his physical prime but not mentally, that was his weakness..and like most trainers say..a good boxer is from the neck and up..

Tyson is an ATG though, no doubt..he was the youngest undisputed champion, he still cleaned out his division..and he has a great story to tell.

Prime for Prime he can bang with the best and win 80% of the time.

What sort of adversity are you talking about? Losing the early rounds and needing to come on strong late in the fight? Having to get up to win?

If so, what you're doing is criticising Tyson for never having had a bad enough performance to need to do this. Yes, he dominated and scored early KOs, but that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

I've seen Jack Dempsey fights where he got hit and put down, but came back to win. Should this be rated above Tyson KOing people without taking much back because of his head movement? Not in my opinion.
He doninated and scored early knockouts against good although not elite fighters, and that seperates from Ali, Louis, Foreman or Marciano ect. They not only knocked out elite fighters, their first losses came to elite fighters and they also showed the will to come back from a lossing position, something that Tyson has never shown. The era that Tyson fought (80s) was not hot by any means and all of the stars had not come on the scene yet. I pay attention to the opponents that he was blowing out like that, neither were elite. Again on paper Bruno was the best prime fighter that was closest to the elite level and that those was Tyson's best fights. Bruno even hasn't beaten anyone with a pulse.

I also remember a prime Tyson having probems with Jose Rabilita. His corner had to tell him to get back into his game becuase he was becoming passive becuase he was in with someone that actually wanted to win and was fighting him back.

No, the main difference is that Tyson was dealing was a ref who couldn't count to 10, and Ali had a trainer who was able to buy him time when he was hurt. Ali then won because of a cut rather than a great comeback. Those bits of luck(/the rules not being followed correctly) mean that your comparison is very flawed in my opinion.

I really, really hope you are joking with this part of your post( even though you most likely aren't). Don King and Tyson fan boys are the only ones that come up with this excuse for the Tyson loss. That also doesn't take away what Douglas was putting on Tyson for the enitre fight. He also showed heart by not only getting up but knocking Tyson out. This is Buster Douglas. A skilled fighter but was no where near close to being elite. He was beaten by Fuegeson and stopped by Tony Tucker in two fights that i have.


He simply was not in good shape for the Holyfield fight, as everyone noticed from the very start.

Tyson was the only good high quality fighter that Douglas beat any way you look at it. I personally don't buy into that ''he didn't show up that day'' arguement. He was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world and it was only a few moths removed from his upset of Tyson. On paper, would it say ''Douglas didn't show up good as he did in the Tyson fight so Holyfield doesn't get much credit''? Facts are facts

Those examples do benefit your argument, but I don't feel that you addressed the example of Lennox Lewis, who twice lost to fighters that aren't much better than Douglas.

You have never heard much of Douglas after he won the title one time against Tyson. Rachman became champion after he loss to Lewis and beat some very good contenders of his time. MCall also beat some very good fighters as well but skillwise, i would have to agree that Douglas was better.

MCall was the first to beat Oleg Maskaev, Lennox Lewis and he also has good wins over Henry Akainwainde ect. He was very good and more accomplished than Douglas.

Spinks was a better fighter than Moorer at both HW and LHW, and Tyson destroyed Spinks whereas Holyfield lost to Moorer.

Tyson beat better fighters than Douglas, Tyson looked worse that night than ever before, and Douglas looked better than ever before. We consider someone to be past their prime when they are unable to win against someone that they previously would've beaten.

Moorer wasn't accomplished at light heavyweight so i agree there. He knocked out everyone he fought and looked spectacular at doing it, but they were lesser fighters and Moorer wanted the big pay days so he moved up to heavyweight. At heavyweight, i have to disagree. Moorer was the unbeaten undisputed heavyweight champion before he ran into big George. He had good wins over Holfyield, Bert Cooper, Botha, Smith, Alex Stewart ect. That surpasses anything Spinks did at heavyweight IMO.

Mike was in his prime, he just didn't train. He paid the price for takin the man lightly. Add all his personal drama to that and you got a recipe for disaster. Buster had his best night at the same time Mike had his worst night.

He doninated and scored early knockouts against good although not elite fighters, and that seperates from Ali, Louis, Foreman or Marciano ect. They not only knocked out elite fighters, their first losses came to elite fighters and they also showed the will to come back from a lossing position, something that Tyson has never shown. The era that Tyson fought (80s) was not hot by any means and all of the stars had not come on the scene yet. I pay attention to the opponents that he was blowing out like that, neither were elite. Again on paper Bruno was the best prime fighter that was closest to the elite level and that those was Tyson's best fights. Bruno even hasn't beaten anyone with a pulse.

I also remember a prime Tyson having probems with Jose Rabilita. His corner had to tell him to get back into his game becuase he was becoming passive becuase he was in with someone that actually wanted to win and was fighting him back.


I really, really hope you are joking with this part of your post( even though you most likely aren't). Don King and Tyson fan boys are the only ones that come up with this excuse for the Tyson loss. That also doesn't take away what Douglas was putting on Tyson for the enitre fight. He also showed heart by not only getting up but knocking Tyson out. This is Buster Douglas. A skilled fighter but was no where near close to being elite. He was beaten by Fuegeson and stopped by Tony Tucker in two fights that i have.




Tyson was the only good high quality fighter that Douglas beat any way you look at it. I personally don't buy into that ''he didn't show up that day'' arguement. He was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world and it was only a few moths removed from his upset of Tyson. On paper, would it say ''Douglas didn't show up good as he did in the Tyson fight so Holyfield doesn't get much credit''? Facts are facts



You have never heard much of Douglas after he won the title one time against Tyson. Rachman became champion after he loss to Lewis and beat some very good contenders of his time. MCall also beat some very good fighters as well but skillwise, i would have to agree that Douglas was better.

MCall was the first to beat Oleg Maskaev, Lennox Lewis and he also has good wins over Henry Akainwainde ect. He was very good and more accomplished than Douglas.



Moorer wasn't accomplished at light heavyweight so i agree there. He knocked out everyone he fought and looked spectacular at doing it, but they were lesser fighters and Moorer wanted the big pay days so he moved up to heavyweight. At heavyweight, i have to disagree. Moorer was the unbeaten undisputed heavyweight champion before he ran into big George. He had good wins over Holfyield, Bert Cooper, Botha, Smith, Alex Stewart ect. That surpasses anything Spinks did at heavyweight IMO.

you have some good points but a lot of your comments wreak with Tyson hate, he wasn't the GOAT but he is a great, being the last to unify and the youngest, also beating credible opponents like Spinks, Tucker, Bruno, Ruddock and Holmes. (and knocking some of them out quite brutally)

He doninated and scored early knockouts against good although not elite fighters, and that seperates from Ali, Louis, Foreman or Marciano ect. They not only knocked out elite fighters, their first losses came to elite fighters and they also showed the will to come back from a lossing position, something that Tyson has never shown.

I think comparing marciano to tyson in this instance is bad, marciano had the worst opponents of all the heavyweights that are considerd great. As i said in my first post(i thought u agreed) tyson had come back from lossing positions.

I also remember a prime Tyson having probems with Jose Rabilita. His corner had to tell him to get back into his game becuase he was becoming passive becuase he was in with someone that actually wanted to win and was fighting him back.

Yeh Ribalta kept getting up, and this was tysons biggest step up in opposition. But he kept going and kept fighting and ending up gettin a 10th rnd TKO. Which i think shows some heart, especially for some1 who at this stage was used to getting people out there early, or them falling and not getting up (or surviving long after). There were tillis and green before, but they held and ran.

He had good wins over Holfyield, Bert Cooper, Botha, Smith, Alex Stewart ect. That surpasses anything Spinks did at heavyweight IMO.

He had two decisions over a near prime Holmes, and even if they were disputed. It still takes some fighter to do that against someone like holmes

it would have been a fun discussion if at least you could have been a tad more reasonable. It's funny, i dont think that you noticed, but in every thread you start about tyson, you're the only one of all posters who keeps arguing the same things over and over, while other posters disagree with you for all the right reasons. and not just any 'fan boys', but credible posters who dont give 2 ****s about tyson but are able to see through the bull****.

Mike tyson is a great fighter, and there's nothing you can do about it. whatever you may make him out to be, a coward, non-elite, decent but not quite good enough to be a great fighter, is of none concern to everybody else. im not sure what you try to prove when you start these topics, but you're not convincing anyone of anything

there's no given formula for evaluating a fighter for greatness. There's however a fan's opinion, and it's the only true formula that counts

Just because Ali did something, it doesnt make him a model of greatness for other fighters. Not everyone can be like ali, just like not everyone can be like tyson

tyson's career went downhill, unfourtanetly, too little too late, to further prove his greatness to harsh critics like yourself. Most people dont realize what prison can do to a man, let alone a fighter. it's not exactly same as ali's exile, or holmes' inactivity. with mike's mentality, his stay at prison didn not benefit him. or the divorce, or the lawsuits he had with King. the fact that he kept on fighting, even against limited opposition should serve as a good thing in itself.

Tyson's showed his abilities, he took on whoever he needed to take, he unified the titles by beating other ranked contenders, and those who entered the tournamnets with him

there's however, going to be criticism for him being inexperienced fighter when he couldnt knock out a james tillis, or when for some reason tyrell biggs stopped fighting his fight. there's always going to be criticism for some reason. im tired of arguing with you about greatness. you too damn stubborn to admit when you wrong, or give another poster credit for a good arguement which overules your objections.

Joe Louis is a great fighter, but his competition wasnt exactly stellar. Floyd Patterson never did anything to deserve the kind of greatness that tyson doesnt deserve in your views.

so it's getting really irritating of trying to convince you of something that you refuse to accept.

Tyson wasn't past his prime when Douglas beat him, but he wasn't on his game that night for sure.

You never seen Ali, Frazier, Holmes, Louis or Marciano lose to this kind of opponent even on thier worse days and they also had personal problems. I do not have a problem with Tyson and think that he was certainly one of the most talented heavyweights of all, but some people need to rethink putting him in the same sentence with Ali or Louis. Think about it, these men fought in a better division and their first losses came to great heavyweights. Tyson fought in a weaker division and loss to...................Buster Douglas.

So what made Max Schmeling a great fighter besides beating Louis?:thinking:

it would have been a fun discussion if at least you could have been a tad more reasonable. It's funny, i dont think that you noticed, but in every thread you start about tyson, you're the only one of all posters who keeps arguing the same things over and over, while other posters disagree with you for all the right reasons. and not just any 'fan boys', but credible posters who dont give 2 ****s about tyson but are able to see through the bull****.

Mike tyson is a great fighter, and there's nothing you can do about it. whatever you may make him out to be, a coward, non-elite, decent but not quite good enough to be a great fighter, is of none concern to everybody else. im not sure what you try to prove when you start these topics, but you're not convincing anyone of anything

there's no given formula for evaluating a fighter for greatness. There's however a fan's opinion, and it's the only true formula that counts

Just because Ali did something, it doesnt make him a model of greatness for other fighters. Not everyone can be like ali, just like not everyone can be like tyson

tyson's career went downhill, unfourtanetly, too little too late, to further prove his greatness to harsh critics like yourself. Most people dont realize what prison can do to a man, let alone a fighter. it's not exactly same as ali's exile, or holmes' inactivity. with mike's mentality, his stay at prison didn not benefit him. or the divorce, or the lawsuits he had with King. the fact that he kept on fighting, even against limited opposition should serve as a good thing in itself.

Tyson's showed his abilities, he took on whoever he needed to take, he unified the titles by beating other ranked contenders, and those who entered the tournamnets with him

there's however, going to be criticism for him being inexperienced fighter when he couldnt knock out a james tillis, or when for some reason tyrell biggs stopped fighting his fight. there's always going to be criticism for some reason. im tired of arguing with you about greatness. you too damn stubborn to admit when you wrong, or give another poster credit for a good arguement which overules your objections.

Joe Louis is a great fighter, but his competition wasnt exactly stellar. Floyd Patterson never did anything to deserve the kind of greatness that tyson doesnt deserve in your views.

so it's getting really irritating of trying to convince you of something that you refuse to accept.

Wow, you really are obessed with Tyson and i'm not saying it to be ignorant, its the tuth. Again, i did not make this as a hate thread but you are turning it into that. I already know Tyson's problems and what he COULD have been. I made this thread to let people know that Tyson was still in his prime when he fought Douglas and the fact that he wasn't motivated or unprepared doesn't matter for the simple fact that those were still his prime years. Ali, Frazier, Marciano or Louis were motivated and had that consistantcy so they proved that they were great in their prime years. Tyson went to prison, lost focus and wasted those years. Greatness is by what you achieved, not by your potential.

So what made Max Schmeling a great fighter besides beating Louis?:thinking:

Hes certainly not an all time great but is a deserving hall of famer and so is Tyson. I have stated in previous posts that Tyson was a hall of famer and a great heavyweight, but no where near an ALL TIME great.

Wow, you really are obessed with Tyson and i'm not saying it to be ignorant, its the tuth. Again, i did not make this as a hate thread but you are turning it into that. I already know Tyson's problems and what he COULD have been. I made this thread to let people know that Tyson was still in his prime when he fought Douglas and the fact that he wasn't motivated or unprepared doesn't matter for the simple fact that those were still his prime years. Ali, Frazier, Marciano or Louis were motivated and had that consistantcy so they proved that they were great in their prime years. Tyson went to prison, lost focus and wasted those years. Greatness is by what you achieved, not by your potential.this response was expected from you, not being ignorant

im done with this thread

Hes certainly not an all time great but is a deserving hall of famer and so is Tyson. I have stated in previous posts that Tyson was a hall of famer and a great heavyweight, but no where near an ALL TIME great.

Ok, so what do you mean when you say Louis never lost to this kind of fighter, like Buster Douglas is some kind of bum, but Schmeling is some kind of juggernaut heavyweight even though without Louis his resume is similar to Douglas without the Tyson fight?

Ok, so what do you mean when you say Louis never lost to [i][b]this[b][i] kind of fighter, like Buster Douglas is some kind of bum, but Schmeling is some kind of juggernaut heavyweight even though without Louis his resume is similar to Douglas without the Tyson fight?
my advice is dont even bother with him. im not trying to be an ass but he's full of it. expect him to come up with a list of contenders that make schemeling different from the next guy. i cant be bothered with arguing with him anymore, not just because his so sharp, but because he's that stubborn and ignorant.

he does it with every tyson thread, says it's not a hate thread, and mike is a good fighter, and then starts bashing him for 10 pages.

i already know his agenda

Greatness is by what you achieved, not by your potential.

So why are you judging him on his losses?

Cleaning up the division is a exciting and Dominating fashion.
Beating all the top contenders.
Uniting and become the Undisputed Champ.
Becoming the youngest champ of all time.
Becomming the WBC and WBA after 4 years of inactivity.
9 Defences of the title.

Now put those against Marcianos achievements, against foremans achievements and fraziers. You are not judging on achivements.

Ok, so what do you mean when you say Louis never lost to [i][b]this[b][i] kind of fighter, like Buster Douglas is some kind of bum, but Schmeling is some kind of juggernaut heavyweight even though without Louis his resume is similar to Douglas without the Tyson fight?

Schmelling beat the second greatest heavyweight of all time and he also one plenty of European titles and was never considered a journeyman, unlike Douglas.

my advice is dont even bother with him. im not trying to be an ass but he's full of it. expect him to come up with a list of contenders that make schemeling different from the next guy. i cant be bothered with arguing with him anymore, not just because his so sharp, but because he's that stubborn and ignorant.

he does it with every tyson thread, says it's not a hate thread, and mike is a good fighter, and then starts bashing him for 10 pages.

i already know his agenda

Facts are facts. If you cannot handle an arguement, then don't debate. You just said that all people cannot be as great as Tyson in your previous post and i'm hoping that it was just a typo.

So why are you judging him on his losses?

Cleaning up the division is a exciting and Dominating fashion.
Beating all the top contenders.
Uniting and become the Undisputed Champ.
Becoming the youngest champ of all time.
Becomming the WBC and WBA after 4 years of inactivity.
9 Defences of the title.

Now put those against Marcianos achievements, against foremans achievements and fraziers. You are not judging on achivements.

What elite fighter did Tyson beat in that time? Would he have looked that dominate if Evander Holfyield or Lennox Lewis was in the mix? He still had a lot to accomplish and he did not have one of the long dominate reigns as champion. He was only undisputed champion for three years. Again i rank him as a great heavyweight based on becoming the youngest heavyweight champion and unifying, but you have to do a lot more than this to become an all time great.

Schmelling beat the second greatest heavyweight of all time and he also one plenty of European titles and was never considered a journeyman, unlike Douglas.

You're missing my point. Besides Louis what did Schmeling do that would consider him that much better than Douglas if better at all?

You're missing my point. Besides Louis what did Schmeling do that would consider him that much better than Douglas if better at all?

You asked what made him a great fighter, and i stated that him beating Louis(the second greatest heavyweight of all time) puts him there. Before beating Louis, he was a very good fighter as well. He won many European heavyweight titles and he also beat Young Stribbling for the World heavyweight title so he was never at any point was at a journeyman status. Again, Douglas was a journeyman that had already lost his biggest fights up until Tyson.

Facts are facts. If you cannot handle an arguement, then don't debate. You just said that all people cannot be as great as Tyson in your previous post and i'm hoping that it was just a typo.i said not everyone can be as great as Ali, just as anyone cant be as great as tyson. one doesnt measure up to another.

im not sure if you understood my post, either that or you too desperate to make a point that you jump at every word

When talking about buster douglas' losses, why not talk about his wins. He beat Randal Cobb, he also beat the man who beat the man, Oliver McCall, and he also beat a ranked contender Mike Williams. Greg Page is also a good name to have on your resume

i said not everyone can be as great as Ali, just as anyone cant be as great as tyson. one doesnt measure up to another.

im not sure if you understood my post, either that or you too desperate to make a point that you jump at every word

When talking about buster douglas' losses, why not talk about his wins. He beat Randal Cobb, he also beat the man who beat the man, Oliver McCall, and he also beat a ranked contender Mike Williams. Greg Page is also a good name to have on your resume

So are we making Douglas out to be some sort of a highly rated contender now? Pathetic. Before the fight, the fight was thought of to be so much of a mismatch that they couldn't find a venue in American to land the fight so it had to be taken to Toykio. Douglas was not much before or after Tyson.

What elite fighter did Tyson beat in that time? Would he have looked that dominate if Evander Holfyield or Lennox Lewis was in the mix? He still had a lot to accomplish and he did not have one of the long dominate reigns as champion. He was only undisputed champion for three years. Again i rank him as a great heavyweight based on becoming the youngest heavyweight champion and unifying, but you have to do a lot more than this to become an all time great.
Okay, i can do that too. What elite fighters did Floyd Patterson, or Jersey Joe Walcott beat, both of whom you consider all time greats?

So are we making Douglas out to be some sort of a highly rated contender now? Pathetic. Before the fight, the fight was thought of to be so much of a mismatch that they couldn't find a venue in American to land the fight so it had to be taken to Toykio. Douglas was not much before or after Tyson.if im making him into a good contender then you're making him into the ****iest contender. you mention his losses, i mention his wins, what's the problem?

Okay, i can do that too. What elite fighters did Floyd Patterson, or Jersey Joe Walcott beat, both of whom you consider all time greats?

When you tried this game in the other thread, i had already explained that to you and i won't do it again. You asked the exact question and if you are so desperate to twist arguements to make yourself and Tyson look good, then i will not be apart of it and waste my time.

What elite fighter did Tyson beat in that time? Would he have looked that dominate if Evander Holfyield or Lennox Lewis was in the mix? He still had a lot to accomplish and he did not have one of the long dominate reigns as champion.

Tyson didnt have an elite fighter while he was at his best, he beat Spinks, Holmes, Ruddock and Bruno which are all considerd good fighters. Although Holmes wasnt in his prime he was still a good fighter and proved that in his later fights.
You cant really say how would he have been if Lewis and Holyfield were in the mix, because they werent its a usless question! How would Marciano of done if Patterson was in the mix or louis was in his prime? Its useless.
He accomplished a hell of alot more than other fighters that are considerd ATG..Marciano beat no elite fighters, Liston beat no elite fighters, Holmes beat no elite fighters.
Here are the reigns of other Heavy weight champs:

Foreman : 4
Frazier: 4
Marciano: 7
Dempsey: 6
Johnson: 9 (2 draws)
Holyfield: 4 (1 draw)

I think they are correct, i done each fighters longest reign. Shows his record of 9 wasnt too bad at all!

if im making him into a good contender then you're making him into the ****iest contender. you mention his losses, i mention his wins, what's the problem?

Douglas was a very skilled fighter but was not on that level. He was clearly a journeyman and someone that Tyson should have blown out. Now, you are making him out to be some quality fighter so it doesn't look as bad for Tyson. Its not working.

When you tried this game in the other thread, i had already explained that to you and i won't do it again. You asked the exact question and if you are so desperate to twist arguements to make yourself and Tyson look good, then i will not be apart of it and waste my time.no one's playing games. You said that patterson beating Ingemar Johansson makes him an all time great....i dont know how Ingemar can be considered elite now. He beat moore when moore was old as **** and havent done **** all at heavyweight. I can make the same arguement for tyson beating Holmes, but you'll say he was old and inactive

you also said that walcott is great because he beat Ezzard Charles, who doesnt even make top ten, or even top 20 greatest heavyweights and is remembered mostly for his light heavyweight accomplishments

you dont know what the hell you are venting.

no one's playing games. You said that patterson beating Ingemar Johansson makes him an all time great....i dont know how Ingemar can be considered elite now. He beat moore when moore was old as **** and havent done **** all at heavyweight. I can make the same arguement for tyson beating Holmes, but you'll say he was old and inactive

you also said that walcott is great because he beat Ezzard Charles, who doesnt even make top ten, or even top 20 greatest heavyweights and is remembered mostly for his light heavyweight accomplishments

you dont know what the hell you are venting.

Since you are so good at finding someone's post history, go back and paste that entire post here becuase that is not what i said at all. You are again, twisting arguements.

Douglas was a very skilled fighter but was not on that level. He was clearly a journeyman and someone that Tyson should have blown out. Now, you are making him out to be some quality fighter so it doesn't look as bad for Tyson. Its not working.jersey joe walcott got beat by an unknown Henry Taylor, and 11-15 Johnny allen.

what kind of all time great looses to those guys, among others?

it's not working

Since you are so good at finding someone's post history, go back and paste that entire post here becuase that is not what i said at all. You are again, twisting arguements.that's exactly what you said, along with some other weak contenders who dont mean **** really, and dont qualify for elites

slicksouthpaw16 go back to page 4 to see my reply, i think uve missed it while posting.

that's exactly what you said, along with some other weak contenders who dont mean **** really, and dont qualify for elites

I made a post about all of their accomplishments and what made them great fighter and like always, you completely ignored all logic and started making desperate cases for Tyson. Respond to the entire post instead of just picking one part and blowing it all out of porportion.

I made a post about all of their accomplishments and what made them great fighter and like always, you completely ignored all logic and started making desperate cases for Tyson. Respond to the entire post instead of just picking one part and blowing it all out of porportion.
it all comes back to one thing, it's not unrelated. you bash tyson for the same reasons you consider other fighters great and give them a pass

you dont create an even playing field

Tyson didnt have an elite fighter while he was at his best, he beat Spinks, Holmes, Ruddock and Bruno which are all considerd good fighters. Although Holmes wasnt in his prime he was still a good fighter and proved that in his later fights.
You cant really say how would he have been if Lewis and Holyfield were in the mix, because they werent its a usless question! How would Marciano of done if Patterson was in the mix or louis was in his prime? Its useless.
He accomplished a hell of alot more than other fighters that are considerd ATG..Marciano beat no elite fighters, Liston beat no elite fighters, Holmes beat no elite fighters.
Here are the reigns of other Heavy weight champs:

Foreman : 4
Frazier: 4
Marciano: 7
Dempsey: 6
Johnson: 9 (2 draws)
Holyfield: 4 (1 draw)

I think they are correct, i done each fighters longest reign. Shows his record of 9 wasnt too bad at all!

For example, Lennox Lewis is more accomplished than Tyson. Their era's were no different and neither had prime elite fighters to fight. The reason why he will most likely be known as the greater fighter is becuase he took more chances by fighting the best and had that consistancy and he also rebounded from his losses by avenging them and beating everyone that he fought. He also beat far better fighters than Tyson did.

I see that you have named Demsey, Johnson, Frazier and Holyfield, when they had the names needed on their resume and fought the best. Tyson won and defended his title against no elite fighters. Frazier beat Ali, Foreman beat Frazier, Marciano beat everyone that he fought and retired unbeaten, Holfyield beat Riddock Bowe, George Foreman, Dewight Qawi ( who is a top 3 great cruiserweight) ect. These fighters had those names.

it all comes back to one thing, it's not unrelated. you bash tyson for the same reasons you consider other fighters great and give them a pass

you dont create an even playing field

I said that Tyson was a great heavyweight and i have him on my top 10 list of all time great heavyweight, the point that i was getting at was that he is not an all time great. Great but not all time great status. I have nothing against Tyson and he was one of the most exciting heavyweight champions.

I could keep dicussing this, and points in tysons favour. But it seems to me you keep changing your perception on greatness so to not count tyson..its gon from accomplishments then to number of defences and now to elite fights. Even though Marciano and Holmes didnt fight any. Marciano may have been undefeated but every single great heavyweight would have been undefeated in that era. Tyson took chances in fighting the best he didnt duck anyone during his reign as champion. He fought more oftern than any modern heavyweight.
Btw What is you top 10 heavy list?

It would have been interesting if Douglas and Tyson had an immediate rematch.

If his performance against holyfield is anything to go by then it would have been a quick Tyson KO.

I could keep dicussing this, and points in tysons favour. But it seems to me you keep changing your perception on greatness so to not count tyson..its gon from accomplishments then to number of defences and now to elite fights. Even though Marciano and Holmes didnt fight any. Marciano may have been undefeated but every single great heavyweight would have been undefeated in that era. Tyson took chances in fighting the best he didnt duck anyone during his reign as champion. He fought more oftern than any modern heavyweight.
Btw What is you top 10 heavy list?

Greatness is based on everything that you have done in your career and what i do is add all of that up. This is my list and i expect some critics and twisting of arguements from Boxing_Prospect.

1. Muhammed Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Larry Holmes
5. George Foreman
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Mike Tyson
9. Joe Frazier
10. Evander Holyfield

If his performance against holyfield is anything to go by then it would have been a quick Tyson KO.

Douglas really had something against Tyson and i doubt he would come in the way he did with Evander. He was not in shape, but even the Douglas that fought Tyson would lose to Holfyield even on his worse day.

I could keep dicussing this, and points in tysons favour. But it seems to me you keep changing your perception on greatness so to not count tyson..its gon from accomplishments then to number of defences and now to elite fights. Even though Marciano and Holmes didnt fight any. Marciano may have been undefeated but every single great heavyweight would have been undefeated in that era. Tyson took chances in fighting the best he didnt duck anyone during his reign as champion. He fought more oftern than any modern heavyweight.
Btw What is you top 10 heavy list?he does that all the time. it's funny, but guys like patterson and joe walcott dont even qualify for those points. how many defenses have they had, what elites they beat....****'s redicilous. he keeps arguing the same things over and over and over again. im glad other people are starting to see that

I said that Tyson was a great heavyweight and i have him on my top 10 list of all time great heavyweight, the point that i was getting at was that he is not an all time great. Great but not all time great status. I have nothing against Tyson and he was one of the most exciting heavyweight champions.so by that you mean that tyson couldnt beat guys that louis or marciano beat, and wouldnt be good in other eras?

wake up dude

he does that all the time. it's funny, but guys like patterson and joe walcott dont even qualify for those points. how many defenses have they had, what elites they beat....****'s redicilous. he keeps arguing the same things over and over and over again. im glad other people are starting to see that

I asked you to go and find the post where i stated this stuff, and you rufused to simply becuase you put words in my mouth. I explained in detail on how they were great and you completely ignored it so whats the point?

I asked you to go and find the post where i stated this stuff, and you rufused to simply becuase you put words in my mouth. I explained in detail on how they were great and you completely ignored it so whats the point?despite you thinking that i somehow stalk your posts, i dont need to snoop. it's your posts you wouldnt have a problem finding them. you put my fake quotes, so i cannt understand how you can accuse other posters of putting words in your mouth.

i dont need to find posts where you and your wisdom state how patterson and walcott are all time greats when they clearly are far from it, in terms of accomplishments

you wanna tell me that walcott and patterson accomplishmed more than tyson.

you clearly have an agenda

Greatness is based on everything that you have done in your career and what i do is add all of that up. This is my list and i expect some critics and twisting of arguements from Boxing_Prospect.

1. Muhammed Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Larry Holmes
5. George Foreman
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Mike Tyson
9. Joe Frazier
10. Jack Dempsey

Well if Mike Tyson is greater than Joe Frazier, and Tyson is not an ATG, then I take it that you do not consider Frazier an ATG? I personally consider your top 10 to all be ATGs, as well as Holyfield and Tunney. I guess you just consider less boxers (or at least less heavyweight boxers) to be ATGs than I do, which is fair enough.

Jack Johnson had 6 wins in world title fights. Mike Tyson had 7 if you are only counting undisputed, more if you are counting when he had 1 or 2 belts. I can't claim that I have any knowledge about the people that Johnson lost to before the end of his prime, but on paper some do not seem any better than Douglas.

It can also be said that Holmes was a better fighter vs Tyson than Jeffries was vs Johnson. Douglas was a better fighter than Jess Willard, in my opinion.

Why is Johnson so much higher on your list than Tyson?

You asked what made him a great fighter, and i stated that him beating Louis(the second greatest heavyweight of all time) puts him there.

By that logic, anyone who beat Louis would be great, and therefore no matter who Louis had lost to, it would be OK, because Louis was so great, and therefore whoever beat him was great too.

For example, Lennox Lewis is more accomplished than Tyson. Their era's were no different and neither had prime elite fighters to fight. The reason why he will most likely be known as the greater fighter is becuase he took more chances by fighting the best and had that consistancy and he also rebounded from his losses by avenging them and beating everyone that he fought. He also beat far better fighters than Tyson did.

I have no problem with Lewis being rated above Tyson, but it seems as if you criticising Tyson for something but not criticising Lewis for the same thing ie. losing to a lesser fighter.

Does Lewis get a free pass for losing to McCall because he came back and beat him?

You criticise Tyson for not immediately rematching Douglas, but Lewis did not immediately rematch McCall. You point out that Douglas went on to lose to Holyfield, who is an ATG, but McCall went on to lose to Frank Bruno, who is not an ATG and who was twice destroyed by Tyson.

Douglas also scored a win over McCall.

It seems that you do not take these things into account.

Well if Mike Tyson is greater than Joe Frazier, and Tyson is not an ATG, then I take it that you do not consider Frazier an ATG? I personally consider your top 10 to all be ATGs, as well as Holyfield and Tunney. I guess you just consider less boxers (or at least less heavyweight boxers) to be ATGs than I do, which is fair enough.

Jack Johnson had 6 wins in world title fights. Mike Tyson had 7 if you are only counting undisputed, more if you are counting when he had 1 or 2 belts. I can't claim that I have any knowledge about the people that Johnson lost to before the end of his prime, but on paper some do not seem any better than Douglas.

It can also be said that Holmes was a better fighter vs Tyson than Jeffries was vs Johnson. Douglas was a better fighter than Jess Willard, in my opinion.

Why is Johnson so much higher on your list than Tyson?

I just went to ESB and found my old thread about the top 10 greatest heavyweights. I had Holyfield at 9, Frazier at 10 and Dempsey at 11. I edited the post.

Johnson was far better than Tyson in any way. This man beat the best black fighters of his era( McVea, Langford, Jeanette and went 7 years in his title reign without a single loss. He was also the first black heavyweight champion and one of the crafiest fighters ever. Tyson was only undisputed champion for 4 years and also defended his title against lesser competition than Johnson. Tyson defended, but show me where anyone he defended against was as good as Johnson's opposition? Thats like saying Marciano was greater than Ali because he retired unbeaten but one thing is missing, he fought in a weaker division. Johnson's wins over Fitzsimmons, Ketchel, Langford, Jeanette, Mcvea, Jefferies, Flynn, Burns just out runs anything Tyson has done in his whole career.

Frazier is a great heavyweight and his win over Ali could make him an all time great, but like Tyson he doesn't have one of those long dominate career's or the title defenses. Tyson was the more accomplishmed fighter but i like Frazier better as a fighter.


By that logic, anyone who beat Louis would be great, and therefore no matter who Louis had lost to, it would be OK, because Louis was so great, and therefore whoever beat him was great too.

Dempsey beating Louis was just the icing on the cake. He had already won the heavyweight title previously and had also won plenty of European championships and in other organizations.

I have no problem with Lewis being rated above Tyson, but it seems as if you criticising Tyson for something but not criticising Lewis for the same thing ie. losing to a lesser fighter.

Does Lewis get a free pass for losing to McCall because he came back and beat him?

You criticise Tyson for not immediately rematching Douglas, but Lewis did not immediately rematch McCall. You point out that Douglas went on to lose to Holyfield, who is an ATG, but McCall went on to lose to Frank Bruno, who is not an ATG and who was twice destroyed by Tyson.

Douglas also scored a win over McCall.

It seems that you do not take these things into account.

Of course you want to avenge your losss. Tyson not only lost to Douglas but he was also dominated and did not want an immediate rematch. Lewis not only had rematches but he stopped both of them and proved that they were one punch flukes. Tyson's mangement were more focused on rebuilding Tyson and not getting a rematch and Tyson has never advenged any one of his losses.

You say that MCcall went on to lose to Bruno, when Lewis also beat Bruno so i don't really see the point there. After Tyson, Douglas went on to finish being the journeyman that he was before. He was not much before or after Tyson and he had lost all of his biggest fights up until that point.

He doninated and scored early knockouts against good although not elite fighters, and that seperates from Ali, Louis, Foreman or Marciano ect. They not only knocked out elite fighters, their first losses came to elite fighters and they also showed the will to come back from a lossing position, something that Tyson has never shown. The era that Tyson fought (80s) was not hot by any means and all of the stars had not come on the scene yet. I pay attention to the opponents that he was blowing out like that, neither were elite. Again on paper Bruno was the best prime fighter that was closest to the elite level and that those was Tyson's best fights. Bruno even hasn't beaten anyone with a pulse.

Bruno beat McCall, so it's interesting how lowly you must rate McCall in order to say that. This strengthens my argument about the standard of fighter that Lewis lost to.

Bruno was doing well against Lewis until he was hurt and Lewis was able to finish him off. In both fights with Tyson, Bruno did not do nearly as well. While Bruno certainly isn't a great, he is a useful measuring stick when comparing fighters such as Lewis, Tyson and McCall.

I really, really hope you are joking with this part of your post( even though you most likely aren't). Don King and Tyson fan boys are the only ones that come up with this excuse for the Tyson loss. That also doesn't take away what Douglas was putting on Tyson for the enitre fight. He also showed heart by not only getting up but knocking Tyson out. This is Buster Douglas. A skilled fighter but was no where near close to being elite. He was beaten by Fuegeson and stopped by Tony Tucker in two fights that i have.

I am being serious, but I think you misunderstand my point or I've failed to explain it correctly.

I don't think (and did not say) that the knockdown incident is an excuse for Tyson, but you gave what I consider to be a biased view of Ali's fight with Cooper, which doesn't mention that the victory was on cuts against someone who often lost fights in that way, and does not mention the incident with the glove.

If someone was to offer a fair assessment of that fight I think he would mention those things, just as he would mention the knockdown/referee in Douglas-Tyson, Tunney-Dempsey and Ali-Liston. It's not an excuse, but you act as if he did nothing to try to overcome a difficult fight, when in fact he came very close to scoring a KO.

Tyson was the only good high quality fighter that Douglas beat any way you look at it. I personally don't buy into that ''he didn't show up that day'' arguement. He was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world and it was only a few moths removed from his upset of Tyson. On paper, would it say ''Douglas didn't show up good as he did in the Tyson fight so Holyfield doesn't get much credit''? Facts are facts

I'm not sure of your point here. Yes, the record books would not say that, but how does that affect which of us is correct about his condition that night? There are a lot of things that a boxrec-style list of results would leave out.

Douglas showed up for the fight more than 14lbs overweight. On my copy (British TV) the commentators remark before the start of the fight that Douglas is not in good condition and are talking about how bad he looks within 60 seconds of the fight starting, so it isn't something that people only came up with to justify the loss; it was apparent before the fight even started.

You have never heard much of Douglas after he won the title one time against Tyson. Rachman became champion after he loss to Lewis and beat some very good contenders of his time. MCall also beat some very good fighters as well but skillwise, i would have to agree that Douglas was better.

MCall was the first to beat Oleg Maskaev, Lennox Lewis and he also has good wins over Henry Akainwainde ect. He was very good and more accomplished than Douglas.

Having more accomplishments does not mean that you were a better fighter though. I think that Meldrick Taylor was a fantastic fighter, and have no problems rating him higher than people who achieved more than 6 title fight victories, so I don't have a problem rating Douglas and McCall somewhat equal just because McCall has a win or two of more value, especially when you consider that Douglas beat McCall.

Moorer wasn't accomplished at light heavyweight so i agree there. He knocked out everyone he fought and looked spectacular at doing it, but they were lesser fighters and Moorer wanted the big pay days so he moved up to heavyweight. At heavyweight, i have to disagree. Moorer was the unbeaten undisputed heavyweight champion before he ran into big George. He had good wins over Holfyield, Bert Cooper, Botha, Smith, Alex Stewart ect. That surpasses anything Spinks did at heavyweight IMO.

Ok, let's give Moorer the edge over Spinks at heavyweight based upon achievements.

However, after beating Holyfield he was KO'd by someone who had been inactive for 18 months, was not considered top 5, possibly not even top 10, and was coming off a loss to Tommy Morrison. If you look at Douglas' career without Tyson and Moorer's career without Holyfield there is not a massive difference.

Most people would accept that Holyfield had a bad night against Moorer, as Lewis did against McCall and Rahman. You do not seem to be willing to do the same thing when it comes to Tyson though?

Bruno beat McCall, so it's interesting how lowly you must rate McCall in order to say that. This strengthens my argument about the standard of fighter that Lewis lost to.

Bruno was doing well against Lewis until he was hurt and Lewis was able to finish him off. In both fights with Tyson, Bruno did not do nearly as well. While Bruno certainly isn't a great, he is a useful measuring stick when comparing fighters such as Lewis, Tyson and McCall.

Again the most important thing was that Lewis avenged those losses and there is no indication that Douglas was any better than Rachman or McCall, he certainly wasn't better than Rachman accomplishment wise.

Lewis stopped Bruno, plain and simple. He was a green contender that was in his second world title fight and that was his first real challenge. I have never ranked Tucker very highly and Lewis didn't have any problems with so he didn't get tested. That was back when he was right hand crazy and didn't bother to set up anything. As always, bruno fadded and was knocked out. Lewis did something that Tyson never which was to face adversity.

Bruno is not a good measuring stick. Styles makes fight. Tyson was an accomplished champion and was undisputed heavyweight champion at the time and Lennox was not even in his prime yet, unlike Tyson.



I am being serious, but I think you misunderstand my point or I've failed to explain it correctly.

I don't think (and did not say) that the knockdown incident is an excuse for Tyson, but you gave what I consider to be a biased view of Ali's fight with Cooper, which doesn't mention that the victory was on cuts against someone who often lost fights in that way, and does not mention the incident with the glove.

If someone was to offer a fair assessment of that fight I think he would mention those things, just as he would mention the knockdown/referee in Douglas-Tyson, Tunney-Dempsey and Ali-Liston. It's not an excuse, but you act as if he did nothing to try to overcome a difficult fight, when in fact he came very close to scoring a KO.

Ali won was winning the fight before and after Cooper knocked him down. Douglas DOMINATED Tyson which most likely pursuaded the referee to give him a chance. No offense to you but when that arguement was brought up by Don King after Tyson/Douglas, it was immediately ignored by the judge. Thats why i found it funny that would use that as an indication of anything.

Coming close and actually doing something are two completely different things. Tyson was being beaten severely and landed a desperate punch that knocked Douglas down. Douglas not only got up but knocked Tyson out. After Douglas got up, Tyson could not hurt him again and Douglas took control. When Ali got up, he took back control and busted Cooper up badly and won by stoppage. Same with Ali Liston. I actually don't understand why you used Ali/Liston as an example.


I'm not sure of your point here. Yes, the record books would not say that, but how does that affect which of us is correct about his condition that night? There are a lot of things that a boxrec-style list of results would leave out.

Douglas showed up for the fight more than 14lbs overweight. On my copy (British TV) the commentators remark before the start of the fight that Douglas is not in good condition and are talking about how bad he looks within 60 seconds of the fight starting, so it isn't something that people only came up with to justify the loss; it was apparent before the fight even started.

I didn't look on Boxrec, i have the fight. Are you saying that Douglas would have beaten Holyfield or even had a chance? Becuase that seems like the point that you are trying to get at. What other reason would you bring up Douglas's weight of the fact that he wasn't in shape? Holyfield is not Tyson. He was always focused and had that consistantcy. He would have broken Douglas down, hurt him and kept him hurt.


Having more accomplishments does not mean that you were a better fighter though. I think that Meldrick Taylor was a fantastic fighter, and have no problems rating him higher than people who achieved more than 6 title fight victories, so I don't have a problem rating Douglas and McCall somewhat equal just because McCall has a win or two of more value, especially when you consider that Douglas beat McCall.

Being a better fighter has nothing to do with where you rank and i have nothing against it if thats your opinion, but i go by the actual facts and history. According to history MCall has beaten better fighters than Douglas and was actually some what motivated in his prime.

How to do you rank Meldrick Taylor as a great( which you are when you win 6 titles) and he has only won one title against MGirt?


Ok, let's give Moorer the edge over Spinks at heavyweight based upon achievements.

However, after beating Holyfield he was KO'd by someone who had been inactive for 18 months, was not considered top 5, possibly not even top 10, and was coming off a loss to Tommy Morrison. If you look at Douglas' career without Tyson and Moorer's career without Holyfield there is not a massive difference.

Most people would accept that Holyfield had a bad night against Moorer, as Lewis did against McCall and Rahman. You do not seem to be willing to do the same thing when it comes to Tyson though?

George Foreman was very good in his come back and beat some good fighters like Qawi, Steward, Savereese, Cooper ect. There is no shame in lossing to a legend and at any age, Foreman had a punchers chance in any fight and the fight was also being dominated by Moorer.

Holyfield was having more than a bad night against Moorer in their first fight, he was having a heart attack and doctors confirmed it shortly afterwards. This is an article on the situation that i researched on.

''After losing his WBA and IBF heavyweight championship belts to Michael Moorer (JET, May 9), Evander Holyfield learned he had two heart conditions and announced his retirement at a press conference.

The conditions are a "stiff heart", which prevents enough oxygen from being pumped to muscles and tissues, and an atrial septal defect, a "tiny hole" in the boxer's heart. Doctors said the conditions are not life-threatening. They were diagnosed while Holyfield was in the hospital for treatment after the Moorer fight.

"Mr. Holyfield fought this fight in heart failure, and it's an absolute miracle he could fight this fight for 12 rounds in this condition," observed Holyfield's personal physician, Dr. Ronald Stephens.''

"His heart was not functioning at its maximum level," cardiologist Dr. Douglas Morris said. "We did not look at this that his life was imperiled."

The cardiologist told Holyfield that the condition was under control now and he could lead a normal life if he resumes a less strenuous lifestyle.

"When Dr. Stephens told me, it was an easy decision," the 31-year-old Holyfield said. "I'm going to miss boxing a lot. I had a lot of love for it and it made a better life for me."

Last year, Holyfield regained his title from Riddick Bowe in a gutsy, 12-round slugfest.''

While this is true, Moorer did fight a tough good fight and earned the decision. It was definitely a legit win for Moorer.

Lewis stopped Bruno, plain and simple. He was a green contender that was in his second world title fight and that was his first real challenge. im having a laugh on the floor at what a hypocrite you are, and how you change up your points just so it suites your explanation

you dont give Lewis any heat for the mccal fight, and say he was a green contender, but you rain **** on tyson and criticise him because with only 19 fights he failed to put away a solid veteran like James Tillis who faced champions.

Johnson's wins over Fitzsimmons, Ketchel, Langford, Jeanette, Mcvea, Jefferies, Flynn, Burns just out runs anything Tyson has done in his whole career. THIS IS EVEN BETTER.

You hardly give tyson any credit for his win over spinks, saying that he wasnt an accomplished and small heavyweight, but you count johnson's win over a middleweight ketchel, a fight that was meant to be a set up in the first place

you dont give tyson credit for holmes saying he was inactive, yet you list Jim Jeffries as part of Johnson's greatest victories, eventhough Jeffries was retired for 6 years :nonono: This is even worse than Holmes, but you never bring that to attention

You count Johnson's victories over Joe Jeannette when Joe barely had 5 pro fights to his credit, and continued to get schooled by johnson throughout his early, inexperienced career up to that point.

You also dont state the fact that when Johnson won the title he stopped giving other black contenders a chance to fight for the title. those same contenders like Sam Langford who got more experienced and was getting himself in the rankings, not the fresh version that Johnson first fought

im having a laugh on the floor at what a hypocrite you are, and how you change up your points just so it suites your explanation

you dont give Lewis any heat for the mccal fight, and say he was a green contender, but you rain **** on tyson and criticise him because with only 19 fights he failed to put away a solid veteran like James Tillis who faced champions.

You should try reading my posts and actually see my points instead deliberately trying to find something to complain about. Thats really getting annoying. First off, i said that Lewis was a green contender when he fought Bruno in their first fight. There are no excuses for the MCcall fight. He ran into a lucky punch and thats that. What showed that it was a fluke was the fact that he rebounded and beat MCcall in the rematch, something that Tyson didn't do to Douglas or Holyfield when he was actualy in the peak of his prime. Try again.

You hardly give tyson any credit for his win over spinks, saying that he wasnt an accomplished and small heavyweight, but you count johnson's win over a middleweight ketchel, a fight that was meant to be a set up in the first place

you dont give tyson credit for holmes saying he was inactive, yet you list Jim Jeffries as part of Johnson's greatest victories, eventhough Jeffries was retired for 6 years :nonono: This is even worse than Holmes, but you never bring that to attention

His win over Spinks was legit and there are no complaints from me. I just don't look at that win as an indication that he (Tyson) was greater becuase he beat Spinks, a guy that was a blown up light heavyweight and who's best days had been behind him.

You count Johnson's victories over Joe Jeannette when Joe barely had 5 pro fights to his credit, and continued to get schooled by johnson throughout his early, inexperienced career up to that point.

You also dont state the fact that when Johnson won the title he stopped giving other black contenders a chance to fight for the title. those same contenders like Sam Langford who got more experienced and was getting himself in the rankings, not the fresh version that Johnson first fought

Johnson fought Jeanette(one of the best black heavyweights of that era) about 9 times and about 6 times in one year. The problem and what people criticise him about was that he didn't give them shots at the title while he was champion. The point is that he beat all of the best black fighters of that time no matter what you say.

I names Jefferies as one of the best names on his resume but not one of his best wins because he was past it, he had better wins over prime great fighters. When discussing Tyson's resume, people like you have to bring up Larry Holmes as one of Tyson's best wins because he did not beat any great or even elite fighters that were in their prime.

You should try reading my posts and actually see my points instead deliberately trying to find something to complain about. Thats really getting annoying. First off, i said that Lewis was a green contender when he fought Bruno in their first fight. There are no excuses for the MCcall fight. He ran into a lucky punch and thats that. What showed that it was a fluke was the fact that he rebounded and beat MCcall in the rematch, something that Tyson didn't do to Douglas or Holyfield when he was actualy in the peak of his prime. Try again.



His win over Spinks was legit and there are no complaints from me. I just don't look at that win as an indication that he (Tyson) was greater becuase he beat Spinks, a guy that was a blown up light heavyweight and who's best days had been behind him.



Johnson fought Jeanette(one of the best black heavyweights of that era) about 9 times and about 6 times in one year. The problem and what people criticise him about was that he didn't give them shots at the title while he was champion. The point is that he beat all of the best black fighters of that time no matter what you say.

I names Jefferies as one of the best names on his resume but not one of his best wins because he was past it, he had better wins over prime great fighters. When discussing Tyson's resume, people like you have to bring up Larry Holmes as one of Tyson's best wins because he did not beat any great or even elite fighters that were in their prime.
again you're spewing nonsense. When Johnson fought Jeanette, Joe was only entering his pro ranks, he was no where the veteran of 160 + fights, he was fighting a solid pro like Johnson with barely 10 fights to his credit, and continued getting schooled with no decisions and losses because he wasnt experienced enough at that point. That's same as ali taking on a guy like Spinks, with **** all fights on his record. It's same as putting an amteur against a pro.

it's not about making excuses. lewis had a bad performance and a loss against mccal and you say he was green. yet you criticise tyson for having a bad night with tillis, when tyson was still green. You dont give the same respect to tyson that you give to other fighters.

it's getting really frustrating trying to get a point across, because no matter how truthfull it is, you'll always dismiss it, and start with your broken record. you got this know-it-all attitude, eventhough your knowledge is very limited and based on opinions, and when you post, you basically say **** everyone's elses knowledge, im the one who's right. that ignorance really shows

i came to conclusion, that you're either an idiot (dont take it bad) or just too damn stubborn and ignorant and keep charging a brick wall like an angry bull

i mean for Pete's sake, you wrote paragraph after paragraph arguing that Klitschko-Purity fight was stopped by referee and not Wlad's corner, even when other posters have showed you youtube clips before your very eyes. Even then you kept arguing for God's sake

every poster here came up with legitimate opinions and facts, you didnt aknowledge either one, and keep on rambaling like a broken record changing your criteria just as long as it satisfys you.

dont take it as a flame, but id hate to run into someone like you in real life. Needless to say, i would not enjoy the pleasure of your company when discussion something with you

even the dumbest of the dumb posters would admit that they are wrong by now. You are just plain and simple, ignorant.

The arguing going on in this thread is pretty much just Tyson hate, putting a guy like Johnson over Tyson is just plain stupid. Boxing wasn't even developed back then, the man got knocked down by a middleweight.

Writing Spinks off as a blown up LHW is ludicrous. Spinks hadn't lost and just finished beating up Gerry Cooney and a UD over Holmes. The same Holmes that beat a Prime Ray Mercer. To knock him out in 1 round is saying something.

I would put Tyson at about number 5, on my list..

Ali
Louis
Lewis
Holyfield
Tyson
Holmes
Foreman
Marciano
Frazier
Dempsey

This is based on accomplishments, If it was based on who would beat who I would have Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson at the top 3.

I think what creates so much discussion and confusion about this is how it is worded, and lack of knowledge.

First the word prime. It can mean diffirent things to diffirent peiple. What I think first is physical prime, but then you have examples like Lennox Lewis who weren't at their BEST when they were in their PHYSICAL prime, you begin to wonder what the most suitable description is.

So therefor, instead of saying Tyson was past his prime against Douglass, you could say he wasn't at his best. Replace the word prime with best and you might solve this problem.

It's true that physicially Tyson was still the same untill his imprisonment, and after prison he still possesed great speed, but was more rusty/less accurate and his foot speed also declined a bit. He was past his prime in all aspects after the Holyfield fights.

Again, i'm talking physically here. What we can't do is ignore the mental aspects of Boxing. It has been said time after time again, unless you're mentally as strong as you are skillfully you will not be at your best. We all know Tyson's story. People just believe that he wasn't at his best against Douglass for the reasons I pointed out, and more.

So to answer this very old question again the best way I can, no Tyson wasn't past his prime when Douglass beat him, but he wasn't at his best.

The arguing going on in this thread is pretty much just Tyson hate, putting a guy like Johnson over Tyson is just plain stupid. Boxing wasn't even developed back then, the man got knocked down by a middleweight.

Writing Spinks off as a blown up LHW is ludicrous. Spinks hadn't lost and just finished beating up Gerry Cooney and a UD over Holmes. The same Holmes that beat a Prime Ray Mercer. To knock him out in 1 round is saying something.

I would put Tyson at about number 5, on my list..

Ali
Louis
Lewis
Holyfield
Tyson
Holmes
Foreman
Marciano
Frazier
Dempsey

This is based on accomplishments, If it was based on who would beat who I would have Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson at the top 3.

Hold on, you're saying Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson would've beaten Ali and Foreman?:puke:

Hold on, you're saying Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson would've beaten Ali and Foreman?:puke:

Lewis would have beat Foreman, Foreman would beat Tyson, but Tyson would beat Ali. (styles wise)

Or arguably Foreman could beat Lewis but I think the odds would be 8/10 for Lewis.

Maybe I'd put Ali over Holyfield but I find him overrated. Foreman is obviously a beast but I think a lot of good boxers could box circles around him.

Tyson wasn't past his prime but he wasn't training like he should have been and had distractions outside of the ring so he wasn't at his best.

Great heavyweights deal with adversity, something that Tyson has never shown in his peak years. For example, look at Ali against Cooper. Ali took him lightly and paid a price and was very badly hurt and seemingly on his way out, the difference is that he got up and proved that he was great by dealing with it, buckling down and coming back and stopping Cooper. I would have understood if Tyson was in the fight and it was close, but he was not only dominated but knocked out by this guy. I completely understand that Douglas was talented and had the tools and ability to do something, however it looks bad for Tyson for the simple fact that it was the best Douglas has ever looked in his entire career an he was not even close to being great nor elite. Evander Holyfield( an elite fighter and all time great) took Douglas apart in his very next fight. Look at the opposition that Ali, Louis, Frazier and Foreman lost to and look at Tyson's. My thing is that he has never shown me anything that indicated that he was great and every time that he stepped up against the elites, he lost. Again, the man had every tool to be one of if not the greatest, but talent and your accomplishments are very different.

Nuff said:fing02:

again you're spewing nonsense. When Johnson fought Jeanette, Joe was only entering his pro ranks, he was no where the veteran of 160 + fights, he was fighting a solid pro like Johnson with barely 10 fights to his credit, and continued getting schooled with no decisions and losses because he wasnt experienced enough at that point. That's same as ali taking on a guy like Spinks, with **** all fights on his record. It's same as putting an amteur against a pro.

it's not about making excuses. lewis had a bad performance and a loss against mccal and you say he was green. yet you criticise tyson for having a bad night with tillis, when tyson was still green. You dont give the same respect to tyson that you give to other fighters.

it's getting really frustrating trying to get a point across, because no matter how truthfull it is, you'll always dismiss it, and start with your broken record. you got this know-it-all attitude, eventhough your knowledge is very limited and based on opinions, and when you post, you basically say **** everyone's elses knowledge, im the one who's right. that ignorance really shows

i came to conclusion, that you're either an idiot (dont take it bad) or just too damn stubborn and ignorant and keep charging a brick wall like an angry bull

i mean for Pete's sake, you wrote paragraph after paragraph arguing that Klitschko-Purity fight was stopped by referee and not Wlad's corner, even when other posters have showed you youtube clips before your very eyes. Even then you kept arguing for God's sake

every poster here came up with legitimate opinions and facts, you didnt aknowledge either one, and keep on rambaling like a broken record changing your criteria just as long as it satisfys you.

dont take it as a flame, but id hate to run into someone like you in real life. Needless to say, i would not enjoy the pleasure of your company when discussion something with you

even the dumbest of the dumb posters would admit that they are wrong by now. You are just plain and simple, ignorant.

You are crazy if you actually think i will respond to this ignorant hugging post . You really need to read up your history and revsit Johnson. You have some nerve to accuse Johnson of ducking people that he actually fought AND beat when Tyson avoided even the elite fighters when he was in his prime. Anyway you look at it, hes greater than Tyson.



I think what creates so much discussion and confusion about this is how it is worded, and lack of knowledge.

Doesn't really take a rocket scientist to see that Tyson was undisputed champion, unbeaten and was in his prime years.

So to answer this very old question again the best way I can, no Tyson wasn't past his prime when Douglass beat him.

:fing02:

You have some nerve to accuse Johnson of ducking people that he actually fought AND beat when Tyson avoided even the elite fighters when he was in his prime. Anyway you look at it, hes greater than Tyson. I have never accused Johnson of ducking. way to twist words. all i said was that johnson stopped giving black contenders a shot at his title once he began his reign at heavyweight. some of the best contenders at that time were black, who never got to become champions

like i said before Johnson fought jeannette when Joe barely had 10 pro fights to his credit. He was nowhere near the fighter that he became, the time Johnson fought him, Jeanette had no experience whatsoever, if you cant see that than id have to guess you're an idiot

You arguements sound more and more childish. You dont have enough knowledge or information, except for what you find on box rec. You dont have the background info on the losses, wins, the circumstances surrounding those fights. You still a rookie to put it softly.

Everyone's opinion here is unanimous, you come in here like a retarded glob trying to argue something that you dont even know

here's your knowledge of tyson

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, 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. now you can cry like a little girl, and put me on your ignore

I have never accused Johnson of ducking. way to twist words. all i said was that johnson stopped giving black contenders a shot at his title once he began his reign at heavyweight. some of the best contenders at that time were black, who never got to become champions

Your posts are so pathetic that you don't even read them. This is called accusing someone of avoiding. You are basically saying that Johnson avoided Langford and other black heavyweights when he was champion. You have the nerve, Tyson avoided plenty of fighters. These are fighters that Johnson actually beat.


You also dont state the fact that when Johnson won the title he stopped giving other black contenders a chance to fight for the title. those same contenders like Sam Langford who got more experienced and was getting himself in the rankings, not the fresh version that Johnson first fought


ike i said before Johnson fought jeannette when Joe barely had 10 pro fights to his credit. He was nowhere near the fighter that he became, the time Johnson fought him, Jeanette had no experience whatsoever, if you cant see that than id have to guess you're an idiot

Yeah, he beat Jeanette about 9 times and 6 in one year. Find something else to accuse him of doing. Did Tyson even fight a prime Holyfield, Lewis, or Mercer even one time?

You arguements sound more and childish. You dont have enough knowledge or information, except for what you find on box rec. You dont have the background info on the losses, wins, the circumstances surrounding those fights. You still a rookie to put it softly.

I probably know more about your favorite fighters than you do. Again i was raised around boxing. I only go to boxrec when i forget the dates. You question my knowledge when you are the one who stated that Tyson fought better fighters than Louis, a thread in which over a half of boxingscene not only disagreed but laughed at you in. You are so insecure that you have to look at my profile after you post to see when/if i an responding to it.

Everyone's opinion here is unanimous, you come in here like a retarded glob trying to argue something that you dont even know

here's your knowledge of tyson

Your knowledge of Johnson is going to boxrec and looking at losses and who beat him, completely ignoring who he did beat and how many times he beat the fighters that you accuse him of avoiding. I suggest you get his documentary on DVD (Unforgiveable Blackness) or his biography and start to actually learn.

here's what i wrote about joe louis opposition and tyson's in my thread

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

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

the only people who had a problem with that are nuthuggers and haters like Poet, and you, who doesnt know a lick about boxing history

you really tell me tyson couldnt hang with guys like galento, baer, schmeling, godoy, walcott, and his 'bum of the month' club defences, where he went to different city each month to fight an unknown opponent

arguing with you is like talking to a brick wall. you make up things, try to act like you some historian. i couldnt give a **** about your family of boxing, that means nothing to me. i dont evenm give a **** about who you are. your reputation does nothing for me

i see stupidity and hypocrisy. you downgrade tyson for exact same reasons you praise other fighters.

Did Tyson even fight a prime Holyfield, Lewis, or Mercer even one time? and are you really asking me to reply to this nonesense

i could ask you the same thing. did evander fight prime tyson? no, but in your opinion and wisdom tyson is the one who ducked because he had an injury, despite the fight being signed. You dont even know that, other members have told you that in your other thread, and you kept sitting there clapping with your eyes like an idiot

yeah, tyson never fought Lewis in his prime, but i know for sure Lewis fought tyson when any journeyman in the world could knock him out

where's the evidence he was ducking mercer? where? because you said so, i can ask why Mercer was ducking tyson? what you gonne say, huh?

what a ****ing child you are, geez

and are you really asking me to reply to this nonesense

i could ask you the same thing. did evander fight prime tyson? no, but in your opinion and wisdom tyson is the one who ducked because he had an injury, despite the fight being signed. You dont even know that, other members have told you that in your other thread, and you kept sitting there clapping with your eyes like an idiot

No Evander didn't fight a prime Tyson because Tyson never wanted the fight. Instead, he fought a prime Bowe, prime Mercer and a prime Lewis. He beat Bowe and Mercer and fought to a draw with Lewis. Again, you are in no position to be accusing anyone of avoiding the elite. Funny how that was one of the few injuries that prime Tyson had. It would have looked better for Tyson if it was Holfyield exposing him instead of Douglas.


yeah, tyson never fought Lewis in his prime, but i know for sure Lewis fought tyson when any journeyman in the world could knock him out

where's the evidence he was ducking mercer? where? because you said so, i can ask why Mercer was ducking tyson? what you gonne say, huh?

what a ****ing child you are, geez

Lewis has not only fought but beaten far better fighters than Tyson has. Lewis wanted Tyson but again, there is a reason why the fight was never made. There is something wrong when the elites want to fight you and the fight never gets signed.

You are staring to sound more and more like a true hugger. Mercer ducked Tyson? Lewis avoiding Tyson now? lol. Everyone wanted a part of the Tyson sweeptakes in the mid 90's after Tyson was released. Mercer wanted him and Lews did as well.

Tyson only had one injury against Evander, and the fight was signed, i dont know how many times you have to be told. There was a press conference for this even after the injury. Tyson was signed to fight evander after douglas, he lost, and instead the fight never came off because evander was in position to fight for the belts that douglas won from mike. Buster was offered some 30 mill to fight evander, and Holyfield would be a challenger. Again what the hell are you spewing about Mike ducking Evander????

mike also had injuries before the ruddock and mathis fight among others, did he duck them too? you'll say no because he already fought them, so unfourtanetly you cannot make that excuse right.

they had an in HBO studio presentation, where mike was literally begging Douglas to fight him instead of Evander. i recommend you check this video out

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DJAUmFSAI9k&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DJAUmFSAI9k&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

lennox had a chance to fight mike late in the 90s, but he refused

instead he chose to fight mike when he was basically damaged goods

Tyson only had one injury against Evander, and the fight was signed, i dont know how many times you have to be told. There was a press conference for this even after the injury. Tyson was signed to fight evander after douglas, he lost, and instead the fight never came off because evander was in position to fight for the belts that douglas won from mike. Buster was offered some 30 mill to fight evander, and Holyfield would be a challenger. Again what the hell are you spewing about Mike ducking Evander????

mike also had injuries before the ruddock and mathis fight among others, did he duck them too? you'll say no because he already fought them, so unfourtanetly you cannot make that excuse right.

they had an in HBO studio presentation, where mike was literally begging Douglas to fight him instead of Evander. i recommend you check this video out

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DJAUmFSAI9k&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DJAUmFSAI9k&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

lennox had a chance to fight mike late in the 90s, but he refused

instead he chose to fight mike when he was basically damaged goods

Tyson's management obviously didn't agree with him becuase Douglas wanted the rematch as well. Tyson's people were only interested in rebuilding his career before getting back into the title picture. Tyson has always made claims about wanting to fight Lewis, Holyfield ect, he was saying that to not make himself look bad. That video proves abolutely nothing be to honest. You have to look at what was going on at the time and the circumstances, not what Tyson's claims that he wants to do. He also called out a Lion and a Gorrila, but does that mean he really wanted to do it? Also, you seem to clearly not see that there is somthing fishy about Tyson getting his only injury when he signed to fight Holyfield. Hmmmmmmmmm :thinking:

On Lewis/Tyson. Aparrently Don King paid Lewis step aside money so Tyson wouldn't have to face him. This is an article that i found in my research.

''The World Boxing Council wants Tyson to defend against Lennox Lewis of England, a former champion and now its No. 1 contender. Lewis turned down a $13.5 million guarantee to fight Tyson. Lewis then accepted $4 million from King to step aside and allow Tyson to fight Seldon, with the provison that Tyson, assuming he beat Seldon, would fight Lewis next. Tyson is expected to receive $30 million for fighting Seldon.

Now Lewis's handlers say they will guarantee Tyson $45 million to fight Lewis, but Tyson seems more interested in fighting Evander Holyfield, a former champion. If Tyson bypasses Lewis, the W.B.C. will strip Tyson of his title for refusing to fight its top-ranked contender. It would then match Lewis and Oliver McCall, its second-ranked contender, for the vacant title. If all those things happened, the next big fight would probably be the Lewis-McCall winner against -- who else? -- Tyson.

And Riddick Bowe, another former champion, wants to get into the picture. Bowe fights Andrew Golota next Thursday night at Madison Square Garden, but he said his main targets were fights with Lewis or Tyson or both.

"I believe they called off the Tyson fight because of money," Bowe said on a hastily arranged conference call. "I don't think tickets were selling that good. If they want to make money, I'm the guy to fight. I'm available."

When Tyson was asked Monday what Seldon should be thinking, he said, "Don't show up." Now Tyson is the one not showing up. ''

You asked what made him a great fighter, and i stated that him beating Louis(the second greatest heavyweight of all time) puts him there. Before beating Louis, he was a very good fighter as well. He won many European heavyweight titles and he also beat Young Stribbling for the World heavyweight title so he was never at any point was at a journeyman status. Again, Douglas was a journeyman that had already lost his biggest fights up until Tyson.

Schmeling didn't win the title against Stribling, he won the title against Sharkey on a low blow. Schmeling was getting the crap beat out of him by Sharkey for 4 rounds and then Sharkey accidentally hit him low, and Schmeling couldn't continue so they disqualified Sharkey. Schmeling was seemed as washed up before he fought Louis and many peole feared for Schmeling's life in that fight. Douglas was a top-rated contender when he fought Tyson. and had some good wins, so he was definetely not a bum.

So are we making Douglas out to be some sort of a highly rated contender now? Pathetic. Before the fight, the fight was thought of to be so much of a mismatch that they couldn't find a venue in American to land the fight so it had to be taken to Toykio. Douglas was not much before or after Tyson.

He was ranked number 3 in the world when he fought Tyson, so I think that's highly rated enough.

So are we making Douglas out to be some sort of a highly rated contender now? Pathetic. Before the fight, the fight was thought of to be so much of a mismatch that they couldn't find a venue in American to land the fight so it had to be taken to Toykio. Douglas was not much before or after Tyson.

Oh, and by the way the Louis-Schmeling fight was thought to be just as much of a mismatch if not more.

Schmeling didn't win the title against Stribling, he won the title against Sharkey on a low blow. Schmeling was getting the crap beat out of him by Sharkey for 4 rounds and then Sharkey accidentally hit him low, and Schmeling couldn't continue so they disqualified Sharkey. Schmeling was seemed as washed up before he fought Louis and many peole feared for Schmeling's life in that fight. Douglas was a top-rated contender when he fought Tyson. and had some good wins, so he was definetely not a bum.

My mistake about Schemelling/Stribbling. However, Douglas wasn't a top rated contedner because if he was, then the fight would have been in the states and he wouldn't have been that big of an underdog. Douglas had lost all of his biggest key fights up until Tyson. He was known as underachiever, a quitter and a guy that never showed becuase he was often out of shape. Read this article. It talks about how he wasn't much before or after Tyson.

''James "Buster" Douglas (DOB: 4/7/1960; Columbus, Ohio) was considered one of many bums whom champions face in between title defenses versus more serious contenders. However, Douglas had previously beaten accomplished fighters such as Oliver McCall and Trevor Berbick (both in 1989). Still, he had lost 4 fights in his career and was hardly seen as a major threat. Douglas was listed as a 42-1 underdog against the unbeaten, and seemingly unstoppable, Tyson. Still, Douglas's mother had recently died so Douglas was greatly motivated and in great physical shape.

The bout, on February 11, 1990 in Tokyo, didn't go as everyone expected. Perhaps taking Douglas lightly (afterall, everyone else did), Tyson didn't knock Douglas out early, as he did most previous opponents (none of his 5 most recent title defenses lasted past the 5th round). Douglas took advantage, and shocked the world with a 10th round knockout of Tyson, becoming undisputed heavyweight champion.

Douglas went overnight from an unknown to a champion. Sega Genesis released the video game Buster Douglas Boxing (which, fittingly, probably wasn't as good as Mike Tyson's Punchout on NES).

The honeymoon ended on October 25, 1990 in Las Vegas, when Evander Holyfield knocked Douglas out in the 3rd round, to take the heavyweight championship. Remarkably, Douglas was out of shape and overweight for the fight, which was his first and last title defense.

Douglas did not fight from 1991-1995, and had health problems related to being overweight (including being in a diabetic coma at one point).

Buster returned to boxing in 1996. He won his fights, but didn't fight anyone of note and was still out of shape. Douglas suffered a first-round knockout by Lou Savarese on June 25, 1998 in Ledyard, Connecticut, which effectively ended talks of a Tyson-Douglas rematch.

Douglas fought a few times since, but as far as I know, he's now retired from boxing. His career record is 38-6-1, with 25 knockouts.

Recently, when unknown Hasim Rahman knocked out Lennox Lewis to win the heavyweight championship, comparisons were drawn between Rahman and Douglas.

Buster Douglas's legacy is as boxing's David who beat the sport's Goliath to become a champion (if only for a few months).''

Oh, and by the way the Louis-Schmeling fight was thought to be just as much of a mismatch if not more.

Joe Louis was a 10 to 1 favorite to beat Max Schmelling, Mike Tyson was a 42 to 1 favorite to beat Douglas. Massive difference. That actually goes to prove my point that Schmelling was a lot better than Douglas. So there you have it. :fing02:

He was ranked number 3 in the world when he fought Tyson, so I think that's highly rated enough.

You should remember that actual "ratings" are subject to manipulation by the alphabet boys to give promoters like Don King the fights they want. If King wants to put his meal ticket in against a tomato can then that fighter will
"mysteriously" be suddenly ranked in the top five to legitimize the fight. Another reason why promoters and alphabet organizations need to die.

Poet

Ring Rating for Feb of 1990;

1. Mike Tyson
2. Evander Holyfield
3. Orlin Norris
4. Michael Dokes
5. Francesco Damiani
6. Tim Witherspoon
7. Buster Douglas
8. Carl Williams
9. Razor Ruddock
10. Gary Mason


Ring Ratings for year end, 1935, which was about six months before the first Louis/Schmeling fight, but I'll assume* Schmeling wasn't dropped any because he didn't have a fight between when those ratings were issued and the fight with Louis;

Champion: James Braddock
1. Joe Louis
2. Max Schmeling
3. Primo Carnera
4. Charley Retzlaff
5. Tommy Loughran
6. Eddie Mader
7. Hank Hankinson
8. Ray Impelletiere
9. Al Ettore
10. Ford Smith


*Also the assumption can be made because because the NYSAC came right and stated that the winner would be getting the next crack at Braddock's champioship.

For an example;

"The winner of the Joe Louis-Max Schmeling fight at the Yankee Stadium June 18 will be recognized as the No. 1 challenger for the world heavyweight championship now held by James J. Braddock. This was definately decided at a meeting of the State Athletic Commision yesterday, and it is probable that the title fight will be held in New York in September." - New York Times, May 20th, 1936

Joe Louis was a 10 to 1 favorite to beat Max Schmelling, Mike Tyson was a 42 to 1 favorite to beat Douglas. Massive difference. That actually goes to prove my point that Schmelling was a lot better than Douglas. So there you have it. :fing02:

Betting odds nowadays are grossly distorted. If the fight was held back in the thirties or forties Douglas would not have been more than a 10 or 12 to one underdog.

Betting odds nowadays are grossly distorted. If the fight was held back in the thirties or forties Douglas would not have been more than a 10 or 12 to one underdog.leave it alone brother, it's pointless. you can see him judging one's ability and record by the odds of one fight. you'll have better luck talking to a brick wall. my advice just save the nerves and move on

It's obvious Tyson just underrated his opponent and payed for it, if anyone thinks he would have lost to Douglas on a good night is delusional.

The same goes for Joe Louis, he just underrated his opponent and payed for it.

Betting odds nowadays are grossly distorted. If the fight was held back in the thirties or forties Douglas would not have been more than a 10 or 12 to one underdog.

I have never heard that one before. Odds are odds anyway we look at it. Schmelling was better than Douglas and ranked higher, as Yogi pointed out. He was also a champion where as Douglas was a very good journeyman as the article that i have posted pointed out. Its specifically stated that Douglas was another bum that Tyson was suppoose to blow out, in those words.

leave it alone brother, it's pointless. you can see him judging one's ability and record by the odds of one fight. you'll have better luck talking to a brick wall. my advice just save the nerves and move on

No, i'm proving that Douglas/Tyson was the bigger upset, maybe the biggest of all time. Lewis/Rachman I was even a much bigger upset than Louis/Schmelling was. You don't even respond to my posts above so clearly you are through. This is coming from someone that said they were done with this thread around the second page. :lol1:


It's obvious Tyson just underrated his opponent and payed for it, if anyone thinks he would have lost to Douglas on a good night is delusional.

The same goes for Joe Louis, he just underrated his opponent and payed for it.

You said that a guy like Jack Johnson shouldn't be ranked over Tyson and you were actually serious. What has Tyson done to even come close? No offense but i think we heard enough of your views..LOL

It's not about Tyson, it's about Douglas.

Fanboys want to deny a man's accomplishments. The same little boys say Rahman beat Lewis only when Lewis didn't train properly, because he was too busy playing a boxer in a fifteen-second movie stint.

what's pathetic about you, slick, is that you read some yellow press and assume things for truth what some writers yap about.

you made some ridicilous claims about tyson, in his prime, ducking lennox Lewis, then when you found out Lennox was still an amateur you changed your tune that tyson was ducking lewis in the 90s.

Then by the time mike started going through his trial and serving time Mercer was in the rankings taking care of Cooper, and setting his title shot in late october against Morrison, and tyson was ducking him behind bars.

you blame him for not fighting Bowe, when Riddick was still a nobody, literally, and by the time Tyson got out, Bowe was getting his nuts handed to him by golota.

When in the 90s the rumoured fight didnt come off between mercer, you automatically blame tyson. Your reason: Everyone wanted tyson. lol, just because they wanted him, and didnt get to fight, the blame automatically falls on tyson for not making the fight.

then Tyson, being a human being susceptible to injuries, gets hurt and cant fight with Evander, that gives you fuel to keep saying it was a duck. You're just an idiot man, seriously

and you accuse tyson for not fighting the dangerous Lennox lewis after 4 year inactivity in jail??? of course he took on the title holder, and easier fight with Bruce Seldon, why risk loosing to a more dangerous fighter with no real preparation.

the point is, those fights did happen, and mike got beat, which im sure made you very happy. He fought those fights, and he wasnt at his best, there were no advantages to him.

you are the first tyson hater who came up with these imaginary ducks, proves you know ****ing **** and yet try to sound reasonable. what a ****ty poster you are seriously

You don't even respond to my posts above so clearly you are through. and i did answer your question in my very first post in this ****ty thread

the difference in that fight is that one guy brought his best stuff on display, the other guy didnt

yet that wasnt enough for you, you kept provoking this discussion and spewing all this garbage about adversity, ducking, not dealing with resistance, blah blah blah

it's obvious tyson was still fresh at the time buster fought him, but that's not what you wanted to know. You made this thread as a cover up, so you could continue riding on tyson's ass

what's pathetic about you, slick, is that you read some yellow press and assume things for truth what some writers yap about.

you made some ridicilous claims about tyson, in his prime, ducking lennox Lewis, then when you found out Lennox was still an amateur you changed your tune that tyson was ducking lewis in the 90s.

These stories were actually confirmed. Tyson wanted no part of Lewis and instead took on Bruce Seldon, the greatest heavyweight champion of all time. When someone have been calling you out for years and promotor offers him millions as step aside money and instead, you fight one of the worst paper champions of all. Is that not avoiding somone?


Then by the time mike started going through his trial and serving time Mercer was in the rankings taking care of Cooper, and setting his title shot in late october against Morrison, and tyson was ducking him behind bars.

you blame him for not fighting Bowe, when Riddick was still a nobody, literally, and by the time Tyson got out, Bowe was getting his nuts handed to him by golota.

Tyson/Bowe could have still happened even when Bowe WAS shot. Since i can't convince you myself, this is another short article from the book ''Rocky Lives'' that discuss Tyson's situation so these are FACTS that you cannot claim are wrong. I figure I'd type some out, just the part about Tyson and Bowe.

''By the time Mike Tyson returned, many boxing writers were simply glad that the charade of paper champions would be ending. Besides, it looked like Don King wanted Tyson to unify the heavyweight title and like he would be able to do so (controlling two of the three champions). In fact, it didn't take Tyson long to win his first belt. With Don King pushing his weight around with the WBC, Mike found himself with the number one contender before he even fought, and in the title fight with the WBC champion Frank Bruno after only two fights. Tyson destroyed Bruno is three lopsided rounds, helping to reestablish himself as the biggest heavyweight champion of the world. King was determinded to keep Mike's run as Smooth as possible, as the way to so that was to avoid Riddock Bowe and Lennox Lewis. Bowe would be easier, as he would be locked in a fued with Andrew Golota that would end his career.''


When in the 90s the rumoured fight didnt come off between mercer, you automatically blame tyson. Your reason: Everyone wanted tyson. lol, just because they wanted him, and didnt get to fight, the blame automatically falls on tyson for not making the fight.

then Tyson, being a human being susceptible to injuries, gets hurt and cant fight with Evander, that gives you fuel to keep saying it was a duck. You're just an idiot man, seriously


I have to figure. Since all of these fighters wanted Tyson and NONE were made until he was desperate for money, then you could only blame him. These fighters wanted their paydays against the man and as the article from the book stated above, Don King wanted to keep Tyson's momentum going and not face anyone with a pulse.

Tyson's first and only injury when he was in his prime was when he fought Holyfield. I can actually provide an article to that as well but its useless, you wouldn't believe it. At this point you are just arguing a lost cause. You haven't even responded to the first articles that i postes and continue to ignore everything that i say.

and you accuse tyson for not fighting the dangerous Lennox lewis after 4 year inactivity in jail??? of course he took on the title holder, and easier fight with Bruce Seldon, why risk loosing to a more dangerous fighter with no real preparation.

You just said it yourself. Exactly, Tyson avoided Lewis to fight an easier champion and his promoter paid Lewis step aside money so he wouldn't complain. You are learning things without me having to tell you.


the point is, those fights did happen, and mike got beat, which im sure made you very happy. He fought those fights, and he wasnt at his best, there were no advantages to him.

you are the first tyson hater who came up with these imaginary ducks, proves you know ****ing **** and yet try to sound reasonable. what a ****ty poster you are seriously


Again, i have nothing against Tyson and i have his entire career set on DVD, even his Olympic trials. I tell the truth, all of these stars wanted him in his prime and neither fight was made until he needed money. That must tell you something. Dong King did a good job and all credits to him because he managed his fighter well. If he didn't and threw him in with a prime Evander, Bowe, Lewis or maybe even Mercer, then Tyson's name wouldn't be mentioned much today. Buster Douglas was the first to get him.

You said it there m8. Don King wanted to make it smooth, so he avoided Bowe and Lewis. At this staged mike was brain washed, and don controlled him more or less.
I think after the bruno or seldon fight, tyson was asked is is holyfield next, and don is shouting in the back we dont want holyfield. But tyson makes it known he does. ill try and track this down for u

tyson actually won wen he knocked dougles down it was more then 10seconds the bad reefre let him up and tyson was pissed about that and he should of trained harder

I have never heard that one before. Odds are odds anyway we look at it. Schmelling was better than Douglas and ranked higher, as Yogi pointed out. He was also a champion where as Douglas was a very good journeyman as the article that i have posted pointed out. Its specifically stated that Douglas was another bum that Tyson was suppoose to blow out, in those words.

The Tyson-Spinks odds were 7 to 1 if you're interested, and we all know that that fight was one of the biggest promoted fights of all-time. And if we take a fight like let's say Liston-Clay in 1964 one of the biggest upsets and supposed mismatches of all-time the odds were, oh **** 7 to 1! So I guess either Spinks was either a huge underdog (which he wasn't), or Clay was a really live underdog (which he definetely wasn't), or both!:lol1:

leave it alone brother, it's pointless. you can see him judging one's ability and record by the odds of one fight. you'll have better luck talking to a brick wall. my advice just save the nerves and move on

I don't give up easily. I feel I can either change his mind or just keep pounding it in until he just gives up entirely. If you ask people around this forum, they will tell you that.:D

Tyson haters are just as delusional as the fanboys, FFS.

I absolutely hate how Tyson get's hated on for the ear biting incident and his imprisonment, it's like somehow that takes away all his achievements? It's disgusting that boxing fans will discredit boxing's biggest fighter ever.

It's obvious he turned into a scum bag for a while when he started hanging around DKP, but on his way up to the Title he was the best boxer in the world with incredible skills.

tyson actually won wen he knocked dougles down it was more then 10seconds the bad reefre let him up and tyson was pissed about that and he should of trained harder

Give it up. I've been hearing Tyson's devoted rim-jobbers whining about that **** for 17 years :bottle: You guys really need to suck on your binkies and get the **** over it. Last time I checked it's the referee's count that counts: The timekeeper can sit there and diddle his polizzle and it don't make a damn bit of difference. Once a fight starts the referee is in charge and his ruling is final, period, end of story. If he says Tyson is disqualified for ear-chewing than Tyson is DQed period. Jose Sulaiman's has no imput. Don King can't bribe his way out of it. The referee is GOD once the bell rings.

PS. No posts whining :bottle: about headbutts either: I've had to listen to THAT **** for 10 years now; enough to fill hundreds of y'alls dirty diapers. So please, spare me the boo hooing or I'll have to call a whaaaaambulance for you :bottle:

Poet

It's not about Tyson, it's about Douglas.

Fanboys want to deny a man's accomplishments. The same little boys say Rahman beat Lewis only when Lewis didn't train properly, because he was too busy playing a boxer in a fifteen-second movie stint.

Maybe Tyson wasn't at his best, Douglas was for once and he hauled his huge ass off the ground and still came back and won. Douglas was a very good fighter who deserved his moment.

Much as Rahman deserved his moment. If Lewis was under-prepared that's his fault, and he paid the price bigtime.

The only difference is Lewis was able to take his defeats and not let them effect him mentally and come back and win the rematches.

The Tyson-Spinks odds were 7 to 1 if you're interested, and we all know that that fight was one of the biggest promoted fights of all-time. And if we take a fight like let's say Liston-Clay in 1964 one of the biggest upsets and supposed mismatches of all-time the odds were, oh **** 7 to 1! So I guess either Spinks was either a huge underdog (which he wasn't), or Clay was a really live underdog (which he definetely wasn't), or both!:lol1:

Ali/Listion was not a very HUGE upset to the people that followed boxing but only to the people that wanted Liston to tourch Ali. 7 to 1 sounds about right. Ali was an Olympic gold medalist and was unbeaten. It was definitely a big upset because Liston was seen as invincible at the time, however no where near as big as Tyson/Douglas or even Louis/Schmelling.

I lay down the facts and instead of just admitting you were wrong, you completely ignored them and claim that the odds back then were primitive? Its just laughable for the simple fact that no one has agreed with you on it. When you claimed that Schemelling was no better than Douglas, you were actually proven wrong twice. Once by Yogi's official ring ratings and another by the article that i provided which pacifically stated that Douglas was a journeyman. There is no point in arguing over something that has been done with.

So I guess either Spinks was either a huge underdog (which he wasn't)

I know lots of people like to spout things nowadays about how "many thought Spinks would win" and stuff of that nature, Butterfly, but if you go back and read what the boxing people (writers, fighters, promoters, etc...i.e. "experts") were saying at the time in the days and weeks leading up to the fight, the overwhelming opinion was that Tyson was going to win that fight and without a whole lot of difficulty.

For example, just three days before the fight the Sacremento Bee conducted a poll of boxing writers, current & past fighters, as well as others "directly connected to the fight business", and Tyson was the clear choice of those asked as 82% predicted him to win and do so in impressive fashion*.

That was the consensus throughout the papers of the time, and for another quick example of many indicating such, on the morning of the fight (June 27th, 1988) the New York Times started their article on it with the heading "Experts Say Tyson Is A Cinch", and proceeded to quote a bunch of fight opinions/predictions of those who were involved in the fight game (Angelo Dundee, Dan Duva, Bert Sugar, Rich Giachetti, Gil Clancy, Gerry Cooney, etc., etc.), which again saw Tyson getting the vast majority of the support as the likely winner.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but Spinks was in fact a rather "huge underdog" going into that fight.

*Of possible interest to you, Butterfly, one of those picking Spinks to win the fight in that poll was Muhammad Ali.

*Of possible interest to you, Butterfly, one of those picking Spinks to win the fight in that poll was Muhammad Ali.

** Holy Jeepers Jeeves, did Butterfly change his name to Dempsey?

Why I oughta.....................................:cool2:

That just shows the kind of dominance Tyson had back then.
Its also part of his downfall wen people judge him now, as he was never the underdog.

That just shows the kind of dominance Tyson had back then.
Its also part of his downfall wen people judge him now, as he was never the underdog.the only time tyson was an underdog in his entire career was against lennox Lewis, and it's obvious why.

** Holy Jeepers Jeeves, did Butterfly change his name to Dempsey?

Why I oughta.....................................:cool2:

It's quite the step up in class, isn't it?

Going from his first username to his current one, ****, that's like going from living in a garbage bin to now living in a 40 room mansion in Beverly Hills.

Ali vs Spinks.

I rest my case. The best lose and have off nights

how old was ali then? wasn't he about 35 and starting to suffer from the early effects of parkinsons or something????

in his prime ali would have wiped the floor with spinks

I know lots of people like to spout things nowadays about how "many thought Spinks would win" and stuff of that nature, Butterfly, but if you go back and read what the boxing people (writers, fighters, promoters, etc...i.e. "experts") were saying at the time in the days and weeks leading up to the fight, the overwhelming opinion was that Tyson was going to win that fight and without a whole lot of difficulty.

For example, just three days before the fight the Sacremento Bee conducted a poll of boxing writers, current & past fighters, as well as others "directly connected to the fight business", and Tyson was the clear choice of those asked as 82% predicted him to win and do so in impressive fashion*.

That was the consensus throughout the papers of the time, and for another quick example of many indicating such, on the morning of the fight (June 27th, 1988) the New York Times started their article on it with the heading "Experts Say Tyson Is A Cinch", and proceeded to quote a bunch of fight opinions/predictions of those who were involved in the fight game (Angelo Dundee, Dan Duva, Bert Sugar, Rich Giachetti, Gil Clancy, Gerry Cooney, etc., etc.), which again saw Tyson getting the vast majority of the support as the likely winner.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but Spinks was in fact a rather "huge underdog" going into that fight.

*Of possible interest to you, Butterfly, one of those picking Spinks to win the fight in that poll was Muhammad Ali.

You may be right Yogi, but I have to point out that there is a difference between the perception of "boxing experts" and the general public. Yes I know all the boxing people picked Tyson to win but a lot of the general public picked Spinks, that is the truth.

i'll give you another example... The Holmes-Cooney fight. Many of the general public especially those in certain parts of America thought Cooney was actually going to win, and if memory serves me correctly many odds had Cooney as the slight favorite, but all the boxing people picked Holmes overwhelmingly. Just another example of the differing opinions of boxing writers and the general public.:boxing:

It's quite the step up in class, isn't it?

Going from his first username to his current one, ****, that's like going from living in a garbage bin to now living in a 40 room mansion in Beverly Hills.

i change my username about once a month or so now. Eventually, I'll go back to my old one.:D

the only time tyson was an underdog in his entire career was against lennox Lewis, and it's obvious why.

so he wasnt the underdog in the secound holy fight?

Ali/Listion was not a very HUGE upset to the people that followed boxing but only to the people that wanted Liston to tourch Ali.

Oh really? On the day of the fight Feb. 25 '64, a poll of 46 boxing writers was put forth on their pick to win the fight, and only 3 picked Clay, one of them rumored to pick him simply as a publicity ploy.

Ali was an Olympic gold medalist and was unbeaten.

Leon Spinks was an unbeaten olympic gold medalist, too.

It was definitely a big upset because Liston was seen as invincible at the time, however no where near as big as Tyson/Douglas or even Louis/Schmelling.

Simply your opinion. Many other intelligent boxing minds would beg to differ.

I lay down the facts and instead of just admitting you were wrong, you completely ignored them and claim that the odds back then were primitive?

It makes perfect sense. 30-1 odds or more in boxing was out of the question 50+ years ago. That's just the truth. You had guys like Tony Galento a 9-1 underdog against Louis when many people thought the fight was a joke and some like Quentin Renoylds a renowned sportswriter predicted that Louis would kill Galento! Now how do you explain that?

Its just laughable for the simple fact that no one has agreed with you on it.

No one has disagreed with me on it either, besides you.

When you claimed that Schemelling was no better than Douglas, you were actually proven wrong twice. Once by Yogi's official ring ratings and another by the article that i provided which pacifically stated that Douglas was a journeyman. There is no point in arguing over something that has been done with.

Your article doesn't prove a thing, I don't even know what your talking about? It doesn't even mention Schmeling so what are you getting at? Neither does the ring ratings Yogi put up because depending on how good the era is a fighters ratings would rise and fall but would not have anything to do with how good the fighter actually is.

Again, Schmelings whole career is largely based off his win over Joe Louis. That's the only reason why he's in the top 20 of many lists today. Without Louis, I doubt he would make the top 40, and you know it.

so he wasnt the underdog in the secound holy fight?

No, he wasn't.

Oh really? On the day of the fight Feb. 25 '64, a poll of 46 boxing writers was put forth on their pick to win the fight, and only 3 picked Clay, one of them rumored to pick him simply as a publicity ploy.



Leon Spinks was an unbeaten olympic gold medalist, too.



Simply your opinion. Many other intelligent boxing minds would beg to differ.



It makes perfect sense. 30-1 odds or more in boxing was out of the question 50+ years ago. That's just the truth. You had guys like Tony Galento a 9-1 underdog against Louis when many people thought the fight was a joke and some like Quentin Renoylds a renowned sportswriter predicted that Louis would kill Galento! Now how do you explain that?



No one has disagreed with me on it either, besides you.



Your article doesn't prove a thing, I don't even know what your talking about? It doesn't even mention Schmeling so what are you getting at? Neither does the ring ratings Yogi put up because depending on how good the era is a fighters ratings would rise and fall but would not have anything to do with how good the fighter actually is.

Again, Schmelings whole career is largely based off his win over Joe Louis. That's the only reason why he's in the top 20 of many lists today. Without Louis, I doubt he would make the top 40, and you know it.

Max Schmeling was already a former Heavyweight Champion when he fought Louis the first time. He was considered past his prime and that was one of the reasons Louis was easily the favorite going in. He was, however, expected to give Louis some trouble because he WAS a crafty veteran and Louis WAS inexperienced especially against top 10 competition.

You have your opinions on Schmeling and that's fine. To claim a preponderance of intelligent boxing minds agree with you is simply substanceless arrogance: Many boxing Historians think quite highly of Schmeling. I respect their credentials as boxing historians. What are YOUR credentials? Why should I give more respect to the credentials of a nobody over the informed views of people who make their living studying boxing? Hmmmm?

Poet

Oh really? On the day of the fight Feb. 25 '64, a poll of 46 boxing writers was put forth on their pick to win the fight, and only 3 picked Clay, one of them rumored to pick him simply as a publicity ploy.


Ali was an 8 to 1 underdog and that is fair considering how popular Liston was at the time and how dangerous he looked during his reign. Ali had talent and everyone knew it. By no means would he be a huge underdog by todays standards, thats laughable that you would make such a thing up to support your ridiculous case.


Leon Spinks was an unbeaten olympic gold medalist, too.

Sure he was, at light heavyweight when he was in his true prime.

Simply your opinion. Many other intelligent boxing minds would beg to differ.

Honestly, you are the only one here that is claiming that Schmelling/Louis was a bigger upset than Tyson/Douglas, and you have been repeatedly proven wrong on it over and over again. No offense, but you really need to re think some parts of your posts.

It makes perfect sense. 30-1 odds or more in boxing was out of the question 50+ years ago. That's just the truth. You had guys like Tony Galento a 9-1 underdog against Louis when many people thought the fight was a joke and some like Quentin Renoylds a renowned sportswriter predicted that Louis would kill Galento! Now how do you explain that?

When Louis/Conn I was first signed, the odds were overwhelmingly in favor of Louis, the last minute odds were 11-5. So again, you are the only one that is saying that the betting odds were primitive.


Your article doesn't prove a thing, I don't even know what your talking about? It doesn't even mention Schmeling so what are you getting at? Neither does the ring ratings Yogi put up because depending on how good the era is a fighters ratings would rise and fall but would not have anything to do with how good the fighter actually is.Again, Schmelings whole career is largely based off his win over Joe Louis. That's the only reason why he's in the top 20 of many lists today. Without Louis, I doubt he would make the top 40, and you know it.

Its pacifically stated that( in these words) Douglas was another bum that Tyson was suppose to get rid of early because he was known for not being dedicated in the past and not showing up. He had also lost all of his biggest fights up until that point. Schmelling had been champion pre Louis and he also won plenty of European titles. Douglas beat a few decent names, and also lost to fighters that he should have beaten and he wasn't even a mandatory if i am remembering correctly. He was brought in as an opponent for Tyson, beat Tyson and went on to finish being the journeyman that he was before. That is what makes this look bad for Tyson. On his best days, Douglas was good but no where bear the level that Tyson was suppose to be at. Tyson should have given Douglas a Holyfield like blow out.

Max Schmeling was already a former Heavyweight Champion when he fought Louis the first time. He was considered past his prime and that was one of the reasons Louis was easily the favorite going in. He was, however, expected to give Louis some trouble because he WAS a crafty veteran and Louis WAS inexperienced especially against top 10 competition.

You have your opinions on Schmeling and that's fine. To claim a preponderance of intelligent boxing minds agree with you is simply substanceless arrogance: Many boxing Historians think quite highly of Schmeling. I respect their credentials as boxing historians. What are YOUR credentials? Why should I give more respect to the credentials of a nobody over the informed views of people who make their living studying boxing? Hmmmm?

Poet

Good stuff and i agree with every part. Dempsey 1919( AKA butterfly, AKA LA Lakers, AKA Galveston Giant ect) is just trying to not make himself look foolish. He would have succeeded in doing that if he stopped posting a few pages ago..lol. Hes the only one in this thread claiming that odds are different today. He just keeps going, even when he has been proven wrong on just about everything he has said.

Tyson was the unified heavyweight champion of the world and was undefeated. I personally believe that Douglas had a lot to do with that. I thought he showed a masterful display of talent, speed, ability and overall skills. This is what stops Tyson from becoming an all time geat IMO. You never seen Ali, Frazier, Holmes, Louis or Marciano lose to this kind of opponent even on thier worse days and they also had personal problems. I do not have a problem with Tyson and think that he was certainly one of the most talented heavyweights of all, but some people need to rethink putting him in the same sentence with Ali or Louis. Think about it, these men fought in a better division and their first losses came to great heavyweights. Tyson fought in a weaker division and loss to...................Buster Douglas. This is by no means a hate thread, but just a few thoughts that i needed to get out.

I feel that Mike was ruined by Don King, his own bad devices, and the fact that Buster was in the right place at the right time.

Max Schmeling was already a former Heavyweight Champion when he fought Louis the first time. He was considered past his prime and that was one of the reasons Louis was easily the favorite going in. He was, however, expected to give Louis some trouble because he WAS a crafty veteran and Louis WAS inexperienced especially against top 10 competition.

You have your opinions on Schmeling and that's fine. To claim a preponderance of intelligent boxing minds agree with you is simply substanceless arrogance: Many boxing Historians think quite highly of Schmeling. I respect their credentials as boxing historians. What are YOUR credentials? Why should I give more respect to the credentials of a nobody over the informed views of people who make their living studying boxing? Hmmmm?

Poet

Actually poet Louis had great experiance against top 10 opposition prior to the Schmeling fight. He fought close to ten guys who were in the top ten, including two former heavyweight champions. in many people minds eye, Schmeling was just seen as one of the ex-champions that Louis after Carnera and Louis after Baer was going to beat. I think highly of Schmeling too. He was a very good fighter and a great counterpuncher. But my problem is with slicksouthpaw not thinking highly of Douglas as a fighter when he routinely refers to him as a "bum", and a "journeyman", when if he was any of those things he would not even have come close to beating Tyson.

Douglas was down longer than 10 seconds in the round prior to Tyson "losing".

Ali was an 8 to 1 underdog and that is fair considering how popular Liston was at the time and how dangerous he looked during his reign. Ali had talent and everyone knew it. By no means would he be a huge underdog by todays standards, thats laughable that you would make such a thing up to support your ridiculous case.

Of course he had talent. A lot of people thought that Buster Douglas had "talent" and so many other of Tyson's opponents/victims. one of the reasons why he was a huge underdog was because he had a poor showing against lightly regarded Doug Jones and the journeyman Henry Cooper, in which the left hook gave him the most trouble, and guess what Liston's best power punch was... the left hook! So yes he was a huge underdog and would still be today under similar circumstances, except today like I said before the odds would be 20 or 30 to 1.

Sure he was, at light heavyweight when he was in his true prime.

:thinking: Uhmm, Leon Spinks was never a lightheavyweight, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Honestly, you are the only one here that is claiming that Schmelling/Louis was a bigger upset than Tyson/Douglas, and you have been repeatedly proven wrong on it over and over again. No offense, but you really need to re think some parts of your posts.

first off, I never said that Scheling-Louis was a bigger upset than Tyson-Douglas, I said they were similar, and that both Schmeling and Douglas' careers are for the most part made from those upsets. Schmeling's resume may have been a bit better than Douglas' prior, but not by much. And even if I did, I don't see how I was "proven wrong on it over and over again", when all you did was state you're opinion as I have stated mine.

When Louis/Conn I was first signed, the odds were overwhelmingly in favor of Louis, the last minute odds were 11-5. So again, you are the only one that is saying that the betting odds were primitive.

Ha! This supremely shows your lack of boxing knowledge. Louis was not an overwhelming favorite against Conn. A lot of boxing people and the general public picked Conn to win because they thought that he had the right style ( movement against the flat-footed Louis), and plus there was a general conception of the boxing public (even though I myself do not believe this, so don't try to say that i said this) that Louis was "past his prime" because of his poor showings during his "Bum of the Month" tour from December of 1940 to may of 1941, especially getting catapulted out of the ring by Buddy Baer's left hook a month before. The odds were about 2-1 in favor of Louis, and that was one of the biggest boxing events of the 1940s, hardly the scheduled massacre you are trying to make it out to be.

Its pacifically stated that( in these words) Douglas was another bum that Tyson was suppose to get rid of early because he was known for not being dedicated in the past and not showing up. He had also lost all of his biggest fights up until that point. Schmelling had been champion pre Louis and he also won plenty of European titles. Douglas beat a few decent names, and also lost to fighters that he should have beaten and he wasn't even a mandatory if i am remembering correctly. He was brought in as an opponent for Tyson, beat Tyson and went on to finish being the journeyman that he was before. That is what makes this look bad for Tyson. On his best days, Douglas was good but no where bear the level that Tyson was suppose to be at. Tyson should have given Douglas a Holyfield like blow out.

The conception of the Louis-Scmeling spectacle was tat Schmeling was just another ex-champ Louis was supposed to be. Schmeling was drilled by Max Baer in 1933 who was almost killed by Louis 9 months before. Similar to what you're talking about with Buster Douglas, huh? I know you think Douglas is a bum, which then makes tyson over rated and not a great fighter, but if you can't appreciate the prime peak Douglas that showed up against tyson, the in-shape fast, sharp determined Douglas that showed up on that night, then there's nothing else to conclude except that you my friend have an agenda.:boxing:

Good stuff and i agree with every part. Dempsey 1919( AKA butterfly, AKA LA Lakers, AKA Galveston Giant ect) is just trying to not make himself look foolish. He would have succeeded in doing that if he stopped posting a few pages ago..lol. Hes the only one in this thread claiming that odds are different today. He just keeps going, even when he has been proven wrong on just about everything he has said.

Well then explain to me the Tony Galento fight as i expounded on a few posts back.

Watch Tyson v Douglas from 1:12 of this video then watch the seconds go by....13...14 seconds
Tyson was ROBBED!!!
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xSq1tcH8V0w&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xSq1tcH8V0w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Watch Tyson v Douglas from 1:12 of this video then watch the seconds go by....13...14 seconds
Tyson was ROBBED!!!
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xSq1tcH8V0w&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xSq1tcH8V0w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The ref did count slow for Tyson as well.

The ref did count slow for Tyson as well.

Tyson should have already won though.
The ref ****ed history.

Of course he had talent. A lot of people thought that Buster Douglas had "talent" and so many other of Tyson's opponents/victims. one of the reasons why he was a huge underdog was because he had a poor showing against lightly regarded Doug Jones and the journeyman Henry Cooper, in which the left hook gave him the most trouble, and guess what Liston's best power punch was... the left hook! So yes he was a huge underdog and would still be today under similar circumstances, except today like I said before the odds would be 20 or 30 to 1.


Unlike Douglas, Ali was actually touted and was unbeaten. On top of him beating some good quality contenders by that point. By no means was he known a journeyman or a stepping stone. He was simply the underdog and a very live one at that. Also, when was Doug Jones lightly regarded? have mostly all of his fights when he came onto the scene and was one of the most technically sound fighters of that era, and also has good wins such as Bobo Olsen, Zora Folley, Bob Foster ect. He just came in at the wrong time, the division was too hot.

Again you are spewing things. How about providing something that even backs you up on the odds, because i am having a good laugh at how desperate you are. Ali would have been a 30 to 1 favorite by ''todays standards''. :rofl:

:thinking: Uhmm, Leon Spinks was never a lightheavyweight, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Obviously i meant Michael Spinks. Leon was never highly regarded especially the way Ali was. Leon was brought in as an opponent for Ali and had only about 7 fights. He also caught Ali at the back end of his career when barely had any speed left and was only getting by with his experience and craftiness . Tyson was in his prime years.


first off, I never said that Scheling-Louis was a bigger upset than Tyson-Douglas, I said they were similar, and that both Schmeling and Douglas' careers are for the most part made from those upsets. Schmeling's resume may have been a bit better than Douglas' prior, but not by much. And even if I did, I don't see how I was "proven wrong on it over and over again", when all you did was state you're opinion as I have stated mine.

Actually, you said that Louis/Shemelling was as big or even bigger upset than Tyson/Douglas but your excuse was that the odds were too primitive. Now, you are contradicting yourself. You first that Schmelling's resume was not better than Douglas at all, now you are saying that it was better but not by much. Nice.

I meant that you have been proven wrong by many credible sources and yet don't take any of them into account and continue saying the sames things. You are too stubborn to see and admit that you were wrong.


Ha! This supremely shows your lack of boxing knowledge. Louis was not an overwhelming favorite against Conn. A lot of boxing people and the general public picked Conn to win because they thought that he had the right style ( movement against the flat-footed Louis), and plus there was a general conception of the boxing public (even though I myself do not believe this, so don't try to say that i said this) that Louis was "past his prime" because of his poor showings during his "Bum of the Month" tour from December of 1940 to may of 1941, especially getting catapulted out of the ring by Buddy Baer's left hook a month before. The odds were about 2-1 in favor of Louis, and that was one of the biggest boxing events of the 1940s, hardly the scheduled massacre you are trying to make it out to be.

I think you may want to do a little research and instead of just making things up.

''Many in the crowd of 54,487 who jammed into the Polo Grounds that Wednesday night, June 18, 1941, believed Conn could do it. Members of the press, including Hype Igoe and Willard Mullin, had gone out on a limb for Conn. So had several members of the boxing fraternity, including champions James J. Braddock, Fred Apostoli, Gus Lesnevich, Lew Jenkins, and Fritzie Zivic.''

"I know I have lost my temper in some fights," the strong-willed Irish challenger said before the fight, "but you can't bet I won't this time." And bet his fans did, bringing the last-minute odds down to 11-5, Louis.

The conception of the Louis-Scmeling spectacle was tat Schmeling was just another ex-champ Louis was supposed to be. Schmeling was drilled by Max Baer in 1933 who was almost killed by Louis 9 months before. Similar to what you're talking about with Buster Douglas, huh? I know you think Douglas is a bum, which then makes tyson over rated and not a great fighter, but if you can't appreciate the prime peak Douglas that showed up against tyson, the in-shape fast, sharp determined Douglas that showed up on that night, then there's nothing else to conclude except that you my friend have an agenda.:boxing:

Again, the fact that Douglas looked like that only one time against Tyson looked bad for Mike considering Douglas went back to being a journeyman afterwards. I also laughed when you referred to him as ''peak'' Douglas as if in he was ever great and he actually had a prime. So his prime was for only one night? Wow.

Tyson should have already won though.
The ref ****ed history.

Watch Tyson v Douglas from 1:12 of this video then watch the seconds go by....13...14 seconds
Tyson was ROBBED!!!
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xSq1tcH8V0w&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xSq1tcH8V0w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The ref did count slow for Tyson as well.

Yeah, the only reason that Douglas beat Tyson was because the referee counted long. :nonono: Forget the beautiful ass whooping that Douglas was laying on Tyson before and the knockout that occurred later.

Yeah, the only reason that Douglas beat Tyson was because the referee counted long. :nonono: Forget the beautiful ass whooping that Douglas was laying on Tyson before and the knockout that occurred later.

Do you deny that Tyson was robbed by the ref and his bad count?
Whether Douglas was winning or not the rules state that if you go down for 10 then you lose.
NO IFS OR BUT'S.
True or Not?

The rules state its the refs count not 10 seconds.

Great heavyweights deal with adversity, something that Tyson has never shown in his peak years. For example, look at Ali against Cooper. Ali took him lightly and paid a price and was very badly hurt and seemingly on his way out, the difference is that he got up and proved that he was great by dealing with it, buckling down and coming back and stopping Cooper. I would have understood if Tyson was in the fight and it was close, but he was not only dominated but knocked out by this guy. I completely understand that Douglas was talented and had the tools and ability to do something, however it looks bad for Tyson for the simple fact that it was the best Douglas has ever looked in his entire career an he was not even close to being great nor elite. Evander Holyfield( an elite fighter and all time great) took Douglas apart in his very next fight. Look at the opposition that Ali, Louis, Frazier and Foreman lost to and look at Tyson's. My thing is that he has never shown me anything that indicated that he was great and every time that he stepped up against the elites, he lost. Again, the man had every tool to be one of if not the greatest, but talent and your accomplishments are very different.

Now I know you seriously don't know what your talking about. After Clay went down, he was saved by the bell. His trainer then "supposedly" split his glove, giving Clay a few extra minutes to recover. Why should anyone respect your opinion if you can't get this part right?

Now I know you seriously don't know what your talking about. After Clay went down, he was saved by the bell. His trainer then "supposedly" split his glove, giving Clay a few extra minutes to recover. Why should anyone respect your opinion if you can't get this part right?

Where did i say that Ali didn't get saved by the bell? Read my posts. I said that he showed adversity by getting up after being in that kind of position for the first time and he came back to stop him. Tyson was the one being stopped by Douglas and he didn't get up after he was down.

I have said plenty of times that i wasn't a Tyson hater so i won't respond to that again.( to Dempsey 1919) I don't have an agenda.

Im a tyson fan, but i dont buy into this long count lark. He was beaten for many reasons, him not commiting as he would to other fights, poor cornermen, Douglas having the fight of his life. I would of loved a re-match, even after he got into prison it would have made his record look even better.

He was not past his prime, he was too young. He was just out of shape and ****ed up in his head and lacking opf heart. his inner child took over and he became a *****. do not confuse the two!

considering what tyson was, douglas gave the greatest boxing performance I've ever seen.

Past his prime mentally yes.

I tdont think he was past hes prime. Tyson was a better fighter when he had Rooney as hes trainer. But i think that in any rematch Tyson would have KO Douglas big.

As Kevin Rooney later said in a interview. Tyson almost didnt throw any punches....and if you watch the fight, that was exactly what happend.

i also belive if Tyson had fougt more fights before Holyfield in 95 he could have done a real good comebeck!

. Now it's almost a taboo to suggest that Ali wasn't the greatest boxer of all time.
.

umm sugar ray robinson was the best fighter of all time

oh and tyson isnt as great as people think

he had no heart, no mental toughness, and had no idea what to do when he was getting beaten

thats what makes a champion, not how good you look knocking people out, but how you come back from a loss or how you rally when you are getting badly beaten

would ali have just stood there and let the fight slip away? hell no

would SRR have let the fight go and not go after a rematch? **** no, he lost once to jake la motta and came back to beat him 5 times....

even duran, after he quit agaisnt SRL, came back and redeemed himself many times, and then rematched SRL when they were both shot

tyson didnt have the heart or the will of a true champion, i mean people call floyd a ***** with no heart, but have you ever seen him throw a fight away, or not put in his best to try and defeat his opponent? i didnt think so

thats why tyson will be remembered as a scary guy who was very feared definitely....

but not remembered as an ATG who fought his guts out and never put in a sub par effort

and as for him being in his prime when he fought douglas, yes he was, but he was undertrained and undermotivated...but still he shouldnt have lost to buster, no way...

ali was shot and heavily deteriorated and most likely undertrained also when he fought and lost to spinks, but he came back and beat spinks in the rematch

SRR won the middleweight title several times and challenged for the LHW title when he was past his best

thats what separates tyson from these guys

would ali have just stood there and let the fight slip away? hell no


** Ali didn't have to fight on prozac like Tyson did.

Ali was also involved in some of the dreariest fights in history where he did next to nothing and was gifted. Much better example would be Rocky Marciano who never let any fight slip away and was never just standing around or dancing away doing nothing.

** Ali didn't have to fight on prozac like Tyson did.

Ali was also involved in some of the dreariest fights in history where he did next to nothing and was gifted. Much better example would be Rocky Marciano who never let any fight slip away and was never just standing around or dancing away doing nothing.


You name one fight where Tyson beat a great prime fighter.
Name one fight where tyson beat someone as good as liston, frazier,Foremen, Shavers, Norton,
Name one fighter where tyson was rocked and he came on show his toughness
Name one fight where he had someone who was as tough mentally and physically and he prevailed, in fact did not wimp out.

You name one fight where Tyson beat a great prime fighter.
Name one fight where tyson beat someone as good as liston, frazier,Foremen, Shavers, Norton,
Name one fighter where tyson was rocked and he came on show his toughness
Name one fight where he had someone who was as tough mentally and physically and he prevailed, in fact did not wimp out.


Hey wpink! What I think you're discovering is London's life-long mission: To discredit Ali. I stopped trading punches with this dude a year ago because he's a hopeless case. He believes Ali is grossly overrated and no amount of logic and evidence is going to sway him. Not sure what his issue with Ali really is. Maybe pissed in his soup or something.

As to your points:

1. You can't! Tyson never beat a great fighter in his prime.
2. Maybe Ruddock and Tucker were on par with Shavers and Norton but that's as close as he gets.
3. To be fair, Bruno DID rock Tyson two or three times in their fist fight and Mike came back to stop Frank.
4. Closest I can reckon is his two fights with Ruddock. No others come to mind.

Poet

You name one fight where Tyson beat a great prime fighter.
Name one fight where tyson beat someone as good as liston, frazier,Foremen, Shavers, Norton,
Name one fighter where tyson was rocked and he came on show his toughness
Name one fight where he had someone who was as tough mentally and physically and he prevailed, in fact did not wimp out.


1) This could be up for argument. But A few fighters considerd great didnt beat any other great fighters. Holmes may not have been as great as he was, but no bum can beat holmes. Spinks was a very established fighter more at light heavy but won two decisions over larry holmes. Tyson beat all the top contenders and top fighters of that time to unite all the titles.
2)Ruddock, Tucker, Spinks, Possibly holmes at that stage was as good as shavers or norton.
3)Bruno, Smith, Ruddock.
4)Ruddock, Bruno, Holmes, Ribalta,

1) This could be up for argument. But A few fighters considerd great didnt beat any other great fighters. Holmes may not have been as great as he was, but no bum can beat holmes. Spinks was a very established fighter more at light heavy but won two decisions over larry holmes. Tyson beat all the top contenders and top fighters of that time to unite all the titles.
2)Ruddock, Tucker, Spinks, Possibly holmes at that stage was as good as shavers or norton.
3)Bruno, Smith, Ruddock.
4)Ruddock, Bruno, Holmes, Ribalta,

Yeh there a a lot of fighters that have not beaten great fighters. My point was in discrediting LondenRules weak arguement about Tyson having beaten the quality of fighters that Ali had. HE HAS NOT!

Ruddock and the others you named are good fighters, may be equal to a Norton, but not liston, Foreman, Frazier, or Shavers. Tyson may have caught some good shots, but each time I saw him really get caught, he never recovered. I am not simply taking about a good punc, I am talking about a punch that really caused some damage. I have seen ali comeback many timesfrom taking a great punch. In Tyson once he got hit by a great punch, or even if someone match his confidence and backed him up, you could see the focus, heart and confidence that intimidation factor go right out the window in front your eyes...Tyson was tough, and for 3-4 rounds I would put him up there with anyone, but against a Ali, Holyfield, Lewis etc..Tyson just does not measure up, he wimps out.

Yeh there a a lot of fighters that have not beaten great fighters. My point was in discrediting LondenRules weak arguement about Tyson having beaten the quality of fighters that Ali had. HE HAS NOT!

In that Respect i 100% agree with you there, not other heavy fought the quality of opposition that Ali did. And to come out on top against all of the opponents shows how great he was.

Ruddock and the others you named are good fighters, may be equal to a Norton, but not liston, Foreman, Frazier, or Shavers.

I would say that they were equal to a shavers aswell.

Tyson may have caught some good shots, but each time I saw him really get caught, he never recovered. I am not simply taking about a good punc, I am talking about a punch that really caused some damage.

Is this not proof of tysons good chin? Quoting Brunos Autobiography the hook he caught tyson with was the best his thrown. Ruddock hit tyson with bombs, Bonecrusher smith could punch aswell. He took the best shots of all these men and they hit DAMN hard. He was shaken by Bruno badly and fought on, the same with Smith and Ruddock so i think that it an unfair statement.

In Tyson once he got hit by a great punch, or even if someone match his confidence and backed him up, you could see the focus, heart and confidence that intimidation factor go right out the window in front your eyes...

I agree partly, however i believed what disheartend tyson was not getting hit, he could take a punch. It was them taking his best shots and comming back. When he didnt break there will his was able to be broken. Although i only really saw this after prison, against douglas he kept fighting kept trying to find those uppercuts..he just was not there. Against Holyfield he gave up.

good call..for me tyson was slow that night & jd had a plan that worked! for me tyson was at his best on the night he met spinks,

If your the youngest HW champion in the history of the sport

that accolade alone will always give you atg status


Tyson was not past his prime, but to me, cus being out of the picture is what ruined him

A big part of tysons game was his bobbing and weaving head movement, something cus instilled in him, unfortunately when cus was gone, Tyson disgarded these tactics and had a more head to head approach... which... for someone like douglas on that night was the worst thing ever...

If Tyson still had the bobbing and weaving and sharp fast headmovement to evade busters jab like he did all the fights before, I believe he wouldnt of taken as much punishment and wouldnt of been as fatigued, and possibly could of finished buster off

I think the fight had just as much to do with tysons lack of... as it did with busters willingness

If your the youngest HW champion in the history of the sport

that accolade alone will always give you atg status


Tyson was not past his prime, but to me, cus being out of the picture is what ruined him

A big part of tysons game was his bobbing and weaving head movement, something cus instilled in him, unfortunately when cus was gone, Tyson disgarded these tactics and had a more head to head approach... which... for someone like douglas on that night was the worst thing ever...

If Tyson still had the bobbing and weaving and sharp fast headmovement to evade busters jab like he did all the fights before, I believe he wouldnt of taken as much punishment and wouldnt of been as fatigued, and possibly could of finished buster off

I think the fight had just as much to do with tysons lack of... as it did with busters willingness

I agree to a degree, Cus died very early in tysons career before he became champ. And he was still bobbing and weaving, i think the biggest downfall was the death of Jim Jacobs which resulted in the loss of Kevin Rooney, Steve Lott and Bill Cayton. Which paved the way for givens, don king and all the other scum.

Yeh there a a lot of fighters that have not beaten great fighters. My point was in discrediting LondenRules weak arguement about Tyson having beaten the quality of fighters that Ali had. HE HAS NOT!

Ruddock and the others you named are good fighters, may be equal to a Norton, but not liston, Foreman, Frazier, or Shavers. Tyson may have caught some good shots, but each time I saw him really get caught, he never recovered. I am not simply taking about a good punc, I am talking about a punch that really caused some damage. I have seen ali comeback many timesfrom taking a great punch. In Tyson once he got hit by a great punch, or even if someone match his confidence and backed him up, you could see the focus, heart and confidence that intimidation factor go right out the window in front your eyes...Tyson was tough, and for 3-4 rounds I would put him up there with anyone, but against a Ali, Holyfield, Lewis etc..Tyson just does not measure up, he wimps out.

I wouldn't say Tyson beat a great fighter, but he did some fight good tough contenders. Spinks, Tubbs and Thomas had never been stopped before, and he scored devastating KOs of them all. I know Holmes was old, but I don't think his chin had deteriorated much, and as he showed later against Holyfield, Mercer and McCall, he was still a pretty effective fighter in old age, and Tyson was the only KO loss of his career.

Tony Tucker was 35-0, 6'5", 230lb, good punch, good chin and his only losses in his first 50 bouts were to prime Tyson and Lewis, going the distance both times, and Tyson won by a lopsided decision. Alex Stewart, Razor Ruddock were good wins too. These were all good fighters, but Tyson won so convincingly against most of them it just made them look bad. He gets criticized for the lack of come from behind wins, but it's difficult to come from behind when you're always in front, as he usually was at his peak. Tucker, Ruddock, Bruno, Smith were all decent bangers who caught him with good shots, which he just walked through.

I wouldn't call Earnie Shavers a 'great' fighter. Hard puncher, but his chin and stamina were questionable, his best win was over a faded Norton, and he managed to lose to guys like Ron Stander and Tex Cobb.

Also, the Sonny Liston who Ali beat was not the same Liston who decimated the heavyweight division in the late 50s. He was probably several years older than he claimed, and both fights had fishy outcomes for me.

I don't know whether he was in his prime or not but there was an alarming deterioration after Rooney left him in 88.He nearly gets creamed by Bruno,with a left hook in the first round of their fight.If it was a Liston he wouldn't have heard the bell for the end of the first round.
To my mind his peak years were upto 88-very difficult to hit clean and technically the best combination puncher the heavyweight division has seen since Joe Louis.
One more thing I think it was the style in which he beat the fighters in his early years more than the greatness or otherwise of the opposition.