How can Tyson be overrated when....

are you really that ****ing stupid???

maybe you should read this

all by the age of 23 years old he did the following

had 11 LEGIT world title fights

of his 11 world title fights against cab drivers....
9 of those cab drivers were a current, future or former legitmate heavyweight champion

the 2 that werent

This content is protected

This content is protected

10 wins 1 losss

by age 23 and 3 1/2 years


while your "wba paper champ" has fought a gold medalist from the olympics, he had already been knocked out 3 times and and was 38 years old

you know **** about boxing you ***

 

Yes yes, Tyson dominated at a very young age, his resume still isn't that stellar because he came up in a weak HW dvision and struggled against big, strong opponents who weren't afraid of him (whether that's tough wins like Tillis/Smith, or straight up losses like Douglas/Lewis/Holyfield/etc.)

 

ROFL

By 23 he beat no one, by 24 he was owned by a fat journeyman bum.


Do you even watch boxing?

 

Tyson was the man who got me into the sport!

Great promotion can work wonders.

Yes, most in an era of HW boxing (80s) that isn't highly regarded by fans.

And that means what? Amateurs are amateurs, pros different, neither had careers worthy of mentioning.

If the age a fighter matures at factors into your list then that's your choice, I don't.

He beat Pinklon Thomas, a decent fighter, and that was Berbicks only win of note. The guy had drawn and lost to limited unknows prior to Tyson.

Who was 19-5 at the time and lost to Adilson Rodrigez the very next fight.

Good win, no complaints.

I know who they were, I know the standard, and they'd lose badly to all great fighters by ko or points.

Spinks was an amazing lhw, at HW most prime greats rip him apart. This is probably Tysons best win, it wouldn't make top 3 for other ATGs.

I'd also say Lewis, Frazier, Foreman, Ali, Vitali, Holyfield, Bowe etc wouldn't have a problem with those guys, might not be as spectacular but they'd get the job done no worries.


I've already stated he was a beast in his prime. Now apart from those 3 years how about factoring in the other 14? to his ranking.

 

he's not.
enough of this ****.
He beat plenty of good contenders. Holmes, Spinks, Tucker, Thomas, Berbick, Tubbs, Golota, seldon, Botha, etc. PLENTY of good guys. His dominance was great. His fighting ability, power, speed, combos, WERE BAR NONE.
He was a complete beast and was not overrated at all. He's probably underrated right now

 

He would beat vitali imo, Vitali got rocked by sanders for ****s sake. Tyson would have gotten to him sooner or later.

Agree about the size thing though, His size allowed him to get inside where he was at his most dangerous, thats why when he was older he didnt quite have the slickness to bob and weave in like he did in his prime

 

There were two eras of Lennox separated by Oliver McCall. Lennox has a laid back fighting style where he takes little damage and as a person he lived a better lifestyle to facilitate a longer shelf life. Tyson was a pressure fighter who did a lot of drugs and alcohol.

Since when was this Lewis vs. Tyson?

 

It isn't about Lewis - Tyson. I was just pointing out fighters have peaks at different times so age shouldn't be a factor.

 

True but being rocked and being ko'd as you know aren't the same. Vitali's chin is solid and whenever Tyson gets inside Klitschko has the intelligence to drape his massive frame over him.
Tyson would be favourite but Vitali on a good night could get the job done.

 

Nobody's saying that he lost those fights. It's just that he didn't blow them out of the water. Compare Tyson vs. Ribalta or Smith with Tyson vs. Spinks, for example.

Changing the goalposts to explain why Tyson had a tough time with Tillis is totally missing the point. Tyson was REALLY good, but people say exaggerated things about him like "In the 80s veryone he faced he knocked out easily" which just aren't true.

It's like Ali fans who claim that Ali never got hit in the 1960s. Was he hard to hit? Definitely. Was he unhittable? No way.

 

You have your opinion and I have mine. What's the big ****in deal? Tyson supposedly "struggled" against bigger fighters. EVERYONE Tyson fought was bigger than him. Lewis had a longer reign but Tyson had a more dominant reign than Lewis did. Most would agree. Tyson faced more ex-champs and former beltholders than Lewis did. I feel the 80's crop of heavyweights gets underrated. He cleaned out the division so dominantly that people perceive the 80's as weak. Hell, anything that followed the 70's era of heavyweights is going to be weak.

 

Excellent post. People tend to disregard his wipeout of Spinks. Look how other light heavies did in their attempt to win the heavyweight crown:

Fitzsimmons took out Jim Corbett.
Tunney beat Dempsey TWICE.
Billy Conn almost pulled off the upset lasting to the 13th round against Louis.
Ezz Charles and Archie Moore gave Marcaino all he could handle.
Moorer beat Holyfield.
And Michael Spinks beat Holmes twice.

Amyways, we shouldn't bring up his size as a handicap. But what he did was amazing nonetheless.

 

So you are a child looking back to your innocence and you have never grown up to be a man.

Your silly opinions make sense now.

 

ROFL

Contenders?...an old fat retired Holmes coming off two losses 2 years ago and a 175 lb twig who just showed up for a pay day.

Those are Tyson's best wins....LMAO



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oXopGwqiyU[/ame]