Mike Tyson where does he rank for you?

dmagic

Hey guys asking this question for a research assignment. If you can help please do . Where does Mike Tyson rank in Heavyweight History for you? eg. where in the top 10 heavyweight boxers of all time?

walshb

Two areas. Career and one night only.

On his best night I rate him second to Ali.

Career? Extremely dominant for 4 whole years. A menace. A global impact he had. He was known by name just like Ali before him.

Had Tyson kept focused, and not let his fame and success get to him so much I think he could have been the best of all time. Rooney left, Givens came, King came, and it was all down hill. His post prison career was very ordinary. Never the same man, and who could expect him to be.

Spazdarn

It's very difficult to say, considering Tyson kinda pissed it all. Late 80's Tyson was serious though, probably top two or three, brilliant to watch and an animal.

But as far as his career goes he'd probably only sit somewhere between 8-5...

gene_tunney

Tyson is not top 10 heavyweights of all time.

PARKHEAD67

gene_tunney wrote: »

Tyson is not top 10 heavyweights of all time.

Rubbish.For a man his size, (height)and range he was one of the best. Top 2 or 3 of all time in the Heavyweight division. Tyson in his prime would have annihilated Ali in his prime. He was way faster. Ali admitted as much.

walshb

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

Rubbish.For a man his size, (height)and range he was one of the best. Top 2 or 3 of all time in the Heavyweight division. Tyson in his prime would have annihilated Ali in his prime. He was way faster. Ali admitted as much.

Way faster?

I think it's possible that Tyson at peak could annihilate any man. But, I think it is also safe to say that others could last the pace and beat him. Tyson has been taken the distance when at peak by several men that were not in Ali's league.

cowzerp

Ali at peak would frustrate Tyson and make Tyson give up like he does when getting nowhere, this would be 1 that Tyson would rely on 1 punch chance.

Dempsey

cowzerp wrote: »

Ali at peak would frustrate Tyson and make Tyson give up like he does when getting nowhere, this would be 1 that Tyson would rely on 1 punch chance.

Ali would have taken Tyson on in some outdoor arena with 90% Humidity and rope a doped him all night :pac:

StevePH

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

...Top 2 or 3 of all time in the Heavyweight division. Tyson in his prime would have annihilated Ali in his prime...QUOTE]

Sorry. Just plain wrong on both counts.
Tall, confident stylish boxers with good ring generalship had Tysons number. For example a young Ali and and a young Holmes would def have taken him into later rounds.
...and there's more than just those two above Mike in a Top Ten. ...IMO


Tyson was exciting to watch. However if he couldn't blow out his opponent in the fist half of the fight he was never the kind to wear them down/get decision - and all greats, on more than one ocxasion, have to be able to get into/survive the trenches to scrape out a decison.

slapbangwallop

Nice to see another thread vastly overrating Tyson!

Both Klitchko's take him - Jab Central.

Holyfield obviously did, and Lennox had his number.

So already he is at #5 and we havent scratched the surface of the last decade!

Heck Big Daddy Bowe would have handled him!

Now lets introduce the juggernauts Foreman, Ali, Louis.

So who else could have tamed the bully. Maybe other bullies like Sonny Liston and Smokin Joe.

Lets be overly fair and slip him in between that duo.

#9!

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Ali at peak would frustrate Tyson and make Tyson give up like he does when getting nowhere, this would be 1 that Tyson would rely on 1 punch chance.

But, if we talk peak, there is ZERO evidence that Tyson is a quitter or gives up. When he had the right people with him he was very determined, committed and mentally a very strong fighter. It was when he lost those people and post prison that they gurrier and bully Tyson emerged.

Even when he was taking whoppers all night vs. Douglas (when Mike was on the slide) he kept focused, and kept coming, and showed such great heart.

Now, that was when Mike was not the same fighter, Age wise he was peak, but he was not at all as prepared or committed as he had been under Rooney and Cayton and Jacobs and Cus.

So, I don't see Tyson quitting or folding when at peak against ANY heavyweight.

I believe that POST prison Tyson does not need to get brought in here. He was a shell of his former self.
Like saying that SRL lost to Camacho and Norris. That was not the best SRL, not close.

Many many heavies could have beaten that one, and many more could have beaten
the one Lewis beat and Holyfield beat.

psychward

I think George Foreman in his prime would have wiped the floor with Tyson in his prime and that Ali would have easily beat Tyson. You fight with your brain and Ali was and still is a very intelligent man. Ali was also a very big strong man. It's only standing next to a beast like Foreman that he looked small at all and he definitely outsmarted Foreman when in the ring.

walshb

StevePH wrote: »

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

...Top 2 or 3 of all time in the Heavyweight division. Tyson in his prime would have annihilated Ali in his prime...QUOTE]

Sorry. Just plain wrong on both counts.
Tall, confident stylish boxers with good ring generalship had Tysons number. For example a young Ali and and a young Holmes would def have taken him into later rounds.
...and there's more than just those two above Mike in a Top Ten. ...IMO


Tyson was exciting to watch. However if he couldn't blow out his opponent in the fist half of the fight he was never the kind to wear them down/get decision - and all greats, on more than one ocxasion, have to be able to get into/survive the trenches to scrape out a decison.

I am one who believes that peak Tyson always poses major trouble to Holmes. Holmes had a good chin, but he could be whacked, and it ain't Shavers or Snipes following up, it is a rampaging peak Tyson. No, Holmes never beats the best version of Mike. Too busy defending. I don't see him making it past 6 rds

walshb

psychward wrote: »

I think George Foreman in his prime would have wiped the floor with Tyson in his prime and that Ali would have easily beat Tyson. You fight with your brain and Ali was and still is a very intelligent man. Ali was also a very big strong man. It's only standing next to a beast like Foreman that he looked small at all and he definitely outsmarted Foreman when in the ring.

Again, how does he wipe the floor with Mike? No man at peak really came all that close to even beating Tyson? Sure, George is a beast with wicked power. But, if Lyle can floor and badly hurt him, well, you see where I am coming from.

StevePH

[QUOTE=walshb;75423448
I am one who believes that peak Tyson always poses major trouble to Holmes. Holmes had a good chin, but he could be whacked, and it ain't Shavers or Snipes following up, it is a rampaging peak Tyson. No, Holmes never beats the best version of Mike. Too busy defending. I don't see him making it past 6 rds[/QUOTE]

See, this is where I think people overegg the whole 'rampage' thing.
Did Tyson carry a wrecking ball or two? Hell yeah.
But when puttin shots together did he maintain that rampage? I don't think so.
His combinations were 2s, 3s or 4s. If the general three/four shot combination could be weathered, he could be countered. Not necessarlity knocked out but def countered by a sharp shooter like Holmes.

walshb

StevePH wrote: »

See, this is where I think people overegg the whole 'rampage' thing.
Did Tyson carry a wrecking ball or two? Hell yeah.
But when puttin shots together did he maintain that rampage? I don't think so.
His combinations were 2s, 3s or 4s. If the general three/four shot combination could be weathered, he could be countered. Not necessarlity knocked out but def countered by a sharp shooter like Holmes.

But, Mike had a solid beard. Very sturdy. Holmes liked to engage, and was a lot easier to tage clean than the peak Ali. Plus, Ali I believe had a better beard. No, Holmes is a bit too risky.

Boooourns

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Ali beats Tyson.

Has Tyson ever gotten up from a knockdown?

walshb

Boooourns wrote: »

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Ali beats Tyson.

Has Tyson ever gotten up from a knockdown?

At peak, was he ever knocked down?
I don't see how that has any bearing.

I don't think Ali knocks him down. His chin was grade A.

Buster took ten rds of pasting before he finally knocked him down.

Ruddock landed many many whoppers and never dropped Mike.

This whole "no doubt" puzzles me. It's heavyweight boxing. One punch can change a fight. And, it is Mike Tyson we are talking about. One of the most vicious hitters ever.

I would not be confident of either man winning. And, no way would I be "doubtless."

As far as I can recall, I don't think Mike was ever even badly stunned or really hurt when at peak. Couple good shots landed, like Bruno and Tucker, but never really hurt. That tells me how good his chin was.

Alos, his fitness was very good and his focus very good. All peak here. No point even discussing the post prison version.That version
was IMO not top ten.

And, the post Rooney version was also not top ten. Still a beast, and very good. This is the thing when discussing Mike.
He had two careers in a sense. The Rooney and Cus years of 1985-1989. That is 5 solid years.

4 years he was the best heavyweight on earth. The youngest champ, an undisputed champ, and someone who defended the title maybe ten times never once coming close to losing.

Hannibal

slapbangwallop wrote: »

Nice to see another thread vastly overrating Tyson!

Both Klitchko's take him - Jab Central.

Holyfield obviously did, and Lennox had his number.

So already he is at #5 and we havent scratched the surface of the last decade!

Heck Big Daddy Bowe would have handled him!

Now lets introduce the juggernauts Foreman, Ali, Louis.

So who else could have tamed the bully. Maybe other bullies like Sonny Liston and Smokin Joe.

Lets be overly fair and slip him in between that duo.

#9!

I think you have to take Tyson as been based on what he done pre 1991, he wasn't a shadow of himself when he emerged from prison and all his skills had eroded. In his prime he was one of the best punchers in boxing history and also a fantastic defensive boxer.

Ali aswell had a spell in prison and was out of the ring for over 3 years, I don't think Ali was as good but he still had most of his skills intact. Ali was lucky on the cards a few times particularly both fights with Ken Norton.

In his career Ali lost 5 fights and 3 of those came in his last 4 fights and 2 were to fighters Tyson would subsequently knock out in Holmes and Berbick, personally I wouldn't judge Ali on those 3 defeats as he was washed up at the time. Tyson lost 6 fights in total and like Ali 3 of those were in his last 4 fights. Tyson had a KO percentage of 76% and Ali was at 60%.


Holyfield and Lewis didn't fight the real Tyson, they fought a shadow of a man.

I seriously doubt whether Bowe would've beat Tyson.

Both Klitschko's?? Vitali might have had a chance, Tyson would have put Wladimir on his back.

Joe Louis came from a different time, Tyson was a small heavyweight and was still 1 stone heavier than Louis and around 2 stone heavier than Marciano.

Tyson at his peak was unbeatable, he beat everyone put before him and was the first man to hold the WBC/WBA/IBF titles. If Tyson came around today there's little doubt he cut through the current crop easily enough, considering he had 23 ko's in round 1 it's people like him that modern heavyweight boxing could do with to reignite it as the best weight division and put some interest back into boxing. In some ways he was almost like a cartoon character

walshb

Dotsey wrote: »

Ali aswell had a spell in prison and was out of the ring for over 3 years, I don't think Ali was as good but he still had most of his skills intact. Ali was lucky on the cards a few times particularly both fights with Ken Norton.

I am not sure Ali ever served time. The rest of your post is spot on.

Comparing Mike post prison is like using the 1976-1980 Ali as some barometer.

The Klits would not last long against the best Tyson. Not a chance. Vitali may do a Bonecrusher and spoil for the night, but no way is he winning.

Wlad? Yeah, Sanders and Brewster. Nuff said.

Lewis took 8 rds to take a jaded Mike out. Look, if Rahman and McCall can clean KO Lewis, then I am in little doubt that 1986-1990 Tyson could do it even better.

Boooourns

What do you think of Tyson in the Tucker fight, Tyson was at his peak for that yet Tuckers movement and the skill he had gave Tyson a very tough night. Tyson couldn't get him out of there.

walshb

Boooourns wrote: »

What do you think of Tyson in the Tucker fight, Tyson was at his peak for that yet Tuckers movement and the skill he had gave Tyson a very tough night. Tyson couldn't get him out of there.

Yeah, and Tucker spent the night surviving. Tucker was a big big guy and he could take a shot. So, he didn't annihilate everyone, no big deal. Tucker never came close to winning.

Had Tucker tried more he could have won, OR, he could have been more open to get whupped. Catch 22, and this applies to any man who faces a peak Tyson.

Boooourns

walshb wrote: »

Yeah, and Tucker spent the night surviving. Tucker was a big big guy and he could take a shot. So, he didn't annihilate everyone, no big deal. Ticker never came close to winning.

Had Tucker tried more he could have won, OR, he could have been more open to get whupped. Catch 22, and this applies to any man who faces a peak Tyson.

Sorry i've made a mistake i meant to name Tillis instead of Tucker, age is catching up on my memory

walshb

Boooourns wrote: »

Sorry i've made a mistake i meant to name Tillis instead of Tucker, age is catching up on my memory

Yes, he did, and Tillis then was ok, and Mike was still very young. Maybe 19 at that time.

Littlehorny

There is too much talk of a "prime" Tyson this or a "peak" Tyson that on this thread, he either wins his big fights or he doesnt and the fact is Tyson never won a big career defining fight, he beat alot of second rate guys in his early fights and at his so called peak he looked average against Smith, Tucker and Ruddock. No point saying IF he fought Holyfield, Lewis or Bowe he would have blown them away, in the case of the first two, he fought them and he lost to them, end of! When the bully was put under serious pressure in his fights he didnt emerge the victor.
As for Ali, he like Tyson lost his best years cause of a ban but still came back after it to have and win his big fights, also imo the second tier of heavies in Alis career were better than in Tysons era.
I'm not a Tyson hater by any means, his speed and power made him very exciting to watch but factors outside the ring derailed a man who should have been a top5 all timer but unfortunatly he 's somewhere between 10 and 20 in the all time list.

walshb

Littlehorny wrote: »

There is too much talk of a "prime" Tyson this or a "peak" Tyson that on this thread, he either wins his big fights or he doesnt and the fact is Tyson never won a big career defining fight, he beat alot of second rate guys in his early fights and at his so called peak he looked average against Smith, Tucker and Ruddock. No point saying IF he fought Holyfield, Lewis or Bowe he would have blown them away, in the case of the first two, he fought them and he lost to them, end of! When the bully was put under serious pressure in his fights he didnt emerge the victor.
As for Ali, he like Tyson lost his best years cause of a ban but still came back after it to have and win his big fights, also imo the second tier of heavies in Alis career were better than in Tysons era.
I'm not a Tyson hater by any means, his speed and power made him very exciting to watch but factors outside the ring derailed a man who should have been a top5 all timer but unfortunatly he 's somewhere between 10 and 20 in the all time list.

Well, Ali didn't win the big fight agains Holmes, did he? One must consider whether or not the fighter is at peak or not. I don't rate Tyson from 1991 onwards as a top 5 or top ten. I do rate the 1986-1989 version as a far better fighter. It is so evident from watching him in the ring.

Same way it is evident that the 1976-1981 Ali was a shell, and not close to the early 70s or 60s version.

Littlehorny

walshb wrote: »

Well, Ali didn't win the big fight agains Holmes, did he? One must consider whether or not the fighter is at peak or not. I don't rate Tyson from 1991 onwatds as a top 5 or top ten. I do rate the 1986-1989 version as a far better fighter. It is so evident from watching him in the ring.

Same way it is evident that the 1978-1981 Ali was a shell, and not close to the early 70s or 60s version.

Of course Ali lost to Holmes, he was in the early stages of Parkinsons disease at that time ffs! never mind he was about 38 at the time and had been in wars in the ring by then. Tyson himself rates the Bruno and the Spinks fights as his 2 greatest victories, hardly legends! Ali beat some of the best, who did Tyson beat?

walshb

Littlehorny wrote: »

Of course Ali lost to Holmes, he was in the early stages of Parkinsons disease at that time ffs! never mind he was about 38 at the time and had been in wars in the ring by then. Tyson himself rates the Bruno and the Spinks fights as his 2 greatest victories, hardly legends! Ali beat some of the best, who did Tyson beat?

You are just proving my point. No educated fight fan uses the Holmes fight as a barometer for Ali. Same way no educated fight fan should ever use the post prison version of Tyson as some barometer for greatness or success. So, no need for the ffs

BTW, Tyson beat who he had to in his time and era. Who he had to.

Also, I was not just talking about the Holmes version of Ali. He was also poor
before this. In 1978 he lost to Spinks. Again, I would never use these years
to measure the man against other great heavies.

Littlehorny

walshb wrote: »

You are just proving my point. No educated fight fan uses the Holmes fight as a barometer for Ali. Same way no educated fight fan should ever use the post prison version of Tyson as some barometer for greatness or success...
So, no need for the ffs

BTW, Tyson beat who he had to in his time and era. Who he had to.

You brought up the fact that Ali lost to Holmes as an example, so i'm not sure what your point is there walshb. I actually am as big a fan of Tyson as the next guy, he was a thriller in the ring at times. My point is ali fought the best and beat the best so he has to go down as no.1. Tyson's career will go down in history as just being good. Fact is he lost his big fights, he was the heavy favourite going into the Holyfield fight and was fancied by alot to beat Lewis aswell, only after the Lewis fight did people start to call him washed up. The Klitchkos are beating everyone put in front of them as well but nobody is saying they are top ten all-timers. Anyway sorry about the ffs remark, its good to have a debate with a fellow boxing fan.

walshb

Littlehorny wrote: »

You brought up the fact that Ali lost to Holmes as an example, so i'm not sure what your point is there walshb. I actually am as big a fan of Tyson as the next guy, he was a thriller in the ring at times. My point is ali fought the best and beat the best so he has to go down as no.1. Tyson's career will go down in history as just being good. Fact is he lost his big fights, he was the heavy favourite going into the Holyfield fight and was fancied by alot to beat Lewis aswell, only after the Lewis fight did people start to call him washed up. The Klitchkos are beating everyone put in front of them as well but nobody is saying they are top ten all-timers. Anyway sorry about the ffs remark, its good to have a debate with a fellow boxing fan.

I brought it up as an example of using a shell of a fighter to argue one's point.
Folks here have been bringing up versions of Mike that were absolute shells. I bring up Ali's version, and you react. I did say that I would never use this Ali version as a barometer, and I think one should not use the post prison Tyson as a barometer. Works both ways.

Simple: Tyson had two careers, and some would argue three.

1985-1989 with his real dedicated team around him.

1990-1992 when his team were gone, when King really got hold; Givens was there too.

Post Prison: A much less formidable fighter. As damn expected. Wouldn't even consider this
when discussing Mike as a great heavy. Same way I would not discuss the 1976/1977/1978/1979/1980/1981 Ali

I look at all three and judge accordingly. Fo those first 5 years he was IMO one hell of a fighter. Strong, fast, fit, ferocious, focused and so committed. That Tyosn IMO is a hell of a match for any man in history.

The other versions, well, not so good, and version three was just very average.

Littlehorny

walshb wrote: »

I brought it up as an example of using a shell of a fighter to argue one's point.
Folks here have been bringing up versions of Mike that were absolute shells. I bring up Ali's version, and you react. I did say that I would never use this Ali version as a barometer, and I think one should not use the post prison Tyson as a barometer. Works both ways.

Simple: Tyson had two careers, and some would argue three.

1985-1989 with his real dedicated team around him.

1990-1992 when his team were gone, when King really got hold; Givens was there too.

Post Prison: A much less formidable fighter. As damn expected. Wouldn't even consider this
when discussing Mike as a great heavy. Same way I would not discuss the 1976/1977/1978/1979/1980/1981 Ali

I look at all three and judge accordingly. Fo those first 5 years he was IMO one hell of a fighter. Strong, fast, fit, ferocious, focused and so committed. That Tyosn IMO is a hell of a match for any man in history.

The other versions, well, not so good, and version three was just very average.

Yes but i ask again walshb, who did Tyson beat in his career? His list of victories is only good at best. This thread is about where does Tyson rank for you, so where do you rate him in the all time list? When you look at a fighters career you have to judge it on what he did do, not what he might have done.

walshb

Littlehorny wrote: »

Yes but i ask again walshb, who did Tyson beat in his career? His list of victories is only good at best. This thread is about where does Tyson rank for you, so where do you rate him in the all time list? When you look at a fighters career you have to judge it on what he did do, not what he might have done.

Yes, and he beat what he had to beat. He had more title fights and defenses than Rocky Marciano, a fighter I rate very high. He was the youngest champ, unified the division and beat anyone there at that time.

All time I rate him very high. Top 5.

Look at the division historically.

We have Ali and Louis, and then it really is a matter of opinion....

Liston, Holmes, Dempsey, Holyfield, Marciano, Frazier, Foreman, Lewis, Johnson.....

Tyson did as much as many of these did when they were at the top. I would argue that he did more. Holyfield hardly beat greats either if we want to split hairs. He beat an aged Foreman, Cooper, Holmes, lost to Bowe decisively, and lost to Moorer.

StevePH

Littlehorny wrote: »

Yes but i ask again walshb, who did Tyson beat in his career? His list of victories is only good at best. This thread is about where does Tyson rank for you, so where do you rate him in the all time list? When you look at a fighters career you have to judge it on what he did do, not what he might have done.

Think we're gettin closer to sayin who the better fighter was.
Comparing the chins and skills of two men who never met is just fantasy talk.

For me, judging the two men based on their opposition/who they bested is a better way to go.

Watchin Ali play with a Williams/Quarry or watchin Tyson blast out a Berbick/Bruno certainly showcases the skills of each man...but a fighter is sure to look good against lesser opposition.

I prefer to judge them based on how they performed when meetin the same kinda fire they were faced with.

When Ali had to dig deep, he always found a way.

Littlehorny

Think we will have to agree to diagree on this one walshb, i think you overate and maybe i underate him but you said he beat who he had to beat but you can't name a single great fighter he beat. So i just can't see a top 5 for the guy. Tyson burned brightly but quickly so he's not in my top ten but i can see what you see in him and he was a better boxer than alot of people give him credit i.e his defence and alround boxing skill. but opinions will allways differ when it comes to boxers but thats part of the fun!

badabing106

I think Tyson 88-89 would have stopped Ali

drywall

i think tyson had great power,speed,great chin only things missing was the heart of ali and no brain.

StevePH

drywall wrote: »

..... and no brain.

Crazy statement to make. Maybe you meant to comment on his temperament but to question his brain/ring IQ is wrong.

Spazdarn

Littlehorny wrote: »

There is too much talk of a "prime" Tyson this or a "peak" Tyson that on this thread, he either wins his big fights or he doesnt and the fact is Tyson never won a big career defining fight, he beat alot of second rate guys in his early fights and at his so called peak he looked average against Smith, Tucker and Ruddock. No point saying IF he fought Holyfield, Lewis or Bowe he would have blown them away, in the case of the first two, he fought them and he lost to them, end of! When the bully was put under serious pressure in his fights he didnt emerge the victor.
As for Ali, he like Tyson lost his best years cause of a ban but still came back after it to have and win his big fights, also imo the second tier of heavies in Alis career were better than in Tysons era.
I'm not a Tyson hater by any means, his speed and power made him very exciting to watch but factors outside the ring derailed a man who should have been a top5 all timer but unfortunatly he 's somewhere between 10 and 20 in the all time list.

If you're not going to take into account the boxers prime or peak, then I'd say current day Tyson still gives current day Ali a beating!

walshb

Littlehorny wrote: »

Think we will have to agree to diagree on this one walshb, i think you overate and maybe i underate him but you said he beat who he had to beat but you can't name a single great fighter he beat. So i just can't see a top 5 for the guy. Tyson burned brightly but quickly so he's not in my top ten but i can see what you see in him and he was a better boxer than alot of people give him credit i.e his defence and alround boxing skill. but opinions will allways differ when it comes to boxers but thats part of the fun!

He beat Larry Holmes, albeit a faded one, who still went 12 rds with Holyfield when he was even more past it. He beat Michael Spinks; who many rate as a great fighter.

Point is: He was never CLOSE to being beaten in the years 1986-1989. Nobody came close. Pinklon Thomas was a very good heavy. Biggs was very good. Berbick was very good. Tubbs was very good. He not only beat these guys, he dominated them. Aged 20 he destroyed Berbick. 20!

If one compares who Tyson beat to who others beat then he doesn't do too bad at all. Joe Louis? The bum of the month club. Marciano? Love him, but he didn't beat anything special. They all can only fight who is in their time.

Ali is the pinnacle. He competed in the greatest era IMO.

As far as I know ther thread is not who is better, Ali or Tyson, it is how one rates Tyson. No fighter can compare to Ali's era and reighn. Ali competed in the golden era

cowzerp

Fact is Tyson never beat a great, the chances in his 2nd part of his carrier he lost and it's worth noting Holyfield was done aswell and was not long before forced to retire over his dodgy heart.

I love Tyson but he beat ok fighters and impressed against poor opposition, vitali wound be a nightmare for mike at any stage of his career

walshb

Vitali beat ****ing nobody then if Tyson's opposition is poor. This is the point. One can slag Tyson's opposition, but, apart from Ali, who else had a great resume? One that is immune from criticism.

mixed up

Mike tyson was the best heavyweight boxer i ever seen.I'm only 25 so don't remember ali fighting but for all the people knocking tyson i seen ali boxing on espn classic about 2 months ago against either foreman or fraiser and the crowd were booing because they were barely hitting each other.I think it's safe to say the crowd never booed a tyson fight because the man was the last great heavyweight we have seen.I seriously can't believe people think tyson would of lost to the klitch brothers.

Littlehorny

Don't think your going to accept any negative opinions of Tyson to be honest with you Walshb, nothing wrong with that we all have our fav fighters, but none of the guys you named were class fighters imo. You have ran down Holyfield in acouple of threads yet conveniatly forget to mention the fact he beat Tyson -twice. It is too easy to pick 3 or 4 years from Tysons full career and say how great he was. the top heavies in his time were Lewis and Holyfield and he is 0 for 3 against these men.

walshb

Littlehorny wrote: »

Don't think your going to accept any negative opinions of Tyson to be honest with you Walshb, nothing wrong with that we all have our fav fighters, but none of the guys you named were class fighters imo. You have ran down Holyfield in acouple of threads yet conveniatly forget to mention the fact he beat Tyson -twice. It is too easy to pick 3 or 4 years from Tysons full career and say how great he was as the top heavies in his time were Lewis and Holyfield and he is 0 for 3 against these men.

I accept any criticisms leveled at him. He is not my favorite fighter, but for that period I mention, he was a destroyer, a beast. A match for anyone.

Holyfield is one of the true greats. Yes, he beat Mike, but serioulsy, one was even more shot than the other, and one was most likely juicing.

I would back the best version of Tyson over ANY Holyfield. If Bert Cooper can almost do the trick, then Tyson will. Mike won't be hit near as much as he was, will be fitter, faster, stronger etc. Too much for Holyfield.

Lewis beat an absolute shot Tyson. Do I have to compare it to say Spinks beating Ali? It is that similar.

Most of this criticism of Mike is when he came out of prison, a period I agree with you, that he was not great. I am specifically referring to the 1986-1989 veriosn. The criticism for this version is "Who did he beat?" A question I could as about many other great heavies. He beat what was there in that era.

Put it this way. Is there any man in Louis' era that Mike could not have beaten? I say he beats everyone of them, and more decisively.

Ali's era? Frazier and Foreman will be real tough, but I would back Tyson against Foreman. Probably back Frazier to beat Mike. Liston? Another one that could probably beat Mike. Toss up.

Norton, Patterson, Chuvalo, Quarry, Cooper, Shavers, Terrell, Spinks, Bugner etc; no way, Tyson goes through these lads.

So, I am just being realsitic. Lets break Tyson down fairly. No point in bringing up post prison stuff. I cannot and do not rate that fighter as great.

Qusetion: Lewis-Tyson peak to peak. Who you got?

walshb

mixed up wrote: »

Mike tyson was the best heavyweight boxer i ever seen.I'm only 25 so don't remember ali fighting but for all the people knocking tyson i seen ali boxing on espn classic about 2 months ago against either foreman or fraiser and the crowd were booing because they were barely hitting each other.I think it's safe to say the crowd never booed a tyson fight because the man was the last great heavyweight we have seen.I seriously can't believe people think tyson would of lost to the klitch brothers.

They weren't boos due to inaction, I can assure you of that.

Either that or it was not Frazier or Foreman in the ring.

Littlehorny

Ha ha sitting here for good 5 min thinking- prime Tyson vs prime Lewis, have to admit lewis is one of my favs, but keep thinking if these fought 6 times it would 3 each, all depends on what would happen on the night. If Tyson tags him it could be quick night, maybe Lewis jabs and moves, then lands a few later on in fight. Too close to call, both guys need certain things to go there way on the night. 2 totally different fighters and personalities, what your opinion?

walshb

Littlehorny wrote: »

Ha ha sitting here for good 5 min thinking- prime Tyson vs prime Lewis, have to admit lewis is one of my favs, but keep thinking if these fought 6 times it would 3 each, all depends on what would happen on the night. If Tyson tags him it could be quick night, maybe Lewis jabs and moves, then lands a few later on in fight. Too close to call, both guys need certain things to go there way on the night. 2 totally different fighters and personalities, what your opinion?

One night only I would have my house on TYSON. Why? Well, when two bangers meet, I bank on the better chin. And, at peak Mike's chin AND stamina were just superior. He had a really good chin. Also, Lewis will be hit. He hadn't the leg speed of Ali, chin of Ali or elusiveness of Ali.

How does Lewis win? One punch is unlikely. Points? Possible, but he will have to be throwing a lot of leather for 12 rds. He was never the busiest or fittest fighter. I see no real way he can win. He engages, and he gets tagged and most likely knocked out. He moves and tries jabbing, little hope of scoring enough. Simliar to TNT Tucker.

Same reason why I back Tyson vs. Joe Louis. Mike's power and chin. Louis will NOT take a clean shot from
Mike Tyson. Louis was 200 lbs. Tyson was 220 lbs.

BTW, I didn't sepnd 5 mins thinking. Just posting!

Littlehorny

walshb wrote: »

One night only I would have my house on TYSON. Why? Well, when two bangers meet, I bank on the better chin. And, at peak Mike's chin AND stamina were just superior. He had a really good chin. Also, Lewis will be hit. He hadn't the leg speed of Ali, chin of Ali or elusiveness of Ali.

How does Lewis win? One punch is unlikely. Points? Possible, but he will have to be throwing a lot of leather for 12 rds. He was never the busiest or fittest fighter. I see no real way he can win. He engages, and he gets tagged and most likely knocked out. He moves and tries jabbing, little hope of scoring enough. Simliar to TNT Tucker.

Same reason why I back Tyson vs. Joe Louis. Mike's power and chin. Louis will NOT take a clean shot from
Mike Tyson. Louis was 200 lbs. Tyson was 220 lbs.

BTW, I didn't sepnd 5 mins thinking. Just posting!

Not as 100% as you walshb, Lewis only lost twice and both times he underestimated his oponent and was not in peak shape for both, he also avenged both loses. Any heavy can land a big lucky right hand, when Lewis was up for a fight he was very good, thinking of his fights against Tommy Morrison, Shannon Briggs and David Tua, these guys were short stocky fighters who liked to come up with hooks and uppercuts and he made short work of these guys. But Tyson was a class above these guys, might put a few quid on this fight but no way the house!ha ha.

PARKHEAD67

walshb wrote: »

Way faster?

I think it's possible that Tyson at peak could annihilate any man. But, I think it is also safe to say that others could last the pace and beat him. Tyson has been taken the distance when at peak by several men that were not in Ali's league.

Tyson in his prime would have any man on the canvas before said defeated man could say "queensbury rules".He was unstoppable.;)

Hannibal

Littlehorny wrote: »

Not as 100% as you walshb, Lewis only lost twice and both times he underestimated his oponent and was not in peak shape for both, he also avenged both loses. Any heavy can land a big lucky right hand, when Lewis was up for a fight he was very good, thinking of his fights against Tommy Morrison, Shannon Briggs and David Tua, these guys were short stocky fighters who liked to come up with hooks and uppercuts and he made short work of these guys. But Tyson was a class above these guys, might put a few quid on this fight but no way the house!ha ha.

What about Ray Mercer taking Lewis the distance? two judges scored it 96-95 and the other 96-96. Mercer was a smallish fighter around the 6 foot mark, he KO'd Tommy Morrison and was beaten by a 42 year old Larry Holmes a couple of years before he fought Lewis. I also think the two Holyfield fights were a lot closer than the British media think, the first was a draw and the second given to Lewis but for me I thought watching it that Holyfield shaded the second one.

I've seen Tyson and Holyfield been mentioned as past it on here, so Lewis fought bought when they were diminished. If you look at the rest of Lewis' career there's no other greats in there apart from a fortunate win over Vitali to the point Lewis retired rather than give him a rematch.

section4

walshb wrote: »

They weren't boos due to inaction, I can assure you of that.

Either that or it was not Frazier or Foreman in the ring.

i agree, i read one time that frazier had the punch rate of a welterweight , he was one of the busiest fighters ever, a ball of energy