Tweet
The Tyson hate is real (and irrational).
1. We are punishing Tyson for being more GIFTED and PRECOCIOUS (I know, SAT word) than Lewis and Holyfield - both boxers are OLDER than Tyson, but I don't hear anybody *****ing about how they ducked Tyson in the late 80s. Why?
Because they were not even in Tyson's UNIVERSE as a fighter despite being older, they weren't even GOOD ENOUGH to have accrued a resume to fight Tyson at the time. The same Tyson you guys love to slander, at 18 years old, was making GROWN MEN piss in their pants. He beat Holmes in a way we've never seen him been beat - and he's a top 10 ALL TIME GREAT. But since it's Tyson, you have to pretend like Mike Tyson wasn't the FIRST and ONLY human being to knock out legendary Larry Holmes who was quite literally, by resume, Marciano 2.0. If Holmes beats Spinx, he beats Marciano's undefeated record. But because your agenda is to put down Tyson you have to pretend like Tyson didn't KNOCK OUT one of the most unknockable fighters ever.
If anybody on here truly believes that Mike Tyson in his peak wouldn't have beaten everybody in HW history short of Ali, you are delusional (see, there's the sycophantic, hyperbolic, "nuthugger" sensationalism you guys have been strawmanning!). Seriously though, I know a lot of boxing trainers who make even taller fighters study Tyson. His power mechanics were UNRIVALED.
So Lewis and Holyfield get a pass for beating up on a post-jail Tyson trying to cash in on pay cheques to service his growing debt, but Tyson gets ZERO credit for destroying two all time greats in Holmes and Spinx?
The SAME Holmes took Evander 12 rounds. He destroyed Spinx, who is an ATG LW.
He beat Ruddock bad (and Tyson was past his prime). Tyson beat the same guys that gave BOTH Evander and Lewis problems. Styles make fights, but Tyson adapted his game depending on the opponent (pre-Rooney firing). He could fire hooks and uppercuts from unconventional angles, he had the foot speed to cut the ring in half and because he had KO power in BOTH hands, he narrowed the defensive range of his opponent.
After reading this post, all 15 pages of mostly prejudiced, uninformed drivel (how many quality wins does Rocky Marciano have?), im not any wiser. I do know that there are a lot of boxing "aficinados" who are dumb enough to think that Rocky Marciano, who struggled with Jersey Walcott, would beat peak Tyson - LMAO. Im laughing. Do y'all watch actual tape or just parrot whatever Bert Sugar said?
Oh and anybody making a top 10 list, sorry but Liston and Frazier aren't beating Tyson - seriously, cmon guys, watch the tape. It's all there. Tyson was a faster, more powerful version of Liston and Frazier (liston's lack of foot movement would've been night night for him). Frazier had a great chin, but was a worse version of Tyson and couldnt generate the power with his right that made his left so lethal.
Tyson lost 4 years in prison and spiraled out of control because BEFORE jail he was already a problem (38 arrests by the age of 13, cmon guys). How can tyson's comically crazy life (he beat Spinx with his d&%$ burning from gonorrhea) not be factored into this?
You guys act like ANY top 10 is simply a list of resume instead of what it is: a somewhat arbitrary and biases listing of your favorite fighters whose ranking is predicated on 'how defensible is my argument if somebody doesn't like where I put him."
1. Ali - In his prime, unparalleled quickness and foot speed, beat Frazier, Liston, Foreman. His resume is untouchable. GOAT.
2. Tyson - there's a reason we typically omit fighters from the 1800s and fighters who did NOT fight black fighters, it's called CONTEXT. The same reason why nobody is going coo coo for coco puffs over Wilder's current W-L record is because we all KNOW he hasn't really fought anybody. CONTEXT. So this idea that the "resume speaks for itself" is idiocy. Tyson was the most precocious heavyweight ever, nobody will do at the HW division what he did at 18,19, 20, 21. NOBODY. He didn't even scratch his full potential and he STILL dominated. His ability to seamlessly switch from Orthodoxy to Southpaw depending on his opponents lead hand the back foot is the kind of next-level ring IQ the boxing neophytes on this blog seem to miss.
George Foreman said it best, "if he had only kept it up for 4 more years, I'd put him right there with Joe Louis (Foreman's GOAT)" But you guys on Boxingscene.com know more than George Foreman, right?
3. Joe Louis - 12 years at the top
4. Foreman - in his peak a MACHINE
5. Marciano - he fought bums and tomato cans - never gets called out for it - but he did what you're supposed to do, WIN
6. Holmes - he was one fight away from eclipsing Marciano, and did it vs better opposition
7. Holyfield/Lewis - Tied (Longevity and endurance come to mind, along with an iron chin and a great jab)
8. Frazier - At his peak, was Tyson before Tyson
9. Jack Johnson - Ahead of his time
10. Vitali K. - Consistency is a virtue
Honorable Mention:
Sonny Liston
Dempsey
Wladimir K
Haters gonna hate (but let's stop pretending like you're being "objective")....Please, call me a nut hugger. But before you do, go back and watch the tape. Watch him reorient opponents with a lead left until to counter with a lead right - from the same stance. His head movement was artistic, something Frazier couldve been much better at.
Tyson is definitely a top HW and if you don't think so you're either lying to yourself because you don't like him, or lying to yourself because you don't watch enough boxing but think you do. He's top 3 most talented boxers ever, regardless of weight class.
But we get it, anybody who alleges Tyson's greatness is a low IQ sycophant (masters degree in steady state photonics aka Physics) with only a dearth of experience (been boxing since I was 14 - family members who are either fighters of trainers) and is likely young (I'm in my 30s). I hope all rebuttals have been serviced. Very disappointed in the lack of knowledgeable 'takes' on the subject.
Oh and he never ducked Foreman or Holyfield, if anything THEY ducked him. Foreman wanted a title fight he didn't yet deserve (and after seeing how badly Foreman got pummelled by Holyfield, Tyson wouldve wrecked him), and Holyfield was supposed to fight Mike but Jail happened. Tyson > Lewis/Holyfield.
But hey, since Ali lost to Norton and Spinx, lets put them ahead of Ali too! (See how ****** that line of reasoning sounds?)
"A lie told often enough becomes truth" - Lenin
1. We are punishing Tyson for being more GIFTED and PRECOCIOUS (I know, SAT word) than Lewis and Holyfield - both boxers are OLDER than Tyson, but I don't hear anybody *****ing about how they ducked Tyson in the late 80s. Why?
Because they were not even in Tyson's UNIVERSE as a fighter despite being older, they weren't even GOOD ENOUGH to have accrued a resume to fight Tyson at the time. The same Tyson you guys love to slander, at 18 years old, was making GROWN MEN piss in their pants. He beat Holmes in a way we've never seen him been beat - and he's a top 10 ALL TIME GREAT. But since it's Tyson, you have to pretend like Mike Tyson wasn't the FIRST and ONLY human being to knock out legendary Larry Holmes who was quite literally, by resume, Marciano 2.0. If Holmes beats Spinx, he beats Marciano's undefeated record. But because your agenda is to put down Tyson you have to pretend like Tyson didn't KNOCK OUT one of the most unknockable fighters ever.
If anybody on here truly believes that Mike Tyson in his peak wouldn't have beaten everybody in HW history short of Ali, you are delusional (see, there's the sycophantic, hyperbolic, "nuthugger" sensationalism you guys have been strawmanning!). Seriously though, I know a lot of boxing trainers who make even taller fighters study Tyson. His power mechanics were UNRIVALED.
So Lewis and Holyfield get a pass for beating up on a post-jail Tyson trying to cash in on pay cheques to service his growing debt, but Tyson gets ZERO credit for destroying two all time greats in Holmes and Spinx?
The SAME Holmes took Evander 12 rounds. He destroyed Spinx, who is an ATG LW.
He beat Ruddock bad (and Tyson was past his prime). Tyson beat the same guys that gave BOTH Evander and Lewis problems. Styles make fights, but Tyson adapted his game depending on the opponent (pre-Rooney firing). He could fire hooks and uppercuts from unconventional angles, he had the foot speed to cut the ring in half and because he had KO power in BOTH hands, he narrowed the defensive range of his opponent.
After reading this post, all 15 pages of mostly prejudiced, uninformed drivel (how many quality wins does Rocky Marciano have?), im not any wiser. I do know that there are a lot of boxing "aficinados" who are dumb enough to think that Rocky Marciano, who struggled with Jersey Walcott, would beat peak Tyson - LMAO. Im laughing. Do y'all watch actual tape or just parrot whatever Bert Sugar said?
Oh and anybody making a top 10 list, sorry but Liston and Frazier aren't beating Tyson - seriously, cmon guys, watch the tape. It's all there. Tyson was a faster, more powerful version of Liston and Frazier (liston's lack of foot movement would've been night night for him). Frazier had a great chin, but was a worse version of Tyson and couldnt generate the power with his right that made his left so lethal.
Tyson lost 4 years in prison and spiraled out of control because BEFORE jail he was already a problem (38 arrests by the age of 13, cmon guys). How can tyson's comically crazy life (he beat Spinx with his d&%$ burning from gonorrhea) not be factored into this?
You guys act like ANY top 10 is simply a list of resume instead of what it is: a somewhat arbitrary and biases listing of your favorite fighters whose ranking is predicated on 'how defensible is my argument if somebody doesn't like where I put him."
1. Ali - In his prime, unparalleled quickness and foot speed, beat Frazier, Liston, Foreman. His resume is untouchable. GOAT.
2. Tyson - there's a reason we typically omit fighters from the 1800s and fighters who did NOT fight black fighters, it's called CONTEXT. The same reason why nobody is going coo coo for coco puffs over Wilder's current W-L record is because we all KNOW he hasn't really fought anybody. CONTEXT. So this idea that the "resume speaks for itself" is idiocy. Tyson was the most precocious heavyweight ever, nobody will do at the HW division what he did at 18,19, 20, 21. NOBODY. He didn't even scratch his full potential and he STILL dominated. His ability to seamlessly switch from Orthodoxy to Southpaw depending on his opponents lead hand the back foot is the kind of next-level ring IQ the boxing neophytes on this blog seem to miss.
George Foreman said it best, "if he had only kept it up for 4 more years, I'd put him right there with Joe Louis (Foreman's GOAT)" But you guys on Boxingscene.com know more than George Foreman, right?
3. Joe Louis - 12 years at the top
4. Foreman - in his peak a MACHINE
5. Marciano - he fought bums and tomato cans - never gets called out for it - but he did what you're supposed to do, WIN
6. Holmes - he was one fight away from eclipsing Marciano, and did it vs better opposition
7. Holyfield/Lewis - Tied (Longevity and endurance come to mind, along with an iron chin and a great jab)
8. Frazier - At his peak, was Tyson before Tyson
9. Jack Johnson - Ahead of his time
10. Vitali K. - Consistency is a virtue
Honorable Mention:
Sonny Liston
Dempsey
Wladimir K
Haters gonna hate (but let's stop pretending like you're being "objective")....Please, call me a nut hugger. But before you do, go back and watch the tape. Watch him reorient opponents with a lead left until to counter with a lead right - from the same stance. His head movement was artistic, something Frazier couldve been much better at.
Tyson is definitely a top HW and if you don't think so you're either lying to yourself because you don't like him, or lying to yourself because you don't watch enough boxing but think you do. He's top 3 most talented boxers ever, regardless of weight class.
But we get it, anybody who alleges Tyson's greatness is a low IQ sycophant (masters degree in steady state photonics aka Physics) with only a dearth of experience (been boxing since I was 14 - family members who are either fighters of trainers) and is likely young (I'm in my 30s). I hope all rebuttals have been serviced. Very disappointed in the lack of knowledgeable 'takes' on the subject.
Oh and he never ducked Foreman or Holyfield, if anything THEY ducked him. Foreman wanted a title fight he didn't yet deserve (and after seeing how badly Foreman got pummelled by Holyfield, Tyson wouldve wrecked him), and Holyfield was supposed to fight Mike but Jail happened. Tyson > Lewis/Holyfield.
But hey, since Ali lost to Norton and Spinx, lets put them ahead of Ali too! (See how ****** that line of reasoning sounds?)
"A lie told often enough becomes truth" - Lenin
Comment