There are 114 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

MIKE TYSON APPRECIATION THREAD

Originally posted by GoNiners:
Originally posted by maximill15:
Originally posted by GoNiners:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by maximill15:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
The guy lost to Buster Fricking Douglas and was an embarassment to boxing when he bit Holyfield's ear. GOAT? I dont see it. He never beat a great fighter who was in his prime. Yes, he was scary but I still cant put him at the top.


Personal issues aside, he's the only man to knock out holmes in 75 bouts (granted he was old) He made quick work of Michael Spinks who was never knocked out and after that he lost all focus on boxing and spiraled out of control with his personal life and getting rid of his trainers. Im speaking on pure ability. Ali in his prime vs Tyson in his prime, im winning money on tyson!

We will just have to agree ti disagree. I think George Foreman in his prime would have destroyed Tyson. WAY too big and strong for Tyson.

I agree that Foreman would handle Tyson easily. I'm a huge Tyson fan there will never ever be another fighter like him. The kind of power he had was just amazing. Still, I think Foreman's size would be too much for Tyson.

Those were the good ol days of boxing

I miss good boxing

me too, I mean when UFC got popular I enjoyed watching that but now that's boring too. I hope boxing becomes good again and I think it will

Yeah can't stand the ground game of UFC, it's like heavy weight boxers holding the whole fight! Need some new stars in boxing
  • BobS
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 7,334
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
The guy lost to Buster Fricking Douglas and was an embarassment to boxing when he bit Holyfield's ear. GOAT? I dont see it. He never beat a great fighter who was in his prime. Yes, he was scary but I still cant put him at the top.

He ruled over a weak heavyweight division for a little over 3 years. Once the competition improved he started racking up losses. Name a great fighter he beat. Larry Holmes doesn't count, Holmes was 38 and came out of retirement to fight Tyson.
Originally posted by BobS:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
The guy lost to Buster Fricking Douglas and was an embarassment to boxing when he bit Holyfield's ear. GOAT? I dont see it. He never beat a great fighter who was in his prime. Yes, he was scary but I still cant put him at the top.

He ruled over a weak heavyweight division for a little over 3 years. Once the competition improved he started racking up losses. Name a great fighter he beat. Larry Holmes doesn't count, Holmes was 38 and came out of retirement to fight Tyson.
Under your logic, how is Holmes "great"? Holmes arguably lost against Carl Williams, the same Williams that Tyson ran over in one round. Who did he beat that was "great"? Ali? That obviously that doesn't count, because Ali was 38 and came out of retirement to fight Holmes. Holmes, therefore, isn't "great" because he never beat a prime "great" fighter. Anybody somebody uses this logic to downgrade a fighter, I like to refer to this quote:
No, this is stupid logic because you have to keep going back and saying "well who did he beat that was great and prime?"

Fighter A beat fighter B. Who did fighter B defeat that was great and prime? Fighter C? Who did fighter C beat? And so forth.

For instance, the greatest fighters that weren't senior citizens (Archie Moore) that Muhammad Ali beat were Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, and George Foreman.

Using the illogic of the "you must beat a prime great to be great", then how is Sonny Liston great? Because he beat Floyd Patterson? Who did Patterson beat that was great and in his prime? Therefore, Muhammad Ali hadn't proven that he was great by 1971, when he lost to Joe Frazier. Joe Frazier, therefore, isn't a "great", since Muhammad Ali hadn't proven that he was "great" by not beating a prime great fighter. Then George Foreman beats a couple of non-greats in Joe Frazier and Ken Norton, and Muhammad Ali beats Foreman. Muhammad Ali still hasn't beaten a prime great fighter and therefore isn't great, according to the illogical argument of needing to beat a prime great to be great.
[ Edited by JerryRice1848 on Jan 22, 2012 at 1:49 PM ]
Originally posted by JerryRice1848:
Originally posted by BobS:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
The guy lost to Buster Fricking Douglas and was an embarassment to boxing when he bit Holyfield's ear. GOAT? I dont see it. He never beat a great fighter who was in his prime. Yes, he was scary but I still cant put him at the top.

He ruled over a weak heavyweight division for a little over 3 years. Once the competition improved he started racking up losses. Name a great fighter he beat. Larry Holmes doesn't count, Holmes was 38 and came out of retirement to fight Tyson.
Under your logic, how is Holmes "great"? Holmes arguably lost against Carl Williams, the same Williams that Tyson ran over in one round. Who did he beat that was "great"? Ali? That obviously that doesn't count, because Ali was 38 and came out of retirement to fight Holmes. Holmes, therefore, isn't "great" because he never beat a prime "great" fighter. Anybody somebody uses this logic to downgrade a fighter, I like to refer to this quote:
No, this is stupid logic because you have to keep going back and saying "well who did he beat that was great and prime?"

Fighter A beat fighter B. Who did fighter B defeat that was great and prime? Fighter C? Who did fighter C beat? And so forth.

For instance, the greatest fighters that weren't senior citizens (Archie Moore) that Muhammad Ali beat were Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, and George Foreman.

Using the illogic of the "you must beat a prime great to be great", then how is Sonny Liston great? Because he beat Floyd Patterson? Who did Patterson beat that was great and in his prime? Therefore, Muhammad Ali hadn't proven that he was great by 1971, when he lost to Joe Frazier. Joe Frazier, therefore, isn't a "great", since Muhammad Ali hadn't proven that he was "great" by not beating a prime great fighter. Then George Foreman beats a couple of non-greats in Joe Frazier and Ken Norton, and Muhammad Ali beats Foreman. Muhammad Ali still hasn't beaten a prime great fighter and therefore isn't great, according to the illogical argument of needing to beat a prime great to be great.

Maybe neither of them beat another great fighter in their prime but Holmes didnt lose at ALL until he was an old man and didnt lose to a fat waste like Tyson did at the age of 24. Larry Holmes really was a credit to the Heavyweight division. I dont think the same can be said for Mike Tyson.
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by JerryRice1848:
Originally posted by BobS:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
The guy lost to Buster Fricking Douglas and was an embarassment to boxing when he bit Holyfield's ear. GOAT? I dont see it. He never beat a great fighter who was in his prime. Yes, he was scary but I still cant put him at the top.

He ruled over a weak heavyweight division for a little over 3 years. Once the competition improved he started racking up losses. Name a great fighter he beat. Larry Holmes doesn't count, Holmes was 38 and came out of retirement to fight Tyson.
Under your logic, how is Holmes "great"? Holmes arguably lost against Carl Williams, the same Williams that Tyson ran over in one round. Who did he beat that was "great"? Ali? That obviously that doesn't count, because Ali was 38 and came out of retirement to fight Holmes. Holmes, therefore, isn't "great" because he never beat a prime "great" fighter. Anybody somebody uses this logic to downgrade a fighter, I like to refer to this quote:
No, this is stupid logic because you have to keep going back and saying "well who did he beat that was great and prime?"

Fighter A beat fighter B. Who did fighter B defeat that was great and prime? Fighter C? Who did fighter C beat? And so forth.

For instance, the greatest fighters that weren't senior citizens (Archie Moore) that Muhammad Ali beat were Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, and George Foreman.

Using the illogic of the "you must beat a prime great to be great", then how is Sonny Liston great? Because he beat Floyd Patterson? Who did Patterson beat that was great and in his prime? Therefore, Muhammad Ali hadn't proven that he was great by 1971, when he lost to Joe Frazier. Joe Frazier, therefore, isn't a "great", since Muhammad Ali hadn't proven that he was "great" by not beating a prime great fighter. Then George Foreman beats a couple of non-greats in Joe Frazier and Ken Norton, and Muhammad Ali beats Foreman. Muhammad Ali still hasn't beaten a prime great fighter and therefore isn't great, according to the illogical argument of needing to beat a prime great to be great.

Maybe neither of them beat another great fighter in their prime but Holmes didnt lose at ALL until he was an old man and didnt lose to a fat waste like Tyson did at the age of 24. Larry Holmes really was a credit to the Heavyweight division. I dont think the same can be said for Mike Tyson.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing that Larry wasn't great. I'm just attacking the logic of having to beat a prime great fighter in order to be a great.
Originally posted by GoNiners:
me too, I mean when UFC got popular I enjoyed watching that but now that's boring too. I hope boxing becomes good again and I think it will

lolwut? there are some "boring" fights in the UFC, but you're telling me there are no boring fights in boxing? Even when boxing was good there were boring fights! It's the same in every sport...
As far as Tyson vs. Ali in their primes...idk how Tyson would fair against Ali's jab and his ability to stay on the move the whole time. But then again, I don't see Ali knocking him out, or keeping him at a distance for 6-12 rounds.
  • BobS
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 7,334
Holmes won the title in the late 70's in basically a tournament format after Ali retired. I would say the two best fighters he beat were Earnie Shavers and Ken Norton. Norton was a former champion who beat Ali when Ali was in his prime. Holmes won his first 48 heavyweight fights, a record only bested by Rocky Marciano. Holmes is one of those guys that doesn't get the respect he deserved. The heavyweight division in the 70's probably had the best talent of any decade. True that talent was declining when Holmes took over, but it was still hands down better the the guys Mike Tyson was beating for 3 years.
Originally posted by BobS:
He ruled over a weak heavyweight division for a little over 3 years. Once the competition improved he started racking up losses. Name a great fighter he beat. Larry Holmes doesn't count, Holmes was 38 and came out of retirement to fight Tyson.

Not sure if I count anything after Douglas as his prime. Spending 4 years in prison is going to ruin alot of careers. I know Ali overcame a similar long layoff but his head was on straight from the start.
Search Podcast Draft Forum Commentary News Shop Home