Better FINISHER: Pacquiao or (PRIME 80s) Tyson

[them_apples]

Yes, but in a fight to the death, who would you rather be? That 200 lb kid that is living or the 130 lb kid that is dead?
Now, who is the best?
The answer: the result.


That's what the Greeks wanted to find out...who was the best.

When Tyson lost to Douglas, who mentioned the size difference?

Funny thing is, Tyson was seen as a giant yet he was the one looking up to his opponents.

once again, that's not boxing then, that's just a fight to the death. You might as well allow wrestling and kicking if that's what you would want.

You are picking and choosing what you like.

Your idea of boxing is, any size, but only fists are allowed. That's still rules and a handi cap.

[Benny Leonard]

once again, that's not boxing then, that's just a fight to the death. You might as well allow wrestling and kicking if that's what you would want.

You are picking and choosing what you like.

Your idea of boxing is, any size, but only fists are allowed. That's still rules and a handi cap.

Ok, so let's go with the original way boxing was set-up as a sport.

One division.

Who is better?

[badass316]

Actually, yes. Remember, we use P4P when discussing the lower weight divisions...for a reason. Remember, again, ancient boxing had only one weight division, for a reason: to see who was ultimately the best.

I think Ali felt SRR was greater overall "P4P" wise but overall as far as who is the Greatest at the end of the day, without the P4P nonsense, he was. He was HW Champ...#1.

Oh really? Is that why Ali's name is always mentioned when people compose a top 10 or 15 P4P all-time great list? Ancient boxing had one division because it was "ancient." Like any sport it was still raw and yet to be refined to what it can ultimately become.

You can have your opinions on what Ali meant, but what I think is that he believed he was the greatest not just in any division but of all-time. So unless you have a quote from Ali that says he believes SRR was better than him, I'm sticking to my perception.

No, I am not contradicted myself. P4P is different than overall. P4P measures you by your size and how effective you are with your size compared to others your size. Pac has gone beyond his natural size limitations and beat higher opposition as he moved up compared to his "natural" size self. Now, I'm not saying Pac is necessarily better that way either, but that would be the debate for P4P who is better. Pac has the better names on that scale as well. Now were they at their best when he fought them? that's debatable too.
Tyson fought bigger fighters too, but were they better than Pac's bigger fighters? debate.
Tyson certainly never backed down from a fighter because he was "to tall" or was "to big" or didn't need "catch-weights."

Yes, you are contradicting yourself. P4P and "greater fighter" in general are pretty much the same thing. However you're implying that Tyson's size is what ultimately gives him the edge on being the better fighter which is ridiculous.

And I think you also have a misunderstanding as to what P4P actually means. P4P rankings are made to determine who the best fighters are period, their size and weights are irrelevant. It isn't a list of just fighters matched with other fighters with the same size. If that was the case then we'd have more than 10 different P4P lists with each different weight classes.

Of course Tyson didn't duck anyone, he was Mike Tyson... The most "feared" man on the planet. People ducked him, not the other way around. And of course he didn't need "catch weights" he fought in the f'n HW division...

But on the other hand, you seem to be implying that Pacquiao ducked people like Yuri Foreman (too tall and big) and Shane Mosley (supposedly too good) when in fact he has never personally stated that he wouldn't fight either one. I mean this is Pacquiao were talking about here, the man whose fought basically everyone put in front of him ever since he's stepped foot on American soil, and you're claiming that he would personally not want to fight a rabbi that was too tall or big for him? Come on.

"Bigger" is a part of what you are. And you can be big and not know how to fight. In the end, Tyson was the greater fighter because he would win in a fight. Taking away size is like taking away other attributes, like power, speed, endurance, etc.
Pac isn't exactly a "expert" tactician either. Tyson was certainly better at moving his head and making people miss (when he was trained for it) compared to Pac. And Tyson's combinations and accuracy was better than Pac's.

Being big doesn't automatically make you the better fighter. If being big was ultimately the deciding factor in any physical combat then why isn't a HW considered the best P4P fighter in either boxing or MMA? Don't get me wrong size definitely helps, but it doesn't make or break a fighter. And it certainly doesn't draw the line on whom might be the better fighter between Pacquiao and Tyson.

I agree that Pacquiao isn't the best tactician, but he's vastly improved from the Pacquiao 5 years ago. You can't really say the same for Tyson either since he wasn't exactly the most technical fighter in his time.

And Tyson has had better combinations? So Mike's 2-3 punch combination is better than Pacquiao's 6-7-8 punch combinations? And I won't even get into the accuracy business since I don't feel like digging through Mike's compubox statistics and comparing the two. I'll leave that up to you if you want to prove me wrong on that particular subject.

[them_apples]

Ok, so let's go with the original way boxing was set-up as a sport.

One division.

Who is better?

so many sports were different when they were ancient.

They are no longer ancient.

Boxing is purely a skill based sport now. In my opinion WW should be the ideal division as it houses athletes that posses both speed, skill, power and reflexes.

[badass316]

Overall, when you want to get down to the truth, yeah.



Imagine only one division like they had in ancient boxing. Would Pac beat Ruiz?
And how would Ruiz fare against Pac's opposition and how would Pac fair against Ruiz's opposition?

The HW crown is the harder crown to win.

So let me get this straight... You think winning a HW title against someone like John Ruiz is the more difficult feat compared to winning multiple titles in multiple weight classes? I really don't know what to say anymore...

And no Pac wouldn't beat Ruiz because Ruiz outweighs him by over 50 pounds. Any HW with an ounce of talent can pry a HW title from Ruiz, all he needs is a jab and a ref not willing to let Ruiz hit and hold. Does this make Ruiz the better fighter? No, but apparently to you it does.

I like where this is going though... because from your logic you're basically implying that Ruiz is a better fighter than Pacquiao simply because he's "bigger."

[Benny Leonard]

=badass316;8896437]Oh really? Is that why Ali's name is always mentioned when people compose a top 10 or 15 P4P all-time great list? Ancient boxing had one division because it was "ancient." Like any sport it was still raw and yet to be refined to what it can ultimately become.

Is Ali always #1?

Disagree. It was a different time period. A period in which they were more curious to find "answers" then protect little boys from getting hurt.

They knew what nature was really about...what war was about. And there are no weight divisions and protection clauses available. Same reasons why Spartans chucked babies off the mountain if they were deemed unfit.

It was a time to see who was #1.

Life isn't "fair" and they knew it. Today, we have mothers/females that play a bigger part of things and want to pat us on the back for trying. And want to shelter us. Back then, stand up and fight.

Sam Langford knew what the deal was.

You can have your opinions on what Ali meant, but what I think is that he believed he was the greatest not just in any division but of all-time. So unless you have a quote from Ali that says he believes SRR was better than him, I'm sticking to my perception.

Don't have the video anymore. Do you?

We can judge it again. Haven't seen it in a while.

4:20


Not quite sure if it would be overall. He separated P4P vs. HW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Ray_Robinson

Yes, you are contradicting yourself. P4P and "greater fighter" in general are pretty much the same thing. However you're implying that Tyson's size is what ultimately gives him the edge on being the better fighter which is ridiculous.

NO it is not. Greater fighter is overall. P4P is specific to your ability for your weight.
It would be like, if Tyson was a 140 pound fighter like Pac, would he be as great as Pac?

Overall, Greater, is...who wins, Tyson vs. Pac (as they are)?

I understand your point, I really do. But in the end, who wins?

This is a one on one fight by the way.

And I think you also have a misunderstanding as to what P4P actually means. P4P rankings are made to determine who the best fighters are period, their size and weights are irrelevant. It isn't a list of just fighters matched with other fighters with the same size. If that was the case then we'd have more than 10 different P4P lists with each different weight classes.

NO, it separates; divides it. Best fighters are those who would actually win overall if it were only one weight division like the original boxing had.

Smaller fighters have an advantage to do things bigger guys don't have because smaller fighters tend to be more agile and have other attributes that tends to go away the bigger you are. That's what is amazing about Ali and Tyson. 200+ HWs that can move like they do and throw like they do with speed.

Of course Tyson didn't duck anyone, he was Mike Tyson... The most "feared" man on the planet. People ducked him, not the other way around. And of course he didn't need "catch weights" he fought in the f'n HW division...

Which makes him and his division better. You fight everybody regardless of height/weight.

But on the other hand, you seem to be implying that Pacquiao ducked people like Yuri Foreman (too tall and big) and Shane Mosley (supposedly too good) when in fact he has never personally stated that he wouldn't fight either one. I mean this is Pacquiao were talking about here, the man whose fought basically everyone put in front of him ever since he's stepped foot on American soil, and you're claiming that he would personally not want to fight a rabbi that was too tall or big for him? Come on.

Pac's ducking everybody above his weights if he doesn't fight them. Kuntz said Pac didn't want the rabbi because of his size.

Actually, he ducked Mosley.

Being big doesn't automatically make you the better fighter. If being big was ultimately the deciding factor in any physical combat then why isn't a HW considered the best P4P fighter in either boxing or MMA? Don't get me wrong size definitely helps, but it doesn't make or break a fighter. And it certainly doesn't draw the line on whom might be the better fighter between Pacquiao and Tyson.

Of course not. That was proven with smaller guys who won the HW crown. But the HW Champ is the best overall.

P4P is different than overall. Same reason why they separate the women from the men in most sports.

I agree that Pacquiao isn't the best tactician, but he's vastly improved from the Pacquiao 5 years ago. You can't really say the same for Tyson either since he wasn't exactly the most technical fighter in his time.

Damn close at his peak compared to Pac.

And Tyson has had better combinations? So Mike's 2-3 punch combination is better than Pacquiao's 6-7-8 punch combinations? And I won't even get into the accuracy business since I don't feel like digging through Mike's compubox statistics and comparing the two. I'll leave that up to you if you want to prove me wrong on that particular subject.

Pac's also hitting smaller height fighters. Tyson has to reach up against guys like 6'5 Biggs...which makes it difficult for a 5'11 fighter with a very small reach.

Pac is a small fighter so it is much easier to throw more than 2 punches in combinations. Very rare for 200+ HWs to throw combinations like Tyson.





It's more rare to see a 200+ HW throw like this than a small guy like Pac to throw like he does.

[big_james10]

Who is the better finisher? Pac or Mike?

That question can be answered with another question. How many times has Mike Tyson knocked a fighter down three times in the first round and still ended up with a disputed draw in which most observers favored his opponent?

[Benny Leonard]

So let me get this straight... You think winning a HW title against someone like John Ruiz is the more difficult feat compared to winning multiple titles in multiple weight classes? I really don't know what to say anymore...

And no Pac wouldn't beat Ruiz because Ruiz outweighs him by over 50 pounds. Any HW with an ounce of talent can pry a HW title from Ruiz, all he needs is a jab and a ref not willing to let Ruiz hit and hold. Does this make Ruiz the better fighter? No, but apparently to you it does.

I like where this is going though... because from your logic you're basically implying that Ruiz is a better fighter than Pacquiao simply because he's "bigger."

Greater, yes. More difficult is different. I'll make that more specific.

Sam Langford never used height or weight as an excuse. HWs don't use it either.

The better fighter is the guy who wins.

No, not because he is simply bigger...but because Ruiz would beat him.

Tyson was smaller than most of his opponents...example, Biggs...yet Tyson won. Was Biggs better than Tyson because he was bigger? No...because Tyson won.
We can do this with Sam Langford as well.


It's not exact but there is a point.
I understand the other side of this logic you are trying to do.

It's not who is better in the smaller package but who is overall better. Who gets across the finish line first. Who wins. That's who is better.

[treason1]

That question can be answered with another question. How many times has Mike Tyson knocked a fighter down three times in the first round and still ended up with a disputed draw in which most observers favored his opponent?

manny won that fight . if the idiot judge knew how to do simple math . anyway manny is a more feared puncher than tyson ever was ! just ask kfc who retired twice because of him ! kfc rather retire than go toe toe toe with the manila stud

[Benny Leonard]

so many sports were different when they were ancient.

They are no longer ancient.

Boxing is purely a skill based sport now. In my opinion WW should be the ideal division as it houses athletes that posses both speed, skill, power and reflexes.

Different, but not necessarily better. Although I do understand the reasoning on the other side and do agree with it as well on some level.

Ancient boxing still allowed you to see who would win overall.

We have divisions because we want to give certain people a chance to win. To feel good about themselves. To make it more fair for them to participate and compete.


How come basketball isn't divided up into divisions given most of those guys are 6'6+ and over 200 pounds. That seems unfair given there are 5'10 guys that are more skilled P4P wise than guys like Shaq who can't shoot for ****.