Heavyweight Boxing

yourdeadwright

I find it very hard to give a top ten

I say this because we have all seen all the fights of the big names, but its impossible for us to know just how good all the guys they fought where at the time they fought them

For instance like the Holmes , great name to have beaten but then you see he lost his previous two and hadn't fought in two year when Mike beat him , So should Mikes win be seen as good as when Spinks beat Holmes ?

Another one Fury went to German and beat a 10 year undefeated Wlad, but Aj fights him two years later , Wlad hasn't fought since Fury and changes his style and goes for broke , in my eyes Fury win is worth more than Aj's

Its reason like this I find it hard to pick a top 10 because the further back you go the less I know about the circumstance of certain wins as I don't know enough about all the opponents of the greats

walshb

yourdeadwright wrote: »

You told me Wilder would not just KO Fury but would also out box him so it impossible to be 100 percent certain of these things,


I understand your argument and can see merit in it but for me personally Mike never won a "fight" so I wouldn't have him as favourite bar fighting AJ,

Wilder almost did KO Fury...

I was close. I think he does if they rematch.

Outbox? Well, the fight was a draw....large parts of the fight, neither man was out-boxing the other....

Outboxing can be a very subjective term, and even more so with difficut to score rds, or rds where very little scoring is taking place.....The Fury-Wilder fight was a fight like so.

walshb

yourdeadwright wrote: »

You told me Wilder would not just KO Fury but would also out box him so it impossible to be 100 percent certain of these things,


I understand your argument and can see merit in it but for me personally Mike never won a "fight" so I wouldn't have him as favourite bar fighting AJ,

Ruddock 1 and 2 were fights....wars.

I think you are placing too much emphasis on Tokyo and his Holyfield losses.

Plus, why should we kind of penalize him because he dominated and obliterated so many of his foes?

normanoffside

The Nal wrote: »

Holmes was 38 years old and a retired grandfather by that stage. Hadn't fought for two years since the Spinks losses and the left jab was gone too.

Yeah i am not saying it was a great achievement to beat Holmes at that stage, but it was probably still one of his 3 best wins....

Mantis Toboggan

Tyson vs Tyson would have been fascinating.

5,10" vs 6,9"

Mike would would need to KO him as I could see Fury jabbing and moving all night. Getting in close to Fury is harder than it looks and he's not bad on the inside and he's just going to try tie him up all night.

I'd imagine an overhand right from Mike should just about connect with Fury's chin. Mike might be better to go at the body first but Fury's 36 cm reach advantage will make that tough. Pity we'll never see it.

yourdeadwright

walshb wrote: »

.

Plus, why should we kind of penalize him because he dominated and obliterated so many of his foes?

Because of the guys a lot of those fights where against,


Wilder has 41 ko's in 42 fights that far more impressive, until you also look at the competition

walshb

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Because of the guys a lot of those fights where against,


Wilder has 41 ko's in 42 fights that far more impressive, until you also look at the competition

So it goes back to being able to pick holes in anyone.....

Best to juts agree that they beat who was in their eras....

walshb

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Tyson vs Tyson would have been fascinating.

5,10" vs 6,9"

Mike would would need to KO him as I could see Fury jabbing and moving all night. Getting in close to Fury is harder than it looks and he's not bad on the inside and he's just going to try tie him up all night.

I'd imagine an overhand right from Mike should just about connect with Fury's chin. Mike might be better to go at the body first but Fury's 36 cm reach advantage will make that tough. Pity we'll never see it.

Fury I don't see keeping Tyson at bay. Mike had very fast attacking feet, and has consistently shown ways to get inside to taller men.

Fury as 8 inches on Mike, maybe 9. I cannot see any way Fury stops Tyson insides the distance. He'd be missing a lot, and as well, he just doesn't hit all that hard....

It is not at impossible for Mike to land to Fury's head here.....

Fury's chin is suspect. Yes, he got up v Wilder, but has been down several times, and wobbled several times. Tyson is a far better overall puncher than anyone Fury has ever fought, as well as having very heavy one shot power.

Fury could survive, but can he actually win? Put together scoring shots on a bob and weave Tyson who is throwing very fast and hard shots, and for rd after rd?

I see Fury lasting a few rds, and eventually Mike does land clean and hard, and Fury is knocked out....other than this, Fury may simply be in spoil and survive mode all night...

I give AJ and Wilder a 1 percent chance to win. I give Fury 20 percent.

yourdeadwright

walshb wrote: »

So it goes back to being able to pick holes in anyone.....

Best to juts agree that they beat who was in their eras....

To some extent yes that's true , but Mike lost to the two big names of his ear in Holyfield and Lewis,
I know it was after prison and so on but that's Mike own fault again he was only 30 at the time of the Holyfield fights ,

walshb

yourdeadwright wrote: »

To some extent yes that's true , but Mike lost to the two big names of his ear in Holyfield and Lewis,
I know it was after prison and so on but that's Mike own fault again he was only 30 at the time of the Holyfield fights ,

The Lewis loss should not even be discussed......

Tyson's age at the time he lost to Holyfield is one thing, his level of greatness, another. Mike was not near his best in 1995/1996.

Some fighters peak at different ages....throw in the jail term for Mike, and it's clear as day that he was past his best.

Holyfield was also a bit past his best days.

You want to slate Ali for the Spinks and Berbick losses?

This is just it, with this picking, you'd be hard pressed to accept any of them as great...

But here's one.....Lewis knocked out cold in two losses, when Lewis was not past his best.....

Holyfield....losing to Michael Moorer.....

Can pick holes in all

They all had periods of greatness, not so great, and poor.....

Tyson had a 5 year spell of greatness. 1986-1991 or so. Won all but 1 fight, and was very very impressive in his showings...

Holyfield's greatness was less than 5 years. More 2-3 tears between 1990 and 1993......

You can do this for many other greats...

yourdeadwright

walshb wrote: »

Fury I don't see keeping Tyson at bay. Mike had very fast attacking feet, and has consistently shown ways to get inside to taller men.

Fury as 8 inches on Mike, maybe 9. I cannot see any way Fury stops Tyson insides the distance. He'd be missing a lot, and as well, he just doesn't hit all that hard....

It is not at impossible for Mike to land to Fury's head here.....

Fury's chin is suspect. Yes, he got up v Wilder, but has been down several times, and wobbled several times. Tyson is a far better overall puncher than anyone Fury has ever fought, as well as having very heavy one shot power.

Fury could survive, but can he actually win? Put together scoring shots on a bob and weave Tyson who is throwing very fast and hard shots, and for rd after rd?

I see Fury lasting a few rds, and eventually Mike does land clean and hard, and Fury is knocked out....other than this, Fury may simply be in spoil and survive mode all night...

I give AJ and Wilder a 1 percent chance to win. I give Fury 20 percent.

Strangely enough pre Douglas which is the time your calling prime Mike,
3 out of the 4 guys to go the distance with Milke where over 6'4 ,


So in his prime there was 3 taller guys he couldn't finish and none of the 3 where close to as good as Fury and none where close to the size of Fury ,

yourdeadwright

walshb wrote: »

The Lewis loss should not even be discussed......

Tyson's age at the time he lost to Holyfield is one thing, his level of greatness, another. Mike was not near his best in 1995/1996.

Some fighters peak at different ages....throw in the jail term for Mike, and it's clear as day that he was past his best.

Holyfield was also a bit past his best days.

You want to slate Ali for the Spinks and Berbick losses?

This is just it, with this picking, you'd be hard pressed to accept any of them as great...

But here's one.....Lewis knocked out cold in two losses, when Lewis was not past his best.....

Holyfield....losing to Michael Moorer.....

Can pick holes in all

They all had periods of greatness, not so great, and poor.....

Tyson had a 5 year spell of greatness. 1986-1991 or so. Won all but 1 fight, and was very very impressive in his showings...

Holyfield's greatness was less than 5 years. More 2-3 tears between 1990 and 1993......

You can do this for many other greats...

Ali was 36 Spinks was 25
Ali was 39 Berbick was 27
Tyson was 35 Lewis was 37


You see the difference ?


Plus Ali beat a hold host of names and rivals Mike lost to the two he fought,

The Nal

walshb wrote: »

Some fighters peak at different ages....throw in the jail term for Mike, and it's clear as day that he was past his best.

True. And chins, bodies and skills diminish. Tyson was already 36-0 by the time Lewis made his pro debut.

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Ali was 36 Spinks was 25
Ali was 39 Berbick was 27
Tyson was 35 Lewis was 37


You see the difference ?


Plus Ali beat a hold host of names and rivals Mike lost to the two he fought,

Ali also had Parkinsons.

Irrelevant anyway, Tyson isn't within an arses roar of Alis league.

walshb

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Ali was 36 Spinks was 25
Ali was 39 Berbick was 27
Tyson was 35 Lewis was 37


You see the difference ?


Plus Ali beat a hold host of names and rivals Mike lost to the two he fought,

You are focusing solely on age here.

Tyson in 2002 was a crock of sh1t when he faced Lewis....

Just like Ali was when he faced Berbick and Holmes...

walshb

Prime Lewis v Prime Tyson?

Lewis gets knocked out. Tyson finds his chin.........

McCall and Rahman did....

Tyson far fitter than he was in 2002, far faster, and far more aggressive......

Bad style match for Lewis....

.

yourdeadwright

walshb wrote: »

Prime Lewis v Prime Tyson?

Lewis gets knocked out. Tyson finds his chin.........

McCall and Rahman did....

Tyson far fitter than he was in 2002, far faster, and far more aggressive......

Bad style match for Lewis....

.

Lewis beats him


Buster did....

walshb

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Lewis beats him


Buster did....

Yes, and McCall and Rahamn starched Lewis.....works both ways...Tyson far deadlier puncher than both those lads...LL would have to figh the fight of his life.....and avoid getting tagged clean.

yourdeadwright

walshb wrote: »

Yes, and McCall and Rahamn starched Lewis.....works both ways...Tyson far deadlier puncher than both those lads...LL would have to figh the fight of his life.....and avoid getting tagged clean.

37 & 40 ko's is hardly poor ,Mike has what 44 ?


Also both these guys as you said ko'd Lewis something Mike could not do ,


McCall also beat Holms who you had down as one of Tyson top 3 wins,

walshb

yourdeadwright wrote: »

37 & 40 ko's is hardly poor ,Mike has what 44 ?


Also both these guys as you said ko'd Lewis something Mike could not do ,


McCall also beat Holms who you had down as one of Tyson top 3 wins,

You do realize that Mike fought Lewis in 2002? I am speaking about prime v prime...

Rahman could punch, no doubt. Oliver, too.....Tyson was overall a more deadlier puncher, than both

normanoffside

walshb wrote: »

Prime Lewis v Prime Tyson?

Lewis gets knocked out. Tyson finds his chin.........

McCall and Rahman did....

Tyson far fitter than he was in 2002, far faster, and far more aggressive......

Bad style match for Lewis....

.

Lewis would be better prepared for Tyson than he was Rahman or McCall.

Also if past it Tyson can’t even land a punch on past it Lewis then I just don’t see how he destroys him when both are prime. Granted Tyson did declin more with age but still....

normanoffside

In modern day news, Joyce is going to go to Germany to fight Huckster for the European title.

I actually like that fight for some reason.

walshb

normanoffside wrote: »

Lewis would be better prepared for Tyson than he was Rahman or McCall.

Also if past it Tyson can’t even land a punch on past it Lewis then I just don’t see how he destroys him when both are prime. Granted Tyson did declin more with age but still....

Exactly why I say prime. Both fully prepared on their best night

If I had more confidence in Lewis's chin, I'd almost lean with him.

yourdeadwright

normanoffside wrote: »

In modern day news, Joyce is going to go to Germany to fight Huckster for the European title.

I actually like that fight for some reason.

Decent move from him I think he wins it,

US2

Thought something interesting had happened with around 20 new pages on the thread but nope 20 pages of nonsense.

Can't believe anyone nevermind an educated boxing fan thinks AJ survives more than 60 seconds with Mike Tyson. Out of the 3 , fury would probably last the longest, maybe 2 rounds.

yourdeadwright

US2 wrote: »

Thought something interesting had happened with around 20 new pages on the thread but nope 20 pages of nonsense.

Can't believe anyone nevermind an educated boxing fan thinks AJ survives more than 60 seconds with Mike Tyson. Out of the 3 , fury would probably last the longest, maybe 2 rounds.

Green, Smith, Tucker,Tillis all what the kids would call cans these days went the distance with "PRIME" Mike Tyson, (ok Green had some pedigree and was decent)


You think an Olympic champion and former world champion won't last 60 seconds ?


This "PRIME" Mike Tyson was gone at 23 year old to never return when he got beat up by Buster ,


Mike pre Buster list of opponents is as bad as Wilder's and Wilder [EMAIL="KO@d"]KO'd[/EMAIL] all of his bar Fury , Post Douglas he lost to Holyfield and Lewis the only big names he fought ,




Someone named his top 3 wins, one was against a 39 year old Larry Holmes who'd been beat in his last 2 fights an retired for two years,


Another was Ruddock who was decent but ever world class|In second fight went the distance but he also got KO'd in the 2nd by Lewis the next year ,


I don't rate AJ at all everyone on here knows this but to say Tyson beats him in 60seconds is crazy, You have all these guys who where never close to world level that went the distance with Mike but yet he ko's AJ in 60 seconds .

walshb

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Green, Smith, Tucker,Tillis all what the kids would call cans these days went the distance with "PRIME" Mike Tyson, (ok Green had some pedigree and was decent)


You think an Olympic champion and former world champion won't last 60 seconds ?

You ned to watch those fights....not just spout out names, and then compare to AJ, who has a weak chin, can be caught, and has shown his vulnerabilities

Tyson would be all over AJ right from the first bell. No feeling out, no jabbing, feinting, boxing. Straight in, on him and whacking him......

60 seconds is not a shock......He'd do well to make it out of rd 1....

Tyson is a horrible style match for AJ...

Watch the Tucker and Smith fights; two big, strong and awkward men, whose sole plan was to spoil and survive. They could spoil and survive; AJ can't....

Green and Tillis were also very durable when they met a younger, still to really mature Tyson...

Honestly, what exactly do you see AJ doing here to make this competitive? Jabbing Mike? Trying to KO Mike?

Dancing and pot shotting Mike?

Actually, forget 60 seconds. The fight is over as soon as Mike lands clean.....does it matter if that is 5/10/30/60/180/360/500/1000/5000/1000 seconds?

squinn2912

US2 wrote: »

Thought something interesting had happened with around 20 new pages on the thread but nope 20 pages of nonsense.

Can't believe anyone nevermind an educated boxing fan thinks AJ survives more than 60 seconds with Mike Tyson. Out of the 3 , fury would probably last the longest, maybe 2 rounds.

It’s nonsense... then you add to it 😂

walshb

squinn2912 wrote: »

It’s nonsense... then you add to it ��

AJ v Tyson? Who you got, and how....what rd..?

Is it nonsense to think Mike could get to AJ early to knock him out, considering what an aggressive fast starter Tyson was, with dynamite hands, and with AJs chin not being solid?

I remember discussing Tyson v Louis.....and saying how Mike wins inside a rd, as he was a horrible match for Joe

Folks were incredulous on it. Saying that Louis should last more rds....but why? He was easily hit, and had a shaky chin.......very bad when you are meeting Tyson...

Hardly takes Mike more than a rd to find Joe's chin......

I can;t see him taking too long to find AJs either.

squinn2912

On the prime ll vs prime Tyson I’m torn. I’d be rooting for mike but Lewis always ruined my night. I think Lewis. I don’t think Tyson at any stage particularly wanted to fight him and expected to win.

The argument about aged Tyson vs aged Lewis isn’t relevant for me because as the pace slows Lewis has all the advantages. Lewis his his prime in the late 90s so he’s still almost in it or just out of it. Tyson is a decade out of his prime by then.

Prime vs prime would be some watching. I can see routes for both of them

The Nal

A lot of people watching too many Tyson highlight reels. BT Sport have been showing a lot of his fights on the classic boxing series. He wasnt superhuman and struggled in his "prime" against some average fighters. As every fighter does.

Of course he was absolutely sensational when he got a fighter on the back foot but he didn't do it with anyone of real note, never came from behind to win a fight, never got off the floor to win a fight, never avenged any of his defeats.