I didn't name anyone on my post. I expressed my opinion that Mike Tyson has been discussed numerous times on the boxing thread and the debate just goes round and round. In fact I had a debate with you on him a couple of years ago.
I feel and maybe others do that all points both pro and con Tyson have been to death at this stage.
We all rate some fighters more than others anyway and at 49 I remember Tyson winning his first world titles and loved him so it's not a Tyson bashing post.
If you want me to contribute I will, imo Mike Tyson beats Joshua, Wilder and Fury.
Wilder is one more big win that Mike Tyson ever had.
Walshb recovers from his knock down, to put his opponent down, ding ding.
Never mind prime Mike Tyson v Whoever, Walshb v Littlehorny is the prize fight 😂
Point is they both fought a percentage of journeymen. Tyson annihilates all Fury’s journeymen, and Fury beats Tyson’s. You’re far too critically harsh and biased here.
plus it wasn’t just the number fights. 10-0 with 8 KOs included in that 37-0 record. Fury is 3-0-1 in championship fights to date from his 32 fights. Not near Tyson’s numbers from his 37-0
Just on this. You post once in a blue moon here on the forum. But you are obviously reading the threads, and clearly reading this one.
If you barely ever contribute to threads, why are posters who are contributing and discussing with decent back and forth, analysis, stats and opinions ruining anything? And most of all, how are we ruining threads for you, who doesn’t contribute anyway?
How many turkeys has Fury fought? I'm asking rather than showing you up.
Ahh now come on
Number of fights doesnt do justice here
15 in Tyson fought Mark Young whos lost like 40 fights, Fury fought Chisora
Young had lost 6 fights by the time. He fought Mike and went on to lose his next 6 hardly stellar competition
In his next fight (16) he fought Jaco, The fight was somewhere in the middle of a 2wins & 16 losses streak for Jaco
I know Mike was young but the first 16 where bowling pins waiting to be knocked over
Guys like John McDermott who Fury fought in his 8th fight would have beat all of Mike ealry opponents
Yes
Thats my point its all absurd and a pointless exercise
And the knockout blow has been given.
It's a chat forum, everyone is entitled to chat about what they like once it's relevant to the thread. Everyone is entitled to give their opinion as well and we know yours now.
Best post on the whole bloody thread!!
Another boxing thread ruined by talking about Mike Tyson mystical match ups.
Lads, you all follow boxing. When you hear or read the words prime, peak and Tyson in one sentence do you not think it would be better to just leave it?
It's been going on years everywhere on the internet.
He looked unbeatable for a few years, he went off the rails and it was a slow end after that.
Can we leave it at that?
Fury has about 31/32 fights, and is likely 4/6 fights shy of retiring..possibly less. Who knows.
Tyson was 37-0 by 1990…33 KOs..
and Fury’s his best wins are an old Wlad and Deontay Wilder..Tyson was 10-0 with 8 KOs (championship) just before his 38th fight
same for AJ here. Has not done as much as Mike Tyson, albeit he still has more championship wins than Fury, and clearly more.
and it’s Mike Tyson who is getting lambasted..
Also it's very fair to judge pre Buster Douglas Tyson with Fury. Mike had more fights at that time than Fury has in his career to date.
Honest question, who has Fury fought outside of Wilder? Wlad a coupe of days short of his 40th birthday?
So then you'd have Fury and Marciano as a draw?
Wilder just needs to touch Tyson now with his right hand and it’s lights out? This is absurd..
does Mike also need to just touch Wilder with the right hand, right hook, left hook, right uppercut and it’s lights out?
two things: Tyson has a rock solid chin for single absorption. And he had quite a good defense. Wilder hasn’t even got an uppercut to use against the shorter Tyson
Wilder has nothing to compete with Tyson.
Ok, meet you half way. Let’s assume e Wilder can’t KO Mike, you still think he wins?
because apart from his very very slim KO chance, he’s getting ktfo, and if miraculously he survives, it’s a clear shutout points win..
their skillsets are so far apart. Tyson had a far greater skillset. Quite surprised you can’t see this; and leads me to believe that it’s more you are so eager to not praise/rate Tyson than anything else.
Again, where did I say it was Tyson's best win?
And, why are you asking me for Mike's prime, again?!
I already said what I believe to be his prime...it is the years 1986-1988/1989....any one these calendar years I think he was at his best.
Having to pick one year where Tsyon looked to me to at his fighting best? 1988.....1987 a close second.
You have not said what you believe to be his prime year(s) where he was at his fighting best...
Says more about that version of Holmes than Spinks
Spinks weighed 200 lbs for that fight just 14 stone for contrast Usyk was just under 16 tone for the AJ fight 7 seen as small ,
Hey may have been 7lb lighter but he was completely blow up & never carried near that weigh in a ring before,
For that to be your best win says it all ,
What year is prime Mike
I always knew Tyson would KO Spinks. Most picked him to. Where did I say that I thought he was a serious heavyweight?
Fact is that he was the lineal champion, as he beat Holmes twice. So let's not pretend he was a nobody.
My Spinks point was clear, if you read it. Holmes lost to Spinks twice, and you won't hear too much criticism, yet Tyson pulverizes Spinks in 90 seconds and it gets dismissed as Spinks being too small. Despite being 6-7 lbs lighter than Mike...
I am not arguing Spinks as a great HW. I am simply pointing out the bias/logic that people use to harshly assess and criticize Tyson's opposition
You can't seriously think Spinks was a serious heavy weight ?
he weight a career high of 212lbs v Tyson & that was him bulked up ,
Didn't he fight in the Olympics as a middle weight ?
Wasn't there rumour he as afraid to leave the dressing room to fight Mike, He only moved to heavy weight because he fancied his chance at beating Holmes which did just about, .,
Not sure what that means about it being Mike's fault.....whatever age he was, in 2002 vs Lewis he was clearly shot to bits.....
Why are you asking me what year was prime Mike?
You know the year(s) I gave, and what most educated boxing fans would give
What year(s) would you say were when Tyson was at his best, or really close to it?
All boxers have prime ages/years etc.....Tyson is no different.
That nobody but Mikes fault ,
What year is prime Mike ? Is it before Douglas when he never really fought anyone of note or after Douglas when the best guy he fought was Ruddock who went 12 rounds & was never up to much himself lost to every top 10 fighter he ever faced ,
What year is Prime Mike ?
Norton and Shavers were not near great, despite Norton beating Ali...
Some the names you mention were every bit as weak as you want to make Mike's opponents to be.
They beat who was in their era....Tyson's 10 wins up to 1990 Douglas was every bit as decent as some the names on Holmes' ledger
Foreman lost to Jimmy Young for chrissake Norton he knocked out. Big deal. So did Cooney...even quicker I believe.
Your selecting Mike's wins and trying to lambast his opposition, while trying to not lambast others is way off....they all beat and lost to names that were in their time.
Holmes, lost to fooking Spinks......a man Mike pulverized in one round, yet what happens? Yes, Mike's detractors slag Spinks as being too small...this is the kind of logic that gets thrown around
And on Floyd Patterson: One of, if not the weakest HW champions ever. I'd back all Tyson's opponent he beat during his 1986-1989 reign to KO Patterson. Liston is 2-2 in championship bouts. Both wins vs. Patterson..
Using this single criteria here, age, is ridiculous....
Tyson was shot to bits in 2002.....it shouldn't need to be pointed out....
It's prime vs prime.....for me, Tysin wins 8-10.....their actual fight in 2002 is of no use whatsoever to judge prime vs prime.
The obvious strategy for Fury would be to get behind that jab all night and use that 14 inch reach advantage. Even if Mike did catch Fury and put him down I'd have full faith that he'll get up and still win. Mike's only hope would be to end it early, longer it goes on Fury with lean on him, wrestle him, slow him down and probably get a late stoppage.
He could also win going on the offensive, take the centre of the ring and get tyson fighting on the back foot. He'd look for those clubbing right hands to the ear, lots of 1-2's and clinch, wear him down. Bit riskier but likely to end in a quicker stoppage.
He beat Holmes( who's on your list) & Spinks ,
There his two biggest name wins,
But of course Holmes was out of retirement and finished & Spinks was a LHW & way to small for the division but on paper they are the two "greats" he beat
Well of the people Tyson is allegedly in contention with (ie top 10 ever)
Holmes beat Norton, Shavers and loads of the people Tyson beat. Williams, Smith, Witherspoon, Marvis.
Ali beat Liston, Patterson, Williams, Foreman, Frazier, Norton.
Foreman beat Frazier, Norton, Lyle.
Lewis beat Tyson, Holyfield, Klitschko.
Holyfield beat Tyson twice, Foreman and all the others Tyson beat.
Frazier beat Ali.
Tyson beat..... Bruno?
Its a genuine question. And the only way to judge greatness. The fantasy stuff is just that.
Which greats of his era did he beat? Theres usually only 2 or 3 by the way in any era. But he lost to both of them. Apart from Naseem, still my favourite fighter ever to watch mind you.
Talking about Prime Mike Tyson and dismissing his losses to Douglas, Lewis ,Holyfield and so on is crazy ,
I'll give you an example
You pick "Prime Tyson " to beat anyone because he was a wrecking machine, ,
I say he wouldn't beat "Prime Wilder" because he just needs to touch you with his right hand & its lights out & Tyson got hit ,
So who's right ?
It's just a load of nonsense really ,
