Ive Been an Iron Fan my entire life but have heavy respect for boxers like Holyfield and Lewis. but seriously though If Iron who is my 1st favouraite all time boxer had stayed with kevin rooney as his trainer after the Michael Spinks Fight? i reckon tyson wouldve been even more ferocious then ever i just wish 4 things.....

1) he never associated himself with don king....
2)he never married robin givens...
3)he never went near desiree washington the lying b*tch
4) that cus survived a little longer and that he stayed with kevin as his trainer.

think about it i mean theres nothing i can do and im really glad that hes a reformed man now and all but if he did stay with kev i reckon he couldve been more respected by others like how lewis is respected or how Ali or Jack dempsey are.. anyways thats all i have to say thanks for reading and respect to all boxers...

If he had stayed with Rooney and never married RG he'd have been top 10 all time easy.

Providing Cus could have kept him away from women, I'm sure he'd have done a lot more.. To emulate Ali & Louis, was well within his capabilities..

Not much would have Changed, it was always going to happen, the way Mike lived his life.

Sadly Even Cus couldn't have controlled him.

just my opinion though =/

Tyson was too mentally weak a human being. D'Amato would have ended up leaving Tyson's camp and Tyson would have self-destructed anyway.

Tyson only became that way when everything he loved was taken away from him.

The only reason he boxed was because of Cus.

Not much would have Changed, it was always going to happen, the way Mike lived his life.

Sadly Even Cus couldn't have controlled him.

just my opinion though =/

Tyson would never have been beaten by Danny Williams, Lennox Lewis or Kevin McBride... yet he may well have still lost to Douglas, Holyfield, Foreman & Bowe

I highly doubt he would have ended up the way he did if Cus didn't die. Just listen to Tyson's own words, he was like his Dog. And Cus told him all about the things he should avoid in the Boxing world and life in general. Unfortunately he died in his 70s. Would have been great if the man had another 10 years left.

Tyson would never have been beaten by Danny Williams, Lennox Lewis or Kevin McBride... yet he may well have still lost to Douglas, Holyfield, Foreman & Bowe

Tyson would still have lost to Lewis, no matter what.
With Cus, Tyson's career wouldn't be that different. He had personal problems he couldn't overcome.

The 'If' 'Would' 'But' champ.

Ive Been an Iron Fan my entire life but have heavy respect for boxers like Holyfield and Lewis. but seriously though If Iron who is my 1st favouraite all time boxer had stayed with kevin rooney as his trainer after the Michael Spinks Fight? i reckon tyson wouldve been even more ferocious then ever i just wish 4 things.....

1) he never associated himself with don king....
2)he never married robin givens...
3)he never went near desiree washington the lying b*tch
4) that cus survived a little longer and that he stayed with kevin as his trainer.

think about it i mean theres nothing i can do and im really glad that hes a reformed man now and all but if he did stay with kev i reckon he couldve been more respected by others like how lewis is respected or how Ali or Jack dempsey are.. anyways thats all i have to say thanks for reading and respect to all boxers...

Ifs don't work in real life. Speculating only brings more hurt. he had a great career and a borderling top 10 heavyweight, as well as a definite HOF'er. Forget about ifs and celebrate his career.

Tyson would never have been beaten by Danny Williams, Lennox Lewis or Kevin McBride... yet he may well have still lost to Douglas, Holyfield, Foreman & Bowe
Douglas was the beginning of the end, and the only reason Mike lost to him, is that he'd been training on drugs, booze & birds..

Here's 5 fundumental steps that led to his downfall..

1. The death of Cus D'Amato
2. The marriage to Robyn Givens
3. The death of Jim Jacobs
4. The lies of Desiree Washington
5. The greed of Don King

Most people over look number 3.. Jacobs took over as Tyson's manager after D'Amato's death, and was doing a great job.. Mike liked and respected him to, but he died very suddenly.. So suddenly, it wouldn't surprise me if Don King had him poisoned!

Without all the above, I'd say Tyson would'a stayed unbeaten until he was about 35, and would have probably taken Marciano's record to..
I still think he'd have lost to Lewis and possibly Williams (he was in his late 30's by then) but in much closer fights.. As for McBride, he'd have lost to Tyson at any age..

Douglas was the beginning of the end, and the only reason Mike lost to him, is that he'd been training on drugs, booze & birds..

Here's 5 fundumental steps that led to his downfall..

1. The death of Cus D'Amato
2. The marriage to Robyn Givens
3. The death of Jim Jacobs
4. The lies of Desiree Washington
5. The greed of Don King

Most people over look number 3.. Jacobs took over as Tyson's manager after D'Amato's death, and was doing a great job.. Mike liked and respected him to, but he died very suddenly.. So suddenly, it wouldn't surprise me if Don King had him poisoned!

Without all the above, I'd say Tyson would'a stayed unbeaten until he was about 35, and would have probably taken Marciano's record to..
I still think he'd have lost to Lewis and possibly Williams (he was in his late 30's by then) but in much closer fights.. As for McBride, he'd have lost to Tyson at any age..

You can't say she lied, you don't have any proof to back up this statement.

Don King was maybe greedy but Tyson never won more money before he worked with King.

You can't say she lied, you don't have any proof to back up this statement.

Don King was maybe greedy but Tyson never won more money before he worked with King.
Three and a half years for RAPE!!.. That's all the proof I need..

Mike was banged up as a preventative measure, NOT because he had a bit of concensual rough sex..

Douglas was the beginning of the end, and the only reason Mike lost to him, is that he'd been training on drugs, booze & birds..

Here's 5 fundumental steps that led to his downfall..

1. The death of Cus D'Amato
2. The marriage to Robyn Givens
3. The death of Jim Jacobs
4. The lies of Desiree Washington
5. The greed of Don King

Most people over look number 3.. Jacobs took over as Tyson's manager after D'Amato's death, and was doing a great job.. Mike liked and respected him to, but he died very suddenly.. So suddenly, it wouldn't surprise me if Don King had him poisoned!

Without all the above, I'd say Tyson would'a stayed unbeaten until he was about 35, and would have probably taken Marciano's record to..
I still think he'd have lost to Lewis and possibly Williams (he was in his late 30's by then) but in much closer fights.. As for McBride, he'd have lost to Tyson at any age..

I have to disagree with you there. The way you're portraying Tyson would make him by far the best Heavyweight ever which I do not think he was ever capable of being even if he maxed out his potential. He was a great fighter, he could have been greater than he was, but he never could have been better than the likes of Ali, Louis, Johnson, Holmes, ect. Give him credit for being a great fighter but don't overrate him.....leave that to his mindless KoolAid drinking cultists: You're smarter than that.

Poet

Tyson would have killed Johnson and Louis.

If Cus didn't die and Rooney wasn't fired, the world would most likely look back at a different Tyson. Probably a better one.

Tyson would have killed Johnson and Louis.

Only if he had a gun. Now take a knee and tap out like your boy Cotto.

Poet

Only if he had a gun. Now take a knee and tap out like your boy Cotto.
Poet

WTF, that is out of order. Margairto had ****ing cerement in his damn gloves.

He fought his heart out, but when your fighting someone who is already heavy handed and has got hardened wraps on, what do you expect?

To call Cotto a quitter is a bang out of order.

Especailly from a man who writes poetry and has never boxed a day in his life. You ****ing fat turd.

Tyson would still have lost to Lewis, no matter what.
With Cus, Tyson's career wouldn't be that different. He had personal problems he couldn't overcome.

you might aswell say he would also have been poleaxed by both Rahman & McCall then.... Lewis would be a 1st round KO for any version of Tyson pre1996

WTF, that is out of order. Margairto had ****ing cerement in his damn gloves.

He fought his heart out, but when your fighting someone who is already heavy handed and has got hardened wraps on, what do you expect?

To call Cotto a quitter is a bang out of order.

Especailly from a man who writes poetry and has never boxed a day in his life. You ****ing fat turd.

Coming from someone with cement in his head given the asinine posts you pollute this forum with on a daily basis. Next!

Poet

You can't say she lied, you don't have any proof to back up this statement.

Don King was maybe greedy but Tyson never won more money before he worked with King.

I've met Desiree. Knew her brother from the University of Rhode Island. There is no proof, you're right. But trust me, she was a lying conniving whore. Very manipulating.

I have to disagree with you there. The way you're portraying Tyson would make him by far the best Heavyweight ever which I do not think he was ever capable of being even if he maxed out his potential. He was a great fighter, he could have been greater than he was, but he never could have been better than the likes of Ali, Louis, Johnson, Holmes, ect. Give him credit for being a great fighter but don't overrate him.....leave that to his mindless KoolAid drinking cultists: You're smarter than that.

Poet
No, I'm just merely speculating on what would/could have happened, if he'd stayed focused..
I wouldn't say the thought of him beating Marciano's record would have been too far out of the question..
I may have been a bit generous by saying, he would'a stayed unbeaten until he was 35, but with regard to 49-0, had he stayed in shape & beaten Douglas, he'd have been 46-0 going into the 1st Holyfield fight.. Taking into consideration, he'd already lost 3 years of his prime by then, I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption..

I agree with regard to Ali, Louis and Holmes.. Not so sure about Johnson though..
If everything had of gone smoothly, I'd say Tyson had the ability to be the 4th best HW whoever lived.. I also think I may have slightly overrated him on my sig list, but not in this post..

No, I'm just merely speculating on what would/could have happened, if he'd stayed focused..
I wouldn't say the thought of him beating Marciano's record would have been too far out of the question..
I may have been a bit generous by saying, he would'a stayed unbeaten until he was 35, but with regard to 49-0, had he stayed in shape & beaten Douglas, he'd have been 46-0 going into the 1st Holyfield fight.. Taking into consideration, he'd already lost 3 years of his prime by then, I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption..

I agree with regard to Ali, Louis and Holmes.. Not so sure about Johnson though..
If everything had of gone smoothly, I'd say Tyson had the ability to be the 4th best HW whoever lived.. I also think I may have slightly overrated him on my sig list, but not in this post..

I figure if Tyson hadn't gone to hell and he got by Douglas (no given in my book considering the way Buster fought that night) then he would have been looking at a fight with Foreman and potential trilogies with Holyfield and Bowe. Now Mike should win a tough decision over Foreman considering how slow George was by that point. Then I see Tyson losing 2 out of 3 in a trilogy with Holyfield and losing 1 out of 3 against Bowe. That would put him at 3 losses before 1995 with a .500 record (3-3) against his two biggest rivals. Post 1995 you have possible dates against Mercer, Tua, and Ibeabuchi not to mention the rising Lewis. I'm assuming that Tyson would be past-prime after 1995 though. A great record? Sure, but ultimately his abilities didn't stack up to the top-5 Heavyweight ATGs even assuming he reached and maintained his full potential.

Poet

Only if he had a gun. Now take a knee and tap out like your boy Cotto.

Poet

Well, if you think Jack Johnson and Louis would beat that man:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6zlaIl0yh0&hl=fr&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6zlaIl0yh0&hl=fr&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

you're ****in nuts. Be realistic, i think you don't even believe that ****. You're just trying to be elitist.

I rank both higher than Tyson but a fighter like Jack Johnson used techniques that wouldn't work nowadays, even a Lamon Brewster would beat him. Jack Johnson's combos were pretty wide and his footwork was non existent. If he had trouble KOing old rusty, unskilled Jeffries, how would he do against a skilled, powerful, bob and weaver like Tyson.

Joe Louis is too small to beat someone like a prime Tyson, he would get KOed. Louis got knocked down multiple times against Joe Walcott who wasn't half of the athlete and the puncher Tyson was.

I don't answer to the knee ****, it's childish.

Well, if you think Jack Johnson and Louis would beat that man:

you're ****in nuts. Be realistic, i think you don't even believe that ****. You're just trying to be elitist.

I rank both higher than Tyson but a fighter like Jack Johnson used techniques that wouldn't work nowadays, even a Lamon Brewster would beat him. Jack Johnson's combos were pretty wide and his footwork was non existent. If he had trouble KOing old rusty, unskilled Jeffries, how would he do against a skilled, powerful, bob and weaver like Tyson.

Joe Louis is too small to beat someone like a prime Tyson, he would get KOed. Louis got knocked down multiple times against Joe Walcott who wasn't half of the athlete and the puncher Tyson was.

I don't answer to the knee ****, it's childish.

If you think a flabby tub of goo like Lamon Brewster would beat ANYONE from back then you're smoking crack.

Second, these comparisons aren't made in a vacuum: If that's what you're doing you're wasting your time because you're comparing apples to oranges. In a head to head matchup Louis fights him in Tyson's era or Tyson fights him in Louis' era (or Johnson's either way). Which means that Louis gets the same training and nutrition that 1980s fighters got OR Tyson has to make do with the training and nutrition that 1940s fighters got (which means Tyson winds up weighing in at about 200 pounds btw). You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If you make these comparisons in a vacuum than what you're really comparing is eras NOT fighters and since the whole point of these exercises is to compare fighters to each other.....

PS. I've most likely seen more prime Tyson than YOU have so the video is nothing I haven't seen many times before. Those things may make the Tyson cultists drool but they don't impress me that much.

Poet

If you think a flabby tub of goo like Lamon Brewster would beat ANYONE from back then you're smoking crack.

Second, these comparisons aren't made in a vacuum: If that's what you're doing you're wasting your time because you're comparing apples to oranges. In a head to head matchup Louis fights him in Tyson's era or Tyson fights him in Louis' era (or Johnson's either way). Which means that Louis gets the same training and nutrition that 1980s fighters got OR Tyson has to make do with the training and nutrition that 1940s fighters got (which means Tyson winds up weighing in at about 200 pounds btw). You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If you make these comparisons in a vacuum than what you're really comparing is eras NOT fighters and since the whole point of these exercises is to compare fighters to each other.....

PS. I've most likely seen more prime Tyson than YOU have so the video is nothing I haven't seen many times before. Those things may make the Tyson cultists drool but they don't impress me that much.

Poet


I never said Tyson was any better than Louis or Johnson. I just said he would kill them if he fought them. You basically answered he would need a gun. I think they would be the one who would.

I agree that those three fighters didn't have the same tools and the same workouts. That's why we can't really compare them that way.
When i do P4P lists, i compare guys on their resume and what they accomplished in their eras. Vitali would kill Louis or Patterson, but they're much greater than him. Mayweather would kill Joe Gans, but Gans did more in his era as a ligtweight,etc..

PS: I saw prime Tyson in videos but not live. Too young for that.

I figure if Tyson hadn't gone to hell and he got by Douglas (no given in my book considering the way Buster fought that night) then he would have been looking at a fight with Foreman and potential trilogies with Holyfield and Bowe. Now Mike should win a tough decision over Foreman considering how slow George was by that point. Then I see Tyson losing 2 out of 3 in a trilogy with Holyfield and losing 1 out of 3 against Bowe. That would put him at 3 losses before 1995 with a .500 record (3-3) against his two biggest rivals. Post 1995 you have possible dates against Mercer, Tua, and Ibeabuchi not to mention the rising Lewis. I'm assuming that Tyson would be past-prime after 1995 though. A great record? Sure, but ultimately his abilities didn't stack up to the top-5 Heavyweight ATGs even assuming he reached and maintained his full potential.

Poet
Yeah, boxing politics suggests that would have happened, and I think you're pretty close to the mark, regards predictions to.. But had he been able to pad his record in the way that say, Louis and Marciano did, it would have been quite concievable, given the extra 3 years of course..
I obviously rate him a bit higher than you do, but seriously, have you ever seen a guy over 200 with so much combination of speed and power?.. I haven't..
On top of this, he had a pretty good chin, plus he'd have fought with more heart to, had it not been badly broken..
He'd have been too much for Mercer, Tua, Ibeabuchi or the Lennox Lewis who fought Frank Bruno..
Holyfield, I just feel, kind of always had his number and would have been like Hearns's Barkley or Ali's Norton.. But with your predictions being, a victory over Foreman, 2/3 over Bowe and 1/3 Holyfield, concluded with his other achievements, would NOT be enough to elevate him into the top 5?? C'mon Poet, You know it makes sense!

I never said Tyson was any better than Louis or Johnson.

I just said he would kill them if he fought them. You basically answered he would need a gun. I think they would be the one who would.

Aren't those two statements contradictory then?


When i do P4P lists, i compare guys on their resume and what they accomplished in their eras. Vitali would kill Louis or Patterson, but they're much greater than him. Mayweather would kill Joe Gans, but Gans did more in his era as a ligtweight,etc..

Based on.....what then? What, given Vitali's known abilities, are you basing the statement that he would "kill" Louis? The same with Mayweather - Gans (especially given Mayweather's inability to "kill" a Featherweight in his last fight).

Poet

Second, these comparisons aren't made in a vacuum: If that's what you're doing you're wasting your time because you're comparing apples to oranges. In a head to head matchup Louis fights him in Tyson's era or Tyson fights him in Louis' era (or Johnson's either way). Which means that Louis gets the same training and nutrition that 1980s fighters got OR Tyson has to make do with the training and nutrition that 1940s fighters got (which means Tyson winds up weighing in at about 200 pounds btw). You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If you make these comparisons in a vacuum than what you're really comparing is eras NOT fighters and since the whole point of these exercises is to compare fighters to each other.....

Prime Tyson's training routine doesn't involve any futuristic machines or methods compared to the 1940's. His diet was pretty simple, also.

Really, he would've been the same fighter had he been in the 1940's.

I never said Tyson was any better than Louis or Johnson. I just said he would kill them if he fought them. You basically answered he would need a gun. I think they would be the one who would.

I agree that those three fighters didn't have the same tools and the same workouts. That's why we can't really compare them that way.
When i do P4P lists, i compare guys on their resume and what they accomplished in their eras. Vitali would kill Louis or Patterson, but they're much greater than him. Mayweather would kill Joe Gans, but Gans did more in his era as a ligtweight,etc..

PS: I saw prime Tyson in videos but not live. Too young for that.
You should watch more of Louis.. His finest attribute was punching through the middle, a technique Tyson was always susceptable to..

I obviously rate him a bit higher than you do, but seriously, have you ever seen a guy over 200 with so much combination of speed and power?.. I haven't..

I'm not as impressed by power as casual fans are. In fact I consider it the LEAST important of the major attributes that make up a fighter. I've always been far more impressed by Tyson's chin than his power.


He'd have been too much for Mercer, Tua, Ibeabuchi or the Lennox Lewis who fought Frank Bruno..

The thing is I don't see those matchups as happening until post-1995 at which point I think would have slipped to past-prime and all of the above would have good chances especially Ibeabuchi. For the record, in a prime vs. prime trilogy against Lennox I would favor Tyson to take 2 out of 3. This "Tyson waxes Lewis in a round" stuff is just dumb.


Holyfield, I just feel, kind of always had his number and would have been like Hearns's Barkley or Ali's Norton.. But with your predictions being, a victory over Foreman, 2/3 over Bowe and 1/3 Holyfield, concluded with his other achievements, would NOT be enough to elevate him into the top 5?? C'mon Poet, You know it makes sense!

Considering I base my ATG lists on ability (ie. how good they were) as opposed to just resume (which I see as a different discussion), who would I drop out of my top-5 to make room for Tyson? Ali? Louis? Johnson? Dempsey? Holmes? Who else rated above him would he leapfrog? Liston? Holyfield? Foreman? Marciano? And is he really that much better than Frazier and Wills to justify ranking him THAT far above them? Questions that need consideration!

Poet

Prime Tyson's training routine doesn't involve any futuristic machines or methods compared to the 1940's. His diet was pretty simple, also.

Really, he would've been the same fighter had he been in the 1940's.

No. Food was far less regualted for nutrional content then as compared to now. Also, water is far cleaner as is the air; sanitation is far better today, medical care isn't remotely comparible. All of these things contribute to larger and healthier bodies. Go to any 3rd world country that lack such modern amenities and you'll find the size of the people living there has changed very little over the past 1,000 years.....and the the 1,000 years prior to that. It's only in countries with modern nutrition, sanitation, and medical care that people have grown progressively larger especially over the past 60 years.

Poet

No. Food was far less regualted for nutrional content then as compared to now. Also, water is far cleaner as is the air; sanitation is far better today, medical care isn't remotely comparible. All of these things contribute to larger and healthier bodies. Go to any 3rd world country that lack such modern amenities and you'll find the size of the people living there has changed very little over the past 1,000 years.....and the the 1,000 years prior to that. It's only in countries with modern nutrition, sanitation, and medical care that people have grown progressively larger especially over the past 60 years.

Poet

You're going to the extreme. I hope you'll come back later and have a laugh.

Truth is that there wouldn't be much of a difference if Tyson fought Louis in Louis' era. A prime Tyson would most likely overwhelm a prime Louis and possibly knock him out.

You're going to the extreme. I hope you'll come back later and have a laugh.

Truth is that there wouldn't be much of a difference if Tyson fought Louis in Louis' era. A prime Tyson would most likely overwhelm a prime Louis and possibly knock him out.

Come back whenever. Quite frankly you don't know what the fvck you're talking about. Go back to school Junior and pay attention this time.

Poet

Come back whenever. Quite frankly you don't know what the fvck you're talking about. Go back to school Junior and pay attention this time.

Poet

Calling names and acting like an idiot on a forum won't make you look cool.

And I do know what I'm talking about since I've studied both fighters and asked myself this question many times before. They're also in my top 3 favorite heavyweights so I don't play it out on favoritism.

I will say that Louis had better accuracy with his punches than Tyson but a prime Tyson had the chin to survive big punches. I wish I could say the same about Louis but I can't, seeing as he got KTFO by Schmeling and dropped many times, including by Braddock and Galento.

If you're looking for a knockout, you need power. Tyson had more power than Louis.

I'm not as impressed by power as casual fans are. In fact I consider it the LEAST important of the major attributes that make up a fighter. I've always been far more impressed by Tyson's chin than his power.




The thing is I don't see those matchups as happening until post-1995 at which point I think would have slipped to past-prime and all of the above would have good chances especially Ibeabuchi. For the record, in a prime vs. prime trilogy against Lennox I would favor Tyson to take 2 out of 3. This "Tyson waxes Lewis in a round" stuff is just dumb.




Considering I base my ATG lists on ability (ie. how good they were) as opposed to just resume (which I see as a different discussion), who would I drop out of my top-5 to make room for Tyson? Ali? Louis? Johnson? Dempsey? Holmes? Who else rated above him would he leapfrog? Liston? Holyfield? Foreman? Marciano? And is he really that much better than Frazier and Wills to justify ranking him THAT far above them? Questions that need consideration!

Poet
I'd say Mike was a bit better than Dempsey and Johnson, so I guess that's where he could fit in.. Obviously, this is just a my opinion, & you're right, exceptional skills do beat exceptional power, but Tyson wasn't an unexceptional boxer, so I'd say he beats both of them, Dempsey by way of late stoppage & Johnson by way of UD.. Dempsey would trade and Johnson would clinch and spoil, no match for a rampaging Tyson.. With regard to the others, a prime Foreman may have stopped him, with Liston and Marciano giving good accounts of themselves, but going the same way as Dempsey..
With regard to post 95 matchups, I was hypathetically referring to, if he'd fought them on the way up.. All would probably beat him post 95..

Calling names and acting like an idiot on a forum won't make you look cool.

Quite frankly I couldn't give a sh1t whether I look "cool" or not. When someone talks out of their ass I call them on it.


And I do know what I'm talking about since I've studied both fighters and asked myself this question many times before. They're also in my top 3 favorite heavyweights so I don't play it out on favoritism.

I've probably been doing the same since before you were born.


I will say that Louis had better accuracy with his punches than Tyson but a prime Tyson had the chin to survive big punches. I wish I could say the same about Louis but I can't, seeing as he got KTFO by Schmeling and dropped many times, including by Braddock and Galento.

Considering Tyson was KTFO by Buster Douglas. More to the point both Schmeling and Galento were very good punchers and in the case of Schmeling it took 8 rounds and many clean right hands FROM a very good puncher to stop Louis. Tyson was dropped by a bodyshot from Evander Holyfield: A decent but not overpowering puncher.


If you're looking for a knockout, you need power. Tyson had more power than Louis.

There's a LOT more to boxing than knockouts. Even so, Tyson is NOT the hardest puncher in division history: It is generally agreed that both Shavers and Foreman were harder punchers than Mike and I've seen many boxing historian argue that Liston, Marciano, AND Louis were all harder puchers than Tyson. The fact is both Tyson AND Louis had one-punch KO power so that argument is a wash.

Poet

I've probably been doing the same since before you were born.

You know you're losing in a debate when..

Considering Tyson was KTFO by Buster Douglas. More to the point both Schmeling and Galento were very good punchers and in the case of Schmeling it took 8 rounds and many clean right hands FROM a very good puncher to stop Louis. Tyson was dropped by a bodyshot from Evander Holyfield: A decent but not overpowering puncher.

If you think the Tyson that fought Douglas was in his prime, you know nothing about boxing.

If you think the Tyson that fought Holyfield was in his prime, you know nothing about boxing.

There's a LOT more to boxing than knockouts. Even so, Tyson is NOT the hardest puncher in division history: It is generally agreed that both Shavers and Foreman were harder punchers than Mike and I've seen many boxing historian argue that Liston, Marciano, AND Louis were all harder puchers than Tyson. The fact is both Tyson AND Louis had one-punch KO power so that argument is a wash.

I don't know why you're bringing up Foreman and Shavers since I wasn't talking about whose the hardest punchers in heavyweight history. I just pointed out that Tyson had more power than Louis. And power is almost everything in a knockout punch.

Since a prime (meaning when a person is at their best, just incase you didn't know) Tyson had the chin to take Louis' shots, he would eventually knock out Louis.

I'd say Mike was a bit better than Dempsey and Johnson, so I guess that's where he could fit in.. Obviously, this is just a my opinion, & you're right, exceptional skills do beat exceptional power, but Tyson wasn't an unexceptional boxer, so I'd say he beats both of them, Dempsey by way of late stoppage & Johnson by way of UD.. Dempsey would trade and Johnson would clinch and spoil, no match for a rampaging Tyson.. With regard to the others, a prime Foreman may have stopped him, with Liston and Marciano giving good accounts of themselves, but going the same way as Dempsey..
With regard to post 95 matchups, I was hypathetically referring to, if he'd fought them on the way up.. All would probably beat him post 95..

I wouldn't say he was unexemptional but I wouldn't put him on the same level skillwise as say an Ali, Louis, Holmes, or even Liston for that matter. His skills routinely get exagerrated beyond what the realistically were. He had his weaknesses even in his short prime and I commented on them AT THE TIME. Too many people get stars in there watching his quick KOs over tomato cans. For me, a KO makes no more impression on me than a solid decision. It's a win, no more no less.

To my mind Johnson would easily outpoint Tyson while both Foreman and Liston would use him like a basketball ala Foreman Vs. Frazier I (bad, bad style matchup). Dempsey and Marciano (and Frazier) are even money matchups with Mike as there are so many similarities between them as to nullify any advanatages one might have over the other.

Poet

I think if Mike didn't get so much money at a young age, he would have been a different person.

He could have been on the same level as Ali if it didn't go wrong.

I think Tyson probably would've had a longer reign at the top, but ultimately would've self-destructed. Tyson was just too damaged a person with too many demons.

It's not as if Tyson never got into trouble with Cus either. Some of it was covered up and they worked to keep Tyson's image clean even after Cus died, but Tyson had his problems then as well.

You know you're losing in a debate when..

If you think the Tyson that fought Douglas was in his prime, you know nothing about boxing.

And if you think he wasn't you're a deluded KoolAid drinking nuthugger making excuses as to why your boy got his ass kicked.


I don't know why you're bringing up Foreman and Shavers since I wasn't talking about whose the hardest punchers in heavyweight history. I just pointed out that Tyson had more power than Louis.

And I pointed out that many boxing historians (ie. people who know more about boxing than you do, not that that's any great feat) have made the argument that Louis was a harder puncher.


And power is almost everything in a knockout punch.

That's flat out wrong. Hand speed and explosiveness are of equal importance. As Angelo Dundee has said over and over again "it's the punch you don't see coming that get's you out of there".


Since a prime (meaning when a person is at their best, just incase you didn't know) Tyson had the chin to take Louis' shots, he would eventually knock out Louis.

Your chin doesn't suddenly go away simply because you're past prime so the Douglas and Holyfield knockdowns are relivent since we're talking about his chin not the decline in his overall abilities. Further, Douglas WAS prime Tyson and I'm sick of hearing Mike's nuthuggers bleat like sheep that he was washed up so the loss doesn't count. Get over it: He got his ass whipped and no amount of fanboi winging is going to change it :bottle:

Poet

And if you think he wasn't you're a deluded KoolAid drinking nuthugger making excuses as to why your boy got his ass kicked.

Pathetic. And you call yourself a boxing fan?

And I pointed out that many boxing historians (ie. people who know more about boxing than you do, not that that's any great feat) have made the argument that Louis was a harder puncher.

Bert Sugar rates Willie Pep ahead of Muhammad Ali and Aaron Pryor ahead of Bernard Hopkins. Do I care what he thinks?

That's flat out wrong. Hand speed and explosiveness are of equal importance. As Angelo Dundee has said over and over again "it's the punch you don't see coming that get's you out of there".

This is probably the funniest thing you've said so far, as you contradict yourself while trying to look smart.

1) Explosiveness is another term for power in boxing. But how would you know? You never held a pair of boxing gloves in your hands.

2) The formula for power is 1/2 mass x velocity x velocity (1/2mv2).

In order to maximize your velocity, you need to be in close, which is something that Tyson did while Louis did not.

As for mass (in this case, the arm), Tyson's was bigger and more compact compared to Louis'. You can check their measurements for proof, if you want.

Point = Tyson had more power

Your chin doesn't suddenly go away simply because you're past prime so the Douglas and Holyfield knockdowns are relivent since we're talking about his chin not the decline in his overall abilities. Further, Douglas WAS prime Tyson and I'm sick of hearing Mike's nuthuggers bleat like sheep that he was washed up so the loss doesn't count. Get over it: He got his ass whipped and no amount of fanboi winging is going to change it

With a decrease in his overall abilities, specifically defense, he was easier to hit. The Douglas knockout was after 9 rounds of heavy punches to the face and the Holyfield knockdown was with a body shot (I saw him off balance but I gave it to Holyfield) but he didn't knock him out. The referee stopped the fight, even though I thought it was a bit too early.

And I'm not a "fanboi". I simply think realistically, compared to you who in a fantasy world wishes he could be Louis' best friend.

I'm done debating, seeing as there's no point. You understanding reality is like a Mexican believing Puerto Ricans are better or the other way around. It just ain't happening.

Pathetic. And you call yourself a boxing fan?

A better one than you as you're simply a simpering idiot.


Bert Sugar rates Willie Pep ahead of Muhammad Ali and Aaron Pryor ahead of Bernard Hopkins. Do I care what he thinks?

I said boxing historians not Bert Sugar. That's beside the point, you sound like one of those dipsh1t high school kids who think they're smarter than their teachers when in reality they don't know fvck all.


This is probably the funniest thing you've said so far, as you contradict yourself while trying to look smart.

1) Explosiveness is another term for power in boxing. But how would you know? You never held a pair of boxing gloves in your hands.

2) The formula for power is 1/2 mass x velocity x velocity (1/2mv2).

More proof you don't know dick about boxing. Earnie Shavers had more raw power than anyone but next to no speed or explosiveness.


In order to maximize your velocity, you need to be in close, which is something that Tyson did while Louis did not.

False. Ask any boxing trainer and they'll tell you that your maximum power is at the end of your punch at full extension. The closer you get inside that extension the less power your punches have which is why long arm fighters are at a dissadvantage on the inside. Further, you've just proved you've never watched Tyson very carefully because if you had you would have known that Tyson never liked fighting inside and avoided it when he could: He fought at mid-range where he could get maximum leverage on his punches. Try actually WATCHING his fights instead of pulling your pud over them.


As for mass (in this case, the arm), Tyson's was bigger and more compact compared to Louis'. You can check their measurements for proof, if you want.

Point = Tyson had more power

Sorry Junior, that crap of size = power doesn't wash since Tyson routinely weighed less than his opponents but punched harder than all but a select few such as Bruno (who also lacked speed and explosiveness btw).


With a decrease in his overall abilities, specifically defense, he was easier to hit.

Not the issue, the issue was chin and nothing else.


The Douglas knockout was after 9 rounds of heavy punches to the face

And the Schmeling knockout was after 8 rounds of heavy punches to the face.


The referee stopped the fight, even though I thought it was a bit too early.

Are you on drugs? The dude was defenseless and Evander was teeing off on him. Hell, it could have been stopped SOONER with no legitimate complaints.


And I'm not a "fanboi".

You're acting like one.


I simply think realistically

No, you think like someone of little intelligence who can grasp certain primitive concepts but nothing that would require any higher brain functions that are routine for, say, a typical special-ed class.


I'm done debating, seeing as there's no point. You understanding reality is like a Mexican believing Puerto Ricans are better or the other way around. It just ain't happening.

I don't debate with morons so there was NO "debate". I haven't been talking to you I've been talking AT you. As for YOU'RE undertstanding of reality.....let's just say semi-lucid winos and junkies have a better grasp of reality than you have :smashfrea

Poet

I'll just reply because it's fun arguing with you.

A better one than you as you're simply a simpering idiot.

Looks like I've hurt your feelings. You're 41 yet you have the sensitivity of a 12 year old girl.

I said boxing historians not Bert Sugar. That's beside the point, you sound like one of those dipsh1t high school kids who think they're smarter than their teachers when in reality they don't know fvck all.

I was giving an example of why I don't care what other historians think.

The Bert Sugar example is to show that, while he may be an "historian", he has flaws and so do many others. They're not robots. They're people. But, of course, you wouldn't understand that.

It's also funny how you keep referring to me as a kid. If I was a kid, at least I'm smarter than your gigantic ass.

False. Ask any boxing trainer and they'll tell you that your maximum power is at the end of your punch at full extension. The closer you get inside that extension the less power your punches have which is why long arm fighters are at a dissadvantage on the inside. Further, you've just proved you've never watched Tyson very carefully because if you had you would have known that Tyson never liked fighting inside and avoided it when he could: He fought at mid-range where he could get maximum leverage on his punches. Try actually WATCHING his fights instead of pulling your pud over them.

You say false like you actually know what you're talking about when you really don't. You've most likely never been to a gym and never put on a pair of gloves.

And if you had proper vision, you would know that Tyson knocked out his opponents while he was close. Here's three examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYSi-fAePl4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc2phQYGq2g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENHzQA9QOKE

Sorry Junior, that crap of size = power doesn't wash since Tyson routinely weighed less than his opponents but punched harder than all but a select few such as Bruno (who also lacked speed and explosiveness btw).

Tyson knew how to shift his weight (body) in the appropriate way to execute more power.

Not the issue, the issue was chin and nothing else.

The issue is your stupidity.

Are you on drugs? The dude was defenseless and Evander was teeing off on him. Hell, it could have been stopped SOONER with no legitimate complaints.

Was he knocked out on the ground?

Thought so.

No, you think like someone of little intelligence who can grasp certain primitive concepts but nothing that would require any higher brain functions that are routine for, say, a typical special-ed class.

Please don't compare me to you. We're nothing alike.

I don't debate with morons so there was NO "debate". I haven't been talking to you I've been talking AT you. As for YOU'RE undertstanding of reality.....let's just say semi-lucid winos and junkies have a better grasp of reality than you have

Definition of debate: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal

If winos and junkies have a better grasp of reality than me, your grasp of reality is equivalent to a table's.

I'll just reply because it's fun arguing with you.

Looks like I've hurt your feelings. You're 41 yet you have the sensitivity of a 12 year old girl.

I was giving an example of why I don't care what other historians think.

The Bert Sugar example is to show that, while he may be an "historian", he has flaws and so do many others. They're not robots. They're people. But, of course, you wouldn't understand that.

It's also funny how you keep referring to me as a kid. If I was a kid, at least I'm smarter than your gigantic ass.

You say false like you actually know what you're talking about when you really don't. You've most likely never been to a gym and never put on a pair of gloves.

And if you had proper vision, you would know that Tyson knocked out his opponents while he was close. Here's three examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYSi-fAePl4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc2phQYGq2g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENHzQA9QOKE

Tyson knew how to shift his weight (body) in the appropriate way to execute more power.

The issue is your stupidity.

Was he knocked out on the ground?

Thought so.

Please don't compare me to you. We're nothing alike.

Definition of debate: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal

If winos and junkies have a better grasp of reality than me, your grasp of reality is equivalent to a table's.

:haha: Guess I better call him a wahmbulance :bottle: It's been a while since I've had some mental lightweight resort to the "I know you but what am I" game :rofl: Too damn funny! :rofl:

Poet

:haha: Guess I better call him a wahmbulance :bottle: It's been a while since I've had some mental lightweight resort to the "I know you but what am I" game :rofl: Too damn funny! :rofl:

Poet

I guess I finally hit a soft spot on you. You now resort to acting as if I'm the one that hurts. I've seen it too many times.

It's clear I got the better of the debate.

Tyson still woulda crashed eventually, but not as soon or as hard as he did.

I think Mike didnt do it, If Joe Egan said he believed Mike didnt do it, then I believe it too.

Lewis would beat Tyson 2/3 times.

First fight Mike wins, Ko's lewis

second fight lewis wins a hard one, figuring out tyson and stopping him late

third fight Lewis destroys Tyson, knowing excactly how to fight him.

Lewis is an intelligent fighter, and once he knows your weakness he exploits it.

Only Ali, who has no weakness can win consistantly over lewis, but dont think lewis cant give ali a tough fight and win a few fights out of ten

Lewis would beat Tyson 2/3 times.

First fight Mike wins, Ko's lewis

second fight lewis wins a hard one, figuring out tyson and stopping him late

third fight Lewis destroys Tyson, knowing excactly how to fight him.

Lewis is an intelligent fighter, and once he knows your weakness he exploits it.

Only Ali, who has no weakness can win consistantly over lewis, but dont think lewis cant give ali a tough fight and win a few fights out of ten
If Tyson wins the first fight like you say, by KO then he would almost certainly win the next in even quicker time, just like he did with Bruno..

you are deluding yourself if you think Lewis could beat Mike Tyson... it took Lewis 8rds to beat a "Heavily-Sedated" Tyson, who was a whole decade and more past his best.. Danny Williams & Kevin McBride beat that version of Tyson far easier than Lewis did..

Lewis goes down like other Tyson victims : Alex Stewart, Carl Williams, Michael Spinks, Henry Tilman, Cliff Ettiene by a brutal 1rd KO

Ive Been an Iron Fan my entire life but have heavy respect for boxers like Holyfield and Lewis. but seriously though If Iron who is my 1st favouraite all time boxer had stayed with kevin rooney as his trainer after the Michael Spinks Fight? i reckon tyson wouldve been even more ferocious then ever i just wish 4 things.....

1) he never associated himself with don king....
2)he never married robin givens...
3)he never went near desiree washington the lying b*tch
4) that cus survived a little longer and that he stayed with kevin as his trainer.

think about it i mean theres nothing i can do and im really glad that hes a reformed man now and all but if he did stay with kev i reckon he couldve been more respected by others like how lewis is respected or how Ali or Jack dempsey are.. anyways thats all i have to say thanks for reading and respect to all boxers...

If Cus was still alive and was there with Cus, IMO we would get the best possible Mike Tyson. He wouldn't get stuck with Don King and all those other leaches that just wanted his money

he wouldn't have gave up the girls though

If Tyson wins the first fight like you say, by KO then he would almost certainly win the next in even quicker time, just like he did with Bruno..

you are deluding yourself if you think Lewis could beat Mike Tyson... it took Lewis 8rds to beat a "Heavily-Sedated" Tyson, who was a whole decade and more past his best.. Danny Williams & Kevin McBride beat that version of Tyson far easier than Lewis did..

Lewis goes down like other Tyson victims : Alex Stewart, Carl Williams, Michael Spinks, Henry Tilman, Cliff Ettiene by a brutal 1rd KO
Always time for some Lewis bashing, isn't there?

Strange logic regarding Tyson Bruno, similar to Tyson Ruddock, I suppose

There's a few fighters I don't rate, but I don't respond to every post that mentions their name..

It's all becoming a bit tedious, as you're now beginning to show yourself up!

I mean, offering that Tyson was 'heavily sedated' as an excuse for getting his ass kicked.. What you meant to say, is that Tyson was particularly stupid to fight for a world title, while medically unfit..

Always time for some Lewis bashing, isn't there?

Strange logic regarding Tyson Bruno, similar to Tyson Ruddock, I suppose

There's a few fighters I don't rate, but I don't respond to every post that mentions their name..

It's all becoming a bit tedious, as you're now beginning to show yourself up!

I mean, offering that Tyson was 'heavily sedated' as an excuse for getting his ass kicked.. What you meant to say, is that Tyson was particularly stupid to fight for a world title, while medically unfit..

same difference aint it... When Tyson fought Lewis he was taking anti-depressants and very strong ones at that..

When Tyson fought Ruddock a 2nd time it was due to the `outcry` from the press that their 1st fight had been stopped prematurely, yet Tyson dished out a career-ending beating to Ruddock in the 2nd fight, breaking Ruddocks jaw and smashing his eye-socket along with his cheek-bone.

Tyson was Not Stupid to fight for a World Title against Lewis... He fought because he needed the Money its as simple as that... Tysons words to Lewis in the ring when being interviewed by Jim Gray was "Thanks for the money Lennox"... But for the previous poster to claim Lewis would beat Tyson 2 out of 3 fights is just not true.. it took Lewis 8rd to beat a version of Tyson who was more than a decade past his best, who was sedated and not able to fight back.. To deny this is lying...Tyson was only able to mount an attack for the first 30 seconds of the fight and was not fit enough to continue it there-after, yet a version of Tyson from a decade earlier could fight at a good pace for 12rds... with almost half of his professional fights ending in the opening round Lewis would most certainly be a victim of those circumstances also.

Are we to also say that both Danny Williams & Kevin McBride would also beat Mike Tyson 2 out of 3 times if they fought ... No we are not because its just not possible to comprehend them doing that, yet they both beat Tyson far more convincingly that what Lewis did.

Its never a case as you claim of "Lewis Bashing" its a case of telling it how it really was, if you dont think this was the case then post up and we can get this thing sorted out... i also notice you have your own Top 10 List posted up and have Lewis rated ahead of Mike Tyson.. i cannot take anything you say as knowledgable as in my opinion you have little boxing knowledge just by looking at your top 10 are you seriously expecting me to believe Lennox Lewis was a superior champion to your choice of No 6 to 10 Frazier, Tyson, Holyfield, Marciano, Liston ?
they would all crucify Lewis and certainly would never ever be one-punched poleaxed by journeymen Rahman & McCall

I love a sentimental story as much as anyone, but I think the whole Cus and Tyson thing is a bunch of marketing bullsh!t. I have no doubt that Tyson's feelings are sincere, I don't doubt the influence in formative training, but all this fall from grace and father figure nonsense is just an attempt to bolster the Tyson mythology. Then and now. First it was his handlers, and now Tyson himself (as shrewd a self-marketer as Ali in my view, just in a different way). None of Cus' continued influence would have changed who he was, simply because it didn't before he died. Tyson was troubled as a youth, a young adult, and probably still is. Not to mention he knew he was being exploited. I wouldn't be suprised if that wasn't why they rushed him the way they did, secondary to the fact that the landscape was right. Holmes was getting old, and Tyson pre-empted his piers, the next generation of heavyweights, and instead of fighting through Bowe, Lewis, etc. he fought all of Holmes' contenders and others who were on the way out anyway, mixed in with some decent heavys like Frank Bruno. Tyson was just about to be tested, I think for the first time, by a group of better heavyweights than the ones he had faced, then he lost to Douglas and went to prison. Tyson didn't stop training because his trainers sucked. Tyson fired Rooney anyway. He didn't want to put the work in. Cus and Jacobs didn't hold some mystical power over him that would have changed that.

same difference aint it... When Tyson fought Lewis he was taking anti-depressants and very strong ones at that..

When Tyson fought Ruddock a 2nd time it was due to the `outcry` from the press that their 1st fight had been stopped prematurely, yet Tyson dished out a career-ending beating to Ruddock in the 2nd fight, breaking Ruddocks jaw and smashing his eye-socket along with his cheek-bone.

Tyson was Not Stupid to fight for a World Title against Lewis... He fought because he needed the Money its as simple as that... Tysons words to Lewis in the ring when being interviewed by Jim Gray was "Thanks for the money Lennox"... But for the previous poster to claim Lewis would beat Tyson 2 out of 3 fights is just not true.. it took Lewis 8rd to beat a version of Tyson who was more than a decade past his best, who was sedated and not able to fight back.. To deny this is lying...Tyson was only able to mount an attack for the first 30 seconds of the fight and was not fit enough to continue it there-after, yet a version of Tyson from a decade earlier could fight at a good pace for 12rds... with almost half of his professional fights ending in the opening round Lewis would most certainly be a victim of those circumstances also.

Are we to also say that both Danny Williams & Kevin McBride would also beat Mike Tyson 2 out of 3 times if they fought ... No we are not because its just not possible to comprehend them doing that, yet they both beat Tyson far more convincingly that what Lewis did.

Its never a case as you claim of "Lewis Bashing" its a case of telling it how it really was, if you dont think this was the case then post up and we can get this thing sorted out... i also notice you have your own Top 10 List posted up and have Lewis rated ahead of Mike Tyson.. i cannot take anything you say as knowledgable as in my opinion you have little boxing knowledge just by looking at your top 10 are you seriously expecting me to believe Lennox Lewis was a superior champion to your choice of No 6 to 10 Frazier, Tyson, Holyfield, Marciano, Liston ?
they would all crucify Lewis and certainly would never ever be one-punched poleaxed by journeymen Rahman & McCall
You actually take Tyson's fights with Lewis, Williams and McBride seriously, don't you?..
All this girlie crap about the other 2 beating Tyson more easily than Lewis..
Williams was nearly KTFO in his fight, while McBride huffed n' puffed & eventually won by pushing Tyson over, who then could'nt be bothered to get back up..
Not that it means anything, but Lewis just used him to sharpen up on, he clinically dismantled the tortured shell of Mike Tyson, and in the process, gave some financial security that inevitably softened him up for the other 2..

Thanks for the comments regarding my top 10.. Just to make the assumption that I know very little about boxing, purely by observing my top 10 HW's, highlights your narrow mindedness.. I'd dread to think who you have in yours! Liston & Frazier overrated etc etc..

Career ending fight for Ruddock against Tyson2 ??..... More bollocks!

Rahman and McCall lol.. Both avenged once, but I suppose you feel he should have had a trilogy with them? And in your world, Lewis would OBVIOUSLY lose BOTH rubber matches, wouldn't he?

You really have to get over all of this assassination stuff on Lewis.. It'll make you ill!

I'd say Mike was a bit better than Dempsey and Johnson, so I guess that's where he could fit in.. Obviously, this is just a my opinion, & you're right, exceptional skills do beat exceptional power, but Tyson wasn't an unexceptional boxer, so I'd say he beats both of them, Dempsey by way of late stoppage & Johnson by way of UD.. Dempsey would trade and Johnson would clinch and spoil, no match for a rampaging Tyson.. With regard to the others, a prime Foreman may have stopped him, with Liston and Marciano giving good accounts of themselves, but going the same way as Dempsey..
With regard to post 95 matchups, I was hypathetically referring to, if he'd fought them on the way up.. All would probably beat him post 95..

:thinking:

With only five knockouts past round five (one guy gave up and the others were TKO's) I have trouble thinking he would stop him late. None came after round seven. He was just one of those guys that didn't do well late at all, especially with his power punches.

From round five onward he more or less lost most of his speed, which killed his power and by the eighth round it was nearly nonexistent. If he did stop him I might see it happening early or around the fifth but any later....I don't know. I wouldn't think so.

What do you think?

Its never a case as you claim of "Lewis Bashing" its a case of telling it how it really was, if you dont think this was the case then post up and we can get this thing sorted out... i also notice you have your own Top 10 List posted up and have Lewis rated ahead of Mike Tyson.. i cannot take anything you say as knowledgable as in my opinion you have little boxing knowledge just by looking at your top 10 are you seriously expecting me to believe Lennox Lewis was a superior champion to your choice of No 6 to 10 Frazier, Tyson, Holyfield, Marciano, Liston ?
they would all crucify Lewis and certainly would never ever be one-punched poleaxed by journeymen Rahman & McCall

Well, what about when Tyson was poleaxed by Douglas a decade earlier than when Lewis got him? Douglas wasn't as good as Rahman and was only about as good as McCall, the two guys that beat Lewis, but Lewis revenged those two losses brutally.

If Douglas could beat a prime Tyson with good movement and a good jab, why couldn't the much bigger, and much better Lewis?

Oh, and I noticed you said 'all would crucify him' and yet Lewis took apart Holyfield without any trouble and really didn't have an ounce of trouble with Tyson either. Yes, he was more or less shot but he was prime when he fought Douglas and got beat badly.

Lewis would beat Tyson 2/3 times.

First fight Mike wins, Ko's lewis

second fight lewis wins a hard one, figuring out tyson and stopping him late

third fight Lewis destroys Tyson, knowing excactly how to fight him.

Lewis is an intelligent fighter, and once he knows your weakness he exploits it.

Only Ali, who has no weakness can win consistantly over lewis, but dont think lewis cant give ali a tough fight and win a few fights out of ten

Is that a joke or a serious statement? :thinking:

Ali had a lot of weaknesses man. He covered them up well, and with his physical prowess escaped a lot of stuff early but he had terrible defense, got hit way too much, pulled back from punches, was highly susceptible to the hook, didn't have great punching technique etc etc.

He most certainly had weaknesses. Most were made up by his heart and will to win though.

:thinking:

With only five knockouts past round five (one guy gave up and the others were TKO's) I have trouble thinking he would stop him late. None came after round seven. He was just one of those guys that didn't do well late at all, especially with his power punches.

From round five onward he more or less lost most of his speed, which killed his power and by the eighth round it was nearly nonexistent. If he did stop him I might see it happening early or around the fifth but any later....I don't know. I wouldn't think so.

What do you think?
Tyson would be in my opinion, a step up in class from say Willard, Gibbons & Tunney.. I think Dempsey would be able to fight on equal terms during the early rounds, and he'd also be tough enough to hang in there and take more shots than most of his other victims.. Late stoppage, ie 8th onwards, cuts, or taking unnecessary punishment, would be my prediction.. Tyson may have lost power through the rounds, but I'd be confident he'd still be a stronger proposition than those already mentioned..

Most people harp on about Dempsey's raw aggression and power, but he also had a granite chin.. I believe he was only ever KO'd once, in a dubious encounter with Fireman Jimmy Flynn.. Many at the time, said Dempsey had been handed a 'brown envelope' after the fight... Wouldn't surprise me!

I think Tyson's style dictated a truncated period for him to be declared as "prime" with or without Cus/Rooney.

Do I think he would have got beat with Rooney in the corner and with Cus alive. Yep and probably still by Douglas.

Tyson didn't look great in the first Bruno fight and think that was down to all the things that made him Tyson, ie, love of partying, girls and whatever else he did along with the fact he came to take his talent for granted. As he got older the less Cus/Rooney could have controlled him anyway.

As for Lewis, I'll admit it I can't stand him. Call it an irrational hatred if you will but my dislike for him as a fighter doesn't blind me to the fact he was very good indeed.

Would prime Mike have beat him? I think so but couldn't say with any great certainly.

F*ckin hope so though!

I think Tyson's style dictated a truncated period for him to be declared as "prime" with or without Cus/Rooney.

Do I think he would have got beat with Rooney in the corner and with Cus alive. Yep and probably still by Douglas.

Tyson didn't look great in the first Bruno fight and think that was down to all the things that made him Tyson, ie, love of partying, girls and whatever else he did along with the fact he came to take his talent for granted. As he got older the less Cus/Rooney could have controlled him anyway.

As for Lewis, I'll admit it I can't stand him. Call it an irrational hatred if you will but my dislike for him as a fighter doesn't blind me to the fact he was very good indeed.

Would prime Mike have beat him? I think so but couldn't say with any great certainly.

F*ckin hope so though!
I suppose Teddy Atlas had the right idea by holding a gun to his head!

Ha ha, and doesn't Old Teddy just love to tell that tale!

If you are to believe The Atlas, and there's no reason not to, it seems Cus was responsible for indulging some of the traits in Tyson he'd eventually become infamous for.

Well, what about when Tyson was poleaxed by Douglas a decade earlier than when Lewis got him? Douglas wasn't as good as Rahman and was only about as good as McCall, the two guys that beat Lewis, but Lewis revenged those two losses brutally.

If Douglas could beat a prime Tyson with good movement and a good jab, why couldn't the much bigger, and much better Lewis?

Oh, and I noticed you said 'all would crucify him' and yet Lewis took apart Holyfield without any trouble and really didn't have an ounce of trouble with Tyson either. Yes, he was more or less shot but he was prime when he fought Douglas and got beat badly.
Obviously a newbie to the sport of Boxing... you claim here that Buster Douglas was not as good as Rahman and only about as good as McCall ..."What Rubbish" Douglas hammered McCall from pillar to Post in 1989 in his fight before he beat Tyson yet it only took McCall less than 2rds to `wipe-out`Lewis.. Hasim Rahman is by-far the worst fighter in boxing history ever to hold the heavyweight title, the only fighter he has ever beaten who was above `Class C`is Lennox Lewis, Rahman failed every other time he fought a fighter above that class, Rahman was TWICE poleaxed by Oleg Maskaev being knocked over the ropes and laying unconscious outside the ring, he was beaten by an old Holyfield, beaten and losing every round against John Ruiz, Rahman even quit against a 40yrs old James Toney...yet you claim he was better than Buster Douglas which is laughable... The Buster Douglas who beat Tyson would take-apart any version of Lennox Lewis, Rahman or McCall... Lewis avenged his defeat of McCall in a `farcical` fight with McCall only hours out of a Drug-Rehab and in no condition mentally or physically to be fighting for a world title..

Your claim that Lewis took apart Holyfield without any trouble is also not correct.. of the 45 sports writers sitting at ringside for their 2nd fight 42 had Holyfield a clear winner..

Like all Lennox Lewis `nuthuggers` you end your tirade with the line "Much BIGGER LEWIS"line, which is garbage.. Douglas was just as big as Lewis yet had vastly better speed & skills ... you base your entire Lewis theory on SIZE

Obviously a newbie to the sport of Boxing... you claim here that Buster Douglas was not as good as Rahman and only about as good as McCall ..."What Rubbish" Douglas hammered McCall from pillar to Post in 1989 in his fight before he beat Tyson yet it only took McCall less than 2rds to `wipe-out`Lewis.. Hasim Rahman is by-far the worst fighter in boxing history ever to hold the heavyweight title, the only fighter he has ever beaten who was above `Class C`is Lennox Lewis, Rahman failed every other time he fought a fighter above that class, Rahman was TWICE poleaxed by Oleg Maskaev being knocked over the ropes and laying unconscious outside the ring, he was beaten by an old Holyfield, beaten and losing every round against John Ruiz, Rahman even quit against a 40yrs old James Toney...yet you claim he was better than Buster Douglas which is laughable... The Buster Douglas who beat Tyson would take-apart any version of Lennox Lewis, Rahman or McCall... Lewis avenged his defeat of McCall in a `farcical` fight with McCall only hours out of a Drug-Rehab and in no condition mentally or physically to be fighting for a world title..

Your claim that Lewis took apart Holyfield without any trouble is also not correct.. of the 45 sports writers sitting at ringside for their 2nd fight 42 had Holyfield a clear winner..

Like all Lennox Lewis `nuthuggers` you end your tirade with the line "Much BIGGER LEWIS"line, which is garbage.. Douglas was just as big as Lewis yet had vastly better speed & skills ... you base your entire Lewis theory on SIZE

Man, where to start.

I'm a huge Tyson fan but your post is filled with points that are dubious at best.

Rahman the worst title holder?? - Michael Bent? Bruno? Franceso Damiani? I could go on....

Douglas beats Lewis?? - C'mon. Rahman he probably beats on his best night but no version of Buster beats Lewis.

I think Tyson would've still fallen apart eventually, maybe not against Buster Douglas but I think it was just a matter of time.

Some good posts on this. I think Douglas would have given any HW in history problems that night to be honest. Also Tyson was there to be taken in the 1st Bruno fight onwards IMO. Good point that Jacobs death is overlooked in Tyson's decline.
To steal from and paraphrase Poet short reached pressure fighters don't usually have a long shelf life.
Tyson is a top 10 ATG in my view where you put him is a matter of opinion/taste so not too shabby a career. Might go up a couple of places had he stayed focussed but he was never going to overtake Ali as number one.

Obviously a newbie to the sport of Boxing...

BennyST is FAR from being a newbie. In fact he's one of our best posters in the Boxing History section.

Poet

Some good posts on this. I think Douglas would have given any HW in history problems that night to be honest. Also Tyson was there to be taken in the 1st Bruno fight onwards IMO. Good point that Jacobs death is overlooked in Tyson's decline.
To steal from and paraphrase Poet short reached pressure fighters don't usually have a long shelf life.
Tyson is a top 10 ATG in my view where you put him is a matter of opinion/taste so not too shabby a career. Might go up a couple of places had he stayed focussed but he was never going to overtake Ali as number one.
Short armed pressure fighters! lol

Tyson would be in my opinion, a step up in class from say Willard, Gibbons & Tunney.. I think Dempsey would be able to fight on equal terms during the early rounds, and he'd also be tough enough to hang in there and take more shots than most of his other victims.. Late stoppage, ie 8th onwards, cuts, or taking unnecessary punishment, would be my prediction.. Tyson may have lost power through the rounds, but I'd be confident he'd still be a stronger proposition than those already mentioned..

Most people harp on about Dempsey's raw aggression and power, but he also had a granite chin.. I believe he was only ever KO'd once, in a dubious encounter with Fireman Jimmy Flynn.. Many at the time, said Dempsey had been handed a 'brown envelope' after the fight... Wouldn't surprise me! Dempsey been down over 17 times in his career.

Jack would be too small for tyson. and i dont want anybody giving me the whole 'willard and firpo were big for depsey too, and look what happened' bs speech.

dempsey was a warrior, there's no question. they had similar fighting styles, but this is where the size difference will show. it's simple as that.

Some good posts on this. I think Douglas would have given any HW in history problems that night to be honest.o no, you cant say that. Buster was just a bum. and tyson is a bum for loosing to a bum.

you're one of the few who actually looks throught the bull****. if only those other ****heads would smarten up for at least one kodak moment in their pathetic internet lives.

Dempsey been down over 17 times in his career.

Jack would be too small for tyson. and i dont want anybody giving me the whole 'willard and firpo were big for depsey too, and look what happened' bs speech.

dempsey was a warrior, there's no question. they had similar fighting styles, but this is where the size difference will show. it's simple as that.
Absolutely! Jack don't even make my top 10.. Maybe I'm wrong on the prediction, and Tyson stops him earlier.. It's only fantasy **** anyway lol

Absolutely! Jack don't even make my top 10.. Maybe I'm wrong on the prediction, and Tyson stops him earlier.. It's only fantasy **** anyway lolyeah, fantasy indeed. but all factors considered dont seem to favor dempsey. like i said, i love Jack, but i wouldnt bet my money to toss a 180 pounder in the ring with 220pound mass running straight ahead from the gate. i really dont like bringing size into discussion, although most times it seems like a convinient way to place things into prespective.

Size is not everything but there are limits. There are people out there that actually try to make a case that Marciano has a shot against Lennox Lewis along with other countless examples. i dont even bother going into those kind of threads.

yeah, fantasy indeed. but all factors considered dont seem to favor dempsey. like i said, i love Jack, but i wouldnt bet my money to toss a 180 pounder in the ring with 220pound mass running straight ahead from the gate. i really dont like bringing size into discussion, although most times it seems like a convinient way to place things into prespective.

Size is not everything but there are limits. There are people out there that actually try to make a case that Marciano has a shot against Lennox Lewis along with other countless examples. i dont even bother going into those kind of threads.
I did a thread on this very subject, not so long ago now.. And concensus of history did infact favour the smaller man.. In other words, more examples of little guys beating big guys were thrown forward than there were of big guys demolishing the smaller ones..

Dempsey Willard
Baer Carnera
Louis Carnera
Spinks Holmes
Spinks Cooney
Jones Ruiz
Chagaev Valuev
Walcott Choynski
Corbett Sullivan

These are just the ones off the top of my head, but there's quite a few more..
It's my belief to, that times they are changing, and the new breed of monster HW would more than likely be too much for most of the old school HW's..
However, it's pretty darn hard to prove it when you consider the evidence above.. This unfortunately fuels the fires of the posters you're referring to.. Frustrating, isn't it?

I did a thread on this very subject, not so long ago now.. And concensus of history did infact favour the smaller man.. In other words, more examples of little guys beating big guys were thrown forward than there were of big guys demolishing the smaller ones..

Dempsey Willard
Baer Carnera
Louis Carnera
Spinks Holmes
Spinks Cooney
Jones Ruiz
Chagaev Valuev
Walcott Choynski
Corbett Sullivan

These are just the ones off the top of my head, but there's quite a few more..
It's my belief to, that times they are changing, and the new breed of monster HW would more than likely be too much for most of the old school HW's..
However, it's pretty darn hard to prove it when you consider the evidence above.. This unfortunately fuels the fires of the posters you're referring to.. Frustrating, isn't it?it's not frustrating at all, and there's nothing to prove really. The fact of the matter is that, the guys mentioned above, Willard, Carnera, Ruiz, etcs etcs are not even close to being in the same league with Lewis, Bowe, Klitschko. Even guys like Tim Witherspoon, Mike Dokes, and all them other cats had tremendous power and strength that would be too much for some smaller heavys. People that usually say size dont matter, have never boxed themselves. They dont know what it feels like getting hit by a featherweight, much less a heavy.

some of the examples you posted can be picked apart in a flash. Dempsey beat Willard a guy whom Nat Fleitcher called one of the worst title holders ever (and Fleicher usually supported fighters in his era).

Spinks questionably beat Holmes (an old holmes who never was an imposing heavyweight to begin with), and he beat cooney who had like 1 fight in 4 years, cooney who was fighting off depression and going to AA meetings on weekends. And then when we saw spinks take on tyson we all know what happened.

Yeah Roy beat ruiz (i guess ruiz was something special wasnt he?) he also lost to toney. We all know what would have happened if roy fought Lewis, he didnt take the fight because he knew what we knew, he'd get ktfo.

i can go on and on, but there's really nothing to explain here.

it's not frustrating at all, and there's nothing to prove really. The fact of the matter is that, the guys mentioned above, Willard, Carnera, Ruiz, etcs etcs are not even close to being in the same league with Lewis, Bowe, Klitschko. Even guys like Tim Witherspoon, Mike Dokes, and all them other cats had tremendous power and strength that would be too much for some smaller heavys. People that usually say size dont matter, have never boxed themselves. They dont know what it feels like getting hit by a featherweight, much less a heavy.

some of the examples you posted can be picked apart in a flash. Dempsey beat Willard a guy whom Nat Fleitcher called one of the worst title holders ever (and Fleicher usually supported fighters in his era).

Spinks questionably beat Holmes (an old holmes who never was an imposing heavyweight to begin with), and he beat cooney who had like 1 fight in 4 years, cooney who was fighting off depression and going to AA meetings on weekends. And then when we saw spinks take on tyson we all know what happened.

Yeah Roy beat ruiz (i guess ruiz was something special wasnt he?) he also lost to toney. We all know what would have happened if roy fought Lewis, he didnt take the fight because he knew what we knew, he'd get ktfo.

i can go on and on, but there's really nothing to explain here.
There's nothing to prove in my eyes, but you've only got to post a thread saying Marciano would beat Lewis, and some of em will be sending you ribbons and GreenK..

There's nothing to prove in my eyes, but you've only got to post a thread saying Marciano would beat Lewis, and some of em will be sending you ribbons and GreenK..
althought my posts may tell a different story, id be the first to tell you how much i admire Marciano. im truly a fan of his, but i will not let my love for the guy dictate what i think of his capabilities. Rocky, just like any fighter had his flaws, and had he fought in the different era things might have been different for him, for better or worse we will never know. But he's made out to be someone unbeatable and unstoppable to the extreme, and the only leverage to that theory is: 49-0.

as the saying goes, show me an undefeated fighter and ill show you a guy who never fought anybody. and that is not to say that rocky fought bums, he fought whoever was available and his resume is solid. but i dont think he'd keep his undefeated string fighting more talented big men.

althought my posts may tell a different story, id be the first to tell you how much i admire Marciano. im truly a fan of his, but i will not let my love for the guy dictate what i think of his capabilities. Rocky, just like any fighter had his flaws, and had he fought in the different era things might have been different for him, for better or worse we will never know. But he's made out to be someone unbeatable and unstoppable to the extreme, and the only leverage to that theory is: 49-0.

as the saying goes, show me an undefeated fighter and ill show you a guy who never fought anybody. and that is not to say that rocky fought bums, he fought whoever was available and his resume is solid. but i dont think he'd keep his undefeated string fighting more talented big men.
You'll often see me defending him on this forum.. Hypathetically, I'd say he's the greatest cruiserweight of all time.. It wasn't just his impeccable record, but he was also a great role model to the aspiring athletes of his day..

I haven't gone through all the pages so if it has been posted, cool...if not, here is what Tyson had to say to Charlie Rose about if D'Amato had lived:

Time: 9:14
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ErkqOqzeKG0&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ErkqOqzeKG0&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



Also, take note that in one of the latest interviews with Kevin Rooney that I posted up before, Rooney thought D'Amato didn't have enough time with Mike and that Tyson was basically incomplete because of it. In other words, think what D'Amato did for Floyd Patterson and Jose Torres.



Also, D'Amato = Motivation, Answers, Discipline, Respect, Plan, Honor, Loyalty, Trust, etc.; which is good for the long haul.

BennyST is FAR from being a newbie. In fact he's one of our best posters in the Boxing History section.

Poet

Co-sign. I've come to respect many of your posts Sonny, but you're off base here. Agree or disagree, Benny got great knowledge of the sport and is one of this sites biggest assets.

I've seen a lot of posts in this thread for and against, but its a matter of interpretation. I'll sit this one out and let you guys argue because I can find an argument that goes in either direction depending on my mood.

Gotta give my man Benny credit though, he's a proven fountain of information that I can at least say I've learned much from.

Unfortunately, Tyson didn't have the character to carry on what Cus taught him when it comes to thinking things out and associating with the right people. He couldn't do it alone but he could have done it with Cus. Maybe if cus would have stuck around another ten years, Tyson could have carried on without him. The crazy Tyson we know from after prison was created by the problems he created for himself before prison. Tyson was only 21 when he started making bad decisions, he was just a kid. Why people don't understand that, is beyond me. If Tyson would have continued with Cus, there's no doubt he would have beat Lewis and Holyfield early on. He was on the path to becoming the greatest heavyweight ever or you could say the potential was there. Its the post prison Mike that has instilled hate in a lot of people for him. Thats why he will continue to be underrated until this generation has passed. Boxing experts 50 years from now will put Tyson up there second to Ali where he belongs.

Cus D'Amato:On how Mike gave him reason to live:“I often say to Mike, “You know, I owe you a lot,” and he doesn’t know what I mean….If he weren’t here, I probably wouldn’t be alive today….Nature is smarter than people think. Little by little we lose our friends that we care about and little by little we lose our interest until finally we say what the devil am I doing around here if I have no reason to go on? You get used to everything. Even the idea of dying is something a person gets used too, and he accepts it. I believe that people die because they no longer want to live, they have no motivation to stay alive. But I have a reason with Mike here, and he gives me the motivation. I will stay alive and I will watch him become a success, because I will not leave until that happens, because when I leave he not only will know how to fight, he’ll be able to take care of himself. I don’t succeed when I make a guy become Champion of the World. I succeed when I make that fellow become Champion of the World and independent of me…”



http://www.monthlyphoto.com/images/webzine/GRI-MikeTyson_01.jpg

Cus D'Amato:On how Mike gave him reason to live:“I often say to Mike, “You know, I owe you a lot,” and he doesn’t know what I mean….If he weren’t here, I probably wouldn’t be alive today….Nature is smarter than people think. Little by little we lose our friends that we care about and little by little we lose our interest until finally we say what the devil am I doing around here if I have no reason to go on? You get used to everything. Even the idea of dying is something a person gets used too, and he accepts it. I believe that people die because they no longer want to live, they have no motivation to stay alive. But I have a reason with Mike here, and he gives me the motivation. I will stay alive and I will watch him become a success, because I will not leave until that happens, because when I leave he not only will know how to fight, [B]he’ll be able to take care of himself. I don’t succeed when I make a guy become Champion of the World. I succeed when I make that fellow become Champion of the World and independent of me…”

[COLOR="Red"]Wasn't Cus already on his deathbed or had passed away before Mike became champ?

Cus died and Tyson's life soon went into turmoil.

Wasn't Cus already on his deathbed or had passed away before Mike became champ?

Cus died and Tyson's life soon went into turmoil.

Cus died pretty early in Tyson's career, about a dozen or so fights in.

Tyson won the WBC belt from Berbick almost a year after Cus died.

Wasn't Cus already on his deathbed or had passed away before Mike became champ?

Cus died and Tyson's life soon went into turmoil.

Yes; Cus had died before Tyson became Champ.

What people say was keeping it together was Jimmy Jacobs being buddies with Tyson, and along with Rooney, keeping Cus's name continually in Tyson's mind to keep him on track on what they set out to do: Become the youngest HW Champion in history. This is probably also why you used to see T-shirts with Cus's picture on it while Tyson was fighting back then. And let's not forget Cayton's part in all this with keeping Tyson active and away from trouble. Rooney said in an interview that before D'Amato died, he sat down with Jacobs and Cayton and told them exactly what to do to make sure Tyson would keep on track. It did seem to work until at least Jacobs died and then other factors help derail him.
The Goal set by D'Amato seemed to keep the motivation running in Tyson just enough so that he could win the title and then go on to unify it to solidify his place in history. However, after he beat Spinks (and I posted up videos about it), Tyson started to talk about retirement...which in a way he basically did because he would fire Rooney and Cayton and then stop being the fighter that enabled him to unify the titles in the first place.


Good info in this video:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/a5xsyixuNh4&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/a5xsyixuNh4&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Co-sign. I've come to respect many of your posts Sonny, but you're off base here. Agree or disagree, Benny got great knowledge of the sport and is one of this sites biggest assets.

I've seen a lot of posts in this thread for and against, but its a matter of interpretation. I'll sit this one out and let you guys argue because I can find an argument that goes in either direction depending on my mood.

Gotta give my man Benny credit though, he's a proven fountain of information that I can at least say I've learned much from.

So i take it you agree with his comment that Hasim Rahman was better than Buster Douglas when Douglas beat Tyson?

i look forward to your reply

So i take it you agree with his comment that Hasim Rahman was better than Buster Douglas when Douglas beat Tyson?

i look forward to your reply

I think Douglas was more talented than Rahman, but he was also a classic underachiever who besides that one night never lived up to his potential.

And whether I agree or disagree with Benny, nothing changes the fact that he is a very knowledgeable poster. As I said, much of this is how we individually interpret it.

Strange fighter was Buster Douglas.. Winning against the best version of Tony Tucker before gassing late, and getting stopped.. Then he comes back and wins the undisputed title by beating Tyson, but within months, he's out of shape and surrenders it meakly to Evander Holyfield, without putting up a fight..
As pointed out by Jab, Douglas is the more talented, but Vs Rahman, would be a 50/50 affair.. All either of them are really noted for, is KOing one ATG a piece.. And Yes, like it or not, both Tyson and Lewis are ATG's..
As for rating them, I'd put Buster ahead of Rahman, but not by that far..
It's only his win over McCall, that just about edges it for me..
Rahman gets a lot of stick on these forums, which I feel he doesn't deserve..
Although limited with skills, he was consistently active, and always fought with good heart, in good company and to the best of his abilities.. In contrast, I'd say that Douglas didn't really..
It's sad, in a way.. Rahman tried his heart out, but didn't quite have it, where as Buster had it, but only tried when the mood took him.. I believe, had it not been for the death of his Mother, just b4 facing Mike, he'd have got KTFO, the same way as he did against Holyfied...

Strange fighter was Buster Douglas.. Winning against the best version of Tony Tucker before gassing late, and getting stopped.. Then he comes back and wins the undisputed title by beating Tyson, but within months, he's out of shape and surrenders it meakly to Evander Holyfield, without putting up a fight..
As pointed out by Jab, Douglas is the more talented, but Vs Rahman, would be a 50/50 affair.. All either of them are really noted for, is KOing one ATG a piece.. And Yes, like it or not, both Tyson and Lewis are ATG's..
As for rating them, I'd put Buster ahead of Rahman, but not by that far..
It's only his win over McCall, that just about edges it for me..
Rahman gets a lot of stick on these forums, which I feel he doesn't deserve..
Although limited with skills, he was consistently active, and always fought with good heart, in good company and to the best of his abilities.. In contrast, I'd say that Douglas didn't really..
It's sad, in a way.. Rahman tried his heart out, but didn't quite have it, where as Buster had it, but only tried when the mood took him.. I believe, had it not been for the death of his Mother, just b4 facing Mike, he'd have got KTFO, the same way as he did against Holyfied...

I agree with almost all of this. And while I haven't tried to calculate who I think ranks higher between them, I would like to say that the McCall win for Douglas and the two Tua fights for Rahman make it very close. Either fight could have gone Rahmans way had he not been hit after the bell in the first fight or was given the knockdown in the second fight. Jmo, of course.

BennyST is FAR from being a newbie. In fact he's one of our best posters in the Boxing History section.

Poet


Co-sign. I've come to respect many of your posts Sonny, but you're off base here. Agree or disagree, Benny got great knowledge of the sport and is one of this sites biggest assets.

I've seen a lot of posts in this thread for and against, but its a matter of interpretation. I'll sit this one out and let you guys argue because I can find an argument that goes in either direction depending on my mood.

Gotta give my man Benny credit though, he's a proven fountain of information that I can at least say I've learned much from.

Cheers lads. :beerchug:

I think Douglas was more talented than Rahman, but he was also a classic underachiever who besides that one night never lived up to his potential.

And whether I agree or disagree with Benny, nothing changes the fact that he is a very knowledgeable poster. As I said, much of this is how we individually interpret it.

Yeah, he was a sad case. Really could have been a fantastic fighter, but it's about will and determination as much as talent that makes a fighter what he is. At his best Douglas was incredible, but he was very rarely at his best. Very rarely.

One fight does not make a champion great otherwise Douglas is a great, Spinks is a great, Rahman is a great etc etc.

I do believe that Rahman is a greater fighter than Douglas but more based on longevity and consistency though it is hardly anything great one way or the other for either guy and I wouldn't vehemently argue with Douglas being better. On his best night Douglas was better. Far better in fact, but there was only one really good night. Rahman has had a few. Many might disagree due to that one fight that Douglas had. One fight. Apart from that fight he never again did anything spectacular. I remember when me and my old man went to the pub to watch the fight live. Both of us, as was everyone, were stunned into stupidity by how good he fought that night. Rahman and McCall were never spectacular either, but like Douglas they both beat a prime, great champion in fights they were meant to lose badly.

Douglas had Tyson and McCall had Lewis. Both of them had little beyond that. Douglas had Berbick, McCall and Page and slightly lesser guys such as Cobb. McCall himself had the Lewis win, Larry Holmes, undefeated Bruce Seldon, undefeated, but very green, Oleg Maskaev, Francesco Damiani, Henry Akinwande (all good, some great though faded, HW champions) and the lesser guys like Lance Whitaker, Przemyslaw Saleta, and Sinan Samil Sam.

Rahman had the Lewis win, Berbick, Corrie Sanders, and Tua if you wish, depending on how you view the call, etc and quite a number of decent but lesser fighters like Monte Barrett, Sullivan, Calloway, Meehan, etc.

None of them are good or great fighters but they all had one big win and a bunch of minor lesser wins and all showed ability that was never lived up to. I believe that Douglas could have had a much better career if he did not retire so soon after that terrible loss to Holyfield.

Sonnybox..... Well, I wasn't going to bother replying, but I will just say that I never said Rahman was better than Douglas on the night he fought Tyson. One night doesn't change a whole career though. I agree with you that Douglas would beat both Rahman and McCall, though not Lewis, if he fought as well as he did against Tyson, but he fought that well only once in his whole career. McCall and Rahman, while not as talented, were more consistent in general though they also both certainly had their ups and downs but never to the degree that Douglas showed with an amazing KO win over prime Tyson one night and being knocked out in a couple of one-sided rounds by journeymen nobodies another night.

As for being a Lewis 'nut-hugger' as you so eloquently put it, I don't think I show the characteristics of what a nut-hugger is, which is someone that shows an extremely skewed perspective, and cannot objectively judge because of a biased slant toward one fighter. See your reply to my other post for example. I'm not even a fan of Lewis in particular.

Cheers lads. :beerchug:



Yeah, he was a sad case. Really could have been a fantastic fighter, but it's about will and determination as much as talent that makes a fighter what he is. At his best Douglas was incredible, but he was very rarely at his best. Very rarely.

One fight does not make a champion great otherwise Douglas is a great, Spinks is a great, Rahman is a great etc etc.

I do believe that Rahman is a greater fighter than Douglas but more based on longevity and consistency though it is hardly anything great one way or the other for either guy and I wouldn't vehemently argue with Douglas being better. On his best night Douglas was better. Far better in fact, but there was only one really good night. Rahman has had a few. Many might disagree due to that one fight that Douglas had. One fight. Apart from that fight he never again did anything spectacular. I remember when me and my old man went to the pub to watch the fight live. Both of us, as was everyone, were stunned into stupidity by how good he fought that night. Rahman and McCall were never spectacular either, but like Douglas they both beat a prime, great champion in fights they were meant to lose badly.

Douglas had Tyson and McCall had Lewis. Both of them had little beyond that. Douglas had Berbick, McCall and Page and slightly lesser guys such as Cobb. McCall himself had the Lewis win, Larry Holmes, undefeated Bruce Seldon, undefeated, but very green, Oleg Maskaev, Francesco Damiani, Henry Akinwande (all good, some great though faded, HW champions) and the lesser guys like Lance Whitaker, Przemyslaw Saleta, and Sinan Samil Sam.

Rahman had the Lewis win, Berbick, Corrie Sanders, and Tua if you wish, depending on how you view the call, etc and quite a number of decent but lesser fighters like Monte Barrett, Sullivan, Calloway, Meehan, etc.

None of them are good or great fighters but they all had one big win and a bunch of minor lesser wins and all showed ability that was never lived up to. I believe that Douglas could have had a much better career if he did not retire so soon after that terrible loss to Holyfield.

Sonnybox..... Well, I wasn't going to bother replying, but I will just say that I never said Rahman was better than Douglas on the night he fought Tyson. One night doesn't change a whole career though. I agree with you that Douglas would beat both Rahman and McCall, though not Lewis, if he fought as well as he did against Tyson, but he fought that well only once in his whole career. McCall and Rahman, while not as talented, were more consistent in general though they also both certainly had their ups and downs but never to the degree that Douglas showed with an amazing KO win over prime Tyson one night and being knocked out in a couple of one-sided rounds by journeymen nobodies another night.

As for being a Lewis 'nut-hugger' as you so eloquently put it, I don't think I show the characteristics of what a nut-hugger is, which is someone that shows an extremely skewed perspective, and cannot objectively judge because of a biased slant toward one fighter. See your reply to my other post for example. I'm not even a fan of Lewis in particular.

it is quite clear to me that writing the above article all you done was check-out Boxrec then state your case...

To claim that Buster Douglas only ever had one good fight where he was `on-song` is incorrect... i have around 15 fights of Douglas and its clear to see in at least 10 of those fights that the guy is an incredible fighter with a jab as good as any in history, he was as good on those 10 nights as he was in the Tyson fight.. against McCall he was `Fantastic`and McCall was also on-song, it was a great fight by Buster, yet McCall went away after the fight and warned Mike Tyson not to take Douglas lightly because the guy could really fight, against Berbick, Ferguson, Page, Cobb and Jaco Douglas was in top shape and was a hand-full for any fighter..

Hasim Rahman IMO is the worst Heavyweight Champion in history (undisputed) ... Rahman has only ever beaten 2 fighters who you could call above Class C .. an Corrie Sanders and Lennox Lewis, against Sanders he had to climb off the deck and was rather fortunate to succeed, Rahman was twice poleaxed by Oleg Maskaev, he lost every round against John Ruiz, he was being pummeled when he quit against a very old Holyfield, he quit against former middleweight James Toney... IMO Rahman would not last 6rds against Buster Douglas

I agree with almost all of this. And while I haven't tried to calculate who I think ranks higher between them, I would like to say that the McCall win for Douglas and the two Tua fights for Rahman make it very close. Either fight could have gone Rahmans way had he not been hit after the bell in the first fight or was given the knockdown in the second fight. Jmo, of course.

talk about sit on the fence... Did Douglas ever get poleaxed like Rahman did Twice against Oleg Maskaev?

would Douglas have lost virtually every round against John Ruiz like Rahman did?

would Rahman have beaten McCall like Douglas did?
the same McCall who wiped-out Maskaev in the opener?

Rahman was not even a top 10 ranked fighter unto the Lewis camp had him installed in the ratings at No10 so that they could have a tomato can to fight instead of a ranked fighter like Ruiz, Byrd, Wlad, Vitali, Sanders... Rahman has failed everytime he has fought a fighter rated in the world top 20 with the exception of Lewis..

Go watch his 2 fights with Maskaev or his fight with Sanders, Ruiz or Holyfield and come back here and try and tell me he is better than James`Buster`Douglas

talk about sit on the fence... Did Douglas ever get poleaxed like Rahman did Twice against Oleg Maskaev?

would Douglas have lost virtually every round against John Ruiz like Rahman did?

would Rahman have beaten McCall like Douglas did?
the same McCall who wiped-out Maskaev in the opener?

Rahman was not even a top 10 ranked fighter unto the Lewis camp had him installed in the ratings at No10 so that they could have a tomato can to fight instead of a ranked fighter like Ruiz, Byrd, Wlad, Vitali, Sanders... Rahman has failed everytime he has fought a fighter rated in the world top 20 with the exception of Lewis..

Go watch his 2 fights with Maskaev or his fight with Sanders, Ruiz or Holyfield and come back here and try and tell me he is better than James`Buster`Douglas
Don't have a go at jab.. Come directly to the source of the information..

Prime Douglas was poleaxed by Holyfield, or didn't you read my post?

Yes, Rahman would stand a chance against McCall, who like Douglas, often fought out of shape with no real conviction.. Rahman's KO of Lewis was every inch as good as McCall's..

Oh, and since WHEN have 'Training Camps' dictated the World rankings? Please explain

Sanders, Byrd, Ruiz, Old Holy and possibly Wlad would all get beaten by Tua.. Some of them already have been.. Rahman took Tua to the wire in their last fight, earning a draw..

Name one poster on this thread who has stated that Hasim Rahman is a better fighter than James Buster Douglas???????

Just for the record Rahman has been KO'd 5 times to Douglas's 6..

The real question should be would Cus provide more roids? Because Tyson is the Barry Bonds of boxing. A terrible person whose career is based on rampant steroid abuse Oh and he had no heart and was tiny and struggled with anyone even remotely decent.

The real question should be would Cus provide more roids? Because Tyson is the Barry Bonds of boxing. A terrible person whose career is based on rampant steroid abuse Oh and he had no heart and was tiny and struggled with anyone even remotely decent.

wow where did you come up with that horse **** do you have some inside information we all dont know about

The real question should be would Cus provide more roids? Because Tyson is the Barry Bonds of boxing. A terrible person whose career is based on rampant steroid abuse Oh and he had no heart and was tiny and struggled with anyone even remotely decent.

Coming from someone who's a fan of a fighter who ADMITTED his steroid use in his biography :rofl:

Poet

The real question should be would Cus provide more roids? Because Tyson is the Barry Bonds of boxing. A terrible person whose career is based on rampant steroid abuse Oh and he had no heart and was tiny and struggled with anyone even remotely decent.

So what you are saying is the White Man just used this poor black kid from the ghetto and pumped him up with steroids?

You would think if it were that easy, D'Amato as well as Rooney would have had a fleet of Champions instead of just having their "One" true 200+ pound HW.

I remember seeing on another post a while back that said Tyson was 13 in this picture. A Poster had Tyson through the years, 13, 15, 17, etc. with pictures and a link.

http://www.monthlyphoto.com/images/webzine/GRI-MikeTyson_01.jpg

Now let's see: Going from 185+ at 12 years of age to 210-220 by the time he was 20+ and going through puberty....vs. other fighters that put on a lot of weight after puberty when they are already pro while Tyson peaked/stopped increasing weight.



Tyson was far from the first to look like that. In fact, a fighter of the past that is comparable to Tyson in height, weight, and age, was Sam McVey.

http://www.nypl.org/research/sc/Harlem/graphics/jackj_374.jpg
http://z.about.com/d/boxing/1/0/P/5/1287071.jpg

http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii209/jennetteboxer/sammacveaandbattlingjimjohnson.gif

Now if he had taken anything at some point, like after he left Rooney and especially after he lost to Douglas and needed to regain his confidence or better yet, when some speculate with his physical change after prison...possibly. Although I hear cocaine can help make you ripped which would explain his little addiction possibly. Although hiring a personal trainer and someone that can look after your diet will help as ell. Everybody is suspect in eras where PEDs are available.

Don't have a go at jab.. Come directly to the source of the information..

Prime Douglas was poleaxed by Holyfield, or didn't you read my post?

Yes, Rahman would stand a chance against McCall, who like Douglas, often fought out of shape with no real conviction.. Rahman's KO of Lewis was every inch as good as McCall's..

Oh, and since WHEN have 'Training Camps' dictated the World rankings? Please explain

Sanders, Byrd, Ruiz, Old Holy and possibly Wlad would all get beaten by Tua.. Some of them already have been.. Rahman took Tua to the wire in their last fight, earning a draw..

Name one poster on this thread who has stated that Hasim Rahman is a better fighter than James Buster Douglas???????

Just for the record Rahman has been KO'd 5 times to Douglas's 6..

your man BennyST is the poster who claimed Rahman is better than Douglas and you and JAB backed him up claiming he was a legend, i said with quotes like that he must be a newbie to this sport.

Douglas weighed 231 for Tyson & 246 for Holyfield so he was nowhere near top shape.

i take it that you are joking when you say, Sanders, Ruiz, Wlad, old Holy & Byrd would all get beaten by Tua... Byrd won every minute of every round against the Fat-Guy and other than catching Ruiz with a shot Tua has done nothing in his career to say he stands much of a chance against Sanders or Wlad.. i would take old Holy to beat him quite easily on his showing against Valuev, Savarese & Rahman.

whats this your slavering on about, "Traing Camps dictating rankings?

come directly to the source of the information --- most of what you post is fabricated or incorrect

talk about sit on the fence... Did Douglas ever get poleaxed like Rahman did Twice against Oleg Maskaev?

would Douglas have lost virtually every round against John Ruiz like Rahman did?

would Rahman have beaten McCall like Douglas did?
the same McCall who wiped-out Maskaev in the opener?

Rahman was not even a top 10 ranked fighter unto the Lewis camp had him installed in the ratings at No10 so that they could have a tomato can to fight instead of a ranked fighter like Ruiz, Byrd, Wlad, Vitali, Sanders... Rahman has failed everytime he has fought a fighter rated in the world top 20 with the exception of Lewis..

Go watch his 2 fights with Maskaev or his fight with Sanders, Ruiz or Holyfield and come back here and try and tell me he is better than James`Buster`Douglas
OK... Here's the post where YOU claim that Lewis's camp interfered with the world rankings.. Now read it and weep!

Where did Jab or I claim Rahman is a legend? You will find that we DID NOT!

If Douglas came in at 246 to defend the undisputed HW championship of the world, in his VERY FIRST DEFENSE, then you may as well say yourself, that he was a disgrace to the sport as well as the belts around his bloated gut.. No excuses IMO

For you to say that 46 year old Holyfield's 'dancing around the Maypole' routine against Valuev would be enough to beat Tua is also, laughable.. It's well documented that Tua routinely kicked Evander's ass in sparring...

The only thing you got right is that Byrd DID beat Tua..
I'll hold my hands up to that one.. Now it's YOUR turn!

OK... Here's the post where YOU claim that Lewis's camp interfered with the world rankings.. Now read it and weep!

Where did Jab or I claim Rahman is a legend? You will find that we DID NOT!

If Douglas came in at 246 to defend the undisputed HW championship of the world, in his VERY FIRST DEFENSE, then you may as well say yourself, that he was a disgrace to the sport as well as the belts around his bloated gut.. No excuses IMO

For you to say that 46 year old Holyfield's 'dancing around the Maypole' routine against Valuev would be enough to beat Tua is also, laughable.. It's well documented that Tua routinely kicked Evander's ass in sparring...

The only thing you got right is that Byrd DID beat Tua..
I'll hold my hands up to that one.. Now it's YOUR turn!

you and Jab claimed BennyST was a Legend.

you also claimed Douglas was prime vs Holyfield which is not correct.. it was well documented why Douglas came in at that weight and i cant be bothered going into it for you so i suggest you check it out for yourself.

Holyfield is a 5 times world champion who has beaten the very best fighters in the sport for the last 20yrs, i would strongly tip him to beat a Fat-Guy who has never ever fought and beat an elite fighter in his whole career, David Tua is in the same league (class) as Tony Galento, Butterbean, Frans Botha, Matt Skelton.

why should i weep? what is it that your asking me to read that will make me weep?

Lewis campaigned to Jose Sulliman to have Hasim Rahman installed at No10 when his rating was No12 in the WBC rankings so that he could make a voluntary defence against his chosen opponent..

As for who is right or wrong.. it must be carved in stone is it, that David Tua has been unjustly denied his rightful position as the heavyweight champion of the world and the former champions, Wlad, Sanders, Ruiz, Byrd & Holyfield are all frauds because Tua could beat them all... is this what you are saying?

please answer `RIGHT or WRONG`

you and Jab claimed BennyST was a Legend.

you also claimed Douglas was prime vs Holyfield which is not correct.. it was well documented why Douglas came in at that weight and i cant be bothered going into it for you so i suggest you check it out for yourself.

Holyfield is a 5 times world champion who has beaten the very best fighters in the sport for the last 20yrs, i would strongly tip him to beat a Fat-Guy who has never ever fought and beat an elite fighter in his whole career, David Tua is in the same league (class) as Tony Galento, Butterbean, Frans Botha, Matt Skelton.

why should i weep? what is it that your asking me to read that will make me weep?

Lewis campaigned to Jose Sulliman to have Hasim Rahman installed at No10 when his rating was No12 in the WBC rankings so that he could make a voluntary defence against his chosen opponent..

As for who is right or wrong.. it must be carved in stone is it, that David Tua has been unjustly denied his rightful position as the heavyweight champion of the world and the former champions, Wlad, Sanders, Ruiz, Byrd & Holyfield are all frauds because Tua could beat them all... is this what you are saying?

please answer `RIGHT or WRONG`
WRONG

POET & Jab spoke for Benny.. NOT Mickey Malone.. Please read threads properly..

There are NO reasons or NO excuses for TRYING to defend the 'richest prize in sport' when you CLEARLY have NOT trained..

Are you trying to imply that Douglas was ONE fight below peak? Because that was a prime peaked Douglas who beat Tyson.. The Douglas of b4 would NEVER have recovered from the KD in the 9th!

Holyfield is STILL trying to win his 5th title at HW and has been clogging up the division for years now.. He's had far more than his fair share of opportunities, and is now suffering the early stages of dimensia.. He will definately end up like Ali..

Lewis campaigned to have the ratings altered???!!!!... I've never heard of 'bollocks' like this in all of my 'born puff!' Did he go to Sulliman with a petition or something?
Or was it just a few people similar to yourself, loitering around with sandwich boards, at the WBC offices?

We can't discuss Tua, because he lost to Lewis, so you're beyond help with that one..

When, I say, 'Read it and weep' I was simply refering to the now proven fact, that you obviously had NOT read it properly b4.. I am not Poet, and he is not me..

So it's a NO... You're still WRONG..

WRONG

POET & Jab spoke for Benny.. NOT Mickey Malone.. Please read threads properly..

There are NO reasons or NO excuses for TRYING to defend the 'richest prize in sport' when you CLEARLY have NOT trained..

Are you trying to imply that Douglas was ONE fight below peak? Because that was a prime peaked Douglas who beat Tyson.. The Douglas of b4 would NEVER have recovered from the KD in the 9th!

Holyfield is STILL trying to win his 5th title at HW and has been clogging up the division for years now.. He's had far more than his fair share of opportunities, and is now suffering the early stages of dimensia.. He will definately end up like Ali..

Lewis campaigned to have the ratings altered???!!!!... I've never heard of 'bollocks' like this in all of my 'born puff!' Did he go to Sulliman with a petition or something?
Or was it just a few people similar to yourself, loitering around with sandwich boards, at the WBC offices?

We can't discuss Tua, because he lost to Lewis, so you're beyond help with that one..

When, I say, 'Read it and weep' I was simply refering to the now proven fact, that you obviously had NOT read it properly b4.. I am not Poet, and he is not me..

So it's a NO... You're still WRONG..

its obvious that when you are proven to be wrong it hurts you... answer my questions instead of spewing out your playground remarks..

you dont know jack**** about Buster Douglas and his fight with Holyfield and problems with Don King.

Holyfield won 4 world heavyweight titles and was undisputed Cruiserweight champion... what business is it of yours if Holyfield wants to continue his boxing career, have you examined him recently and diagnosed him having dementia?

Lewis campainged to have Rahman installed in the Top 10 yes.

Yes Poet & Jab spoke for BennyST and you told me to come to the original source so i have.

i have never loitered around any place nor have i been to the WBC offices and Lewis did campaign to get Rahman ranked in the Top 10

so i am not wrong you are

its obvious that when you are proven to be wrong it hurts you... answer my questions instead of spewing out your playground remarks..

you dont know jack**** about Buster Douglas and his fight with Holyfield and problems with Don King.

Holyfield won 4 world heavyweight titles and was undisputed Cruiserweight champion... what business is it of yours if Holyfield wants to continue his boxing career, have you examined him recently and diagnosed him having dementia?

Lewis campainged to have Rahman installed in the Top 10 yes.

Yes Poet & Jab spoke for BennyST and you told me to come to the original source so i have.

i have never loitered around any place nor have i been to the WBC offices and Lewis did campaign to get Rahman ranked in the Top 10

so i am not wrong you are
No mate, I hold my hands up if I'm wrong, like I did earlier with ref to Tua Byrd, and it didn't hurt at all.. You're just wrong IMO

Playground insults is called a 'sense of humour' where I come from, and to be regarded as insults obviously hurts you, if I'm not mistaken..

What business is it of mine? This is a 'Talk Forum', you twat, not the USBA's
'File a Registered Complaint' department!
I would just suggest you watch recent Holyfield interviews, you should take into account that he can't speak properly anymore and has lost all his money.. Not that it's any of my business of course..

As for Douglas's problems with Don King.. Lets all say, Ahhh shall we?
Everyone had problems with King, big deal! The truth is he turned up 'out of shape', plain and simple..

And NO, the original source of what you responded to was Jab agreeing with MY post on Douglas.. It was only THEN, that I invited you to the original source, which was me, and it's only NOW, that you mention it.. So WRONG again, I'm afraid..

Lewis campaigned to Jose Sulliman to have Hasim Rahman installed at No10 when his rating was No12 in the WBC rankings so that he could make a voluntary defence against his chosen opponent..



Do you have a source for this sonny?
I must say it doesn't seem likely, Rahman beat Sanders before the Lewis fight so I would imagine that would put him in the top 10?
Rahman is a King fighter I believe, Sulaiman works for King in all but name, I know what I think is more likely!

Do you have a source for this sonny?
I must say it doesn't seem likely, Rahman beat Sanders before the Lewis fight so I would imagine that would put him in the top 10?
Rahman is a King fighter I believe, Sulaiman works for King in all but name, I know what I think is more likely!
No... He has no evidence of this because there isn't any because it never happened.. He hates Lewis sooooooooo much, and will go to any lengths in order to try and discredit him..
Go on... Do a thread that mentions the name Lennox Lewis, and see what happens.. Quicker than hungry trout in a mill pool, SonnyBoy will take the bait, send his girlfriend home, cancel all plans for the evening, and start telling lies about him..

No... He has no evidence of this because there isn't any because it never happened.. He hates Lewis sooooooooo much, and will go to any lengths in order to try and discredit him..
Go on... Do a thread that mentions the name Lennox Lewis, and see what happens.. Quicker than hungry trout in a mill pool, SonnyBoy will take the bait, send his girlfriend home, cancel all plans for the evening, and start telling lies about him..

He isn't a fan that's for sure lol. It's a shame because I enjoy his non Lewis posts in the main and he is a knowledgable guy

He isn't a fan that's for sure lol. It's a shame because I enjoy his non Lewis posts in the main and he is a knowledgable guy
Agreed, but he spoils himself by persistantly behaving like the vindictive ex-girlfriend of Lennox Lewis.. There's plenty of fighters I don't like for all manner of reasons, so I state my case, have the argument, and move on.. Not make umpteen threads condemning 1 man, as well as responding the same nauseous negativity to every post that bears his name! I'm not a massive fan of Lewis, but I do believe in respectful fair play.. Especially to an undisputed boxing champion..

No... He has no evidence of this because there isn't any because it never happened.. He hates Lewis sooooooooo much, and will go to any lengths in order to try and discredit him..
Go on... Do a thread that mentions the name Lennox Lewis, and see what happens.. Quicker than hungry trout in a mill pool, SonnyBoy will take the bait, send his girlfriend home, cancel all plans for the evening, and start telling lies about him..

what is it you would like me to do when a Lewis thread comes on the forum... do you want me to change my opinion of him and start claiming he was the greatest and would beat Muhammad Ali?

The huge difference between me and you Micky is that i have seen Lewis fight Live on many occasions where as you have never seen a `live` boxing match in your life.

i have first hand knowledge of how good Lewis is having seen him from ringside fight, Ruddock, McCall (1) Williams, Bruno & Mason all you have ever seen of the guy is a cold-flat-screen in your mothers living room.

i do not `hate Lewis` as you claim, far from it... i am of the same opinion as many many other boxing fans who think Lewis was an oppotunist who never fought any fighters who was at the top of their game... now you claim to be knowledgable so can you name for me all the fighters who Lewis fought who was at the top of their game ....i admire every fighter who laces on a pair of gloves, i hate no fighter, but just because i tell it like it was about Lewis you obviously do not like it, yet i tell it like i seen it about every fighter,and no other fighter in my memory was an oppotunist like Lewis was... Lewis won the WBC title in 1992 (i was there) yet throughout the 90s he faced very mediocre opposition and never fought the big names of that era, Tyson, Bowe, Foreman, Witherspoon, Holyfield, Holmes, Sanders, Hide, Ruiz, Smith, Moorer instead the public had to cough-up PPV money to watch Lewis fight the Phil Jacksons, Lionel Butlers, Michael Grants, Akinwande, Mavrovick, Fortune, Tua, Botha, Morrisons... i was there at Wembley the night McCall destroyed Lewis, i listened to Corrie Sanders talking at ringside to Larry Merchant after beating Garing Lane saying all he wanted was a fight with Lennox Lewis but Lewis wanted no-part of Sanders between 94 and 2000 in fact Lewis wanted no part of any fighter who was at the top of his game.... Yet you "micky malone" have Lewis rated as the No5 greatest heavyweight in history, so why should me who has seen Lewis fight and know all about his career, listen or read anything you have to say about him, because IMO you are a `nuthugger`of Lewis.

no i dont have a source for The Lewis camp campaigning to have Rahman installed as the WBC No10 as i read it in the national press, yet as claimed on the subject Rahman was a Don King fighter and King was courting Lewis in 2001 getting him to vacate the IBF Title so as to avoid the No1 contender Chris Byrd, Byrd was not a king fighter and never fought any King fighters

You have just in a previous post stated that Frank Bruno is a couple of years older than yourself so i take it that you are in your 40s yet from the vast majority of your posts i was of the impression that you was in your late teens as you often spew-out playground remarks like i would send my girlfriend home etc etc yet i dont have a girlfriend i have a wife and grown up children unlike you who i would hasten a guess has no girlfriend or wife or children, if i was to bet i would bet you either live alone or live with your old mummy and are unemployed which is why you spend your entire day on this and other boxing forums trying to ridicule anyone who does not go along with your ridiculous nuthugging.. you need to get a life you sad little turd or better still get a job like real men do...

i await your reply to this post for the laugh of the night

Damn, this thread turned into a flame fest. I would of jumped into this thread earlier, but as you can see by looking at my avatar and sig, I may be a little bias.

:boxing:Prime Tyson:boxing: = Greatest Fighter Of All Time

what is it you would like me to do when a Lewis thread comes on the forum... do you want me to change my opinion of him and start claiming he was the greatest and would beat Muhammad Ali?

The huge difference between me and you Micky is that i have seen Lewis fight Live on many occasions where as you have never seen a `live` boxing match in your life.

i have first hand knowledge of how good Lewis is having seen him from ringside fight, Ruddock, McCall (1) Williams, Bruno & Mason all you have ever seen of the guy is a cold-flat-screen in your mothers living room.

i do not `hate Lewis` as you claim, far from it... i am of the same opinion as many many other boxing fans who think Lewis was an oppotunist who never fought any fighters who was at the top of their game... now you claim to be knowledgable so can you name for me all the fighters who Lewis fought who was at the top of their game ....i admire every fighter who laces on a pair of gloves, i hate no fighter, but just because i tell it like it was about Lewis you obviously do not like it, yet i tell it like i seen it about every fighter,and no other fighter in my memory was an oppotunist like Lewis was... Lewis won the WBC title in 1992 (i was there) yet throughout the 90s he faced very mediocre opposition and never fought the big names of that era, Tyson, Bowe, Foreman, Witherspoon, Holyfield, Holmes, Sanders, Hide, Ruiz, Smith, Moorer instead the public had to cough-up PPV money to watch Lewis fight the Phil Jacksons, Lionel Butlers, Michael Grants, Akinwande, Mavrovick, Fortune, Tua, Botha, Morrisons... i was there at Wembley the night McCall destroyed Lewis, i listened to Corrie Sanders talking at ringside to Larry Merchant after beating Garing Lane saying all he wanted was a fight with Lennox Lewis but Lewis wanted no-part of Sanders between 94 and 2000 in fact Lewis wanted no part of any fighter who was at the top of his game.... Yet you "micky malone" have Lewis rated as the No5 greatest heavyweight in history, so why should me who has seen Lewis fight and know all about his career, listen or read anything you have to say about him, because IMO you are a `nuthugger`of Lewis.

no i dont have a source for The Lewis camp campaigning to have Rahman installed as the WBC No10 as i read it in the national press, yet as claimed on the subject Rahman was a Don King fighter and King was courting Lewis in 2001 getting him to vacate the IBF Title so as to avoid the No1 contender Chris Byrd, Byrd was not a king fighter and never fought any King fighters

You have just in a previous post stated that Frank Bruno is a couple of years older than yourself so i take it that you are in your 40s yet from the vast majority of your posts i was of the impression that you was in your late teens as you often spew-out playground remarks like i would send my girlfriend home etc etc yet i dont have a girlfriend i have a wife and grown up children unlike you who i would hasten a guess has no girlfriend or wife or children, if i was to bet i would bet you either live alone or live with your old mummy and are unemployed which is why you spend your entire day on this and other boxing forums trying to ridicule anyone who does not go along with your ridiculous nuthugging.. you need to get a life you sad little turd or better still get a job like real men do...

i await your reply to this post for the laugh of the night
Vivid Imagination!

Damn, this thread turned into a flame fest. I would of jumped into this thread earlier, but as you can see by looking at my avatar and sig, I may be a little bias.

:boxing:Prime Tyson:boxing: = Greatest Fighter Of All Time

:boxing: Prime Terrio :boxing: = Biggest Nuthugger Of All Time

its obvious that when you are proven to be wrong it hurts you... answer my questions instead of spewing out your playground remarks..

you dont know jack**** about Buster Douglas and his fight with Holyfield and problems with Don King.

Holyfield won 4 world heavyweight titles and was undisputed Cruiserweight champion... what business is it of yours if Holyfield wants to continue his boxing career, have you examined him recently and diagnosed him having dementia?

Lewis campainged to have Rahman installed in the Top 10 yes.

Yes Poet & Jab spoke for BennyST and you told me to come to the original source so i have.

i have never loitered around any place nor have i been to the WBC offices and Lewis did campaign to get Rahman ranked in the Top 10

so i am not wrong you are

1. Most of the stuff you are saying is bull****

2. Get a ****ing life. I can't stand posters who obsessively hate one fighter and make essay length posts and threads attacking them.

Lewis was an oppotunist who never fought any fighters who was at the top of their game... now you claim to be knowledgable so can you name for me all the fighters who Lewis fought who was at the top of their game

sonny we have done this before so we'll just have to agree to differ.
I do think a lot of your downgrading of Lewis's opponents is with a lot of hindsight, you know as well as I do how rated Michael Grant was. The fact he was all piss and wind isn't Lewis's fault. Ruddock was thought to be a dangerous fighter no one realised that he was shot. Golota had just given Bowe nightmares again no one realised he was going to have a nervous breakdown the nigt he fought Lewis. Tua was and could still be even now a dangerous opponent. I can't see beating an old Witherspoon,Foreman or Holmes would have added anything to Lewis's legacy to be honest.
Sure Lewis resume has some kippers in it but on the whole it is one of the stronger records of recent years.

:boxing: Prime Terrio :boxing: = Biggest Nuthugger Of All Time

lol, grab your note book, go cry in the corner of your room, and write some ****ing lame ass poetry.

Why are you on these forums if your going to bad mouth peoples opinions. Because I like Tyson, and you don't, I am a so called Nuthugger???

Judas Priest is Gay, oh wait, that's my opinion.

:bryce:

I highly doubt he would have ended up the way he did if Cus didn't die. Just listen to Tyson's own words, he was like his Dog. And Cus told him all about the things he should avoid in the Boxing world and life in general. Unfortunately he died in his 70s. Would have been great if the man had another 10 years left.

nice post




:popcorn:

Why are you on these forums if your going to bad mouth peoples opinions. Because I like Tyson, and you don't, I am a so called Nuthugger???

No, liking Tyson doesn't make you a nuthugger. There are plenty of posters on this sight that are Tyson fans without being a nuthugger. What makes you a nuthugger is saying Tyson is the GOAT: Something no Tyson non-nuthugger would say. It also reveals you to be utterly without any real boxing knowledge because such a statement on your part is the sort of thing said by a typical casual fan who doesn't know jack about the sport they're watching but GO COWBOYS!!! Dallas could be fielding the worst team in NFL history but to that deluded fanatic the Cowboys are THE BEST EVER! Quite frankly I detest that kind of unobjective, blind fandom. In any sport. But especially in boxing. Now. Got anything else to say Junior?

Poet

No, liking Tyson doesn't make you a nuthugger. There are plenty of posters on this sight that are Tyson fans without being a nuthugger. What makes you a nuthugger is saying Tyson is the GOAT: Something no Tyson non-nuthugger would say. It also reveals you to be utterly without any real boxing knowledge because such a statement on your part is the sort of thing said by a typical casual fan who doesn't know jack about the sport they're watching but GO COWBOYS!!! Dallas could be fielding the worst team in NFL history but to that deluded fanatic the Cowboys are THE BEST EVER! Quite frankly I detest that kind of unobjective, blind fandom. In any sport. But especially in boxing. Now. Got anything else to say Junior?

Poet

Just because I am a fan? I am nut hugger? You still make no sense? Why don't you go on a mission, and find every person on these forums and **** on their opinion of a great boxer. Oh wait, but if you believe their opinion is correct, that makes that boxer great???? Really, I don't give a **** what you think. Prime Tyson is the youngest heavyweight champ of all time, he is a GOAT whether your can comprehend that or not. Having no respect for this man’s style and speed, and coming out with such a great outcome from a good portion of his fights even with some physical disadvantages such a height and reach made him unique which is why people still talk about Tyson to date. You sit here and try to contradict everything I am saying just so you can feel good about yourself? I can do the same ****ing thing. Your just making yourself look like an idiot. I can’t believe your even 41 years old, judging by your post, you act like your 10. I may be only 20 years old in which I started watching boxing when I was 6, but I have spent endless hours researching the sport of boxing, and watching fights which were way out of my time. Probably as far back as the 40’s-50’s.

Got anything else to say old man?

Just because I am a fan? I am nut hugger? You still make no sense? Why don't you go on a mission, and find every person on these forums and **** on their opinion of a great boxer. Oh wait, but if you believe their opinion is correct, that makes that boxer great???? Really, I don't give a **** what you think. Prime Tyson is the youngest heavyweight champ of all time, he is a GOAT whether your can comprehend that or not. Having no respect for this man’s style and speed, and coming out with such a great outcome from a good portion of his fights even with some physical disadvantages such a height and reach made him unique which is why people still talk about Tyson to date. You sit here and try to contradict everything I am saying just so you can feel good about yourself? I can do the same ****ing thing. Your just making yourself look like an idiot. I can’t believe your even 41 years old, judging by your post, you act like your 10. I may be only 20 years old in which I started watching boxing when I was 6, but I have spent endless hours researching the sport of boxing, and watching fights which were way out of my time. Probably as far back as the 40’s-50’s.

Got anything else to say old man?

Apparently you are unable to distinguish between being a fan of boxing and being a fan of a boxer. You're also unable to put together a coherent paragraph.

I honestly could care less which fighters you like or dislike. It's only when you take those predlictions of yours to the extreme and you overrate your favorite fighters that I call you on it. You're own personal biases do not equal fact and if you can't be objective about a subject you shouldn't speak on it. Pure and simple. You may think Tyson was entertaining as hell but that doesn't equate to greatness: Gatti was entertaining but not a great fighter. Tyson is A great fighter, but not the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time in case you didn't know). Any repected boxing historian would laugh at the notion of Tyson being the best ever Heavyweight. Most boxing historians rate Tyson in the bottom half of the top-10 which is a fair assessment. Some actually rank him somewhere from 11-20 which is probably too low but DOES demonstrate that people that are actually paid to know more about boxing than YOU don't share your starry-eyed belief in his over-all abilities.

Poet

Apparently you are unable to distinguish between being a fan of boxing and being a fan of a boxer. You're also unable to put together a coherent paragraph.

I honestly could care less which fighters you like or dislike. It's only when you take those predlictions of yours to the extreme and you overrate your favorite fighters that I call you on it. You're own personal biases do not equal fact and if you can't be objective about a subject you shouldn't speak on it. Pure and simple. You may think Tyson was entertaining as hell but that doesn't equate to greatness: Gatti was entertaining but not a great fighter. Tyson is A great fighter, but not the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time in case you didn't know). Any repected boxing historian would laugh at the notion of Tyson being the best ever Heavyweight. Most boxing historians rate Tyson in the bottom half of the top-10 which is a fair assessment. Some actually rank him somewhere from 11-20 which is probably too low but DOES demonstrate that people that are actually paid to know more about boxing than YOU don't share your starry-eyed belief in his over-all abilities.

Poet

How is my paragraph not coherent? It's me calling you out saying that just because you have different thoughts, AS A BOXING FAN, OR A FAN OF A BOXER, doesn't mean those thoughts are greater or more correct then someone else's thoughts or beliefs. You have no point. It's ok to discuss someone's opinion, but all you do is bash them and act like your opinion is overall the correct one.

'You're own personal biases do not equal fact and if you can't be objective about a subject you shouldn't speak on it. Pure and simple.'

You should follow your own advice, Pure and simple. I have my own opinion, you have yours. Immorally, you *****ing about my opinion, in a way, makes you bias. Not everyone thinks like you poet. And thank god to that.

Be Objective about a subject????? WHY ARE YOU ON THESE FORUMS THEN? This is for boxing fans to discuss subjects and state their personal opinion on the matter at hand. Were not all robots who just talk about the facts? Everyone has different thoughts.

How is my paragraph not coherent? It's me calling you out saying that just because you have different thoughts, AS A BOXING FAN, OR A FAN OF A BOXER, doesn't mean those thoughts are greater or more correct then someone else's thoughts or beliefs. You have no point. It's ok to discuss someone's opinion, but all you do is bash them and act like your opinion is overall the correct one.

'You're own personal biases do not equal fact and if you can't be objective about a subject you shouldn't speak on it. Pure and simple.'

You should follow your own advice, Pure and simple. I have my own opinion, you have yours. Immorally, you *****ing about my opinion, in a way, makes you bias. Not everyone thinks like you poet. And thank god to that.

Be Objective about a subject????? WHY ARE YOU ON THESE FORUMS THEN? This is for boxing fans to discuss subjects and state their personal opinion on the matter at hand. Were not all robots who just talk about the facts? Everyone has different thoughts.

Heaven forbid if someone is actually objective about a factual topic! Last time I checked boxing isn't a fantasy world like the WWE where your favorite characters can be whoever you want them to be. Boxing is a real world pastime as opposed to a fictional one and is subject to the same reality that everyone who actually lives in the real world experiences. Reality is, by it's very nature, objective whether YOU perceive it or not. You may live in a fantasy world but I prefer to hold intellgent discussions with people who are grounded in reality.....and laugh at people who are not. For me a discussion about boxing is no different from a discussion on any other academic subject that interests me. I could be discussing plate tectonics with a geology proffesor but if someone chimes in with an opinion that the world is flat I'm going to laugh at the idiot: It may be HIS opinion but it's a stupid one.

Poet

Blimey Poet, you've managed to have a row with Cotto-Rulez, Mr Boxing, Masta and terrio in the same thread! This is good going even by your standards :)

I'm only making note as I can see this being a trivia question in a few months :)

Blimey Poet, you've managed to have a row with Cotto-Rulez, Mr Boxing, Masta and terrio in the same thread! This is good going even by your standards

I'm only making note as I can see this being a trivia question in a few months :)

:rofl: :firedevil Well Junior (jk, had to do it!), Cotto-Rulez is an antogonist from way back (kind of like Tunney lol), Mr. Boxing is a troll that everyone slaps down, and Masta is Obama's alt account so..... :rofl:

Poet

You act like everyone on these forums aside from me, talk 100 percent about facts. Because I believe Tyson was an all in all, ATG boxer, and Prime Tyson was most defiantly on the list of GOAT boxers, means I am wrong, because you think differently. bias bias bias, you contradict yourself.

If you live by facts, then be my guest. Because I could sit here and contradict all the bull**** that you say, but at the end of the day, your ignorance still shows. Geeze, my last post, you completely beat around the bush about. Now I got you talking about WWE??? Like wtf?

Opinion isn't fantasy. You act like I am sitting here saying Tyson would kill every boxer he ever met if Cus was still around. If Cus was still around, would Tyson of got through Douglas, Holyfield, etc?? Well, who knows?? But if you are going to deny the FACT that there is one hell of a good chance he would have had a more successful career, then sir, you are bias. If you are going to deny the fact that Tyson was one of the best Heavyweights of his time, then you are bias. Because I am sure a lot of people on these forums will agree, Tyson was unique, and if his life wouldn't of went into rubble, his success would have been amazing.

MY PERSONAL OPINION IS MIKE TYSON IS ONE OF THE GREATEST BOXERS OF HIS TIME. Just like I believe Ali, Robinson, were the greatest of their era to.

Ironically I have a geology test in 2 hours...

You act like everyone on these forums aside from me, talk 100 percent about facts. Because I believe Tyson was an all in all, ATG boxer, and Prime Tyson was most defiantly on the list of GOAT boxers, means I am wrong, because you think differently. bias bias bias, you contradict yourself.

If you live by facts, then be my guest. Because I could sit here and contradict all the bull**** that you say, but at the end of the day, your ignorance still shows. Geeze, my last post, you completely beat around the bush about. Now I got you talking about WWE??? Like wtf?

Opinion isn't fantasy. You act like I am sitting here saying Tyson would kill every boxer he ever met if Cus was still around. If Cus was still around, would Tyson of got through Douglas, Holyfield, etc?? Well, who knows?? But if you are going to deny the FACT that there is one hell of a good chance he would have had a more successful career, then sir, you are bias. If you are going to deny the fact that Tyson was one of the best Heavyweights of his time, then you are bias. Because I am sure a lot of people on these forums will agree, Tyson was unique, and if his life wouldn't of went into rubble, his success would have been amazing.

MY PERSONAL OPINION IS MIKE TYSON IS ONE OF THE GREATEST BOXERS OF HIS TIME. Just like I believe Ali, Robinson, were the greatest of their era to.

Ironically I have a geology test in 2 hours...
To be fair I think even Poet has Tyson top 10ish in the heavys which would make him one of the best of his time so within those paramatars you are broadly in agreement?

One tip though, I wouldn't mention geology, he is so going to rip the piss out of that!

Meh, not like physical geo interest me that much. I need this degree for aviation.

You act like everyone on these forums aside from me, talk 100 percent about facts. Because I believe Tyson was an all in all, ATG boxer, and Prime Tyson was most defiantly on the list of GOAT boxers, means I am wrong, because you think differently. bias bias bias, you contradict yourself.

If you live by facts, then be my guest. Because I could sit here and contradict all the bull**** that you say, but at the end of the day, your ignorance still shows. Geeze, my last post, you completely beat around the bush about. Now I got you talking about WWE??? Like wtf?

Opinion isn't fantasy. You act like I am sitting here saying Tyson would kill every boxer he ever met if Cus was still around. If Cus was still around, would Tyson of got through Douglas, Holyfield, etc?? Well, who knows?? But if you are going to deny the FACT that there is one hell of a good chance he would have had a more successful career, then sir, you are bias. If you are going to deny the fact that Tyson was one of the best Heavyweights of his time, then you are bias. Because I am sure a lot of people on these forums will agree, Tyson was unique, and if his life wouldn't of went into rubble, his success would have been amazing.

MY PERSONAL OPINION IS MIKE TYSON IS ONE OF THE GREATEST BOXERS OF HIS TIME. Just like I believe Ali, Robinson, were the greatest of their era to.

Ironically I have a geology test in 2 hours...

Okay. What this is boiling down to is you have a misunderstanding of what the term "GOAT" means. GOAT and ATG are NOT interchangable terms. There are a number of ATGs in every weightclass and p4p. There is only ONE GOAT in each weight class and only one GOAT p4p. An ATG means an all-time great. GOAT means Greatest Of All Time as in better than ALL other ATGs: the top of the list, #1 all-time. If you say Tyson is an ATG then I agree with you: He was a great fighter. I personally have him ranked #10 on my Heavyweight ATG list. You say now that he "IS ONE OF THE GREATEST BOXERS OF HIS TIME"? THAT statement I wouldn't dispute nor would any reputable boxing historian or reputable Boxing Scene poster for that matter. When I take someone to task over Tyson it's when they try and make him out to be "THE BEST EVER". The only people who do that are fanatical Tyson worshippers for whom it's not enough that Mike was one of the greats, he has to be the UNDISPUTED #1. Now, when you labled him the "GOAT", given the definition of what the "GOAT" is, I think any reasonable reader could infere that you were making Tyson out to be, quite literally, the best Heavyweight ever to lace them up. Had you simply described him as an ATG or ONE of the greats you wouldn't have had any argument from me.

Poet

One tip though, I wouldn't mention geology, he is so going to rip the piss out of that!

Why would I rip the piss out of Geology? It's a fascinating subject!

Poet

Damn poet. Just take a pill and a nap for about an hour. I'm sure he doesn't mean Tyson is the ONE GREATEST OF BOXER OF ALL-TIME and, being you, you have to bash everything someone else says (whether it's a spelling mistake or not).

Relax. It's the internet.

I'm sure he doesn't mean Tyson is the ONE GREATEST OF BOXER OF ALL-TIME

I believe I established that in my last post.

Poet

I believe I established that in my last post.

Poet

What you did was write a whole paragraph for the misuse of a word that was most likely by accident.

You then proceeded to bash him and all people that say Tyson is the greatest heavyweight of all-time, after he said that a prime Tyson could have been the greatest heavyweight of all-time.

What you did was write a whole paragraph for the misuse of a word that was most likely by accident.

Ahem. It was "accidently" used a few times which leads me to conclude that is was a simple miss-understanding of what the term meant.


You then proceeded to bash him and all people that say Tyson is the greatest heavyweight of all-time,

Except that he's now saying Tyson is ONE of the greats which I concurr fully with.


after he said that a prime Tyson could have been the greatest heavyweight of all-time.

Why don't you just come out and say you think Tyson's the best ever? At least that way we'll know just how much credibility to afford you.

Poet

Ahem. It was "accidently" used a few times which leads me to conclude that is was a simple miss-understanding of what the term meant.




Except that he's now saying Tyson is ONE of the greats which I concurr fully with.




Why don't you just come out and say you think Tyson's the best ever? At least that way we'll know just how much credibility to afford you.

Poet
5 and counting..... :)

5 and counting..... :)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Ahem. It was "accidently" used a few times which leads me to conclude that is was a simple miss-understanding of what the term meant.

Except that he's now saying Tyson is ONE of the greats which I concurr fully with.

Why don't you just come out and say you think Tyson's the best ever? At least that way we'll know just how much credibility to afford you.

Poet

Whatever, poet. I know you and I'll just refrain from starting an argument. Everyone knows you end up sounding like an idiot, in the end.

Whatever, poet. I know you and I'll just refrain from starting an argument. Everyone knows you end up sounding like an idiot, in the end.

:bottle: :bottle: :bottle: :bottle:

Don't go away butt hurt.....just go away

Poet

Whatever, poet. I know you and I'll just refrain from starting an argument. Everyone knows you end up sounding like an idiot, in the end.

Oh I forgot! You're that idiot that got his panties in a wad because rate fighters based on their ability :rofl:

Poet

Oh I forgot! You're that idiot that got his panties in a wad because rate fighters based on their ability :rofl:

Poet

I remember that, as well. I was simply stating that I didn't agree with your list. I came to grips with the fact that the way you rank is based on ability.

I also came to grips with the fact that you rated Bob Fitzsimmons at either #2 or #3, yet there's never been footage of him in a real fight. Only stories.

I remember that, as well. I was simply stating that I didn't agree with your list. I came to grips with the fact that the way you rank is based on ability.

I also came to grips with the fact that you rated Bob Fitzsimmons at either #2 or #3, yet there's never been footage of him in a real fight. Only stories.

Well dayum! There's not footage of the Civil War. Only stories. Must not have happend :rofl:

Poet

Well dayum! There's not footage of the Civil War. Only stories. Must not have happend :rofl:

Poet

I'm just saying. You were proudly defending your list when it comes to being based off of ability. You just haven't seen Fitzsimmons' ability.

I'm just saying. You were proudly defending your list when it comes to being based off of ability. You just haven't seen Fitzsimmons' ability.

I've researched it. I haven't SEEN Julias Caeser's ability as a general either. I know it was damn good because I've researched the subject. A little education goes a long way.

Poet

Cus was never Tyson's trainer, it was Atlas then Rooney. Cus was more like a mentore to him. But Tyson even started disrepecting Cus in the end, so the answer is no.

Teddy Atlas's book is a must buy, for a deeper insight to the world of Cus and Tyson.

I've researched it. I haven't SEEN Julias Caeser's ability as a general either. I know it was damn good because I've researched the subject. A little education goes a long way.

Poet

Comparing those two make no sense.

One is about the history someone's reign as a leader. The other about how good a fighter fights (ie. speed, power, movement, etc).

I can easily say that John L. Sullivan had better physical attributes that Fitzsimmons but there would be no way of knowing.

Comparing those two make no sense.

One is about the history someone's reign as a leader.

It's about his abilities as a military commander.


The other about how good a fighter fights (ie. speed, power, movement, etc).

I can easily say that John L. Sullivan had better physical attributes that Fitzsimmons but there would be no way of knowing.

That's why they pay boxing historians. Knowledge isn't necessarily a "visual" thing. Do you think for one instant that before the invention of TV nobody knew jack? Afterall, they couldn't actually SEE those things they had knowledge of.

Poet

It's about his abilities as a military commander.

Did it mention how good his speed and defense was?

That's why they pay boxing historians. Knowledge isn't necessarily a "visual" thing. Do you think for one instant that before the invention of TV nobody knew jack? Afterall, they couldn't actually SEE those things they had knowledge of.

Poet

Of course, back then, boxing historians would brag about how good late 19th/early 20th century fighters were. They saw them.

The boxing historians of today haven't seen them fight. They only hear stories of how previous historians rated them.

Fighter's today are technically better than fighters of those times. So, if you truly rank on ability, you'll come to grips with the fact that Fitzsimmons can't match up to the fighters of modern day. But does that mean he isn't an all-time great? Of course not. Because of his achievements he's rated highly. And that's where your ranking system shows its flaws.

Did it mention how good his speed and defense was?

Of course, back then, boxing historians would brag about how good late 19th/early 20th century fighters were. They saw them.

The boxing historians of today haven't seen them fight. They only hear stories of how previous historians rated them.

Fighter's today are technically better than fighters of those times. So, if you truly rank on ability, you'll come to grips with the fact that Fitzsimmons can't match up to the fighters of modern day. But does that mean he isn't an all-time great? Of course not. Because of his achievements he's rated highly. And that's where your ranking system shows its flaws.

Yawn. Your system shows it's flaws when you rank a fighter higher than someone who'd mop the ring with him simply because he accomplished more. I've said it many times before: While you can argue accomplishments until you're blue in the face my primary concern is with who's the better fighter. Period.

PS. You're coming across as one of those people who say everything you learn in school is BS so stop making us go!

Poet

Cus was never Tyson's trainer, it was Atlas then Rooney. Cus was more like a mentore to him. But Tyson even started disrepecting Cus in the end, so the answer is no.

Teddy Atlas's book is a must buy, for a deeper insight to the world of Cus and Tyson.

Teddy Atlas?

Rooney disagrees with many things Atlas says as well as ??? forget his name...that were around Tyson at the time and in the house.

Atlas has lots of stories.

The truth tends to lie somewhere in the middle.


Tyson was no saint but I never got the impression from anybody else in that house that Tyson's relationship with Cus was bad.
Everybody has arguements including brothers, Father and Sons, etc.

Tyson was still young, 15, when Atlas left. Not a long time with someone like Tyson since when they first got him. Even Tyson said it took time for him to fully trust and then focus completely on boxing.

Yawn. Your system shows it's flaws when you rank a fighter higher than someone who'd mop the ring with him simply because he accomplished more. I've said it many times before: While you can argue accomplishments until you're blue in the face my primary concern is with who's the better fighter. Period.

I don't solely base on accomplishments but I consider them to be the biggest factor in the criteria.

And you completely ignored the fact that I pointed out your faults. Instead of coming to grips with it, you used the "I'm not but you are" argument.

PS. You're coming across as one of those people who say everything you learn in school is BS so stop making us go!

Poet

Like before, you bring in something that doesn't have much to do with the subject.

Did it mention how good his speed and defense was?



Of course, back then, boxing historians would brag about how good late 19th/early 20th century fighters were. They saw them.

The boxing historians of today haven't seen them fight. They only hear stories of how previous historians rated them.

Fighter's today are technically better than fighters of those times. So, if you truly rank on ability, you'll come to grips with the fact that Fitzsimmons can't match up to the fighters of modern day. But does that mean he isn't an all-time great? Of course not. Because of his achievements he's rated highly. And that's where your ranking system shows its flaws.
Hey stoppage there must be a queue forming to have a pop at Poet in this forum don't be greedy :)
You sure there is no footage of Fitz, I know there isn't much but I'm sure i've seen some and no I'm not that old!

I don't solely base on accomplishments but I consider them to be the biggest factor in the criteria.

And you completely ignored the fact that I pointed out your faults. Instead of coming to grips with it, you used the "I'm not but you are" argument.

Did it occur to you that I may not feel like explaining it for the 1,000th time? My position on the issue of comparing fighters between eras is on record and well known. If YOU don't know it then I would direct you to your "search" button.

Like before, you bring in something that doesn't have much to do with the subject.

I'm bringing it in based on the tenor of YOUR arguments.
I can only suppose you're unfamilier with the concept of using analogies to make a point.

Poet

Hey stoppage there must be a queue forming to have a pop at Poet in this forum don't be greedy :)
You sure there is no footage of Fitz, I know there isn't much but I'm sure i've seen some and no I'm not that old!

I'm not trying to be the mean one here. I came in this thread today and saw poet trying to blast someone because their view wasn't the same as his. I stood up for him and since then he's insulted me, continuously.

I think there's one available piece of footage of him in a title fight. Besides that, I don't think there's anything else.

Any footage from that era will show that the fighters of those days, compared to today, aren't as physically or technically gifted. Meaning, his high praise of the fighter contradicts his own method of ranking. I was just trying to point out that flaw after he insulted me.

I'm not trying to be the mean one here. I came in this thread today and saw poet trying to blast someone because their view wasn't the same as his. I stood up for him and since then he's insulted me, continuously.

I think there's one available piece of footage of him in a title fight. Besides that, I don't think there's anything else.

Any footage from that era will show that the fighters of those days, compared to today, aren't as physically or technically gifted. Meaning, his high praise of the fighter contradicts his own method of ranking. I was just trying to point out that flaw after he insulted me.

No I doubt there's much on Fitz I was just checking to see I wasn't ready for Shady Pines home for the beweildered and there was some.

Hmmm the old fighters/new fighters debate will go on forever, do you not think that the experience that some of these old timers had in their 100's of fights counted for something though?

No I doubt there's much on Fitz I was just checking to see I wasn't ready for Shady Pines home for the beweildered and there was some.

Hmmm the old fighters/new fighters debate will go on forever, do you not think that the experience that some of these old timers had in their 100's of fights counted for something though?

In my opinion, as great as they were, I don't see them doing well against the top fighters of today. For example, I can't see a Jack Johnson matching up against a Klitschko brother. Or a Joe Gans beating a Roberto Duran.

But that doesn't mean I don't consider them to be truly great fighters. Joe Gans is definitely an all-time top 3 lightweight, based off of accomplishments alone.

For example, I can't see a Jack Johnson matching up against a Klitschko brother.

Whenever I look at Jack Johnson footage though I always think that he was 30/40 years ahead of his time, he was a very canny scientific boxer. Who knows what weaknesses he could have un-covered doing slow motion on a DVD, he certainly highlighted a lot of Louis faults before others.
Size would be a factor but I guess if Johnson had been born a 100 years later he might well have been a bit bigger on the theory that I'm a couple of inches taller than my father who was a couple of inches taller than his father etc etc. Johnson was quite a big guy for his day, not freakishly big but big, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he'd be coming in at around 6'4 had he have been born in 1978 not 1878?
Food for thought?

Whenever I look at Jack Johnson footage though I always think that he was 30/40 years ahead of his time, he was a very canny scientific boxer. Who knows what weaknesses he could have un-covered doing slow motion on a DVD, he certainly highlighted a lot of Louis faults before others.
Size would be a factor but I guess if Johnson had been born a 100 years later he might well have been a bit bigger on the theory that I'm a couple of inches taller than my father who was a couple of inches taller than his father etc etc. Johnson was quite a big guy for his day, not freakishly big but big, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he'd be coming in at around 6'4 had he have been born in 1978 not 1878?
Food for thought?

I don't really like to do the "what if's". Reminds me of a question I asked when I was new to this forum. I asked, "How good would Ali be if he was shorter?". Of course, laughter followed from the other members of the forum. :o

I agree that Johnson was the best heavyweight technician of his time. I guess you could make some sort of argument the he was ahead of his time. However, I find that as the years go on, fighters get better. I'm not proud of it because a lot of my favorite fighters are from the old days. I just came to grips with it.

Of course, that's just my opinion. You have your own, as well. I'm just glad to be discussing boxing in this thread without being bashed by poet.

I don't really like to do the "what if's". Reminds me of a question I asked when I was new to this forum. I asked, "How good would Ali be if he was shorter?". Of course, laughter followed from the other members of the forum. :o

I agree that Johnson was the best heavyweight technician of his time. I guess you could make some sort of argument the he was ahead of his time. However, I find that as the years go on, fighters get better. I'm not proud of it because a lot of my favorite fighters are from the old days. I just came to grips with it.

Of course, that's just my opinion. You have your own, as well. I'm just glad to be discussing boxing in this thread without being bashed by poet.
It would be a boring world and forum if we agreed on everything.
Don't worry about Poet he knows he goes OTT sometimes which is why he takes my teasing of him in good part, he calls me junior too and I'm 70!

I don't really like to do the "what if's". Reminds me of a question I asked when I was new to this forum. I asked, "How good would Ali be if he was shorter?". Of course, laughter followed from the other members of the forum. :o

I agree that Johnson was the best heavyweight technician of his time. I guess you could make some sort of argument the he was ahead of his time. However, I find that as the years go on, fighters get better. I'm not proud of it because a lot of my favorite fighters are from the old days. I just came to grips with it.

Of course, that's just my opinion. You have your own, as well. I'm just glad to be discussing boxing in this thread without being bashed by poet.
I only go on NSB, to let off some steam on the bulk of retrobate pricks that adorn it's infinate reams of childish popy****..
So it goes without saying that I'm much more at home, discussing the sports history with more cultured & refined individuals..
However, I do have to agree, that many posters on the History section are indeed, bias to certain eras..
I get pissed off with the Dempsey huggers, simply because he was 13 stone and was virtually inactive during his 7 years as champion.. The same applies to Liston, who wasn't really bright enough to be frightening, and Willard who was a poor man's Gerry Cooney, and Johnson who I see as an ugly spoiler with a bad attitude..
I like to keep it real, and I'm glad you do to..
The only thing that needs to be addressed is that none of this should apply outside of the heavyweight division.. For example, I'd pick a 135 pound Joe Gans to eek out a DC over a 135 pound Duran, but a 175lb Tommy Burns or Bob Fitzsimmons would be poleaxed by a 212lb Tyson, as would a 190lb Jack Dempsey by a 235lb Lewis..
So don't get too despondant.. Just sit back & watch the stick that I'm about to get lol..

he calls me junior too and I'm 70!

Yeah, but I only call you "Junior" for a giggle :D

Poet

only if he had a gun. Now take a knee and tap out like your boy cotto.

Poet

why do you have all those ****ing idiots music singers in you sig. You are a turd.

why do you have all those ****ing idiots music singers in you sig. You are a turd.

Get a life troll-boi :bottle:

PS. Take that Larry Holmes pic out of your avatar: You aren't worthy of it.

Poet