Boxing Monthly SAVAGES Mike Tyson

Yeah, simple logic (with clear emphasis on "simple") that is.

 

After seeing the end of The Hangover II, I was forced to move him up a few notches on my ATG list. :yep

 

Ah. Needed that to get the joke. Slower than a Dutchman, am I? The horror.

 

summerlin looked like a very good fighter on film but I never did get how embrell Davidson did so well against Marty. maybe Marty was sonny’s ken Norton or holyfeilds riddick bowe? Truth is live opponents catch out great fighters during the learning curve because sometimes great fighters lose to a great performance even if the guy producing the performance is not great. If it doesn’t happen it doesn’t mean it could not it just means the fighter was well matched and avoided such tasks. both liston and Tyson were susceptible to this and their records prove it.

 

Two reasons. point one, I cant help being me lol. point 2, Tyson and liston are similar in that they were both impressive monsters who intimidated the opposition and you cant rate one and not the other. To diss Tyson you diss Liston. Because I am me, I rate Liston below Tyson but they were both impressive Heavyweights for a short time.

 

I agree with this to a large extent. People are tempted also to call the Clay fight one of Liston's biggest fights, which of course it only is in hindsight. Just like Douglas and Holy I for Tyson. The rematch certainly was one of his biggest tests, and he failed miserably. Same with Tyson in his rematch against Holy. Both also had some good wins after that and loss(es) that doesn't really count for much.

 

This content is protected

 

Tyson is my favourite fighter of my lifetime, possibly my favourite fighter of all time next to Roberto Duran, I worship the ground he walks on and believe that anyone discrediting the man to e a heathen. However, I strongly believe he is the most overrated fighter of all time.

On the question the writer asks about whether the Buster Douglas upset really was one of the biggest upsets of all time, the answer is yes. He is not taking time frame into consideration the ****ing idiot.

 

When I first started to take an interest, my opinion on Mike Tysons was a milder view of the opinion expressed in this article.

I have changed my mind for a number of reasons related to my study of boxing history.

I realsise that only an exceptional fighter will dominate the best available opponents in the world even in a weak era.

I have also come to realise that Tysons resume, while his prime was short, is deceptivley strong on depth.

 

Dempsey isn't my pound-for-pound number 1.
He is pound-for-pound above Tyson though, in my opinion. Dempsey was 187 pounds to Tyson's 218, and I believe at his prime he would rip through the same versions of Spinks (212 pounds) and Holmes (225 pounds) that Tyson beat, in similar fashion.

 

Yeah, he's only behind Ali, Louis, Holmes and Wlad I think when it comes to wins over ranked opposition. And most of those he blew out and/or totally dominated.

 

more then Lewis?

 

I think it's about the same.

 

I agree. Not much between them at all.