I miss Tyson

[TysonBomb]

You're trying to rewrite history

Tucker had a good jab and if he isn't good enough for you then what about Tyrell Biggs? He had an excellent jab as well and literally tried to pull an Ali on Tyson. Lewis also had a LAZY jab that he would leave out there but I can guarantee you'd call it an excellent jab.

Everyone tried to jab Tyson but it failed. Being tall didn't help either so I'll already put aside that argument. The only punch that Tyson was susceptible to was the uppercut. He was a defensive wizard among heavyweights.

If you are resulting to using Ring magazine as an authority then there is nothing left for you to bring up. Ring magazine is a joke and so are all of these subjective lists compiled by these so called "pundits." You've already exposed that you actually don't know anything and you've hardly even watched any of Tysons fights.

He would eat Lewis alive, spark Holyfield and pound Bowe if these fights ever happened in the early 90s. Holyfield is "great" because he beat Bowe and Bowe is "great" because he beat Holyfield. Lewis is "great" because he fought Tyson left overs and was knocked unconscious in his prime ... TWICE.

Tyson beat a prime Razor Ruddock twice who was more dangerous than anyone Bowe or Holyfield fought to that point. Both Holyfield and Bowe DUCKED Ruddock and took on lesser opponents ... Holyfield took on a fat old Foreman who didn't deserve a shot and Bowe fought another bum in the long list of bums that make up his record. Lewis got to Ruddock after he had been destroyed by Tyson. Tyson was a class above all 3 of these guys and was the best heavyweight on the planet.

[Bobthepen]

If you are resulting to using Ring magazine as an authority then there is nothing left for you to bring up. Ring magazine is a joke and so are all of these subjective lists compiled by these so called "pundits."

OK, I'll use ESPN, who have Tyson at number 50 p4p. Or Bert Sugar, who had Tyson at 15 on the all time heavies list, or the IB times, who didn't have him in their top ten, or Sports illustrated, who didn't have him in their top ten, or almost any respected sports journal that don't have him in their top ten.

He only lives there in the wet dreams of a youth such as yourself.

Costa Rica's national coach cast his vote into FIFA's world player of the year a decade or so ago, and voted for Paolo Wanchope. The lone voice of a mad man in the wilderness does not a fact make.

You still avoid stating where you have Mike in your overall ratings.

[TysonBomb]

Your appeal to authority bullshit is exactly that ... BULLSHIT

I don't give a rats ass about Bert Sugar and his ramblings. Nor do I care about any Ring magazine list or any list from anyone because its all purely SUBJECTIVE

Everyone has biases, opinions, different criteria, beliefs etc. Each on one these lists DIFFER from another so your at straws by citing them.

The fact that you keep bringing these garbage lists up is incredibly foolish and childish.

I've exposed every single one of your posts and the inaccuracies and falsehoods that comprise their content.

[ross]

Mike Tyson on all time lists can be rated for a few different things. Some say its down to career achievements but then why would Foreman be rated higher? He only made 2 successful defences. If its impact on the sport then only Ali rates higher and Mikes impact was all positive until he ran in to King, he was spokesperson for the FBI, the New York police dept, he had his own computer game, he advertised pepsi etc whereas Ali gained his by refusing to be drafted to Vietnam.

If its on an actual who beats who then no way could you have the likes of Marciano who was getting dropped by old light heavies or Frazier, Norton, Holmes and probably a fair few more ahead of Mike. Mike gets rated down because its not cool to have him high or you just look like you know nothing about boxing because "Mike Tyson was just a bully brawler with no technique" which is the usual crap spouted by wannabe experts.

[TysonBomb]

Mike Tyson on all time lists can be rated for a few different things. Some say its down to career achievements but then why would Foreman be rated higher? He only made 2 successful defences. If its impact on the sport then only Ali rates higher and Mikes impact was all positive until he ran in to King, he was spokesperson for the FBI, the New York police dept, he had his own computer game, he advertised pepsi etc whereas Ali gained his by refusing to be drafted to Vietnam.

If its on an actual who beats who then no way could you have the likes of Marciano who was getting dropped by old light heavies or Frazier, Norton, Holmes and probably a fair few more ahead of Mike. Mike gets rated down because its not cool to have him high or you just look like you know nothing about boxing because "Mike Tyson was just a bully brawler with no technique" which is the usual crap spouted by wannabe experts.

Excellent post

These so called "experts" and "pundits" will just claim that he was a bully who would intimidate people and when that failed he collapsed and lost. Complete CRAP.

Tyson was groomed to be the greatest heavyweight champion ever. D'Amato told him everything he knew in the sport and he sucked it all up like a sponge. His socio-economic impact alone puts him in the top 10. Only Ali ever had the same kind of impact he had on a global scale.

And if we evaluate him as a fighter then there is no one in the history of heavyweight boxing who had the same combination of power, speed, punch resistance, and skill. NOBODY. Take a list of the commonly accepted top 10 heavyweights and you'll see that Tyson stands out alone as the one boxer who had top tier power, speed, skill, and punch resistance.

Head to head he is a freak. I'd only favor a few fighters in history to last with him.

[Dark Lord Al]

Mike Tyson on all time lists can be rated for a few different things. Some say its down to career achievements but then why would Foreman be rated higher? He only made 2 successful defences. If its impact on the sport then only Ali rates higher and Mikes impact was all positive until he ran in to King, he was spokesperson for the FBI, the New York police dept, he had his own computer game, he advertised pepsi etc whereas Ali gained his by refusing to be drafted to Vietnam.

If its on an actual who beats who then no way could you have the likes of Marciano who was getting dropped by old light heavies or Frazier, Norton, Holmes and probably a fair few more ahead of Mike. Mike gets rated down because its not cool to have him high or you just look like you know nothing about boxing because "Mike Tyson was just a bully brawler with no technique" which is the usual crap spouted by wannabe experts.

Foreman may have only made 2 defences , but was beaten by Clay and all time
great , Tyson lost to Douglas

[ross]

Mike Tyson on all time lists can be rated for a few different things. Some say its down to career achievements but then why would Foreman be rated higher? He only made 2 successful defences. If its impact on the sport then only Ali rates higher and Mikes impact was all positive until he ran in to King, he was spokesperson for the FBI, the New York police dept, he had his own computer game, he advertised pepsi etc whereas Ali gained his by refusing to be drafted to Vietnam.

If its on an actual who beats who then no way could you have the likes of Marciano who was getting dropped by old light heavies or Frazier, Norton, Holmes and probably a fair few more ahead of Mike. Mike gets rated down because its not cool to have him high or you just look like you know nothing about boxing because "Mike Tyson was just a bully brawler with no technique" which is the usual crap spouted by wannabe experts.

Foreman may have only made 2 defences , but was beaten by Clay and all time
great , Tyson lost to Douglas

After he achieved more than Foreman and Marciano.

Yes he lost to Douglas but only after he had proved beyond any doubt he was the best fighter in the world and had some experts saying he was going to be on a par with Ali as the greatest. Why dyou think the Douglas fight is the biggest shock upset ever in boxing? Its because Mike was thought of as unbeatable.

[Dark Lord Al]

Mike Tyson on all time lists can be rated for a few different things. Some say its down to career achievements but then why would Foreman be rated higher? He only made 2 successful defences. If its impact on the sport then only Ali rates higher and Mikes impact was all positive until he ran in to King, he was spokesperson for the FBI, the New York police dept, he had his own computer game, he advertised pepsi etc whereas Ali gained his by refusing to be drafted to Vietnam.

If its on an actual who beats who then no way could you have the likes of Marciano who was getting dropped by old light heavies or Frazier, Norton, Holmes and probably a fair few more ahead of Mike. Mike gets rated down because its not cool to have him high or you just look like you know nothing about boxing because "Mike Tyson was just a bully brawler with no technique" which is the usual crap spouted by wannabe experts.

Foreman may have only made 2 defences , but was beaten by Clay and all time
great , Tyson lost to Douglas

After he achieved more than Foreman and Marciano.

Yes he lost to Douglas but only after he had proved beyond any doubt he was the best fighter in the world and had some experts saying he was going to be on a par with Ali as the greatest. Why dyou think the Douglas fight is the biggest shock upset ever in boxing? Its because Mike was thought of as unbeatable.

Tyson fought in an era of pups , he lost every time a guy fought back.

[Bobthepen]

Your appeal to authority bullshit is exactly that ... BULLSHIT

I don't give a rats ass about Bert Sugar and his ramblings. Nor do I care about any Ring magazine list or any list from anyone because its all purely SUBJECTIVE

Everyone has biases, opinions, different criteria, beliefs etc. Each on one these lists DIFFER from another so your at straws by citing them.

The fact that you keep bringing these garbage lists up is incredibly foolish and childish.

I've exposed every single one of your posts and the inaccuracies and falsehoods that comprise their content.

Ah yes. Speaking of falsehoods, where is the evidence of Mike's soup hangover?



And where do you rank Tyson, for the fourth or fifth time.

[TysonBomb]

Your appeal to authority bullshit is exactly that ... BULLSHIT

I don't give a rats ass about Bert Sugar and his ramblings. Nor do I care about any Ring magazine list or any list from anyone because its all purely SUBJECTIVE

Everyone has biases, opinions, different criteria, beliefs etc. Each on one these lists DIFFER from another so your at straws by citing them.

The fact that you keep bringing these garbage lists up is incredibly foolish and childish.

I've exposed every single one of your posts and the inaccuracies and falsehoods that comprise their content.

Ah yes. Speaking of falsehoods, where is the evidence of Mike's soup hangover?



And where do you rank Tyson, for the fourth or fifth time.

A diet of nothing but soup and salad once a day in an attempt to get down to fighting weight and training only in front of the media is a recipe for disaster.

The way he was fighting it looked like he just expected to win by showing up. He was practically hungover.

Tyson is in the top 7 IMO ... can't put him near the very top because of how his career unfolded

[ross]

Your appeal to authority bullshit is exactly that ... BULLSHIT

I don't give a rats ass about Bert Sugar and his ramblings. Nor do I care about any Ring magazine list or any list from anyone because its all purely SUBJECTIVE

Everyone has biases, opinions, different criteria, beliefs etc. Each on one these lists DIFFER from another so your at straws by citing them.

The fact that you keep bringing these garbage lists up is incredibly foolish and childish.

I've exposed every single one of your posts and the inaccuracies and falsehoods that comprise their content.

Ah yes. Speaking of falsehoods, where is the evidence of Mike's soup hangover?



And where do you rank Tyson, for the fourth or fifth time.

Make a top ten list and be honest about who Mike actually couldnt really beat.

Ok, Lewis and Holyfield have wins over Mike but Mike also has a win over Holmes who was at a similar stage of his career as Mike was when he lost to Lewis and Holyfield. Just like when Mike fought Holmes, that wasnt the best version of Holmes and neither the steroid cheat Holyfield or Lewis fought the best version of Mike and neither came close to obliterating Mike the way Mike did to Larry. Holyfield in his prime struggled with an older version of Holmes.

By the time Holyfield fought Mike, Mike had an enforced 4 year absence and was a shell of the fighter he once was. He showed very little of the defensive skills, footwork or combinations that made him because he didnt have a trainer worth shit around him that wasnt just a yes man. When he fought Lewis hed had yet another enforced absence and was now just a name. As soon as King got Tyson he had no ambition for the actual fighting part of boxing.

The period Mike had when he was training right he did enough to warrant being n the top ten, certainly as much as Marciano did and more than Foreman. If Mike had died right after the Spinks fight the would be no revisionist history.

People dont rate Jones jrs career on what happened after Ruiz, or rather they choose to ignore it. I mever rated him that highly but in the ninties was Jones decade. Why does Mike get hammered for the shitty effort he put up after the Eighties?

[Beanz]

People are judged on their career. Just because Tyson had a period after what people consider his prime where he underachieved, that does not mean he should be given credit for what could theoretically have happened. He was not an old man when he finished fighting, he was not wracked and ruined by serious injuries. At his height he was a fighting machine who lit up boxing but he could be beaten and people who on the one hand will acknowledge that Klitschko opponents are often already beaten men before entering the ring, frozen by fear like rabbits in headlights, refuse to see the same tell tale symptoms in many of Iron Mike's victims.

[ross]

People are judged on their career. Just because Tyson had a period after what people consider his prime where he underachieved, that does not mean he should be given credit for what could theoretically have happened. He was not an old man when he finished fighting, he was not wracked and ruined by serious injuries. At his height he was a fighting machine who lit up boxing but he could be beaten and people who on the one hand will acknowledge that Klitschko opponents are often already beaten men before entering the ring, frozen by fear like rabbits in headlights, refuse to see the same tell tale symptoms in many of Iron Mike's victims.

No, just give him credit for what he did acheive up to and including Spinks which is more impressive than what Marciano achieved. Tyson fought and beat the top ten heavies of his era, there was no ther challengers for him. If he hadnt declined so rapidly Kevin Rooney said his management team were actually thinking of retiring Mike early and bringing him back after a few years when some credible challenggers had come through. If Mike had been more disciplined and not been so easily swayed by King, he may have become the greatest ever at heavy, coming back to ruin Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, all who were getting beat, dropped or hurt every other fight.

[TysonBomb]

Prior to Douglas Mike never looked beatable. No one could ever had him in trouble. Sure Tillis took a couple of rounds away from him and Tucker seemed to catch his attention with an uppercut once but that was it.

Never cut, bruised, hurt, or in danger of falling behind in the scorecards. The only criticism that is presented is that he didn't KO everybody. No one can KO everybody.