James Tillis stopped 11 times.

:yep

 

See this is exactly what i was talking about over at *********** and not a single person understood what i was talking about. If Tyson was so great and had that much devestating power, then why was he in hard fight with quick tillis? some observers made a case that Tillis could have gotten the decision as well.

 

Well...

Did anyone consider Tyson great at that exact time?

Was Tillis the first talented, experienced and tricky guy Tyson fought?

Did Tillis turn back time a bit and fight quite well - perhaps his best ever?

Was Tillis tho oft beaten a bit rise in class for Tyson?

Had Tillis gone 9 fights prior without being stopped including 3 or 4 vs world class opposition?

If Ezzard Charles was so great why did he lose back to back vs Bivins and Marshall?

If Ali was so great why did he near get stopped vs Cooper and have trouble with Jones?

Why was Lewis beat by Rahman and McCall?

Why was Holyfield near ko'ed by Cooper?

Duran beaten by Laing?

Holmes troubled by Witherspoon and dropped by Snipes?

Foreman whupped by Young?

Norris by Brown?

I can do another 70 if you like. Better still, gimmee ya fave 10 fighters and we'll go them.

 

Oh, welcome to the forum too mate.

 

cause tyson was 19 years old.....thats why.....why couldnt lennox lewis stop ossie ocassio....why couldnt lewis stop levi billups.....:smoke:smoke:smoke:smoke:smoke:smoke

 

Tyson was almost the finished article when he fought Tillis. So Tillis deserves some credit, esp. because he came in shape and came to win for a change.

Sure, Tyson was somewhat green and maybe a year or two later he MIGHT have KO'd the same version of Tillis, but I'm not sure. The 100% prime "finished article" version of Tyson was extended by Tucker and Smith and got whupped by Douglas, but I'm sure there are a few million excuses being thrown forward for those results too.

Tyson should be given credit for BEATING these guys. But of course when a fighter is seriously being held up as "invincible in his prime" I guess some people feel a need to make excuses for fights where he looked anything less. And others obviously feel a need to nitpick at any result that makes him look less than invincible.

Personally, I never thought he was invincible, and I give him full credit for everything he did, everyone he beat, without feeling the need to "excuse" when he didn't look "invincible" and when he lost. That in itself pisses people off.

 

There is so many things wrong with that list that its laughable. 1st, Holyfield almost being Koed by cooper means nothing because Holyfield came back and won the fight. That list has nothing to do with Tyson so lets stay on topic here. I know that they are examples but they are completley different situations.

There is a difference between Holyfield and Tyson, Holyfield actualy had heart. That is one of the reasons why Tyson never made it to great status. Every time he has stepped up in class, he has been knocked out badly. Buster Douglas exposed Tyson as a front runner. If you could out box him, he would just lose confidence and follow you around the ring, he also did this with Tillis. Tyson later stated in his book that he wanted to quit because of all of the body shots that he took it that fight.

Razor Ruddock is another prime example. He was stopped easily by Lennox and was stopped by Morrison. Tyson struggled with his and the fight went the distance. We all know that the first fight was stopped prematurley.


In conclusion, yes Tyson was young and learning but that didn't change anything throughout the course of his career. He always lost confidence when he was lossing fights. He was never great, never a dominate champion, never beat a great fighter in his prime, and never anything more than hype. His greatest claim was becoming the youngest champion of all time. Tyson was a good exciting fighter in his prime but he was mainly hype.

 

Last time i looked Tyson beat Tillis too. About 6-4.

What you might mean is that you will excuse most or all on my list but not Tyson for sub par or off performances etc. I gave you multiple examples of great fighters fighting poorly or having trouble at similar or better career stages than Tyson.

If you think picking out a single performance of a green Tyson and using it to sum him up as a fighter is reasonable then there's not much left to say. One can do this to pretty much any fighter. The Ali examples are particularly effective, similar or better career stage than Tyson and beats Sonny Liston not much later. You can't have it two ways.

I agree Holyfield had more penchant for the battle than Tyson, more than most anyone really. A great warrior, but Tyson had his own set of weapons that gave him the ability to decimate similar fighters to what Holyfield had wars with. I rate Holyfield just above, but Tyson definitely made the category of "great".

Some will tell you the Tyson fights took a lot out of Ruddock.

Give me your 5 favourite fighters and i will tear them to pieces via the same mentality. I hope someone like Roy Jones is among em.

Bottom line - Tyson can indeed be rationally criticised, but using just the Tillis fight will end in embarrassment every time.

 

You did not name examples of fighters that lacked heart and didn't have any heart throughout thier whole career. You named great legendary champions that had heart. Legends with hall of fame careers and resumes, Tyson had none of these things. Tyson is not a great fighter. Good, but not great. If you rate him so high and he is great to you, tell me a great fighter that he beat in his prime?

Tyson has not beaten a great fighter and i do not understand why you compare him with Ali, its simply laughable. Sonnny Liston is a great fighter and Ali is the second greatest fighter of all time in my opinion. Tyson is no where near that level. Do you actually think that Tyson would have went through what Ali went through in the Liston fight? Fighting while being blinded and being hit by one of the hardest hitting heavyweight of all time? He wouldn't, he would lose confidence like he always does.

Look at accomplishments and do not believe the hype. Tyson was definatley not great. Holyfield was an example of a great fighter. He was an olympic gold medalist (robbed), had heart, a great dominate champion and the only 4 time heavyweight champion in heavyweight history, he was great. What did Tyson do besides get belts from paper champions? Evander Holyfield fought all comers while Tyson ducked fighters like Foreman when he was past his prime, Ray Mercer and Riddock Bowe. The Tyson camp wanted no part of any of them.

Thats just an excuse. If the Tyson fight took so much out of Ruddock, then why did he floor Morrison and almost stop him until he was countered with that left hook? Ruddock was fine, it was the weak heart of Tyson.

Tyson had the potential to be great but again, he had those poblems and all we can say is woulda coulda shoulda.
Also, 5 of my favorite fighters are, not in this order but

Pernell ''sweat pea'' Whitaker

Tito Trinidad

Henry Armstrong

Ray Robinson

Floyd Mayweather

See there is a diference between these fighters and Tyson. These are all great hall of fame fighters that is mentioned among the best of all time and had plenty of heart. Tyson was not great, never a dominate champion, lacked heart and did not accomplished half the things that these fighters did so you have no point. Look at accomplishments, not ability or potential. He does not have the accomplishments of a great fighter. He did not go to the olympics nor was he a long reigning champion.

 

:roll: :roll: Tyson never ducked Mercer or Bowe there was never any mention of a fight between them.

And did you actually see the Ruddock fights or just heared about them Ruddock was given a beating in both fights.

Tyson won a title within one year and 7 months of turning pro and is still the only HW to unify all the important titles of his reign in the Ring . Tysion also had 9 title defenses against fairly good competition Tyson also damn near cleared out the HWS of his era and he did all this in a 3 year span other other ATG HWS needed decades to do what Tyson did in 3 years.

Tyson is a top 10 HW using any criteria.

When another 20 year old HW crams 27 fights in one year and seven months and wins a title unifies all the relevant titles of his era Ko's the former King in 91 seconds . Ko's an old ATG in 4 rounds which never happened nor would happen to that fighter again.

Then and only then will i take Tyson out of my top 10.

 

This content is protected

 

So Holmes was in his prime in say 1973, the year of his first pro fight :rofl


If i was you i wouldn't be shy of spending a little time in General mate

 

Like him or hate him Tyson is a top ten 10 ATG HW.

And provide proof of Tyson ducking Mercer or Bowe.

And yes i pick Tyson to beat alot of HWS.

When someone claims that Tyson never had any heart and that all you have to do is stand up to him and he would crumble this tells me that i am probably dealing with a boxing ''fan'' repeating something he heard without actually watching the fights.

 

Well tell me great fighters Tito, Whitaker and Mayweather have beaten in their prime? Holmes too.

If he had no heart at all how did he come back to drop and almost stop Douglas after being flogged for many rounds? He still plodded on even after getting a decent hammering. Lewis said he couldn't believe Tyson was still there after some of the shots he landed and this was old Tyson. I think his heart in his short peak would have been quite ok if not on a Holmes level.

Can you not understand i am simply comparing situations? atsch

Lets take your attitude. Sonny Liston great? The same Sonny Liston who QUIT on his stool vs Ali and was later stopped in seconds by a light hitting fighter? Ali? The Ali that couldn't beat the average Ken Norton who was axed by people like Foreman and Shavers in a blink? See my point?

Tyson is above the Liston level.

Ok, i have that fight in a few formats, what round was he blinded and at what time in that round did Liston actually land flush punches on him? One remembers a lot of misses.

atsch

The steroid driven Holyfield? The one who lost a trilogy to Bowe at his peak? The one who was beaten by a Moorer who couldn't beat great grandad Foreman?

I can simply look at the negatives too.

4 times because he kept losing?

Crap post.

Losing to Morrison sure doesn't help your argument lol

Tito GREAT? :rofl

You really gotta brush up on your history.

Olympics? That's a pre req for being great?

:huh

 

Olympics a pre req for being great :yep Guess i will have to take Joe Louis off my ATG list Holmes too Dempsey as well Marciano too