Prime Tyson one of the Greats

[ricardinho]

Simply put Tyson entertained us... doubt we will ever see another heavyweight like him. In his prime he was so awesome!


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Son of Gaul]

Simply put Tyson entertained us... doubt we will ever see another heavyweight like him. In his prime he was so awesome!


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I think everyone will agree that '86-'88 Tyson was a one of a kind and would beat almost any HW in history except '66 Ali, '77 Holmes, '74 Foreman, '62 Liston and possibly...a prime Marciano.

[bodhi]

But what has beeing entertaining to do with beeing great? :huh

[bodhi]

I think everyone will agree that '86-'88 Tyson was a one of a kind and would beat almost any HW in history except '66 Ali, '77 Holmes, '74 Foreman, '62 Liston and possibly...a prime Marciano.

No. I think more guys beat him. He was great and one of a kind though.

[ricardinho]

No. I think more guys beat him. He was great and one of a kind though.

Funny guy huh... look a Prime Tyson took his opponents apart with the most beautiful combos at heavyweight since Ali. He beat everyone in his division in his prime. If you can't see the Greatness that Cus engineered I don't know what else to tell you.

He had it all power, speed, timing, rhythm, footwork, and tenacity. Breakdown his style and you will see a classic Tyson was a work of art with layers of complexity. I take nothing away from Wlad, Vitali, Evander, and Lennox but a Prime Tyson was Great!

[bodhi]

Funny guy huh... look a Prime Tyson took his opponents apart with the most beautiful combos at heavyweight since Ali. He beat everyone in his division in his prime. If you can't see the Greatness that Cus engineered I don't know what else to tell you.

He had it all power, speed, timing, rhythm, footwork, and tenacity. Breakdown his style and you will see a classic Tyson was a work of art with layers of complexity. I take nothing away from Wlad, Vitali, Evander, and Lennox but a Prime Tyson was Great!

You can read right? If you can, please read again what I wrote and think about it a abit, you´ll see the errors then. :good

[ricardinho]

You can read right? If you can, please read again what I wrote and think about it a abit, you´ll see the errors then. :good

Please Enlighten me Mr. Bodhi Tree:lol::lol::lol:

I was referring to your post above it... so sue me

[anarci]

Seems like most fans that bash Tyson are usually newbies to the sport. Most fans that i know over the age of 30,35 all acknowldege that Tyson was one hell of a fighter. Whether its the hardcore fan or the casual fan.

I would rate Holmes higher on an atg list, but HTH i disagree that he would have beat a prime Mike. Holmes was always succeptible to a big right. One of TYsons money shots.

Id put Prime Big George, Prime Ali, Holyfield as the only ones who beat him HTH.

[bodhi]

Seems like most fans that bash Tyson are usually newbies to the sport. Most fans that i know over the age of 30,35 all acknowldege that Tyson was one hell of a fighter. Whether its the hardcore fan or the casual fan.

I would rate Holmes higher on an atg list, but HTH i disagree that he would have beat a prime Mike. Holmes was always succeptible to a big right. One of TYsons money shots.

Id put Prime Big George, Prime Ali, Holyfield as the only ones who beat him HTH.

Tyson was made to beat the style of Holmes. Holmes at his prime was very, very hard to beat though. I see it as a 50/50 fight. I think guys like Louis, Baer, Jeffries, Marciano, Liston, Johnson, Ali, Foreman, Holyfield and Lewis beat him. Others are 50/50 like Vitali, Dempsey, Tua, Walcott, Jeanette, McVey.

[bodhi]

Please Enlighten me Mr. Bodhi Tree:lol::lol::lol:

I was referring to your post above it... so sue me

So, you quote me saying that Tyson was great and use it as an example to accuse me of not seeing Tyson´s greatness. That´s a classic :rofl:rofl:rofl

[duran duran]

it always puzzles me why so many think a peak lewis would beat a peak tyson lewis peak was probably between 97 and 2000 tysons peak was 86 to 88 with all due respect to lewis i know what one looked the most impressive tyson didnt just beat his opposition he crushed them lewis for the most part never looked outstanding at his peak while true lewis was a lot bigger than tyson people a lot of people forget tyson was 21 lewis was 33 or 34 which means he was far quicker more aggresive better chin sorry peak for peak tyson wins inside 4 rounds

[TommyV]

He's an enigma more than he is a great. In retrospect of course he could of been amazing, he had speed, power, aggression, great technical skills, a very efficient defense, a good chin and he installed fear into his opponents. But his resumé is lacking in comparison to his skills and his longevity is terrible thanks to his lack of mental strength and psychological problems.

[he grant]

A prime Tyson, H2H, loses to very few ... the speed, power, conditioning, strength, chin and determination were exceptional ... his lighting fast starts would make for horrible match ups for many other , smaller greats who would simply get blown out unless they landed with their best very early ....

[Stevie G]

As I've said on previous threads,I rate Tyson as an all time top 10 heavy. In the lower half,though. For a while he was the best heavyweight around,without a doubt.

[TommyV]

it always puzzles me why so many think a peak lewis would beat a peak tyson lewis peak was probably between 97 and 2000 tysons peak was 86 to 88 with all due respect to lewis i know what one looked the most impressive tyson didnt just beat his opposition he crushed them lewis for the most part never looked outstanding at his peak while true lewis was a lot bigger than tyson people a lot of people forget tyson was 21 lewis was 33 or 34 which means he was far quicker more aggresive better chin sorry peak for peak tyson wins inside 4 rounds

Lewis was strong, mobile for a big guy, had mounds of reach and knew how to use it with an excellent jab and good range control, he was a massive puncher, had under-rated punch resistance and could fight inside or out. He had all the tools to give Tyson trouble.

James Tillis showed why Tyson would struggle with a peak Lewis is Lennox fought the right fight. Now in essence Tillis was a copy of Ali - albeit a poor one - and therefore not stylistically similar to Lewis, but Lennox had the intangibles to employ similar tactics. Tyson failed to cut off the ring against Tillis and it was a very small ring suited to his stalking style, and Tillis was keeping his range punching the jab and moving and then spoiling and holding whenever Tyson got close.

I think Lennox is more than capable of that. His fight with David Tua shows his mobility for a big guy, and I don't think that even Lewis' optimum weight, I would imagine an absolute peak Lewis to be around 242/243, so a good half a stone lighter. He's also extremely strength and very good at spoiling on on the inside, also leaning on his opponent and taking more energy from them, which could be vital against Tyson.

Now I'm not saying Lewis definately wins, and Tyson does have a good chance of scoring a knockout in the first 4 rounds, but it's not like Tyson is guaranteed to win the fight. In fact if Lewis does get past the first 4, I'd say he wins.

[duran duran]

tommyv tua weighed 17 and a half stone when he fought lewis when you consider hes only 5 10 in height it shows how out of shape he was you cant seriously claim the tillis fight as proof of tysons failings he was still raw and inexperienced and still only 19 if they fought even 6 months later tyson wins inside 2 rounds watch the biggs fight he was far more of an ali clone than tillis as for saying if tyson never got lewis out inside 4 rounds lewis could take over tyson at his peak under rooney never had stamina problems no disrespect to lewis who i rate as one of the top 10 heavyweights of all time i just dont see young tyson having any problems with him could you imagine that tyson having a life and death struggle with a 35 year old ray mercer like lewis did i cant

[ATP]

I'm 28yrs old & i remember the aura that came with an imminent Tyson fight.......i remember being in school when the shocker that was Tyson-McNeeley was on & ppl just wouldnt shut up about it cause tyson had been in jail for 4yrs lol I think for mikes golden years (86-89) he brought something special to the ring, people couldnt help but watch his success unfold, & love him or hate him, he brought in the big numbers cash-wise and did a lot for general public intrest in the sport........i still cant get over his pheonominal head movement (for a heavyweight)! in his early years, watching him slip a jab was magical! I believe mike's latter career would have been something truly special had he not self-destructed

[bodhi]

He's an enigma more than he is a great. In retrospect of course he could of been amazing, he had speed, power, aggression, great technical skills, a very efficient defense, a good chin and he installed fear into his opponents. But his resumé is lacking in comparison to his skills and his longevity is terrible thanks to his lack of mental strength and psychological problems.

Those are the facts. :deal

[bodhi]

Lewis was strong, mobile for a big guy, had mounds of reach and knew how to use it with an excellent jab and good range control, he was a massive puncher, had under-rated punch resistance and could fight inside or out. He had all the tools to give Tyson trouble.

James Tillis showed why Tyson would struggle with a peak Lewis is Lennox fought the right fight. Now in essence Tillis was a copy of Ali - albeit a poor one - and therefore not stylistically similar to Lewis, but Lennox had the intangibles to employ similar tactics. Tyson failed to cut off the ring against Tillis and it was a very small ring suited to his stalking style, and Tillis was keeping his range punching the jab and moving and then spoiling and holding whenever Tyson got close.

I think Lennox is more than capable of that. His fight with David Tua shows his mobility for a big guy, and I don't think that even Lewis' optimum weight, I would imagine an absolute peak Lewis to be around 242/243, so a good half a stone lighter. He's also extremely strength and very good at spoiling on on the inside, also leaning on his opponent and taking more energy from them, which could be vital against Tyson.

Now I'm not saying Lewis definately wins, and Tyson does have a good chance of scoring a knockout in the first 4 rounds, but it's not like Tyson is guaranteed to win the fight. In fact if Lewis does get past the first 4, I'd say he wins.

Add to that that Lewis knew how to handle Tyson and his stlye. :good

[duran duran]

ok bodhi wel agree to disagree i still think peak tyson destroys peak lewis

[Bummy Davis]

He was certainly a force but there is questions

[Bill Butcher]

Simply put Tyson entertained us... doubt we will ever see another heavyweight like him. In his prime he was so awesome!


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Excellent fighter... a lot of fans have very short memories tho.

[sitiyzal]

It's always worth downloading one or two fights from his peak which are floating around nowadays (mint quality vhs rips) :thumbsup.

[guilalah]

Yes, Tyson belongs with the heavyweight greats.

[djanders]

I think everyone will agree that '86-'88 Tyson was a one of a kind and would beat almost any HW in history except '66 Ali, '77 Holmes, '74 Foreman, '62 Liston and possibly...a prime Marciano.

Everyone will not agree on that. :D

[PhillyPhan69]

Tyson is an absolute great! Not really debateable among most serious posters. I do think he tends to be overrated by a large portion of his fan base, especially H2H. I have him just outside of my top 10 ATG's, and he probably falls in there H2H as well!

Ali, Holmes, Louis out box him

Foreman, Liston, overpower him

Marciano, Frazier, Dempsey out work and out tough him

Lewis and Holyfield prove puzzles to tough to solve.

I know this means I bash and don't respect him or his prime (were talkin' a prime Tyson here!)...IMO I disagree, Tyson was great, I just happen to believe there were greater!

[Hookie]

Simply put Tyson entertained us... doubt we will ever see another heavyweight like him. In his prime he was so awesome!


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Good video but I had to turn the volume off!

[Hookie]

He belongs among the best ever at HW... top 10 IMO.

[The Pup]

Funny guy huh... look a Prime Tyson took his opponents apart with the most beautiful combos at heavyweight since Ali. He beat everyone in his division in his prime. If you can't see the Greatness that Cus engineered I don't know what else to tell you.

He had it all power, speed, timing, rhythm, footwork, and tenacity. Breakdown his style and you will see a classic Tyson was a work of art with layers of complexity. I take nothing away from Wlad, Vitali, Evander, and Lennox but a Prime Tyson was Great!

Sure Tyson was good, but the vibe Im getting from you is he was unbeatable. I love watching old Mike Vids, but we need to be realist and acknowledge Modern training techniques and conditioning are in his favour and make him look unreal compared to the ol' Timers

Tyson knockout videos on youtube + his doco = Boxing Historian :huh:huh

[Hookie]

Sure Tyson was good, but the vibe Im getting from you is he was unbeatable. I love watching old Mike Vids, but we need to be realist and acknowledge Modern training techniques and conditioning are in his favour and make him look unreal compared to the ol' Timers

Tyson knockout videos on youtube + his doco = Boxing Historian :huh:huh

...plus those sensational KOs on his way up were vs. some serious bums. The thing is he still had some sensational KOs when he stepped up the level of competition though. He is an all-time great (9th or 10th IMO), but not the greatest.

[janitor]

But what has beeing entertaining to do with beeing great? :huh

Quite a lot in practice.

The fighters that will never be forgotten are those who generate a high media profile. Tyson like Jack Dempsey before him had a colosal impact upon the sport and will probably be better remembered than Lennox Lewis.

Based purely on resume he has also gone up in my rankings the more I have looked into the detail of it.

[bodhi]

Quite a lot in practice.

The fighters that will never be forgotten are those who generate a high media profile. Tyson like Jack Dempsey before him had a colosal impact upon the sport and will probably be better remembered than Lennox Lewis.

Based purely on resume he has also gone up in my rankings the more I have looked into the detail of it.

On mine too. I rank him over Dempsey and Liston for example.


To the other. It depends who you talk to. To casual fans, yes, you are right. But on here I think we judge greatness a bit different.

[janitor]

On mine too. I rank him over Dempsey and Liston for example.


To the other. It depends who you talk to. To casual fans, yes, you are right. But on here I think we judge greatness a bit different.

We are the only group who might argue for Harry Wills over Jack Dempsey.

[frankenfrank]

I think everyone will agree that '86-'88 Tyson was a one of a kind and would beat almost any HW in history except '66 Ali, '77 Holmes, '74 Foreman, '62 Liston and possibly...a prime Marciano.
the only one whom had a realistic chance against a prime tyson of those mentioned here is foreman. tyson had better chin than shavers , holmes would have always lost to tyson. ali lost to frazier whom was weaker than tyson in both offense and defense. liston was technically inferior to tyson if boxing is the discussed technique. marciano was floored against old moore and old walcott , what would have happened to him against tyson whom destroyed much bigger and stronger fighters than marciano himself and every opponent marciano ever fought ?
i even doubt foreman's reaction to the pressure tyson could put on him.
after being hit harder than ever , foreman could be stopped as well.

[arther1045]

the only one whom had a realistic chance against a prime tyson of those mentioned here is foreman. tyson had better chin than shavers , holmes would have always lost to tyson. ali lost to frazier whom was weaker than tyson in both offense and defense. liston was technically inferior to tyson if boxing is the discussed technique. marciano was floored against old moore and old walcott , what would have happened to him against tyson whom destroyed much bigger and stronger fighters than marciano himself and every opponent marciano ever fought ?
i even doubt foreman's reaction to the pressure tyson could put on him.
after being hit harder than ever , foreman could be stopped as well.


Tyson never made it through a fight where he took serious punishment. Everytime someone fought back hard he failed to finish. Any Ali up until 1975 beats him easily. Tyson could never handle that kind of war that Frazier had to to beat Ali.

How about Buster Douglas. Something tells me he beats a young,primed Tyson.

[lefthook31]

Tyson never made it through a fight where he took serious punishment. Everytime someone fought back hard he failed to finish. Any Ali up until 1975 beats him easily. Tyson could never handle that kind of war that Frazier had to to beat Ali.

How about Buster Douglas. Something tells me he beats a young,primed Tyson.
Did you see the Ruddock fights?

[lefthook31]

He's an enigma more than he is a great. In retrospect of course he could of been amazing, he had speed, power, aggression, great technical skills, a very efficient defense, a good chin and he installed fear into his opponents. But his resumé is lacking in comparison to his skills and his longevity is terrible thanks to his lack of mental strength and psychological problems.
If hes an enigma so are Larry Holmes and Lennox Lewis. Why is his longevity terrible, because he got the same amount of fights in a shorter time period? His resume is not lacking, unless you want to make a bunch of excuses why he defeated so many former champs, undefeated fighters and former greats, for the most part, far quicker than any of his peers. :tired

[young griffo]

If hes an enigma so are Larry Holmes and Lennox Lewis. Why is his longevity terrible, because he got the same amount of fights in a shorter time period? His resume is not lacking, unless you want to make a bunch of excuses why he defeated so many former champs, undefeated fighters and former greats, for the most part, far quicker than any of his peers. :tired
Tyson was awesome at his peak and his resume is healthy but he never,ever showed a willingness/ability to come back from a loss or even a fight in which he was seriously hurt.

If he was on top early he won and if not he lost.Lewis at least showed the balls and ability to learn from and avenge a defeat,something Tyson never did.

This is why,despite how amazing he looked,doubts remain as to whether Tyson was the monster his fans would have you believe or if he was always a flawed and mentally fragile fighter.

[lefthook31]

Tyson was awesome at his peak and his resume is healthy but he never,ever showed a willingness/ability to come back from a loss or even a fight in which he was seriously hurt.

If he was on top early he won and if not he lost.Lewis at least showed the balls and ability to learn from and avenge a defeat,something Tyson never did.

This is why,despite how amazing he looked,doubts remain as to whether Tyson was the monster his fans would have you believe or if he was always a flawed and mentally fragile fighter.
He lost once before going to jail. He never had the chance to avenge that loss. How can you come to that conclusion? Based off of his fight with Holyfield after he rotted in prison for four years? Why do you have to be seriously hurt and comeback from that to show greatness? Didnt he take a lot of punishment in the Ruddock fights to show he could fight through adversity against a dangerous opponent? Not to mention the willing contenders that got off the matt to continue after Tyson floored them multiple times?
BTW every fighter is flawed, yeah even the great ones.

[young griffo]

He lost once before going to jail. He never had the chance to avenge that loss. How can you come to that conclusion? Based off of his fight with Holyfield after he rotted in prison for four years? Why do you have to be seriously hurt and comeback from that to show greatness? Didnt he take a lot of punishment in the Ruddock fights to show he could fight through adversity against a dangerous opponent? Not to mention the willing contenders that got off the matt to continue after Tyson floored them multiple times?
BTW every fighter is flawed, yeah even the great ones.
I don't dispute Tyson's greatness just how great he actually is.

Tyson had ample time to avenge his loss to Douglas before prison but it never happened (I'll concede Douglas's sloth had a lot to do with that),instead he feasted on Tillman and Stewart then met Ruddock.

And damn right I hold his loss to Holyfield against him.Holyfield was supposedly finished and was cherry-picked as a name for Tyson to destroy yet no one told Holyfield that.Tyson losing to such a hand picked opponent who had suffered far more ring wear and tear can't be excused,considering Tyson was 4 fights into a comeback and had looked fantastic against Bruno and briefly Seldon.

Tyson was a phenomonal talent in his hey day and deserves a top 10 ranking but should never be rated alongside Ali,Louis and Lewis imo.

[lefthook31]

I don't dispute Tyson's greatness just how great he actually is.

Tyson had ample time to avenge his loss to Douglas before prison but it never happened (I'll concede Douglas's sloth had a lot to do with that),instead he feasted on Tillman and Stewart then met Ruddock.

And damn right I hold his loss to Holyfield against him.Holyfield was supposedly finished and was cherry-picked as a name for Tyson to destroy yet no one told Holyfield that.Tyson losing to such a hand picked opponent who had suffered far more ring wear and tear can't be excused,considering Tyson was 4 fights into a comeback and had looked fantastic against Bruno and briefly Seldon.

Tyson was a phenomonal talent in his hey day and deserves a top 10 ranking but should never be rated alongside Ali,Louis and Lewis imo.
Not fighting Douglas again was no fault of Tyson's he wanted an instant rematch. It was more Don King's fault for not signing Douglas to future options. Douglas had to defend his title againt Holyfield and then he retired after an embarrassing loss.
You can hold Tysons loss to Holyfield against him, but I dont consider it part of Tysons best reign in his career. Looking great against Bruno (which I didnt think), and Seldon (non fight), didnt provide any insight as to how capable he was to fight 12 hard rounds.
There was something different about Tyson for sure, and it was evident as early as the McNeeley and Mathis fights, where he was off balance and swinging wildly with no real boxing technique.
I think he should be ranked right alongside of Lewis myself.

[frankenfrank]

I don't dispute Tyson's greatness just how great he actually is.

Tyson had ample time to avenge his loss to Douglas before prison but it never happened (I'll concede Douglas's sloth had a lot to do with that),instead he feasted on Tillman and Stewart then met Ruddock.

And damn right I hold his loss to Holyfield against him.Holyfield was supposedly finished and was cherry-picked as a name for Tyson to destroy yet no one told Holyfield that.Tyson losing to such a hand picked opponent who had suffered far more ring wear and tear can't be excused,considering Tyson was 4 fights into a comeback and had looked fantastic against Bruno and briefly Seldon.

Tyson was a phenomonal talent in his hey day and deserves a top 10 ranking but should never be rated alongside Ali,Louis and Lewis imo.
he would have beaten them all in his prime. especially louis whom he would have sent to an even earlier retirement very quickly.
if it is true that holyfield had more ring wear on him it is just because he was an inferior fighter to tyson. just like in quarry-shavers , mccallum-jackson and serially in hopkins , holyfield , ruiz , ali and wladimir klitschko fights , holyfield clinched when hurt.
lewis and douglas also clinched against tyson.

[Stevie G]

the only one whom had a realistic chance against a prime tyson of those mentioned here is foreman. tyson had better chin than shavers , holmes would have always lost to tyson. ali lost to frazier whom was weaker than tyson in both offense and defense. liston was technically inferior to tyson if boxing is the discussed technique. marciano was floored against old moore and old walcott , what would have happened to him against tyson whom destroyed much bigger and stronger fighters than marciano himself and every opponent marciano ever fought ?
i even doubt foreman's reaction to the pressure tyson could put on him.
after being hit harder than ever , foreman could be stopped as well.
Re. your point about Frazier. Yes,Tyson had a more varied offense than Joe,but I can't see Tyson standing up to the punishment that Ali put on Frazier. Imo,he'd get hurt,and disheartened.

[duran duran]

Re. your point about Frazier. Yes,Tyson had a more varied offense than Joe,but I can't see Tyson standing up to the punishment that Ali put on Frazier. Imo,he'd get hurt,and disheartened.
catching tyson properly at his peak was near on impossible you can count on the fingers on one hand when he was caught cleanly i think tyson would have caught ali more often than the other way round post rooney different matter

[arther1045]

Did you see the Ruddock fights?


You are not actually trying to call them wars. he took some shots, they were not wars.

[prepasur]

Not fighting Douglas again was no fault of Tyson's he wanted an instant rematch. It was more Don King's fault for not signing Douglas to future options. Douglas had to defend his title againt Holyfield and then he retired after an embarrassing loss.
You can hold Tysons loss to Holyfield against him, but I dont consider it part of Tysons best reign in his career. Looking great against Bruno (which I didnt think), and Seldon (non fight), didnt provide any insight as to how capable he was to fight 12 hard rounds.
There was something different about Tyson for sure, and it was evident as early as the McNeeley and Mathis fights, where he was off balance and swinging wildly with no real boxing technique.
I think he should be ranked right alongside of Lewis myself.

i think when holyfield fought bert cooper it was a second substitute for tyson who was going to be incercelated

[bodhi]

Not fighting Douglas again was no fault of Tyson's he wanted an instant rematch. It was more Don King's fault for not signing Douglas to future options. Douglas had to defend his title againt Holyfield and then he retired after an embarrassing loss.
You can hold Tysons loss to Holyfield against him, but I dont consider it part of Tysons best reign in his career. Looking great against Bruno (which I didnt think), and Seldon (non fight), didnt provide any insight as to how capable he was to fight 12 hard rounds.
There was something different about Tyson for sure, and it was evident as early as the McNeeley and Mathis fights, where he was off balance and swinging wildly with no real boxing technique.
I think he should be ranked right alongside of Lewis myself.

Do I got it right, you are just ignoring half his career?

he would have beaten them all in his prime. especially louis whom he would have sent to an even earlier retirement very quickly.
if it is true that holyfield had more ring wear on him it is just because he was an inferior fighter to tyson. just like in quarry-shavers , mccallum-jackson and serially in hopkins , holyfield , ruiz , ali and wladimir klitschko fights , holyfield clinched when hurt.
lewis and douglas also clinched against tyson.

Maybe, who knows. It doesn´t matter what he could have done but what he did though.

[lefthook31]

Do I got it right, you are just ignoring half his career?



Maybe, who knows. It doesn´t matter what he could have done but what he did though.
No. I dont consider the Tyson that fought Holyfield the same Tyson that fought Spinks for example. I dont think they were even close to being the same fighter.

[bodhi]

No. I dont consider the Tyson that fought Holyfield the same Tyson that fought Spinks for example. I dont think they were even close to being the same fighter.

Well, that´s obvious but what do you think this means?

[lefthook31]

i think when holyfield fought bert cooper it was a second substitute for tyson who was going to be incercelated
:D Interesting spelling for incarcerated but yes it was and Tyson would have finished Holyfield had he him hurt him like Cooper did. Tyson was in training for Holyfield with the fight signed but he went away.

[lefthook31]

Well, that´s obvious but what do you think this means?
I dont think its a good barometer of Tyson's character or mental fortitude at his best, considering he was in as grueling of a fight with Ruddock, where he was still a fighter who had slipped quite a bit from his peak.

[bodhi]

I dont think its a good barometer of Tyson's character or mental fortitude at his best, considering he was in as grueling of a fight with Ruddock, where he was still a fighter who had slipped quite a bit from his peak.

Hm, I disagree with the first part but agree with the latter one. Tyson was always mentally fragile and it wasn´t as if the Ruddock fights were wars. He was slipped against Holyfield but I don´t think it would have looked much different prime for prime.

[lefthook31]

Hm, I disagree with the first part but agree with the latter one. Tyson was always mentally fragile and it wasn´t as if the Ruddock fights were wars. He was slipped against Holyfield but I don´t think it would have looked much different prime for prime.
Well just like Lewis didnt have someone with half a brain in his corner to tell him not to try and knockout Oliver Mcall, Tyson didnt have guidance in his corner either after jail. I believe Tyson regressed after prison because he lost that self confidence from not having the proper mind in his corner anymore and was not brought back properly from a technical aspect. I think the Tyson of 88 would have done a number on any version of Holyfield.
Tyson was hit far harder by Ruddock than Holyfield as well, and his fitness let him down just as much as his lack of skills. The Tyson of 90 would not have been stopped by Holyfield. Tyson was stopped because he was not prepared to fight a long grueling fight. In 1990 he was.

[Jordan T]

No 86-88 Tyson would have beat anybody ever in his best fights between the three years. period!

[bodhi]

No 86-88 Tyson would have beat anybody ever in his best fights between the three years. period!

No.

[itrymariti]

Seems like most fans that bash Tyson are usually newbies to the sport. Most fans that i know over the age of 30,35 all acknowldege that Tyson was one hell of a fighter. Whether its the hardcore fan or the casual fan.

Honestly, I find more irritating the borderline casual fans who refer to "prime Tyson" as this unstoppable H2H beast. I usually find myself at an embarassing loss for words in a suchlike scenario.

[Jordan T]

no.





yes!

[Jordan T]

I just don't understand the fighters who you guys consider the greats... when you like to stand there stationary and throw right hands one after the other all day long, and yeah you knock some people out with them and also you fought circa 1940 or 50 or 60 or even the 70's your the best ever cause why your throwback or retro or some other kinda bullshit.... bottom line the best fighters boxing has ever seen have come with in the last 25 years... seriously I'm sure everyone has trained cause in here everybody is a real fighter now days (fuck that) so in that case scientific improvements in nutrition and training don't mean shit you fellas should now that (sarcasm)... Fucking internet fourm... I'm a shithead for even wasting my time voicing my opinion in here sooooo.... Tyson on film better than anybody ever period and all the other hypothetical bullshit goes right out the window... but maybe you fellas can change my mind though and tell me how some ole flat footed, slow muthafucka even on film looks to be the greatest.

[PhillyPhan69]

I just don't understand the fighters who you guys consider the greats... when you like to stand there stationary and throw right hands one after the other all day long, and yeah you knock some people out with them and also you fought circa 1940 or 50 or 60 or even the 70's your the best ever cause why your throwback or retro or some other kinda bullshit.... bottom line the best fighters boxing has ever seen have come with in the last 25 years... seriously I'm sure everyone has trained cause in here everybody is a real fighter now days (fuck that) so in that case scientific improvements in nutrition and training don't mean shit you fellas should now that (sarcasm)... Fucking internet fourm... I'm a shithead for even wasting my time voicing my opinion in here sooooo.... Tyson on film better than anybody ever period and all the other hypothetical bullshit goes right out the window... but maybe you fellas can change my mind though and tell me how some ole flat footed, slow muthafucka even on film looks to be the greatest.

At least you made one accurate point! And your follow up point about not wasting your time here will not only benefit yourself, but we will be very thankful for your absence as well!

[Jordan T]

At least you made one accurate point! And your follow up point about not wasting your time here will not only benefit yourself, but we will be very thankful for your absence as well!



hahahaha oh man, Fuck you :D

[bodhi]

I just don't understand the fighters who you guys consider the greats... when you like to stand there stationary and throw right hands one after the other all day long, and yeah you knock some people out with them and also you fought circa 1940 or 50 or 60 or even the 70's your the best ever cause why your throwback or retro or some other kinda bullshit.... bottom line the best fighters boxing has ever seen have come with in the last 25 years... seriously I'm sure everyone has trained cause in here everybody is a real fighter now days (fuck that) so in that case scientific improvements in nutrition and training don't mean shit you fellas should now that (sarcasm)... Fucking internet fourm... I'm a shithead for even wasting my time voicing my opinion in here sooooo.... Tyson on film better than anybody ever period and all the other hypothetical bullshit goes right out the window... but maybe you fellas can change my mind though and tell me how some ole flat footed, slow muthafucka even on film looks to be the greatest.

General is one up. :hi:

[Unforgiven]

Tyson was very good.

I'd rate several heavyweights, including Evander Holyfield, above him though.

[frankenfrank]

Tyson was very good.

I'd rate several heavyweights, including Evander Holyfield, above him though.
evander holyfield would have lost to a prime tyson and i believe by a stoppage .
also tyson did much better than holyfield against almost every common opponent they had , and they had quite many of them , except lewis whom fought a quite shot tyson. a prime tyson is my favorite against lewis as well.

[bodhi]

Tyson was very good.

I'd rate several heavyweights, including Evander Holyfield, above him though.

:deal:good

[young griffo]

evander holyfield would have lost to a prime tyson and i believe by a stoppage .
also tyson did much better than holyfield against almost every common opponent they had , and they had quite many of them , except lewis whom fought a quite shot tyson. a prime tyson is my favorite against lewis as well.
Holyfield did much better against Buster Douglas as well as whipping Tyson himself.

You arguing Tyson over Holyfield because he beat Holmes,Stewart and Tillman faster than Evander did is a tenuous one.Holyfield was a different style of fighter to Tyson and didn't destrroy fighters like Mike but in terms of resume,heart and accomplishments Holyfield trumps Tyson imo.

[duran duran]

Holyfield did much better against Buster Douglas as well as whipping Tyson himself.

You arguing Tyson over Holyfield because he beat Holmes,Stewart and Tillman faster than Evander did is a tenuous one.Holyfield was a different style of fighter to Tyson and didn't destrroy fighters like Mike but in terms of resume,heart and accomplishments Holyfield trumps Tyson imo.you couldnt have noticed the difference in douglas physique between the tyson and holyfield fights he weighed a stone heavier for a start and went down like a sack of shit he didnt try a leg the douglas of the tyson fight would have beaten holyfield in 90 holyfield was not a full blown heavyweight in 90 cooper exposed it cooper was never a full blown heavyweight either:deal

[young griffo]

you couldnt have noticed the difference in douglas physique between the tyson and holyfield fights he weighed a stone heavier for a start and went down like a sack of shit he didnt try a leg the douglas of the tyson fight would have beaten holyfield in 90 holyfield was not a full blown heavyweight in 90 cooper exposed it cooper was never a full blown heavyweight either:deal
Cooper was a substitute and Holyfield went out to blast him out early and nearly paid the price.

He still won though and he easily accounted for far bigger and better fighters in Foreman and Holmes (even if old) around the same time and he went to war with a huge,prime Riddick Bowe in 92 when weighing below 210 pounds himself.

Holyfield would beat any version of Buster who's the very epitome of a one fight wonder imo.

[duran duran]

.

young griffo douglas was a seriously good fighter but a was also a lazy one everyone knew that i think youve forgotten micheal moorer beat holyfield riddick bowe beat him twice before the tyson fights there were obvious signs in the ist tyson bruno fight that tyson was on the slide due to his reckless lifestyle and lack of dedication evander exposed tyson as a has been nothing more nothing less