Mike Tyson's "Impressive" List of Opponents
fitzgerald georges
look at Tyson's career record & accomplishments. Quite an unimpressive
list. Outside of Razor Ruddock (one armed, no defense, no chin) and
M.Spinks (scared rabbit who had no intention of fighting that night) HE LOST
EVERY BIG FIGHT.
Moreover, he then chose to fight bums and over the hill has beens (Outside
of Holyfield and Lewis). The result: He got knocked the F--k out by the
both of them.
He would have been killed by Bowe and Ibeabuchi. He most likely would have
lost to the likes of Mercer and Tua as well. If he ever had the balls to
fight them.
Holyfield is ten times the prize fighter Tyson is! EH should be ranked
above Tyson on everyone's list.
Just look at these names....!?
3/6/1985 Hector Mercedes Won 1 ko
4/10/1985 Trevor Singleton Won 1 kot
5/23/1985 Don Halpin Won 4 ko
6/20/1985 Ricky Spain Won 1 ko
7/11/1985 John Anderson Won 2 kot
7/19/1985 Larry Sims Won 3 ko
8/15/1985 Lorenzo Canady Won 1 ko
9/5/1985 Mike Johnson Won 1 ko
10/9/1985 Donnie Long Won 1 kot
10/25/1985 Robert Colay Won 1 ko
11/1/1985 Sterling Benjamin Won 1 kot
11/13/1985 Eddie Richardson Won 1 ko
11/22/1985 Conroy Nelson Won 2 kot
12/6/1985 Sammy Scaff Won 1 kot
12/27/1985 Mark Young Won 1 ko
1/10/1986 David Jaco Won 1 kot
1/24/1986 Mike Jameson Won 5 kot
2/16/1986 Jesse Ferguson Won 6 kot
3/10/1986 Steve Zouski Won 3 ko
5/3/1986 James Tillis Won 10
5/20/1986 Mitchell Green Won 10
6/13/1986 Reggie Gross Won 1 kot
6/28/1986 William Hosea Won 1 ko
7/11/1986 Lorenzo Boyd Won 2 ko
7/26/1986 Marvis Frazier Won 1 ko
8/17/1986 Jose Ribalta Won 10 kot
9/6/1986 Alfonso Ratliff Won 2 kot
11/22/1986 Trevor Berbick Won 2 kot W.B.C., Heavyweight
3/7/1987 James Smith Won 12
World, Heavyweight
5/30/1987 Pinklon Thomas Won 6 kot World, Heavyweight
8/1/1987 Tony Tucker Won 12
World, Heavyweight
10/16/1987 Tyrrell Biggs Won 7 kot World, Heavyweight
1/22/1988 Larry Holmes Won 4 kot World, Heavyweight
3/21/1988 Tony Tubbs Won 2 kot World, Heavyweight
6/27/1988 Michael Spinks Won 1 ko World, Heavyweight
2/25/1989 Frank Bruno Won 5 kot World, Heavyweight
7/21/1989 Carl The Truth Williams Won 1 kot World,Heavyweight
2/10/1990 James Douglas Lost 10 ko World, Heavyweight
6/16/1990 Henry Tillmann Won 1 ko
12/8/1990 Alex Stewart Won 1 ko
3/18/1991 Donovan Razor Ruddock Won 7 kot
6/28/1991 Donovan Razor Ruddock Won 12
8/19/1995 Peter Mc Neeley Won 1 kot
12/16/1995 Buster Mathis Won 3 ko
3/16/1996 Frank Bruno Won 3 kot W.B.C., Heavyweight
9/7/1996 Bruce Seldon Won 1 kot World, Heavyweight
11/9/1996 Evander Holyfield Lost 11 kot W.B.A., Heavyweight
6/28/1997 Evander Holyfield Lost 3 kot W.B.A., Heavyweight
1/16/1999 Francois Botha Won 5 ko
10/23/1999 Orlin Norris NC 2
1/29/2000 Julius Francis Won 2 kot
6/24/2000 Lou Savarese Won 1 kot
10/20/2000 Andrew Golota NC 3
10/13/2001 Brian Nielsen Won 7 kot
6/08/2002 Lennox Lewis Lost 8 ko World, Heavyweight
Fitzgerald Georges
fgeo...@fgeorges.com
http://www.fgeorges.com
(413) 235-3905 Fax
HIGHPOINT
"fitzgerald georges" <FGEO...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:DcVza.27044$4_1.6...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> In light of all the recent Holyfield bashing, I thought it interesting to
> look at Tyson's career record & accomplishments. Quite an unimpressive
> list. Outside of Razor Ruddock (one armed, no defense, no chin) and
> M.Spinks (scared rabbit who had no intention of fighting that night) HE
LOST
> EVERY BIG FIGHT.
I, being the major contributor to the recent 'Holyfield bashing' as you so
put it, feel obligated to respond.
> Holyfield is ten times the prize fighter Tyson is! EH should be ranked
> above Tyson on everyone's list.
I think you'll find that I struggle to place both Holyfield or Tyson on all
time heavy lists.
Holyfield and Tyson are both in the same boat. Both lost more than they won
when the big fights came rolling around. Both are technically inferior to
some of their historical peers, and Holyfield is also physically inferior to
his peers.
The major difference between them is that Tyson did at least enjoy a period
of dominance. Holyfield spent a ten year period at or near the top, but
never, NOT ONCE, assumed a position that was complete and absolute at the
top of the mound. Their was always a feeling of inevitability, his reign
would end. He was twice champion, both very short and uninspiring reigns.
This is a stain on his legacy, and even if I considered him to be an equal
fighter of some of the greats, WHICH I DON'T, he never asserted a period of
dominance.
I have Holyfield with the Patterson's and Norton's of heavyweight history,
with Tyson one step above that as one of the lesser greats (does that even
make sense?), and up again to the cream of the divisions history.
HIGHPOINT
FeLiX
Charles Beauchamp
"HIGHPOINT" <slhig...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ed02...@news.iprimus.com.au...
While it is certainly an opinion no less worthy then anyone elses I do again
question exactly what it is that you consider great. Also, you have twice
said that Holyfield's two reigns were uninspiring, yet Holyfield the man is
generally regarded as one of the most exciting athletes of modern times. He
has gone from the valley of defeat (heart condition) to the very pinnacle of
the sport destroying Tyson. I don't think it is really possible to find a
more inspiring turnaround in the history of the boxing short of Foreman's
stunning knockout of Michael Moorer years after converting to Christianity.
v/r Beau
HIGHPOINT
"Charles Beauchamp" <cebea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6aGdnc0fsOr...@comcast.com...
Greatness in my opinion belongs only to those fighters that dominate their
respective divisions, defeat the vast majority of their opponents, are
peerless in their primes save for the intervention of other greats, fight
through adversity etc etc.
Holyfield is a warrior, he never gives up, he fights everyone and anyone.
However, he has not only been stretched by mediocre fighters in his prime,
he has been defeated by them. He has a less than favourable record against
Bowe in his prime, and Bowe himself would struggle for recognition as a
great. He is limited in physical capacity, and has one of the worst overall
records of any 'great' were he to be recognised as one.
As for inspirational, although he is an exciting fighter, I don't find him
an inspiration, for the same reason I don't think Gatti should be highly
regarded as a junior welterweight, that being he is pushed all too often by
fighters that are sub standard compared to their peers. All greats have
bogey fighters that give them issues, but it happens too frequently with
Holyfield, and he has that big 'L' against Moorer that speaks volumes.
For the same reasons as stated above, I also struggle to rank Tyson, Dempsey
and Patterson among others as greats.
HIGHPOINT
Isaiah
> look at Tyson's career record & accomplishments. Quite an unimpressive
> list. Outside of Razor Ruddock (one armed, no defense, no chin) and
> M.Spinks (scared rabbit who had no intention of fighting that night) HE LOST
> EVERY BIG FIGHT.
Ruddock had his strengths too and Spinks lost esteem as a result of
his demolition at Tyson's hands. You can't hold it against Tyson that
the reigning linear champ crumbled under his assault. This is a common
tactic. When a guy you don't like really dominates a highly-regarded
opponent, you simply downgrade the opponent based on that fight. Tyson
can't win.
> Moreover, he then chose to fight bums and over the hill has beens (Outside
> of Holyfield and Lewis). The result: He got knocked the F--k out by the
> both of them.
I'm not sure I follow. If you're saying that Holyfield and Lewis both
KOd Tyson, well, yes but he was well past his prime for both of those
fights.
> He would have been killed by Bowe and Ibeabuchi. He most likely would have
> lost to the likes of Mercer and Tua as well. If he ever had the balls to
> fight them.
Uh, no. Bowe/Tyson would have been a heck of a fight, with both guys
taking a beating. Tyson had a more proven chin, better defense, a
large edge in speed and more power. The other guys don't even belong
at the table.
> Holyfield is ten times the prize fighter Tyson is! EH should be ranked
> above Tyson on everyone's list.
EH never dominated the divison or even a solid contender for that
matter. Tyson did. I will say this, though: Evander had a good style
for Tyson and the true measure of a fighter is not how badly he whips
third-rate opposition but how he does against good opponents. Still,
in his brief prime, Tyson showed a lot more than Holyfield did.
Tyson's skills and gifts would keep him competitive against anyone.
Holyfield just wasn't that impressive.
-Isaiah
Charles Beauchamp
Well I'll put it to rest with this. You toss the term great around but
haven't really defined it. Your definition of great is about as subjective
as anyone else's I guess but it seems more in the case of Holyfield that you
shift it to a darned if you do, darned if you don't.
To put it clearly, Holyfield in his prime lost one fight....to Bowe. After
that he had the heart condition and lost to Moorer and Bowe again. He
overcame that to rise to the top of the division again. If that isn't
greatness then no one is great.
As for his record and how it rates against the other all time greats, I
suppose that really is impossible to compare. If you presume that his
opponents are not good then you will not be impressed with his record. If
you presume like I do that he fought a very strong list of opponents then
his record looks pretty darn impressive.
If you start comparing his record to the records of other great champions
you cannot conclude logically that he does not measure favorably. As for
Tyson and Dempsey I rate them among the top 15. Patterson I do not and
don't see many who do.
I can take the very same statements you make in this subject area and apply
it to any heavyweight champion in history and conclude among other things
that Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis are overated.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
"Isaiah" <isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dae06db6.03052...@posting.google.com...
out by Buster freaking Douglas. Who ever knocked out Riddick Bowe? Tyson
has always been great against fighters who don't come to fight and are
intimidated. Riddick Bowe never ran from anyone in the ring. Every fighter
that actually fought back against Tyson knocked him out. Bowe would have
destroyed Tyson. Bowe was a big man who actually punched back.
Tyson had a better defense? Nope. He didn't have much of a defense. He
early on used the D'Amato crouch which is fine if your are simply looking to
setup crosses and hooks, but leaves half the face completely exposed at all
times. To me it is pretty easy to picture Riddick Bowe blowing Tyson out.
>
> > Holyfield is ten times the prize fighter Tyson is! EH should be ranked
> > above Tyson on everyone's list.
>
>
> EH never dominated the divison or even a solid contender for that
> matter. Tyson did. I will say this, though: Evander had a good style
> for Tyson and the true measure of a fighter is not how badly he whips
> third-rate opposition but how he does against good opponents. Still,
> in his brief prime, Tyson showed a lot more than Holyfield did.
> Tyson's skills and gifts would keep him competitive against anyone.
> Holyfield just wasn't that impressive.
>
Tyson showed in his brief prime that he could knock out fighters that are
scared. He also showed that in his prime (and yes, that includes the
Douglas fight) he was simply a bully. He would have been overmatched
against anyone who was not intimidated. The only folks that don't
understand this are his over zealous fans (probably the ones that still pay
the rediculous PPV fees to watch this idiot fight) and bought into the hype.
In short there was nothing particularly remarkable about a young heavyweight
running up a string of knockouts and then getting smoked by his first
serious opponent. Tyson is 0-4 in the 4 fights that really mattered in his
career.
v/r Beau
bubipoo
HIGHPOINT
apply
> it to any heavyweight champion in history and conclude among other things
> that Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis are overated.
You can not. I have been as clear as I possibly can, and in the title post
of the thread that most recently started this whole topic again, explained
the reasons why I believed Holyfield was not a Heavyweight great, and
endeavoured to reply to all those that disagreed to explain my points
further.
I have NOT changed my definition of greatness, but greatness IS subjective
as you state. Lewis is the only great heavy to emerge from the nineties, and
even he struggles for that recognition, and he is streets ahead of Holyfield
in many an area.
Holyfield is a warrior, but his record is poor when assessing his
suitability as a great. Very poor in fact. In a total of 17 major title
fights, he has six losses. More than a third. I cannot think of any other
great including Lewis and Tyson that have such a damning statistic.
He also has been stretched by universally recognised poor fighters (in
comparison to greats of course) far more than a true great would.
Exciting, a Warrior, afrraid of no one, and a very good fighter.
HIGHPOINT
BoxMuham
>The major difference between them is that Tyson did at least enjoy a period
>of dominance.
The major difference between them is that Holyfield beat better
opponents, and had a better career.
Head-to-head, Holyfield is 2-0 vs. Tyson.
>Holyfield spent a ten year period at or near the top, but
>never, NOT ONCE, assumed a position that was complete and absolute at the
>top of the mound.
Of course he did. Did it in his KO3 over the lineal champ Douglas,
did in in beating Bowe. He was "top of the mound" each time. Then again in
the three year period between beating Tyson and the "draw" with Lewis,
Holyfield was definitely "the man" in the division.
In the eyes of the public, Lewis had to prove himself in the first
fight with the 37-year old Holyfield. Lewis proved it, but was denied the win.
Surprisingly, the rematch the next year was very close, with the
younger champ pulling it out down the stretch by a round.
>I have Holyfield with the Patterson's and Norton's of heavyweight history,
>with Tyson one step above that
Holyfield definitely ranks above Tyson, as does Lewis. All three rank
above Patterson and Norton.
BoxMuhammad
BoxMuham
>However, he has not only been stretched by mediocre fighters in his prime,
>he has been defeated by them.
The defeats are the only fights that have some negative meaning. If
you're referring again to Holyfield's knocking Bert Cooper the f*ck out, that's
hardly a criticism. "Stretched" by mediocre "fighters" in his prime. Which
mediocre fighters "stretched" Holyfield in his prime?
Holyfield only lost once in his prime, to Bowe. Then avenged the
loss in his next fight. Great fight. I like the first one better.
You may be thinking "starched by mediocre fighters in his prime," as
Lennox was, twice, via single shot KO's.
Lennox gets credit for coming back, no doubt. I have him right
under Holyfield on the all time list.
>He has a less than favourable record against
>Bowe in his prime,
That's more of a positive thing for Bowe, than a negative for
Holyfield.
>He is limited in physical capacity
A lot of heavyweights should be so lucky.
>and has one of the worst overall
>records of any 'great' were he to be recognised as one.
Not all all. Through age 37, Holyfield's record is *excellent.*
>For the same reasons as stated above, I also struggle to rank Tyson, Dempsey
>and Patterson among others as greats.
One of those things is not like the other. And he transcended the
sport and became a hero to a hundred million. Years later, he ran into Gene
Tunney.
BoxMuhammad
BoxMuham
> Bowe would have
>destroyed Tyson. Bowe was a big man who actually punched back.
You and I and Eddie Futch all agree(d) about Riddick Bowe.
At the time, I didn't really like Bowe, as Rock Newman seemed like such
an ass. And the shenanigans that surrounded Bowe at times, as in the Elijah
Tillery fiasco and the bitch slap of Larry Donald at the press conference, made
Bowe distasteful. But his ring skills couldn't be denied. He proved himself
against Holyfield.
Bowe knew how to fight; he could fight dirty, too, as he did against
Holyfield.
Bowe always showed heart, though, which is why many people came to
like him. Watching him take beatings from Golota was poignant and sad. Maybe
not at the time, but in retrospect.
After Bowe joined and quit the US Marine Corps, it was clear he was a
few cards short of a deck.
His skills in the ring at his peak speak volumes. Bowe was a strange
case, and he was pulled into the twilight zone after a couple of years at the
top. And once you're gone, you can't go back, out the blue, into the black.
BoxMuhammad
Isaiah
> "Isaiah" <isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > He would have been killed by Bowe and Ibeabuchi. He most likely would
> have
> > > lost to the likes of Mercer and Tua as well. If he ever had the
> balls to
> > > fight them.
> >
> >
> > Uh, no. Bowe/Tyson would have been a heck of a fight, with both guys
> > taking a beating. Tyson had a more proven chin, better defense, a
> > large edge in speed and more power. The other guys don't even belong
> > at the table.
> >
> Tyson had a more proven chin? That is total nonsense.
It makes perfect sense. You may disagree but it is not "nonsense."
Tyson got knocked
> out by Buster freaking Douglas. Who ever knocked out Riddick Bowe?
Who did Riddick Bowe fight that could punch? Golota? He didn't look
too good there. Hyde? Ditto. Bowe never faced any real punchers. Tyson
did and showed an excellent chin. It takes a big leap of faith to
assume that Bowe had a better chin than Tyson.
Tyson
> has always been great against fighters who don't come to fight and are
> intimidated. Riddick Bowe never ran from anyone in the ring. Every fighter
> that actually fought back against Tyson knocked him out.
Here we go again... Tyson as the clown in Stephen King's "It."
> Bowe would have
> destroyed Tyson. Bowe was a big man who actually punched back.
>
> Tyson had a better defense? Nope. He didn't have much of a defense. He
> early on used the D'Amato crouch which is fine if your are simply looking to
> setup crosses and hooks, but leaves half the face completely exposed at all
> times. To me it is pretty easy to picture Riddick Bowe blowing Tyson out.
You have a much better imagination than me, apparently. Bowe was a
very poor defensive fighter. You may think you know the key to Tyson's
defense, but the fact is he was seldom hit with anything clean in his
prime. I guess that's just because his opponents neglected to "fight
back." If only they'd known that all they had to do to shock the world
was throw punches! They must all be kicking themselves now.
> > > Holyfield is ten times the prize fighter Tyson is! EH should be ranked
> > > above Tyson on everyone's list.
> >
> >
> > EH never dominated the divison or even a solid contender for that
> > matter. Tyson did. I will say this, though: Evander had a good style
> > for Tyson and the true measure of a fighter is not how badly he whips
> > third-rate opposition but how he does against good opponents. Still,
> > in his brief prime, Tyson showed a lot more than Holyfield did.
> > Tyson's skills and gifts would keep him competitive against anyone.
> > Holyfield just wasn't that impressive.
> >
> Tyson showed in his brief prime that he could knock out fighters that are
> scared.
I guess he also showed that he could scare all the top heavies in the
world too. Except Thomas, who won a couple of rounds after being
nearly KOd in the first, Tucker, who turned in the best pre-Douglas
showing against Tyson, and Berbick, who looked almost disdainful of
Tyson until eating some heavy leather.
He also showed that in his prime (and yes, that includes the
> Douglas fight) he was simply a bully. He would have been overmatched
> against anyone who was not intimidated. The only folks that don't
> understand this are his over zealous fans (probably the ones that still pay
> the rediculous PPV fees to watch this idiot fight) and bought into the hype.
>
> In short there was nothing particularly remarkable about a young heavyweight
> running up a string of knockouts and then getting smoked by his first
> serious opponent. Tyson is 0-4 in the 4 fights that really mattered in his
> career.
So am I to understand that you rank Tyson with guys like Michael Grant
and Doin' Damage?
-Isaiah
Charles Beauchamp
>
> "Charles Beauchamp" <cebea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > I can take the very same statements you make in this subject area and
> apply
> > it to any heavyweight champion in history and conclude among other
things
> > that Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis are overated.
>
> You can not. I have been as clear as I possibly can, and in the title post
> of the thread that most recently started this whole topic again, explained
> the reasons why I believed Holyfield was not a Heavyweight great, and
> endeavoured to reply to all those that disagreed to explain my points
> further.
>
> I have NOT changed my definition of greatness, but greatness IS subjective
> as you state. Lewis is the only great heavy to emerge from the nineties,
and
> even he struggles for that recognition, and he is streets ahead of
Holyfield
> in many an area.
>
> Holyfield is a warrior, but his record is poor when assessing his
> suitability as a great. Very poor in fact. In a total of 17 major title
> fights, he has six losses. More than a third. I cannot think of any other
> great including Lewis and Tyson that have such a damning statistic.
>
You see there is another problem with this entire thread. Are you talking
about greatness during a fighters peak? Or are you singularly critical of
Holyfield because after his prime he has more losses? That is what I
mean.....by your definition Ali had a poor record. He went 1-3 in his final
4 fights with losses to Leon Spinks and Trevor Berbick...both of whom would
have struggled against John Ruiz or Chris Byrd.
> He also has been stretched by universally recognised poor fighters (in
> comparison to greats of course) far more than a true great would.
>
Holyfield has been stopped exactly one time. By Riddick Bowe in their third
fight when it is universally accepted that he had a heart condition and
should not have been in the ring at all.
> Exciting, a Warrior, afrraid of no one, and a very good fighter.
Yep...pretty much the stuff of greatness. And the results bear this out.
Since defeating Riddick Bowe (and running his record to 30-1) Holyfield is
8-5-2 following a heart condition. That second career includes losses to
Moorer, and a stoppage loss to Bowe. It also includes overcoming the
condition and shocking the world taking out Tyson....a rematch whipeout of
Moorer and two fights with the great Lennox Lewis.
His record is very favorably comparable to other greats.
Want to compare? Pick a name and let's check it out.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
"BoxMuham" <boxm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030525035640...@mb-m01.aol.com...
I never rooted for Riddick Bowe in any of his fights (well except in Seoul
but hey...). I was surprised when he beat Evander for the title in 92.
That fight might be the best HW fight I've ever seen....right up with
Holmes/Norton and Ali/Frazer III. Over time I have come to really
appreciate what a marvelous fighter he was for the short time he was at the
top of his game.
I definitely think that in 1992-93 he would have beaten Lennox, but Lennox
improved so completely by 1996-97 that he probably is the finest HW since
Larry Holmes prime.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
> "Charles Beauchamp" <cebea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<8Pmcnd9THso...@comcast.com>...
> > "Isaiah" <isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > He would have been killed by Bowe and Ibeabuchi. He most likely
would
> > have
> > > > lost to the likes of Mercer and Tua as well. If he ever had the
> > balls to
> > > > fight them.
> > >
> > >
> > > Uh, no. Bowe/Tyson would have been a heck of a fight, with both guys
> > > taking a beating. Tyson had a more proven chin, better defense, a
> > > large edge in speed and more power. The other guys don't even belong
> > > at the table.
> > >
> > Tyson had a more proven chin? That is total nonsense.
>
>
> It makes perfect sense. You may disagree but it is not "nonsense."
>
It is nonsense because there is nothing to support the idea. Tyson has only
ever demonstrated an average chin.
>
> Tyson got knocked
> > out by Buster freaking Douglas. Who ever knocked out Riddick Bowe?
>
>
> Who did Riddick Bowe fight that could punch? Golota? He didn't look
> too good there. Hyde? Ditto. Bowe never faced any real punchers. Tyson
> did and showed an excellent chin. It takes a big leap of faith to
> assume that Bowe had a better chin than Tyson.
>
You miss the point. Tyson got knocked out by two guys (Douglas and
Holyfield) that are not big league knock out punchers. BTW, Bowe had 3
fights with a far better version of Holyfield and um...didn't get knocked
out.
Tyson never got tagged by a great puncher....he did get taken out during his
prime by James Douglas. It takes no leap of faith at all to assume Bowe had
a better chin. It simply takes actually watching the fights the two men
fought.
>
> Tyson
> > has always been great against fighters who don't come to fight and are
> > intimidated. Riddick Bowe never ran from anyone in the ring. Every
fighter
> > that actually fought back against Tyson knocked him out.
>
>
> Here we go again... Tyson as the clown in Stephen King's "It."
>
Well, since his entire game was based on intimidation you can make whatever
smart ass comments you want about "it" but the results remain. If he is in
the ring with a Peter McNeeley or a Clifford Ettienne he looks like Jakc
Dempsey....put him in against a prepared opponent who fights back and he is
0-4 with 3 KO-by.
>
> > Bowe would have
> > destroyed Tyson. Bowe was a big man who actually punched back.
> >
> > Tyson had a better defense? Nope. He didn't have much of a defense.
He
> > early on used the D'Amato crouch which is fine if your are simply
looking to
> > setup crosses and hooks, but leaves half the face completely exposed at
all
> > times. To me it is pretty easy to picture Riddick Bowe blowing Tyson
out.
>
>
> You have a much better imagination than me, apparently. Bowe was a
> very poor defensive fighter. You may think you know the key to Tyson's
> defense, but the fact is he was seldom hit with anything clean in his
> prime. I guess that's just because his opponents neglected to "fight
> back." If only they'd known that all they had to do to shock the world
> was throw punches! They must all be kicking themselves now.
>
>
Well, since that is exactly what happened and the first time we saw proof of
it was in Tokyo...yes. Apparently you have an imagination that has results
and fights that never actually took place because the fights that happened
in the ring do not show what you are saying.
One more time....James Douglas...not a big puncher...knocked out prime
Tyson.
> > > > Holyfield is ten times the prize fighter Tyson is! EH should be
ranked
> > > > above Tyson on everyone's list.
> > >
> > >
> > > EH never dominated the divison or even a solid contender for that
> > > matter. Tyson did. I will say this, though: Evander had a good style
> > > for Tyson and the true measure of a fighter is not how badly he whips
> > > third-rate opposition but how he does against good opponents. Still,
> > > in his brief prime, Tyson showed a lot more than Holyfield did.
> > > Tyson's skills and gifts would keep him competitive against anyone.
> > > Holyfield just wasn't that impressive.
> > >
> > Tyson showed in his brief prime that he could knock out fighters that
are
> > scared.
>
>
> I guess he also showed that he could scare all the top heavies in the
> world too. Except Thomas, who won a couple of rounds after being
> nearly KOd in the first, Tucker, who turned in the best pre-Douglas
> showing against Tyson, and Berbick, who looked almost disdainful of
> Tyson until eating some heavy leather.
>
Tony Tucker? You mean the guy that in the post fight press conference was
whining himself about his fear of throwing punches? All he did was clutch
and grab and try to survive. It is too bad. He had far better skills then
Douglas (and in fact had defeated Douglas for the IBF belt). Probably a
better right hand. During his two year run the top heavies were retreads
like Carl Williams and Trevor Berbick.
Pinklon Thomas himself said after his fight with Tyson that Mike has the
fight half won before the opening bell because everyone is scared of him.
It matters.
>
> He also showed that in his prime (and yes, that includes the
> > Douglas fight) he was simply a bully. He would have been overmatched
> > against anyone who was not intimidated. The only folks that don't
> > understand this are his over zealous fans (probably the ones that still
pay
> > the rediculous PPV fees to watch this idiot fight) and bought into the
hype.
> >
> > In short there was nothing particularly remarkable about a young
heavyweight
> > running up a string of knockouts and then getting smoked by his first
> > serious opponent. Tyson is 0-4 in the 4 fights that really mattered in
his
> > career.
>
>
> So am I to understand that you rank Tyson with guys like Michael Grant
> and Doin' Damage?
>
If you gather that from what I have said then you can't read since no such
comment was made.
v/r Beau
BoxMuham
>Tyson never got tagged by a great puncher....he did get taken out during his
>prime by James Douglas.
Remember, Beau, Tyson's "prime" suddenly ended the day before the
Douglas fight.
;-)
BoxMuhammad
Loki
<cebea...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Tyson never got tagged by a great puncher....he did get taken out during his
>prime by James Douglas. It takes no leap of faith at all to assume Bowe had
>a better chin. It simply takes actually watching the fights the two men
>fought.
Beg to differ... He was tagged pretty good by Bonecrusher Smith in the
last round of their fight. In fact, I have often said that had Smith
fought the first round like he did the last, even if the outcome of
the fight had been the same (which there is no guarantee of), it would
have been one of the great fights in history instead of one of the
worst.
Loki
Blade Of Sorrow
>Well I'll put it to rest with this. You toss the term great around but
>haven't really defined it. Your definition of great is about as subjective
>as anyone else's I guess but it seems more in the case of Holyfield that you
>shift it to a darned if you do, darned if you don't.
>
>To put it clearly, Holyfield in his prime lost one fight....to Bowe. After
>that he had the heart condition and lost to Moorer and Bowe again. He
>overcame that to rise to the top of the division again. If that isn't
>greatness then no one is great.
>
>As for his record and how it rates against the other all time greats, I
>suppose that really is impossible to compare. If you presume that his
>opponents are not good then you will not be impressed with his record. If
>you presume like I do that he fought a very strong list of opponents then
>his record looks pretty darn impressive.
>
>If you start comparing his record to the records of other great champions
>you cannot conclude logically that he does not measure favorably. As for
>Tyson and Dempsey I rate them among the top 15. Patterson I do not and
>don't see many who do.
>
>I can take the very same statements you make in this subject area and apply
>it to any heavyweight champion in history and conclude among other things
>that Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis are overated.
>
>v/r Beau
>
>
Thank you. I could not have said it better myself.
Blade Of Sorrow
>fights, he has six losses. More than a third. I cannot think of any other
>great including Lewis and Tyson that have such a damning statistic.
>
Try getting knocked the fuck out by single shots to mediocre opponents? Maybe?
I don't know about you, but that is a damning statistic to try and cover up.
And if you are attempting to be reasonable by any means then you have to look
at the fact that out of his six losses, 3 of them have come in his last 6
fights. If you want to compare fighters past their prime I can certainly say
that only Foreman has a better resume than Holyfield.
Anothing thing to consider; Holyfield has faced more champions and former
champions than Lewis or Tyson. He never took "step aside" money or ducked
fighters. And when Holyfield was champion there were no Byrds or Jones claiming
a version of the championship. THAT speaks volumes about the dominance of a
champion, but something that you will overlook simply because you want to
unfairly bash Holyfield.
KuramaYou
that is being generous on my part.
As for comparing him to Riddick Bowe, I don't think his power was better at
all. Riddick knocked Holyfield down in his prime, while Tyson could not even
hurt a slower, faded Holyfield. Tyson's punching power is a little overated.
I don't think I can recall one top opponent who claimed Tyson was the hardest
hitter they faced. Perhaps Michael Spinks, who was a blown up light
heavyweight. Peter McNeely even said Tyson's power was a bit overated. In
other words, McNeely had been hit harder by other fighters.
I do agree that prime Tyson had a better defense but I am not so sure that his
chin was better then Bowe's. In a fight between Bowe and Tyson it would be
pick em; neither fighter distinguised himself as being much better then the
other
BTW, I really wish Tyson-Bower happened. Would have been great.
HIGHPOINT
I'm critical of Holyfield because at or near his peak he was beaten by less
than great fighters, and I'm critical of Holyfield because his heavyweight
record as a whole is poor. Just as I mentioned above. And as for Ali's
fights, not ONCE have I dissected Holyfield's career to reflect the figures
I presented. That is his ENTIRE heavyweight career. Ali's equivalent record
is 56-5, as opposed to Holyfield's 20-6-2. Massive difference.
> > He also has been stretched by universally recognised poor fighters (in
> > comparison to greats of course) far more than a true great would.
> >
>
> Holyfield has been stopped exactly one time. By Riddick Bowe in their
third
> fight when it is universally accepted that he had a heart condition and
> should not have been in the ring at all.
Heart condition doesn't count for squat. You can't point to a less that
perfect record and then say he 'would' have been great if it wasn't for
that. Shit, Tyson would have been much more highly regarded if he didn't
have a 'head' condition.
> > Exciting, a Warrior, afrraid of no one, and a very good fighter.
>
> Yep...pretty much the stuff of greatness. And the results bear this out.
Micky Ward has the same traits.
> Since defeating Riddick Bowe (and running his record to 30-1)
No, since running his heavy record, and his heavyweight greatness is what we
are discussing, to 12-1.
> Holyfield is
> 8-5-2 following a heart condition. That second career includes losses to
> Moorer, and a stoppage loss to Bowe. It also includes overcoming the
> condition and shocking the world taking out Tyson....a rematch whipeout of
> Moorer and two fights with the great Lennox Lewis.
Again, doesn't count for naught. His losses came with an increase in the
level of opposition.
> His record is very favorably comparable to other greats.
>
> Want to compare? Pick a name and let's check it out.
Ok.
Muhammad Ali:
56-5. Undefeated in his prime. Defeated by Joe Frazier a definite great in
1971, at least 4 years after his recognised prime. Stopped once in the
penultimate fight of his career, by great Larry Holmes. Three time
heavyweight champion, defeated three recognised greats at or near their
prime, and a list of secondary victories that would rival most other
fighters best wins. 15 years after his debut - which is the point Holyfield
is at now, he defeated Joe Frazier, and was just coming off a stoppage win
over George Foreman. A definite great. Went 22-3 in LINEAL world title
fights. Holyfield has gone 5-2. Even his alphabet record is inferior to
Ali's lineal record.
Joe Louis:
68-3. Defeated by Max Schmeling early into his career. Went on to win the
World's heavyweight title, and set a record 26 successful title fights,
including a revenge win over Schmeling. Went 26-1 in title fights. Retired
without losing his title. A definite great.
Larry Holmes:
69-6. Undefeated in his prime. Even if you only begin counting his title
reign from his defeat of Ali, he went 13-3 in title fights. His 13 wins were
consecutive, a record second only to the great Brown Bomber. Has a list of
defeated opponents that rivals Ali's with the obvious omissions of Frazier
and Foreman. A definite great.
Now look at this:
Floyd Patterson:
55-8. Went 8-4 in title fights. Had two title reigns, neither of which was
overly impressive. Was stretched by less that great opposition on more
occasions than a great would. Was defeated in the middle of his prime. NOT a
great.
HIGHPOINT
Young Goodman
>Date: 5/25/2003 5:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030525174918...@mb-m04.aol.com>
>Tyson's punching power is a little overated.
When he's rated as the best puncher p4p, yeah that's a bit overrated however he
should be considered a TREMENDOUS puncher.
>I don't think I can recall one top opponent who claimed Tyson was the hardest
>hitter they faced.
I do. One guy said he thought he was hit by a baseball bat.
>Peter McNeely even said Tyson's power was a bit overated.
Consider the source.
>In
>other words, McNeely had been hit harder by other fighters.
I doubt that. Then again, IIRC McNeely really didn't get hit FLUSH and on the
button but was hit a few times with brushing blows and quite.
Goodman Brown
"She was a talker, wasn't she?" Bobby Lee said, sliding down the ditch with a
yodel.
"She would of been a good woman," The Misfit said, "if it had been somebody
there to shoot her every minute of her life."
athos
> > > > taking a beating. Tyson had a more proven chin, better defense, a
> > > > large edge in speed and more power. The other guys don't even belong
> > > > at the table.
> > > >
> > > Tyson had a more proven chin? That is total nonsense.
> >
> > It makes perfect sense. You may disagree but it is not "nonsense."
> >
> It is nonsense because there is nothing to support the idea. Tyson has only
> ever demonstrated an average chin.
> >
> > Tyson got knocked
> > > out by Buster freaking Douglas. Who ever knocked out Riddick Bowe?
The nonsense is saying that Bowe doesn't have a chin. Bowe was never
KO'd
in 40 fights.
It also nonsense to say Tyson has only an average chin. Some of the
shots he took in the Lewis fight alone says otherwise. Lewis himself
has said he couldn't believe some of the shots Tyson took.
More direct to the original post, however, I have to say I have
trouble placing Tyson on an all time list. Mainly for the facts
already posted. Questionable opponents prior to prison and dismall
career post prison. And like many of the previous posters I have to
agree he seems like a classic bully. Ready to jump on those that have
little chance of beating him, nervous when facing the ones that can,
and a "nice guy" right after taking a whupping.
I also have difficulty with where to put Holyfield on my all great
list. When he is on the money it is spectactular, when he is off it is
ugly. Chiefly, though it was late in his career, I can't forget the
Ruiz trilogy.(And believe
me I have tried to forget them)
Either way I have to place both of them below Lewis on the list.
HIGHPOINT
"Blade Of Sorrow" <bladeo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030525153202...@mb-m22.aol.com...
> >Very poor in fact. In a total of 17 major title
> >fights, he has six losses. More than a third. I cannot think of any other
> >great including Lewis and Tyson that have such a damning statistic.
> >
>
> Try getting knocked the fuck out by single shots to mediocre opponents?
Maybe?
> I don't know about you, but that is a damning statistic to try and cover
up.
The manner of defeat is irrelevant. Losing a wide decision is just as bad as
being KO'd as it simply exposes another weakness in a fighter. A fighter
like Chuvalo for example, wasn't in a terrible position when it comes to
getting KO'd, but he still sucked.
> And if you are attempting to be reasonable by any means then you have to
look
> at the fact that out of his six losses, 3 of them have come in his last 6
> fights.
This I don't deny, which is why I listed Holyfield's entire heavyweight
career. Under the same reasoning, three of his losses came at or near his
prime, one of which was to Moorer.
> If you want to compare fighters past their prime I can certainly say
> that only Foreman has a better resume than Holyfield.
Post 60's Ali perhaps?
> Anothing thing to consider; Holyfield has faced more champions and former
> champions than Lewis or Tyson. He never took "step aside" money or ducked
> fighters. And when Holyfield was champion there were no Byrds or Jones
claiming
> a version of the championship. THAT speaks volumes about the dominance of
a
> champion, but something that you will overlook simply because you want to
> unfairly bash Holyfield.
Dominance? Holyfield has five successful lineal title wins - let's list 'em.
Buster Douglas, George Foreman, Bert Cooper, Larry Holmes, Riddick Bowe. Oh
yeah, that's a dominant champ.
You'll find that I have repeatedly said that both Lewis or Tyson are hard to
place on all time lists.
As for Holyfield's 'awesome' list of faced current or former champions, it's
amazing how easily that list can be picked apart.
Holyfield has faced 8 current or former champions. They are, Larry Holmes,
George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe, Michael Moorer, Hasim Rahman,
Mike Tyson, Buster Douglas.
Holmes and Foreman were well and truly past their primes. Brian Neilsen
holds a win over Holmes, and Briggs over Foreman in equivalent states. Lewis
beat Holyfield. Bowe and Moorer were only champions because they took the
title from Holyfield, this is especially true for Moorer. This leaves
Rahman, Tyson and Douglas as former champion opponents. Douglas cream puffed
his way out of the fight with Holyfield (although I would have picked Holy
regardless), Tyson was 5 years removed from his one and only reign -
including a prison stint. That leaves Rahman.
Even considering the above, Holyfield's record against these eight stands at
8-4-1. 50% win/loss.
HIGHPOINT
HIGHPOINT
> >From: "HIGHPOINT"
>
> >However, he has not only been stretched by mediocre fighters in his
prime,
> >he has been defeated by them.
>
> The defeats are the only fights that have some negative meaning.
If
> you're referring again to Holyfield's knocking Bert Cooper the f*ck out,
that's
> hardly a criticism. "Stretched" by mediocre "fighters" in his prime.
Which
> mediocre fighters "stretched" Holyfield in his prime?
You have me mistaken, I believe it was Loki, not me, that mentioned Bert
Cooper.
As for who I am most often refwerring to - Michael Moorer.
> Holyfield only lost once in his prime, to Bowe. Then avenged
the
> loss in his next fight. Great fight. I like the first one better.
And lost again to Bowe.
> You may be thinking "starched by mediocre fighters in his
prime," as
> Lennox was, twice, via single shot KO's.
> Lennox gets credit for coming back, no doubt. I have him
right
> under Holyfield on the all time list.
Lewis had been in the fight game for four years when caught by McCall, and
his major weakness was exposed. He then went six years undefeated including
a revenge match and taking the championship before being caught again by
Rahman. Holyfield has never enjoyed such success even though they have boxed
over an equivalent time frame, with LESS fights. And those that point to the
Holyfield loss to Lewis as 'he was past his prime' that may be so, but for
two fighters that have fought over the same time frame, Lewis can claim the
same disadvantage. He is simply better than Holyfield.
Again, this goes back to people simply assuming that Holyfield was a great
heavyweight as opposed to Cruiser when his record is nothing of the sort.
> >He has a less than favourable record against
> >Bowe in his prime,
>
> That's more of a positive thing for Bowe, than a negative for
> Holyfield.
And Bowe himself would struggle for the same recognition.
> >He is limited in physical capacity
>
> A lot of heavyweights should be so lucky.
Of course when we are comparing to the cream of the division. Holyfield
would have starched 99.9% of heavy's whoever lived. But only the tiniest
amount a considered here.
> >and has one of the worst overall
> >records of any 'great' were he to be recognised as one.
>
> Not all all. Through age 37, Holyfield's record is *excellent.*
I would repeat that statement. Holyfield has one of the worst overall
records of any who would be considered by some as a great. Don't ask me why,
my hands are getting sore re-typing it, just look through the thread.
> >For the same reasons as stated above, I also struggle to rank Tyson,
Dempsey
> >and Patterson among others as greats.
>
> One of those things is not like the other. And he transcended the
> sport and became a hero to a hundred million. Years later, he ran into
Gene
> Tunney.
That is of course, for another thread.
HIGHPOINT
HIGHPOINT
> >From: "HIGHPOINT"
>
> >The major difference between them is that Tyson did at least enjoy a
period
> >of dominance.
>
> The major difference between them is that Holyfield beat better
> opponents, and had a better career.
> Head-to-head, Holyfield is 2-0 vs. Tyson.
And Lewis holds the same advantage over Holyfield.
> >Holyfield spent a ten year period at or near the top, but
> >never, NOT ONCE, assumed a position that was complete and absolute at the
> >top of the mound.
>
> Of course he did. Did it in his KO3 over the lineal champ
Douglas,
> did in in beating Bowe. He was "top of the mound" each time. Then again
in
> the three year period between beating Tyson and the "draw" with Lewis,
> Holyfield was definitely "the man" in the division.
> In the eyes of the public, Lewis had to prove himself in the
first
> fight with the 37-year old Holyfield. Lewis proved it, but was denied the
win.
A fickle American public was the cause of that, not any shortcomings in
Lewis.
> Surprisingly, the rematch the next year was very close, with the
> younger champ pulling it out down the stretch by a round.
>
> >I have Holyfield with the Patterson's and Norton's of heavyweight
history,
> >with Tyson one step above that
>
> Holyfield definitely ranks above Tyson, as does Lewis. All three
rank
> above Patterson and Norton.
I have Tyson bottom of fifteen, and Lewis hovering between 4-8. Holyfield
would MAYBE get into 20-25. He is below Lewis and Bowe definitely in his own
era alone. Most greats own their era.
HIGHPOINT
SuperCalo
your anti Holyfield bias is showing too much here to rate him below Bowe on
the all time list is ridiculous, while clearly Bowe was the better boxer and
would beat Holyfield 19 out of 20 times if he came to the fight in shape,
his record at heavyweight clearly does not stack up against Holyfield,
theres no case for debate there, the facts are in black and white
>
>
Blade Of Sorrow
>would MAYBE get into 20-25.
What a minute. Holyfield beats Tyson twice. Lewis beats Holyfield twice
(arguably) though Holyfield was way past his prime and both are ranked higher?
Are you insane? Who the hell did Tyson OR Lewis beat that were as good as Bowe?
Lewis was barely able to take care of an old Holyfield. Same for Tyson. Those
that post Tyson's age as an excuse need to check on Holyfields birthday. Lewis
beating Holyfield means as much as Holyfield beating Holmes. You are going to
tell me that an old, small heavyweight with no real power was able to give
Lewis fits and that he isn't great? Into the asylum you go....
Isaiah
> > > > Uh, no. Bowe/Tyson would have been a heck of a fight, with both guys
> > > > taking a beating. Tyson had a more proven chin, better defense, a
> > > > large edge in speed and more power. The other guys don't even belong
> > > > at the table.
> > > >
> > > Tyson had a more proven chin? That is total nonsense.
> >
> >
> > It makes perfect sense. You may disagree but it is not "nonsense."
> >
>
> It is nonsense because there is nothing to support the idea. Tyson has only
> ever demonstrated an average chin.
I disagree, but I'm more bothered by your imprecise use of the
language. Does the phrase convey meaning or does it not?
> > Who did Riddick Bowe fight that could punch? Golota? He didn't look
> > too good there. Hyde? Ditto. Bowe never faced any real punchers. Tyson
> > did and showed an excellent chin. It takes a big leap of faith to
> > assume that Bowe had a better chin than Tyson.
> >
>
> You miss the point. Tyson got knocked out by two guys (Douglas and
> Holyfield) that are not big league knock out punchers. BTW, Bowe had 3
> fights with a far better version of Holyfield and um...didn't get knocked
> out.
Holyfield and Douglas both doled out tremendous beatings before Tyson
went down. Ditto for Lewis, who is a Big-League KO puncher by any
definition.
> Tyson never got tagged by a great puncher....he did get taken out during his
> prime by James Douglas. It takes no leap of faith at all to assume Bowe had
> a better chin. It simply takes actually watching the fights the two men
> fought.
Lewis, Smith and Ruddock all are or were great punchers. Bruno was a
very good puncher.
> > Tyson
> > > has always been great against fighters who don't come to fight and are
> > > intimidated. Riddick Bowe never ran from anyone in the ring. Every
> fighter
> > > that actually fought back against Tyson knocked him out.
> >
> >
> > Here we go again... Tyson as the clown in Stephen King's "It."
> >
>
> Well, since his entire game was based on intimidation you can make whatever
> smart ass comments you want about "it" but the results remain.
Thank you. I will. And the results do, in fact, remain. The argument
is about the interpretation of them.
If he is in
> the ring with a Peter McNeeley or a Clifford Ettienne he looks like Jakc
> Dempsey....put him in against a prepared opponent who fights back and he is
> 0-4 with 3 KO-by.
Conversely, I could say "put Dempsey in the ring with a former
flyweight or Jess Willard, neither of whom were much or any better
than McNeely or Etienne, and he looks like Mike Tyson. Put him in with
a guy that can box and move a bit and he's 0-4." Tyson also KOd Spinks
and Berbick in impressive fashion. Why mention McNeely and Etienne if
not to be deceptive?
> > > Bowe would have
> > > destroyed Tyson. Bowe was a big man who actually punched back.
> > >
> > > Tyson had a better defense? Nope. He didn't have much of a defense.
> He
> > > early on used the D'Amato crouch which is fine if your are simply
> looking to
> > > setup crosses and hooks, but leaves half the face completely exposed at
> all
> > > times. To me it is pretty easy to picture Riddick Bowe blowing Tyson
> out.
> >
> >
> > You have a much better imagination than me, apparently. Bowe was a
> > very poor defensive fighter. You may think you know the key to Tyson's
> > defense, but the fact is he was seldom hit with anything clean in his
> > prime. I guess that's just because his opponents neglected to "fight
> > back." If only they'd known that all they had to do to shock the world
> > was throw punches! They must all be kicking themselves now.
> >
> >
>
> Well, since that is exactly what happened and the first time we saw proof of
> it was in Tokyo...yes.
Not proof. Douglas was successful not because he alone among
heavyweights in the 1980s realized that you needed to throw punches to
beat Tyson but because he caught Tyson on a bad night and he fought a
great fight, taking advantage of his advantages to reverse Humbert
Humbert's line.
Apparently you have an imagination that has results
> and fights that never actually took place because the fights that happened
> in the ring do not show what you are saying.
What do you think I'm saying? What I am saying is that Bowe's defense
is inferior to Tyson's. Check the punch stats if you can't see for
yourself. They should be available somewhere. I'm also saying that
Tyson's chin is more proven. Am I overlooking a puncher on Bowe's
record? I only see Golota and Hide, and his chin did not look good
against either of them. I assume you don't disagree that Tyson was a
better puncher than Bowe.
> One more time....James Douglas...not a big puncher...knocked out prime
> Tyson.
After Tyson took dozens of clean powershots from him.
> > > > EH never dominated the divison or even a solid contender for that
> > > > matter. Tyson did. I will say this, though: Evander had a good style
> > > > for Tyson and the true measure of a fighter is not how badly he whips
> > > > third-rate opposition but how he does against good opponents. Still,
> > > > in his brief prime, Tyson showed a lot more than Holyfield did.
> > > > Tyson's skills and gifts would keep him competitive against anyone.
> > > > Holyfield just wasn't that impressive.
> > > >
> > > Tyson showed in his brief prime that he could knock out fighters that
> are
> > > scared.
> >
> >
> > I guess he also showed that he could scare all the top heavies in the
> > world too. Except Thomas, who won a couple of rounds after being
> > nearly KOd in the first, Tucker, who turned in the best pre-Douglas
> > showing against Tyson, and Berbick, who looked almost disdainful of
> > Tyson until eating some heavy leather.
> >
>
> Tony Tucker? You mean the guy that in the post fight press conference was
> whining himself about his fear of throwing punches? All he did was clutch
> and grab and try to survive. It is too bad. He had far better skills then
> Douglas (and in fact had defeated Douglas for the IBF belt). Probably a
> better right hand. During his two year run the top heavies were retreads
> like Carl Williams and Trevor Berbick.
Sure he got scared. After Tyson slipped his punches and pounded him
with quick, devastating hooks. He didn't come in scared and he wasn't
scared by the staredown.
> Pinklon Thomas himself said after his fight with Tyson that Mike has the
> fight half won before the opening bell because everyone is scared of him.
> It matters.
Well, again Thomas seemed to get over it after the first round. He
still lost bad.
> > > In short there was nothing particularly remarkable about a young
> heavyweight
> > > running up a string of knockouts and then getting smoked by his first
> > > serious opponent. Tyson is 0-4 in the 4 fights that really mattered in
> his
> > > career.
> >
> >
> > So am I to understand that you rank Tyson with guys like Michael Grant
> > and Doin' Damage?
> >
>
> If you gather that from what I have said then you can't read since no such
> comment was made.
Not directly. If you meant something else by "In short there was
nothing particularly remarkable about a young heavyweight running up a
string of knockouts and then getting smoked by his first serious
opponent," you should have been more clear.
-Isaiah
Charles Beauchamp
Everything counts. And it is part of what makes the 2nd run so amazing. In
fact unprecedented. If you are not impressed by it that is your hangup
really.
> > > Exciting, a Warrior, afrraid of no one, and a very good fighter.
> >
> > Yep...pretty much the stuff of greatness. And the results bear this
out.
>
> Micky Ward has the same traits.
>
Yes Mickey Ward does have this trait. Lennox Lewis does not. Just thought
I'd offer that up there. Mickey Ward also has a pesky lack of talent that
Holyfield was not saddled with.
> > Since defeating Riddick Bowe (and running his record to 30-1)
>
> No, since running his heavy record, and his heavyweight greatness is what
we
> are discussing, to 12-1.
>
> > Holyfield is
> > 8-5-2 following a heart condition. That second career includes losses
to
> > Moorer, and a stoppage loss to Bowe. It also includes overcoming the
> > condition and shocking the world taking out Tyson....a rematch whipeout
of
> > Moorer and two fights with the great Lennox Lewis.
>
> Again, doesn't count for naught. His losses came with an increase in the
> level of opposition.
>
Which is EXACTLY the point dude. His level of competition was much higher
then any of his contemporaries. You would expect that a fighter taking on
the best of his era would have more losses then fighters who did not take on
this level of competition.
> > His record is very favorably comparable to other greats.
> >
> > Want to compare? Pick a name and let's check it out.
>
> Ok.
>
> Muhammad Ali:
>
> 56-5. Undefeated in his prime. Defeated by Joe Frazier a definite great in
> 1971, at least 4 years after his recognised prime. Stopped once in the
> penultimate fight of his career, by great Larry Holmes. Three time
> heavyweight champion, defeated three recognised greats at or near their
> prime, and a list of secondary victories that would rival most other
> fighters best wins. 15 years after his debut - which is the point
Holyfield
> is at now, he defeated Joe Frazier, and was just coming off a stoppage win
> over George Foreman. A definite great. Went 22-3 in LINEAL world title
> fights. Holyfield has gone 5-2. Even his alphabet record is inferior to
> Ali's lineal record.
>
Which are all reasons that Ali is considered great/the greatest generally.
And like Ali Holyfield has victories that rival anyone elses best wins.
Like Ali Holyfield has beaten a top 10 contender a full decade after his
prime (Hasim Rahman). Holyfield remains a live threat to win the title now
in his 40's.
> Joe Louis:
>
> 68-3. Defeated by Max Schmeling early into his career. Went on to win the
> World's heavyweight title, and set a record 26 successful title fights,
> including a revenge win over Schmeling. Went 26-1 in title fights. Retired
> without losing his title. A definite great.
>
Max Schmeling blew Joe Louis straight out cold in their first fight. Max
Schmeling was not as strong a fighter as Riddick Bowe, not by a long shot.
Further it can be argued reasonably that the bulk of Joe's reign was spent
fighting opponents that do not measure up to the best of the past 10 years
in the heavyweight division. In other words he dominated during a weak era.
Sounds sacriligious but take a look at that record.
Louis had a very puffed up record. I figure the first serious title defense
against an opponent that would rank in the top 10 today was probably against
Abe Simon in 1941. This after 14 defenses (which included the blowout of
Schmeling which is one of the coolest knockouts you could ever hope to see).
The other 13 guys are not even fighters the level of the Alex Stewart types
that Loki likes to trash.
Over the next 6 years Louis fought Buddy Baer twice. He fought Billy Conn
twice. He gave Simon a rematch. His other fights were bum of the month
types.
Then in 1947 he fought Joe Walcott (who is generally listed in many top
10-15 lists and dude, if you think Evander has a shaky record take a look at
Walcott's!). Most obsververs thought Louis lost this fight. It was
possibly the most controversial decision in history but great fighters rise
to the occassion. In the rematch Louis knocked Walcott out.
Nothing that followed the Walcott fight adds to the resume of Louis.
Do I believe everything I have just stated? Not quite. I just am applying
what seems to be the same standard to Louis that you seem to apply to
Holyfield.
In his prime Louis was blown out by Schmeling. Most of his title defenses
were not serious.
You made a statement in another thread stating that Holyfield was
"stretched" by fighters known to be something like below average. Louis got
dropped by Schmeling, Braddock, and Tony Galento.
Louis and Evander had similar body types and sizes. Is Evander as great as
Louis? HELL FREAKING NO!!!! But Evander's record and abilities are
surprisingly favorable.
> Larry Holmes:
>
> 69-6. Undefeated in his prime. Even if you only begin counting his title
> reign from his defeat of Ali, he went 13-3 in title fights. His 13 wins
were
> consecutive, a record second only to the great Brown Bomber. Has a list of
> defeated opponents that rivals Ali's with the obvious omissions of Frazier
> and Foreman. A definite great.
>
Absolutely a definite great, but like Louis Holmes was the cream of the crop
during a period that didn't have as many strong heavyweights as we got to
see in the 90's.
I personally am biased in Larry's favor and think he is better then any of
the big 3 guys of the 90's. However, his record does lack any great or near
great opponents during his title reign. Not his fault, because quite
literally there weren't any. He does have some very exciting moments and
memorable fights (including one against TimWitherspoon that I felt he
actually lost). Like Lennox Lewis Holmes does not have a signature win over
a prime great heavyweight.
He is the last of the prime time television free network television
heavyweight champions. Something our kids probably will never get to see.
BTW Holmes got dropped by Reynaldo Snipes when he was absolutely in his
prime.
No question he could take a shot though because the punch that Shavers
dropped him with should have made Ernie champ, but Holmes got up. Holmes
might actually be the single best pure standup boxer in history...might.
> Now look at this:
>
> Floyd Patterson:
>
> 55-8. Went 8-4 in title fights. Had two title reigns, neither of which was
> overly impressive. Was stretched by less that great opposition on more
> occasions than a great would. Was defeated in the middle of his prime. NOT
a
> great.
>
And since no one seriously considers him a great I am not sure what the
point was of listing him. Since nothing in his record compares in any way
to what Holyfield has it is irrelevant. Since Holyfield would beat the best
of Patterson 10 times in 10 fights...mostly spectacularly I see no reason
for his mention.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
"Loki" <cubby...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4i32dvs63q7hu7ma2...@4ax.com...
Good point actually....and mostly what I keep saying. Smith fought the
fight scared like pretty much all of Tyson's early opponents did. At the
time of the fight the notion was that Smith had a big punchers chance.
Smith is one of the best single shot punchers of the 80's. Unfortunately he
did not come to win and so it goes....
It is a good win for Tyson though.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
>
> "BoxMuham" <boxm...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030525034750...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> > >From: "HIGHPOINT"
> >
> > >However, he has not only been stretched by mediocre fighters in his
> prime,
> > >he has been defeated by them.
> >
> > The defeats are the only fights that have some negative
meaning.
> If
> > you're referring again to Holyfield's knocking Bert Cooper the f*ck out,
> that's
> > hardly a criticism. "Stretched" by mediocre "fighters" in his prime.
> Which
> > mediocre fighters "stretched" Holyfield in his prime?
>
> You have me mistaken, I believe it was Loki, not me, that mentioned Bert
> Cooper.
>
> As for who I am most often refwerring to - Michael Moorer.
>
I think that when you say stretched that many of us (myself included)
assumed you meant put on the canvas or stopped. Moorer was not a mediocre
fighter unless you have a rediculously high standard. He was a world class
heavyweight contender and they fought a very close fight. Also...heart
condition...fact that you disregard. Your hangup, not mine.
> > Holyfield only lost once in his prime, to Bowe. Then avenged
> the
> > loss in his next fight. Great fight. I like the first one better.
>
> And lost again to Bowe.
>
Too bad there wasn't a fourth one....but within a year Bowe was a shadow of
his previous self, while Holyfield had a second run at the top of the sport
thrashing Tyson.
> > You may be thinking "starched by mediocre fighters in his
> prime," as
> > Lennox was, twice, via single shot KO's.
> > Lennox gets credit for coming back, no doubt. I have him
> right
> > under Holyfield on the all time list.
>
> Lewis had been in the fight game for four years when caught by McCall, and
> his major weakness was exposed. He then went six years undefeated
including
> a revenge match and taking the championship before being caught again by
> Rahman. Holyfield has never enjoyed such success even though they have
boxed
> over an equivalent time frame, with LESS fights. And those that point to
the
> Holyfield loss to Lewis as 'he was past his prime' that may be so, but for
> two fighters that have fought over the same time frame, Lewis can claim
the
> same disadvantage. He is simply better than Holyfield.
>
Lewis is better, but Lewis also fought a LESSER COMPETITION LEVEL!!!! The
point of the threads you have started. List of opponents. Had Lennox Lewis
faced Riddick Bowe in 1992-94 he would have at least one more spectacular
loss on his resume.
> Again, this goes back to people simply assuming that Holyfield was a great
> heavyweight as opposed to Cruiser when his record is nothing of the sort.
>
Since you have as yet failed to either truly define what qualifies as
greatness or list who the actual greats are or where your dividing line is
you can repeat this tripe continually. I rank Holyfield in the top 15.
That qualifes as great IMO. Is he top 10 material? Nope. Lennox might be,
my jury is still out on that. Tyson is barely top 15 and definitely not top
10 all time.
> > >He has a less than favourable record against
> > >Bowe in his prime,
> >
> > That's more of a positive thing for Bowe, than a negative for
> > Holyfield.
>
> And Bowe himself would struggle for the same recognition.
>
> > >He is limited in physical capacity
> >
> > A lot of heavyweights should be so lucky.
>
> Of course when we are comparing to the cream of the division. Holyfield
> would have starched 99.9% of heavy's whoever lived. But only the tiniest
> amount a considered here.
>
I think that at his best he would have been Hell to deal with for any
heavyweight in history. But size does count and he could have been
uncharacterisitically wacked by several fighters among the greats as well.
> > >and has one of the worst overall
> > >records of any 'great' were he to be recognised as one.
> >
> > Not all all. Through age 37, Holyfield's record is
*excellent.*
>
> I would repeat that statement. Holyfield has one of the worst overall
> records of any who would be considered by some as a great. Don't ask me
why,
> my hands are getting sore re-typing it, just look through the thread.
>
Some as great? How about this...his record compares to my top fifteen: :
Ali, Louis, Jack Johnson, Holmes, Dempsey, Marciano, Tunney, Foreman,
Frazier, Charles, Tyson, Lennox Lewis, Liston, Walcott.
Among this group they have the following wins:
Ali - 5
Louis - 2
Johnson - 0
Holmes - 1*(the Ali win)
Dempsey - 0
Marciano - 4(hard to evaluate since all 4 were against Walcott and Ezzard
Charles who were both champs well past their primes)
Tunney -2
Foreman - 2
Frazier -1
Charles -3*(hard to evaluate since the wins were against Louis and Walcott)
Tyson -1 (Holmes...I am again not sure what to think of this fight)
Lewis -2
Liston -0
Walcott -2 (dude talk about a crazy resume check out Walcott's...3 title
fight losses in a row...loses to Rex Layne and 3 months later get's a crack
at the title anyways!)
Lennox Lewis -2
Holyfield -4 (none against prime versions of any of these guys...pretty
similar to Marciano's 4 though the two wins over Tyson rate higher IMO then
the wins over Charles and Walcott, the wins over Holmes and Foreman are less
worthy, though Foreman did prove himself a great by winning the Lineal belt
later on. This sport is freaking crazy sometimes)
I do note that I did leave off some guys that might actually belong on the
top 15 including Schmeling, James Jeffries, Corbett and Fitzsimmons etc.
Their omissions do not really effect the result though. Overall clearly Ali
is King with 2 wins over Liston, 2 over Frazier and one over Foreman.
Evander definitely holds his own with this group.
As for career records Charles and Walcott definitely have ugly looking
career totals but dude....we can be serious.....anyone with that many wins
against Joey Maxim and Archie Moore is a Hall of Famer in my book. Maybe
these two are the best actual Cruiserwieghts ever.
> > >For the same reasons as stated above, I also struggle to rank Tyson,
> Dempsey
> > >and Patterson among others as greats.
> >
> > One of those things is not like the other. And he transcended
the
> > sport and became a hero to a hundred million. Years later, he ran into
> Gene
> > Tunney.
>
> That is of course, for another thread.
>
No doubt historical impact counts.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
This is a prevalent piece of fiction that pops up in this newsgroup. Lennox
Lewis was not downgraded by American bias. He was downgraded for most of
his early career because he failed to deliver the goods. He was a featured
star on HBO beginning really with his fight with Ruddock. He was
sensational and hyped. His following wins over the likes of Tucker and
Bruno did nothing to enhance his reputation while Bowe and Holyfield were
fighting their wars. His knockout defeat at the hands of unregarded Oliver
McCall ruined his reputation. A mark that has actually never left.
I have always held Lewis in much higher regard. His obvious physical gifts
cannot be ignored. But like anyone he is not perfect. There is no bias
that held him back. It was his performances and apparent tentativeness in
the ring that kept him from being the pre-eminent superstar of the 90's. He
is in my view the finest of the group though. He is the only one of the 3
that I think might be top10.
> > Surprisingly, the rematch the next year was very close, with
the
> > younger champ pulling it out down the stretch by a round.
> >
> > >I have Holyfield with the Patterson's and Norton's of heavyweight
> history,
> > >with Tyson one step above that
> >
> > Holyfield definitely ranks above Tyson, as does Lewis. All
three
> rank
> > above Patterson and Norton.
>
> I have Tyson bottom of fifteen, and Lewis hovering between 4-8. Holyfield
> would MAYBE get into 20-25. He is below Lewis and Bowe definitely in his
own
> era alone. Most greats own their era.
>
As shown above, few greats had as many other greats fighting at the same
time.
v/r Beau
Kill Kill Die Die
>>
>> Holyfield has been stopped exactly one time. By Riddick Bowe in their
>third
>> fight when it is universally accepted that he had a heart condition and
>> should not have been in the ring at all.
>
>Heart condition doesn't count for squat.<<
It was Hepititis, not a heart condition.
EH was diagnosed with a heart problem following his loss to Moorer, but it was
an incorrect diagnosis due to dehydration. He never had a "heart condition."
BoxMuham
>Evander definitely holds his own with this group.
Good way to show it.
>No doubt historical impact counts.
Which keeps Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey top 10 heavyweight
legends.
But I'll settle this once and for all. The greatest heavyweights of
all time have been,
The Greatest
The Brown Bomber
The Easton Assassin
Big George
The Brockton Blockbuster
The Manassa Mauler
Smokin’ Joe
The Galveston Giant
The Bear
The Boilermaker
The Fighting Marine
The Cincinnati Cobra
The Real Deal
The Lion
Iron Mike
BoxMuhammad
Blade Of Sorrow
>
>EH was diagnosed with a heart problem following his loss to Moorer, but it
>was
>an incorrect diagnosis due to dehydration. He never had a "heart condition."
I was wondering when someone would clear this mess up. He fought without
knowing he had it. That is why he got tired for the Bowe fight. I wonder what
the nay sayers would be saying if EH got treated for it before the Bowe fight.
That is why some people ask why he had a heart problem and then he didn't. He
never had a heart problem though the Hepititis made him weak and lose stamina.
It looks an awful lot like a heart problem, but it's not. So basically Benny
Hinn owes us an apology unless he was going to claim that he cured the
Hepititis. I want to hear from him.
Kill Kill Die Die
>
>>It was Hepititis, not a heart condition.
>>
>>EH was diagnosed with a heart problem following his loss to Moorer, but it
>>was
>>an incorrect diagnosis due to dehydration. He never had a "heart condition."
>
>I was wondering when someone would clear this mess up. He fought without
>knowing he had it. That is why he got tired for the Bowe fight. I wonder what
>the nay sayers would be saying if EH got treated for it before the Bowe
>fight.
>
>That is why some people ask why he had a heart problem and then he didn't. He
>never had a heart problem though the Hepititis made him weak and lose
>stamina.<<
He had Hep for Bowe 3. He injured one of his shoulders---I believe he tore a
rotator cuff---during the early part of Moorer 1, after which he went to the
ER, was pumped full of morphine and fluids, and was misdiagnosed with the heart
thing...FWIW, I believe he reinjured this shoulder during his fight with Byrd,
not that this probably changed the outcome of the fight.
Certainly, I think a **healthy** EH would have beaten Moorer, as well as at
least not lost to Bowe by KO (perhaps won, who knows).
Then again, I think a prime Tyson would have beaten both a prime Bowe and prime
EH, so this talk is kinda pointless...
Blade Of Sorrow
>not that this probably changed the outcome of the fight.
>
I have to suspect that the fact that they were both southpaws had something to
do with his shoulder. I don't know.
>Then again, I think a prime Tyson would have beaten both a prime Bowe and
>prime
>EH, so this talk is kinda pointless...
>
That's insane. A 30 year old Tyson could not beat a 34 year old Holyfield. What
would a 26 year old Holyfield do to ANY version of Tyson? If Tucker can go the
distance with Tyson in his prime then Holyfield beats him.
Charles Beauchamp
"Isaiah" <isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dae06db6.03052...@posting.google.com...
> "Charles Beauchamp" <cebea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<APycnQwfxt6...@comcast.com>...
> > "Isaiah" <isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:dae06db6.03052...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > > > Uh, no. Bowe/Tyson would have been a heck of a fight, with both
guys
> > > > > taking a beating. Tyson had a more proven chin, better defense, a
> > > > > large edge in speed and more power. The other guys don't even
belong
> > > > > at the table.
> > > > >
> > > > Tyson had a more proven chin? That is total nonsense.
> > >
> > >
> > > It makes perfect sense. You may disagree but it is not "nonsense."
> > >
> >
> > It is nonsense because there is nothing to support the idea. Tyson has
only
> > ever demonstrated an average chin.
>
>
> I disagree, but I'm more bothered by your imprecise use of the
> language. Does the phrase convey meaning or does it not?
>
I guess you cannot read. Tyson had an average chin. You stated that his
was more proven then Bowe's. This is false. Bowe absorbed shots from heavy
punchers and was never knocked out or stopped. Tyson was pounded out by
light hitting Douglas during his prime. He was scorched by average punching
Holyfield in 1996. Bowe was smacked for 32 rounds by Holyfield and not only
was never stopped, he won 2 of the 3 fights.
>
> > > Who did Riddick Bowe fight that could punch? Golota? He didn't look
> > > too good there. Hyde? Ditto. Bowe never faced any real punchers. Tyson
> > > did and showed an excellent chin. It takes a big leap of faith to
> > > assume that Bowe had a better chin than Tyson.
> > >
> >
> > You miss the point. Tyson got knocked out by two guys (Douglas and
> > Holyfield) that are not big league knock out punchers. BTW, Bowe had 3
> > fights with a far better version of Holyfield and um...didn't get
knocked
> > out.
>
>
> Holyfield and Douglas both doled out tremendous beatings before Tyson
> went down. Ditto for Lewis, who is a Big-League KO puncher by any
> definition.
>
Sort of trumps your entire debate point regarding chins of the two guys you
decided need comparing. One more time, in 2 fights with a past prime
Holyfield, Tyson was stopped once, and on his way to another pasting when he
turned cannibalistic. In 3 fights with Holyfield Bowe was never stopped.
>
> > Tyson never got tagged by a great puncher....he did get taken out during
his
> > prime by James Douglas. It takes no leap of faith at all to assume Bowe
had
> > a better chin. It simply takes actually watching the fights the two men
> > fought.
>
>
> Lewis, Smith and Ruddock all are or were great punchers. Bruno was a
> very good puncher.
>
Good point. First one you have actually made in this thread. In the case
of Smith though, he waited 11 rounds before he started fighting. He did tag
Tyson in round 12 but the fight was already lost at that point. As for
Ruddock, Ruddock's entire reputation was based on the amazing accomplishment
of losing just about every round in two fights but not getting starched in
the first round. He threw very few punches in either fight. He did nothing
to really win either fight. He landed a significant combination in the
first fight and was stopped shortly afterward.
Lewis demonstrates what I said. He fired punches from the opening bell and
by round two the fight was basically over as Tyson was not effective since
Lewis was clearly not intimidated.
>
> > > Tyson
> > > > has always been great against fighters who don't come to fight and
are
> > > > intimidated. Riddick Bowe never ran from anyone in the ring. Every
> > fighter
> > > > that actually fought back against Tyson knocked him out.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here we go again... Tyson as the clown in Stephen King's "It."
> > >
> >
> > Well, since his entire game was based on intimidation you can make
whatever
> > smart ass comments you want about "it" but the results remain.
>
>
> Thank you. I will. And the results do, in fact, remain. The argument
> is about the interpretation of them.
>
>
> If he is in
> > the ring with a Peter McNeeley or a Clifford Ettienne he looks like Jakc
> > Dempsey....put him in against a prepared opponent who fights back and he
is
> > 0-4 with 3 KO-by.
>
>
> Conversely, I could say "put Dempsey in the ring with a former
> flyweight or Jess Willard, neither of whom were much or any better
> than McNeely or Etienne, and he looks like Mike Tyson. Put him in with
> a guy that can box and move a bit and he's 0-4." Tyson also KOd Spinks
> and Berbick in impressive fashion. Why mention McNeely and Etienne if
> not to be deceptive?
>
Except that Spinks and Berbick showed exactly the same thing I am talking
about. They did not fight at all and were obviously just looking for a
place to land. I am not impressed by the schoolyard bully. Like I said,
Tyson was dispatched by everyone that actually fought back.
Mmm hmmm...because Lord knows no one else could ever hope to score
consistently with left jabs and overhand rights to the unprotected left side
of Tyson's head. Never could happen except on a bad night...except that it
was clearly a recipe that was always there. No one else ever exploited it
before....but Holyfield sure did twice...not sure the Lennox fight really
proved anything to real serious fight fans. Tysonistas did try to make
outrageous claims following that fight, but they are mostly delusional.
>
> Apparently you have an imagination that has results
> > and fights that never actually took place because the fights that
happened
> > in the ring do not show what you are saying.
>
>
> What do you think I'm saying? What I am saying is that Bowe's defense
> is inferior to Tyson's. Check the punch stats if you can't see for
> yourself. They should be available somewhere. I'm also saying that
> Tyson's chin is more proven. Am I overlooking a puncher on Bowe's
> record? I only see Golota and Hide, and his chin did not look good
> against either of them. I assume you don't disagree that Tyson was a
> better puncher than Bowe.
>
I got what you were saying the first time. I am telling you that you are
wrong. And it is obvious that you are wrong based on the simple proof of
their main common opponent. Holyfield. Prime Holyfield could not dispatch
Bowe. Past prime Holyfield blew Tyson away twice. Douglas knocked Tyson out
jolting him repeatedly throughout their fight. Douglas was no big puncher.
And yes, Bowe did get it on past his prime with Golota and Hide...he also
did not get knocked out. He looked awful against Golota, but people ignore
that while he was getting pounded, he was also pounding Golota.
Bowe was the opposite of Tyson. He definitely came to fight and fight back
when pushed. Tyson in his entire career has been all or nothing. In every
fight faced by an opponent that was not intimidated and punched back, Tyson
wilted and was stopped. That is a fact. The stats and results back this
up. Nothing that you have said can be shown by any of his fights. Nothing.
Even the fights that you mention (Berbick, Lewis, Spinks, Golota, Hide)
prove my points.
Bowe did take shots and punched back. When Tyson takes shots, he loses.
>
> > One more time....James Douglas...not a big puncher...knocked out prime
> > Tyson.
>
>
> After Tyson took dozens of clean powershots from him.
>
And wilted against a prepared opponent who was not intimidated...and got
knocked out. My point exactly.
Bowe was never knocked out.
You said Tyson's chin is more proven. In fact the opposite is true.
Tyson's chin was dented. Bowe's was never dented.
And he threw very few punches in the entire fight losing badly....one more
time....an opponent who fights back wins. Tucker did nothing to stop Tyson
so Tucker lost.
>
> > Pinklon Thomas himself said after his fight with Tyson that Mike has the
> > fight half won before the opening bell because everyone is scared of
him.
> > It matters.
>
>
> Well, again Thomas seemed to get over it after the first round. He
> still lost bad.
>
Thomas who was already a burned out coke head? Don't pin Tyson's flag to
Conastota on that performance.
>
> > > > In short there was nothing particularly remarkable about a young
> > heavyweight
> > > > running up a string of knockouts and then getting smoked by his
first
> > > > serious opponent. Tyson is 0-4 in the 4 fights that really mattered
in
> > his
> > > > career.
> > >
> > >
> > > So am I to understand that you rank Tyson with guys like Michael Grant
> > > and Doin' Damage?
> > >
> >
> > If you gather that from what I have said then you can't read since no
such
> > comment was made.
>
>
> Not directly. If you meant something else by "In short there was
> nothing particularly remarkable about a young heavyweight running up a
> string of knockouts and then getting smoked by his first serious
> opponent," you should have been more clear.
>
It was clear. You deciding to take it to an area of comparison that was not
implied though says more about you. I do quite well making my own comments
and points. I don't intend to defend points that I have not made.
Afterall, you are the one comparing Jess Willard to Clifford Etienne. Ever
seen a fight Isaiah?
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
"Kill Kill Die Die" <with...@aol.comehither> wrote in message
news:20030526020923...@mb-m03.aol.com...
There are different schools of thought on this...but the fact remains he had
a physical condition that tapped his energy and still was close to beating
Moorer and nearly beat Bowe in their 3rd fight before crashing. It answers
the "how the Hell could he lost to such a pile of crap like Moorer" argument
that his detractors bring up.
v/r Beau
fitzgerald georges
prime EH, so this talk is kinda pointless..."
This statement is not only insane it is asinine.....A prime Tyson never beat
anybody worth a damn. He would have been trashed by both of them. If
Tyson's opponents don't fight scared.... Tyson gets scared! Consequently he
gets knocked the f--k out.
The third Bowe-EH fight. Holyfield dropped Bowe, hepatitis and all. A
healthy Holyfield would have finished him. His low energy level and output
due to the disease is what caused his demise.
--
Fitzgerald Georges
fgeo...@fgeorges.com
http://www.fgeorges.com
(413) 235-3905 Fax
"Blade Of Sorrow" <bladeo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030526073034...@mb-m15.aol.com...
KuramaYou
Tim Witherspoon or Gerry Cooney or any other guys who were considered "big"
punchers. He is not Foreman or Shavers. If he had Foreman's punching power
AND hit as fast as he did, he would have killed so many men that he would never
find any opponents.
SuperCalo
buster douglas also had a physical condition that tapped his energy in his
fight agaisnt Holyfield
his physical condition was that he was fat
> v/r Beau
>
>
speedy
"SuperCalo" <ca...@supercalo.com> wrote in message
news:batrgq$d6g$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> buster douglas also had a physical condition that tapped his energy in his
> fight agaisnt Holyfield
> his physical condition was that he was fat
Now that is funny Calo.
There is also an underlying truth. This fight was a walkover for Holyfield.
All he had to do was show up.
It is *certainly* not Evanders fault that Buster trained on ice-cream for
this fight but it does have to be taken into *some* consideration when
proclaiming this fight as a great victory for the Real Deal.
Man, I woulda loved to see a prime Holy challenging a Douglas who was in the
same shape he was for his previous fight. Might well have been the same
outcome but I think Buster had a good chance in this one.
Speedy.
speedy
"KuramaYou" <kura...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030526131252...@mb-m01.aol.com...
I agree with this. It seems to me that a great deal of Tyson's impressive
punching power came from his speed and technique.
Foreman just seemed to have a different kind of power, like being hit in the
face, slowly, with a telegraph pole.
What I liked about Tyson was the way he could deliver knockout blows with
either hand. The speed and power of his combination punching was a joy to
behold. Shame he went off the rails, the thought of Tyson-Bowe still gets me
salivating.
speedy.
Charles Beauchamp
Yep. He Krispy Kremed his way out of the belt. Disgraceful.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
"speedy" <rich.nix@no spamntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:F1xAa.13240$sJ4....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
I thought Douglas was going to win that fight. His performance against
Tyson while unexpected, was really the only time in his career in which all
of his skills were evident for one perfect fight (and he still managed to
get dropped once). The Douglas that fought Tyson in Tokyo for one afternoon
was still about as tough an opponent that night as any champion ever faced.
A perfect motivated in shape prepared Douglas would have made for one heck
of a fight against Holyfield at that time.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
I am not sure how we could ever hope to prove such a thing. My perception
of Tyson is that he does have two of the fastest fists in HW history. And
he has always been a hard working volume puncher which is usually my
favorite kind of fighter to watch anyways. Having never actually been hit
by anyone above 185lbs myself I am not sure personally what that would feel
like. Cooney was a single shot puncher with one really good fist.
Witherspoon when motivated was a really strong puncher who scored a few big
shots in his career. Shavers and Foreman scared the fire out of me when
they got rolling.
v/r Beau
Isaiah
> > > > It makes perfect sense. You may disagree but it is not "nonsense."
> > > >
> > >
> > > It is nonsense because there is nothing to support the idea. Tyson has
> only
> > > ever demonstrated an average chin.
> >
> >
> > I disagree, but I'm more bothered by your imprecise use of the
> > language. Does the phrase convey meaning or does it not?
> >
>
> I guess you cannot read.
I guess you're just imagining this conversation.
Tyson had an average chin. You stated that his
> was more proven then Bowe's. This is false. Bowe absorbed shots from heavy
> punchers and was never knocked out or stopped.
To which "heavy punchers" are you referring? Other than the two I
mentioned previously, none of his televised fights were against
punchers.
> > Holyfield and Douglas both doled out tremendous beatings before Tyson
> > went down. Ditto for Lewis, who is a Big-League KO puncher by any
> > definition.
> >
>
> Sort of trumps your entire debate point regarding chins of the two guys you
> decided need comparing.
Nope. After Tyson's skills faded, he showed he could take a serious
beating before going down.
One more time, in 2 fights with a past prime
> Holyfield, Tyson was stopped once, and on his way to another pasting when he
> turned cannibalistic. In 3 fights with Holyfield Bowe was never stopped.
Bowe did not take as much punishment as Tyson did.
> > Lewis, Smith and Ruddock all are or were great punchers. Bruno was a
> > very good puncher.
> >
>
> Good point. First one you have actually made in this thread.
It's getting increasingly difficult to stay civil in light of your
continuous childish attacks.
In the case
> of Smith though, he waited 11 rounds before he started fighting. He did tag
> Tyson in round 12 but the fight was already lost at that point.
Irrelevant. A great puncher landed his best shot on Tyson without much
effect. That's more of a test than Bowe's chin ever faced.
As for
> Ruddock, Ruddock's entire reputation was based on the amazing accomplishment
> of losing just about every round in two fights but not getting starched in
> the first round. He threw very few punches in either fight. He did nothing
> to really win either fight. He landed a significant combination in the
> first fight and was stopped shortly afterward.
I suspect you were not following boxing at the time. At any rate,
Ruddock was a great puncher and did land cleanly on Tyson without
effect.
> Lewis demonstrates what I said. He fired punches from the opening bell and
> by round two the fight was basically over as Tyson was not effective since
> Lewis was clearly not intimidated.
You're jumping all over the place. Right now, we're discussing Tyson's
chin. Tyson's fight with Lewis should have no impact on an evaluation
of his skills while he was in his prime.
> > If he is in
> > > the ring with a Peter McNeeley or a Clifford Ettienne he looks like Jakc
> > > Dempsey....put him in against a prepared opponent who fights back and he
> is
> > > 0-4 with 3 KO-by.
> >
> >
> > Conversely, I could say "put Dempsey in the ring with a former
> > flyweight or Jess Willard, neither of whom were much or any better
> > than McNeely or Etienne, and he looks like Mike Tyson. Put him in with
> > a guy that can box and move a bit and he's 0-4." Tyson also KOd Spinks
> > and Berbick in impressive fashion. Why mention McNeely and Etienne if
> > not to be deceptive?
> >
>
> Except that Spinks and Berbick showed exactly the same thing I am talking
> about.
I disagree about Berbick. He gave it his best shot and he got blown
out.
They did not fight at all and were obviously just looking for a
> place to land. I am not impressed by the schoolyard bully. Like I said,
> Tyson was dispatched by everyone that actually fought back.
You said it but did not demonstrate it. This whole line is just wrong
and suggests that you have never been in a gym, much less the ring.
Let me clue you in on something, it's not as easy to "throw more
punches" as ignorant fans and commentators think and it's silly to
think that world-class fighters were so terrified by Tyson that they
didn't fight back.
> > Not proof. Douglas was successful not because he alone among
> > heavyweights in the 1980s realized that you needed to throw punches to
> > beat Tyson but because he caught Tyson on a bad night and he fought a
> > great fight, taking advantage of his advantages to reverse Humbert
> > Humbert's line.
> >
>
> Mmm hmmm...because Lord knows no one else could ever hope to score
> consistently with left jabs and overhand rights to the unprotected left side
> of Tyson's head. Never could happen except on a bad night...except that it
> was clearly a recipe that was always there.
I guess someone just needed you to be in their corner. Either that or
it's not as easy to pull off in the ring as it looks from your living
room.
No one else ever exploited it
> before....but Holyfield sure did twice...
What? Holyfield took an entirely different approach than Douglas.
Tyson was well past his prime at the time of that fight anyway.
> > Apparently you have an imagination that has results
> > > and fights that never actually took place because the fights that
> happened
> > > in the ring do not show what you are saying.
> >
> >
> > What do you think I'm saying? What I am saying is that Bowe's defense
> > is inferior to Tyson's. Check the punch stats if you can't see for
> > yourself. They should be available somewhere. I'm also saying that
> > Tyson's chin is more proven. Am I overlooking a puncher on Bowe's
> > record? I only see Golota and Hide, and his chin did not look good
> > against either of them. I assume you don't disagree that Tyson was a
> > better puncher than Bowe.
> >
>
> I got what you were saying the first time. I am telling you that you are
> wrong. And it is obvious that you are wrong based on the simple proof of
> their main common opponent. Holyfield. Prime Holyfield could not dispatch
> Bowe. Past prime Holyfield blew Tyson away twice. Douglas knocked Tyson out
> jolting him repeatedly throughout their fight. Douglas was no big puncher.
> And yes, Bowe did get it on past his prime with Golota and Hide...he also
> did not get knocked out. He looked awful against Golota, but people ignore
> that while he was getting pounded, he was also pounding Golota.
What does that have to do with his chin?
> Bowe was the opposite of Tyson. He definitely came to fight and fight back
> when pushed. Tyson in his entire career has been all or nothing. In every
> fight faced by an opponent that was not intimidated and punched back, Tyson
> wilted and was stopped. That is a fact. The stats and results back this
> up. Nothing that you have said can be shown by any of his fights. Nothing.
> Even the fights that you mention (Berbick, Lewis, Spinks, Golota, Hide)
> prove my points.
Berbick did fight back. I brought up Lewis to show how good Tyson's
chin was. No one else has taken so many shots from Lennox without
going down. Golota and Hide were brought up because they're the *only*
decent punchers that Bowe ever fought and his chin did *not* look good
in either of those fights.
> > > One more time....James Douglas...not a big puncher...knocked out prime
> > > Tyson.
> >
> >
> > After Tyson took dozens of clean powershots from him.
> >
>
> And wilted against a prepared opponent who was not intimidated...and got
> knocked out. My point exactly.
Once again, you're confusing two seperate branches of the discussion.
> Bowe was never knocked out.
>
> You said Tyson's chin is more proven. In fact the opposite is true.
> Tyson's chin was dented. Bowe's was never dented.
Part of the problem may be that you don't know what "proven" means.
> > Sure he got scared. After Tyson slipped his punches and pounded him
> > with quick, devastating hooks. He didn't come in scared and he wasn't
> > scared by the staredown.
> >
>
> And he threw very few punches in the entire fight losing badly....one more
> time....an opponent who fights back wins. Tucker did nothing to stop Tyson
> so Tucker lost.
Right, if Tucker had been able to stop Tyson he would have won. I
agree. Likewise, if Quarry had been able to "fight back" against Ali,
he would have won. If Pernel Whitaker had been able to punch like
Julian Jackson, he would have been the greatest fighter that ever
lived.
> > Well, again Thomas seemed to get over it after the first round. He
> > still lost bad.
> >
>
> Thomas who was already a burned out coke head? Don't pin Tyson's flag to
> Conastota on that performance.
Again, you're confused. Did Thomas fight back or did he not? You
obviously have a grudge against Tyson that colors your perception of
him as a fighter. You're almost as bad as Nick D when he's writing
about Lewis.
> > > > > In short there was nothing particularly remarkable about a young
> heavyweight
> > > > > running up a string of knockouts and then getting smoked by his
> first
> > > > > serious opponent. Tyson is 0-4 in the 4 fights that really mattered
> in
> his
> > > > > career.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So am I to understand that you rank Tyson with guys like Michael Grant
> > > > and Doin' Damage?
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you gather that from what I have said then you can't read since no
> such
> > > comment was made.
> >
> >
> > Not directly. If you meant something else by "In short there was
> > nothing particularly remarkable about a young heavyweight running up a
> > string of knockouts and then getting smoked by his first serious
> > opponent," you should have been more clear.
> >
>
> It was clear. You deciding to take it to an area of comparison that was not
> implied though says more about you.
You implied that Tyson was a typical prospect who failed his big
tests. I asked if you meant that Tyson was only at the level of two
specific typical prospects who failed tests.
I do quite well making my own comments
> and points. I don't intend to defend points that I have not made.
> Afterall, you are the one comparing Jess Willard to Clifford Etienne. Ever
> seen a fight Isaiah?
Damn, Beau! You sound like a graduate of the BoxM school of
argumentation. If you have a point to make, please do. For example:
I've written my reasons for my low regard of Willard many times. If
you think I've made a mistake, what is it? What did Willard do that
impressed you? If you've even seen him fight, which I kind of doubt.
-Isaiah
Charles Beauchamp
"Isaiah" <isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dae06db6.03052...@posting.google.com...
> "Charles Beauchamp" <cebea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<MoadnRCEIps...@comcast.com>...
> > "Isaiah" <isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:dae06db6.03052...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > > > It makes perfect sense. You may disagree but it is not "nonsense."
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It is nonsense because there is nothing to support the idea. Tyson
has
> > only
> > > > ever demonstrated an average chin.
> > >
> > >
> > > I disagree, but I'm more bothered by your imprecise use of the
> > > language. Does the phrase convey meaning or does it not?
> > >
> >
> > I guess you cannot read.
>
>
> I guess you're just imagining this conversation.
>
I am apparenlty responding to imaginary points that you are trying to make.
>
> Tyson had an average chin. You stated that his
> > was more proven then Bowe's. This is false. Bowe absorbed shots from
heavy
> > punchers and was never knocked out or stopped.
>
>
> To which "heavy punchers" are you referring? Other than the two I
> mentioned previously, none of his televised fights were against
> punchers.
>
Was Bowe knocked out or stopped by the two that you mentioned?
>
> > > Holyfield and Douglas both doled out tremendous beatings before Tyson
> > > went down. Ditto for Lewis, who is a Big-League KO puncher by any
> > > definition.
> > >
> >
> > Sort of trumps your entire debate point regarding chins of the two guys
you
> > decided need comparing.
>
>
> Nope. After Tyson's skills faded, he showed he could take a serious
> beating before going down.
>
I guess that is how a Tyson apologist would have to look at it.
>
> One more time, in 2 fights with a past prime
> > Holyfield, Tyson was stopped once, and on his way to another pasting
when he
> > turned cannibalistic. In 3 fights with Holyfield Bowe was never
stopped.
>
>
> Bowe did not take as much punishment as Tyson did.
>
Really? How do you figure that? I saw three fights where Holyfield landed a
very high volume of punches.
>
> > > Lewis, Smith and Ruddock all are or were great punchers. Bruno was a
> > > very good puncher.
> > >
> >
> > Good point. First one you have actually made in this thread.
>
>
> It's getting increasingly difficult to stay civil in light of your
> continuous childish attacks.
>
Just telling it like I see it. You made the first point that was on the
money. In fact an excellent point IMO.
>
> In the case
> > of Smith though, he waited 11 rounds before he started fighting. He did
tag
> > Tyson in round 12 but the fight was already lost at that point.
>
>
> Irrelevant. A great puncher landed his best shot on Tyson without much
> effect. That's more of a test than Bowe's chin ever faced.
>
It is relevant. There is a great deal of difference between a puncher
landing a shot in the first round and the same fighter finally opening up in
the 12th and final round after getting pounded on for the 11 previous
rounds. You don't think that Smith's punches were significantly lighter
after taking several hundred shots from Tyson? That kind of defies every
boxing match that has ever taken place.
>
> As for
> > Ruddock, Ruddock's entire reputation was based on the amazing
accomplishment
> > of losing just about every round in two fights but not getting starched
in
> > the first round. He threw very few punches in either fight. He did
nothing
> > to really win either fight. He landed a significant combination in the
> > first fight and was stopped shortly afterward.
>
>
> I suspect you were not following boxing at the time. At any rate,
> Ruddock was a great puncher and did land cleanly on Tyson without
> effect.
>
I suspect that you didn't see the fights. I gave an accurate description.
Ruddock lost virtually every round in the two fights. He had one flurry in
the first fight that jolted Tyson and that was his famous moment. A few
minutes later he was stopped...sort of controversially. Ruddock's rep as a
huge hitter came from a single fight against Michael Dokes. He was not a
"great" puncher in the Shavers/Foreman/Lyle sense. He was a big man with a
heavy punch but not top tier power or top tier knockout results. You do
have a point though. Ruddock did tag Tyson in the first fight.
>
> > Lewis demonstrates what I said. He fired punches from the opening bell
and
> > by round two the fight was basically over as Tyson was not effective
since
> > Lewis was clearly not intimidated.
>
>
> You're jumping all over the place. Right now, we're discussing Tyson's
> chin. Tyson's fight with Lewis should have no impact on an evaluation
> of his skills while he was in his prime.
>
Since my point is that Tyson was all or nothing and was halted by fighters
that fought back from beginning (Douglas) to end (Lennox) it is on point.
You are the one that has made the comparitive that Tyson's chin was tested
and more proven then Bowes. I maintain that this is not true.
>
> > > If he is in
> > > > the ring with a Peter McNeeley or a Clifford Ettienne he looks like
Jakc
> > > > Dempsey....put him in against a prepared opponent who fights back
and he
> > is
> > > > 0-4 with 3 KO-by.
> > >
> > >
> > > Conversely, I could say "put Dempsey in the ring with a former
> > > flyweight or Jess Willard, neither of whom were much or any better
> > > than McNeely or Etienne, and he looks like Mike Tyson. Put him in with
> > > a guy that can box and move a bit and he's 0-4." Tyson also KOd Spinks
> > > and Berbick in impressive fashion. Why mention McNeely and Etienne if
> > > not to be deceptive?
> > >
> >
> > Except that Spinks and Berbick showed exactly the same thing I am
talking
> > about.
>
>
> I disagree about Berbick. He gave it his best shot and he got blown
> out.
>
Berbick fought like most of Tyson's early opponents. He got hit and then
looked for a place to land. And particularly in his case...he couldn't even
get the landing part right and had to land 3 times!
>
> They did not fight at all and were obviously just looking for a
> > place to land. I am not impressed by the schoolyard bully. Like I
said,
> > Tyson was dispatched by everyone that actually fought back.
>
>
> You said it but did not demonstrate it. This whole line is just wrong
> and suggests that you have never been in a gym, much less the ring.
> Let me clue you in on something, it's not as easy to "throw more
> punches" as ignorant fans and commentators think and it's silly to
> think that world-class fighters were so terrified by Tyson that they
> didn't fight back.
>
Mmm hmmm...I guess I just didn't see Michael Spinks scared to death and
getting blown away in 93 seconds. I mean, you went into a gym so you saw
punches that were not thrown. Carl Williams actually apparently gave a Jack
Johnson immitation when Tyson mowed him down like a deer gettin hit by a
truck. But you say it was different from what the world actually saw so
that must be enough!
>
> > > Not proof. Douglas was successful not because he alone among
> > > heavyweights in the 1980s realized that you needed to throw punches to
> > > beat Tyson but because he caught Tyson on a bad night and he fought a
> > > great fight, taking advantage of his advantages to reverse Humbert
> > > Humbert's line.
> > >
> >
> > Mmm hmmm...because Lord knows no one else could ever hope to score
> > consistently with left jabs and overhand rights to the unprotected left
side
> > of Tyson's head. Never could happen except on a bad night...except that
it
> > was clearly a recipe that was always there.
>
>
> I guess someone just needed you to be in their corner. Either that or
> it's not as easy to pull off in the ring as it looks from your living
> room.
>
Never said it was. Just pointing out the obvious. And Douglas pulled it
off...as did Evander Holyfield against overwhelmingly favored
Tyson...twice....
>
> No one else ever exploited it
> > before....but Holyfield sure did twice...
>
>
> What? Holyfield took an entirely different approach than Douglas.
> Tyson was well past his prime at the time of that fight anyway.
>
Which is total nonsense since Tyson is younger then Holyfield who had
already had his "heart" condition and who had definitely taken more in ring
damage then Tyson. It is always a curious thing to me that Tyson's fans
make this past prime claim for him..ignoring that it defies physical
reality, athletic age and the fact that Holyfield had been in several in
ring wars and still was too much for Tyson.
One more time, Holyfield throws combinations. Makes Tyson backup and takes
him out.
You made the comparitive and stated that Tyson's chin was better then Bowes
and that it was proven. Your claim is incorrect and testable. Prime
Holyfield could not stop Bowe. Diminishing Holyfield crushed Tyson.
Knocked him right upside the head dozens of times and stopped him.
>
> > Bowe was the opposite of Tyson. He definitely came to fight and fight
back
> > when pushed. Tyson in his entire career has been all or nothing. In
every
> > fight faced by an opponent that was not intimidated and punched back,
Tyson
> > wilted and was stopped. That is a fact. The stats and results back
this
> > up. Nothing that you have said can be shown by any of his fights.
Nothing.
> > Even the fights that you mention (Berbick, Lewis, Spinks, Golota, Hide)
> > prove my points.
>
>
> Berbick did fight back. I brought up Lewis to show how good Tyson's
> chin was. No one else has taken so many shots from Lennox without
> going down. Golota and Hide were brought up because they're the *only*
> decent punchers that Bowe ever fought and his chin did *not* look good
> in either of those fights.
>
Berbick was starched and quickly by Tyson. He looked scared. He fought
like he was scared. He got mowed down in the 2nd round. Golota and Hide
tagged Bowe and did not knock him out....and he was absolutely diminished in
those fights....btw....he won all 3 of them for the record. Tyson vs.
Douglas....knocked out for a ten count. So...past prime Bowe on his worst
nights was not knocked out. Tyson in his prime was flattened by Douglas.
As for the Lewis fight last year I don't think it is a knock on Tyson that
he was so badly pounded. At this point Tyson is a mere shadow of who he
once was.
>
> > > > One more time....James Douglas...not a big puncher...knocked out
prime
> > > > Tyson.
> > >
> > >
> > > After Tyson took dozens of clean powershots from him.
> > >
> >
> > And wilted against a prepared opponent who was not intimidated...and got
> > knocked out. My point exactly.
>
>
> Once again, you're confusing two seperate branches of the discussion.
>
No I am not. It is one single concept. Hit Tyson back and he cannot handle
it. He never has. Your statements regarding his chin are trumped by the
fact that light hitting Buster Douglas knocked him out in his prime. And if
Douglas could do it then Bowe would have killed him.
>
> > Bowe was never knocked out.
> >
> > You said Tyson's chin is more proven. In fact the opposite is true.
> > Tyson's chin was dented. Bowe's was never dented.
>
>
> Part of the problem may be that you don't know what "proven" means.
>
Yes I do know. A proponderance of indisupuatble evidence. You have
provided nothing that actually relates to what you claimed as proven. Both
fighters were tested in their primes by big shots. One of them got knocked
out. They had a common opponent. One got tagged in his prime and did not
get knocked out. The other got hit by the same fighter past prime and was
stopped. He could not take the pressure in the rematch and resorted to
cannibalism.
>
> > > Sure he got scared. After Tyson slipped his punches and pounded him
> > > with quick, devastating hooks. He didn't come in scared and he wasn't
> > > scared by the staredown.
> > >
> >
> > And he threw very few punches in the entire fight losing badly....one
more
> > time....an opponent who fights back wins. Tucker did nothing to stop
Tyson
> > so Tucker lost.
>
>
> Right, if Tucker had been able to stop Tyson he would have won. I
> agree. Likewise, if Quarry had been able to "fight back" against Ali,
> he would have won. If Pernel Whitaker had been able to punch like
> Julian Jackson, he would have been the greatest fighter that ever
> lived.
>
Now you are being silly. I guess you don't know much about that sport we
are talking about. Tucker did nothing to deter Tyson (he threw very few
punches). He basically gave away round after round losing just about all 12
of them. Tucker himself was upset about this after the fight. It is too
bad. Tucker had a lot of talent and if he had put on the heat even to the
level that he tried against Lennox Lewis later perhaps he would have given
Tyson a competitive fight.
>
> > > Well, again Thomas seemed to get over it after the first round. He
> > > still lost bad.
> > >
> >
> > Thomas who was already a burned out coke head? Don't pin Tyson's flag
to
> > Conastota on that performance.
>
>
> Again, you're confused. Did Thomas fight back or did he not? You
> obviously have a grudge against Tyson that colors your perception of
> him as a fighter. You're almost as bad as Nick D when he's writing
> about Lewis.
>
I have no grudge against anyone. I am just not delusional like you Tyson
fanatics. You are the one that made the point that Tyson had a better chin
then Bowe. I am giving my perception that this is simply not true. You
have not really provided a convincing argument to refute this at all.
I am also not confused. You brought Thomas up as a serious opponent. I
made the simple point that Pinklon Thomas was a very shot fighter and was
mostly harmless. Did he fight back? Hardly at all. In fact Thomas is the
one that said that Tyson has his fights half one before the opening bell.
I always find it curious in USENET when people make a statement about
specific words and then try to argue against what they decide was meant. I
said only what I said. The fact is there really isn't anything particularly
remarkable about a young fighter running up a string and then getting
starched by the first serious opponent. Michael Grant failed sorta against
Golota and then badly against Lennox Lewis. Heck it happens often enough in
boxing.
>
> I do quite well making my own comments
> > and points. I don't intend to defend points that I have not made.
> > Afterall, you are the one comparing Jess Willard to Clifford Etienne.
Ever
> > seen a fight Isaiah?
>
>
> Damn, Beau! You sound like a graduate of the BoxM school of
> argumentation. If you have a point to make, please do. For example:
> I've written my reasons for my low regard of Willard many times. If
> you think I've made a mistake, what is it? What did Willard do that
> impressed you? If you've even seen him fight, which I kind of doubt.
>
Non sequitor. You made the comment, not me. I do not intend to have a
sidebar regarding Willard vs. Etienne. It was your comment so argue your
own point. It is bad enough that you try to argue points that I have NOT
made. You have low regard for Willard. Good for you. Check his record.
Study film. Find out about his opponents. Base your regard on it. It has
nothing to do with my view of Tyson. Tyson was a typical schoolyard bully.
In the first hot moment of his career he failed. In the next tough fight of
his career...he got stopped. Third time out....ear biting. Yes it is that
simple. I stated that case in this very subject previously. You chimed in
with the notion of comparing Bowe and Tyson's chins....clearly the evidence
is that Bowe had the better chin (never knocked out though he did get
visibly tagged by big punchers...Tyson was knocked flat out by Buster
Douglas....an average puncher on his best day).
v/r Beau
Funky Cold Medina
>
>In the case
>> of Smith though, he waited 11 rounds before he started fighting. He did
>tag
>> Tyson in round 12 but the fight was already lost at that point.
>
>
>Irrelevant. A great puncher landed his best shot on Tyson without much
>effect. That's more of a test than Bowe's chin ever faced.
>
Bruno and Ruddock both hit Tyson with HUGE, flush, power punches and Tyson
barely flinched. The Bruno punch, in particular, was incredible.
Charles Beauchamp
"Funky Cold Medina" <with...@aol.comeondude> wrote in message
news:20030528014431...@mb-m02.aol.com...
Good point and true. I do recall Tyson actually buckling briefly when Frank
tagged him in their first fight. A few weeks later I was in Hong Kong. I
was with a few guys from my ship. We got talking with a Royal Marine guy.
He got going about that fight and the way he described it you would think
Bruno had actually won the fight. Forget that Tyson won the fight one
sidedly. The single punch was all he talked about. Fans. Sheesh.
v/r Beau
Blade Of Sorrow
>Bruno and Ruddock both hit Tyson with HUGE, flush, power punches and Tyson
>barely flinched. The Bruno punch, in particular, was incredible.
I agree. As to the person that claimed that Tyson didn't have a good chin at
all, they need to learn a few things about boxing.
First of all, the fact that Holyfield, not a great puncher, was able to knock
out Tyson was the same reason that he is the only man to knockdown Mercer, the
first and only one of two to knock down Bowe, and stopped everyone at
heavyweight for five years until facing Foreman.
He hits with consistent power and hits on the button. As for Douglas, someone
said he is light hitting. I don't know about you, but a 240 lbs man at 6'4"
cannot be light hitting no matter how we stretch the imagination. They both hit
him over 10 rounds on the chin.
Do not let the fact that Tyson is not the greatest fighter in the world make
you think he has no chin. Most good fighters simply don't get tagged. Once
Tyson is losing, he just gets hit over and over again. He cannot adapt to a new
style nor can he adapt when he is losing. That is the only reason he has been
KOed.
If he does not get so docile when he is losing then fighters would not go after
him, but he is stationary and does not know what to do. That is when Douglas,
Holyfield and Lewis have teed off on his head at will. Very few fighters can
sustain that level of punishment, Holyfield included.
Holyfield, despite his already great chin, rolls with punches better than alot
of fighters I have seen who are not defensive whizzes. Also, he fights back,
making the other fighter stop hitting him. If he remained stationary like Tyson
then he probably gets knocked out too.
In closing, this notion that Tyson has a crappy chin is ridiculous. It is his
inability to adapt that makes his chances of being KOed greater than others
with similar chins. I hope I have made myself clear on this.
StockyBrawler
to ANYONE, but I don't think Bowe's chin was bad either.
Charles Beauchamp
YOUR ENTIRE POST SUCKS AND IS A LOAD OF CRAP!
Kidding. Actually you made perfect sense and I have definitely reconsidered
my assertion regarding his chin.
v/r Beau
Blade Of Sorrow
>YOUR ENTIRE POST SUCKS AND IS A LOAD OF CRAP!
>
>Kidding. Actually you made perfect sense and I have definitely reconsidered
>my assertion regarding his chin.
>
>v/r Beau
>
Thank you. I don't think that highly of Tyson, but speed, chin and power are
things he did have and there is too much Tyson bashing around here. It gets
old.
Isaiah
> > Tyson had an average chin. You stated that his
> > > was more proven then Bowe's. This is false. Bowe absorbed shots from
> heavy
> > > punchers and was never knocked out or stopped.
> >
> >
> > To which "heavy punchers" are you referring? Other than the two I
> > mentioned previously, none of his televised fights were against
> > punchers.
> >
>
> Was Bowe knocked out or stopped by the two that you mentioned?
I gather from your unresponsive response that you agree that you were
being deceptive with your previous comments. Golota and Hide can hit,
but neither of them are anything special in that regard. Certainly not
at the level of Lewis, Ruddock or Smith.
> > Nope. After Tyson's skills faded, he showed he could take a serious
> > beating before going down.
> >
>
> I guess that is how a Tyson apologist would have to look at it.
A Tyson apologist? Where you get that? I am certainly no fan or
"apologist" for Tyson. I just disagree with you a little on his
historical ranking.
> > As for
> > > Ruddock, Ruddock's entire reputation was based on the amazing
> accomplishment
> > > of losing just about every round in two fights but not getting starched
> in
> > > the first round. He threw very few punches in either fight. He did
> nothing
> > > to really win either fight. He landed a significant combination in the
> > > first fight and was stopped shortly afterward.
> >
> >
> > I suspect you were not following boxing at the time. At any rate,
> > Ruddock was a great puncher and did land cleanly on Tyson without
> > effect.
> >
>
> I suspect that you didn't see the fights. I gave an accurate description.
> Ruddock lost virtually every round in the two fights. He had one flurry in
> the first fight that jolted Tyson and that was his famous moment. A few
> minutes later he was stopped...sort of controversially. Ruddock's rep as a
> huge hitter came from a single fight against Michael Dokes. He was not a
> "great" puncher in the Shavers/Foreman/Lyle sense.
I disagree. Also, I wouldn't put Lyle up there with Shaver, Foreman or
Ruddock.
He was a big man with a
> heavy punch but not top tier power or top tier knockout results. You do
> have a point though. Ruddock did tag Tyson in the first fight.
Thank you.
> > > Lewis demonstrates what I said. He fired punches from the opening bell
> and
> > > by round two the fight was basically over as Tyson was not effective
> since
> > > Lewis was clearly not intimidated.
> >
> >
> > You're jumping all over the place. Right now, we're discussing Tyson's
> > chin. Tyson's fight with Lewis should have no impact on an evaluation
> > of his skills while he was in his prime.
> >
>
> Since my point is that Tyson was all or nothing and was halted by fighters
> that fought back from beginning (Douglas) to end (Lennox) it is on point.
> You are the one that has made the comparitive that Tyson's chin was tested
> and more proven then Bowes. I maintain that this is not true.
And that is why I brought up Lewis as Tyson took some serious punches
--- punches much harder than anything Bowe ever took --- before going
down in that fight. Your other point is on hold as I defend my
assertion.
> > > Except that Spinks and Berbick showed exactly the same thing I am
> talking
> > > about.
> >
> >
> > I disagree about Berbick. He gave it his best shot and he got blown
> > out.
> >
>
> Berbick fought like most of Tyson's early opponents. He got hit and then
> looked for a place to land. And particularly in his case...he couldn't even
> get the landing part right and had to land 3 times!
I'm going to tell you a little secret: When you get hit really, really
hard sometimes you lose the physical ability to stand up. When that
happens in boxing, that's usually seen as a positive indicator for the
guy that did the hitting.
> > > Mmm hmmm...because Lord knows no one else could ever hope to score
> > > consistently with left jabs and overhand rights to the unprotected left
> side
> > > of Tyson's head. Never could happen except on a bad night...except that
> it
> > > was clearly a recipe that was always there.
> >
> >
> > I guess someone just needed you to be in their corner. Either that or
> > it's not as easy to pull off in the ring as it looks from your living
> > room.
> >
>
> Never said it was. Just pointing out the obvious. And Douglas pulled it
> off...as did Evander Holyfield against overwhelmingly favored
> Tyson...twice....
As I said, Holyfield used a different strategy.
> > > And yes, Bowe did get it on past his prime with Golota and Hide...he
> also
> > > did not get knocked out. He looked awful against Golota, but people
> ignore
> > > that while he was getting pounded, he was also pounding Golota.
> >
> >
> > What does that have to do with his chin?
> >
>
> You made the comparitive and stated that Tyson's chin was better then Bowes
> and that it was proven.
I said Tyson's chin was more proven. I figured you'd misunderstood but
were too proud to admit it. This is confirmation of that.
Your claim is incorrect and testable. Prime
> Holyfield could not stop Bowe. Diminishing Holyfield crushed Tyson.
> Knocked him right upside the head dozens of times and stopped him.
Regardless. Bowe "pounding" Golota does not say anything about his
chin.
> > Berbick did fight back. I brought up Lewis to show how good Tyson's
> > chin was. No one else has taken so many shots from Lennox without
> > going down. Golota and Hide were brought up because they're the *only*
> > decent punchers that Bowe ever fought and his chin did *not* look good
> > in either of those fights.
> >
>
> Berbick was starched and quickly by Tyson. He looked scared. He fought
> like he was scared.
I disagree.
> > > > After Tyson took dozens of clean powershots from him.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And wilted against a prepared opponent who was not intimidated...and got
> > > knocked out. My point exactly.
> >
> >
> > Once again, you're confusing two seperate branches of the discussion.
> >
>
> No I am not.
Here, I'll explain:
Point A) Tyson's chin is probably better and definitely more proven
that Bowe's
Point B) Tyson wilted anytime anyone "fought back" against him
You were trying to argue against Point A. I countered your argument
and you offered it as evidence for Point B. OK, but where are we with
regard to Point A? It may that the issue is too complicated for you to
follow.
> > > Bowe was never knocked out.
> > >
> > > You said Tyson's chin is more proven. In fact the opposite is true.
> > > Tyson's chin was dented. Bowe's was never dented.
> >
> >
> > Part of the problem may be that you don't know what "proven" means.
> >
>
> Yes I do know. A proponderance of indisupuatble evidence.
I'm using "prove" in the primary sense of "to test by experiment."
Bowe, having carefully avoiding any real punchers, has not proven his
chin as Tyson has. As Tyson has demonstrated himself to have a very
good chin, it would be a mistake, in my opinion, to credit Bowe with
having a better one without proof.
> > Right, if Tucker had been able to stop Tyson he would have won. I
> > agree. Likewise, if Quarry had been able to "fight back" against Ali,
> > he would have won. If Pernel Whitaker had been able to punch like
> > Julian Jackson, he would have been the greatest fighter that ever
> > lived.
> >
>
> Now you are being silly.
Bingo. I am making light of your arguments by taking them to their
extreme.
> > > > Well, again Thomas seemed to get over it after the first round. He
> > > > still lost bad.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thomas who was already a burned out coke head? Don't pin Tyson's flag
> to
> > > Conastota on that performance.
> >
> >
> > Again, you're confused. Did Thomas fight back or did he not? You
> > obviously have a grudge against Tyson that colors your perception of
> > him as a fighter. You're almost as bad as Nick D when he's writing
> > about Lewis.
> >
>
> I have no grudge against anyone. I am just not delusional like you Tyson
> fanatics.
Right. Anyone who disagrees with you about Tyson vs. Bowe must be a
Tyson fanatic. Understand this: I do not like Tyson personally, and
felt throughout his career that he was overrated. I do, however, think
that he was great and I do not think *nearly* as much of Bowe as you
seem to. In fact, I think he was almost entirely a creation of hype
and one legitimately very good performance against another very
overrated fighter.
You are the one that made the point that Tyson had a better chin
> then Bowe. I am giving my perception that this is simply not true. You
> have not really provided a convincing argument to refute this at all.
Well, given the nature of the evidence, you won't get one. A lot of
this stuff is necessarily guesswork. I think the evidence is clear
that Bowe has not demonstrated his chin to be anything special
because, despite very poor defense leading to him taking a lot of
shots, he never had to take any really hard punches. I think the
evidence is also clear that he ducked punchers as a rule.
> I am also not confused. You brought Thomas up as a serious opponent. I
> made the simple point that Pinklon Thomas was a very shot fighter and was
> mostly harmless. Did he fight back? Hardly at all. In fact Thomas is the
> one that said that Tyson has his fights half one before the opening bell.
Thomas won nearly half the rounds in the fight. He fought back, and he
failed.
> > You implied that Tyson was a typical prospect who failed his big
> > tests. I asked if you meant that Tyson was only at the level of two
> > specific typical prospects who failed tests.
> >
>
> I always find it curious in USENET when people make a statement about
> specific words and then try to argue against what they decide was meant.
This sentence is so poorly constructed that is nearly
incomprehensible. Try again.
> > > Afterall, you are the one comparing Jess Willard to Clifford Etienne.
> Ever
> > > seen a fight Isaiah?
> >
> >
> > Damn, Beau! You sound like a graduate of the BoxM school of
> > argumentation. If you have a point to make, please do. For example:
> > I've written my reasons for my low regard of Willard many times. If
> > you think I've made a mistake, what is it? What did Willard do that
> > impressed you? If you've even seen him fight, which I kind of doubt.
> >
>
> Non sequitor. You made the comment, not me. I do not intend to have a
> sidebar regarding Willard vs. Etienne. It was your comment so argue your
> own point. It is bad enough that you try to argue points that I have NOT
> made. You have low regard for Willard. Good for you. Check his record.
> Study film. Find out about his opponents. Base your regard on it.
I have. He was 24-7-1 and had one-sided losses to every contender he
fought except for a shot Jack Johnson. He looks terrible on film.
-Isaiah
Pastor Marc
most impressive victory at the time because he was undefeated at the
time, and was coming off of a TKO victory over Buster Douglas.
The fact of the matter is that Tyson dominated a listless heavyweight
division in the mid to late 80's. The guys he beat were nowhere near
as good as Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, or even Foreman. But he beat the
guys who were out there at the time.
Because of the way he dominated his era, Tyson has to be considered
when you make any top 20 heavyweight list. Where in there you decide
to rank him is up to you.
And I would agree that Holyfield should be ranked higher than Tyson.
But Lewis should be ranked higher than both of them.
StockyBrawler
<<Because of the way he dominated his era, Tyson has to be considered
when you make any top 20 heavyweight list. Where in there you decide
to rank him is up to you.>>
I agree that Tyson is a top 15 or top 20 HW. No higher than 12th or so (with
Lewis at 11th).
Charles Beauchamp
> "Charles Beauchamp" <cebea...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<MGadnd2I6Lr...@comcast.com>...
> > "Isaiah" <isaiah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:dae06db6.03052...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> > > Tyson had an average chin. You stated that his
> > > > was more proven then Bowe's. This is false. Bowe absorbed shots
from
> > heavy
> > > > punchers and was never knocked out or stopped.
> > >
> > >
> > > To which "heavy punchers" are you referring? Other than the two I
> > > mentioned previously, none of his televised fights were against
> > > punchers.
> > >
> >
> > Was Bowe knocked out or stopped by the two that you mentioned?
>
>
> I gather from your unresponsive response that you agree that you were
> being deceptive with your previous comments. Golota and Hide can hit,
> but neither of them are anything special in that regard. Certainly not
> at the level of Lewis, Ruddock or Smith.
>
Golota and Hide were both heavy hitters. Not in the big league knockout
punchers but strong punchers. Ruddock was N O T a huge puncher. He had one
significant knockout in his career over Michael Dokes and his rep was built
on that fight alone. Well...that and getting his ass kicked twice by Tyson
before getting starched by Lewis.
I have though reconsidered somethings about Tyson that I had
overlooked...notably that Bonecrusher Smith did light up in the final round
of their fight and Tyson didn't really seem too bothered by it.
>
> > > Nope. After Tyson's skills faded, he showed he could take a serious
> > > beating before going down.
> > >
> >
> > I guess that is how a Tyson apologist would have to look at it.
>
>
> A Tyson apologist? Where you get that? I am certainly no fan or
> "apologist" for Tyson. I just disagree with you a little on his
> historical ranking.
>
I have also reconsidered this portion a bit. Tyson got blown away. Other
then really one clean shot in the first minute of the fight he was clearly
dominated but he didn't get wacked out in the first few rounds.
Well among punchers you have them out of order. Ruddock does not belong
with Shavers or Foreman...Lyle got it on with both of those guys and held
his own. Lyle was a sensational hitter. Heck, he knocked Shavers out and
dropped Foremen twice in a wild fight.
> He was a big man with a
> > heavy punch but not top tier power or top tier knockout results. You do
> > have a point though. Ruddock did tag Tyson in the first fight.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> > > > Lewis demonstrates what I said. He fired punches from the opening
bell
> > and
> > > > by round two the fight was basically over as Tyson was not effective
> > since
> > > > Lewis was clearly not intimidated.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're jumping all over the place. Right now, we're discussing Tyson's
> > > chin. Tyson's fight with Lewis should have no impact on an evaluation
> > > of his skills while he was in his prime.
> > >
> >
> > Since my point is that Tyson was all or nothing and was halted by
fighters
> > that fought back from beginning (Douglas) to end (Lennox) it is on
point.
> > You are the one that has made the comparitive that Tyson's chin was
tested
> > and more proven then Bowes. I maintain that this is not true.
>
>
> And that is why I brought up Lewis as Tyson took some serious punches
> --- punches much harder than anything Bowe ever took --- before going
> down in that fight. Your other point is on hold as I defend my
> assertion.
>
You have made a comparitive. And you qualified it as proven. There is no
way to really know but Bowe was never knocked out. Bowe was able to recover
from the big punches that he did take.
>
> > > > Except that Spinks and Berbick showed exactly the same thing I am
> > talking
> > > > about.
> > >
> > >
> > > I disagree about Berbick. He gave it his best shot and he got blown
> > > out.
> > >
> >
> > Berbick fought like most of Tyson's early opponents. He got hit and
then
> > looked for a place to land. And particularly in his case...he couldn't
even
> > get the landing part right and had to land 3 times!
>
>
> I'm going to tell you a little secret: When you get hit really, really
> hard sometimes you lose the physical ability to stand up. When that
> happens in boxing, that's usually seen as a positive indicator for the
> guy that did the hitting.
>
Mmm hmmm...I agree. And Berbick did zilch in a very short fight. You are
the one stating that Berbick put on some kind of a strong performance or
something.
>
> > > > Mmm hmmm...because Lord knows no one else could ever hope to score
> > > > consistently with left jabs and overhand rights to the unprotected
left
> > side
> > > > of Tyson's head. Never could happen except on a bad night...except
that
> > it
> > > > was clearly a recipe that was always there.
> > >
> > >
> > > I guess someone just needed you to be in their corner. Either that or
> > > it's not as easy to pull off in the ring as it looks from your living
> > > room.
> > >
> >
> > Never said it was. Just pointing out the obvious. And Douglas pulled
it
> > off...as did Evander Holyfield against overwhelmingly favored
> > Tyson...twice....
>
>
> As I said, Holyfield used a different strategy.
>
And when the heat was on Tyson failed.
>
>
> > > > And yes, Bowe did get it on past his prime with Golota and Hide...he
> > also
> > > > did not get knocked out. He looked awful against Golota, but people
> > ignore
> > > > that while he was getting pounded, he was also pounding Golota.
> > >
> > >
> > > What does that have to do with his chin?
> > >
> >
> > You made the comparitive and stated that Tyson's chin was better then
Bowes
> > and that it was proven.
>
>
> I said Tyson's chin was more proven. I figured you'd misunderstood but
> were too proud to admit it. This is confirmation of that.
>
I totally get your argument...it is just plain wrong. Tyson has not proven
that he can take a shot better then Bowe. Tyson was knocked straight out by
James Douglas. James Douglas was definitely not a major puncher. Riddick
Bowe got hit by tons of shots straight to the chin in his brief run at or
near the top of the sport. He got dropped. He got hurt. He never got
knocked out.
> Your claim is incorrect and testable. Prime
> > Holyfield could not stop Bowe. Diminishing Holyfield crushed Tyson.
> > Knocked him right upside the head dozens of times and stopped him.
>
>
> Regardless. Bowe "pounding" Golota does not say anything about his
> chin.
>
Golota pounding Bowe and failing to stop him says something about Bowe's
chin. Holyfield in his absolute best failing to stop Bowe says something
about his chin. Weaker version of Holyfield later did stop Tyson. That
does say something about Tyson's chin.
>
> > > Berbick did fight back. I brought up Lewis to show how good Tyson's
> > > chin was. No one else has taken so many shots from Lennox without
> > > going down. Golota and Hide were brought up because they're the *only*
> > > decent punchers that Bowe ever fought and his chin did *not* look good
> > > in either of those fights.
> > >
> >
> > Berbick was starched and quickly by Tyson. He looked scared. He fought
> > like he was scared.
>
>
> I disagree.
>
Apparently, but you haven't really said why. You have a unique perspective
regarding that fight I suppose. I saw a fight that was a blowout 2nd round
knockout. Did I somehow miss the 8 rounds that Berbick boxed circles around
Mike?
>
> > > > > After Tyson took dozens of clean powershots from him.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And wilted against a prepared opponent who was not intimidated...and
got
> > > > knocked out. My point exactly.
> > >
> > >
> > > Once again, you're confusing two seperate branches of the discussion.
> > >
> >
> > No I am not.
>
>
> Here, I'll explain:
> Point A) Tyson's chin is probably better and definitely more proven
> that Bowe's
>
A point that is unproven despite your claim otherwise...
> Point B) Tyson wilted anytime anyone "fought back" against him
>
>
> You were trying to argue against Point A. I countered your argument
> and you offered it as evidence for Point B. OK, but where are we with
> regard to Point A? It may that the issue is too complicated for you to
> follow.
>
I made a pretty straight forward assertion. Tyson when tested in fights
against men who fought back failed all 4 times.
>
> > > > Bowe was never knocked out.
> > > >
> > > > You said Tyson's chin is more proven. In fact the opposite is true.
> > > > Tyson's chin was dented. Bowe's was never dented.
> > >
> > >
> > > Part of the problem may be that you don't know what "proven" means.
> > >
> >
> > Yes I do know. A proponderance of indisupuatble evidence.
>
>
> I'm using "prove" in the primary sense of "to test by experiment."
> Bowe, having carefully avoiding any real punchers, has not proven his
> chin as Tyson has. As Tyson has demonstrated himself to have a very
> good chin, it would be a mistake, in my opinion, to credit Bowe with
> having a better one without proof.
>
Bowe avoided any real punchers? When? He was champion for about a year and
then lost the belt. He did fight Herbie Hide. He did get it on twice with
Golota. He did have the 3 fight series with Holyfield and then he was off
to boot camp.
Your assertion is simply unproven. There is no real reason to think that
Bowe's chin was weaker then Tyson's which is exactly what your position is.
What is known...Douglas flat knocked Tyson out. Bowe was never knocked out.
Bowe took a lot of shots and never got knocked out. What is pretty obvious
to me is that Bowe could take a better shot then Tyson. Tyson did not have
a poor chin. His chin was probably better then Lewis' but Bowes was much
better based on what actully took place in the ring.
>
> > > Right, if Tucker had been able to stop Tyson he would have won. I
> > > agree. Likewise, if Quarry had been able to "fight back" against Ali,
> > > he would have won. If Pernel Whitaker had been able to punch like
> > > Julian Jackson, he would have been the greatest fighter that ever
> > > lived.
> > >
> >
> > Now you are being silly.
>
>
> Bingo. I am making light of your arguments by taking them to their
> extreme.
>
Which is always easy to do, but does nothing to actually support your
argument.
>
> > > > > Well, again Thomas seemed to get over it after the first round. He
> > > > > still lost bad.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thomas who was already a burned out coke head? Don't pin Tyson's
flag
> > to
> > > > Conastota on that performance.
> > >
> > >
> > > Again, you're confused. Did Thomas fight back or did he not? You
> > > obviously have a grudge against Tyson that colors your perception of
> > > him as a fighter. You're almost as bad as Nick D when he's writing
> > > about Lewis.
> > >
> >
> > I have no grudge against anyone. I am just not delusional like you
Tyson
> > fanatics.
>
>
> Right. Anyone who disagrees with you about Tyson vs. Bowe must be a
> Tyson fanatic. Understand this: I do not like Tyson personally, and
> felt throughout his career that he was overrated. I do, however, think
> that he was great and I do not think *nearly* as much of Bowe as you
> seem to. In fact, I think he was almost entirely a creation of hype
> and one legitimately very good performance against another very
> overrated fighter.
>
I think Tyson was overrated early in his career. I think that his fans look
the other way rediculously and there is an element of fight fans that think
Tyson is still "the Man" or something. I also think that the folks that
make excuses for him are plain silly. Finally I think that those that trash
Holyfield by diminishing Bowe are foolish.
>
> You are the one that made the point that Tyson had a better chin
> > then Bowe. I am giving my perception that this is simply not true. You
> > have not really provided a convincing argument to refute this at all.
>
>
> Well, given the nature of the evidence, you won't get one. A lot of
> this stuff is necessarily guesswork. I think the evidence is clear
> that Bowe has not demonstrated his chin to be anything special
> because, despite very poor defense leading to him taking a lot of
> shots, he never had to take any really hard punches. I think the
> evidence is also clear that he ducked punchers as a rule.
>
Well since everything you say in this paragraph is precisely untrue I
suppose we are left to disagree. Since Bowe did get tagged right on the
button with that poor defense of his numerous times and was never taken out
I'd say his chin is proven pretty clearly. Tyson was nailed on the button
by Douglas and was knocked out in his prime. Since Bowe did in fact face
punchers your argument is false. There is nothing special about Razor
Ruddock at all. He is simply the most overrated fighter of the early 90's.
>
> > I am also not confused. You brought Thomas up as a serious opponent. I
> > made the simple point that Pinklon Thomas was a very shot fighter and
was
> > mostly harmless. Did he fight back? Hardly at all. In fact Thomas is
the
> > one that said that Tyson has his fights half one before the opening
bell.
>
>
> Thomas won nearly half the rounds in the fight. He fought back, and he
> failed.
>
Umm...won nearly half the rounds? The fight went 6 rounds so ummm...almost
half is what...2 rounds? Is that your point? Please expound.
>
> > > You implied that Tyson was a typical prospect who failed his big
> > > tests. I asked if you meant that Tyson was only at the level of two
> > > specific typical prospects who failed tests.
> > >
> >
> > I always find it curious in USENET when people make a statement about
> > specific words and then try to argue against what they decide was meant.
>
>
> This sentence is so poorly constructed that is nearly
> incomprehensible. Try again.
>
I always find it curious on internet NEWSGROUPS when person A makes a
statement...then person B who is disagreeing makes an extreme nitpick
against the original statement and starts arguing against that point...which
person A never actually made to being with. (i.e. Pernell Whitaker Julian
Jackson comment above).
>
> > > > Afterall, you are the one comparing Jess Willard to Clifford
Etienne.
> > Ever
> > > > seen a fight Isaiah?
> > >
> > >
> > > Damn, Beau! You sound like a graduate of the BoxM school of
> > > argumentation. If you have a point to make, please do. For example:
> > > I've written my reasons for my low regard of Willard many times. If
> > > you think I've made a mistake, what is it? What did Willard do that
> > > impressed you? If you've even seen him fight, which I kind of doubt.
> > >
> >
> > Non sequitor. You made the comment, not me. I do not intend to have a
> > sidebar regarding Willard vs. Etienne. It was your comment so argue
your
> > own point. It is bad enough that you try to argue points that I have
NOT
> > made. You have low regard for Willard. Good for you. Check his
record.
> > Study film. Find out about his opponents. Base your regard on it.
>
>
> I have. He was 24-7-1 and had one-sided losses to every contender he
> fought except for a shot Jack Johnson. He looks terrible on film.
>
It was you that asked what Willard did that impressed me. That after you
made the comparison of Willard to Etienne. Your argument there was also
silly.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
"Pastor Marc" <imabel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:518ae9ab.03053...@posting.google.com...
Pretty much how I see it.
v/r Beau
BoxMuham
>Ruddock does not belong
>with Shavers or Foreman...
Razor Ruddock's punch is *nowhere* in the league of Foreman's or
Shavers. Ruddock will never be listed among the greatest punchers of all time.
It was a silly assertion.
Razor Ruddock was another extremely limited heavyweight who is known
only for his big losses. He never really amounted to anything.
> Lyle was a sensational hitter. Heck, he knocked Shavers out and
>dropped Foremen twice in a wild fight.
Yes, Ron Lyle's big punch was proven in the ring. Ruddock cannot
be compared to Ron Lyle.
>And when the heat was on Tyson failed.
Tyson always failed when faced with adversity in the ring. Any time
he was losing, he ended up being knocked the f*ck out. Tyson lacked most of
the qualities that define a great fighter.
>Tyson has not proven
>that he can take a shot better then Bowe.
True, but I would say that both men can take a beating. Difference
being that Tyson was always knocked out after taking a beating. Bowe never
was.
>I think Tyson was overrated early in his career. I think that his fans look
>the other way rediculously and there is an element of fight fans that think
>Tyson is still "the Man" or something.
If only he'd get back with Kevin Rooney! ;-)
>Finally I think that those that trash
>Holyfield by diminishing Bowe are foolish.
In my observations, those that trash a fighter like Holyfield almost
always are trying to elevate either Tyson or Lewis, two of Evander's
contemporaries. Historically, Tyson will always rank below both Holyfield and
Lewis.
>Tyson was nailed on the button
>by Douglas and was knocked out in his prime.
Tyson's psyche was also shattered into a million and one pieces. He
put it back together a bit as he regained the belts in '96. Then Holyfield
beat the hell out of him.
>There is nothing special about Razor
>Ruddock at all. He is simply the most overrated fighter of the early 90's.
Ruddock may have been overrated at one time, directly after the two
losses to Tyson, but as you say, Ruddock was absolutely nothing special, and
again, building him up is usually offered only in an attempt to make Lewis's
beaten opponent list look better. Ruddock would have been easily outfought by
Holyfield, Bowe, and any top heavyweight.
BoxMuhammad
Isaiah
> > I gather from your unresponsive response that you agree that you were
> > being deceptive with your previous comments. Golota and Hide can hit,
> > but neither of them are anything special in that regard. Certainly not
> > at the level of Lewis, Ruddock or Smith.
> >
>
> Golota and Hide were both heavy hitters. Not in the big league knockout
> punchers but strong punchers. Ruddock was N O T a huge puncher.
I guess we're stuck on that one. I think Ruddock was a puncher of
historical stature and I think there is a significant and noticeable
difference between his punches and Golota's or Hide's.
> > A Tyson apologist? Where you get that? I am certainly no fan or
> > "apologist" for Tyson. I just disagree with you a little on his
> > historical ranking.
> >
>
> I have also reconsidered this portion a bit. Tyson got blown away. Other
> then really one clean shot in the first minute of the fight he was clearly
> dominated but he didn't get wacked out in the first few rounds.
OK.
> > I disagree. Also, I wouldn't put Lyle up there with Shaver, Foreman or
> > Ruddock.
> >
>
> Well among punchers you have them out of order. Ruddock does not belong
> with Shavers or Foreman...Lyle got it on with both of those guys and held
> his own.
He had heavy hands, no doubt.
Lyle was a sensational hitter. Heck, he knocked Shavers out and
> dropped Foremen twice in a wild fight.
KOing Shavers did not require a great puncher. Certainly, Ruddock
would have been able to do it.
> > And that is why I brought up Lewis as Tyson took some serious punches
> > --- punches much harder than anything Bowe ever took --- before going
> > down in that fight. Your other point is on hold as I defend my
> > assertion.
> >
>
> You have made a comparitive. And you qualified it as proven.
You've misunderstood. Read on.
> > > Berbick fought like most of Tyson's early opponents. He got hit and
> then
> > > looked for a place to land. And particularly in his case...he couldn't
> even
> > > get the landing part right and had to land 3 times!
> >
> >
> > I'm going to tell you a little secret: When you get hit really, really
> > hard sometimes you lose the physical ability to stand up. When that
> > happens in boxing, that's usually seen as a positive indicator for the
> > guy that did the hitting.
> >
>
> Mmm hmmm...I agree. And Berbick did zilch in a very short fight. You are
> the one stating that Berbick put on some kind of a strong performance or
> something.
I don't recall writing that. What I did say was that Berbick fought
back. See, I don't define "fighting back" as "putting on a strong
performance." It sure seemed to me that Berbick was trying; he was
just overmatched. As I wrote in another thread, if you define
"fighting back" the way your interpretation of my comments implies
that you do, your assertion is circular. Literally, nonsense.
> > As I said, Holyfield used a different strategy.
> >
>
> And when the heat was on Tyson failed.
You just don't miss a beat.
> > > You made the comparitive and stated that Tyson's chin was better then
> Bowes
> > > and that it was proven.
> >
> >
> > I said Tyson's chin was more proven. I figured you'd misunderstood but
> > were too proud to admit it. This is confirmation of that.
> >
>
> I totally get your argument...it is just plain wrong. Tyson has not proven
> that he can take a shot better then Bowe.
That sentence indicates, again, that you did not "get" my argument.
Tyson's chin is more proven. It's more tested. I suspect it is better,
but nowhere have I claimed that Tyson has "proven" that he can take a
shot better than Bowe.
> > > Berbick was starched and quickly by Tyson. He looked scared. He fought
> > > like he was scared.
> >
> >
> > I disagree.
> >
>
> Apparently, but you haven't really said why.
Well, it's pretty much a matter of primary impressions. I just think
it looked like Berbick was trying as hard as he ever has, but was
simply out of his league.
You have a unique perspective
> regarding that fight I suppose. I saw a fight that was a blowout 2nd round
> knockout. Did I somehow miss the 8 rounds that Berbick boxed circles around
> Mike?
No, but if "fighting back" is defined with respect to sucess, *every
fighter* has the weakness you ascribe to Tyson.
> > > > Once again, you're confusing two seperate branches of the discussion.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No I am not.
> >
> >
> > Here, I'll explain:
> > Point A) Tyson's chin is probably better and definitely more proven
> > that Bowe's
> >
>
> A point that is unproven despite your claim otherwise...
Whatever. At the moment, I'm merely trying to help you understand your
error.
> > Point B) Tyson wilted anytime anyone "fought back" against him
> >
> >
> > You were trying to argue against Point A. I countered your argument
> > and you offered it as evidence for Point B. OK, but where are we with
> > regard to Point A? It may that the issue is too complicated for you to
> > follow.
> >
>
> I made a pretty straight forward assertion. Tyson when tested in fights
> against men who fought back failed all 4 times.
Sigh.
> > > > Part of the problem may be that you don't know what "proven" means.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes I do know. A proponderance of indisupuatble evidence.
> >
> >
> > I'm using "prove" in the primary sense of "to test by experiment."
> > Bowe, having carefully avoiding any real punchers, has not proven his
> > chin as Tyson has. As Tyson has demonstrated himself to have a very
> > good chin, it would be a mistake, in my opinion, to credit Bowe with
> > having a better one without proof.
> >
>
> Bowe avoided any real punchers? When?
Throughout his career.
He was champion for about a year and
> then lost the belt. He did fight Herbie Hide. He did get it on twice with
> Golota. He did have the 3 fight series with Holyfield and then he was off
> to boot camp.
>
> Your assertion is simply unproven. There is no real reason to think that
> Bowe's chin was weaker then Tyson's which is exactly what your position is.
No reason except that Tyson has shown himself to have a very good chin
and Bowe did not really show what kind of chin he had. It takes a leap
of faith that I'm unwilling to make to argue that Bowe had a better
chin.
> > > > Right, if Tucker had been able to stop Tyson he would have won. I
> > > > agree. Likewise, if Quarry had been able to "fight back" against Ali,
> > > > he would have won. If Pernel Whitaker had been able to punch like
> > > > Julian Jackson, he would have been the greatest fighter that ever
> > > > lived.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Now you are being silly.
> >
> >
> > Bingo. I am making light of your arguments by taking them to their
> > extreme.
> >
>
> Which is always easy to do, but does nothing to actually support your
> argument.
It's not as easy to do well as you think. I thought it was funny. Sue
me.
> > > I have no grudge against anyone. I am just not delusional like you
> Tyson
> > > fanatics.
> >
> >
> > Right. Anyone who disagrees with you about Tyson vs. Bowe must be a
> > Tyson fanatic. Understand this: I do not like Tyson personally, and
> > felt throughout his career that he was overrated. I do, however, think
> > that he was great and I do not think *nearly* as much of Bowe as you
> > seem to. In fact, I think he was almost entirely a creation of hype
> > and one legitimately very good performance against another very
> > overrated fighter.
> >
>
> I think Tyson was overrated early in his career. I think that his fans look
> the other way rediculously and there is an element of fight fans that think
> Tyson is still "the Man" or something.
You've been reading my posts, no? Do you think I'm one of those fans?
I also think that the folks that
> make excuses for him are plain silly. Finally I think that those that trash
> Holyfield by diminishing Bowe are foolish.
What about folks that have no ulterior motive for disagreeing with
your high opinion of Bowe? Do we exist?
> > You are the one that made the point that Tyson had a better chin
> > > then Bowe. I am giving my perception that this is simply not true. You
> > > have not really provided a convincing argument to refute this at all.
> >
> >
> > Well, given the nature of the evidence, you won't get one. A lot of
> > this stuff is necessarily guesswork. I think the evidence is clear
> > that Bowe has not demonstrated his chin to be anything special
> > because, despite very poor defense leading to him taking a lot of
> > shots, he never had to take any really hard punches. I think the
> > evidence is also clear that he ducked punchers as a rule.
> >
>
> Well since everything you say in this paragraph is precisely untrue I
> suppose we are left to disagree. Since Bowe did get tagged right on the
> button with that poor defense of his numerous times and was never taken out
> I'd say his chin is proven pretty clearly.
Except that he never faced any punchers of the caliber of Tyson's best
opponents.
Tyson was nailed on the button
> by Douglas and was knocked out in his prime. Since Bowe did in fact face
> punchers your argument is false. There is nothing special about Razor
> Ruddock at all. He is simply the most overrated fighter of the early 90's.
Well, he was very raw. He had extraordinary natural ability, though.
> > Thomas won nearly half the rounds in the fight. He fought back, and he
> > failed.
> >
>
> Umm...won nearly half the rounds? The fight went 6 rounds so ummm...almost
> half is what...2 rounds? Is that your point? Please expound.
He won two or three out of the five complete rounds. Normally, you
wouldn't say that someone with that level of success was not "fighting
back." Unless you think Thomas was just so much better than Tyson that
he could not fight back and still hold his own.
> > > I always find it curious in USENET when people make a statement about
> > > specific words and then try to argue against what they decide was meant.
> >
> >
> > This sentence is so poorly constructed that is nearly
> > incomprehensible. Try again.
> >
>
> I always find it curious on internet NEWSGROUPS when person A makes a
> statement...then person B who is disagreeing makes an extreme nitpick
> against the original statement and starts arguing against that point...which
> person A never actually made to being with. (i.e. Pernell Whitaker Julian
> Jackson comment above).
The Pernell Whitaker/Julian Jackson comment was put in to illustrate
the futility of arguing about things that are too far removed from
testable reality such as how different things would have been if
Tyson's opponents had decided to fight back.
> > > Non sequitor. You made the comment, not me. I do not intend to have a
> > > sidebar regarding Willard vs. Etienne. It was your comment so argue
> your
> > > own point. It is bad enough that you try to argue points that I have
> NOT
> > > made. You have low regard for Willard. Good for you. Check his
> record.
> > > Study film. Find out about his opponents. Base your regard on it.
> >
> >
> > I have. He was 24-7-1 and had one-sided losses to every contender he
> > fought except for a shot Jack Johnson. He looks terrible on film.
> >
>
> It was you that asked what Willard did that impressed me.
Something you didn't answer. And yet you insist on claiming that he
was a decent fighter. When it comes to supporting Willard, I note a
strong preference for haughty insinuation over reasoned argumentation.
That after you
> made the comparison of Willard to Etienne. Your argument there was also
> silly.
I made no argument there. I simply indicated my belief that they were
comparable fighters. That's not silly. Etienne has a superior record
and appears on tape to fight at a higher level.
-Isaiah
Isaiah
> In my observations, those that trash a fighter like Holyfield almost
> always are trying to elevate either Tyson or Lewis, two of Evander's
> contemporaries. Historically, Tyson will always rank below both Holyfield and
> Lewis.
This doesn't make sense. Wouldn't someone trying to elevate Tyson or
Lewis want to also elevate Holyfield so as to excuse Tyson's losses
and make Lewis' wins appear more impressive? What I have noticed is
that people who try to rewrite recent history to portray Holyfield as
an all-time great heavyweight usually are the ones who overrate Bowe.
> >Tyson was nailed on the button
> >by Douglas and was knocked out in his prime.
>
> Tyson's psyche was also shattered into a million and one pieces. He
> put it back together a bit as he regained the belts in '96. Then Holyfield
> beat the hell out of him.
A masterpiece of amateur psychology.
> Ruddock would have been easily outfought by
> Holyfield, Bowe, and any top heavyweight.
Too bad for Holyfield's and Bowe's reputations that they didn't fight
him then. I think Ruddock would have given both of them hell and would
have had a decent (say 25%) chance of KOing Bowe.
-Isaiah
StockyBrawler
historical stature and I think there is a significant and noticeable
difference between his punches and Golota's or Hide's.>>
Yes there is a noticable difference; Golota and Hide both hit harder then
Ruddock did.