All Fighters Get Old

Mike Tyson's prime came and gone too quickly for him to be considered one of the "greatest." His 3 best wins are (in my opinion): Michael Spinks Trevor Berbick Tony Tucker That doesn't cut it... perhaps he could've been one of the greatest if he didn't goto prison, and didn't self destruct like he did. BTW: seeing him beat up on an a 40 year old Holmes was sad sight for boxing. You are retarded, you know NOTHING of Mike Tyson. You can't count either, Holmes was 38. And this "washed up" Holmes went 12 rounds with Holyfield....several years later! Holmes went 21-3 after Tyson. All three losses where close title fights, the last being a SD. Tyson was great, you haters just want to look at his losses and things he was accused of.....but never did.

even tho i agrea with what your saying but the fighter 100% knows that if hes prepared to hang on for that 1 last fight and looses hes jepradising hes legacy

A fighter should be judged on his whole career not his prime. You gotta take the good with the bad and if they choose to fight past their prime then critisism comes with the territory. Thats not to say that their ring accomplishments should be forgotten though. As for Roy Jones, he was being slammed way before he ever tasted the canvas because he ducked the fighters he was supposed to beat to prove his greatness, mainly Calzagi, Michalczewski and the rematch with Hopkins. But after seeing what Hopkins did to Tarver I now understand why Jones demanded a 70/30 split instead of the 60/40 Hopkins proposed. I agree that they should be judged on their entire career, but when it comes to their last two or three fights when they are old men, then that shouldn't really be taken into account on judging them. If that's the case, then what about guys like Thomas Hearns, who just fought recently? Is that the same Tommy from 20 years ago? The posts that really piss me off are the ones talking trash about Ali when he fought Holmes, or when he fought Berbick, like he wasn't a great fighter. He was a great fighter, he was just a former great fighter at that time. We all gonna get old and die, including the children on this forum. Did you hear that kids? You are going to get old, your wang is going to become a water spout, and you won't be able to see it because your belly is gonna hang over it. You're gonna lose your hair, and your old lady is gonna leave you sometime. If you are a fighter, you will slow down and you will get your ass kicked. When it happens, you will still want to be respected. So give it, if you want to get it. Take that paragraph and frame it. Put it on the wall someday when you no longer know everything.

Tyson did burn out too fast. However, he was ultra-spectacular for a short period. I would say that Mike was the most exciting heavyweight in history. Does that make him an all time great? Maybe not. He didn't have some of the attributes that other great champions had, which is heart and durability. What he did have was phenomenal explosive speed and incredible power for a short time. He may go down as the 2nd best self promoter in the history of the ring, next to Muhammad Ali. Anyway, let's just say that Mike got old too soon.

Mike Tyson's prime came and gone too quickly for him to be considered one of the "greatest." His 3 best wins are (in my opinion): Michael Spinks Trevor Berbick Tony Tucker That doesn't cut it... perhaps he could've been one of the greatest if he didn't goto prison, and didn't self destruct like he did. BTW: seeing him beat up on an a 40 year old Holmes was sad sight for boxing. 39 year old who talked shit. That was a GREAT night for boxing. A GREAT night.

A fighter should be judged on his whole career not his prime. You gotta take the good with the bad and if they choose to fight past their prime then critisism comes with the territory. Thats not to say that their ring accomplishments should be forgotten though. As for Roy Jones, he was being slammed way before he ever tasted the canvas because he ducked the fighters he was supposed to beat to prove his greatness, mainly Calzagi, Michalczewski and the rematch with Hopkins. But after seeing what Hopkins did to Tarver I now understand why Jones demanded a 70/30 split instead of the 60/40 Hopkins proposed.

u r totally correct. most of these NOOBS that know nuttin about boxing would say mike didnt fight no 1 and he lost to williams,mcbride and ppl like that. its called being out of his prime u fuckin NOOBS.better stick to the fuckin boxing lounge :fu2: Mike Tyson's prime came and gone too quickly for him to be considered one of the "greatest." His 3 best wins are (in my opinion): Michael Spinks Trevor Berbick Tony Tucker That doesn't cut it... perhaps he could've been one of the greatest if he didn't goto prison, and didn't self destruct like he did. BTW: seeing him beat up on an a 40 year old Holmes was sad sight for boxing.

I keep reading through the forums and I keep coming across all of these posts slamming fighters because of losses they suffered when they were old. Isn't it time we judged their greatness at their peak, and not when they were old? Most older fighters keep on fighting to make more money. It's that simple. Most fighters are old by 35. It's rare that a fighter is still in top form past 35. There are a few exceptions, but not many. Speed and agility fighters normally suffer the worst end of it. Fighters who rely on raw power and tricky ring saavy usually hang in there longer. Should Evander Holyfield, who to me, was the marquee heavy of the 90's and a phenomenal fighter, be judged a bum because he stayed around a bit too long? He was in some of the best light heavyweight and heavyweight battles I've ever seen, but he did lose to Larry Donald. He also lost to Toney and Byrd, but we all know he was shot then. Would James Toney wipe the floor with a 28 year old Evander Holyfield? I didn't see James Toney jumping up and down to fight him back then. Maybe they could hang, but maybe not. Was Mike Tyson a bum because he burned out as quickly as a shooting star? He was a great one for a time, his peak came and went quickly, but do we judge his ring greatness because he burned out too soon? What about Roy Jones? He's one of the greatest all time, yet I hear people slamming him because he got a little old and lost that edge he had. His last knockout loss was disturbing to me, but that's not the RJ I knew. How about Muhammad Ali? He lost badly late in his career, so should we say he wasn't any good? The man took a terrible beating from Larry Holmes, yet he still stood in there, brain damage and all, and they had to stop the fight. That to me, was a testament to how tough Muhammad Ali really was. To me, the greatest to put on a pair of gloves ever. How about Joe Louis? Hounded by the IRS, an aging fighter sojourned on, only to be KO'd by Rocky Marciano. Would the Rock KO a prime Louis? I have my doubts. George Foreman fought late in life successfully, as well as Sugar Ray Robinson, Roberto Duran (to some extent), Archie Moore, and most recently, Bernard Hopkins. Are these guys the all time greats over the others because they won past 40? I say no to that. It's a neat accomplishment to win past 40, but not everybody's clock ticks at the same rate. Judge the great ones when they were great, that's what I say. I am now 39 years old, and my body tells me I can't do the things I used to. It's the same for all of us, even though we might still have that fighting spirit, wear and tear and old man time catches up with us all Give the great ones respect, and realize that time stands still for no man. What a great post.

I keep reading through the forums and I keep coming across all of these posts slamming fighters because of losses they suffered when they were old. Isn't it time we judged their greatness at their peak, and not when they were old? Most older fighters keep on fighting to make more money. It's that simple. Most fighters are old by 35. It's rare that a fighter is still in top form past 35. There are a few exceptions, but not many. Speed and agility fighters normally suffer the worst end of it. Fighters who rely on raw power and tricky ring saavy usually hang in there longer. Should Evander Holyfield, who to me, was the marquee heavy of the 90's and a phenomenal fighter, be judged a bum because he stayed around a bit too long? He was in some of the best light heavyweight and heavyweight battles I've ever seen, but he did lose to Larry Donald. He also lost to Toney and Byrd, but we all know he was shot then. Would James Toney wipe the floor with a 28 year old Evander Holyfield? I didn't see James Toney jumping up and down to fight him back then. Maybe they could hang, but maybe not. Was Mike Tyson a bum because he burned out as quickly as a shooting star? He was a great one for a time, his peak came and went quickly, but do we judge his ring greatness because he burned out too soon? What about Roy Jones? He's one of the greatest all time, yet I hear people slamming him because he got a little old and lost that edge he had. His last knockout loss was disturbing to me, but that's not the RJ I knew. How about Muhammad Ali? He lost badly late in his career, so should we say he wasn't any good? The man took a terrible beating from Larry Holmes, yet he still stood in there, brain damage and all, and they had to stop the fight. That to me, was a testament to how tough Muhammad Ali really was. To me, the greatest to put on a pair of gloves ever. How about Joe Louis? Hounded by the IRS, an aging fighter sojourned on, only to be KO'd by Rocky Marciano. Would the Rock KO a prime Louis? I have my doubts. George Foreman fought late in life successfully, as well as Sugar Ray Robinson, Roberto Duran (to some extent), Archie Moore, and most recently, Bernard Hopkins. Are these guys the all time greats over the others because they won past 40? I say no to that. It's a neat accomplishment to win past 40, but not everybody's clock ticks at the same rate. Judge the great ones when they were great, that's what I say. I am now 39 years old, and my body tells me I can't do the things I used to. It's the same for all of us, even though we might still have that fighting spirit, wear and tear and old man time catches up with us all Give the great ones respect, and realize that time stands still for no man. K to you for common sense...if I can. Great Post.

That is a very nice post.

I keep reading through the forums and I keep coming across all of these posts slamming fighters because of losses they suffered when they were old. Isn't it time we judged their greatness at their peak, and not when they were old? Most older fighters keep on fighting to make more money. It's that simple. Most fighters are old by 35. It's rare that a fighter is still in top form past 35. There are a few exceptions, but not many. Speed and agility fighters normally suffer the worst end of it. Fighters who rely on raw power and tricky ring saavy usually hang in there longer. Should Evander Holyfield, who to me, was the marquee heavy of the 90's and a phenomenal fighter, be judged a bum because he stayed around a bit too long? He was in some of the best light heavyweight and heavyweight battles I've ever seen, but he did lose to Larry Donald. He also lost to Toney and Byrd, but we all know he was shot then. Would James Toney wipe the floor with a 28 year old Evander Holyfield? I didn't see James Toney jumping up and down to fight him back then. Maybe they could hang, but maybe not. Was Mike Tyson a bum because he burned out as quickly as a shooting star? He was a great one for a time, his peak came and went quickly, but do we judge his ring greatness because he burned out too soon? What about Roy Jones? He's one of the greatest all time, yet I hear people slamming him because he got a little old and lost that edge he had. His last knockout loss was disturbing to me, but that's not the RJ I knew. How about Muhammad Ali? He lost badly late in his career, so should we say he wasn't any good? The man took a terrible beating from Larry Holmes, yet he still stood in there, brain damage and all, and they had to stop the fight. That to me, was a testament to how tough Muhammad Ali really was. To me, the greatest to put on a pair of gloves ever. How about Joe Louis? Hounded by the IRS, an aging fighter sojourned on, only to be KO'd by Rocky Marciano. Would the Rock KO a prime Louis? I have my doubts. George Foreman fought late in life successfully, as well as Sugar Ray Robinson, Roberto Duran (to some extent), Archie Moore, and most recently, Bernard Hopkins. Are these guys the all time greats over the others because they won past 40? I say no to that. It's a neat accomplishment to win past 40, but not everybody's clock ticks at the same rate. Judge the great ones when they were great, that's what I say. I am now 39 years old, and my body tells me I can't do the things I used to. It's the same for all of us, even though we might still have that fighting spirit, wear and tear and old man time catches up with us all Give the great ones respect, and realize that time stands still for no man. u r totally correct. most of these NOOBS that know nuttin about boxing would say mike didnt fight no 1 and he lost to williams,mcbride and ppl like that. its called being out of his prime u fuckin NOOBS.better stick to the fuckin boxing lounge :fu2:

Amen. I agree with everyting you said.