-
-
Wait. What? Lol If Tyson had beaten Holyfield and/or Lewis, I would consider them defining fights. Mike had no defining fights. He lost every fight that could’ve been career defining. It’s what really drags him down in the ATG heavyweight rankings. Don’t mean to turn this into a Tyson debate, but that statement was so glaring I just felt I had to call attention it.Comment
-
Mike Tyson lost some defining fights, correct. But he also in reality? Won his biggest most defining fights 'Trevor Berbick & Michael Spinks'.
Mike Tyson when he was matched vs Berbick, had to win that fight 'He had to win that fight, in 1986 ON THAT NIGHT'.
Mike Tyson not only won, he blasted out Berbick. Not just a defining win, but a defining performance.
Mike Tyson was in that exact same position again vs Michael Spinks. And again, not only did Mike Tyson win 'He produced a defining performance, a inspiring performance'.
All time great fighters, their legacies, are not just about statistics. They are about performances 'Its a movie scene, and image stuck in people's perceptions'.
You know about the saying, the three Mikes right? Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson and Mike Tyson.
Mike Tyson won his biggest and most defining fights, in the late 80's that is a fact.
If Mike Tyson had no defining fights, his boxing story and legacy would not be the most well known, inspiring and respected boxing legacy outside of Muhammad Ali's.
I am only telling you facts of boxing history mate 'Objective history'.
You mentioning Mike Tyson's loses, he has no bad loses. When you compare his resume, to many other all-time fighters. In everyone of his loses, Mike Tyson fought hard 'He was never blasted out, always showed courage and fought until there was no more'.
It does not matter what you consider to be defining fight, history and the universal perception of that particular time is what ultimately makes a defining fight.
Mike Tyson won two of his biggest most defining fights. Fights that defined a decade 'Mike Tyson as a Heavyweight was one of the most defining fighters of that era'.
In fact Mike Tyson was the most defining fighter of the 1980's.
Mike Tyson's rise and fall would not matter, the stories of him and Cus D'amato, Teddy Atlas, Kevin Rooney and all the trails and tribulations outside the ring. These stories would not really matter to the public or history 'If Mike Tyson would of not won his fights vs Berbick or Spinks'.
Mike Tyson was the bench mark even still in the 90's. Whenever another Heavyweight won a World title whether it was Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield or Rid**** Bowe, the question was always asked? When are you going to fight Mike Tyson? And Mike Tyson was elevated to this position, beyond statistics, beyond the typical boxing rankings 'Because of the shock waves produced from his performances in those defining fights were still traveling and circulating'.
That is what happens when a fighter wins a defining fight. And the difference with Mike Tyson, is that HIS defining wins and fights. Were not just defining fights in his career, they were defining fights in boxing history 'Nobody who knows boxing, a values boxing history can object and disagree with that statement I have just made with any real conviction'.
Without a shadow of a doubt, 1000% Mike Tyson when you really analyse his career 'Won his most important and defining fights'. The fights he had to win, ON THAT NIGHT, there and then 'At that time'.
Last edited by PRINCEKOOL; 01-19-2023, 09:07 PM.Comment
-
GGG's career could have been more than it is
As I stated before....too many God damned practice fights !!!
500 amateur fights ?!?!?!? How much did he make off of them combined ?!?!?
Talking about how anyone can get it
Only if his name is Nelo and the price is right
Remove Nelo and there is no resume to speak of.
Had he kept his promise and chased greatness, even if he failed, it would have been a beneficial learning and marketing experience.
Anything would have been better than the garbage he was fighting in his PRIME.
As it stands, he is a HOFer by default.
His career highlight is almost beating Nelo
Comment
-
I love how people gloss over the blatant ducking of Golovkin in his prime. "He only won this many belts in the ring." Well yeah, when guys are literally giving them up, what the **** are you supposed to do? And at least Golovkin didn't have pointless rematches during his title defenses like Hopkins did. I could only imagine the **** he would receive if he would have done that.Last edited by AKAcronym; 01-20-2023, 01:10 AM.Comment
-
Golovkin was already established by the time I came back to boxing. So I didn't follow his rise. I liked his story and wanted to support him, but after Canelo 2, he just wasn't the same. He wasn't even the same in Canelo 2, telling Canelo to fight him Mexican style and then him not doing it IMO. After that, where were the good fights? Seems like he just wanted to play out his days fighting no-namers for ez $ and then retire.
As for the earlier fights he didn't get... Some say he was ducked. Some say there were no good opponents till he was 35. Others say he was going the easy route. I don't know, boxing isn't like it was when I was young, so maybe it could be all of those. I still don't understand why Beterbiev hasn't fought Bivol by now, or why Gervonte Davis still has a belt. None of it makes sense to a guy who wants to watch the best fight the best.
But not an all-time great imo. Maybe a top middleweight.Comment
Tweet
Comment