Mike Tyson is TBE

[Max Power]

There's never been such a particular combination of qualities since Tyson to be sure.

Sacking Rooney and succumbing to a bad lifestyle was a fatal error. A fully focussed and dedicated Tyson could very well have been the dominant champ of the 90's as well.

We'll never know though.

[p4pking]

I think Tyson would have great chances vs Chris Arreola or Stiverne.

But

Tyson never once beat anybody as big +good as Arreola

Or as good+heavy as Stiverne

So to answer your question, I DO rank Tyson ahead of these guys, but whether he would win against them in fact is an open question.

One thing is for sure, Tyson was stretched to the limit by guys whom either of these guys would have banged straight out. So no, Tyson could not steam roll either of them.

I still rate Arreola just a notch below Stiverne now, they are rather evenly matched.

Considering Tyson vs these guys is a valid question because he WAS special.

No pre80's HW was special, the better ones won against bums and cruisers mainly! With little exception.

Pre80's HW's could barely even box as we would describe it today.

You have reminded me what a stupid poster you are. Even Arreleo's mum would slap you for saying such a stupid thing.

Yes well I often wonder what guys like Arreola or Stiverne fr that mattter, think about being compared to such ludicrous opponents as they have been subjected to. Guys that boxed 50 or more years earlier which were about 5 weight classes below them and often failed to score knockouts against even WORSE opponents over a full 15 or even 20 rounds!

Guys like Jimmy Young etc can lost multiple fights against guys who would ever even box today, Yet someone like Arreola loses against guys as strong as never existed before and suddenly he can't box?

Something is wrong with this picture.

Fortunately Mike Tyson knew exactly where it was at..

I'll dig up the quote from Mike soon...

There is a very easy way to judge a fighters competition. It's a no brainer method.

Everybody knows it..

"Every era, is by and large, better (stronger, faster (p4p) and more skilled) than the one preceded it. Because athletes and sportsmen get better and better from generation to generation."

THIS^^^ Is simply how it works, and is supported by every fact, every statistic one could viably concoct. And it certainly LOOKS that way to me.

Mike Tyson vs Chris Arreola = valid debate

For example..

Wladimir Klitschko vs Jess Willard = definitely does NOT!

I don't sleight you for thinking that athletes by and large improve over time, not at all. I feel boxing is a lot different than most sports in that it isn't overwhelmingly about athleticism though. Michael Grant might be one of the biggest strongest modern athletes who ever set foot in the ring. He would have killed Lennox Lewis in a 100m dash, vertical leap, was probably stronger and faster in just about every way. He got the shit kicked out of him because he didn't know how to fight half as well and didn't have nearly the intangibles. I don't think Arreola exactly thrives in these departments either, and in fact hes not even that physically impressive. It really seems as though you champion him strictly because he is current, which is odd. If you think he would have actually stood any kind of chance against Mike Tyson I don't put any stock in the way anything looks to you The guy was in big trouble against Travis Walker, he lost to a light heavyweight Tomas Adamek, but I suppose those guys would have been undisputed HW champions as well if they came before 1985? Do you still think Arreola would have beaten LArry Holmes?

[Max Power]

I don't sleight you for thinking that athletes by and large improve over time, not at all. I feel boxing is a lot different than most sports in that it isn't overwhelmingly about athleticism though. Michael Grant might be one of the biggest strongest modern athletes who ever set foot in the ring. He would have killed Lennox Lewis in a 100m dash, vertical leap, was probably stronger and faster in just about every way. He got the shit kicked out of him because he didn't know how to fight half as well and didn't have nearly the intangibles. I don't think Arreola exactly thrives in these departments either, and in fact hes not even that physically impressive. It really seems as though you champion him strictly because he is current, which is odd. If you think he would have actually stood any kind of chance against Mike Tyson I don't put any stock in the way anything looks to you The guy was in big trouble against Travis Walker, he lost to a light heavyweight Tomas Adamek, but I suppose those guys would have been undisputed HW champions as well if they came before 1985? Do you still think Arreola would have beaten LArry Holmes?

You wont put any stock in my opinion because I don't think Tyson could "run through" Arreola..

You do realise Tyson LOST occasionally and won by DECISION sometimes too right? We ARE talking about the same Tyson here? LEt's seperate myth from fact.

Mike Tyson was KNOCKED OUT by featherfist bum Buster Douglas!

Let's analyse Chris's losses...

Vitali Klitscko - WOW who DOESN'T lose to Vitali Klitschko! Arreola gave him his hardest fight since Lewis!
Tomasz Adamek- Excellent boxer with a solid chin. Just as good as Holyfield was really. And proven giant slayer!

Vitali fight was stopped late to save Chris punishment and Adamek was merely a decision loss, no canvas KO's.

And now Stiverne x2. Probably the hardest puncher in the division with a chin of cast iron, fast hands and sharp cunterpunching skills. Chris was winning the first until caught early with a hard shot but then fought through the rest of the fight bloodied and battered to survive. And in the 2nd was clearly winning until caught hard by a thunderous shot.

1 canvas KO now. Chris has an iron chin too, no chin can withstand that shit!

There is no question regarding the heart and the tenacity of this extremely dangerous boxer who nobody ever really runs through.

Also if you want to mention Travis Walker, then I would also mention James Quick Tillis whom was outboxing Mike right until the end until Mike saved himself. I think I'd rather be up against it with walker than with a bummy cruiser like Tillis!

So what about Mike now?

Look how Mikes performance drops against good+tall opponents (like Arreola)...

Mitch Green UD10
James Smith UD12
Tony Tucker UD12
Buster Douglas - Tyson gets KOed
LEnnox Lewis - Tyson gets KOed
KEvin McBride - Tyson gets KOed

Of the above opponents, Arreola would lay waste to all except Lennox Lewis!

Sorry but "mythical" Mike Tyson stops Arreola.

"ACTUAL" Mike Tyson is in for a tough fight vs him. You can claim Arreola failed everytime he stepped up. Maybe so. But then again, Mike failed against much lesser opponents than Arreola himself.

Remember I DO rate Tyson higher and tip him to win here, but thinking Tyson can run through an opponent of this calibre is ridiculous, considering he never actually DID!

[p4pking]

Arreola doesn't jab and tie up, use his legs, he'd just trade punches and get clubbed out of there by a prime Tyson, you're dumb. Tony Tucker would have outboxed the Elephant seal as well.

[Max Power]

Arreola doesn't jab and tie up, use his legs, he'd just trade punches and get clubbed out of there by a prime Tyson, you're dumb. Tony Tucker would have outboxed the Elephant seal as well.

That's just a ridiculous opinion.

Arreola is a well skilled boxer, just as good as most. And I'm not taking anything away from Tucker because he was good fighter too. The main difference between Arreola and most are physical advantages (height, power, weight and a very solid chin+stamina) and relentless aggression/pressure and heart. Imagine Tyson's victims vs Arreola? He'd knock there block off as well!

Now Tyson is one of my favourite all time boxers and I rate him highly, but there is GREAT questions on how he would tolerate the adversity of the current HW's, and 00's HW's and even some of the bigger+stronger ones which he didn't fight.

My opinion IS that he'd beat most of them, remember that. But he isn't destroying any opponent like Arreola who is skilled+big.

I noticed you making quips about Arrreola's fat weight. Do we really have to go there again?

In short it's the HW division, there are advantaged and disadvantages of being both lean and chubby at HW, as you said it is NOT athletics!

And almost too stupid to mention but I guess I'll have to.. Being chubby does not equate to less muscles.

Arreola is fast, Arreola has stamina, that is what's important. So who gives a F if he isn't ripped!

Now Tyson might be TBE for all I know but let's not try and sell that he destroys the upper echelons of boxing ina few rounds here ey!

[mmafightclub6]

He's pretty scary during his prime. Not TBE though. I only wish fighters fights the best opposition so it's easier to know why the TBE really is.

[p4pking]

Arreola doesn't jab and tie up, use his legs, he'd just trade punches and get clubbed out of there by a prime Tyson, you're dumb. Tony Tucker would have outboxed the Elephant seal as well.

That's just a ridiculous opinion.

Arreola is a well skilled boxer, just as good as most. And I'm not taking anything away from Tucker because he was good fighter too. The main difference between Arreola and most are physical advantages (height, power, weight and a very solid chin+stamina) and relentless aggression/pressure and heart. Imagine Tyson's victims vs Arreola? He'd knock there block off as well!

Now Tyson is one of my favourite all time boxers and I rate him highly, but there is GREAT questions on how he would tolerate the adversity of the current HW's, and 00's HW's and even some of the bigger+stronger ones which he didn't fight.

My opinion IS that he'd beat most of them, remember that. But he isn't destroying any opponent like Arreola who is skilled+big.

I noticed you making quips about Arrreola's fat weight. Do we really have to go there again?

In short it's the HW division, there are advantaged and disadvantages of being both lean and chubby at HW, as you said it is NOT athletics!

And almost too stupid to mention but I guess I'll have to.. Being chubby does not equate to less muscles.

Arreola is fast, Arreola has stamina, that is what's important. So who gives a F if he isn't ripped!

Now Tyson might be TBE for all I know but let's not try and sell that he destroys the upper echelons of boxing ina few rounds here ey!

You are in the upper echelons of annoying. Do you think Adamek was a better HW than Tony Tucker? Was Travis Walker more dangerous than Razor Ruddock in your opinion? It's very possible a few of Tysons victims would have beaten Arreola. You think the guy is a really hard fight for anyone who ever lived, most people don't rate him as a great fighter at all, because he wasn't quite. Not really sure what else there is to say.

[Max Power]

Arreola doesn't jab and tie up, use his legs, he'd just trade punches and get clubbed out of there by a prime Tyson, you're dumb. Tony Tucker would have outboxed the Elephant seal as well.

That's just a ridiculous opinion.

Arreola is a well skilled boxer, just as good as most. And I'm not taking anything away from Tucker because he was good fighter too. The main difference between Arreola and most are physical advantages (height, power, weight and a very solid chin+stamina) and relentless aggression/pressure and heart. Imagine Tyson's victims vs Arreola? He'd knock there block off as well!

Now Tyson is one of my favourite all time boxers and I rate him highly, but there is GREAT questions on how he would tolerate the adversity of the current HW's, and 00's HW's and even some of the bigger+stronger ones which he didn't fight.

My opinion IS that he'd beat most of them, remember that. But he isn't destroying any opponent like Arreola who is skilled+big.

I noticed you making quips about Arrreola's fat weight. Do we really have to go there again?

In short it's the HW division, there are advantaged and disadvantages of being both lean and chubby at HW, as you said it is NOT athletics!

And almost too stupid to mention but I guess I'll have to.. Being chubby does not equate to less muscles.

Arreola is fast, Arreola has stamina, that is what's important. So who gives a F if he isn't ripped!

Now Tyson might be TBE for all I know but let's not try and sell that he destroys the upper echelons of boxing ina few rounds here ey!

You are in the upper echelons of annoying. Do you think Adamek was a better HW than Tony Tucker? Was Travis Walker more dangerous than Razor Ruddock in your opinion? It's very possible a few of Tysons victims would have beaten Arreola. You think the guy is a really hard fight for anyone who ever lived, most people don't rate him as a great fighter at all, because he wasn't quite. Not really sure what else there is to say.

I would personally pick Arreola to beat Razor and Tucker. Both would be tough fights for Arreola though.

Arreola wasted 230+lbs Travis Walker wtf! He got KD'd once, got up and destroyed.

Adamek is definitely better HW than Tucker wtf!

Tucker was long and had skills but he was very lazy. HW Adamek had great chin, was stronger than Tucker, faster and had better reflexes.

I don't care what others rate him. 99% of boxing fans AND "experts" are retarded. I evaluate fighters purely on fact, all mythology excluded.

Tyson afficianados are fond of saying it's not just the competition he fought but the way he beat them too and I agree. The opposite is also true though. It's not just that Arreola lost to top competitors but HOW well he lost to them too.

Tyson lost to lesser competition than Arreola has.

Everytime Tyson DID fight comparable opponents to those that beat Chris, he DID lose.

[Max Power]

Unbelievable!

I jump on this thread seriously contemplating Mike Tyson being TBE HW.

And then dudes just go too far by claiming he thrashes every better+giant opponent imaginable.

No need for such extremes!

[p4pking]

Arreola doesn't jab and tie up, use his legs, he'd just trade punches and get clubbed out of there by a prime Tyson, you're dumb. Tony Tucker would have outboxed the Elephant seal as well.

That's just a ridiculous opinion.

Arreola is a well skilled boxer, just as good as most. And I'm not taking anything away from Tucker because he was good fighter too. The main difference between Arreola and most are physical advantages (height, power, weight and a very solid chin+stamina) and relentless aggression/pressure and heart. Imagine Tyson's victims vs Arreola? He'd knock there block off as well!

Now Tyson is one of my favourite all time boxers and I rate him highly, but there is GREAT questions on how he would tolerate the adversity of the current HW's, and 00's HW's and even some of the bigger+stronger ones which he didn't fight.

My opinion IS that he'd beat most of them, remember that. But he isn't destroying any opponent like Arreola who is skilled+big.

I noticed you making quips about Arrreola's fat weight. Do we really have to go there again?

In short it's the HW division, there are advantaged and disadvantages of being both lean and chubby at HW, as you said it is NOT athletics!

And almost too stupid to mention but I guess I'll have to.. Being chubby does not equate to less muscles.

Arreola is fast, Arreola has stamina, that is what's important. So who gives a F if he isn't ripped!

Now Tyson might be TBE for all I know but let's not try and sell that he destroys the upper echelons of boxing ina few rounds here ey!

You are in the upper echelons of annoying. Do you think Adamek was a better HW than Tony Tucker? Was Travis Walker more dangerous than Razor Ruddock in your opinion? It's very possible a few of Tysons victims would have beaten Arreola. You think the guy is a really hard fight for anyone who ever lived, most people don't rate him as a great fighter at all, because he wasn't quite. Not really sure what else there is to say.

I would personally pick Arreola to beat Razor and Tucker. Both would be tough fights for Arreola though.

Arreola wasted 230+lbs Travis Walker wtf! He got KD'd once, got up and destroyed.

Adamek is definitely better HW than Tucker wtf!

Tucker was long and had skills but he was very lazy. HW Adamek had great chin, was stronger than Tucker, faster and had better reflexes.

I don't care what others rate him. 99% of boxing fans AND "experts" are retarded. I evaluate fighters purely on fact, all mythology excluded.

Tyson afficianados are fond of saying it's not just the competition he fought but the way he beat them too and I agree. The opposite is also true though. It's not just that Arreola lost to top competitors but HOW well he lost to them too.

Tyson lost to lesser competition than Arreola has.

Everytime Tyson DID fight comparable opponents to those that beat Chris, he DID lose.

You seem to evaluate fighters purely on industrial glue. Facts? What are you even talking about. A fact is that Arreola has never beaten anyone, absolutely nobody who wasn't mediocre. How WELL he lost to Vitali or Adamek, what does that mean, how does he possibly get the type of credit you seem to give him for those fights? He just took a beating against an old Vitali and showed heart to hang tough(Chisora did much better) and Adamek was a former LHW!!! Michael Spinks is another guy who could have likely beaten Adamek and Arreola in his day, or maybe even in the shape he fought Tyson. Hard to say since he wouldn't have been intimidated by two guys he was better than as opposed to a great HW. Who did Tyson lose to that was comparable to Adamek? Travis Walker had Arreola in a lot of trouble in the first round, I brought that up because he was a bit like a badly faded Tyson without the chin. I feel like the biggest dope for even responding to you

[Max Power]

You seem to evaluate fighters purely on industrial glue. Facts? What are you even talking about. A fact is that Arreola has never beaten anyone, absolutely nobody who wasn't mediocre. How WELL he lost to Vitali or Adamek, what does that mean, how does he possibly get the type of credit you seem to give him for those fights? He just took a beating against an old Vitali and showed heart to hang tough(Chisora did much better) and Adamek was a former LHW!!! Michael Spinks is another guy who could have likely beaten Adamek and Arreola in his day, or maybe even in the shape he fought Tyson. Hard to say since he wouldn't have been intimidated by two guys he was better than as opposed to a great HW. Who did Tyson lose to that was comparable to Adamek? Travis Walker had Arreola in a lot of trouble in the first round, I brought that up because he was a bit like a badly faded Tyson without the chin. I feel like the biggest dope for even responding to you

Objectively Adamek and Holyfield are fairly comparable. Balanced skillset, great conditioning, very strongly build for smaller guys, strong chins carried to HW and both good vs larger+good opposition.

Yeah Michael Spinks might have been able to run around for 12 rounds with Arreola like he did vs Holmes and like Adamek did vs Arreola, why not! He also could have been found and banged out! Adamek and Spinks is an interesting match. Again, I think Adamek is MUCH better than Spinks! Spinks was basically a walking knockout for a good+hard punching HW who was aggressive.

Yeah Walker got the drop on Arreola. Can happen when your fighting a guy 230+lbs! Arreola got back up to stop Walker within 3 rounds! So much for your precious Travis Walker! LOL

Again, Tyson did have a good chin overall, but I have to point out that Douglas and Holyfield were renowned featherfists themselves. Ok Buster was heavy and he accumulated a lot of punches on Tyson sure, but Holyfield has one of the most abysmal KO performances of all champs and was not heavy at all! Back to Buster, he fought a good fight but let's be honest, he was no fucking LEnnox Lewis. It should come as no surprise that the fearless Arreola could concievably perform well also, especially since Arreola cracks far harder.

We both seem to agree on Tyson being very special here, the degree of which however we're in stark contrast.

Tyson is balls deep against any boxer approaching 6'4" with good skills, a hard chin and a hard punch. He would "grind out" wins against these opponents.

All these memories of boxers flying left and right from Tyson has to be adjusted to the truth. Those opponents were EITHER china-chinned, featherfisted, bummy or small, or sme combination thereof (with some exceptions of course). Chris Arreola, for example exhibits NONE of those qualities.

[p4pking]

You seem to evaluate fighters purely on industrial glue. Facts? What are you even talking about. A fact is that Arreola has never beaten anyone, absolutely nobody who wasn't mediocre. How WELL he lost to Vitali or Adamek, what does that mean, how does he possibly get the type of credit you seem to give him for those fights? He just took a beating against an old Vitali and showed heart to hang tough(Chisora did much better) and Adamek was a former LHW!!! Michael Spinks is another guy who could have likely beaten Adamek and Arreola in his day, or maybe even in the shape he fought Tyson. Hard to say since he wouldn't have been intimidated by two guys he was better than as opposed to a great HW. Who did Tyson lose to that was comparable to Adamek? Travis Walker had Arreola in a lot of trouble in the first round, I brought that up because he was a bit like a badly faded Tyson without the chin. I feel like the biggest dope for even responding to you

Objectively Adamek and Holyfield are fairly comparable.

Good night Max, not biting any more.

[Max Power]

Anyway I am sick of the Arreola comparisons, move on!

He's a favourite current boxer of mine, because he is colourful, always produces exciting fights and is a tough mofo by any measure.

I picked him to beat Stiverne, one of the hardest punchers of all time with an iron chin and 1st rate counterpunching skills himself. A fight which Arreola WAS mauling him in until the end remember!

So what!

Objectively he is still one of the best HW's in the world. Losing to the best might make you worse than the guy you lost to, NOT worse than you are though!

Your old time favourite boxers have multiple losses to chinny, featherfist cruiser bums, remember that! I never seen Arreola lose to ANYBODY like that!

[Max Power]

Good night Max, not biting any more.

Fine.

I watched Adamek vs Grant last night.

If you can get back to me with where the clear superiority of Holyfield over Adamek is, then I'll declare defeat.

I know.. Invite Adamek over for dinner, accidentally splash some black paint over him, put a yankee flag in his hand and THERE'S ya bloody Holyfield!

[Master]

Adamek would beat a prime Tucker. You need to take another sabatical.

Maybe we are picking on you liking Arreloa, I like him too, but do not elevate him to be a great.

Of course Tyson is not TBE, that would be Ali.