Printable View
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEEI30HC1zw
Mike Tyson launches his professional career with a quick beatdown of Hector Mercedes.
Love him or hate him, there never was or will be another heavyweight who can capture the public's imagination and generate the excitement and revenue that Iron Mike could.
So for that, I say CHEERS to Tyson. The excitement he brought in the ring more than made up for the chaos and misery he brought outside the ring lol
Y'know, 19 year old Mike Tyson had been a pro for only 8 months when Cus D'Amato died in Nov 1985.
The first time I ever saw Mike Tyson was on tv the month after, Dec 1985, the Big Sam Scaff fight, and Tyson looked amazing. It was his 14th fight in only 9 months as a pro. They had him fighting 2 fights each month, sometimes even 3 in a month.
They were developing Tyson, so the opponents were low-level yet, but as the level increased, the knockouts kept coming right up to the world-class level less than a year later. He was demolishing them.
http://i49.tinypic.com/1z6ur8j.jpg
Phenomenal fighter in 1986, '87, and '88.
I think his accomplishments earns him a position in the Top 10 Heavyweights of All-Time.
Youngest Champ of All-Time.
He unified the division and restored order as there were 3 Champs at the time.
Next he restored lineage by capturing the lineal Man-Who-Beat-The-Man title by KO'ing Michael Spinks in '88. Tyson also was #1 on the Pound-For-Pound list.
Dominant fighter for a few years. Everyone knew who was The Man, there was no debate.
^ That's enough to earn him a spot.
Don't know who the guy in the uppercut gif above is, and I'm not gonna be bothered to find out.
http://i48.tinypic.com/v6n4ox.jpg
^ James Quick Tillis went the distance which was a victory of sorts for Tyson opponents back then. Lose about every rd, but not getting knocked out was the victory.
Benitez was the youngest champ; Patterson the youngest holder of THE Heavyweight Championship, Tyson was merely the youngest world title holder at Heavyweight.Quote:
Originally Posted by bradlee180
Depends what is meant by 'unified'; for starters he did not beat the WBO and WAA champions...Quote:
He unified the division and restored order as there were 3 Champs at the time.
He won it, he did not restore it, the lineage line arguably goes back to Figg, definitely to Sullivan and Jackson.Quote:
Next he restored lineage by capturing the lineal Man-Who-Beat-The-Man title by KO'ing Michael Spinks in '88.
The most subjective title in boxing. Many had Hagler #1 up to the Leonard loss. Then come late 87 Chavez beat Rosario and many had Chavez #1...Quote:
Tyson also was #1 on the Pound-For-Pound list.
Perhaps it is best to say Tyson was a contender for the honour from the Tucker to the Douglas bout.
'No debate'? Ric Flair may argue with you, and as mentioned Messrs Chavez and Hagler too, in this sport!Quote:
Dominant fighter for a few years. Everyone knew who was The Man, there was no debate.
As for your gif, I believe that was Jose Ribalta.
Forgive me, I neglected to write youngest man to win a version of the Heavyweight Title. EVERYBODY knows Wilfred Benitez is the youngest man inclusive of all weight classes.
WBO was garbage at the time, nobody gave that Title any respect. It was WBA, WBC, and IBF.
Lineage was broken because lineal Champ Michael Spinks retired as Champ. He unretired and Tyson destroyed him making Tyson The-Man-Who-Beat-The-Man.
Ali had beat Leon Spinks, so Ali was The Man.
Ali retired as Champ, but came back when Holmes was Champ.
Holmes whupped Ali making Holmes The Man.
Michael Spinks got the decisions against Holmes making Michael Spinks The Man.
Michael Spinks retires as Champ, but came back for the huge payday when Tyson was now Champ.
Mike Tyson destroys Michael Spinks making Mike Tyson The-Man-Who-Beat-The-Man.
"To be The Man, WOOOOOO, you've gotta beat The Man!"
In 1989, prior to the 1990 Douglas fight, I distinctly remember Ring Magazine had Mike Tyson at pound-for-pound #1. And I agreed with it that Julio Cesar Chavez was #2. Ultimately Chavez had a better, more consistent career, but for those few years, Tyson had it all.
And migwetch, that is Jose Ribalta.
My Mum does not...Quote:
Originally Posted by bradlee180
The WBO was an off shoot of the WBA, so why were they garbage and the WBA were not? Also as we found out another off shoot of the WBA, the IBF, had a President taking bribes at the time, yet they get respect? And do not get me started on Suliman and his cronies...Quote:
WBO was garbage at the time, nobody gave that Title any respect. It was WBA, WBC, and IBF.
Spinks did not retire pre Tyson, with the exception of a short period in the late 1970's. I think you are getting confused when the Jinx gave up the IBF crown to fight Cooney. Then Spinks was debating whether to have the knee surgery he required, as the Tyson fight did not look like happening, on his and Lewis' terms.Quote:
Lineage was broken because lineal Champ Michael Spinks retired as Champ.
Alas, not so:Quote:
In 1989, prior to the 1990 Douglas fight, I distinctly remember Ring Magazine had Mike Tyson at pound-for-pound #1.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-g...0821-00001.jpg
Sorry about that, it is an old scan, and I do not have the original magazine now.
But here is The Ring's first offical pound for pound rankings:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-v...0821-00004.jpg
Now, although there is no date, Carbajal was 32-2, which meant the rankings began around early 1995...
Brit kid knows his junk! Can we argue tyson was the most exciting heavyweight???? At least of my lifetime anyway.
Well Steve Farhhod the old editor of the ring saysQuote:
Originally Posted by BritkidMy Mum does not...Quote:
Originally Posted by bradlee180
The WBO was an off shoot of the WBA, so why were they garbage and the WBA were not? Also as we found out another off shoot of the WBA, the IBF, had a President taking bribes at the time, yet they get respect? And do not get me started on Suliman and his cronies...Quote:
WBO was garbage at the time, nobody gave that Title any respect. It was WBA, WBC, and IBF.
Spinks did not retire pre Tyson, with the exception of a short period in the late 1970's. I think you are getting confused when the Jinx gave up the IBF crown to fight Cooney. Then Spinks was debating whether to have the knee surgery he required, as the Tyson fight did not look like happening, on his and Lewis' terms.Quote:
Lineage was broken because lineal Champ Michael Spinks retired as Champ.
Alas, not so:Quote:
In 1989, prior to the 1990 Douglas fight, I distinctly remember Ring Magazine had Mike Tyson at pound-for-pound #1.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-g...0821-00001.jpg
Sorry about that, it is an old scan, and I do not have the original magazine now.
But here is The Ring's first offical pound for pound rankings:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-v...0821-00004.jpg
Now, although there is no date, Carbajal was 32-2, which meant the rankings began around early 1995...
“I voted for Tyson, and he's a definite first-ballot Hall of Famer,” Showtime boxing analyst Steve Farhood told me. As editor of KO Magazine and also former editor of The RING, Farhood covered Tyson’s pro career from the earliest stages.
“Those who don't think so are practicing revisionist history,” Farhood said. “I laugh when I read how Tyson was an underachiever and should have been dominant for much longer. First of all, he was not only the top heavyweight in the world, and the first undisputed champion in years, but he was the No. 1-ranked fighter in the game, pound for pound. And to secure that position, he beat the No. 2, Michael Spinks.”
Tyson worthy of his hall of fame induction | RingTV
I wasn't around back then so wouldn't know, but it definitely is possible that he was ranked #1 over Sweet Pea because when he KTFO Spinks, Pernell was coming off a loss JLR a few short months before. It was a bullshit decision, but still technically a "loss", so Sweet Pea couldn't have been #1 at the time Tyson beat Spinks.
What about Ray Leonard though? He was coming off his big upset over Hagler and a whipping of Danny Lalonde.
The thing about Tyson, he fought like a small fighter. He certainly had flaws, like being much too willing to fall into clinches and let a bigger man lay on him. But, by and large, he fought fast. he started outside, closed quickly and did lots of damage on the way in. His hands were as fast as anybody that has ever been a HW; his feet were real fast as well.
When you consider him against the all-time heavyweights...I don't think he would beat Joe louis because Louis threw such concise powerful punches. He was very fast with his hands as well, and shorter; he'd catch Tyson coming in. Of course, the speed and power of Tyson could make all that irrelevant, but I think louis would beat him.
I think Tyson would beat Ali, and have the easiest time against the 'prime' Ali. Because the way Ali would fight, with movement and jabs, was all all all wrong against Tyson. First, you ain't gonna beat Tyson, at his best, with a jab. His whole freaking game was getting around a jab. They knew he was a short HW and programmed him accordingly. Now, if you jab, or feint the jab, and counter off his reaction, you can get some action.
But to jab and move? Foolish. That would let him get up steam, start taking those crossover steps (watch tape and see how often he would step over, to his right, end up in a southpaw stance and punch effectively from there)and landing punches from odd angles. he'd beat Ali easy. He'd have more trouble with the older, slower, clutch and grab Ali.
Want to see Ali vs Tyson? Look no further than how Patterson & Liston did vs Ali.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
My point was 'The Ring' did not rank fighters pound for pound before 1995...
In 1989, yeah Whitaker despite the Ramirez fix... I mean robbery (so sue me Senor Suleiman), was not pound for pound a contender for the #1 spot, but Chavez was. And some had the Kid from Culiacan ahead of Tyson, pound for pound.
I have a lot of time for Farhood, he was a brilliant editor of 'The Ring', and badly treated by them. But he made his name selling 'The Ring' as not Farhood's magazine, but a genuinely independent free spirit in boxing. Trying to repair the damage of the US Boxing Championship.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossWell Steve Farhhod the old editor of the ring saysQuote:
Originally Posted by BritkidMy Mum does not...Quote:
Originally Posted by bradlee180
The WBO was an off shoot of the WBA, so why were they garbage and the WBA were not? Also as we found out another off shoot of the WBA, the IBF, had a President taking bribes at the time, yet they get respect? And do not get me started on Suliman and his cronies...Quote:
WBO was garbage at the time, nobody gave that Title any respect. It was WBA, WBC, and IBF.
Spinks did not retire pre Tyson, with the exception of a short period in the late 1970's. I think you are getting confused when the Jinx gave up the IBF crown to fight Cooney. Then Spinks was debating whether to have the knee surgery he required, as the Tyson fight did not look like happening, on his and Lewis' terms.Quote:
Lineage was broken because lineal Champ Michael Spinks retired as Champ.
Alas, not so:Quote:
In 1989, prior to the 1990 Douglas fight, I distinctly remember Ring Magazine had Mike Tyson at pound-for-pound #1.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-g...0821-00001.jpg
Sorry about that, it is an old scan, and I do not have the original magazine now.
But here is The Ring's first offical pound for pound rankings:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-v...0821-00004.jpg
Now, although there is no date, Carbajal was 32-2, which meant the rankings began around early 1995...
“I voted for Tyson, and he's a definite first-ballot Hall of Famer,” Showtime boxing analyst Steve Farhood told me. As editor of KO Magazine and also former editor of The RING, Farhood covered Tyson’s pro career from the earliest stages.
“Those who don't think so are practicing revisionist history,” Farhood said. “I laugh when I read how Tyson was an underachiever and should have been dominant for much longer. First of all, he was not only the top heavyweight in the world, and the first undisputed champion in years, but he was the No. 1-ranked fighter in the game, pound for pound. And to secure that position, he beat the No. 2, Michael Spinks.”
Tyson worthy of his hall of fame induction | RingTV
Believe it or not, I too like Farhood ranked Tyson #1 pound for pound post Hagler, until the Douglas defeat. My point was many had Chavez in that spot, and with hindsight, they were probably right.
I dont know much about Chavez career but did he ever have a period where unquestionably he was the very best in his weight with no challengers? Did he unify? Was he undisputed?Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidI have a lot of time for Farhood, he was a brilliant editor of 'The Ring', and badly treated by them. But he made his name selling 'The Ring' as not Farhood's magazine, but a genuinely independent free spirit in boxing. Trying to repair the damage of the US Boxing Championship.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossWell Steve Farhhod the old editor of the ring saysQuote:
Originally Posted by BritkidMy Mum does not...Quote:
Originally Posted by bradlee180
The WBO was an off shoot of the WBA, so why were they garbage and the WBA were not? Also as we found out another off shoot of the WBA, the IBF, had a President taking bribes at the time, yet they get respect? And do not get me started on Suliman and his cronies...Quote:
WBO was garbage at the time, nobody gave that Title any respect. It was WBA, WBC, and IBF.
Spinks did not retire pre Tyson, with the exception of a short period in the late 1970's. I think you are getting confused when the Jinx gave up the IBF crown to fight Cooney. Then Spinks was debating whether to have the knee surgery he required, as the Tyson fight did not look like happening, on his and Lewis' terms.Quote:
Lineage was broken because lineal Champ Michael Spinks retired as Champ.
Alas, not so:Quote:
In 1989, prior to the 1990 Douglas fight, I distinctly remember Ring Magazine had Mike Tyson at pound-for-pound #1.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-g...0821-00001.jpg
Sorry about that, it is an old scan, and I do not have the original magazine now.
But here is The Ring's first offical pound for pound rankings:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-v...0821-00004.jpg
Now, although there is no date, Carbajal was 32-2, which meant the rankings began around early 1995...
“I voted for Tyson, and he's a definite first-ballot Hall of Famer,” Showtime boxing analyst Steve Farhood told me. As editor of KO Magazine and also former editor of The RING, Farhood covered Tyson’s pro career from the earliest stages.
“Those who don't think so are practicing revisionist history,” Farhood said. “I laugh when I read how Tyson was an underachiever and should have been dominant for much longer. First of all, he was not only the top heavyweight in the world, and the first undisputed champion in years, but he was the No. 1-ranked fighter in the game, pound for pound. And to secure that position, he beat the No. 2, Michael Spinks.”
Tyson worthy of his hall of fame induction | RingTV
Believe it or not, I too like Farhood ranked Tyson #1 pound for pound post Hagler, until the Douglas defeat. My point was many had Chavez in that spot, and with hindsight, they were probably right.
Pretty certain that was July of 95' and awarded days prior to his fight with Vasquez and stayed ahead of Jones jr until mid 96. Only belt he came in with that night I think as the crook Sullie'dman made the WBC 'unavailable' for whatever reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidMy Mum does not...Quote:
Originally Posted by bradlee180
The WBO was an off shoot of the WBA, so why were they garbage and the WBA were not? Also as we found out another off shoot of the WBA, the IBF, had a President taking bribes at the time, yet they get respect? And do not get me started on Suliman and his cronies...Quote:
WBO was garbage at the time, nobody gave that Title any respect. It was WBA, WBC, and IBF.
Spinks did not retire pre Tyson, with the exception of a short period in the late 1970's. I think you are getting confused when the Jinx gave up the IBF crown to fight Cooney. Then Spinks was debating whether to have the knee surgery he required, as the Tyson fight did not look like happening, on his and Lewis' terms.Quote:
Lineage was broken because lineal Champ Michael Spinks retired as Champ.
Alas, not so:Quote:
In 1989, prior to the 1990 Douglas fight, I distinctly remember Ring Magazine had Mike Tyson at pound-for-pound #1.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-g...0821-00001.jpg
Sorry about that, it is an old scan, and I do not have the original magazine now.
But here is The Ring's first offical pound for pound rankings:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-v...0821-00004.jpg
Now, although there is no date, Carbajal was 32-2, which meant the rankings began around early 1995...
Have never understood or put much stock into P4P myself. Its all very up for interpretation and somewhat of a marketing tag line. Though the Rings intention was to call BS on the alphabet boys and recongnize who they deemed the very best with no smoking mirrors and massaged rankings.
Tyson did become undisputed heavyweight champion forget the WBO and WBAA titles Brit Kid. :)
This says Tyson was Ring ranked P4P no.1Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidQuote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
My point was 'The Ring' did not rank fighters pound for pound before 1995...
In 1989, yeah Whitaker despite the Ramirez fix... I mean robbery (so sue me Senor Suleiman), was not pound for pound a contender for the #1 spot, but Chavez was. And some had the Kid from Culiacan ahead of Tyson, pound for pound.
The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 1989 - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia
Is it a mistake?
This says Tyson was Ring ranked P4P no.1Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 1989 - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia
Is it a mistake?[/QUOTE]
I think it's legit, I have a bunch of Ring magazines from pre-1995 (I'm at work right now so can't double check) that I'm 99.9% certain had p4p ratings.
I think it's legit, I have a bunch of Ring magazines from pre-1995 (I'm at work right now so can't double check) that I'm 99.9% certain had p4p ratings.
I'm pretty sure @Britkid has/had all those mags as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
I've used those ratings to bolster my argument about several topics, over the past few years, it'll be funny if they're actually incorrect (:D)
95' was just the beginning of a "official" belt. Funny given how subjective and open to opinion p4p really is.
Yeah it is just opinion but Mike Tyson at that time back then was seen as unbeatable. The other top fighters around would have all had percieved weaknesses or losses as skilled and consistent as they were they didnt have that aura of invincibility and destruction where it was possible to see Mike beating any fighter in history (at that point);)
Britkid, despite all his smugness and self-assuredness is simply wrong in several of his would-be corrections. I remember Ring in '89 and Tyson was #1 Pound-for-Pound. The Great Julio Cesar Chavez was #2. Ring pound-for-pound began in 1995, my rosy red rectum!!!
And I reiterate: nobody gave WBO any respect at all at the time. Effin' guy pullin' "WAA Heavyweight Champ" out of his @$$? For $#!t's sake!!!!
And Michael Spinks? Insinuating I'm confused? I've never heard anything so disgusting, you owe me an appy-polly-loggy! His knees were so f*<ked going into the Tyson fight, he basically only went through the motions in training camp. Any serious fight-fan already knew he was finished. It was just hype and building up the gate to suggest Spinks had a chance. He had been stripped of that last title, but people still saw him as the lineal guy. His entire camp and Spinks himself knew he didn't have a prayer. Huge payday, and after the 1st knockdown, that man did go out on his shield by electing to come forward back into the lion's den rather than staying away. Respect to Michael Spinks.
I'll admit to a little brain-damage, and my memory may be a bit f*<ked nowadays, and this stuff took place 28 years ago, but I remember this, and I can swallow it when I'm wrong. Some people just can't stand to be wrong. They'll go to great lengths obsessing, picking out every little detail eventually settling on spelling mistakes if there's nothing else to be had, trying to craft the perfect post, and when they make a flub (and more than one in this case), they just cannot stand to be wrong, so go back and edit! That's revisionism!
http://i25.tinypic.com/r7oi83.jpg
britkid and the bradguy are just going to have to agree to disagree...
For a heavyweight to get p4p #1 recognition is truely impressive, given the fact that the honor is biased towards smaller weights. Especially when JCC was like 70-0 at the same time.
God damn, why did Mike have to shit the bed against Buster Douglas? Tyson vs Holyfield circa 1990 would have been incredible.
Don't f*<k with me, I have OCD.
I know The Truth about Boxing....
http://imageshack.us/a/img515/1240/boxingsmiley.gif
.
Many talk of his power and speed... But his peek a boo defense was such a thrill to watch.
Please dont bring Wlad into this..
Well The Ring did go bust in 1989... ;). And yes the July 1995 issue of The Ring was the 'offical' start of The Ring's pound for pound ratings; here is better image courtesy of well known boxing site, with weirder ratings than the WAA; for which I deserve a medal for getting them mentioned three times in a thread now!Quote:
Originally Posted by bradlee180
http://static.boxrec.com/wiki/thumb/...80px-95Jul.jpg
And my point was you cannot be an 'undisputed' champion, it is a silly term, almost as silly as suggesting you can rate every fight from the 4' 4" straw-weight, to the 7' 10" Heavyweight, as if they all weighed the same...
Tyson from Tucker to Douglas was a superb fighter, and maybe the best, but my point was it was not as crystal clear as you initially made out.
So I was right then, he did not retire. But kudos my friend to bluster a whole paragraph out of 'Britkid was right'.:pQuote:
And Michael Spinks? Insinuating I'm confused? I've never heard anything so disgusting, you owe me an appy-polly-loggy! His knees were so f*<ked going into the Tyson fight, he basically only went through the motions in training camp. Any serious fight-fan already knew he was finished. It was just hype and building up the gate to suggest Spinks had a chance. He had been stripped of that last title, but people still saw him as the lineal guy. His entire camp and Spinks himself knew he didn't have a prayer. Huge payday, and after the 1st knockdown, that man did go out on his shield by electing to come forward back into the lion's den rather than staying away. Respect to Michael Spinks.
By using your memory, you are revising history, we all are, memories are not film, they change. But kudos to you, you have a passion and you have a solid argument, but there are always different sides to the story. And you will notice I have no issue playing Devil's Advocate, to create a debate.Quote:
I'll admit to a little brain-damage, and my memory may be a bit f*<ked nowadays, and this stuff took place 28 years ago, but I remember this, and I can swallow it when I'm wrong. Some people just can't stand to be wrong. They'll go to great lengths obsessing, picking out every little detail eventually settling on spelling mistakes if there's nothing else to be had, trying to craft the perfect post, and when they make a flub (and more than one in this case), they just cannot stand to be wrong, so go back and edit! That's revisionism!
http://i25.tinypic.com/r7oi83.jpg
britkid and the bradguy are just going to have to agree to disagree...
Yup. He'd have got knocked out by Holyfield instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
It's more like "Why did Buster Douglas show up to fight"....Mike didn't lose that fight as much as Buster won it. Buster fought his ass off, he did a great job. Yeah we hear all the "Mike's training consisted of drugs & hookers" but Douglas really fought well.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobthepenYup. He'd have got knocked out by Holyfield instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
I just wish between the Holyfield & Lewis fights that Tyson would have had a go at more of the other top fighters of that era: Bowe, Foreman, Mercer, Morrison, Moorer, McCall, Rahman, Briggs, etc...I think they would have been very fun fights to watch regardless of how close they were. I still wanted Tyson to fight John Ruiz when Holyfield had such trouble with him, Chris Byrd would have been a decent fight, Valuev, Vitali, Wladimir, Brewster....people were intrigued by the aura of Tyson, nobody will deny that but he could have really had some more interesting fights in his career, but the very same can be said of every other fighter
No. that is right, it was the first ratings after their comeback. The KO magazine did an annual poll to decide the best pound for pound fighters, but when The Ring became part of the KO/World Boxing/Boxing 87 et al group, they eventually took over the poll, with a record of the previous polls, that date back to 1980.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterThis says Tyson was Ring ranked P4P no.1Quote:
Originally Posted by BritkidQuote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
My point was 'The Ring' did not rank fighters pound for pound before 1995...
In 1989, yeah Whitaker despite the Ramirez fix... I mean robbery (so sue me Senor Suleiman), was not pound for pound a contender for the #1 spot, but Chavez was. And some had the Kid from Culiacan ahead of Tyson, pound for pound.
The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 1989 - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia
Is it a mistake?
KO (April 1995)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-u...455/img141.jpg
The Ring (April 2007)
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-S...454/img142.jpg
^ Notice how Britkid doesn't acknowledge the bradguy's name when stating that bradguy was in fact RIGHT about the Ring's pound-for-Pound in 1989. What did I say about some guys just can't stand to be wrong?
Britkid's post should've read:
"bradguy was right, I was wrong, The Ring did in fact rank Mike Tyson as #1 pound-for-pound in 1989 just as bradguy said they did. And Chavez was in fact Ring's #2 P4P, also just as bradguy said. Please forgive me, bradguy; you are The Man!!! Here's to you, bradguy, as a token of atonement for my disrespectful, pretentious behavior. CHEERS!!!"
http://i32.tinypic.com/k1asl5.jpg
...and you will come to understand that I take nothing personally in an internet forum as I post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in the online community, such as in a forum, chat-room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response OR of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
http://i49.tinypic.com/2h52pl4.jpg
Hahahaha, and winner by 11th round TKO... Bradguy
I was robbed, I reckon this Bradguy is paying Mendoza, Sulaiman et al...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
I think they would have had a triology with Tyson winning the first but losing the next two as he was losing it slowly. Either way by the time Bowe and Lewis were coming up Tyson would have eventually lost to one of them. Prison may have preserved him for a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobthepenYup. He'd have got knocked out by Holyfield instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobthepen
You could be right, I don't rightly know who to pick in that one. But I think it would be a hell of a lot better than their eventual 1996 showdown,.
For sure!Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerQuote:
Originally Posted by Bobthepen
You could be right, I don't rightly know who to pick in that one. But I think it would be a hell of a lot better than their eventual 1996 showdown,.
Even though back in 90 or 91 his skills had declined, his fights with Rudduck proved he still had a fighters attitude and stamina and was active and getting rounds in.
Compare that to someone who hadn't trained for 4 years and had just 16 and a half minutes of action in prep.
People slate Tysons win over Holmes but Holmes was only out 18 months before he started training for for Tyson!
Sauce for the goose et al. Holyfield was in his mid thirties and considered by most to be shot when he fought Tyson. He wasn't shot, but he wasn't the fighter he was five years earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossFor sure!Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerQuote:
Originally Posted by Bobthepen
You could be right, I don't rightly know who to pick in that one. But I think it would be a hell of a lot better than their eventual 1996 showdown,.
Even though back in 90 or 91 his skills had declined, his fights with Rudduck proved he still had a fighters attitude and stamina and was active and getting rounds in.
Compare that to someone who hadn't trained for 4 years and had just 16 and a half minutes of action in prep.
People slate Tysons win over Holmes but Holmes was only out 18 months before he started training for for Tyson!
He may not have been the same fighter but was Mike any better? Not fighting or even training for 4 years!!? That he had any success at all after prison is testiment to the natural ability he was born with.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobthepenSauce for the goose et al. Holyfield was in his mid thirties and considered by most to be shot when he fought Tyson. He wasn't shot, but he wasn't the fighter he was five years earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by rossFor sure!Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerQuote:
Originally Posted by Bobthepen
You could be right, I don't rightly know who to pick in that one. But I think it would be a hell of a lot better than their eventual 1996 showdown,.
Even though back in 90 or 91 his skills had declined, his fights with Rudduck proved he still had a fighters attitude and stamina and was active and getting rounds in.
Compare that to someone who hadn't trained for 4 years and had just 16 and a half minutes of action in prep.
People slate Tysons win over Holmes but Holmes was only out 18 months before he started training for for Tyson!
Holyfield has been proven to have bought steroids and of your naive enough to believe he never took them then your are deluded. Holyfield as and was a cheat.