Iron Mike Tyson

[them_apples]

Who, Joe Louis? Archie Moore? Jersey Joe Walcott? Ezzard Charles? I'd hardly consider that 'weak opposition,' son.




Nut-huggers.

Lewis was older than Tyson when they met and he beat your ***** into the ground!

with that mentality, Pacquiao just beat up a prime De La hoya, Calzaghe just wooped a prime Jones.

those are names on his resume at best, they were old. Joe Louis wasn't half of what he was.

[them_apples]

On the Holmes comparison, Rocky fought fighters who were not just greats but who were dominant in the sport at the time he was fighting them. They also didn't just last for 4 rounds, which is significant since even you believe that prime Holmes could have beaten Tyson. His performance is an indication of just how much he had slidden. Tyson does have his win over Spinx

On Dempsey, as i said before, the real test is beating the best of your time. If you have a beef with that whole era that is different from a beef with Dempsey. Jack proved himself against the best (Including Firpo, Gibbons, Carpentier) and only one man of the time was able to truly dominate him. Tyson was never actually even a real player among the best of his era. They all duked it out in classic bouts while he rested on his reputation for savagely knocking out the mediocre fighters of the era .

That's not really a good example on Holmes part. You said Rocky's old men were still dominant, how was Holmes so much worse off than them? He came back and beat Ray Mercer and had a competitive fight with Holyfield.

Clearly not a Prime Holmes, but also, the greats Rocky fought were in the exact same situation, if not worse. Rocky's opponents had already been beaten a few times and had been knocked out before. Holmes only losses were decisions to Spinks.

Jack proved himself against the best, the best at his time ******. I'm not ripping on his era, but his competition literally ******. Just like todays Heavyweights. If someone came along and beat up Wlad - he still wouldn't come close to greats from other era's.

You can't use your approach to measure greatness, you need to look at the quality of opponents faced. He fought the best of his era but he also lost to them to, and in brutal fashion.

I'll say it again, if David Haye beat Valuev, Wlad, and Vitali, he then would rank on the ATG list according to you. Valuev sucks, Wlad is a stepping stone, and Vitali is at best a good opponent. That's not ATG material.

Also, what about Dempsey's loss to Tunney? You said he beat every fighter of his generation, except Tunney, who has far more skills than Dempsey.

I'm sorry I just can't bring myself to put Dempsey on my ATG list, nothing about his career stands out to me as an ATG. I even have Rocky on my list at no.10, just for being 49-0, that's about it.

[res]

That's not really a good example on Holmes part. You said Rocky's old men were still dominant, how was Holmes so much worse off than them? He came back and beat Ray Mercer and had a competitive fight with Holyfield.

Clearly not a Prime Holmes, but also, the greats Rocky fought were in the exact same situation, if not worse. Rocky's opponents had already been beaten a few times and had been knocked out before. Holmes only losses were decisions to Spinks.

Jack proved himself against the best, the best at his time ******. I'm not ripping on his era, but his competition literally ******. Just like todays Heavyweights. If someone came along and beat up Wlad - he still wouldn't come close to greats from other era's.

You can't use your approach to measure greatness, you need to look at the quality of opponents faced. He fought the best of his era but he also lost to them to, and in brutal fashion.

I'll say it again, if David Haye beat Valuev, Wlad, and Vitali, he then would rank on the ATG list according to you. Valuev sucks, Wlad is a stepping stone, and Vitali is at best a good opponent. That's not ATG material.

Also, what about Dempsey's loss to Tunney? You said he beat every fighter of his generation, except Tunney, who has far more skills than Dempsey.

I'm sorry I just can't bring myself to put Dempsey on my ATG list, nothing about his career stands out to me as an ATG. I even have Rocky on my list at no.10, just for being 49-0, that's about it.

Uhh, Do you know what the word "Dominant" means? It does not mean "doing pretty well" it means on top, in this case, completely on top of the sport, the best out there. Joe Walcott was the heavyweight champion of the world. Charles had just completed a series of fights with Walcott in which he won one and lost a controversial decision in the last before he took on Marciano; he was the top contender by far. This is in stark contrast to Holmes who had emerged from retirement in the first place to try to become a top contender again.


Oh by the way, Moore was also a current champion who was taking out one contender after the other before he stepped up to take on Rocky.



You can't take a snap shot at a narrow moment in time. What do you mean if someone came in "now" and cleaned out the division? How long was Marciano's era? any guy who a few years ago had handily took out the Klitchkos, Sam Peters and a few others would be a candidate for greatness.

[them_apples]

Uhh, Do you know what the word "Dominant" means? It does not mean "doing pretty well" it means on top, in this case, completely on top of the sport, the best out there. Joe Walcott was the heavyweight champion of the world. Charles had just completed a series of fights with Walcott in which he won one and lost a controversial decision in the last before he took on Marciano; he was the top contender by far. This is in stark contrast to Holmes who had emerged from retirement in the first place to try to become a top contender again.


Oh by the way, Moore was also a present champion right before he stepped up to take on Rocky.


On Dempsey, there is a difference between a lull in Boxing competition (Which is what we are seeing now) and a general stage in the history of Boxing. Are you arguing that there were plenty of people before this era that could take all those guys out?

By the way, you can't take a snap shot at a narrow moment in time. What do you mean if someone came in "now" and cleaned out the division? How long was Marciano's era? any guy who a few years ago had handily took out the Klitchkos, Sam Peters and a few others would be a candidate for greatness.

Looking at Dempsey's resume, many of his opponents had DOZENS of losses. I don't know if i'm taking a swipe at his time, but you need to do more than just beat who's put in front of you to be considered a great champion in Boxing.

It's like Sergio Mora at 154, weak ass division (let's say he never lost) beats everyone at 154 and remains undefeated for 10 years. In your book he has accomplished: Beat the best of his era in his division, remained undefeated, had a long career.

that's 3 candidates for greatness, yet he sucks and would get his ass beat by anyone good (and did). Just an example, replace Mora with some other random up an comer.

Rocky's era is considered one of the weakest era's of all time for Hw's, it's up there with todays division.

some more examples:

good opponents don't have 30 losses, good opponents win. A man with 30 losses means he's been BEAT 30 times, when you have been beat that much, it makes beating him not seem so hard.

When Ali fought George Foreman, Foreman had never lost, and had wooped all of the top heavyweights.

non of that "I've already lost 20+ times by KO, yet trust me..i'm a good fighter" mentality.

That's why I don't consider Dempsey and ATG, HoF maybe, but not ATG.

If you can give me something more than "he beat the best of his era" I have been known to change my mind if I see fit, I'm not clouded and opinionated. Believe me, this has nothing to do with the era he fought in.

[PLATE]

All this Tyson love is mystifying to me. I can only conclude it comes from casual observers of the sport and not die-hard purists. I guess I'll just have to reconcile with the fact that there always will be "fans" willing to lick his nads and keep his pathetic name alive for all eternity.

They can have him.

Well said.

The common man reveres him, but he doesn't quite garner the same respect from boxing analysts and historians, does he

[Squabbles94806]

i redefined what i consider "greatness". Altas said that Mike was sensational, not great. Teddy said, "in order to have greatness you have to have longevity...Tyson didn't have that."

That's true. Tyson had great skills and was a sensational fighter. But his career was definately not great.

I'm still captivated by Tyson fighting ability, his old fight tapes of course.

[them_apples]

i redefined what i consider "greatness". Altas said that Mike was sensational, not great. Teddy said, "in order to have greatness you have to have longevity...Tyson didn't have that."

That's true. Tyson had great skills and was a sensational fighter. But his career was definately not great.

I'm still captivated by Tyson fighting ability, his old fight tapes of course.

I don't see why guys like PLATE and knight are going on how Tyson is getting overrated here. Other than a few nooblet's most people actually bash him these days.

We can't let the delusional counter-haters convince the sane people that Mike Tyson was just an Arturo Gatti only worse.

[Squabbles94806]

I don't see why guys like PLATE and knight are going on how Tyson is getting overrated here. Other than a few nooblet's most people actually bash him these days.

We can't let the delusional counter-haters convince the sane people that Mike Tyson was just an Arturo Gatti only worse.

I admit. I fell for the Gatti trap. I was amazed by the Gatti-Ward Trilogy and thought that Gatti was a really good fighter. But when he got knocked by...what's his name? Gomez? Alfonzo Gomez? That was pretty whack.

But wit Tyson, that dates back to my childhood days. I was on Mike Tyson's punchout without fail. That was my ***** right there. I always wanted to fight like Tyson. ALI and Tyson are the two boxers whose style i imulate. There are others of course, but those two boxers inspired me to box.

Tyson's career was complex that's all. He's finished right? Like done for good?

[res]

It's like Sergio Mora at 154, weak ass division (let's say he never lost) beats everyone at 154 and remains undefeated for 10 years. In your book he has accomplished: Beat the best of his era in his division, remained undefeated, had a long career.

This is the same tired argument using snapshots of a moment in time. As time goes on powerful challengers eventually arise within boxing divisions, the same will happen here as you will see. It hasn't been that long since this division was alive and kicking, hey even Mayweather was here.

Hahaha, and look how narrow the weight range is you're using, that isn't an even comparison.

[res]

i redefined what i consider "greatness". Altas said that Mike was sensational, not great. Teddy said, "in order to have greatness you have to have longevity...Tyson didn't have that."

That's true. Tyson had great skills and was a sensational fighter. But his career was definately not great.

I'm still captivated by Tyson fighting ability, his old fight tapes of course.

Yeah , I agree good post.