If Mike Tyson was around 1963-80, would he have won a title?

[MickyHatton]

That is not disrespect... That is whats called FACTS and if you don't think it is FACTS then prove me wrong...

Lets look at what i have claimed.

1/. are you claiming Vitali has not been convicted of steroid abuse?
Not sure he was convicted, he did take them as an amateur, not sure how that makes him a bad fighter?
2/. are you claiming Vitali did not quit against Chris Byrd?
Was he not injured though and was ahead on the cards, therefore whats your point?
3/. are you claiming Vitali's best win is not Herbie Hide?
No, agreed.
4/. are you claiming Holyfield was NOT over the hill when fighting Lewis?
Over the hill is harsh term, he was still a very good and dangerous fighter.
5/. are you claiming Holyfield v Lewis (2) was NOT a controversial decision?
IMO no it wasn't. Lewis nicked the win but won the first fight by a mile but was given a terrible decision.
6/. are you claiming Tua was not the fattest man to ever fight for the title?
Dont be ******. There were lots (Tim Witherspoon etc), that has no bearing he was a good fighter.
7/. are you claiming Morrison was not HIV?
Still didn't make him a bad fighter???
8/. are you claiming Tyson was not years past his best?
Who is say Lewis wasn't either, he is older than Tyson so...

No that's your interpretation of the facts. A fact is set in stone point some of this is opinion and conjecture and does not offer any other view point. Also its the manner that you offer your facts which is disrespectful.



When did you win your title? I guess you haven't therefore I still ask why the disrespect?

[Joeyzagz]

are you claiming Manny Pacquioa is NOT the world champion in the higher weight classes he has won the world titles in?

or that he has won those titles by default or fraudulently ?

Sergio Martinez has been the best 154 lber of the last 3 years.

Pacquiao won the 154 title beating up on giant-sloth who shouldnt have been liscenced. Pac is a great featherweight, but if he fought a quick/prime 154 lber, he gets brutally KO'd.

[sonnyboyx2]

Sergio Martinez has been the best 154 lber of the last 3 years.

Pacquiao won the 154 title beating up on giant-sloth who shouldnt have been liscenced. Pac is a great featherweight, but if he fought a quick/prime 154 lber, he gets brutally KO'd.

Sergio Martinez... was he not brutally hammered and left lying over the ropes by one Antonio Margarito who Manny Pacquiao has just beaten?

you seem to forget that Manny Pacquiao set off as a "Garden Gnome" of 106lbs and 54 fights later has won world titles in 8 different weight divisions and is P4P the best fighter in the world... what is that you want the guy to do?... maybe he should fight Nikolay Valuev to please you.. ffs

[BennyST]

It is my opinion that age plays a significant role in boxing. I call it an opinion because I can not prove it as iron clad fact.

But your statement that age means nothing is so utterly ******ed that it can easily be disproven. If my chronilogical age is 109, are you telling me that means nothing in boxing? If your chronilogical age was a 2 year old child, and Mike Tyson punches out your ltesticles, does this mean nothing?

The idea that age affects every single organism on this planet except for boxers is a bit preposterous, but again you are entitled to your opinion.

Ummmm, ok. Taking things to that type of extreme gets no one anywhere and is just silly. I'm talking within reason and the general confines of boxing and sports age. Let's just use a bit of common sense shall we?

Of course age plays a significant role in boxing. However, you're saying that chronological age is set in stone and that someone who is older but has less work and fights, has less wear and tear must still be more shot. Hopkins, at 45, just put a whipping on a 27 year old prime guy and didn't look a day over thirty. His age means very, very little. He was in his prime years at 35. Mike Tyson was shot in his late twenties. Shot. Lewis was not. He fought on brilliantly as good as he ever had into his thirties. Their chronological age had nothing to do with their boxing age. It meant nothing. Talking about someone at 109 years old? Come on man....There is a common factor with chronological age, but it can vary too much to be set in stone and has more to do with fights, wear and tear, age started, style of fighting etc.

What I'm trying to say is that chronological age is pretty common in that someone at 30-35 will usually start slowing down and someone at 25 will be in their prime. However, what I meant by chronological age meaning nothing in boxing is that a guy can be shot at 25 and another can be in his prime at 35. Are you going to argue that Calzaghe was as shot at 30 as Jeff Lacy was at 30?

Taking it to the ridiculous extreme of someone at 109 years old could be great and a 2 year old could also fight Mike Tyson or whatever is just plain idiotic and takes it out of the obvious context of what boxing is in.

No one fights at 109 or 2. Stop being deliberately thick. We are talking about boxing and it's typical framework of age.

We saw Wilfred Benitez beating a prime ATG at 17 years old. He couldn't beat a second rate contender in his late 20s and was shot by 25 or so.

Are you saying that your opinion is that he was still in his prime just because he was only 25? Are you saying it's your opinion that Hopkins was more shot than Roy Jones because he was older? Are you saying that Juan Manuel Marquez was more shot than Barrera when Marquez beat him because he was older?

[Toney616]

We saw Wilfred Benitez beating a prime ATG at 17 years old. He couldn't beat a second rate contender in his late 20s and was shot by 25 or so.

I heard this a number of times, what happened to him? Why was he a shot fighter at such a young age?

[Joeyzagz]

I heard this a number of times, what happened to him? Why was he a shot fighter at such a young age?

Being shot from punishment is a totally separate issue from age. Lennox went through way more punishment and hell from 1991-2001 than Tyson did. Tyson was not SHOT by any means, and was as capable of beating scrubs in his 30's as he was when he was younger.

Here is a comparison of the current heavyweight champ and the so-called shot-Tyson.

[sonnyboyx2]

Being shot from punishment is a totally separate issue from age. Lennox went through way more punishment and hell from 1991-2001 than Tyson did. Tyson was not SHOT by any means, and was as capable of beating scrubs in his 30's as he was when he was younger.

Here is a comparison of the current heavyweight champ and the so-called shot-Tyson.

Botha was winning that fight with Tyson doing nothing but fouling by trying to break Bothas arm.. The last thing a boxer loses is his punch and Tysons punch got him the victory in that fight.. Tyson had zero head movement, no bobbing & weaving or slipping punches... "He was Shot"

[JAB5239]

Botha was winning that fight with Tyson doing nothing but fouling by trying to break Bothas arm.. The last thing a boxer loses is his punch and Tysons punch got him the victory in that fight.. Tyson had zero head movement, no bobbing & weaving or slipping punches... "He was Shot"

Sorry Zags, Sonny is right. Tyson was getting schooled and outside that one punch didn't look to be half the fighter he was at his best.