Tyson being past his prime when Douglas beat him???

[slicksouthpaw16]

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

[The Iron Man]

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

[slicksouthpaw16]

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

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

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

[slicksouthpaw16]

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

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

[Boogie Nights]

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

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

[Boogie Nights]

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

so by that you mean that tyson couldnt beat guys that louis or marciano beat, and wouldnt be good in other eras?

wake up dude

[slicksouthpaw16]

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

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

[Boogie Nights]

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

despite you thinking that i somehow stalk your posts, i dont need to snoop. it's your posts you wouldnt have a problem finding them. you put my fake quotes, so i cannt understand how you can accuse other posters of putting words in your mouth.

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

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

you clearly have an agenda

[Clegg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Douglas also scored a win over McCall.

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

[slicksouthpaw16]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Douglas also scored a win over McCall.

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

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

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