I miss Tyson

[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.

[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.

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

So did Ali, so did Foreman, so did Frazier, so did Norton, Bowe, Holmes, Holyfield, Lewis etc and what did Marciano do other than retire undefeated?

Give it up. Mike had issues but while they were reigned in he did more than enough to deserve to be highly appreciated.

If he was to come along now, or rather another, clean up the division by taking on all the contenders like Arreola and Adamek, then unified the titles by beating Vitali then Wlad and wiped the floor with Haye, how happy would we be as fans that there is just one title holder and someone who is undoubtably the best fighter in the world?

[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?