Greatest heavyweight with weakest resume?

1. Tyson almost knocked out Douglas
2. Tyson beat Ruddock twice after Douglas. Ruddock would have been Frazier's third best opponent and second best win.
3. Tyson won two titles after prison and beat Golota about fifteen years after winning a title

 

He had a solid Amateur career he was a big guy looked the part had a good win over Tillis a very competitive fight vs Witherspoon who was in shape. Ring Magazine rated Williams as the prospect of the year and apparently he'd done very well vs a prime Mike Tyson in sparring.

It's nothing to do with Douglas being a knockout artist it's his dimensions he's close to 6'4 with an 83 inch reach and 230 pounds. He's a very big man and talented Frazier is alot smaller than Douglas and would have alot of difficulty vs a peak Douglas.

Put it this way Tyson had a poor night vs Douglas right ? if you were to pit say the version of Frazier who fought Foreman vs a peak Douglas. Would you confidently make Frazier a favourite over Douglas ? because i know i wouldn't.

 

Too much goalpost shifting for me to even address. But lol at Tyson not being a highly ranked am who was sought after before turning pro.

 

1. Right, almost xD Got schooled every other round besides that and knocked out.
2. I would put Quarry and Bonavena above Ruddock personally, but you can argue that.
3. Yeah, 2 titles, again beating paper title holders without a successful defence who weren't even rated in the Top 5 at that point. Frazier beat Bugner and Quarry who can be considered better than Seldon and Bruno. Golota win was actually impressive.

 

1. If he lost every other round he wouldn't have been up on the cards (as bad as they were).
2. Bruno would've been counted as top 5 if you removed Tyson from the rankings. Ruddockx2, Bruno, Seldon, Golota, Botha, Savarese>>>>Bugner, Quarry (past it), and totally shot Ellis.

 

1. The cards were BS, you know damn well he lost every round except for the KD one. I think Lederman gave Mike one more tho. But that's all you can give him.
2. So let me rephrase that: barealy Top 5 paper title holder with no defences.
3. I actually only made a comparison between their reigns, I would consider Tyson to have better pre and post champion career.

 

You are talking about a quarter of his career regarding 1985-90. What he did in that timeframe is vastly diluted by the remaining, highly mediocre, 75%. Maybe if he’d cleaned out a golden age the case would look sturdier, but he did what he did in a lethargic & uninspiring time. I’m not dismissing it - it was impressive, doubtless. But it’s 25% of his career timespan.

 

Of course you’ll want to narrow the focus to a four year period because the other 15+ years are perennial under-achievement.

 

I see you’ve forgotten nothing & learned nothing.

 

Jesus, this board sometimes

 

Well i'm surprised you would say easily quite honestly Frazier was not in good form vs Foreman that night. He would be fighting against a very talented Heavyweight with an 83 inch reach who's considerably bigger than him whilst not at 100 percent peak form.

As for Tyson i think regarding the eye test it's quite apparent Tyson was not at his absolute best vs Douglas that night in Tokyo. He also had a very inept corner not even having an enswell which is comical.

Because i made the comparison that Tyson was not at his best vs Douglas just like Frazier was not at his best vs Foreman. You're criticizing Tyson for losing to Douglas but i'm making a scenario that if you pitted the Frazier who fought Foreman vs a peak Douglas would Frazier be an overwhelming favourite ? and i would say no.

I don't think Foreman has a massive skill gap over Douglas he may have more power, better chin, etc. But if you're talking strictly in regards to skills then i don't think there is a massive gap no. And if Foreman fought a peak Douglas he would also have a rough night vs him especially if you pit the Foreman who fought Young, Lyle, vs Douglas for example.

Because Cobb is a slugger who stands right infront of his opponent to be hit, Douglas is a talented big man who is very good at keeping the range with a very good jab.

 

Beating a shopworn Frazier who was out of shape and Norton who froze anytime he went up against punchers. Has absolutely no relevance how Foreman does against a highly skilled big man who's bigger than him with a longer reach Lyle is no better than Douglas and less skilled than him.

I'm not saying Douglas would beat Foreman necessarily but he would certainly be a tough match up for Foreman yes i don't see why you think that's such a shocking comment. Just because Foreman is more highly regarded doesn't mean he blows away Douglas, if Foreman wouldn't of fought Young would you have believed Young would've convincingly beat Foreman on points ?

But you're not taking into account styles Cobb just being 6'3 has no relevance to Douglas but he doesn't resemble his style at all. Cobb is also not a big puncher in regards to single punch power despite his high KO percentage which is why Norton fared better against Cobb.

Again you're not taking into account i'm matching up the Frazier who fought Foreman vs a peak Douglas.