Mike Tyson v Sonny Liston

[THE THIRD MAN]

Tyson gets KO'd by Liston very early, Foreman the same ( look what George did to Joe Frazier) Frazier beats Tyson and Ali toys with him.

[ross]

Tyson would do more than make Ali cry about his eyes between rounds and when he decked him like Banks, Cooper, Frazier and Wepner did, hed tear him up.

George would be splattered like Lyle did, only Tyson wouldnt tire.

Frazier just gets hit too much to have any prayer with someone the speed of Tyson, who was faster than Ali, try getting Ali to put as much force in his punches and see if hes still as quick.

Ali, no one can say either way because I believe Ali and Tyson have showed at the height of their careers that they have too much for anyone with major flaws.

If you get hit too much you deffinitly dont hear the final bell against the young Tyson.

[rjj tszyu]

No fucking way Tyson had a better chin than Ali. Ali got dropped yes but he always got up. Did Tyson ever get up to go on and win? Tyson would have never got up from that left hook from Frazier.

Ali got dropped a few times, Mike got dropped after taking rounds and rounds of clean big shots, Holyfield couldnt finish Mike on his back and Lewis had to push him down all the losses including Douglas came when anyone could see he wasnt fighting the same anymore.

When tyson fought Holyfield he had a longer absence from boxing than Ali did, he wasnt the same fighter and he never came under suspiscion of taking HGH like Holyfield either.

Mike should be judged on what he did up to Spinks when he was doing everything right, rather like people saying Ali shoulkd be judged on what he was like before he went in exile.

Unlike Ali, Mike showed no weakness, he wasnt dropped by nobodys or gifted decisions, he was a force that ripped through a division, Alis best win was supposed to be against Williams who was mid 30's and had 5 losses and a draw, hardly awe ispiring opposition

As for quality of opposition Tyson fought and beat 3 undefeated fighters as a defending and unifying champion, Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs and Michael Spinks.

When Ali was in his supposed prime, he didnt defend agianst 1 undefeated fighter, in fact as champion the first undefeated fighter Ali fought beat him (Joe Frazier) then he managed to beat the second (Foreman) then got beat by the Third (Spinks)

OK then if Tyson's chin is so much better, tell me someone who's punches he stood upto that hit as hard as Foreman, Frazier or Liston?

Also what does being undefeated matter?? Ruslan Chagaev was undefeated when he fought Wlad. Did that make him a better fighter than Wlad? No.

And you talk about Tyson only falling after taking a shit load of punishment? Do you really think he could have withstood the punishment that was being dished out in the Thriller in Manilla or the Rumble?? I don't.

Tyson's best victory for me was against an "OLD" Larry Holmes and Spinks for me means nothing. Yes Michael Spinks was a great Light Heavy but at HW he was never going to be big enough. Ali destroyed a better LHW in Bob Foster.

[ross]

No fucking way Tyson had a better chin than Ali. Ali got dropped yes but he always got up. Did Tyson ever get up to go on and win? Tyson would have never got up from that left hook from Frazier.

Ali got dropped a few times, Mike got dropped after taking rounds and rounds of clean big shots, Holyfield couldnt finish Mike on his back and Lewis had to push him down all the losses including Douglas came when anyone could see he wasnt fighting the same anymore.

When tyson fought Holyfield he had a longer absence from boxing than Ali did, he wasnt the same fighter and he never came under suspiscion of taking HGH like Holyfield either.

Mike should be judged on what he did up to Spinks when he was doing everything right, rather like people saying Ali shoulkd be judged on what he was like before he went in exile.

Unlike Ali, Mike showed no weakness, he wasnt dropped by nobodys or gifted decisions, he was a force that ripped through a division, Alis best win was supposed to be against Williams who was mid 30's and had 5 losses and a draw, hardly awe ispiring opposition

As for quality of opposition Tyson fought and beat 3 undefeated fighters as a defending and unifying champion, Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs and Michael Spinks.

When Ali was in his supposed prime, he didnt defend agianst 1 undefeated fighter, in fact as champion the first undefeated fighter Ali fought beat him (Joe Frazier) then he managed to beat the second (Foreman) then got beat by the Third (Spinks)

OK then if Tyson's chin is so much better, tell me someone who's punches he stood upto that hit as hard as Foreman, Frazier or Liston?

Also what does being undefeated matter?? Ruslan Chagaev was undefeated when he fought Wlad. Did that make him a better fighter than Wlad? No.

And you talk about Tyson only falling after taking a shit load of punishment? Do you really think he could have withstood the punishment that was being dished out in the Thriller in Manilla or the Rumble?? I don't.

Tyson's best victory for me was against an "OLD" Larry Holmes and Spinks for me means nothing. Yes Michael Spinks was a great Light Heavy but at HW he was never going to be big enough. Ali destroyed a better LHW in Bob Foster.

Facing undefeated title challengers does mean alot, it means as a champion Mike was facing people who were too goo for anyone else to beat, instead of going through all the used up hasbeens, obviously Klitschko proved he was better than that undefeated fighter, he showed some class by fightng a top tier opponent, if they havent lost yet there is every chance they could be good enough to beat the champ.

As for Foster, Spinks fought and beat Holmes, Foster went up and was dropped like a yo yo, the bloke either didnt have a very good chin or defence Spinks had 4 successfull fights at heavy and lost to Tyson in his 5th, Foster got anhialated by the only 2 world rated heavies he fought.

Also, id say Rudduck, Bruno and Lewis deffinitly hit harder than Frazier and must at least be level with Foreman

[ICB]

Ali got dropped a few times, Mike got dropped after taking rounds and rounds of clean big shots, Holyfield couldnt finish Mike on his back and Lewis had to push him down all the losses including Douglas came when anyone could see he wasnt fighting the same anymore.

When tyson fought Holyfield he had a longer absence from boxing than Ali did, he wasnt the same fighter and he never came under suspiscion of taking HGH like Holyfield either.

Mike should be judged on what he did up to Spinks when he was doing everything right, rather like people saying Ali shoulkd be judged on what he was like before he went in exile.

Unlike Ali, Mike showed no weakness, he wasnt dropped by nobodys or gifted decisions, he was a force that ripped through a division, Alis best win was supposed to be against Williams who was mid 30's and had 5 losses and a draw, hardly awe ispiring opposition

As for quality of opposition Tyson fought and beat 3 undefeated fighters as a defending and unifying champion, Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs and Michael Spinks.

When Ali was in his supposed prime, he didnt defend agianst 1 undefeated fighter, in fact as champion the first undefeated fighter Ali fought beat him (Joe Frazier) then he managed to beat the second (Foreman) then got beat by the Third (Spinks)

OK then if Tyson's chin is so much better, tell me someone who's punches he stood upto that hit as hard as Foreman, Frazier or Liston?

Also what does being undefeated matter?? Ruslan Chagaev was undefeated when he fought Wlad. Did that make him a better fighter than Wlad? No.

And you talk about Tyson only falling after taking a shit load of punishment? Do you really think he could have withstood the punishment that was being dished out in the Thriller in Manilla or the Rumble?? I don't.

Tyson's best victory for me was against an "OLD" Larry Holmes and Spinks for me means nothing. Yes Michael Spinks was a great Light Heavy but at HW he was never going to be big enough. Ali destroyed a better LHW in Bob Foster.

Facing undefeated title challengers does mean alot, it means as a champion Mike was facing people who were too goo for anyone else to beat, instead of going through all the used up hasbeens, obviously Klitschko proved he was better than that undefeated fighter, he showed some class by fightng a top tier opponent, if they havent lost yet there is every chance they could be good enough to beat the champ.

As for Foster, Spinks fought and beat Holmes, Foster went up and was dropped like a yo yo, the bloke either didnt have a very good chin or defence Spinks had 4 successfull fights at heavy and lost to Tyson in his 5th, Foster got anhialated by the only 2 world rated heavies he fought.

Also, id say Rudduck, Bruno and Lewis deffinitly hit harder than Frazier and must at least be level with Foreman

Frank Bruno had good power, but never showed he could stop an elite fighter. And Razor Ruddock only had one punch.

[OumaFan]

Tyson's kind of like Naz, you can't look at their whole careers cause they just let themselves go, you've just gotta look at that point in time when they were at their peak (no matter how short a time period that might have been)and if you do you would have to admit that they would have likely been too much for anyone around their weight class no matter what era. All the Tillis fight really showed was that a poorly motivated Tyson could still cruise against an Ali type opponent (not quite of Ali's caliber obviously but still Tyson would have been far more motivated for an Ali fight). Same with Naz really, I'm not sure how anyone could watch the Jose Badillo fight and think Morales could beat that Naz. And that's obviously just one example.

[ross]

Mike Tyson was a fighter you could put in with anyone confident of him winning, Hamed wasnt, you always had suspicions that a decent boxer would take him, Jose Badillo isnt really a yard stick of greatness either.

Hamed beat some good fighter but it always looked as though Barrera and Morales could take him.

Mike nearly ran out of viable opponents, Rooney said if he hadnt left they were going to pull Mike out for a few years and let some other fighters establish themseves as a base for opponents.

[OumaFan]

Its not about the quality of the opponent though, neither Tyson or Hamed beat many really quality opponents during their prime but the way they did it, you could just tell they were a level above. Unfortunately it was only later after they had started to fall off that they began to fight truly great fighters and because they lost to some of those guys people act like their prime was overrated, that the reason they looked so amazing was because they were feasting on less than elite fighters, which just isn't the case.

[Fenster]

Its not about the quality of the opponent though, neither Tyson or Hamed beat many really quality opponents during their prime but the way they did it, you could just tell they were a level above. Unfortunately it was only later after they had started to fall off that they began to fight truly great fighters and because they lost to some of those guys people act like their prime was overrated, that the reason they looked so amazing was because they were feasting on less than elite fighters, which just isn't the case.

This.

Tyson's kind of like Naz, you can't look at their whole careers cause they just let themselves go, you've just gotta look at that point in time when they were at their peak (no matter how short a time period that might have been)and if you do you would have to admit that they would have likely been too much for anyone around their weight class no matter what era. All the Tillis fight really showed was that a poorly motivated Tyson could still cruise against an Ali type opponent (not quite of Ali's caliber obviously but still Tyson would have been far more motivated for an Ali fight). Same with Naz really, I'm not sure how anyone could watch the Jose Badillo fight and think Morales could beat that Naz. And that's obviously just one example.

And this.

[rjj tszyu]

Mike Tyson was a fighter you could put in with anyone confident of him winning, Hamed wasnt, you always had suspicions that a decent boxer would take him, Jose Badillo isnt really a yard stick of greatness either.

Hamed beat some good fighter but it always looked as though Barrera and Morales could take him.

Mike nearly ran out of viable opponents, Rooney said if he hadnt left they were going to pull Mike out for a few years and let some other fighters establish themseves as a base for opponents.

Well he'd have run into Evander whether he stayed with Rooney or not and the result would have been the same. Demolition of Tyson. Evander and Lewis are the only true world class guys he fought who were genuine HW's and he was destroyed by both.

[OumaFan]

Agreed, Fenster.

And while he never beat any elite guys during his prime some of those wins are better than people give Mike credit for. Larry Holmes was old, etc., etc., but yet he was able to beat Mercer four years later. And went the distance with Holyfield. And I'm not sure what that whole "glove caught in the ropes" excuse was all about, if anything Larry probably saw the writing on the wall and was looking for a way out.

[rjj tszyu]

Agreed, Fenster.

And while he never beat any elite guys during his prime some of those wins are better than people give Mike credit for. Larry Holmes was old, etc., etc., but yet he was able to beat Mercer four years later. And went the distance with Holyfield. And I'm not sure what that whole "glove caught in the ropes" excuse was all about, if anything Larry probably saw the writing on the wall and was looking for a way out.

Yes but you cannot judge what one fighter does against anothers common opponent in the way you have above. Evander would have always beaten Tyson.

You saying look what Tyson did to Holmes and then point out that Holmes wen tthe distance with Evander means nothing. Look what Frazier did to Ali in the first fight and then look what Foreman did to Frazier. Doesn't mean Foreman is going to destroy Ali does it??

[Fenster]

Agreed, Fenster.

And while he never beat any elite guys during his prime some of those wins are better than people give Mike credit for. Larry Holmes was old, etc., etc., but yet he was able to beat Mercer four years later. And went the distance with Holyfield. And I'm not sure what that whole "glove caught in the ropes" excuse was all about, if anything Larry probably saw the writing on the wall and was looking for a way out.

You mean he purposely got his glove caught in the ropes? Hmm.. it does sort of make sense.

Quality of opposition is totally overrated. I agree. Fact.

[OumaFan]

I think its the most likely explanation. Sometimes its easy to over think things and miss what's right in front of you, Occam's Razor and such.

As far as Tyson-Holyfield, it just wasn't a prime Tyson, maybe Holyfield was a bad style matchup but we'll never know

[ElTerribleMorales]

Tyson would do more than make Ali cry about his eyes between rounds and when he decked him like Banks, Cooper, Frazier and Wepner did, hed tear him up.

George would be splattered like Lyle did, only Tyson wouldnt tire.

Frazier just gets hit too much to have any prayer with someone the speed of Tyson, who was faster than Ali, try getting Ali to put as much force in his punches and see if hes still as quick.

Ali, no one can say either way because I believe Ali and Tyson have showed at the height of their careers that they have too much for anyone with major flaws.

If you get hit too much you deffinitly dont hear the final bell against the young Tyson.

Ali would outbox Tyson's head off, Mike would maybe have scored a knockdown but Ali would get right up and continue busting him up making Tyson frustrated and quit by the 8th

Foreman would use his size and weight and force Mike back, Tyson is one of the hardest punchers in the division, but IMO big George IS the hardest punching HW ever, he'd throw that heavy jab and keep Tyson at bay, blocking off any of Mike's shot's upstairs with his cross armed defense, and eventually would land enough big right hands to keep Tyson down

Tyson/Frazier would be the closest of the 3, and still Frazier was so relentless i don't think Tyson would be able to impose himself on Joe, he'd rock him, but he'd pull himself together and give as good as he could get

Mike barely could go 12 no way in hell he'd make it 15 especially against the likes of Ali, Foreman, or Frazier