28 years ago today...

[Beanflicker]

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.

[Beanflicker]

What about Ray Leonard though? He was coming off his big upset over Hagler and a whipping of Danny Lalonde.

[greynotsoold]

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.

[El Kabong]

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.

[Britkid]

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.

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.

[Fenster]

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.

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.

This says Tyson was Ring ranked P4P no.1

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 1989 - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia

Is it a mistake?

[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.

This says Tyson was Ring ranked P4P no.1

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.

[Beanflicker]

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.

[Fenster]

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?

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 ()

[Spicoli]

95' was just the beginning of a "official" belt. Funny given how subjective and open to opinion p4p really is.

[Britkid]

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.

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.

This says Tyson was Ring ranked P4P no.1

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 1989 - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia

Is it a mistake?

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.

KO (April 1995)



The Ring (April 2007)