Member 39557
Guest
I can't stand it but it sold out the o2 in like four hours ffs.
Really? And people say boxing is dying!
No way I'm paying to see this though.
I can't stand it but it sold out the o2 in like four hours ffs.
It's crazy, isn't it? A lot of casual fans put him as the best or near it, while there are experts who wouldn't put him even in top 50. I think that the majority of those who know their stuff put him in top 30 - top 50, though.@Oggmonster
Tyson was the most brilliantly hyped boxer of all time. I was talking to a guy the other week at the suggestion who was incredulous at the idea that Tyson isn't the greatest boxer of all time.
He has a further documented history of taking liberties with females though. History that he doesn't deny.
Sure, but he never won against a prime-boxer who would be considered a top 10 - top 20 heavyweight.I think you do Tyson a bit of a disservice. He had his "major fights" after he'd gone off the rails with booze and drugs and been to prison. He was even taking recreational drugs right before some major fights. When he was a young man and tore up the division, he was truly something to behold. I don't think we'll ever know how good he could have been, due to his self destructive behaviour.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...nd-using-a-fake-penis-to-avoid-detection.html
Sure, but he never won against a prime-boxer who would be considered a top 10 - top 20 heavyweight.
Of course, he had potential and who knows how good he would have become, but I think that he is massively overrated because of how exciting he was. But against a true champion, I don't think that he would have won (more often than not) because his game had a lot of problems. Survive from him in first 3-4 rounds (which the likes of Ali, Lewis and a few others would have done it with ease) and it is game over. He wasn't fast on the ring, he didn't have a good defense, he was short for a heavyweight, he was psycologically weak. Heck, I would have given even Klitschkos a chance (though not favorites) against him. Turn the match into a borefest for the first few rounds (by keeping him on distance and stopping the match as much as possible) and then Tyson's nonexistent stamina would have finished him.
Of course, he could have won against everyone with a lucky shot (not sure if it would have been possible for anyone to KO a prime-Ali, after all both Foreman and Fraizer punched as hard as Tyson), we saw Rahman who was nothing special KO Lewis who IMO might be the best heavyweight ever when it comes to tactics, and was as complete as a boxer can be.
He had the potential, sure. That doesn't mean that he isn't overrated if anyone put him in top 5 heavyweights ever or so.How many people would even last a round if they'd been smoking pot and doing coke as much as Tyson was? He was high on Coke when he bit Lennox Lewis in their pre fight press conference. He was a mess.
I'm not trying to say he was a great fwiw, I'm just saying that he possibly had the potential, but he pissed it all away.
How many people would even last a round if they'd been smoking pot and doing coke as much as Tyson was? He was high on Coke when he bit Lennox Lewis in their pre fight press conference. He was a mess.
I'm not trying to say he was a great fwiw, I'm just saying that he possibly had the potential, but he pissed it all away.
Completely agree. The two biggest names Tyson defeated were Michael Spinks who as you said was more famous as a light heavyweight and who wasn't at his peak (he was 10 years older than Tyson and that was his last fight) and Larry Holmes who while certainly is one of the best heavyweights of all time, was way after his peak (Holmes had already lost the title to Spinks and was 17 years older than Tyson).He had the potential sure but you have to prove it. Lets not forget that in his supposed 'prime' he was was out boxed and then knocked out in the eighth round by a no name fighter in Buster Douglas.
Bert Sugar, possibly the most respected boxing historian of all time, a guy that sat ringside at most of the major fights in America since the 1950s had Tyson as his number 99 greatest fighter of all time and that was about ten years ago! I don't even think he would make the top 100 if Sugar was still alive.
He won three of his heavyweight titles against boxers not deemed good enough to be voted into boxings hall of fame. He won the forth from Michael Spinks, who is in the hall of fame, but mostly for his work at light heavyweight, he only had five fights at heavy weight in his whole career.
I'm not trying to say he was a great fwiw, I'm just saying that he possibly had the potential, but he pissed it all away.
Completely agree. The two biggest names Tyson defeated were Michael Spinks who as you said was more famous as a light heavyweight and who wasn't at his peak (he was 10 years older than Tyson and that was his last fight) and Larry Holmes who while certainly is one of the best heavyweights of all time, was way after his peak (Holmes had already lost the title to Spinks and was 17 years older than Tyson).
As you said he lost to Buster Douglas (who?). Holyfield completely dominated and then KO him. And then dominated him again in that short replay. And while Tyson wasn't at his peak (or near it) when he faced Lewis, lets not forget that Lewis was already 37 and had lost from Hasim Rahman just a year before the fight. And then on the fight - bar in the first round - he played with Tyson like Tyson was a 7 years old kid before Lewis decided to knock out the shit out of Tyson.
I have no reason to believe that whenever they fought after 95 or so (when Lewis reached his peak), it would have been the same result. It isn't a coincidence that Tyson payed 4m to Lewis to not face him in the nineties.
Lists are all subjective.Well Bert Sugar had him at 99. Kieran Mulvaney at ESPN had him at 50 and Ring Magazine had him at 72 in greatest boxers from the past 80 years.
I don't think he is undoubtedly one of the greatest. His achievements pale in comparison to so many fighters.
The hype around was unparalleled though.
Lists are all subjective.
Impossible to compare across eras. Tyson destroyed everyone in that 10 year period. Youngest champion ever, ridiculous unbeaten streak, incredible ko average. He was a beast. Where he gets placed on arbitrary lists doesn't matter much to me, he's was the best of his era, one of the best ever imo.When you have a consensus of expert opinion it is worth paying attention to. You can put objective measures against it anyway. How can you compare a fighter who never beat a great heavyweight in their prime against a guy like Sugar Ray Robinson who lost only one of his first 123 fights and beat numerous greats and often beat them more than once.
Impossible to compare across eras. Tyson destroyed everyone in that 10 year period. Youngest champion ever, ridiculous unbeaten streak, incredible ko average. He was a beast. Where he gets placed on arbitrary lists doesn't matter much to me, he's was the best of his era, one of the best ever imo.
Makes my top ten easily. Top twenty if we extend it across weight divisions.
For the record then, you wouldn't consider Tyson as a top ten heavyweight fighter? Or even top twenty?Five years before he was schooled and knocked out by a no name journeyman. Twenty of the thirty seven fighters he beat in that time were not even good enough to have their own wiki page, they were bums. He reigned in a weak division and only for six fights as the undisputed champion. He never regained that crown either and subsequently lost every major fight he had.
List of heavyweight boxers which IMO have been unquestionably better than Tyson (be it at peak or as career):Tyson was one of the most explosive boxers in the history of the sport. In the 80s he was a phenomenon, unstoppable (bar that freak result). Tyson was one of the all time greats. Then prison, drugs and whatever else combined and he derailed in the mid-to-late 90s. Yet, regardless of all that, he's undoubtedly one of the greatest boxers in history. His only weakness was lack of a plan B. He either obliterated his opponents, or he would lose. That's a pretty big weakness, but only if plan A isn't working very well (and that's not the case, it was flawless for a decade).
Youngest heavyweight champion in history we're talking about here.
The story regarding the Holmes and Tyson fight was that Holmes rejected Don King's approach for him to fight Tyson initially because he was retired and knew his time was over. Don King later showed up at Holmes's hotel with a suitcase containing $2m in cash. Then the fight got made.
For the record then, you wouldn't consider Tyson as a top ten heavyweight fighter? Or even top twenty?
List of heavyweight boxers which IMO have been unquestionably better than Tyson (be it at peak or as career):
1) Joe Louis
2) Rocky Marciano
3) Sonny Liston
4) Muhammad Ali
5) Joe Frazier
6) George Foreman
7) Lenox Lewis
8) Evander Holyfield
Come on. These guys are all time greats, but not all time great heavyweights in the sense that the latter generation were. The difference in weight, muscle tone, etc... it's just too much.You missed out Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey.
Mulvaney's list is better IMO. The lack of Lewis on both those lists is disturbing though. One of the most dominating boxers of all time, the last undisputed champion on heavyweight, and together with Marciano, the only heavyweight who defeated every boxer he went against. Holyfield and Klitschko weren't pushovers and he annihilated the first one, while TKO the second.Well Bert Sugar had him at 99. Kieran Mulvaney at ESPN had him at 50 and Ring Magazine had him at 72 in greatest boxers from the past 80 years.
I don't think he is undoubtedly one of the greatest. His achievements pale in comparison to so many fighters.
The hype around was unparalleled though.
Holyfield was well and truly past it in 1999. That Klitschko fight is one of the most contentious in a long time -- the one where Lewis realised he was finished.Mulvaney's list is better IMO. The lack of Lewis on both those lists is disturbing though. One of the most dominating boxers of all time, the last undisputed champion on heavyweight, and together with Marciano, the only heavyweight who defeated every boxer he went against. Holyfield and Klitschko weren't pushovers and he annihilated the first one, while TKO the second.
Come on. These guys are all time greats, but not all time great heavyweights in the sense that the latter generation were. The difference in weight, muscle tone, etc... it's just too much.
Not sure where he stands in an greatest of all time list, but I remember him as the baddest, most brutal mutha of them all.
I agree, in relative terms. And in relative terms these guys don't belong on lists with the later generation of heavyweights like Ali, Liston, Fraiser, Foreman, etc.You compare greatness in relative terms, appreciating the difference in athletic standards. A lot of boxing historians have Jack Johnson as one of the top ten greats full stop and one of the top three defensive fighter in history. You don't factor in muscle tone in these debates. I suppose you can if you want but it seems stupid to me.
Louis was 10cm taller than Tyson and had 5 inch longer reach. From the videos I have watched of him, he looks quite big.On that list? He'd beat Louis and Marciano in his sleep (mainly due to weight classifications which changed in the periods after they boxed). This is why it's troublesome to compare across eras.
Prime Tyson was better than prime Lewis imo, though more limited in a technical sense, his main attribute was stronger than that of Lewis. Ali, Fraizier, Foreman and Liston were better. Holyfield -- he fought a different Tyson to the one I'm talking about. 80's Tyson wins convincingly imo. But he's ahead of the top two there, unquestionably (in terms of actually beating them at their respective primes, which isn't even fair to Louis and Marciano due to the evolution of the sport). Would be better off ranking them against middleweights.
I agree, in relative terms. And in relative terms these guys don't belong on lists with the later generation of heavyweights like Ali, Liston, Fraiser, Foreman, etc.
97kgs. Tyson weighed about 15kg more. That's an awful lot in a heavyweight fight when the rest is minimal and Tyson's primary (only) weapon was knocking people out with early onslaughts.Louis was 10cm taller than Tyson and had 5 inch longer reach. From the videos I have watched of him, he looks quite big.
Agree for Klitschko fight. If Klitschko could have stoped the bleeding, he would have won IMO.Holyfield was well and truly past it in 1999. That Klitschko fight is one of the most contentious in a long time -- the one where Lewis realised he was finished.
Not sure where he stands in a greatest of all time list, but I remember him as the baddest, most brutal mutha of them all.
This is the Tyson who knocked out people with greater reach advantage and often taller. So the point doesn't stand imo. Louis was a middleweight by today's standards. Unquestionably great, but also would unquestionably have little to no chance against Tyson in his prime.97kgs. Tyson weighed about 15kg more. That's an awful lot in a heavyweight fight when the rest is minimal and Tyson's primary (only) weapon was knocking people out with early onslaughts.
This is the Tyson who knocked out people with greater reach advantage and often taller. So the point doesn't stand imo. Louis was a middleweight by today's standards. Unquestionably great, but also would unquestionably have little to no chance against Tyson in his prime.
If that is so, then yep. 15 kilos make a difference.97kgs. Tyson weighed about 15kg more. That's an awful lot in a heavyweight fight when the rest is minimal and Tyson's primary (only) weapon was knocking people out with early onslaughts.
And I don't for a second think he'd have a chance against these fighters because styles make fights and Tyson was at his weakest against the likes of Lewis -- the reach/height advantage was too much if he couldn't get the KO early. And after 4-5 rounds Tyson would be physically drained and mentally unstable. He was definitely flawed, but certainly one of the very best when in his prime.And Tyson would be a midget in today's heavyweight scene. Vitali K weighed 250 pounds and is 6ft 7in.
1) You replied to your postThis is the Tyson who knocked out people with greater reach advantage and often taller. So the point doesn't stand imo. Louis was a middleweight by today's standards. Unquestionably great, but also would unquestionably have little to no chance against Tyson in his prime.
PFP is a different story. PFP not sure Tyson gets near a top 100. Also, Sugar Ray Robinson is probably the greatest fighter ever if we're strictly talking pfp.1) You replied to your post
2) More interesting to rate pound per pound boxers. I mean, an average boxer of today would have likely defeat Sugar Ray, but that doesn't make Sugar Ray less than the best ever boxer. Even if Tyson would have defeat Marciano cause of the weight difference, Marciano is the better boxer at their peak or career. As you said, the weight rules changed.
Wlad passed him I think.Doesn't Louis still holds the record of more matches on defending the title than every other boxer in any weight class. That is a record for 65 years. Tyson had it for 6 matches against nobodies or oldies.