28 years ago today...

[Spicoli]

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

[ross]

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)

[Beanflicker]

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.

[Beanflicker]

God damn, why did Mike have to shit the bed against Buster Douglas? Tyson vs Holyfield circa 1990 would have been incredible.

[Bobthepen]

God damn, why did Mike have to shit the bed against Buster Douglas? Tyson vs Holyfield circa 1990 would have been incredible.

Yup. He'd have got knocked out by Holyfield instead.

[El Kabong]

God damn, why did Mike have to shit the bed against Buster Douglas? Tyson vs Holyfield circa 1990 would have been incredible.

Yup. He'd have got knocked out by Holyfield instead.

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.

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

[Master]

God damn, why did Mike have to shit the bed against Buster Douglas? Tyson vs Holyfield circa 1990 would have been incredible.

Yup. He'd have got knocked out by Holyfield instead.

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.

[Beanflicker]

Yup. He'd have got knocked out by Holyfield instead.

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,.

[ross]

Yup. He'd have got knocked out by Holyfield instead.

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!

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!

[Spicoli]

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)

I think that aura and mystique is exatlly what helped get Mike beat up by Buster Douglas. That, Don King and a hot water bottle. The greatness and place in history was better placed around the outcome of a match with number 1 ranked Holyfield the first time around and its a shame they cancelled the second signed date and missed a chance for definition.

I really think alot of Mike being a number 1 p4p had as much to do with his speed and Heavyweight concussive endings as it did being a household name and benifiting from massive exposure like no other fighter then. Again, its comes down to what we interpreate it as. Opposition? Longevity? Actual skillset?Douglas was a solid package that night but to see him make Rings #6 p4p doesn't say much for whole thing, beating a p4p doesn't make you an actual p4p type fighter. Not to mention Tyson still being 7th even after being thumped and then 5th p4p even after the Ruddock fights speaks to more of the popularity push imo while at the same time his skills were starting to show big cracks. He was living on yesterdays.

[bradlee180]

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!



britkid and the bradguy are just going to have to agree to disagree...

[bradlee180]

Don't f*<k with me, I have OCD.



I know The Truth about Boxing....

.

[Britkid]

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!!!!

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!



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.

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.

So I was right then, he did not retire. But kudos my friend to bluster a whole paragraph out of 'Britkid was right'.

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!



britkid and the bradguy are just going to have to agree to disagree...

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.

[bradlee180]

^ 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!!!"

...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.

...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.

[Beanflicker]

Hahahaha, and winner by 11th round TKO... Bradguy