No boxer could have beat Mike Tyson on the 22nd of November, 1986

[SABBATH]

Recent picture off the juice...



Look at his much smaller neck, skinny forearms and narrow shoulders

Another recent picture at 190 lbs with small shoulders and a 17 inch neck...

[micky_knox]

Another recent picture at 190 lbs with small shoulders and a 17 inch neck...

nobody cares anymore

[BKM-]

Oh my god! Did you go to school? What education DO you have? I honestly don't think you were born with a fully functional brain!

The people who were "as big as Walcott and Charles" who fought in the cruiserweight division during Tyson's era, aren't mentioned in heavyweight lists because THEY DIDN'T FIGHT AT HEAVYWEIGHT YOU ****ING TOOL!

"The bigger you are, the slower you become". No **** sherlock. Did you figure that out on your own? What I'm saying is the heavies who weighed around 240 who had quick hands, therefore had quicker hands than Tyson because they were heavier. That is what your argument suggests!!!

When someone argues with me about Walcott having faster hands than Ali, I don't say, "Oh but Ali weighed more, so its bull****". Why? Because the heavyweight division has no weight limit, because its minimum weight is deemed to be the weight where a fighter can be competitive with a fighter any weight above them? Understand? Therefore it doesn't matter what you weigh in that division, you are still a heavyweight.

Now, POUND FOR POUND, Tyson had faster hands that Walcott, or Charles. However, as heavyweights, Walcott had faster hands. GET IT? Just like, POUND FOR POUND, Rocky Marciano hit harder than Mike Tyson, but as heavyweights in general, Tyson hit harder? OKAY? Can that tiny little ball of snot inside your head comprehend this?

P.S... they were over 200 many times... get over it.

Temper.. I see you just saw the light because of my post.

Its all about weights ****head. Most of their opponents were Cruiserweights. Maybe not as small as the fighters Charles or Wallcott fought, but they weren't real heavyweights. And like i said(And listen well, because your concrete skull with rotten brains may catch this) THEY WERE SMALLER THAN TYSON AND FOUGHT SMALLER FIGHTERS THAN TYSON. Therefor you cant compare them P4P with Tyson. Since weights dont matter to you, Roy Jones Was the fastest HW of all time. But you wouldn't say that about Roy would you? Because he fought smaller opponents most of his career. Owned.

So can you just think for a second about their size and weight ONLY. Not the rules of the heavyweight division, how many HW belts they won in those eras, how they were listed in all time lists. Those are just false arguments that dont have anything to do with my posts. Typical Ali nuthugger that makes things up and tries to make it a slanging argument

So according to you, Roy Jones is the fastest HW of all time because he was as small as Charles and Wallcott, but just forget about his weight and size. Its doesnt matter that they weren't heavyweights. Im done with you. Your worthless Ali nuthugging posts shouldn't be on this forum. your arguments has been shattered anyway. Read the bold parts everytime you feel like disagreeing ok?

[hellfire508]

Temper.. I see you just saw the light because of my post.

Its all about weights ****head. Most of their opponents were Cruiserweights. Maybe not as small as the fighters Charles or Wallcott fought, but they weren't real heavyweights. And like i said(And listen well, because your concrete skull with rotten brains may catch this) THEY WERE SMALLER THAN TYSON AND FOUGHT SMALLER FIGHTERS THAN TYSON. Therefor you cant compare them P4P with Tyson. Since weights dont matter to you, Roy Jones Was the fastest HW of all time. But you wouldn't say that about Roy would you? Because he fought smaller opponents most of his career. Owned.

So can you just think for a second about their size and weight ONLY. Not the rules of the heavyweight division, how many HW belts they won in those eras, how they were listed in all time lists. Those are just false arguments that dont have anything to do with my posts. Typical Ali nuthugger that makes things up and tries to make it a slanging argument

So according to you, Roy Jones is the fastest HW of all time because he was as small as Charles and Wallcott, but just forget about his weight and size. Its doesnt matter that they weren't heavyweights. Im done with you. Your worthless Ali nuthugging posts shouldn't be on this forum. your arguments has been shattered anyway. Read the bold parts everytime you feel like disagreeing ok?

You can't just "forget about the rules" like you say. The rules are the rules.

But I'll play it your way, as you are too one-dimensional to think outside your slanted viewpoint. Roy Jones the fastest heavyweight? No. Why? Because he had 53 fights, and fought just one fight at heavyweight. Does that make him a heavyweight? No. Did he stay at heavyweight after that fight? No. When you spend 52 fights at 160, 168 and 175, and 1 fight at HW, you are not a heavyweight, ESPECIALLY when you go back down in weight. However, if you say, "the heavyweight version of Jones had the fastest hands in HW history", that is a legit argument. But personally, I wouldn't rank him in lists, unless you were going by versions of fighters. (eg. 1. Jones against Ruiz, 2. Ali against London.. etc).

I just read the bit where I got "owned" apparently. . Because he fought smaller opponents most of his career? No. Its because he fought at lower WEIGHT CLASSES most of his career. Not just MOST, 98% of his pro career was spent at lower weights. You know how many Charles had at heavyweight? Something like 70 fights!!!! He is a legit heavyweight. So by your argument, Dempsey, Marciano etc. are not heavyweights, therefore cannot be ranked in lists, because they were sub-200? Hell, they both weighed less than Walcott and Charles most of their careers! Mike Tyson's hero, Jack Dempsey, was never a legit heavyweight... get a new hero Mike.

Yes, its official people. Rocky Marciano, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson (who weighed under 200 several times), and maybe even Joe Louis can no longer be ranked in ATG lists, cos they weren't heavyweights... as well as Charles and Walcott.

[butterfly1964]

You can't just "forget about the rules" like you say. The rules are the rules.

But I'll play it your way, as you are too one-dimensional to think outside your slanted viewpoint. Roy Jones the fastest heavyweight? No. Why? Because he had 53 fights, and fought just one fight at heavyweight. Does that make him a heavyweight? No. Did he stay at heavyweight after that fight? No. When you spend 52 fights at 160, 168 and 175, and 1 fight at HW, you are not a heavyweight, ESPECIALLY when you go back down in weight. However, if you say, "the heavyweight version of Jones had the fastest hands in HW history", that is a legit argument. But personally, I wouldn't rank him in lists, unless you were going by versions of fighters. (eg. 1. Jones against Ruiz, 2. Ali against London.. etc).

I just read the bit where I got "owned" apparently. . Because he fought smaller opponents most of his career? No. Its because he fought at lower WEIGHT CLASSES most of his career. Not just MOST, 98% of his pro career was spent at lower weights. You know how many Charles had at heavyweight? Something like 70 fights!!!! He is a legit heavyweight. So by your argument, Dempsey, Marciano etc. are not heavyweights, therefore cannot be ranked in lists, because they were sub-200? Hell, they both weighed less than Walcott and Charles most of their careers! Mike Tyson's hero, Jack Dempsey, was never a legit heavyweight... get a new hero Mike.

Yes, its official people. Rocky Marciano, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson (who weighed under 200 several times), and maybe even Joe Louis can no longer be ranked in ATG lists, cos they weren't heavyweights... as well as Charles and Walcott.

good post. Yaman is owned!

[Southpaw Stinger]

You can't just "forget about the rules" like you say. The rules are the rules.

But I'll play it your way, as you are too one-dimensional to think outside your slanted viewpoint. Roy Jones the fastest heavyweight? No. Why? Because he had 53 fights, and fought just one fight at heavyweight. Does that make him a heavyweight? No. Did he stay at heavyweight after that fight? No. When you spend 52 fights at 160, 168 and 175, and 1 fight at HW, you are not a heavyweight, ESPECIALLY when you go back down in weight. However, if you say, "the heavyweight version of Jones had the fastest hands in HW history", that is a legit argument. But personally, I wouldn't rank him in lists, unless you were going by versions of fighters. (eg. 1. Jones against Ruiz, 2. Ali against London.. etc).

I just read the bit where I got "owned" apparently. . Because he fought smaller opponents most of his career? No. Its because he fought at lower WEIGHT CLASSES most of his career. Not just MOST, 98% of his pro career was spent at lower weights. You know how many Charles had at heavyweight? Something like 70 fights!!!! He is a legit heavyweight. So by your argument, Dempsey, Marciano etc. are not heavyweights, therefore cannot be ranked in lists, because they were sub-200? Hell, they both weighed less than Walcott and Charles most of their careers! Mike Tyson's hero, Jack Dempsey, was never a legit heavyweight... get a new hero Mike.

Yes, its official people. Rocky Marciano, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson (who weighed under 200 several times), and maybe even Joe Louis can no longer be ranked in ATG lists, cos they weren't heavyweights... as well as Charles and Walcott.

Indeed Yaman was owned. But he'll make a comeback.

[BKM-]

You can't just "forget about the rules" like you say. The rules are the rules.

But I'll play it your way, as you are too one-dimensional to think outside your slanted viewpoint. Roy Jones the fastest heavyweight? No. Why? Because he had 53 fights, and fought just one fight at heavyweight. Does that make him a heavyweight? No. Did he stay at heavyweight after that fight? No. When you spend 52 fights at 160, 168 and 175, and 1 fight at HW, you are not a heavyweight, ESPECIALLY when you go back down in weight. However, if you say, "the heavyweight version of Jones had the fastest hands in HW history", that is a legit argument. But personally, I wouldn't rank him in lists, unless you were going by versions of fighters. (eg. 1. Jones against Ruiz, 2. Ali against London.. etc).

I just read the bit where I got "owned" apparently. . Because he fought smaller opponents most of his career? No. Its because he fought at lower WEIGHT CLASSES most of his career. Not just MOST, 98% of his pro career was spent at lower weights. You know how many Charles had at heavyweight? Something like 70 fights!!!! He is a legit heavyweight. So by your argument, Dempsey, Marciano etc. are not heavyweights, therefore cannot be ranked in lists, because they were sub-200? Hell, they both weighed less than Walcott and Charles most of their careers! Mike Tyson's hero, Jack Dempsey, was never a legit heavyweight... get a new hero Mike.

Yes, its official people. Rocky Marciano, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson (who weighed under 200 several times), and maybe even Joe Louis can no longer be ranked in ATG lists, cos they weren't heavyweights... as well as Charles and Walcott.

rules are rules in different conversations. When discussing P4P, some rules dont count, wich you point out everytime when i tell you to stop kidding yourself. For example, Tyson had nearly 40 pounds on Wallcott, Charles etc. Sure they fought some heavyweights that were pretty big..but what does that have to do with P4P? Isn't it obvious that Mike is something more special when it comes down to speed? and when we're talking about the modern Heavyweights, they are ATLEAST over 215 pounds. Muhammad Ali just squeezes in there with those guys. Thats why i said that you cant compare those guys to Tyson, because 1: size difference that favors the oldies in many ways, and 2: Ali's and Tyson's era start out with diffirent kind of fighters. Thats why you cant compare them to Iron Mike.

Funny how you point out Roy Jones' fight as a heavyweight and compare them to Charles. But in the end, Roy was a heavyweight because he COULD have fought more fights at heavy. Since you dont care about pound for pound, i guess even this arguments supports mine .

''Charles was a legit HW''. But hellfire, aren't we comparing him to Tyson? Oh yeah thats right. Wich means that Tyson was the bigger man, fought the bigger guys, and still is as fast as him. Wich means that you cant compare him to Tyson p4p.

Thank you. I was in a better mood this time Good for you.

[BKM-]

good post. Yaman is owned!

Sure i am. I mean thats why i just supported my argument with solid facts .

Indeed Yaman was owned. But he'll make a comeback.

Would you like to join us mate?

[catskills23]

rules are rules in different conversations. When discussing P4P, some rules dont count, wich you point out everytime when i tell you to stop kidding yourself. For example, Tyson had nearly 40 pounds on Wallcott, Charles etc. Sure they fought some heavyweights that were pretty big..but what does that have to do with P4P? Isn't it obvious that Mike is something more special when it comes down to speed? and when we're talking about the modern Heavyweights, they are ATLEAST over 215 pounds. Muhammad Ali just squeezes in there with those guys. Thats why i said that you cant compare those guys to Tyson, because 1: size difference that favors the oldies in many ways, and 2: Ali's and Tyson's era start out with diffirent kind of fighters. Thats why you cant compare them to Iron Mike.

Funny how you point out Roy Jones' fight as a heavyweight and compare them to Charles. But in the end, Roy was a heavyweight because he COULD have fought more fights at heavy. Since you dont care about pound for pound, i guess even this arguments supports mine .

''Charles was a legit HW''. But hellfire, aren't we comparing him to Tyson? Oh yeah thats right. Wich means that Tyson was the bigger man, fought the bigger guys, and still is as fast as him. Wich means that you cant compare him to Tyson p4p.

Thank you. I was in a better mood this time Good for you.

tyson was faster than charles or walcott. The only heavyweight faster than tyson was ali.Tyson could throw a four punch combination in a second.

[Southpaw Stinger]

Sure i am. I mean thats why i just supported my argument with solid facts .



Would you like to join us mate?

I told you he'd be back!