Bernard Hopkins Vs Sonny Liston

[res]

Yea he did? I'ts not like I have Tyson at no.1, I have him at no.8 on my ATG hW list. Why did you even bring up Mike Tyson. He's not even my favourite heavyweight, Evander Holyfield Happens to be. Tyson didn't lose to all the greats of his Era, if you are going to put George Foreman on there, who was 40+ years old, than 38 year old Holmes counts as well since he came back and beat Mercer - went 12 with Holyfield.

Dempsey proved himself against the best of his day, Tyson didn't

Foreman regardless of his age proved himself a great of that era as well. Holmes was clearly past it at that point, we all know age signifies different things for different fighters.

[them_apples]

Dempsey proved himself against the best of his day, Tyson didn't

Foreman regardless of his age proved himself a great of that era as well. Holmes was clearly past it at that point, we all know age signifies different things for different fighters.

Foreman proved himself? I like Foreman but you are being biased. Foreman in his come back lost to his tougher opponents - Holyfield and Tommy Morrison.

Tyson would have busted up Moorer in 1 or 2 rounds even you know that.

Why are we talking about Tyson again, his resume even makes a joke out of Dempsey's.

"Proving yourself against fighters of your day" holds no water, the guy lost in the first round to a fighter who had almost 30(?) losses. If you in any way, shape or form think Dempsey is more impressive than Tyson, you need to check your boxing bias.

Also, what makes losing to Holyfield a disgrace? I have Holyfield ranked the 2nd greatest heavyweight ever to step into the ring (prime).

[res]

[QUOTE=them_apples;4769589]

Why are we talking about Tyson again, his resume even makes a joke out of Dempsey's.

Tyson has no resume. I keep repeating the following and it remains true. Dempsey beat the best of his day and Tyson didn't. Proving yourself against the fighters of your day is what makes you a great, it is your resume.

I picked Tyson because I see him in alot of people's top ten, and you also seemed to respect him alot.

If you in any way, shape or form think Dempsey is more impressive than Tyson, you need to check your boxing bias.

If some one thinks that Tyson is more impressive than Dempsey I believe that THEY should check themselves for Boxing bias. The only thing Tyson has over Dempsey is the fact that he would have actually beaten him one on one.

[them_apples]

[QUOTE=res;4769744]

Tyson has no resume. I keep repeating the following and it remains true. Dempsey beat the best of his day and Tyson didn't. Proving yourself against the fighters of your day is what makes you a great, it is your resume.

I picked Tyson because I see him in alot of people's top ten, and you also seemed to respect him alot.




If some one thinks that Tyson is more impressive than Dempsey I believe that THEY should check themselves for Boxing bias. The only think Tyson has over Dempsey is that he would have actually beat him one on one.

that's like saying Holmes sucks because he lost to Tyson and Holyfield, since he failed to beat fighters of his era, the 70's and 80's.

Let's get this straight, in comparison to Ali, Holmes or Holyfield and even Foreman, Tysons resume looks average, but in comparison to Dempsey's it looks great.

Dempsey lost early in his career also, and once a good boxer named Tunney came along he looked like a fool. There are only so many Jess Willards.

[res]

It's not about the greats of your era that you didn't fight, it's about the greats of your era that you did fight, that is Tyson's problem.

Also I would say that Holmes prime was the 70's and early 80's

He beat some of the greatest fighters of that era.

Dempsey beat the greats of his era.


Tyson did not, he can't be compared to either one of these two.

[them_apples]

:smileysex

It's not about the greats of your era that you didn't fight, it's about the greats of your era that you did fight, that is Tyson's problem.

Also I would say that Holmes prime was the 70's and early 80's

He beat some of the greatest fighters of that era.

Dempsey beat the greats of his era.


Tyson did not, he can't be compared to either one of these two.

that's a complete joke what you just said. Being the unified champion of the world, the youngest champion ever and destroying opponents much better than Dempsey faced inside 3 rounds means he can't be mentioned with Dempsey. How can you look at Dempsey's record and say he is greater.

before the Willard fight he fought a slew of opponents with 0 fights, 0 wins to Hype up the Willard fight. This was at the peak of his career. Fighting nobodies with 0 fights and 0 wins.

reading your posts makes me want to remove Dempsey from my top 10 ATG hw list. Couple things why Dempsey is overrated.

- He lost to a man with 30 losses in the first round
- He fought bums with 0 fights in the middle of his career to pad his record
- His opposition was below average (the best fighters he fought had already lost multiple times, not to mention they just looked awful in the ring)
- he lost in beginning of his career against a man with multiple losses.

"the best of his generation" was Jess Willard, aka Valuev,

you also said Tyson didn't fight the best. He did fight the best. in the 80's spinks was the top dog after he beat Holmes, Holmes was the champ until he lost to Spinks. Holyfield is just to good and is probably one of the best heavyweights ever, against Lewis he was simply shot to peices.

he was 2-2 against the best of his generation.

now i'm going to get called a nut hugger for bringing this up.

[res]

:smileysex


he was 2-2 against the best of his generation.

Larry was passed his prime, everyone knows it and Tyson even said it after the fight: "that wasn't the Larry Holmes that was the legendary fighter".


To believe that this isn't true you would have to believe that Tyson basically exposed a prime Larry Holmes as a bum. He didn't only knock him out he outboxed him and then knocked him out in four rounds.

Even Tucker did better.


I don't buy that, this wasn't prime Holmes..


So in my book Tyson is 1-1 against the best of his generation (Spinks).

[Kid McCoy]

reading your posts makes me want to remove Dempsey from my top 10 ATG hw list. Couple things why Dempsey is overrated.

- He lost to a man with 30 losses in the first round
- He fought bums with 0 fights in the middle of his career to pad his record
- His opposition was below average (the best fighters he fought had already lost multiple times, not to mention they just looked awful in the ring)
- he lost in beginning of his career against a man with multiple losses.

You need to look further than Boxrec in order to judge Dempsey's career. Note the disclaimer at the bottom of every Boxrec page:

this data may be incomplete and/or inaccurate

Sugar Ray Robinson's record has guys with 0-0-0 type records on it, as do many other old-time or non-American fighters. That doesn't mean they were padding their records with novices, just that the full records of these guys are unknown. In many cases, Boxrec doesn't even record their date of birth, so how are they supposed to acquire their full records?

Even so, a record is meaningless without knowing who they fought, the circumstances of those fights, etc. I'll take a guy with a losing record, but one with a few excellent wins on it, over the sparkling 36-1 record against nobodies that Peter McNeeley entered the Tyson fight with.

Further, I've already said that many believe the Fireman Flynn fight to be a fix, something not mentioned on Boxrec, so it at least deserves a question mark over it.

[them_apples]

You need to look further than Boxrec in order to judge Dempsey's career. Note the disclaimer at the bottom of every Boxrec page:

this data may be incomplete and/or inaccurate

Sugar Ray Robinson's record has guys with 0-0-0 type records on it, as do many other old-time or non-American fighters. That doesn't mean they were padding their records with novices, just that the full records of these guys are unknown. In many cases, Boxrec doesn't even record their date of birth, so how are they supposed to acquire their full records?

Even so, a record is meaningless without knowing who they fought, the circumstances of those fights, etc. I'll take a guy with a losing record, but one with a few excellent wins on it, over the sparkling 36-1 record against nobodies that Peter McNeeley entered the Tyson fight with.

Further, I've already said that many believe the Fireman Flynn fight to be a fix, something not mentioned on Boxrec, so it at least deserves a question mark over it.

you can't compare Dempsey with sugar ray Robinson, Robinson went some 90-0 and was actually beating legit contenders.

[them_apples]

Larry was passed his prime, everyone knows it and Tyson even said it after the fight: "that wasn't the Larry Holmes that was the legendary fighter".


To believe that this isn't true you would have to believe that Tyson basically exposed a prime Larry Holmes as a bum. He didn't only knock him out he outboxed him and then knocked him out in four rounds.

Even Tucker did better.


I don't buy that, this wasn't prime Holmes..


So in my book Tyson is 1-1 against the best of his generation (Spinks).

That wasn't my point. I have a prime Holmes beating Tyson.

My point was, you can't say Tyson lost to all the greats of his era, when his era was the 80's. He started fighting when he was what, 19? Holyfield wasn't even a heavyweight. Lewis was still in the Olympics(or contending) Tyson lost to the next generation, just like Holmes did.

He started fighting much earlier than other heavyweights, thus his career ended earlier to. This is why a guy like Hopkins is fighting so long, he started much later.

I won't use "Tyson being hooked on crack" as an excuse for him losing, just as I don't think you can use "he was starving" as an excuse ether, it just shows how unprofessional they were.