The RedCafe Boxing Thread

Wlad at his prime could have beaten Tyson IMO, but others no.

As @Oggmonster said it is difficult to know for sure. Tyson basically defeated people who don't have wiki pages, Spinks and a past it Holmes. The only boxers who were as good/better than Wlad whom faced Tyson (and who were still at their peak or near it) were Holyfield (but Tyson might have been slightly past his peak) and Lewis (Tyson was past it).

The reason they dont have wiki pages is because wikipedia wasnt being populated whilst Tyson was fighting these guys! Its easy for current boxers to have a page generated about them as they are current topics.

Without going into too much effort, Tyson fought a lot of champions, former champions and top ranked contenders. Fighters like Tony Tubbs, Frank Bruno, Carl williams, Larry holmes, Trevor Berbick etc he beat them all before the age of 25. He was walking through experienced fighters and created an unbelievable buzz of excitement at the time in boxing. He had a great mentor in Cus D'amato, who took him under his wing and kept him on the right path - but when he died, Tyson surrounded himself by people who didnt have his best intentions at the forefront. As a fragile character, he needed that arm around him to help him define himself a true and established champion.

Tyson was a fericious fighter pre prison, unfortunately his greatness could never prove to stand the test of time because he never came back from adversity and prove his champions spirit. His fragile mentality was his biggest weakness.

To me its quite obvious he is a level above Vlad who has a solid but padded record and has never really had defining fights against an equal. Vlad, although an established champion is just a very good fighter. Mike Tyson was however, a great, something special in terms of what he brought to the boxing ring. He had a unique fighting ability and his gladiatorial style mirrored the warriors spirit that boxers & fighters should represent - to seek and destory the opponent. And quite like Ali, Tyson transcended boxing.

In my opinion a prime Tyson would have knocked out both klitschkos and would walk through every current heavyweight with ease.
 
The reason they dont have wiki pages is because wikipedia wasnt being populated whilst Tyson was fighting these guys! Its easy for current boxers to have a page generated about them as they are current topics.

Muhammad Ali who fought before him had more fights with people who had wikis. Leonard too.

Without going into too much effort, Tyson fought a lot of champions, former champions and top ranked contenders. Fighters like Tony Tubbs, Frank Bruno, Carl williams, Larry holmes, Trevor Berbick etc he beat them all before the age of 25. He was walking through experienced fighters and created an unbelievable buzz of excitement at the time in boxing. He had a great mentor in Cus D'amato, who took him under his wing and kept him on the right path - but when he died, Tyson surrounded himself by people who didnt have his best intentions at the forefront. As a fragile character, he needed that arm around him to help him define himself a true and established champion.

Larry Holmes was past it, way past it. Counting that match is like counting Holmes victory against Ali. He was spent.

Tyson's only really great win was against Michael Spinks but Spinks was arguably past it too, considering that was his last match in his career.

Holmes and Spinks are the only two hall of famers whom were defeated by Tyson, which shows quite well that for most part Tyson defeated shit boxers, at times some decent ones, in addition to two legends who were past it. Holmes is also the only top 10 heavyweight who was defeated from Tyson.

Agree about D'amato and likely things would have gone better if he hadn't die, but that is ifs and buts.

Tyson was a fericious fighter pre prison, unfortunately his greatness could never prove to stand the test of time because he never came back from adversity and prove his champions spirit. His fragile mentality was his biggest weakness.

To me its quite obvious he is a level above Vlad who has a solid but padded record and has never really had defining fights against an equal. Vlad, although an established champion is just a very good fighter. Mike Tyson was however, a great, something special in terms of what he brought to the boxing ring. He had a unique fighting ability and his gladiatorial style mirrored the warriors spirit that boxers & fighters should represent - to seek and destory the opponent. And quite like Ali, Tyson transcended boxing.

In my opinion a prime Tyson would have knocked out both klitschkos and would walk through every current heavyweight with ease.

If I had to bet in a match between Tyson and Klitschkos during their primes, I would bet Wlad to outpoint Tyson and Vitali to KO him. Obviously, Tyson might KO both of them, but I think it is less likely that he would have won.

I wouldn't ever put Tyson in top 10 heavyweights, and likely wouldn't put Klitschkos too, considering that like Tyson, they never defeated someone relevant. The closest they came was when Vitali was TKO in a match against Lewis (Lewis' last ever match) when Vitali was outpointing Lewis, but still Lewis reshaped his face and the doctors/referees had to stop the fight.

I think that had Tyson faced Lewis any time during the nineties, Lewis would have relatively easy won (maybe 8 out of 10 matches or so). We saw Holyfield destroying Tyson, and there is no doubt that in their primes all of Holmes, Foreman, Frazier, Ali and Liston would have wiped the floor with him. It is more difficult to know about potential Marciano/Louis matchup considering that they were lighter (and likely in modern era would have been light heavyweights), but they should have been quite good knowing their record. I don't know much about Dempsey (limited footage) or Johnson (no footage).

The only legendary heavyweight I think Tyson would have defeated is Floyd Patterson. I agree with you however that he would beat all of the current fighters (well, that would be Fury, Joshua and Haye).
 
Btw, what would be top 10 of heavyweights? I would put mine without much serious thinking, based on some live footage I watched, a lot of highlights and full old matches, in addition to reading experts' opinions.

1) Ali
2) Louis
3) Johnson
4) Foreman
5) Holmes
6) Frazier
7) Lewis
8) Liston
9) Marciano
10) Dempsey

Holyfield just misses it (he would make my top 3 of cruiserweight though).
 
How do you guys rank Floyd Mayweather in terms of best pound-for-pound boxer? The fact he hasn't really been knocked down once (if I'm correct) and his overall defensive masterclasses should count for something, right? He might be a lunatic but he's exceptionally talented.
 
How do you guys rank Floyd Mayweather in terms of best pound-for-pound boxer? The fact he hasn't really been knocked down once (if I'm correct) and his overall defensive masterclasses should count for something, right? He might be a lunatic but he's exceptionally talented.
Somewhere between top 20 and top 30.

I don't find him lunatic at all. He has done some shitty things, but also nice things.

Definitely the highest ranked pound per pound boxer of this century.
 
I've watched Mayweather a lot over the years. What I'd like to know from older boxing fans is, how do they think he'd fair against Hearns, Leonard, Duran, etc. I don't know nearly enough about the boxers of yesteryear to formulate such an opinion.
 
I've watched Mayweather a lot over the years. What I'd like to know from older boxing fans is, how do they think he'd fair against Hearns, Leonard, Duran, etc. I don't know nearly enough about the boxers of yesteryear to formulate such an opinion.
Outpoints Leonard over 12

Duran is a pick'em, brilliant styles match-up

I'd be most confident in Hearns beating Floyd; his style and size would cause Floyd serious problems
 
I've watched Mayweather a lot over the years. What I'd like to know from older boxing fans is, how do they think he'd fair against Hearns, Leonard, Duran, etc. I don't know nearly enough about the boxers of yesteryear to formulate such an opinion.
Not that old, but familiar with them. I would go with Leonard outpointing May, Duran KO/TKO May and Hearns killing May.

Hearns had won a title in cruiserweight, so May wouldn't ever gone in a match against a guy 5 inch taller and 60lbs or so heavier.
 
Outpoints Leonard over 12

Duran is a pick'em, brilliant styles match-up

I'd be most confident in Hearns beating Floyd; his style and size would cause Floyd serious problems

Not that old, but familiar with them. I would go with Leonard outpointing May, Duran KO/TKO May and Hearns killing May.

Hearns had won a title in cruiserweight, so May wouldn't ever gone in a match against a guy 5 inch taller and 60lbs or so heavier.

Hearns was that much bigger? I always thought he looked like he'd walk through Floyd, and I suppose your posts pretty much confirm it. I think Mayweather would give us a masterclass in dodging if that's the case. Not that I'd blame him for it.

Any other names who Floyd wouldn't have been keen to go up against? And I mean a guy who doesn't necessarily have a height or weight advantage that isn't to his liking. More of a style/ability thing.
 
Hearns was that much bigger? I always thought he looked like he'd walk through Floyd, and I suppose your posts pretty much confirm it. I think Mayweather would give us a masterclass in dodging if that's the case. Not that I'd blame him for it.

Any other names who Floyd wouldn't have been keen to go up against? And I mean a guy who doesn't necessarily have a height or weight advantage that isn't to his liking. More of a style/ability thing.

They both fought at welterweight. If the fantasy match-up were to happen at 147, Floyd would probably be giving up ~20lbs on fight night, as well as a height and reach advantage.

Floyd vs Pernell Whitaker would have been a chess match, but I'd have fancied Floyd in that one. Floyd vs Oscar in his prime would have been interesting too. Oscar has that long jab (I think he's a leftie) which was super quick when he was younger, would have been key in closing the distance against Floyd.

Anyway, I'd probably pick Floyd to win against everyone in history at his weight. He's just too good. He never fights at the same rhythm which sets him apart from everyone else.
 
Hearns was that much bigger? I always thought he looked like he'd walk through Floyd, and I suppose your posts pretty much confirm it. I think Mayweather would give us a masterclass in dodging if that's the case. Not that I'd blame him for it.

Any other names who Floyd wouldn't have been keen to go up against? And I mean a guy who doesn't necessarily have a height or weight advantage that isn't to his liking. More of a style/ability thing.
Hearns boxed also on welterweight, so that match might have been possible, but he was much bigger and even on welterweight he would have manged to get much more weight from measuring till the match, and so be bigger on the ring. No weight limit, wouldn't even be a match cause Hearns would have been so much bigger.

I think that Armstrong defeats him too, but this is going by other people opinions (not much footage there). Sugar Ray Robinson obviously destroys him (and everyone else) but Sugar (like the other Sugar) boxed also on other heavier weights and his natural class was middleweight *. Harry Greb defeats him too (based on historians words), but like Robinson, his natural weight was on middleweight.

I would say that the only boxers who didn't have a size advantage and who would beat him are Duran and Armstrong.

Floyd against De Le Hoya depends on what weight is it made. Floyd wins at 147lbs, Oscar wins at 160lbs, great match at 154lbs which can go either way (remember, a past it Oscar gave a good match against Floyd at 147lbs and actually Floyd won on split decision, not the usual unanimous that he won always).

* To be fair, that might not be true. He is usually mentioned as the best ever welterweight, best ever middleweight in addition to best ever pound per pound. So, while he made 100+ matches in welter, he also was a champion in middle.
 
Last edited:
Who were these guys called 'Murderers Row'? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murderers'_Row_(boxing))
Did Sugar Ray Robinson duck those guys?
I don't see how Robinson would have ducked anyone. He was a God at boxing. People throw the world 'duck' quite often, eventhough there are many other reasons why certain matched didn't happen.

Saying that, likely they were good. Some of them are hall of famers despite never being champions, while Booker actually KO Archie Moore at his best, so there might be something there.
 
I don't see how Robinson would have ducked anyone. He was a God at boxing. People throw the world 'duck' quite often, eventhough there are many other reasons why certain matched didn't happen.

Saying that, likely they were good. Some of them are hall of famers despite never being champions, while Booker actually KO Archie Moore at his best, so there might be something there.
I looked Robinson up on YouTube. Holy hell that guy has a vicious hook.
 
I looked Robinson up on YouTube. Holy hell that guy has a vicious hook.
It is a shame that we don't have a lot of footage for him (like for Ali), but yep, even from limited footage you can see how good he was.

Not surprisingly, pretty much all historians and boxers (including The Greatest) have him as the greatest p4p ever, and in fact the p4p word was created for him. He was Ali's idol and Ali tried to take him as his coach when Ali was quite young, but Sugar refused.
 
I don't see how Robinson would have ducked anyone. He was a God at boxing. People throw the world 'duck' quite often, eventhough there are many other reasons why certain matched didn't happen.

Saying that, likely they were good. Some of them are hall of famers despite never being champions, while Booker actually KO Archie Moore at his best, so there might be something there.

In those days there were only one world title per division and six divisions so being a 'champion' really meant something i.e that you had beaten the man. Loads of excellent fighters didn't win titles because of that. San Langford was probably the best never to win a title. He boxed from lightweight to heavyweight. He was discriminated against because he was black mostly but the black heavyweight champion Jack Johnson beat him once when Langford was on his way up but then ducked him for the rest of his career. Langford was still fighting when he had gone legally blind, it was a different era alright.
 
In those days there were only one world title per division and six divisions so being a 'champion' really meant something i.e that you had beaten the man. Loads of excellent fighters didn't win titles because of that. San Langford was probably the best never to win a title. He boxed from lightweight to heavyweight. He was discriminated against because he was black mostly but the black heavyweight champion Jack Johnson beat him once when Langford was on his way up but then ducked him for the rest of his career. Langford was still fighting when he had gone legally blind, it was a different era alright.
Yeah man, I read about those boxers recently, and really it is incredible. From all sports, boxing has a genuine claim of having been better on quality a century ago than it is now.

I also found strange when I read that the fights lasted even longer. Apparently there were some fights which lasted 49 rounds. Joe Jeanette won a fight on which he was knocked down 17 times.

That shit isn't going to happen now. Maybe for the good considering that most fighters then had a short life. Langford got completely blinded, Harry Greb (probably a top five p4p ever) died when he was just 30, etc etc.

Edit: Apparently, the longest documented fight lasted 111 rounds (7.5 hours): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Bowen

Now, that is beyond insane.
 
Last edited:
Just seen 'the gloves are off'. This Dominic fella ain't shit, AJ hits harder than Mandie, a lot harder. Breazeale hits nowhere near as hard as dillian. Proper mismatch but I love seeing a cocky yank get shut up. AJ in 3
 
Just seen 'the gloves are off'. This Dominic fella ain't shit, AJ hits harder than Mandie, a lot harder. Breazeale hits nowhere near as hard as dillian. Proper mismatch but I love seeing a cocky yank get shut up. AJ in 3
I don't doubt that Breazeale hits as hard as Whyte. But I don't see him walking the walk. Whyte had success because he showed balls against Joshua; he sucked it up, showed Joshua he could take his power and made Joshua doubt himself, and then threw back when he had an opening. I don't think Breazeale has the balls tbh, he's just a big stiff American Olympian that Hearn can sell to the masses.
 
Just seen 'the gloves are off'. This Dominic fella ain't shit, AJ hits harder than Mandie, a lot harder. Breazeale hits nowhere near as hard as dillian. Proper mismatch but I love seeing a cocky yank get shut up. AJ in 3

I turned it off after about 10minutes. AJ just doesn't have the personality to do something like that and when they're carting out these American fighters who say the exact same lines it's basically a repeat of all the other ones. The only decent one was with Dillian Whyte and that was cos of Whyte more then AJ. They should promote him other ways really, do what Showtime did with Mayweather or HBO do with fighters (and UFC do with the Embedded series) and follow him about in his every day life and training, it'd be far more interesting. Also it would probably get people to care about the rest of the card.

http://news.sky.com/story/1707534/big-rivals-bellew-and-haye-in-showdown-talks

Looks like Haye-Bellew could be a goer, very big pay day for them both with Haye winning fairly comfortably I'd say. Still, Bellew is a massive step up from the opposition Haye is currently fighting and it'll be an interesting fight.

God that trash talk is painful.
 
Noticed that professional boxers can now fight at the Olympics which hasn't gone done too well for many within the sport. Can someone explain to this boxing novice why? In a sport where it's so easy to avoid opponents, shouldn't a competition that forces the best to fight each other be welcomed?
 
Noticed that professional boxers can now fight at the Olympics which hasn't gone done too well for many within the sport. Can someone explain to this boxing novice why? In a sport where it's so easy to avoid opponents, shouldn't a competition that forces the best to fight each other be welcomed?

Pro boxers are far more skilled than the amateurs in the olympics. If you go back and wach Amir Khan's first few fights compared to his more recent portfolio you'd see his skill improves a lot (even if he isn't a great boxer, he's just an example.)

Basically the worry is that professionals would go in there and potentially do some serious damage to amateur fighters due to the experience they have, it's not a level playing field and is hugely dangerous really. It's not like letting a top level runner in the olympics run against a shit one, no one is getting hurt there. Boxing is the most dangerous sport in the Olympics...it could end very nasty if it happened.

Another factor is people probably think it ruins the chances of some fighters to ever reach the pinnacle of their career with an Olympic medal. Imagine representing you're country and getting all the way to the final just to be met with the best boxer in the world, it's a bit unfair.
 
Lomachenko is incredible. I'm still annoyed he lost his second fight as now people who don't understand boxing think he can't be great because he doesn't have a zero beside his name. He just has a great blend of balance, timing, speed and makes great selections.

I think one of the reasons boxing is going through an unpopular spell is the nationality of the best today. If GGG, Kovalev, Lomachenko, Rigo and Chocalatito were American,Mexican or Brits I think the sport would have a lot more hype.
 
@Oggmonster - agreed mate. I doubt he's even in the top 20's of the world rankings. Though given how Haye picks fighters in those rankings they don't add much weight in themselves. Another Wilder highlight reel KO to come then.
 
@Oggmonster - agreed mate. I doubt he's even in the top 20's of the world rankings. Though given how Haye picks fighters in those rankings they don't add much weight in themselves. Another Wilder highlight reel KO to come then.

Yeah it's not one many people will be excited about surely. It's in Alabama again so I'm sure it'll sell decent numbers there if nothing else. I'm sure deep down Wilder isn't to upset about not fighting Povetkin if he gets handed an easy fight on the back of it and probably still a good pay day!
 
Dunno how Arreola gets world title shots! In fairness to Wilder though I suppose his hands are tied in this one.



Good fighter this (not for the WBC title though like Hearn says but still the best possible opponent.

It's for the WBC Diamond belt, so think that's above the regular belt in status but probably not defended as often.
 
Part of me likes that Wilder and Joshua continue to remain unproven.

Makes the King of the division look quite far ahead at the top of the pile.
 

Probably not, he'd last about 6 rounds I'd guess but it is no lose (well except actually losing the fight) really. He'll have one over every single middleweight by saying he had the balls to fight Golovkin, he makes people like BJS look like idiots who are clearly to scared to fight and if he has a decent showing he becomes a much bigger name. They're also both very attacking fighters so it would be entertaining and no doubt Hearn will promote him after that as something like "He was just in the fight of the year with GGG" with a smug look on his face whilst doing so.
 
Probably not, he'd last about 6 rounds I'd guess but it is no lose (well except actually losing the fight) really. He'll have one over every single middleweight by saying he had the balls to fight Golovkin, he makes people like BJS look like idiots who are clearly to scared to fight and if he has a decent showing he becomes a much bigger name. They're also both very attacking fighters so it would be entertaining and no doubt Hearn will promote him after that as something like "He was just in the fight of the year with GGG" with a smug look on his face whilst doing so.

I reckon Eubank won't get past the third with GGG, too flat footed. Props to him if he takes the fight though.
 
I reckon Eubank won't get past the third with GGG, too flat footed. Props to him if he takes the fight though.

It depends how he takes the punches I suppose. O'Sullivan hit him a few times and he didnt' seem phased but O'Sullivan is no GGG. Equally it could be argued that Eubank is probably one of the best opponents GGG has fought which makes it interesting if nothing else.

GGG is one of the biggest shames in boxing because the reality is we'll never know how good he actually is and it's no fault of his own. He seems to want to fight top names and no one wants him. Realistic opponents like Canelo, BJS etc have all ran from him despite saying they'd fight him, it's quite sad that as boxing fans we're denied the right to see that top level fighter. Every legendary name in boxing has that big win (Mayweather had DLH for example as one) GGG is going to have Chris Eubank Jr or Martin Murray as his most famous win at this point and will basically be a foot note in boxing when he could of been something special in a division full of good fighters.
 
On another note who many rounds in Joshua going tomorrow? I reckon it'll be done in 2 again.

Luckily 1 of my mates has ordered it so won't have to worry about a stream or forking out 15 quid! Murray vs. Groves makes it worth watching.