In the 18 months leading up to his challenge for Dempsey's title, it seems that Miske beat and drew with Bill Brennan, drew with Battling Levinsky, lost a close one with Kid Norfolk, and lost to Gibbons and Greb. Not once knocked out. I'm guessing that might put him among the top 4 or 5 LIGHT-HEAVYS in the world, and since many of those guys were campaigning almost simultaneously at heavyweight, with perhaps only 3 or 4 bigger guys (eg. Wills and Langford) with better claims, I dont see why Miske cant be considered top 10 among the big boys. None one doubts Ray Mercer was one of Lennox Lewis's better opponents, but his form going in was a loss to a "sick" Evander Holyfield, a draw with Marion Wilson, and a close split decision win over Jesse Ferguson in a fight where he was supposed to prove his superiority over the old journeyman. Since losing to a flabby 42 year old Larry Holmes over 4 years earlier, Mercer had failed to show anything to establish a pressing claim to be considered an elite contender. Most of us think Mercer was one of Lewis's "better opponents" and dont scrutinize his record to doubt whether he deserved a ranking at all. I know it wasn't a title fight but it's still a "major win" on the Lewis resume, IMO. The critical eye can be applied in all directions. The extent of Billy Miske's illness at the time will probably remain a mystery but his record before and after are certainly no reason to dismiss him as a disgracefully easy option for Dempsey.
Janitor - you're top 10 at the time or you aren't. His last 5 or 66 fights dictates he wasn't. The ratings makers don't see fights down the track, think whoa, and go back in a time machine to reinstate him. I know what you say, but the facts are his record for 5 or 6 fights was abysmal.
Yeah but Mercer didn't get a title shot. Lewis wanted to knockout Mercer to impress for an upcoming Tyson fight. And Lewis has several more names of the quality of Mercer or better; Dempsey not much so.
Miske's record was better than Everett Martin's. Most, if not all, of the Miske bouts we are talking about were NO DECISION bouts anyway. And I'm only going by brief comments on boxrec. The only one it elaborates on is a definite "ND loss" to Greb. A draw with Levinsky, the world's light-heavyweight champ is no disgrace. It's hard to know what's what with all these NDs anyway. A few fight reports are needed before we can guess how these fighters performed. Everett Martin was losing to guys like Johnny Duplooy and Francesco Damiani, he'd' been stopped by second-rate light-heavies two or three years earlier. I respected Martin though, I just dont think equating him with Billy Miske is accurate. Holyfield defended his title against Bert Cooper - albeit as a substitute opponent - and I can name challengers from modern eras who were actually as bad as Martin, and more who were almost as bad on paper at least. Okay. That's reasonable. Yeah, it wasn't a title fight, just an example of someone with unimpressive recent form on paper but proved and known to be a respectable capable opponent. Golota fought Lewis coming off TWO CONSECUTIVE DISQUALIFICATION LOSSES, Frans Botha was like 1-1-1 in his last 3. These two fights WERE title fights, and I think the manner in which Lewis demolished both of them DOES add to his legacy. Botha's credentials were esp. weak but I cant say that destruction doesn't help convince me of Lewis's overall greatness. He was a respectable opponent, a reasonable challenger but certainly not the most deserving challenger in the world.
Spare me the melodramatics Sonny, a "sick" Evander Holyfield. Is this a build up for excusing him vs Moorer right before Mercer and Bowe right after? Yet you claim it was the best version of Tyson vs Douglas atsch. Lewis and Tyson get no room to wriggle but Holyfield sure does. What was Evander sick from, too much roid? You state yes it was title shot. Well this makes ALL the difference. Worlds of it. Not even a comparable situation. Mercer's an ok win for Lewis, but he has many many better ones. It's just another win vs a good fighter of which there were many, and much better on his resume.
I know you are familiar with the times, so I wonder why I'm having to explain myself, but here goes : Holyfield was diagnosed as having a heart condition after his rather awful showing against Moorer. He retired before resurfacing claiming he had been cured by a miracle spiritual healer. This was controversial of course. Try to find a preview of the Holyfield-Mercer fight that doesn't mention Holyfield's health issue and the concerns over whether he should be in the ring. And, yes, the concerns did linger on through the Bowe and Czyz fights. George Foreman was ranting from ringside during the Bowe fight about "this man is sick ! He has a bad heart ! This is bad for boxing" etc. etc. etc. Before Holyfield fought Tyson the heart condition thing was still very much in the foreground. But you know all this already. My use of "sick" (note the speech marks) is historically accurate. No, not the best, but still a good version of Tyson. For example, no reason for me to consider the Tyson (post-Rooney, post-Spinks) who had just beat Carl Williams and Frank Bruno was ANY better than when he lost to Douglas. A little bit sloppy perhaps but still Tyson. You have me pegged as a Holyfield fan and a Tyson and Lewis "hater", and frankly it's getting boring. If the names Holyfield and Tyson and/or Lewis come up in any one post of mine I can be sure you'll find a way to read my "bias" into it. Actually I've been persuaded that Lewis should rank higher than Holyfield on the all time list. I'm not attacking Lewis at all. I'm actually showing where your (and others) attacks on Dempsey are flawed and nitpicky. In my opinion. I want to apply the same standards to all the fighters, and only try to get others to do the same here with Dempsey. Miske wasn't a terrific challenger, he's not the most deserving guy in the world, he has an illness, but he's capable and has a respectable record. He's no bum, he's no joke. And Dempsey blasts him away in 3 rounds. That's ALL I'm trying to explain. Analogies are just a way of conveying the message. Yes, maybe. Or maybe he wasn't sick at all. But that wasn't the feeling at the time Mercer fought Lewis. At that time Holyfield was considered sick, perhaps suffering a genuine heart problem, or damaged beyond repair through boxing, a victim of accelarating decline or just war-torn. Or steroids. Fair enough. But as I've stated the Mercer example is just to show that a "bad" recent record on paper isn't the whole story. Mercer was pretty good against Lewis. Well, I dont think Lewis has many many better ones over much better fighters. But I would agree that Lewis has beaten many similar opponents more impressively. And that he has some (a few) better men on his record. IN TOTAL IT ALL ADDS UP TO LEWIS BEING A GREAT HEAVYWEIGHT. But I am arguing that Billy Miske was not Dempsey's greatest opponent either. I think Dempsey has lots of devastating wins over many similar opponents, and a few good wins over better ones. Dempsey destroyed Miske in 3 rounds. I dont really understand what this attack on Dempsey is all about. Dempsey deserves credit for being a great fighter. In the past I have been too harsh on Tyson, and perhaps Lewis too, but in these discussions recently I'm willing to give ALL THE GREAT FIGHTERS THE RESPECT THAT IS DUE THEM. People ARE saying stuff like Dempsey only beat "crap" fighters, was "scared to death" of black ones and wouldn't last 90 seconds with a modern fighter. They ARE saying Billy Miske was not even top 25 in the world, that none of the fighters Dempsey beat had boxing skills, and that him getting stunned or rocked in such-and-such a fight proves he wasn't on a par with modern greats. All I'm trying to do is expose the nitpicking that's being directed at Dempsey. The easiest way to attack a fighter's reputation is by saying he never beat any good fighters. You pulled me up on it when I've gone at Tyson, and quite rightly. But some of the stuff being said or implied about Dempsey is seriously biased and unfair, IMO. Even when he's knocking out contenders in a matter of seconds he's given no credit.
I'll pass on it just like i let go the so called leg massage of my favourite fighter, Thomas Hearns vs Hagler, not to mention the broken hand. If we go around accepting all the excuses boxers spew forth, including miracle recoveries we won't see the sky for the clouds. So what would you rate the Tyson of the Douglas fight compared to the best Tyson you ever saw on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being your best version of Tyson? A little sloppy? Kudo's to Douglas but this wasn't a decent version of Mike, he even got dropped on his ass in sparring. You're getting a wee bit paranoid here Sonny. When did i ever call you a "hater"? I'll call you biased on this one particular topic any day of the week, but i sure can't remember any "hater accusation. Maybe i've hit a nerve. Again, the use of "attacking" seems a bit extreme and over-reactive. I'd hardly call my comment on "wriggle" an accusation of you attacking Lewis. Well given our past debates i find it a little suss you just happened to find your way to a little Holy PR work while also casting a shadow Lewis' way. I also consider the statement per Mercer out of context as i'm sure will be addressed by you as i ease down this post. I think **** just happened myself. Foreman has his way of dramatising things. The facts are Holyfield came back to wage an immense war against Tyson, one that i will never forget. I play that fight about once every two months Tho i have thrown your comparison out i did heed your post regarding Miske's opposition and took a little from it. I'd rate at least half dozen better including the two Holy bouts, Tyson, Tua, Rudduck, Golota and Klit borderline. A good win yes. These guys were dangerous, and as you point out, Mercer's form coming in was average. Being a great fighter should not exclude you from having your record poured over IMO. We, this forum, do it to pretty much everyone. They also all cop their over the top criticism and extremes from both ends. I've noticed that many take great exception when it's Dempsey's turn to come under the microscope, even when good points are made, and i know there's been plenty. If Chris has edged to slightly over the top on some points or made a rare error it's only because of what he's up against. I'll say this, i do indeed think Dempsey is one fighter who has been blown up out of proportion. It's well known the press were sensationalistic in his time and nobody got them going quite like Jack. I'll also say he was obviously a fantastic fighter in his day and definitely among the greats. He'd make my top 15 Heavyweights ever, and as you say, top 12 ever is a very great acclaim.
I'm not talking about an excuse. As I understand it, Holyfield was diagnosed by a doctor and told to retire. Against his wishes. Then, many months later, he had to find a doctor to clear him to fight, announce his comeback amid the damaging publicity, and secure a boxing licence. His belief in a "miracle cure" is irrelevant. It's a bit of a long-winded and image-damaging alilbi for a loss, if you think it was just that. More likely it was a misdiagnosis or a temporary ailment from which he naturally recovered. If you dont believe the boxing press and fans suspected "something's wrong with Holyfield" between Moorer 1 and Tyson 1 then you're being revisionist. A higher number than you would, I guess. The problem with the question is that the best Tyson I ever saw was probably mowing someone down in 2 rounds, whereas Douglas was beating Tyson up. We've discussed this before and I think you just think I'm insane but I will always maintain that it's hard to look good when someone's beating the **** out of you. That particular sparring partner was capable of great things now and then. I remember reading reports in KO magazine of Tyson having his hands full sparring against young chinny muscleman Mike Williams in 1986 leading up to the Berbick fight. In hindsight Tyson was not as well-prepared for Douglas has he had been for Berbick, but how many people thought a bad day in the gym meant anything BEFORE Douglas beat him up. The odds seemed to grow longer against Douglas. I think Tyson would have beaten Bruno or Williams that night. And if you throw that version of Douglas in with the Tyson who fought Tillis, Thomas or Tucker then I can see him winning there too. It's not clear cut. I'm glad you dont think I'm a hater. I'm not biased either. I could call you biased against Douglas on this issue, but really I guess it's just a difference of opinion. I reckon your out-of-the-blue accusation of me being melodramatic was kind of extreme. I refered to a "sick" Holyfield in passing (which was relevant to Mercer's form, which was just an analogy for a partial defence of Dempsey-Miske) and you opened fire on new fronts. As far has I'm concerned we were discussing Dempsey primarily. Read my posts. I'm saying Ray Mercer was GOOD. I'm saying Billy Miske was GOOD. I'm saying Lennox Lewis was GREAT. I'm saying Jack Dempsey was GREAT. Holyfield, I refered to a "sick", and only mentioned him once in passing and that was enough for you to chime in. If I was reading I wouldn't consider that has PR work for Holy, and a shadow upon Lewis. That's a very leftfield interpretation of what I wrote. Mercer was a good capable fighter but his recent record was unimpressive. Within the discussion on Billy Miske I believe it was in good context. Esp. since Lennox Lewis is the modern champion who is being put forward as "far greater" than Dempsey in many of these discussion. With hindsight we can doubt that much was wrong with Holyfield at all. But with hindsight Billy Miske goes on a very impressive winning run after Dempsey KOs him, but that fact has been prohibited by certain postors. That's fair enough. I'd rate Dempsey in the top 5 but that's just my preference.
I'd say misdiagnosis or a need to ease back on certain substances. There were also plenty of main stream articles claiming Tyson was burning out and becoming vulnerable well before the Douglas bout. There were stories and worries coming out of his camp which were quite well documented. Reckless incidents and plenty of insights were provided. We must take these into account and ponder just how much effect they had on Tyson in Tokyo. Douglas fought great but it was easy to see this was not exactly a fully focused Tyson. Well for me it's a combination of a vulnerable Tyson vs someone who on the night could actually take advantage of the fact. I don't doubt this sloppy version of Tyson still beats just about anyone (Yeah, Williams) but Douglas rose to the occasion and put on a brilliant display to take advantage of the situation, which few others if anyone could have done. I rate this Tyson below the one who fought Holyfield, incidently. Now we are talkin' my man!!!!! SUPER Greg Page!!!! Yes but again it's a fairly different comparison. The reports i mentioned back up a vulnerable Tyson scenario. I'll grant the odds for sure, a Tyson loss to anyone on earth was unfathomable at the time, but again the stories and whispers were around, it's just that nobody truly heeded them and nobody expected Douglas to put on the performance of his life. He had some great talent. He's a bit like Page really. The first sentence yes, but noway can i see that Douglas beating the Tyson from Berbick, Thomas or Tucker. Tho i mock the Tyson with Rooney fanatics the truth is this was a far far better Tyson. Tyson's corner in Tokyo were damn pathetic, and if anyone disagree's with that goodness help them. Rooney kept Tyson calm and focused, with good patience and a sound gameplan. He was a very calming influence in the Tyson corner. I'd never said you were a hater but will stand solid on biased. I readily admit Douglas reached great heights that night but you refuse to admit the extent of Tyson's woes and poor showing, proven by your picking above of Douglas over any Tyson. This is far from a case of the first good fighter who put on a great effort vs Tyson would beat him and did, but this is the stance you take. It's a difference of opinion yes, but i'll bet you're far from the middle (balanced) ground on this one. We were discussing Dempsey but you emphasised with inverted comma's the "sick" Holyfield and i went at this point (and the rest) per your train of post (you compared Dempsey - Miske to Lewis - Mercer) to show i didn't believe your comparison valid. As you say above, you used "sick" as "relevant" to Mercer's form, and i thought personally it was bull****. If Holyfield was oh so sick what the christ was he doing fighting? Again and again. If he was THIS bad he would have been diagnosed and rested or put to pasture much earlier. That's my take anyways. The "sick" as far as i am concerned was used to lessen Mercer's performance against Holyfield and therefore his standing going into the Lewis fight. Why else would you even give it mention? Per topic of you trying to compare Lewis taking on Mercer to Dempsey taking on Miske i went at that particular point to put forward my case of the two not being comparable. I also expanded a little :angel Well lets just end it with Lewis not even being the champion at the time so it's not comparable. Ali, Holmes etc all get criticism for defending the title against the odd mug but none of them had records coming in even remotely comparable to Miske's that i know of. Pre title shot results are pre title shot results. The fact is Miske came in with an abysmal run for a world title challenger. It has little to do with Holyfield's supposed problems. Fair enough, it's your choice and i respect it :good
i think a lot of people underestimate wlad's defense and ring generalship and focus too much on his chin and offensive arsenal. how many other 6'7" hws can move like wlad? he barely gets touched now and its because he always controls the space between himself and his opponent. watching the first and second brewster fights, one can see the improved movement. he jabs and hooks off the jab on the move now. true, his chin isnt that great but he is extremely hard to reach now with effective shots. at the very least, this wlad would give every atg a tough fight and i cant see an early stoppage against anyone cause he continually moves in and out of the punching zone. in close, he clinches and leans on his opponent like lennox did.
