Tysons era compared to Wald's today

No. Fan of today will just ask you to get the top 15 WBC of prime Tyson.
100% sure you'll find some laughable names.

 

:rofl

Tyson made people believe that Smith or Tillis were great

 

It isn't that clear cut is it? - are you saying Tyson wasn't technically good at the start?

Surely being aggressive is a big part of the sport - central infact to how rounds are scored

yes there is skill in jabbing and defence - nobody is diagreeing with you (noobs or otherwise) only its much easier to do those things when you are much much bigger than the person you are fighting

You say Waldo is a techical fighter by which i assume you mean, good ringmanship, solid defense, effective jab, powerful right down the middle - we can all see that and agree with you but a fully skillful fighter would have all that plus aggression - killer instinct

Even his own trainer thinks that Waldo does not take risks he is happy to win on points with his jab from round 1 - He is only able to do this because of his size

aggression is a massive part of boxing when it is missing from a boxer it means quite rightly they get critisim - because they don't create exciting fights

 

both era's very weak. i think tysons era was a lil better at the top but i think there are more decent fighters in this era

 

wait wait wait...who's spoon?:think

Tim Witherspoon?

 

IMO Tyson`s era was far better than today`s heavy weight.

 

great is a word that gets thrown around far too much and if you read my post again, you'll hopefully notice that I didn't use it. I never said they were great, I said I wouldn't pick any of today's heavies-other than the k brothers-to beat them. In fact I implied that Smith wasn't very good as you should have inferred from my use of the word 'even'.
Who's out there? Nobody. The division is empty of talent. Two good fighters and a load of fat people. Wow.

yes.

 

The reason the fighters underneath the Klitschkos in this era aren't good is none of them fight anybody of value. Think of basketball. Who's more likely to win an NCAA tournament game? The team coming from a weak conference that went 25-4 and played no one of worth or the team from a big-time conference that had lots of bruising battles and went 18-10?

I made this post yesterday on another thread on this board. Based on this list, I respect Eddie Chambers.

 

Mercer didn't "pretty much beat Lewis, Lewis won MD period, i've watched the fight recently and still couldn't score it for Mercer.

Let's not forget it was a far more matured Mercer that Lewis took on, 4 years infact, so let's not act like it was the same guy in the ring with Lewis as Holmes, it wasn't. Holmes would have had trouble with the Mercer Lewis fought.

 

I don't think that either man's opponent list was especially stellar, but nor were they bad.

Wlad's list of best wins in no particular order

- Eddie Chambers
- Calvin Brock
- Ruslan Chagaev
- Tony Thompson
- Sultan Ibragimov
- Lamon Brewster
- Sam Peter
- Chris Byrd

Tyson's best wins ( pre jail sentence ) no particular order

- Michael Spinks
- Tony Tubbs
- Frank Bruno
- Razor Ruddock
- Tony Tucker
- Pinklon Thomas
- Trevor Berbick
- James Smith

NOTE - I left off some names from both lists, such as Holmes from Tyson's and Rahman from Wlad's, given that those guys were too far past their primes to be considered as being among their best opponents. I think I listed about 8 men for each list

CONCLUSION - my thinking is that while I don't rate either list as being leagues above the other, I am inclinded to giving Tyson's resume the nod. My reasoning, is that the average age of Tyson's best opponent is a bit younger than that of the men that Wlad fought. Don't get me wrong, Tyson fought his fair share of aging foes, but I think its more the norm for Wlad than the exception.. In addition, Tyson's fighters came from an era where there was a greater circuit of better fighters facing each other, sparring together and the abundance of quality trainers was far greater than it is today. A negative of course, is that there were some guys back then who liked to party and had some drug or alcohol problems, but then again, you look at the condition of a lot of these 2000's guys, and I don't think it makes a great argument for better conditioning..

 

I think you're trying to spin the facts to the far opposite end of the pendulum.

Mercer may have indeed shapened up his jab and other skills, but let's not ignore that he was 35 years of age, off for 12 months, and had only fought once in two years. In his last fight before Lewis, he got dropped by an equally aged Holy who was on the comeback trail..He hadn't beaten a respectable opponent since Tommy Morrison in 1991, and was actually dropping fights to Ferguson, Holmes, and struggled mightily with Wilson and Wills.. On the night he fought Lewis, he was also about 10 - 15 lbs over his best fight weight. Frankly, I think the above factors outweigh the notion that Ray had sharpened up his jab a bit..

Lastly, while I agree that Lewis deserved the nod in the decision, it was hardly a decisive win.. That fight was close, and to tell you the truth, I wouldn't have screamed in outrage had it been ruled a draw..

 

I understand some of the points you're making, however this is just wrong. Did you see Wlad v Thompson? And you're still going to try and say Wlad isn't boring compared to Tyson? If not you must be blind.

Vitali is occasionaly entertaining. Wlad is an absolute borefest.

 

Tyson was 38 while Williams was prime.. Sanders was 38 while Wlad was prime... Wlad was the prime fighter getting his ass kicked by a hasbeen, while Tyson was the hasbeen getting beat by a prime fighter.... Pretty self explanatory.

This is an opinion.. No more..

I disagree. I can give Wlad a small pass for the Purity loss due to inexperience, but no way am I going to dismiss the sanders and Brewster defeats as being out of prime. He was in his late 20's for both those fights, had over 40 pro bouts and even had Manny Steward in his corner for one of them ( Brewster. ) I see no rational argument supporting that Wlad was either past prime nor that he had not yet reached it...

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

Bull****, nothing suggests that. Lewis was the one who needed improvement, and that was his gut check fight. Regardless of who you think won the fight, (I actually scored for Lewis too by one point), its proof that an elite olympic fighter who was a great boxer, was not yet ready to engage in fighting when boxing went out the window, and thats the point I was making regarding the Klitschkos. They can box with the best of them, but they cant fight with the worst of them.
Back to the Mercer Lewis fight, I was sitting ringside that night in the Garden, and I can tell you the fans chanted BS until Lewis disappeared into his dressing room, the fight was dam close and could have gone either way. Nonetheless, Lewis became a real fighter that night regardless of whether he won or lost.

 

I really don't see much separating the two, quality wise.

Both men cut through their respective divisions like a hot knife through butter, and that's all you can ask great fighters to do when their in just OK divisions. And, that's what it boils down to- their eras weren't that good, but heavyweight boxing has had more down times than up. The exact same ****'s been said about every champ's era in the last 50 years with the exception of Ali's and the 90's, and I believe no small part of the popularity of those eras has to do with all the drama those characters had surrounding tem.