Private Profiles - an update on how they will be changing here
We've partnered up with to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from and get an exclusive discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.

Heavyweight Boxing



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,776 ✭✭✭ squinn2912

    I disagree. If he were in another era and Mike Tyson KO’d him then you would be referencing him as evidence of Tyson’s greatness in any prime fantasy showdown. He’d be competitive in any era. He’s not great but he’s not awful and he has attributes that would make him a handful for anyone. He can and has beaten anyone outside of the top 3 or 4 now that Usyk has joined. He rattled aj - I’ve dismissed that in the past but looking more at aj he missed quite an opportunity in that 2nd or 3rd round. I’d like to see him vrs Joyce or Dubois if not for a title fight.

    1995 had Bruno, Moorer, Seldon, Zolkin and Akinwande all in it I’d be betting on him against all of them and Foreman that year too.

    I’ve looked at the 1985 (I was 1 so don’t remember it) and I’d have him lower down but would he beat Berbick, Weaver and dokes?

    2005 Byrd, Rachman, Toney, Brewster, Ruiz, Barrett, Brock, Wlad, Peter and Valuev

    That’s all just from a quick search of Ring Mag. I’m not his biggest fan. I think he’s an asshole but he’s at the upper end of the division at the moment and I think the division is better than a lot are giving it credit for. There were always turkeys in the top 10 or thereabouts.

  • Registered Users Posts: 48,380 ✭✭✭✭ walshb

    No, Whyte I would argue a journeyman full stop. Based on purely what I have seen of him. Is never a real contender in some other eras.

    if in Tyson’s 80s championship group I’d back all the others as bettter.

    and yes, turkeys in all eras.

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,111 ✭✭✭✭ AckwelFoley


    You summed it up yourself

    "He’d be competitive in any era. He’s not great but he’s not awful and he has attributes that would make him a handful for anyone. He can and has beaten anyone outside of the top 3 or 4 now that Usyk has joined"

    I fully agree with this statement but, That just makes him just not good enough to be a champion. He's just outside the real contenders. He'll get the shot bit can't see him beat any of the top 3 or 4

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,776 ✭✭✭ squinn2912

    I get your point pal I’m not saying he’s great but good.

    fir me a journeyman would be Hammer, Allen, Harrison or Price. Whyte is a good cut above that. Washington, Browne… yano tune ups

  • Registered Users Posts: 48,380 ✭✭✭✭ walshb

    Yes, I'd agree here. Maybe I am a bit harsh on him.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,111 ✭✭✭✭ AckwelFoley

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,197 ✭✭✭ jacdaniel2014

    I said it a few weeks ago that I wondered if Whyte regretted the Wallin fight.

    He wouldn’t have known at the time that he’d get a shot at Fury. Title on the line in an all UK fight.

    Whyte probably wanted another decent name on his CV. But no need for the risk now.

    He’s waited long enough. Make the fight with Fury.

  • Registered Users Posts: 48,380 ✭✭✭✭ walshb

    Just on this. You used Tyson in his 2002 loss to Lewis to mention his age and being younger than Lewis. Even though by 2002 aged 36 or so, Mike was shot to bits.

    Also, Tyson was past his best aged 25, but only very very slightly. He was still exceptionally good in 1991. Could argue still in his prime years.

    His performances in both Ruddock fights were very very close to his late 80s performances.

    When he came out prison aged 29/30, then he was noticeably past his best.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭ Littlehorny

    Cannot agree with the last line of your post there Walshb. When Tyson came out of prison he looked just as fast and ferocious as he had ever done. He actually looked more ripped than in his early twenties.

    He came out and regained a title and only took 3 rounds to rip Bruno apart and took out Sheldon in a round. He was 30 and finally Holyfield and himself were getting it on. Holyfield was 34 and had looked poor in a couple of previous fights.

    Holyfield was by far the underdog going into the fight and he won a great fight, but lets be clear Tyson before this fight no one was saying Tyson was noticeably past his best.

    Maybe this was the time that the tag "prime" and "peak" started to be used for Tyson.

  • Registered Users Posts: 48,380 ✭✭✭✭ walshb

    Well, for me it seemed clear that in 1995, albeit still good, he was clearly not as sharp, ferocious or as physically fit as pre prison. How could he be?

    being more ripped, or having a more chiselled torso. What is this supposed to mean? Are you arguing that it shows/proves he was as good, if not better than pre prison?

    also, a 1995 Bruno was not the same as a 1989 Bruno. And Seldon wasn’t up to much at all, and some thought that he took a dive.

    it’s all down to percentages and slight changes: 1987/1988 years he was at 100 percent. 1991 I’d say 90 percent, and 1995 he was at 75/80 percent..

    btw, Holyfield too was not at his best. Holyfield’s prime HW years were 1990-1992

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭ Littlehorny

    Wow, you must have been the only person in the world who seen before the Holyfield fights that Tyson had regressed that much.

    It was clear to you that Tyson was past his best before he fought Holyfield? Really?

    Well no one can prove that is what you thought I suppose.

    All I can remember about Tyson vs Holyfield 1 is that Holyfield shook the world but you must have seen that Mike was in decline better that everyone else.

  • Registered Users Posts: 48,380 ✭✭✭✭ walshb

    I was hardly the only person. And it’s not like he was shot to bits. Just noticeably past his best.

    Specific to Holyfield fights: Was anyone in 1996/1997 claiming Mike was as good/same fighter he was in the 1980s? I highly doubt it

    Watch the footage of him post prison v McNeely and Bruno, and then compare it to his prime championship reign. It’s quite clear he’s not as sharp/fast or even as accurate.

    google Tyson’s prime and pretty much standard you’ll see it was pre prison.

    like I said, it’s about percentages, and in 1995/1996/1997 he was at about 75-85 percent.

    whether or not he beat Holyfield is irrelevant. Tyson post prison was past his fighting best.

    I’d be very surprised if I was in the minority in claiming that both Holyfield and Tyson were noticeably past their best in 1996/1997. Tyson was favoured for the very reason tyat Holyfield was past it.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭ Littlehorny

    Your trying to claim now after the event that people were saying that Tyson was only 75 to 85% the fighter he was before the Holyfield fight and that's just not true in my opinion.

    It's only after the two Holyfield fights and beyond that Tyson gets a pass by his supporters claiming he was past his prime.

    Too easy to claim that now in my opinion, as I said earlier Holyfield beating Tyson in their first fight was a shock because Tyson was the red hot favourite.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,776 ✭✭✭ squinn2912

    So what is the point? That it was or wasn’t still Tyson’s prime or that he wasn’t that good in the first place? Impossible to really know I suppose because during his pre-prison days he didn’t fight the guys who later on didn’t have the question marks like Holyfield, Lewis etc. Problem is that when you rely on speed and reflexes and those are even a fraction off then you become so much more beatable - a brute strength, long reach HW will have a much longer shelf life. Add into that turmoil and indiscipline.

    But once a fighter loses it’s not hard to produce the question marks - Fury is getting it now; Wilder was no good anyway, Wlad fought in an era where there was no challenge (similar to Holmes), aj and Fury get detracted from because Wlad was finished, Foreman got hit too much anyway, Frazier was small

    The issue here is that when you start to ask the Tyson questions there are a lot of questions in contrast to Lewis say.

    Anyhow looking back he was awesome pre-prison. After prison he didn’t do or look nearly as good. I’m not sure even awesome 80s would beat Lewis. Not confident he’d beat Holyfield either, maybe. Bowe I don’t think so. That’s today, I’ll think something else tomorrow I’m sure.

  • Registered Users Posts: 48,380 ✭✭✭✭ walshb


    well. I can recall clearly my feelings in 1996/1997

    fight 1 I favoured Tyson to win

    fight 2 I favoured Holyfield

    in neither fight was I of the opinion that either man was prime. They were not, and as I said, I’d be surprised if I was alone thinking this

    watch the footage of 1986-1988 Tyson and 1990-1992 Holyfield. Are you seriously saying that they were also the same, or prime in 1996/1997?

    again, were their fans and pundits and experts saying in 1996/1997 that we were seeing Tyson in his prime? Holyfield in his prime? Because if there were, I didn’t hear it.

    Definitely folks were saying Holyfield was past his best. On Tyson, I don’t recall,(but I certainly can’t recall anyone saying Mike was still prime) but clear to me, and should be clear to all, that Tyson too was past his prime.

  • Registered Users Posts: 48,380 ✭✭✭✭ walshb

    It’s simple: watch their footage in 1986-1988 for Mike and 1990-1992 for Holyfield. Watch how they perform, react, punch, move etc..

    now watch them perform in 1996/1997, or 2002 for Tyson, as you mention Lewis. Can you see any differences?

    I’d be gobsmacked if educated fight fans cannot see that both Tyson and Holyfield were noticeably not the same fighters in 1996/1997 as they were 1986-1988 and 1990-1992

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭ Littlehorny

    Holyfield was sent for a battery of tests before he took on Tyson because some thought he was shot and shouldn't have been getting into a ring with Tyson for their first fight, but big money talks.

    Tyson was 25 to 1 favourite before the fight and Holyfield beating him up was as big a shock as Douglas beating Tyson in his first loss and that is a fact.

    My point all along has been that before the Holyfield fight you tried to claim that Tyson was already noticeably not the fighter he was and I'm sorry but i think that's nonsense.

  • Registered Users Posts: 48,380 ✭✭✭✭ walshb

    You’re conflating here:

    Nobody is claiming Holyfield was not past it. We all knew he was

    and it is absolutely not nonsense to know at the time, and claim at the time that Tyson too was past his prime.

    just because Mike was the favorite doesn’t mean that he was prime.

    they both were past prime: It’s nonsense to not see and acknowledge this.

    google Tyson’s prime; are there any references from anyone claiming it was post prison?

    you’re basing it off what? Him having a chiselled torso, and beating McNeely and a mid 90s Bruno?

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭ Littlehorny

    Like I keep saying it's easy to say Tyson was past his best pre -Holyfield now, years later.

    But no one was saying this before the Holyfield fights.

    Also, you keep saying both were past their best, why are you bringing Holyfield into this?

    I picked you up on a point you made earlier about you noticing Tyson was past his best pre- Holyfield and I questioned it because Tyson fought 4 guys after prison and blew all 4 away in 8 rounds so it felt to me like your making excuses for the man.

  • Registered Users Posts: 48,380 ✭✭✭✭ walshb

    We’ll agree to disagree..

    I maintain that any fight fan who watched the pre prison 20-25 year old Tyson and watched the post prison 29-31 year old Tyson and cannot see from performance, footage and visuals that the post prison Tyson was past his best, hasn’t a clue. And a post prison chiselled torso doesn’t change that.

    and nothing to do with before or after their fights. I can only speak for me: in 1996 I knew Tyson was past his best and I knew Holyfield was.

    Post edited by walshb on

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,111 ✭✭✭✭ AckwelFoley

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭ Littlehorny

    You say lets agree to disagree at the start of your post and then say further down that I haven't a clue?

    Bit disingenuous of you? No?

    I watched the Bruno 2 fight and the Sheldon fight there as you asked and in these two fights before he fought Holyfield he looked awesome, a real wrecking ball.

    So, as you say lets agree to disagree but just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they haven't got a clue. That's what difference of opinion and debate is about.

  • Registered Users Posts: 48,380 ✭✭✭✭ walshb

    Well, you seemed to claim that my take was nonsense. So, saying folks haven’t a clue kind of squares it up.

    I didn’t take offence to your claim..

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,351 ✭✭✭ Littlehorny

    No offense on my end either pal, Peace ✌️🙂

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,776 ✭✭✭ squinn2912

    For what it’s worth I do agree with you more here. Tyson had as obvious a prime as there has been in the division. There is however a legitimate question as to whether Tyson would ever have beaten the likes of Holyfield or Lewis (I take Bowe in here too) or did those elites or greats just have the game to beat any version of him. I think prime Mike takes virtually anyone but I wouldn’t be fully confident with Lewis especially. It just depends on how you see it. I know my stance on it and I’m not 100% sure. I can see some like you who reckon Tyson takes them all but equally there is compelling evidence when you look at the whole picture to suggest the opposite argument. I’m sure you can see that too - he had plenty of weaknesses or vulnerabilities when judged against the very, very best. Now of course there are ways to rebuke that evidence - he was shot, past his best, on the drink/drugs etc but we could apply that to a lot more than just this thread.

    It’s come out now that Wilder was concussed and I think broke his arm or dislocated it in the fight against Fury. I’d say you would immediately dismiss this as nothing to do with the outcome - feel free to correct me but that’s how I’d expect you to react and that is not a criticism of you at all. If Tyson had injured his arm even in the post prime years and lost a fight then I think you’d find that more relevant to the reason for the loss. It’s natural to be biased for a fighter or team or whatever that you like - I do it all the time and as a result overrate certain players, teams etc.

    I’d say the answer is likely somewhere in the middle. The fantasy fight in prime vs prime would have been awesome and sometimes Tyson would’ve come out on top, sometimes not.

  • Registered Users Posts: 48,380 ✭✭✭✭ walshb

    I think conflation is unnecessarily happening.

    I have made 0 excuses for any Tyson losses. He lost his fights because on the nights, his opponents were better.

    Now, discussing what we see for the losses is just a little more analysis. That’s all.

    I won’t go near his later losses:

    1. Buster loss. Better man on the night won. Analysis: I recall right from about 60 seconds in that Tyson looked a step off. Less fast/sharp and less bob and weave. It was well known Rooney was gone and King was in. Well known Tyson’s personal life was in disarray. These are not excuses, just observations and “facts” known about Tyson in 1989/1990. I still believe a Rooney prepared/committed/focused Tyson beats Buster more times than not. Buster performed exceptionally well and deserved the win.
    2. Losses to Holyfield: both noticeably past their best. Holyfield better man on night. No excuses. Both at their best? I’d pick Tyson 8-10 times. I’d be 60-40 confident here.
    3. 2002 loss to Lewis: Tyson clearly past best. Kind of shot to bits. Lewis far better on the night. No excuses. Prime Tyson v Prime Lewis. 8-/10 times I’d pick Tyson. I’d be 60-40 confident

    You can discuss fights and wins and losses without excusing them and making excuses for the losses.

    Lewis and Holyfield both better than any Tyson’s championship opponents pre and post prison. Both can beat Tyson, as both have strengths to do so. Tyson can beat both because Tyson has strengths. I’m leaning with Tyson more because I think at his best he will have a little too much in terms of speed/power and finishing ability for both.

  • Registered Users Posts: 48,380 ✭✭✭✭ walshb

    Oh, and if any fighter has a verifiable injury in a fight, of course it can affect the outcome of the fight. Of course, some fights it can affect more than others and so on.

  • Registered Users Posts: 33,633 ✭✭✭✭ eagle eye

    See I'm not so sure about Tyson against Lewis. When you try to get in you have to get past that powerful straight jab. It's very difficult to get past it and you pay dearly if you get caught flush with it.

  • Registered Users Posts: 48,380 ✭✭✭✭ walshb

    Yes. I get you.

    Put it this way. Tyson would need to be on form..

    I have a feeling a peak Tyson adapts and adjusts to Lewis more than the reverse. Tyson was a real student of the game under Rooney.

    two key areas: defense and chin. Tyson for me takes a better shot, and has a better defense. Like Wilder, I think Tyson’s short stature aids Tyson more than Lewis’ height aids Lewis.

    also: it’s difficult to look past the two times where Lewis was beaten by one punch. Not a beat down. One punch type endings. Mike definitely can end it with one punch. And hits as hard as McCall and Rahman.

    I can see a right cross/hook Larry Holmes type shot catching Lennox to cause serious damage.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 33,633 ✭✭✭✭ eagle eye

    I don't disagree that if he gets the shot it could be lights out for Lewis but Lewis was so rangy and it's hard for Tyson to get in. His attempts to get in could be where it finishes as Lewis also had serious power.