Mike Tyson:Overhyped?

Found something I can finally agree with you on here. Still, Dempsey's comp wasn't as good as Tyson's.

 

Nice video. :good

 

I would have to seriously sit down and think about where exactly he'd fit in, in an all-time sense for defensive ability. I think top 3 all time is a stretch though.

But as you say, for that type of fighter, I've not seen his equal at heavyweight.

 

There are really no excuses for the Buster DOuglas defeat. Tyson was inadequately prepared and would have defeated Douglas if he was right. Too bad there was no rematch. And everybody gets tagged in a boxing ring. Thomas did connect with a great shot at the end of the first round. But you're too funny with your critique on Mike, stating his defense wasn't as good as it is said to be which is tremendous, and then the next sentence stating he was exceptional. What was he exceptional at?

How do you envision Tyson-Holyfield unfolding in '91?

 

I'm not sure how Rocky got dragged into this, but really, one could disparage every challenger of just about every champion that ever set foot into the ring.

Moore was indeed a light-heavyweight, but he was an exceptional fighter, one who would have some of his best fights after the Marciano fight, and he weighed the same as Rocky on fight night. (If I recall.)
The size difference was not glaring. Certainly not like it would be between a light-heavy and a heavy today.
Also, don't forget that it was Moore who was actively campaigning to fight Rocky, not the other way round.
It's not as if Rocky picked on Moore.

Ezzard Charles gave one of the fights of his life against Rocky. It was a tremendous performance by Charles. Ditto Walcott, who although 37, fought like he was 27. You really cannot fault Walcott's performance against Marciano. Not in the first fight.

Louis I'll give you. He was shot, although he remained quite a dangerous opponent for most other fighters other than Marciano.

 

I never said I don't use sources to back me up, when I am right about something, but in this situation I didn't, I just know it! Do you think I went through every fight of every heavyweight and added up the win/loss ration of their opponents atsch

Just accept that you've had your chauvinist ass handed to you by a gilr 'that shouyld leave the debating to the guys'

 

Maciano got brought into it because I was pointing out (in relation to Tyson) that you can pick holes in almost every HW champ's record through history, with only a couple of exceptions.

Regardless of anything you say about Charles, Walcott or Moore, the fact is they were all old (40 years old in the 1950s was old!!!) had had a huge amounts of fights and were way past their best!! There is no disputing this!!

 

Maybe he would have. But then again, maybe some of the men Tyson beat weren't quite right when he fought them.

The point is, Tyson would always be vulnerable to an opponent with a massive reach and good jab, who boxed and moved side to side and used angles if they needed to, and threw the right shots, like Douglas did. Obviously it's not an easy thing to pull off, but there were better fighters than Douglas who would have probably done what Douglas did against ANY version of Tyson.
Tyson was brilliant, but he had obvious physical limitations, and he wasn't the quickest fighter to adapt.

Offensively he's exceptional. Not perfect (no one is) but seriously good. Also, he eats guys up who back away from him in straight lines, that's why it takes lateral movement and good use of angles to outbox him. There are loads of things he's good at.

Defensively he was probably as good as you could expect him to be with that style. He had imperfections and didn't always keep up the slipping and ducking all the time, with his eagerness to land his heavy punches and his limitations in reach and height he's bound to be open at times coming in. The longer a fight went, the more this would be seen.
But it's unrealistic to think of him as a defensive master when he employed such an aggressive style. I guess a large part of his defense was his offense.

I think Holyfield would have won. It's an interesting fight.
But I believe Tyson had fallen out of love with boxing, and Holyfield still had a burning desire to prove himself.

 

Like who? I'm quite interested to hear who you think can pull it off.

 

Muhammad Ali.
Larry Holmes in his prime.
Sonny Liston, Joe Louis at his best, probably Lennox Lewis.
Evander Holyfield.

Those I would expect to beat prime Tyson with boxing or boxer-puncher styles.

 

Charles was 32 or 33 when he fought Marciano. Not quite 40 as you claim. How old are the current reigning heavyweight champions?
Indeed he was past his best, although nowhere near shot or anything, but he rekindled much of his youth for the Marciano fight. You have watched the fights, right?

Walcott was 37. He bloomed late. Again, watch the fight and tell me he looked or fought his age.

Moore was indeed old. Once again though, as I stated, a lot of his best work came after Marciano.

Foreman was 42 when he challenged Holyfield for the title, somewhere around 45 when he won it back. Hopkins is still kicking at 47.

To some, age is a number. They may be past their physical peak, but they make up for it with a wealth of experience and guile.

PS-Having a huge amount of fights in the 40's/50's wasn't exceptional.

 

Not my argument but.............

How old fighters are now is not really a true measure. Life expectancy was way less in the 50s, people in their 30s were middle aged.

Walcott looked good in the 1st fight, but they were all past their best by a long way and no way did Moore produce 'some of his best work' after the Marciano fight.

 

Added life expectancy for most people is really just another few years of being old. Medicine in the later years delays the illness and death. I don't think makes them younger for longer.
Most 40 year olds are still physically middle-aged, because of lifestyle.


As for fighters, the older ones are dominating more mostly because there is such little new talent coming through. There might be other reasons, but that's the main one.
I guess it was a similar situation in the 1950s when Archie Moore was still a dominant fighter. Sure, experience counts for a lot, but it didn't help him against young tigers like Marciano or Patterson.
And if there were any good young 175lbers around today, Hopkins would be toast.

 

I agree with this, but at the same time certain fighters hang onto their physical talents much longer than others, and can remain competitive well into an age when most fighters have retired.

Guys like Moore and Hopkins are such types. (And Big George, too.)
One can say that if there was a better class of contenders around these days things would be different, and probably they would be, but a fighter can only fight what's available.
For Hopkins to even still be active at this age is remarkable, and not too long ago he beat Pavlik, who was being talked about very highly and rightly so.

Moore had 42 fights, losing only 3 and drawing 1 after Marciano. And some of his opposition was still very credible too. Two of those losses were to Patterson and Ali, and there is no shame in that at any age.
He had that crazy brawl with Durelle...one of the best fights of the era.

To judge Moore (and hence, Rocky) based on his age alone is nuts.