Better FINISHER: Pacquiao or (PRIME 80s) Tyson

[badass316]

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.

No Ali wasn't always #1, but he found himself in the top 10 most of the time. Which pretty much pours water on your point that P4P was only for the lower weights. Which is one of the many points I was tying to make.

What's with all of these historical analogies? War? Spartans? I don't mean to sound like a ****, but these historical analogies have nothing to do with boxing or the topic we're discussing.

Boxing may not be nearly as competitive back in its glory days, but fighters are still fighting to determine who the best is out there (except for PBF apparently), whether it be in the featherweight or the heavyweight division. And I can't help but notice that this "protection" propaganda you're trying to convey is mainly directed towards Pacquiao, when in fact I've never heard him openly say he wasn't willing to fight a certain fighter. If you're so aginst protected fighters you must really hate PBF's guts (seeing as he's the most protected fighter of all).

Don't have the video anymore. Do you?

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

Not quite sure if it would be overall. He separated P4P vs. HW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Ray_Robinson

I stand corrected. I always assumed he referred to himself as the greatest of all-time (not just HW in particular).

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.

Then answer me this. Why is it that the people in the top 10 P4P list are not all of the same weight class? If it is "specific" to a certain weight like you're making it out to be, then why make an overall P4P ranking list rather than categorizing each fighter into their respective weights (I know they do that as well, but what's the point of an overall P4P ranking nonetheless if what you say is true?)

I think the concept of "size matters" is escaping you. One on One Pacquiao vs Tyson, of course Tyson wins strictly because of his size. Does it mean he's the greater fighter in terms of ability, skill, and accomplishments? No. The only thing that Tyson proves by beating someone who he outweighs by 60-70 pounds is that size plays an important factor especially if its such a huge discrepancy.

What I'm ultimately getting from you is that size is the ultimate deciding factor on who the greater the fighter is (at least between these two anyway, well I guess everything as a whole since you think the HWs are the cream de la cream).

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.

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

Again so you think, the fighters in the HW would automatically triumph over the smaller guys, which in theory should be accurate. But like I said before, being bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. We can pit SSR against Wlad and Wlad probably knocks him out cold, but does this make Wlad the greater fighter? No. It simply means the size discrepancy was too much for SSR to overcome. Can you imagine going around the boxing community claiming that Wlad is a greater fighter than SRR because if they ever laced em up he would F him up? You would never hear the end of it.

And you can throw in the fact that if the smaller guy is not that much smaller, lets say 180-190 range, he can still put the 220 pound guy on his ass. But with regards to the two we're discussing (pac and tyson) the size gap is too big for anything of that nature to happen.

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.

He's ducking everyone if he doesn't fight them? That's absurd. Since stepping into the WW division he's fought two legitimate top 5 WWs (you can even argue top 3) in the division in Cotto and Clottey. The only real person he hasn't really fought is Mosley (he opted to fight the guy that beat him instead. So I see no reason to gripe about this) and PBF (who seems hell bent on moving the goal posts every time Pacquiao's side tries to compromise).

Again if you're gullible enough to believe that Pacquiao himself didn't want any part of the rabbi because he was too big and tall then you have blinders on with anything regarding Pacquiao. I can understand not wanting to fight him because he brings nothing to the table (aside from holding a belt), but to ensue that Pacquiao wanted no part of him because he was too much (too big and tall) is well... idiotic.

So now he ducked Mosley because Roach said he didn't want Manny fighting him? Did Manny himself say he wanted no part of mosley like the way PBF said he didn't want any part of Margs when Margs hounded him? Ask yourself this. If the mosley that showed up in the PBF fight fought Pacquiao what do you think would happen?

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.

They're the best overall because of their size, not because they have the most ability/skill. Again, P4P is your overall ability/skill with comparison to all the other fighters you're being compared with.

Your definition of overall seems to just hang on the fact that "If boxer A can beat boxer B in a no weight class fight then he's the greater fighter." Which I find to be a bit lacking, because your completely neglecting all logic which pertains to size and weight advantages/disadvantages.

Damn close at his peak compared to Pac.

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.

Well since Mike was never really that technical even at his speak you're deducing that Pacquiao (right now) pretty much has no technical skills what so ever then?

Don't get me wrong, Mike Tyson was a marvel to be hold in his days. There may never be another Mike Tyson, but there's also a reason why he isn't considered a top 20 ATG.

[badass316]

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.

What? If you think something is greater then it's obviously more difficult, otherwise you wouldn't think it's greater.

We don't live in a perfect world. The better fighter doesn't "always" win. Upsets happen, not just in boxing, but in every sport.

So again, you're implying that between Ruiz and Pacquiao, Ruiz is the greater fighter. And he'd beat him not just because he's bigger, but he's just flat out better (ability/skill/intangibles/the works). I don't understand how you can justify this train of thought. But I guess everyone is entitled to their opinions.

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.

And here is the conundrum you've put yourself in. Basically what I've been getting from you is that the HWs are superior to everyone because they're HWs (bigger than everyone). Hence why the HW crown is the ultimate prize in boxing (which technically it is). I mean how on earth would John Ruiz ever beat someone as good as Pacquiao if he didn't have a distinct size advantage.

Biggs lost to Tyson because he was a bum compared to him. Tyson was just superior in pretty much every aspect. His superiority in those certain aspects was enough to overcome the size difference (although the size difference is nowhere near as absurd as Pacquiao vs Tyson). Putting the result of their 2nd fight aside, how do you explain Rahman/Lewis I then? Is Rahman the better fighter between the two? He knocked lewis into another dimension in their first fight. Yet you'd be a fool to think Rahman is the better fighter between the two.

If that's your own definition then it's a bit whacky, because there's no way Ruiz is better than Pacquiao. Pacquiao can lose to Brian Sutherland 10 times in a row and he'd still be considered the better fighter. The only reason Ruiz would ever best Pacquiao is because of his size, nothing more and nothing less.

[frankenfrank]

Pac's achievements below 135 >>>>> Tysons Career

kadyo's alt just got banned , if someone doubts it , I will convince him.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Tyson was a better finisher but he did fight cans

[THE REED]

Tyson hands down.

[Roger Yomama]

Who is the better finisher? Pac or Mike?

Tyson was a much better finisher than Pacquiao who tends to get his KO/TKO through accumulated punishment, with Hatton being the notable exception. Mike would go for the kill the instant he thought he had his man hurt, and more often than not, it was over seconds later.

[Blubba]

Who is the better finisher? Pac or Mike?

ofcos Tyson hahahah!#


ur comparing a heavyweight punching power to a welter.

come on man give the Pacman a break.

[southcentralcar]

Iron Mike Tyson was of course a much better finisher

[RL_GMA]

Tyson................

[infamous larryx]

tyson..no way he drops you 3 times in one round and you end the fight with a draw