Anyone who thinks prime ali would beat prime tyson

I know Ali And Holmes are a BILLION times GREATER. :thumbsup

I was manly concerned with how Lenny Lewis is a true All time GREAT compared to "good Prospect" Tyson, cos as my Xpert buddy pointed out - Tysons' wins over tiny fragile light heavy Spinks And Old shot Holmes are WORTHLESS And Lewis's wins over Old Holyfield [just 3 yrs after he turned back time And DESTROYED Prime Tyson!!!] And Old Tyson ["Destroying teh myth of Tyson once And for all" - Lewis: Beyond the glory] are way, way BETTER. deal


Foreman Hoooooooooooooooooooook!:hat:rasta:smoke

 

I sense just a teency weency bit of exaggeration, here...

Downplaying Spinks as a "tiny fragile" is dissing his achievements at light heavy and downplaying his viability at heavy at the time...

You and your expert buddy are guilty of a sin that only casual fans with limited (very, at that) knowledge are guilty of- and that is remembering Spinks solely for his disaster against Tyson and tagging him basically a chump.

The washed up Holmes point can be countered with the fact he had never before been trated like that in the ring by being KO'd...

And your assertion that Lewis' wins over Holyfield (he shouldn't have struggled as much as he did) and totally gone, washed up Tyson have more weight than Tyson's wins over washed up Holmes and a Spinks who had proven himself (for the time spent at heavy) and had momentum is your opinion, and a biased and un-objective one at that.

 

ali beats tyson. but nobody else does.

 

Also, Holmes went on to have a very good win against Mercer(he was a handful for Lewis & Holy) and gave Holyfield a better fight than an old Foreman did. atschHook thinks Tyson was in his prime in '96. He's a fanboy that can't be taken seriously and the only time he talks about Tyson is out of hate instead of appreciation of some of his accomplishments. He's probably a 14 year old internet warrior as I can't believe he's a man with all the foolishness he says.

 

:dealIt PROOF he not a proper Great.

Lennox beat 2 Great fighters

Holmes beat 2 Great fighters

Tyson beat none.

PRIME 29 yr old Tyson couldnt even win VS Old, Washed-up 34 yr old Holyfeild. :rofl:rofl:rofl

 

What two great fighter did Lennox beat? Please don't come back with one of those being Tyson...

What two greats did Holmes beat? Please don't come back with one being Ali..

...And you're welcome for your avatar, son...

 

Lennox beat Old Holyfeild [who DESTROYED PRIME Tyson 3 yrs Earlier!] And Old Tyson [win is better then you think, cos 3 yrs before destroying Tyson, Lennox beat Holyfeild who destroyed Prime Tyson just another 3 yrs before!]. :thumbsup

Holmes beat Old Norton And Old Ali. :thumbsup

Tyson beat nobody, just a light heavy And a SHOT, ANCIENT Holmes. :deal

 

You're discounting Tyson's achievements. He beat plenty of credible fighters. Top level guys.

Just because Bob Foster never beat any other greats at light heavy, does that disqualify him from consideration of being great or ability in a head to head scenario?

Same could be said for tons of other fighters who are held in high regard.

And the ancient Ali and washed up Tyson examples are totally stretching. That gains no ground for your arguments.

Finally, you continue to cite '96 as Tyson's prime; that is incorrect and you know it. You keep harping on it to make your argument have some weight, which it doesn't.

 

Tyson would be lucky to get on that top 20 list, never mind number 2.
Ali would definitely be in my top 5.

Tyson was just not that good. People overrate him. They overrated him since 1986, watching those video montages of his KOs over the illustrious likes of Donnie Long and Eddie Richardson.
The kid was a good prospect, a quick KO artist, who became champion briefly and lost by getting KO'd by a routine contender.
His record is not a great one, his ability is overrated. He didn't match up to his hype, he couldn't even stay champion in a weak era.
It didn't take an Ali or a Frazier or a Foreman to beat him, to KO him for the title, it didn't even take a Holyfield.
Buster Douglas did it.

 

:thumbsup Xpert post m8 - 110% AGREED with your GREAT pounts. :thumbsup

i had Tyson at no.15 for Heavy, BUT i was being v.generous, no.21-29 is porbably a fairer place for him. :deal

 

I applaud your neutral objectivity.

Excuses can be made of what effect King and Givens had on him, losing his camp of good people around him and all, but the fact is, he never lived up to the hype at the top level.

Tyson's KO percentage in non-title fights is 89%; in title fights, it's 63%.

I still give more credit to him in a head to head sense (maybe incorrectly, but that's my opinion) than some, but his blend of attributes made him an impressive specimen.

 

Well, he's ARGUABLY worthy of no.15 but I certainly cannot understand anyone saying he's top 10.
I think he'd end up just inside or just outside my top 20 on an ALL-TIME list, including all the fighters going back to John L. Sullivan etc.
Like I said, a GOOD champion, briefly, but not a truly great one.

 

Aye m8, he was a good exciting prospect i agree [v.much like David Tua], youngest belt-holder And Champion for 2 yrs, BUT he was teh biggest Hype-Jawb in Sporting History And got EXPOSED at his PEAK by a journeyman called Bummy Douglas - who rode to teh ring on a sparkling pink Dragon And smitted teh "invincible" Mythical PRIME Tyson, a overated Small-Slugger who couldnt even stay Unbeaten in WEAK era of druggies, bums, junkies, tomato cans, light heavys And old men. :deal

 

I factor in head-to-head quite a lot when I rate fighters, but again the problem with Tyson is that he didn't even consistently beat the ordinary contenders, got beaten up and knocked out by one of them, never mind the great or semi-great fighters of his era.

In a way, i think he was fortunate to get beaten up by Buster Douglas, because it makes his bag of excuses more palatable to the boxing fans and historians. People dont want to believe that loss has any bearing on Tyson's legacy and ability, and the ordinaryness of Douglas gives them comfort in saying "yeah, something must have been really wrong, it was a fluke". If it had been Holyfield beating Tyson they'd be more inclined to call it like it is.

Tyson looked awesome blowing away some fairly ordinary contenders and paper "title-holders", and the petrified Michael Spinks, but I think there's enough evidence out there to suggest that against any great heavyweight who could box him from the opening bell, unintimidated, and last a few rounds on even terms, Tyson would be in deep and troublesome waters.