Mike Tyson where does he rank for you?

cowzerp

Tyson was a beast who beat up opponents many who he beat before a punch was thrown, as soon as the bully got stood up too he lost and evander would have done the same if the original match went ahead-bowe would have smashed him too.


Tyson is 1 of my all time favourites because his early fights whete fun but him beating all his early opponents was like Naseem hamed beating his. They where just very beatable opponents.

Tyson was at best when opponents let him be a bully And not a chance Ali would have let that happen, foreman was more scary than Tyson and Ali beat him

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

, as soon as the bully got stood up too he lost and evander would have done the same if the original match went ahead-bowe would have smashed him too.

As soon as? Well, it certainly took a long time. Yes, he did lose. But, in fight 1 with Holyfiled he never showed ANY quit. Took that loss like a man. The rematch IMO showed he wanted out. Not the only great to want out.

This all occurred when Mike was well past it. Why are we using this version to argue that he may fold and crumble against other greats. 1986/1996. That is a long time difference. A whole lot happened in that time with Mike.

His whole career is being centred around that bite incident. I think that is unfair, and not sound, logically.
What if folks used the blatant Roy Jones foul on Griffith as some crutch to say he wasn't great, and that
he wanted out and wanted to quit? Duran, he quit, still considered one of the best fighters in history.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Tyson is 1 of my all time favourites because his early fights whete fun but him beating all his early opponents was like Naseem hamed beating his. They where just very beatable opponents.

c'mon, that is very unfair to Tyson. Naz fed on many journeymen. Tyson beat and defended his title against the best heavyweights of his era. You say beatable opponents, as if that is meant to mean something? Yes, he beat them, dominated them. That is what he intended when he stepped into the ring with them.

I also hear the excuse that "they were afraid of him." That is somehow used to almost criticise Tyson.:rolleyes: How about praising Tyson for the fact that his skill and power and menace created this fear? When did anyone ever see the best Tyson, even the worst Tyson, fight scared? He never fought scared, and always went in to do the job. Went in to destroy, no matter what was in the opposite corner. Then we have to hear him being almost criticised because this menace, confidence and power somehow made the opposition weak and scared? That logic is off the charts.

cowzerp

In reality Evander was more washed up than Tyson but just had more heart and was more willing to go to war-Tyson actually beat nobody of note, seriously-his top wins are Tucker, a finished Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks who was more of a light heavy and Bruno! not very impressive.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

In reality Evander was more washed up than Tyson but just had more heart and was more willing to go to war-Tyson actually beat nobody of note, seriously-his top wins are Tucker, a finished Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks who was more of a light heavy and Bruno! not very impressive.

Well, like I said, his resume is every bit as good as other so called great heavies.

Holyfield took the title from an ill prepared and bloated Douglas, defended it against old George, an even more washed up Holmes, 4 years after Mike destroyed Holmes. Bert Cooper? And, had a scare with him. He then met Bowe and was clearly beaten. Lost to freaking Moorer.

Holyfield's pre championship reign was against a washed up Dokes, Tillman, a well past it Tillis, and Alex Stewart.

I would love to see a better resume than Mike's reign when he was champ.
Apart from Ali and say, Holmes.

cowzerp

Bren I named the best Wins for Tyson, I could easy have added in some of the nobody's he beat too-fact is when he fought names of pedigree he lost, so the jail time was not the only factor in how he done.

Big George came back after longer off and in worse shape and beat better men than Tyson did, I think the higher standard was as much a problem as the jail time to be brutally honest.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Bren I named the best Wins for Tyson, I could easy have added in some of the nobody's he beat too-fact is when he fought names of pedigree he lost, so the jail time was not the only factor in how he done.

Big George came back after longer off and in worse shape and beat better men than Tyson did, I think the higher standard was as much a problem as the jail time to be brutally honest.

Who did George beat in career 2 that was better, OR, that Mike himself would not have beaten?

Tyson beat the best heavyweights on earth during his reign, and then you say when he fought pedigree he lost? So, is it a case that the best heavyweights from 1986-1989, 4 years, were of no pedigree?

That to me is absurd. Tyrell Biggs, to name one, was an olympic SHW champ. He was a ranked heavyweight, and Tyson took him out. So, Berbick, the actual champ, was he of no pedigree? Pinklon Thomas, no pedigree?

No way. Look at George's resume career 2. No names are as good as Mike's championship names? Holyfield is, but he was well beaten there. Morrisson beat him. Morrisson would have lasted ten seconds vs. best Tyson, a few rds vs. the Tyson up to 1995. George went tooth and nail with Alex Stewart, who Tyson blew out in one round a couple of years earlier.

The list of George's opponents are there. Please, point out these names that are better than Smith, Tucker, Spinks (who was Ring champ I believe), Berbick, Tubbs, Thomas, Ruddock TWICE, Bruno, Biggs.

Paul, you heap praise on the Klits, men who have feasted on nobodies, and yet you criticise Tyson's
championship opposition? Tyson's championship opposition are streets ahead of what the Klits have been
meeting and beating. I just find that difficult to grasp.

cowzerp

Moorer was 35-0 and a very decent boxer
Saverese was 36-0 when George fought him
Shulz was not bad either-it was not that different to tysons early career in reality and George was old and fat, he lost to Morrison, Holyfield and Briggs all who where dangerous opponents and I'd put ahead of tysons opponents
Gerry Cooney was no mug either and would have fitted in with tysons opponents.



I rate Klitschko highly because even at 40 he's unbeatable-he fought everyone and all comers and only lost on cuts to Lewis, Tyson looked great against static or poor opposition, vitali does the job and beats all easily-I'm a Tyson fan but believe he was overrated and don't just blame his stint inside for his losses-the opponents where far better 2nd half of his career And it showed.

He looked Tyson of old v mcneely-why? Because he was a mug, suddenly looked poor as he went up a level, Tucker might have been decent but the rest where Meh, berbick was 31-4-1 not all that considering 3 of his losses where to nobodies, Look at ruddocks record-beat nobody before fighting Tyson, Spinks was a light heavy and Bruno was Bruno!

His record was not impressive, how he beat the turkeys was.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Moorer was 35-0 and a very decent boxer
Saverese was 36-0 when George fought him
Shulz was not bad either-it was not that different to tysons early career in reality and George was old and fat, he lost to Morrison, Holyfield and Briggs all who where dangerous opponents and I'd put ahead of tysons opponents
Gerry Cooney was no mug either and would have fitted in with tysons opponents.



I rate Klitschko highly because even at 40 he's unbeatable-he fought everyone and all comers and only lost on cuts to Lewis, Tyson looked great against static or poor opposition, vitali does the job and beats all easily-I'm a Tyson fan but believe he was overrated and don't just blame his stint inside for his losses-the opponents where far better 2nd half of his career And it showed.

He looked Tyson of old v mcneely-why? Because he was a mug, suddenly looked poor as he went up a level, Tucker might have been decent but the rest where Meh, berbick was 31-4-1 not all that considering 3 of his losses where to nobodies, Look at ruddocks record-beat nobody before fighting Tyson, Spinks was a light heavy and Bruno was Bruno!

His record was not impressive, how he beat the turkeys was.

Briggs and Moorer and Morrisson last a combined 6-7 rds against Mike Tyson. Morrisson and Moorer and Briggs would not beat any of the men Tyson beat when Tyson was champion. You say Spinks was a LH, so was Moorer.

Tucker and Thomas and Tubbs and Smith eat Morrisson and Moorer and Briggs.

Mike's opposition in career 2 (post prison) were fought when Tyson was past it. And, apart from Holyfield, who was also past it, and Lewis, (who beat an absolute shelled Tyson) who of Tyson's second career were better than the first half? He beat Bruno, who was not the same Bruno from the 80s. I am looking thru his post prison career and I don't see any great fighters, or peak top heavies.

Now, you say Klit beat all comers. Tyson did too when he was champ, so what is different? Compare the men Tyson
beat to what Klit beat. It's a farcical comparison. Klit has not beaten the same level of opposition that Mike beat.
Klits level is a league below. Adamek? A MW he is. Sam Peter? Danny Williams? Arreola? Solis? Sanders? These guys would
be journeymen in the early to mid to late 80s.

cowzerp

Bren we can go around in circles all night but fact remains, he lost to any decent fighter he faced.

The so called good people he beat are not world beaters in any era.

I like Tyson and he's still 1 of my all time faves but it's plain to see he looked great against nobodies, as an amateur where you don't get easy fights he was just ok.

The difference with kitschko and Tyson is 1 is underrated and 1 is overrated so it makes me want to defend him more

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Bren we can go around in circles all night but fact remains, he lost to any decent fighter he faced.

We sure could go around in circles. I am just looking at the men Klit and Mike met. To me it's a no-brainer.
He lost to Holyfield. He lost to Lewis. The Lewis fight is akin to SRL losing to Norris, Ali to Spinks.

Not even going to mention his late losses. Unless you want to claim that McBride and Williams are decent fighters. And, if you claim this, then I assume you mean both are superior to the men Mike beat in the 80s? Do you believe this, that Williams and McBride are superior to the names from the 80s?

You say the men he beat are no world beaters in any era? So, Tubbs, Thomas, Biggs, Berbick, Holmes (albeit past it), peak Bruno, Smith, peak Tillis are not competitive in Klit's era? Why, because Danny Williams is better; Larry Donald is better; Adamek, and Haye are better; Solis and Sanders are better???

Enjoying the banter, Paul, but confused!;)

Littlehorny

walshb wrote: »

We sure could go around in circles. I am just looking at the men Klit and Mike met. To me it's a no-brainer.
He lost to Holyfield. He lost to Lewis. The Lewis fight is akin to SRL losing to Norris, Ali to Spinks.

Not even going to mention his late losses. Unless you want to claim that McBride and Williams are decent fighters. And, if you claim this, then I assume you mean both are superior to the men Mike beat in the 80s?

You say the men he beat are no world beaters in any era? So, Tubbs, Thomas, Biggs, Berbick, Holmes (albeit past it), peak Bruno, Smith, peak Tillis; are not competitive in Klit's era? Why, because Danny Williams is better; Larry Donald is better; Adamek, and Haye are better; Solis and Sanders are better???

Enjoying the banter, Paul, but confused!;)

Have looked at about 5 or 6 websites for research and all,all time lists have Tyson about 10 or 12th best heavy of all time,highest rating i saw for him is 7. I think like alot of other fight fans on this forum i just cannot see where your rating comes from, but dont think your gonna change your mind on this one walshb:)

section4

walshb wrote: »

Tyson imo would be very competitive in any era, including Ali's. Yes, Liston and Foreman and Frazier would be issues, as they would for any man, but Tyson could still be very competitive with the three of them.

I would pick the three of them over tyson, he would not be intimidating these guys.


Sorry, Lyle and Shavers won't trouble the best Tyson. No way. Tyson too fast and heavy handed.

George Foreman said that Ron Lyle was the hardest hitter he faced. And another thing , you excuse Tyson because of how his time in prison affected him, if thats the case Lyle spent more time in prison and had to fight his way up from nothing. You look at the punches Lyle took from George Foreman in their fight, full bloodied punches right on the chin, he took them and hit back harder with good clean accurate well executed shots, he only got beat because he was exhausted and rememeber he was much older than foreman, and he was not in lthe least intimidated by foreman, and he was also a good boxer who could be light on his fight, and he had more heart. I dont know if he would have beat tyson but he had a chance , there is no way tyson would intimiidate him, he could hit and hurt tyson and he could take tyson punch, because if he could take foreman anf shavers he could take tysons and he would certainly have beat any other heavywight in tysons era. If i was betting i would favour tyson slightly based on their situations when they were fighting, but if they were both the same age and same experience ther would be nothing in it.


If Jerry Quarry can take Shavers out easily, then Tyson destroys him.

Jerry Quarry was a very good boxer who was nobodys fool and yes he did stop shavers. But if shavers caught tyson he would hurt him big time, Ron Lyle said shavers was the hardest hitter he faced and that included foreman, again a hard fight for tyson and I would like to see the effect a clean hit from shavers would have on him, because i dont think he faced that kind of power in his career.

Norton? No way. He crumbled several times against hitters. A beast like Tyson is a horrible match for Norton. Norton did not have the firepower to discourage Mike, nor the chin or defense to withstand Tyson.

Holmes? Well, he destroyed Holmes when they did meet, and I believe that Tyson beats any version of Holmes for reasosns I gave previously.

I cant believe you excuse tyson so much and yet do not take into account that this was not larry holmes he was fighting this was a shadow, I would have holmes tyson an even money fight and if it came down to heart it would be holmes

As good as Ali was, he wouldn't find the likes of Thomas and Biggs and Tubbs all that easy.

Thomas biggs and tubbs and bey and so on a bunch of average heavyweights in an average era. I think the only one from that era that could have beem better than average was witherspoon except he wasnt committed enough.

walshb

Littlehorny wrote: »

Have looked at about 5 or 6 websites for research and all,all time lists have Tyson about 10 or 12th best heavy of all time,highest rating i saw for him is 7. I think like alot of other fight fans on this forum i just cannot see where your rating comes from, but dont think your gonna change your mind on this one walshb:)

I rate him top 5 when he was champ, at his absolute best.

So, who are the ten ahead of him? Look at them, and show me their superior resume? I have asked for this, and mentioned it.

It's funny, their is best heavy ever career wise, and best in a one off peak to peak fight. In the latter I rate Tyson number two.

I have said nothin untrue or factually incorrect. My opinion differs from others. Many people rate Tyson as a top ten heavy. I try and back it up with facts, statistics and comparisons to others.

And, as hard as I look at other career resumes, very few are better than Mike's championship reign. 20, champ, undisputed champ, and 9 successful defences. Regained the title post prison too. List me ten heavies with better stats than this?

Now, you may say it is not all about the numbers, but also, opposition level. Ok, aprt from Ali, list ten men who defeated better opposition than Mike during his/their championship reign?

Louis was slated for meeting the bum of the month. Marciano made 6 defences, and the opposition was the best of that time, but hardly outstanding. Dempsey? He defended the title less, and against nothing special.

Liston? Beat one of the weakest champs ever. Patterson was a LH at best.
Lost when he made his second defence. Still think Liston was a hell of a fighter.

Frazier? Lost twice by brutal KO to Foreman. Made very few defences. Still great fighter.

Foreman? Made two successful defences and lost by KO to Ali.
Came back, beat Moorer, who IMO is never beating and great champion.
Lucky if he lasts with any great champ.

Have I forgotten anyone?

walshb

section4 wrote: »

Thomas biggs and tubbs and bey and so on a bunch of average heavyweights in an average era. I think the only one from that era that could have beem better than average was witherspoon except he wasnt committed enough.

Ok, are they better than Adamek, Danny Williams, Sanders, Arreola, Solis?

Wild_Dogger

Strongest personality in boxing .........
(not the best personality but certainly the most intimidating )

section4

walshb wrote: »

I rate him top 5 when he was champ, at his absolute best.


Liston? Beat one of the weakest champs ever. Patterson was a LH at best.
Lost when he made his second defence. Still think Liston was a hell of a fighter.

Liston should have been champ years earlier, he beat everybody iput in front of him and would have been the champ much earlier if given the chance, Liston was a very strong and fit guy, did you ever see him doing his headstand with his whole body weight on his head, he also had the biggest fist size of all heavyweight champs, he wouild have intimifated tyson and rightly so.


Frazier? Lost twice by brutal KO to Foreman. Made very few defences. Still great fighter.
Frazier beat a lot of good fighters befofre he vecame champ, he also beat ali, and in that fight showed determination that i dont think many heavyweights could match. He would have been in tyson face all night up close and much too determined and his left hook was a briliant punch, the technnique he used to deliver it was very good.

Foreman? Made two successful defences and lost by KO to Ali.
Came back, beat Moorer, who IMO is never beating and great champion.
Lucky if he lasts with any great champ.
The young foreman was much more menacing than tyson, much bigger, stronger and a heavier puncher, not as fast but much more determined

Squall19

No matter what you think of Mike Tyson, you cannot dispute the fact that on his best night, he was one of the greatest heavyweight fighter ever to step into a ring.

Would he beat Ali, I don't know.

I don't see any reason why he couldn't beat any man.

His combination of speed, power, conditioning was unmatched by any other heavyweight boxer in his prime, he was a tornado of power and speed.

Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champion in the history of boxing.

20 first round KO's in his teenage years, crazy.

That's why he is still the most talked about boxer today.

A young Foreman was not more menacing than Tyson, no way near.

I think you should watch Foreman again, because himself and Tyson are nothing alike, nothing.I don't know why people compare them.

cowzerp

Bren your naming his opposition like as if they are top fighters-and there not in any era-they are simply well known because at the time Mike Tyson was the most mainstream sports person on the planet and his opponents would be well known for that matter

Boxing is not mainstream now so throwing Eastern Europeans that faced Vitali out there is BS as even if they where Tysons, it would mean nothing to people reading it because there unknown and only real Boxing fans would have seen them as there not on Tele in most cases now, Everyone seen Tyson fight these chumps even non Boxing fans as it was very mainstream at the time, particularly when Mike was involved.

There is not even 1 of Mike's opponents in any part of his career that was like beating a Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Ali, Holyfield at peak, his biggest win was probably Spinks

Ruddocks 1st real fight was Tyson

Douglas like it or not was in his 1st part of career and outboxed Tyson pretty bad and he'd lost 4 at that stage already

Spinks debuted at 165lbs and it was his last fight, his only decent opponent was an aged larry holmes.

Tubbs lost to anyone who was even close to a name ands a few nobodies too

Bruno was glass chinned and terrified in fairness, his opponents simply where not good.

I just went through Vitali's opponents since Herbie Hide and he has fought basically everyone and fighters with far superior records than Tysons opponents and Then Wlad's who also beat everyone and fought a highrte pedigree than Tyson, just because there not american does not make them better by the way Bren.

section4

Squall19 wrote: »

No matter what you think of Mike Tyson, you cannot dispute the fact that on his best night, he was one of the greatest heavyweight fighter ever to step into a ring.

on his best night he was one of the best, but on the others best night they were better, thats life. And you cant just judge a fighter on his best night, the very word fighter and the true meaning of means some one who fights in the face of all odds and keeps going, the fact is tyson couldnt do this, he never had the same heart as ali frazier foreman marciano etc etc, he was great when every thing was going according to plan, but there are times when it does,nt and its how you react to that thats shows the true fighter.

Would he beat Ali, I don't know.
he wouldnt.

I don't see any reason why he couldn't beat any man.
i could say i cant see any reason why he could beat any of the greats


His combination of speed, power, conditioning was unmatched by any other heavyweight boxer in his prime, he was a tornado of power and speed.
why do you say this, do you know that James Jeffries although around 6ft 3in and 15 st could run 100m in just over 10 secs, could tyson run that fast, i dont think so.
did he have better conditoniong than Joe Frazier, I dont thinbk so
could he punch hardrer than shavers foreman lyle with one shot, I dont think so



Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champion in the history of boxing.
yes well done for that

20 first round KO's in his teenage years, crazy.
could you expand on this, because he did not have 20 first round knockout in his professional career in his teens.
In fact looking thorugh his record on boxerec there's a lot of red in his opponents record, in fact in his 6th fight the guy had 6 staright losses.


That's why he is still the most talked about boxer today.
He is only the most talked about because he has only recently stopped fighting, Ali is probab ly the most talked about boxer off all time

section4

AS regards Foreman here are some articles regarding him

His Amatuer Career

He won an Olympic Gold Medal after boxing only 1.5 years and with only 20 amateur fights going into the Olympics. That is just unbelievable, in some ways his most notable achievement

His Power and Strength
George Foreman at his awesome best was the most powerful heavyweight champion ever. At 6’3 ½” and 220-225 pounds, with an 82” reach he was the best of the “super-heavyweights.” Consider that George Foreman, in his prime had the highest knockout percentage in boxing history. After his destruction of Norton, he was 40-0 with 37 knockouts, for a knockout percentage of 92.50. In his career Foreman had 15 first round knockouts and 18 second round knockouts. That's 33 knockouts inside of the first 2 rounds! He had 46 knockouts that were 3 rounds or less, which is more than any other heavyweight champion. George Foreman’s incredible two round destruction over Joe Frazier was the most one-sided beating ever delivered upon an undefeated heavyweight champion.

Foreman was a man of great physical strength and can be favorably compared to the legendary strongmen of the past. It was said that John L. Sullivan once single handedly lifted a derailed trolley car back onto the tracks. Jim Jeffries once ran 9 miles to camp carrying a deer on his shoulders ahead of his entourage. Likewise George Foreman once trained using a harness so he could pull a car uphill as he did his roadwork. Strength, size and power are the adjectives used to describe a true super heavyweight. George Foreman was as big and as bad as they come.




After destroying # 1 contender Ken Norton the Aug. 1974 International Boxing magazine wrote, “The pre-fight strategy, the planning, the training, the waiting…they were all ended in less than two rounds by the punishing fists of possibly the most powerful heavyweight champion ever.” Indeed such was the devastation that Foreman’s sledgehammer fists had laid on opponents that all time greats such as Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis both commented that Foreman was the strongest heavyweight hitter that they had ever seen

His Menace
At his peak Foreman had a true aura of invincibility. When he glared down opponents with his baleful stare it was not an act of false bravado as it was with some fighters, it was out of a belief that no man could stand up to his crushing power. George Foreman, in his prime, truly believed that he was unbeatable

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

I just went through Vitali's opponents since Herbie Hide and he has fought basically everyone and fighters with far superior records than Tysons opponents and Then Wlad's who also beat everyone and fought a highrte pedigree than Tyson, just because there not american does not make them better by the way Bren.

Never said Vitali did not fight all comers. I just firmly believe that those he did fight are not near as competent as the men Mike fought whilst he was champion.

Compare them? Herbie Hide, had forgot about him. Are you seriously claiming the likes of Hide is better than Tucker, Smith, Biggs, Tubbs, Thomas?

Adamek? Sanders? Kirk Johnson? Arreola? Solis? I have named them before. No way do these lads better the ones Mike beat.

Nothing at all to do with being Ameriacan. All to do with quality.

Danny Williams for chrissake.

Fight recoreds mean little when the records are against cans. Guys like Hide, Williams, Adamek could have perfect records compared to Tubbs, Thomas and Tucker, but that means **** all. They are not near as good as Tubbs, Thomas, Tucker etc.

Apart from Byrd and Lewis, who both beat Vitali, who on that resume is better than Tyson's championship opposition?
And I don't rate Byrd all that high. Tyson would have eaten him.

I would like to know one fighter on Vitali's resume (apart from Lewis) that is better than a 1989 Bruno?

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Never said Vitali did not fight all comers. I just firmly believe that those he did fight are not near as competent as the men Mike fought whilst he was champion.

Compare them? Herbie Hide, had forgot about him. Are you seriously claiming the likes of Hide is better than Tucker, Smith, Biggs, Tubbs, Thomas?

Adamek? Sanders? Kirk Johnson? Arreola? Solis? I have named them before. No way do these lads better the ones Mike beat.

Nothing at all to do with being Ameriacan. All to do with quality.

Danny Williams for chrissake.

Fight recoreds mean little when the records are against cans. Guys like Hide, Williams, Adamek could have perfect records compared to Tubbs, Thomas and Tucker, but that means **** all. Because, theye are not near as good as Tubbs, Thomas, Tucker etc.

Apart from Byrd and Lewis, who both beat Vitali, who on that resume is better than Tyson's championship opposition?
And I don't rate Byrd all that high. Tyson would have eaten him.

I would like to know one fighter on Vitali's resume (apart from Lewis) that is better than a 1989 Bruno?

I pick your Danny Williams and raise you Marvis Frazier, Williams was highly rated in fairness when Vitali eat him and i think your forgetting years later Mike faced him too and lost and Williams was even worse then, granted Tyson was finished but why your mentioning him against Vitali when Vitali face a fresher version and beat him waith ease.

Shannon Briggs would have took Bruno out quick,
Golota was better
Samuel Peter would be tougher fight than Bruno
im not going to name all but his last 11 fights where better than any of Mikes top 11 fights apart from the ones that Mike lost, Plus Bruno should have finished Tyson only for he was to busy cacking himself.

we're going to have to agree to disagree here because quite simply i don't rate Tucker, Tubbs, Berbick, pinklon Thomas and Old Holmes or spinks for that matter-i'd put him at similar level to Herbie Hide actually.

All them are only known because Tyson beat them and people have seen the highlights hundreds of times, none of them are world class fighters that would beat any decent Heavyweight champ, certainly not Vitali or Wlad.

walshb

Golota at his best was very good, but Mike and him fought and it was a ND I think. Golota does not beat the best Tyson.

We will have to agree to disagree. I think Vitali is a very good fighter. I don't think he is better than Tyson. I also do not believe that his opposition is better than Mike's championship opposition. I just cannot get behind the notion that the names I mentioned for Mike are inferior to those on Vitali's ledger.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

All them are only known because Tyson beat them .

I don't understand this? One could say that about any fighters that a famous fighter beat.

They were the best heavyweights on earth. Whether folks knew them or not is irrelevant. I am quite sure boxing fans knew them quite well. The comment has me confused? They certainly were world class fighters Why do you say they were not? They were the ranked fighters from that era? May not have been at the level of a Frazier or Liston, but from that era, they were the world class fighters.

cowzerp

It shouldn't confuse you-basically them fighters where far more in the mainstream than Vitali's opponents 1 because they fought 1 of the most famous fighters ever and 2 it was during a time where Boxing was commonly on television, you talk down about Vitali's opposition but in reality it's just because you don't really no them and because there not on tele and becauise there not going to be in the star because there not British/American etc.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

It shouldn't confuse you-basically them fighters where far more in the mainstream than Vitali's opponents 1 because they fought 1 of the most famous fighters ever and 2 it was during a time where Boxing was commonly on television, you talk down about Vitali's opposition but in reality it's just because you don't really no them and because there not on tele and becauise there not going to be in the star because there not British/American etc.

What is to know about Vitali's oppositon? I have seen them fight. Do you have more indepth knowledge about them? I never rated most of them as very good. I am not alone here either. I have also seen Mike's opponents fight, and to me, they are better boxers completely.

Paul, "Williams was highly rated in fairness."

Yes, maybe he was; but does that mean he was very good?
The men Mike met were alos rated highly. Thing is, they were also
superior to Danny Williams as actual fighers.

Danny Williams competing in the 80s would be a non ranked heavyweight.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Danny Williams competing in the 80s would be a non ranked heavyweight.

As was Marvin Frazier, i don't get your point, plus im sure that was meant to be Vitali's retirement fight.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

As was Marvin Frazier, i don't get your point, plus im sure that was meant to be Vitali's retirement fight.

Marvis met Mike pre championship reign....

Every great fighter in history has met less than steallar opposition whilst moving up the ranks...

My debate is both men's championship reigns. I just think Vitali's opposition was inferior to Mike's.

Williams met Vitali when Vitali was Ring champ

minty16

So tell me, Is it just a coincidence that Iron Mike didn't face any great fighters when he was at his 'peak' ? I cant have that. He lost to all the great fighters he faced. Tyson is in my own personal top 10 favourite boxers, but In my opinion it is pointless and flawed to judge a boxer based on anything other than his ENTIRE career - unless he fights on too long , in that case the argument can be made that he should have retired. Im surprised this argument is not made more frequently!