-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Boxer4life
I noticed there are two sides boxing heads take when it comes to iron mike. We either think hes the greatest most unbeatable heavyweight ever or a completely overrated puncher. Let me make a case for why some of us say the former.
The argument for him being average usually goes something like this
1. He lost most of his meaningful fights
2. Most of his losses were stoppages
While this maybe be true the guys that rate him in the upper echelon are those that know in his prime he would demolish anyone of the guys he lost too, he had speed, he had power, he had defense, and yes, he had a tremendous chin. Sure his losses were mostly stoppages but they were stoppages due to pure exhaustion from lack of training. So on paper he is not THE greatest, purely because the greatest intangible in a great is discipline, and without cus he didn't have it, but sheer skill and tenacity in the ring was something the heavyweights haven't seen up to that point, haven't seen since, and probably will never see again. Mike in his prime, and the potential he had if he kept developing is unrivaled, only heavyweight in history who would give him trouble is Ali, they're strangely tailor made for each other which is why i think it would be the most interesting fight in boxing history , but that's besides the point, thoughts?
Its like this.
Mike Tyson prime is absolutely Brilliant, but there are certain match ups (like Holifield) in which he is inferior.
He rips through lesser fighters with such horrific violence that people mistakenly think he could do that to anyone in his prime. But the truth is once you get a boxer with an iron jaw like Holyfield where Mikes punches just bounce off you are back to who has the most skill who connects more and who has the better work rate, or whos smarter.
Also someone like foreman might be a problem for him too since he is so big strong powerful and has the size and range advantage. (not that tyson couldnt beat him im just saying tyson has his limitations)
People are so blinded by the spectical of his speed and power and his knockouts (and skill) that they get blinded to the reality that he can be beaten by another skillful boxer with an iron jaw or another boxer with as many or more or physical gifts than he has.
Did he go down hill after Cus died and his old trainers got fired? Definately! But was that the sole reason for him not being unstoppable? Definately not!
There you go the answer lays somewhere between the two extremes.
He is probably in his prime one of the best (most effective) boxers of all time a top 10 HW of all time but probably not number 1.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
Bean both Holyfeild and Lewis were able to carry one way longer and after there primes. I am just saying Tyson burnt out and could not carry on or better himself when other greats have been able to . The guys you mention were old as dust by the time they were losing badly not a good comparison.
Tyson was the type of fighter that was going to have a short prime, like Fraiser or Rocky they burn out. At his best he was better than Holyfield and Lewis could ever be.
cocaine and prostitutes had more to do with his burn out than "his style" or the "type of fighter" he was. It was his personality not his fighting that caused him to burn out, but to assume a man that fights aggressive has to live an explosive life is just silly, obviously he did, but that was a personal choice, hes had years of discipline and work ethic, he just chose to mess it up. where im coming from is that if he didn't, these guys couldn't touch him. He went on record himself stating that to maintain that type of style, he couldn't have a life outside the ring(translation: cant party your ass off)
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OMGWTF
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Boxer4life
I noticed there are two sides boxing heads take when it comes to iron mike. We either think hes the greatest most unbeatable heavyweight ever or a completely overrated puncher. Let me make a case for why some of us say the former.
The argument for him being average usually goes something like this
1. He lost most of his meaningful fights
2. Most of his losses were stoppages
While this maybe be true the guys that rate him in the upper echelon are those that know in his prime he would demolish anyone of the guys he lost too, he had speed, he had power, he had defense, and yes, he had a tremendous chin. Sure his losses were mostly stoppages but they were stoppages due to pure exhaustion from lack of training. So on paper he is not THE greatest, purely because the greatest intangible in a great is discipline, and without cus he didn't have it, but sheer skill and tenacity in the ring was something the heavyweights haven't seen up to that point, haven't seen since, and probably will never see again. Mike in his prime, and the potential he had if he kept developing is unrivaled, only heavyweight in history who would give him trouble is Ali, they're strangely tailor made for each other which is why i think it would be the most interesting fight in boxing history , but that's besides the point, thoughts?
Its like this.
Mike Tyson prime is absolutely Brilliant, but there are certain match ups (like Holifield) in which he is inferior.
He rips through lesser fighters with such horrific violence that people mistakenly think he could do that to anyone in his prime. But the truth is once you get a boxer with an iron jaw like Holyfield where Mikes punches just bounce off you are back to who has the most skill who connects more and who has the better work rate, or whos smarter.
Also someone like foreman might be a problem for him too since he is so big strong powerful and has the size and range advantage. (not that tyson couldnt beat him im just saying tyson has his limitations)
People are so blinded by the spectical of his speed and power and his knockouts (and skill) that they get blinded to the reality that he can be beaten by another skillful boxer with an iron jaw or another boxer with as many or more or physical gifts than he has.
Did he go down hill after Cus died and his old trainers got fired? Definately! But was that the sole reason for him not being unstoppable? Definately not!
There you go the answer lays somewhere between the two extremes.
He is probably in his prime one of the best (most effective) boxers of all time a top 10 HW of all time but probably not number 1.
great post, your mostly spot on except I don't agree that holyfield could beat him, holyfiled is tough but young mike was much faster and much more fluid than the shell holyfield fought
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Boxer4life
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
Bean both Holyfeild and Lewis were able to carry one way longer and after there primes. I am just saying Tyson burnt out and could not carry on or better himself when other greats have been able to . The guys you mention were old as dust by the time they were losing badly not a good comparison.
Tyson was the type of fighter that was going to have a short prime, like Fraiser or Rocky they burn out. At his best he was better than Holyfield and Lewis could ever be.
cocaine and prostitutes had more to do with his burn out than "his style" or the "type of fighter" he was. It was his personality not his fighting that caused him to burn out, but to assume a man that fights aggressive has to live an explosive life is just silly, obviously he did, but that was a personal choice, hes had years of discipline and work ethic, he just chose to mess it up. where im coming from is that if he didn't, these guys couldn't touch him. He went on record himself stating that to maintain that type of style, he couldn't have a life outside the ring(translation: cant party your ass off)
I agree Tyson is an ATG and he should have been better. But we will never know whether or not guys like Holyfield or Lewis could touch him if he didn't mess up.
Style wise imo prime Tyson would have matched up good against Lewis and Holyfield when. A prime Tyson with his work output imo could have overwhelmed these guys. Style wise a pressure fighter matches up good against traditional boxing styles.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Boxer4life
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OMGWTF
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Boxer4life
I noticed there are two sides boxing heads take when it comes to iron mike. We either think hes the greatest most unbeatable heavyweight ever or a completely overrated puncher. Let me make a case for why some of us say the former.
The argument for him being average usually goes something like this
1. He lost most of his meaningful fights
2. Most of his losses were stoppages
While this maybe be true the guys that rate him in the upper echelon are those that know in his prime he would demolish anyone of the guys he lost too, he had speed, he had power, he had defense, and yes, he had a tremendous chin. Sure his losses were mostly stoppages but they were stoppages due to pure exhaustion from lack of training. So on paper he is not THE greatest, purely because the greatest intangible in a great is discipline, and without cus he didn't have it, but sheer skill and tenacity in the ring was something the heavyweights haven't seen up to that point, haven't seen since, and probably will never see again. Mike in his prime, and the potential he had if he kept developing is unrivaled, only heavyweight in history who would give him trouble is Ali, they're strangely tailor made for each other which is why i think it would be the most interesting fight in boxing history , but that's besides the point, thoughts?
Its like this.
Mike Tyson prime is absolutely Brilliant, but there are certain match ups (like Holifield) in which he is inferior.
He rips through lesser fighters with such horrific violence that people mistakenly think he could do that to anyone in his prime. But the truth is once you get a boxer with an iron jaw like Holyfield where Mikes punches just bounce off you are back to who has the most skill who connects more and who has the better work rate, or whos smarter.
Also someone like foreman might be a problem for him too since he is so big strong powerful and has the size and range advantage. (not that tyson couldnt beat him im just saying tyson has his limitations)
People are so blinded by the spectical of his speed and power and his knockouts (and skill) that they get blinded to the reality that he can be beaten by another skillful boxer with an iron jaw or another boxer with as many or more or physical gifts than he has.
Did he go down hill after Cus died and his old trainers got fired? Definately! But was that the sole reason for him not being unstoppable? Definately not!
There you go the answer lays somewhere between the two extremes.
He is probably in his prime one of the best (most effective) boxers of all time a top 10 HW of all time but probably not number 1.
great post, your mostly spot on except I don't agree that holyfield could beat him, holyfiled is tough but young mike was much faster and much more fluid than the shell holyfield fought
And to think it was Holyfield being called a shell and basically a walking corpse going into it. Hindsights a funny thing.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Tyson was faster then Holyfeild and had a better power then Holyfeild. On the other hand Holyfeild was a better boxer, mental tougher, better chin, shows he can beat the best, and better foot work in his prime. I mean not to menstion he best the shit out Tyson when Holyfeild was shot pretty much.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
Tyson was faster then Holyfeild and had a better power then Holyfeild. On the other hand Holyfeild was a better boxer, mental tougher, better chin, shows he can beat the best, and better foot work in his prime. I mean not to menstion he best the shit out Tyson when Holyfeild was shot pretty much.
Holyfield is an enigma, how can he come from Cruiserweight and become undisputed champion, fight toe to toe with Bowe in 10th round of their first fight, build up muscle mass and beat Bowe, have heart attacks and come back not only to beat Tyson but then fight Lewis to a close second fight whilst getting rocked by Stewart, Cooper and Losing to Moorer. Strange.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
Tyson was faster then Holyfeild and had a better power then Holyfeild. On the other hand Holyfeild was a better boxer, mental tougher, better chin, shows he can beat the best, and better foot work in his prime. I mean not to menstion he best the shit out Tyson when Holyfeild was shot pretty much.
Holyfield is an enigma, how can he come from Cruiserweight and become undisputed champion, fight toe to toe with Bowe in 10th round of their first fight, build up muscle mass and beat Bowe, have heart attacks and come back not only to beat Tyson but then fight Lewis to a close second fight whilst getting rocked by Stewart, Cooper and Losing to Moorer. Strange.
He also had a fuck of a time with Michael Dokes who was supposed to have been ruined by drugs by the time EH got to him
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
Tyson was faster then Holyfeild and had a better power then Holyfeild. On the other hand Holyfeild was a better boxer, mental tougher, better chin, shows he can beat the best, and better foot work in his prime. I mean not to menstion he best the shit out Tyson when Holyfeild was shot pretty much.
Holyfield is an enigma, how can he come from Cruiserweight and become undisputed champion, fight toe to toe with Bowe in 10th round of their first fight, build up muscle mass and beat Bowe, have heart attacks and come back not only to beat Tyson but then fight Lewis to a close second fight whilst getting rocked by Stewart, Cooper and Losing to Moorer. Strange.
He also had a fuck of a time with Michael Dokes who was supposed to have been ruined by drugs by the time EH got to him
Yes that was an even fight up until that point, very good contest, but you would never have thought this guy would be undisputed champion and achieve all that he did. Remember his fight with Bobby Czyz?
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Holyfeild is the best cw to ever be and a top ten atg heavyweight champion. He has wins over Tyson Bowie, Holmes, Mercer, Foreman,Moorer,Rahman,Douglas,Thomas,Dokes, and Hell even Ruiz considering he was 40 at the time not a bad win. He also had good wins at cw and crushed that divsion when it had talent in it. Most of his loses were after his 40's and he still can hang with some of the comp at his age with a career spanning over 26 years. He had his bad nights but when he was on He could beat anybody and as for Tyson, Holyfeild beat him a few times coming off a bad period of fights.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
Tyson was faster then Holyfeild and had a better power then Holyfeild. On the other hand Holyfeild was a better boxer, mental tougher, better chin, shows he can beat the best, and better foot work in his prime. I mean not to menstion he best the shit out Tyson when Holyfeild was shot pretty much.
Holyfield is an enigma, how can he come from Cruiserweight and become undisputed champion, fight toe to toe with Bowe in 10th round of their first fight, build up muscle mass and beat Bowe, have heart attacks and come back not only to beat Tyson but then fight Lewis to a close second fight whilst getting rocked by Stewart, Cooper and Losing to Moorer. Strange.
He also had a fuck of a time with Michael Dokes who was supposed to have been ruined by drugs by the time EH got to him
Yes that was an even fight up until that point, very good contest, but you would never have thought this guy would be undisputed champion and achieve all that he did. Remember his fight with Bobby Czyz?
Man you guys are bru-tal ;D Yeh minus the rehab and being 'world ranked' and 3rd by Ring Dokes was a regular Glass Joe ;D. Great acid test and ko for a guy making only his third pro start as a heavyweight I'd say. Todays "prospects" would kill to be able to say that.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
hollyfield was a massive roider
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
^This is true, but to be fair Mike probably was too.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Man you guys are bru-tal ;D Yeh minus the rehab and being 'world ranked' and 3rd by Ring Dokes was a regular Glass Joe ;D. Great acid test and ko for a guy making only his third pro start as a heavyweight I'd say. Todays "prospects" would kill to be able to say that.
No I was just saying what Holyfield said. Evander said he fought Dokes who had gone through drug issues and he had been KO'd by Gerrie Coetzee and not really stepped his competition back up to the top level...Evander said here this guy was and he was supposed to be easy pickings a heavyweight fighter on the way down and Evander said Dokes gave him one of the toughest fights of his life and because of that he swore he'd never underestimate an opponent again. So the point is Holyfield was caught looking past Dokes not that Dokes was a bad fighter but given his recent troubles before the fight you can see why he looked past him. The man had fought Tex Cobb a few fights before Holyfield!
Dokes like many of his era had great potential but drugs took some of that away.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
^This is true, but to be fair Mike probably was too.
yeah thats true
even tho there is a lot more evidence with the changes in hollyfields physique to his roidness who can actually determine who cheated most
mind you hollyfield was caught and as far as i know mike never was?
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Holyfield was proven as a roider. Mike never was caught, but the 80's and early/mid 90's were a dicey time for steroids in pro sports, drug testing was almost non-existant and the drug tests that were available were archiac and easy to cheat, especially if you were a multi-millon dollar athlete. The few guys that do get caught are just the tip of the iceberg.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Holyfield was proven as a roider. Mike never was caught, but the 80's and early/mid 90's were a dicey time for steroids in pro sports, drug testing was almost non-existant and the drug tests that were available were archiac and easy to cheat, especially if you were a multi-millon dollar athlete. The few guys that do get caught are just the tip of the iceberg.
do you think because testing and more publicity around drug cheating theres less of it around today?
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
From what I've heard guys in the know say (like Victor Conte), as tests get more advanced, so too does the ways to cheat them. Holyfield only got caught because they found his name and reciepts with his name when they raided a business that was providing pro athletes with illegal steroids. He never failed a drug test once! He just had the misfortune of buying from a business that got busted hahah (same with Shane Mosley and a few others)
Guys are still getting busted steady in boxing and MMA, so that says to me that there are ways to get around it. If drug testing was foolproof, nobody would be doing them. And the chance of getting away with it has to be pretty good if guys are willing to risk the shit storm that comes with getting caught.
Not that I'm saying Tyson did them for sure... I'm just not willing to say that Holyfield was juicing and all his opponents were clean haha
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Holyfield was proven as a roider. Mike never was caught, but the 80's and early/mid 90's were a dicey time for steroids in pro sports, drug testing was almost non-existant and the drug tests that were available were archiac and easy to cheat, especially if you were a multi-millon dollar athlete. The few guys that do get caught are just the tip of the iceberg.
do you think because testing and more publicity around drug cheating theres less of it around today?
Do you think because testing and more publicity about drug cheating there's more of it around today?
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Holyfield was proven as a roider. Mike never was caught, but the 80's and early/mid 90's were a dicey time for steroids in pro sports, drug testing was almost non-existant and the drug tests that were available were archiac and easy to cheat, especially if you were a multi-millon dollar athlete. The few guys that do get caught are just the tip of the iceberg.
do you think because testing and more publicity around drug cheating theres less of it around today?
Do you think because testing and more publicity about drug cheating there's more of it around today?
do you think because there is more of it around today there is publicity about testing and drug cheating?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Holyfield was proven as a roider. Mike never was caught, but the 80's and early/mid 90's were a dicey time for steroids in pro sports, drug testing was almost non-existant and the drug tests that were available were archiac and easy to cheat, especially if you were a multi-millon dollar athlete. The few guys that do get caught are just the tip of the iceberg.
do you think because testing and more publicity around drug cheating theres less of it around today?
Do you think because testing and more publicity about drug cheating there's more of it around today?
do you think because there is more of it around today there is publicity about testing and drug cheating?
Do you think we should do nothing because there is more publicity about drug cheating and testing?
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Holyfield was proven as a roider. Mike never was caught, but the 80's and early/mid 90's were a dicey time for steroids in pro sports, drug testing was almost non-existant and the drug tests that were available were archiac and easy to cheat, especially if you were a multi-millon dollar athlete. The few guys that do get caught are just the tip of the iceberg.
do you think because testing and more publicity around drug cheating theres less of it around today?
Do you think because testing and more publicity about drug cheating there's more of it around today?
do you think because there is more of it around today there is publicity about testing and drug cheating?
Do you think we should do nothing because there is more publicity about drug cheating and testing?
who?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanflicker
Holyfield was proven as a roider. Mike never was caught, but the 80's and early/mid 90's were a dicey time for steroids in pro sports, drug testing was almost non-existant and the drug tests that were available were archiac and easy to cheat, especially if you were a multi-millon dollar athlete. The few guys that do get caught are just the tip of the iceberg.
do you think because testing and more publicity around drug cheating theres less of it around today?
Do you think because testing and more publicity about drug cheating there's more of it around today?
do you think because there is more of it around today there is publicity about testing and drug cheating?
Do you think we should do nothing because there is more publicity about drug cheating and testing?
who?
You! Anyone! Everyone!
Do you think there is more drug use now than say, before 2000?
Do you think adding more weight divisions has increased or decreased drug use?
Who or what do you think is the main culprit that drives drug use? Money, fighters, trainers, managers, promoters, glory/success/pride, maybe you think the fans have a lot to do with it?
Who do you think should clean it up? Sanctioning orgs, one global org or individual countries?
Do you think drug use and cheating drives the publicity or do you think the publicity drives drug use and cheating? Stupid or asinine question? I think so too, but it seemed like someone was suggestion the latter.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Do you think there is more drug use now than say, before 2000?
Do you think adding more weight divisions has increased or decreased drug use?
Who or what do you think is the main culprit that drives drug use? Money, fighters, trainers, managers, promoters, glory/success/pride, maybe you think the fans have a lot to do with it?
Who do you think should clean it up? Sanctioning orgs, one global org or individual countries?
Do you think drug use and cheating drives the publicity or do you think the publicity drives drug use and cheating? Stupid or asinine question? I think so too, but it seemed like someone was suggestion the latter.
I dunno if you're asking this rhetorically or not but I'm bored at work so I'll answer anyway hahaha
1. I'd say it's been curved a lot since 2000 with the intense pressure by the government and the busting and prosecuting of prominent labs. But a lot of fighters are taking advantage of "hormone replacement therapy", basically you can tell your doctor you feel more tired than usual, less sex drive, ect and he can perscribe you testosterone. As long as you clear it with the athletic sanctioning body, you're good to go.
2. I figure less weight classes would cause guys to use steroids to "grow" into a weight class they couldn't normally get to without them. With more weight classes, there is a class to accomodate everyone.
3. Compeditive, Type A personality people have an insatiable appetite for winning. They use it to win and also to better help them recuperate from boxing's brutal training. I'd say they justify it to themselves with the belief that many others (including their opponent) is using or has access to the same stuff, so in reality they are just leveling the playing field.
4. It's the sanctioning org's responsibility, that's what they get paid for. Our tax dollars go to these guys to regulate sports and keep people from cheating.
5. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the last question.
That's just my view though!
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
I wish they would just legalize it let them all use it i don't think it hurts the sport. I mean its just a enhancer and helps you heal faster and train harder why do we not allow it in sports. I mean don't you want to see home runs or knock outs i mean if everyone is taking it whats the huge deal with it.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
After knocking Bowe down he could not even raise his arms up to stop Bowe. Holyfield looked crap against Moorer the first time and should never have lost to the imbecile (that eventually got KOed by an overweight heavyweight which started the demise of the division). As good as Holyfield was, he was too inconsistent to be classed as a great.
BTW Tyson never took PED he did take the recreational type of drugs though.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Master then Tyson can't be great because he never came back at all he never avenged a lose. I mean he just mental would give up not to many great fighters do that. I mean his last fight he just sat on the ground looking at the ref to count to ten. I mean Holyfeild was inconsistent at times but he had great come backs and way better wins if he fought in a weak era might of been different. Point being he showed hart never gave up and captured the title as much as Ali did was the only one to do it. Not to mention he started out at lhw and was already a unified cw before coming a unified hw he is great.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
Master then Tyson can't be great because he never came back at all he never avenged a lose. I mean he just mental would give up not to many great fighters do that. I mean his last fight he just sat on the ground looking at the ref to count to ten. I mean Holyfeild was inconsistent at times but he had great come backs and way better wins if he fought in a weak era might of been different. Point being he showed hart never gave up and captured the title as much as Ali did was the only one to do it. Not to mention he started out at lhw and was already a unified cw before coming a unified hw he is great.
I do not think losing to Moorer, being nearly knocked out by Cooper makes him a heavyweight great. He was strong but dumb.
I also thought we can all agreed that he was on drugs to do what he did. :)
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Master there is no way i can not put Holyfeild in the top ten hw he has a better resume then most of them in there. Moorer was better fighter then most of the shit Tyson fought in the 80's and you know what Holyfeild did after the lose he knocked him the fuck out in a rematch. You know what Tyson did when he lost bit a ear off in the rematch or not have one. Tyson career was during the weakest era since Rocky dude it was bad. I know your fan and mad Holyfeild kicked your boys ass and all but come on saying Holyfeild was not a great fighter makes me think your dumb.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
After knocking Bowe down he could not even raise his arms up to stop Bowe. Holyfield looked crap against Moorer the first time and should never have lost to the imbecile (that eventually got KOed by an overweight heavyweight which started the demise of the division). As good as Holyfield was, he was too inconsistent to be classed as a great.
BTW Tyson never took PED he did take the recreational type of drugs though.
Respectfully my brother, but you are just tripping balls with that ;D. He was within a punch of ko'ing Bowe and gassed out and spent running into a brick. Come on, it is the heavyweight division. That shit has happened to the best of them, nearly all of them?! Fact he came back in career speaks to his greatness! Moorer could flat box and that was probably his best most complete bout. A fast handed converted southpaw with a sharp power jab. Regardless of his eventual short comings at that time he put on a very good show...and still escaped with win via bogus 2nd round score after being floored. I don't call it inconsistent when you fight the very best completion, repeatedly, of your era and run into couple of bumps.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
Master then Tyson can't be great because he never came back at all he never avenged a lose. I mean he just mental would give up not to many great fighters do that. I mean his last fight he just sat on the ground looking at the ref to count to ten. I mean Holyfeild was inconsistent at times but he had great come backs and way better wins if he fought in a weak era might of been different. Point being he showed hart never gave up and captured the title as much as Ali did was the only one to do it. Not to mention he started out at lhw and was already a unified cw before coming a unified hw he is great.
I do not think losing to Moorer, being nearly knocked out by Cooper makes him a heavyweight great. He was strong but dumb.
I also thought we can all agreed that he was on drugs to do what he did. :)
I don't agree that struggling against a lesser fighter doesn't make you great, look at Joe Louis he was floored and in trouble against Tony Galento, i don't see anyone question Joe Louis not being great.
I know Holyfield isn't on that level, but i think his exciting fights, courage, moving up from Cruiserweight to become Heavyweight champion, does make him great.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
A great fighter but not a great heavyweight champion.
Tyson would have koed Moored in a round.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Woulda-coulda etc. ironically that's exactly what The Ring predicted he would do to Evander Holyfield when the met :)
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
I wish they would just legalize it let them all use it i don't think it hurts the sport. I mean its just a enhancer and helps you heal faster and train harder why do we not allow it in sports. I mean don't you want to see home runs or knock outs i mean if everyone is taking it whats the huge deal with it.
Well let's put aside the negative things it does for the sport, like athletes achieving things they wouldnt normally and not ever really knowing who would have been able to do what without it. I dont want to look at a champ and think, he used roids to get to where hes at. And PED's effect different people in different ways so one person may benifit more from it than another.
Lets put all that side. If PED's were legal we would have athletes using potentially harmful drugs at there will with no constraint. And further more you will have kids looking up to star athletes who use PED's knowing that they use them. Then you will have kids thinking its okay to use PED's.
Speaking as a parent (not to mention an athlete and a sports fan in general) I must say legalizing PED's is a horrible idea.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
After knocking Bowe down he could not even raise his arms up to stop Bowe. Holyfield looked crap against Moorer the first time and should never have lost to the imbecile (that eventually got KOed by an overweight heavyweight which started the demise of the division). As good as Holyfield was, he was too inconsistent to be classed as a great.
BTW Tyson never took PED he did take the recreational type of drugs though.
Most of Holyfields losses came after his prime. Hes definately an ATG tho his legacy is tarnished from PED's. He was probably off PED's for the fights you mentioned to be quite honest.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
I wish they would just legalize it let them all use it i don't think it hurts the sport. I mean its just a enhancer and helps you heal faster and train harder why do we not allow it in sports. I mean don't you want to see home runs or knock outs i mean if everyone is taking it whats the huge deal with it.
Legalization is the wrong way to go because then it's about who has the most money, knows the best chemist that makes the most effective drugs, that kind of thing.
There are a lot of people who just don't what drugs in their bodies period.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Holyfeild is top 10 heavyweight of all time master tell me how he can't be with his resume. Also for pound for pound he has to be up there atg because who has come from lhw and done so much at hw. As for Beenko and Cam i understand your points i really do i am not for drugs, well i like to party but a lot of people do so eh. Thing is if boxing is not going to get the testing they need then to be fair they might as well make it legal to use because it be more fair then. I know it may suck but your kids will find out the real world is not a fair place and to get ahead even there hero's will do it because their life is on the line and they don't have much to fall back on after their times up. I don't know a easy fix i am just saying what i think would actually work because the commission is not going to make the drug testing better because they don't give a shit really which sucks as well.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
Holyfeild is top 10 heavyweight of all time master tell me how he can't be with his resume. Also for pound for pound he has to be up there atg because who has come from lhw and done so much at hw. As for Beenko and Cam i understand your points i really do i am not for drugs, well i like to party but a lot of people do so eh. Thing is if boxing is not going to get the testing they need then to be fair they might as well make it legal to use because it be more fair then. I know it may suck but your kids will find out the real world is not a fair place and to get ahead even there hero's will do it because their life is on the line and they don't have much to fall back on after their times up. I don't know a easy fix i am just saying what i think would actually work because the commission is not going to make the drug testing better because they don't give a shit really which sucks as well.
roids
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Well to be fair to Holyfeild he was never tested for a fight and never dqed for it so i dont have it against him. As for the roids how do you feel on the subject do you feel heavyweights today use them. Also do you mind if they were to make them legal just wondering never heard your opinion.
-
Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
BTW Tyson never took PED
How do we know that?
