Why was tyson ''a hype job'' ?

Tyson did not win the true championship until he beat Spinks so your math is off. Spinks beat Holmes which made him the true champion.

 

" Holyfield and his titles almost rendered irrelevant" .... what ??

 

I don't agree that Tyson was a hype job in any way at all but that's ^ nonsense.

The media created the illusion that the early to mid eighties scene was poor because they missed Ali.

Holmes wasn't appreciated because A: he didn't win olympic gold and B: he wasn't Ali. Therefore he couldn't have been any good and that filtered down to everybody else.

 

My "feelings"? I'm not shooting my wad on every other post on this thread. Try this shet on CHB and see how far you get. :good

 

I tend to think Holmes is underrated and hugely unappreciated even here, but I think Magoo's point is pretty good. There WAS the sense at that time that everything was in the doldrums; many of the top heavies then were blubbery and seemingly unmotivated (Page, Tubbs, Spoon), inconsistent (Weaver, Spoon, Thomas, Coetzee) or unwilling to unify (Holmes). I'm a Holmes fan, but he was a businessman first, and was unapologetic about it. More power to him for that, but it also meant that there was an unprecedented fractionalization in the heavyweight ranks leading up to Tyson's entry. He cleaned it all up and became the one and only champ. A dominant one too, if only for a couple years.

 

wtf you talking 'bout ?

Did you come on this thread to say something or just to chat me up ?

 

Out of 60 fights, that comes to 4 fights?

 

I cant be bothered to type it all up but

Lewis had been pro for 4 years when he was knocked the **** out by Mcall. Same length as Tyson.

Wladmir was 22 when he was stopped by Purrity, who had 12 losses at the time.

Liston was 23 when he lost to Martin

Vitali was 29 and had been pro for 4 years when he lost to Byrd

Joe Louis was 22 when he was sparked by Schmeling.

That's just off the top of my head.

In all honesty Douglas was no different to the likes of Purrity, Mcall, Marshall, Spinks and Byrd. All guys who took the 0s of ATGs.

In fact h2h Douglas would probably beat most of those guys. He already beat Mcall.

The only ATGs who lost their 0s to other ATGs were Ali, Frazier and Foreman.

Bowe lost his 0 to Holyfield. Holyfield is/was an ATG. Bowe never was and never will be.

 

Wlad wasn't champion when he had those losses. It's hard to argue with Wlad's last 11 years of winning. Yes, he was a slow developer. I'm not a huge Wlad fan, but he's been consistent in the last 5 or 10 years even, and has some impressive longevity.

I think Lewis should get penalized for his bad defeats too. People sometimes think I'm some sort of Lewis-hater, sometimes think I'm some sort of Tyson-hater. Because I dare to say those defeats in prime actually are bad defeats and count against them.

Liston only lost to Ali in his prime years really.
I'm not holding Liston up as an elite HW ATG though.
Nor Vitali.

 

It was not until Ali beat Frazier in Manilla that historians saw that he had the heart and will to win of an ATG. So it's not a question of how many times the fighter showed this ability it's that he indeed showed this ability. Tyson did not and like it or not it's one major reason he is not given higher ranking all time.

 

OK, you added Louis.
I think Schmeling was better than Douglas. I also think Louis was more competitive in his losing fight.
I also think Louis has a much better reign, better longevity, better record, than Tyson, most of which he did AFTER losing to Schmeling.
I would rate Joe Louis as an elite HW ATG, yes.

 

Bowe was good. I think better than Douglas.
Didn't you used to rate him then switched to hating on him ?
lol: ... or am I thinking of someone else ?)

The thing is, Holyfield was way more competitive when he lost to Bowe. Watch the fights if you're unsure.
Also, Holyfield beat Douglas AND Tyson.
Like I said, you have to weigh it all up, wins and defeats in prime years.

 

A simple question, will the current Heavy Weight Boxing scene be revived by the emergence of a Mohd Ali or a Mike Tyson? Who would the public dish out $100 in PPV and desperately wait in excitement to watch?

Klitschko isn't a bad fighter nor a bad champion, he win's all his fights and demolishes most of this opponents, why is he not selling or creating the excitement needed for the Heavy weight division?

Why is it that Tyson at 50 years old, whereever he goes is always swarmped by fans, reporters and with everyone interested in his opinion or what is going through his mind?

Again i ask, does Heavy Weight boxing need a Mohd Ali, Lennox Lewis or a Mike Tyson to generate that missing buzz, interest all over again?

 

I think people tend to forget the fact that Tyson was never suppossed to dominate the heavy weight scene given his dimension i.e. a very small height 5:10 and small reach i.e. 71. But he was able to compete successfully against some very tall big fighters with big reach advantages because of his elusive unreal head movement, strong fundamental boxing skills, abilities, super fast foot speed, hand speed, throwing large punches in combinations in addition to being a very hard puncher.

But once his primary assets i.e. speed in both arms, legs dissapeared let alone the erosion of his boxing skills, given his physical dimensions, it was impossible for him to effectively adapt to any other style and create the same effect as he did during his early 20's.

 

Reason is Wlad is boring. Boring inside the ring and boring outside. With Ali and Tyson their was always excitement where ever they went and they had an exciting style in the ring. Wlad wins but in unexciting fashion. All that holding!