To many casuals have a higher opinion of Mike Tyson than the well informed boxing fan......
Whoaa. I'm not a casual fan. Tyson was a prodigious talent that we never got to see fully develop. By age 20 he was already a world champion, and had the speed, movement, power and aggression that few hw boxers in history would be able to withstand - and that before the age of 23.
Then he self-destructed and we never saw him peak. What age would that peak have been if he had stayed on track ? 32 ish? So not just being a world champion 10 years before his hypothetical peak, but being so with a dominance we have rarely seen historically.
Not seeing Tyson stay on track and see his talent blossom to the full extent of his potential is one of the greatest sporting tragedies of our age.
Overrated Tyson was not.
There are 2 time gold medal winners like Loma and rigo, and then there's this guy who lost to a bus boy from Ihop
Shiming was never Loma or Rigo. He had good amateur skills but in his early pro fights it was evident he wasn't able to make the transition to the pro game, and it was always a matter of time before that was exposed, be it by the Japanese guy or any number of other solid pros.
Loma and Rigo made the transition (maybe debatable with Rigo), but both Loma and Rigo are/were far more talented than Shiming, so no surprises here folks.
In 1987 Mike Tyson became champion, in 1990 Buster Douglas knocked him the f*ck out - some run from this juggernaut.
Some history for you.
Tyson lifted the WBC belt in 1986 beating Berbick, going on to undisputed a little later.
It is well documented that he was already on a downward destructive path even then in 1986, having gonorrhea in that fight.
He beat Spinks in 1988 to be the 'one and only' (as the fight was billed), and that was his last fight with Rooney as trainer. So at age 22/23, Tyson was already well on the downward spiral despite his defeat of Spinks (I vaguely remember Tyson explaining his excess sweating in the Spinks fight being due to syphilis, but might have been a different fight).
Rooney observed that after Spinks '...he stopped moving his head and started grabbing and hugging......' going on to identify this as a weakness he had in the amateurs that had been trained out of him. Tyson's development was basically going backwards at a rapid pace by 1988.
In 1990 vs Douglas, Tyson was overweight, under-trained, and subjecting himself to a whole dictionary of destructive habits.
If it wasn't Douglas, it would have been someone else shortly after, but by then Tyson was well and truly off the rails.
The question hangs 'what was the point of no return ?'. Probably 1988 when he parted ways with Rooney and there remained no-one to keep him on track.
Douglas beat a shell of the 1986-1988 Tyson, and the tragedy remains of just how good Tyson could have been if he fully dedicated himself to boxing between 1986-1998, when he would have hit that age 32 hypothetical peak.
I mere typographical error on my part my friend. So you are saving Mike Tyson was in his prime when he was a teenager? and how did he afford to pay prostitutes at such a young age to contract a sexually-transmitted disease?! my gawd my opinion on this reprobate has sunken even lower -- which I never thought possible. :pat:
Yup - Tyson was at his best between the ages of 20 and 22 !
At a time when most boxers are still learning the basics, he was dominating the WH division.
When Joshua or anyone else talks about Tyson as a force, they are basically talking about the 1986-1988 Tyson.
Thats my point, if he had stayed on track and peaked at 32 (say), just how good would he have been ??
As for having the money to pay hookers at age 20 - maybe add up all the money you spent on alcohol before that age (while he was training and not drinking), and figure out if that would be enough to pay for a skank or two that would give you STDs.
Headline is confusing, it makes it sound like Froch is blaming Joshua, but then the article reads more like Froch is shaking his head at Khan for bringing Joshua into it.
Broner's is not a 147lbs fighter which is why many people want him at 147lbs. At 147 he doesn't have the power so the odds will be stacked against him. He will land some shots on Khan no doubt but I can't see him winning. If this was at 147lbs maybe he stands a chance. I feel Khan ought to fight a real 147lbs fighter not cherry picking has beens like he always does. If he had mentioned a rematch with Garcia I would love that fight.
I like the fight - winner gets the IKC belt (International King of the Clowns)
I guess we have to assume it would be at 147, but money dictates that Broner could negotiate the fight down to something below 147, which could suit him better, and drain Khan to a point where his chin is even weaker than normal.
Meantime Khan just fought at 150, and is talking Brook, who is currently at 154, but could presumably come down to something a little lower if the money is right. So not sure what weight Khan is looking at fighting. Either way, it would be a key part of negotiation, and unlikely to be at the standard 147 or 154 weights.
vs Broner, activity alone means Khan wins on points, but then there's that chin, and Broner will keep throwing to the very end, and I can't see him not landing flush at least a couple of times during the fight, and it might only take once. That's why it would be such a fun fight - its either Khan on points or a KO for Broner (I guess Khan could go down a couple of times and get up so that the points even up, but unlikely).
Just checked on the date of the Lo Greco fight to see how many days of Khan's delusional comments we had to go.
Then it occurred to me that that if he beats Lo Greco, he'll be declaring himself the ATG.......
If Hearn offers Wilder 35%, then Wilder might as well walk! That's totally disrespectful!
Which, unfortunately, is what Hearn probably wants. In fact if he offered as much as 35% I would be surprised.
This is coming down to a checkers game between Haymon and Hearn, with Wilder, Breazeale and Kownacki on Haymon's side of the board, and Joshua, Whyte, Miller and Chisora on Hearn's side.
Can completely see Wilder vs Breazeale (both Haymon) and Joshua vs Miller (both Hearn) next while they continue to move other pieces around the board. Then Hearn argues the Povetkin mandatory etc (and presumably Kownacki gets thrown in with Wilder at that point).
And THEN we get to Wilder vs Joshua.......
I do NOT want to see Wilder vs. Breazeale under any circumstances! I would much rather see Wilder go to the UK and body Whyte! I would also love to see Wilder fight Miller in Brooklyn! I'm sure if Wilder gives Hearn his double-dip, he'll give Wilder 40%!
Well that's two of us who don't want to see Wilder vs Breazeale, and rather see Wilder go to the UK and starch Whyte.
Wilder v Miller ? That's possible, but with Hearn co-promoting Miller, I'm guessing Joshua gets first dibs given that's a Hearn double-dip without even needing Wilder (or is that 1 and a half dips?).
The IBF just mandating Whyte v Pulev might make a difference now as Hearn has finally found a dance partner for Whyte, and will likely make it clear to Pulev that if he doesn't take it, no second shot at Joshua. So with Whyte potentially off the table, and Hearn likely taking Miller for Joshua, we're back to..... Wilder vs Breazeale.
Do you think wilder deserves more or less than Parker!!!!
That is the question you have to ask yourself!!!
Nice question to debate, but Hearn already showed how he thinks in the Yafai/Inoue discussions, where he stated risk/reward.
Wilder is higher risk than Parker, so wouldn't that suggest he's willing to pay less to Wilder ? (ie lower than the reported 33% Parker got). The real questions are:
1) What's the lowest Wilder will accept
2) What's the highest Hearn will pay
and
3) Does Hearn really want it right now ?
I fear the answer to (3) is no while he can make pots from Miller and Povetkin (lower risk fights) before coming back to Wilder.
By then Joshua would arguably be better after a couple more fights, and with other viable opponents drying up, the risk/reward of Wilder might bring (1) and (2) to something mutually agreeable.
This was the plan before when Joshua held all the cards but after yesterday more people will be saying like Tyson Fury that they favor Wilder to win now.
I don't get it. Parker fights off the back foot and Wilder doesn't, I can't see any extension of Joshua's performance vs Parker to Wilder, except that if Joshua can keep it as tight and controlled as he did with Parker, who was baiting him in all night, then that would serve him well vs Wilder.
vs Wilder, Joshua would need to stay cool under fire. Getting into a firefight would just sacrifice his advantage of having better boxing skills. Joshua kept it under control the entire time vs Parker, albeit at the expense of making it a dull fight.
Where Joshua fell short was his ability to hunt Parker down and finish him off. Parker's defence and movement was good enough that Joshua couldn't find a risk-free way in, and he didn't need to take any risks as he could just grind out the W with his jab.
Extrapolating what happened in this fight with what might happen vs Wilder is nuts - it would be a completely different fight. Joshua wouldn't have to be thinking how to get in on Wilder as Wilder would be right in his face. It would come down to whether Joshua could stay controlled and keep his defence tight, and if anything, the Parker outing just showed he could.
edit: if Hearn is as smart as he thinks he is, he might actually recognise that Joshua's biggest enemy is potentially having a couple of back-to-back fights like this. Another grind-out or two and the 'stadium crowd' might be likely to start turning against Joshua as being boring, and turn their attention to the next 15-minute star. Povetkin might be a repeat of Parker if he boxes the same way (I think Joshua gets him because of his age, but there is risk Joshua cruises again). My bet is Hearn goes for Miller, who will make Joshua look like a beast again, then Povetkin. Wilder ain't happening - too much risk.
Wembley stadium England the venue.Josh gets 60% ,he has the majority of belts and pulling power but it takes two for a financial bonanza of this level......so 40% to Wilder.No need for rematch clause for either although i'm not sure sneaky Eddie would agree.
Only if it warrants a rematch should there be one.....fuk the snake promoters.
Trouble is how much of a financial bonanza is Wilder to Joshua ? Its not like Canelo/Golovkin where its a factor of 10x any other fight they could do (mainly thanks to Canelo).
I'm sure Wilder/Joshua would be higher than a Miller/Joshua fight, but got to ask how much more. 2x ? 3x ? Would Joshua make more from fighting Miller+Povetkin than fighting Wilder ? etc
“Really, if we don’t make this fight by the end of 2018, or by January/February 2019 at the very latest, it can’t happen for all of the belts because the mandatories will be due.
Hearn knows full well the sanctioning bodies are as flexible as they want to be, and will stick with whatever situation maximises their sanctioning fees, and that's Joshua.
Mandatories can be negotiated away or delayed easily if it suits the Alphabets.
Hearn will use the mandatories only to claim fights 'must be made for mandatory reasons', aka 'we can't fight Wilder right now because of a mandatory requirement that we can't get out of'. Reality is he could delay any mandatory simply by asking, and he knows this full well.
Not overly sure why you're arguing with Hearn's viewpoint there? He isn't saying mandatories are stopping the fight from happening; he's saying the fight has to happen sooner rather than later because of mandatories coming up... isn't that what we all want?
But that's my point, he is saying mandatories might stop the fight happening later, which is complete bs as the Alphabets will be flexible, both sooner and later.
I'm reading this as him arguing why, when he doesn't make the fight sooner, he can't make it later either because of mandatories.
Smh, dude I said his fans want the fight. I said Hearn just exposed himself in the article when he said he has been talking to Wilder's team when just a week or so prior he said they weren't talking at all.
This crossed my mind too. I didn't go back to check something else Hearn said, but it was something along the lines of 'we want to make the fight but no-one has called us yet', and I only remember it as it was the 'boxing phones only work in one direction' issue.
Now we hear discussions have been going on behind closed doors - so there is an 'alternative fact' in there somewhere.
Finkel has confirmed that Wilder would accept a 60/40 split of the fight purse.
50/50 had a zero chance of happening, so at least this is in the right direction, but will Hearn accept 60/40 ?
Don't think so. Wouldn't surprise me if Hearn sticks to the same splits as Joshua/Parker, which was reputed to be 67/33 as his maximum bound given all the complaining he did that he felt like he was getting shafted by Parker.
source: https://www.express.co.uk/sport/boxing/937793/Anthony-Joshua-vs-Joseph-Parker-purse-prize-money-pay-per-view-sales
And yes I know, the Express isn't the best source of reliable info.......
Finkel:
'We are ready, tell us what to do. We haven’t heard anything'
Hearn:
'We are ready, tell us what to do. We haven’t heard anything'
Blast those boxing telephones and boxing pens, never where they're supposed to be.
Amusing seeing all these 'free' opinions about how Fury and Wilder 'definitely' beat Joshua.
If you want the opinion of someone who has money on the line, so doesn't give a toss about any fanboyism, ask a bookie.
Joshua still favourite to beat Wilder and Fury.
It will be interesting to see if he wants:
GGG
Charlo
Jacobs
Saunders
CALLUM SMITH
Or will he continue to fight tomato cans ?
We will see! Oh and for the idiots Canelo is BARELY 1 to 1 with G
GGG - almost bound to happen (money). Canelo likely hasn't peaked yet, while Golovkin on the slide. Likely a clear win next time.
Charlo - I don't get it with Charlo. He's nowhere near proven yet, but many are making him out to be the beast of the division. Maybe he will be, but Charlo needs to prove himself.
Jacobs - would like to see that one, Jacobs has a style that might stretch Canelo
Saunders - can't see it ever happening. Styles. Too likely to be a stinker of a fight.
Smith - would be a good one, I think winnable for Canelo.
I want to know what happened behind the scenes. Joshua took forever to walk out of a closed dressing room door and showed weak emotion leaving that room.. he got into ring and looked lethargic af. This was not Joshua of the past. He looked drained weak and not focused. Makes me think the fix was in.
I wouldn't go so far as say a fix was in, but for sure, the fire we saw in Joshua back in the Klitschko days was doused, and we're all left guessing as to why.
Burt Lancaster: 'take the feeling of hunger out of your gut, and you're no longer a champion'
I call BS. Joshua did not look confident at all. I remember looking at him during the ring walk and thinking he looks afraid. Joshua needs to develop some grit, unfortunately he lives in a continent where there is none
Its ok, Hearn has banned reggae from Joshua's listening choices and he's on a strict diet of Churchill 'we will fight them on the beaches' tapes until December.
He'll come out with two new tats in Dec, a Spitfire on one arm. a Hurricane on the other with a big fat stogie clamped between his teeth in the ringwalk.
Good post. I've criticized GG fans for over inflating the quality of his past opposition, but didn't really blame GG himself. I also thought that at this point in his career he'd be making up for lost time, going after top comp since his remaining years in the sport must be few.
The Rolls fight bums me out because I finally got behind the guy, I believe he got robbed against Canelo twice, I admired his back to work ethic, that he'd get a new coach (which shows true dedication to getting better), and we got THIS to look forward to?
If it wasn't for the recent upsets I'd be completely disgusted with the state of this sport.
3G has one foot in the retirement home. It was always the case that he would take a no-threat fight in the lead-up to Canelo-3G III. As for whether that happens or not depends on how badly DAZN wants it, aka how much financial incentive they need to give GB to make it happen.
The GB 'got to have a belt' thing is GB negotiating with DAZN. The trilogy fight should provide Canelo with his first, no-controversy win over 3G, so got to figure it wouldn't take that much from DAZN to make it happen - but its still of huge value to DAZN and DLH has to pretend as much as possible that he has other plans to squeeze as much out of DAZN as possible.
Meantime we get Rolls.
It will get messy. Interesting to see if DAZN makes GGG fight Andread before he gets Canelo?
Golovkin's DAZN deal pays him 10m for his first fight, whoever its against, then has a 30m carrot for Canelo III.
DAZN wants Canelo/Golovkin III as it will go a long way to attracting casuals to sign up.
I suspect the last thing DAZN would want would be a fight against Andrade first as if Golovkin lost, it would take the gloss off of the trilogy fight with Canelo.
Smart move from DAZN would be to get Golovkin in with Canelo after Rolls, then assuming he loses (reasonable assumption), he's still got 4 fights in the DAZN deal to 'rebuild', and can probably assume another 10m tomato can (or two), and then the likes of Andrade.