[QUOTE="JohnThomas1, post: 18653787, member: 1758" It's flabberghasting and more than a little embarrassing that you can somehow find a (fantasy) way to write off guys. Other fighters who you obviously like are held to utterly different standards and you find wild flipsides to champion their cause. Stands out like dog balls.[/QUOTE] I see that a lot too. With all due respect to the late Sonny Liston, I like him as a fighter, but his best win was a 190ish lb Floyd Patterson. Who had been stopped before and frequently knocked down. But he tends to get a pass on that. Tysons win over Michael Spinks gets disregarded even though he was 212 lbs on fight night and was undefeated and never floored. At the very least, it's comparable to Listons win over Patterson. Especially since Spinks had 2 close fights over a version of Holmes comparable to the version of Ali that Norton had his close fights over. Or how no one has a problem saying that Ali was unbeatable to any heavyweight champion in history the night he beat Cleveland Williams. Completely ignoring the quality of the opponent. Tyson would be shown no mercy on this board or in the YouTube comments section if he defended his title against an opponent with one fully functional leg, who had been stopped at least 3 times at or near his prime, once by a 176 lbs puncher (who admittedly could hit), and had barely survived a gunshot wound. But if I said that no one could have beaten Tyson on the night he beat 38 year old Holmes or Spinks, that would cause an e- riot. Despite the fact that even a 45 year old version of Holmes and a beefed up Spinks were far superior quality of opponent than arguably even a prime Williams, but especially THAT 1967 version. The double standard is atrocious. One thing I try my best to do is honestly evaluate all fighters and not let my personal feelings about what type of person they were outside of the ring cloud my judgment.
George foremann one of the greatest stories ever told. Must have been the most unlikely comeback of all time. 10 years out the ring. Miles too old. Way too fat. Was mocked and laughed at on the comeback trail. And in the end against impossible odds he prevailed in and out of the ring by the end. He left the sport it disgrace in honestly the first time. He came back not only a better person...but he actually accomplished the impossible. Great story.
It is interesting that Tillis was having his fourth competitive ten rounder in twelve months when he met Tyson. Going into that fight Tillis was coming off tough fights with Marvis Frazier, Gerrie Coetzee and Tyrell Biggs. He held his own with everyone at that time. Rather than use "excessive holding" as an explanation of how well Tillis did, why not consider and compare recent opponents of both Tyson and Tillis going into that fight? Maybe the reason Tillis did so well was because he was used to tougher fights with better guys than Tyson was? After all Tyson was still a bit wet behind the ears then. I think Gerrie Coetzee, Marvis Frazier and Tyrell Biggs were a level above Steve Zouski, Jessie Ferguson and Mike Jameson in the 1985-86 season. I'm convinced had Tillis been coming off a lengthy lay off or had fought nobody better than road sweeper types in the last two years Tyson would have recorded a more sensational blow out. But it's actually a very good thing Tillis was live in their fight because Tyson learned a great deal from it.
H2H, IMO, Tyson at his best likely could have beaten any heavyweight champion in history. He had all the physical talent but he was too mentally unstable. One thing I can say is that in the black community, mental illness is something often downplayed or ignored. We're quick to just call someone "crazy" or write them off as just having a temper and that's it. Or among the more religious of us, accusing them of being full of the devil or possessed by an evil spirit. And no I'm not making that up. Tysons weakness was in between his ears. It says a lot about his talent that even after being the youngest heavyweight champion in history, being the first to unify the title, 9 successful title defense's and almost 5 years undefeated that he still fell short of what was expected of him. The bar was set so high for him precisely because he was so talented. All of the old time fighters and trainers many of whom were still living in the late 80s had nothing but praise for him.
True. When looking at the Rings top ten contenders going into 1973, there wasn't a single name on there Foreman had beaten. And, quiet as it's kept, Fraizer was about 10 lbs over his best weight, did lots of partying in Jamaica and had seen better days. It wasn't the same Fraizer of 1971. And had been fed handpicked opponents since he beat Ali. Of course, when mentioning Foremans destruction of Fraizer, that's rarely acknowledged. And if it is, it's quickly dismissed with "he would have always beaten him anyway". 190ish lb Roman shouldn't have been within 500 feet of any boxing ring containing a cardboard cutout of George Foreman. And Ken Norton, good boxer, but was stopped before his prime, during his prime and after his prime by every big puncher he met. And quickly too. And I don't mention that out of disrespect for George Foreman but to point out the massive double standard here. Had Tyson destroyed those 3 opponents, Fraizer in that condition, another guy who was a cruiserweight and just an ok one as far as world class is concerned he wasn't exactly Holyfields or Walcotts equal at 190ish lbs and another fighter who was known to fall to all big hitters anywhere in his career, we'd never hear the end of it.
Yes quick Tillis was a character all right. He was a top Amatuer with a record of 92-8, won AAU titles too. Tillis had the 20-0 prospect record (beat Shavers) but after losing to Weaver and later getting found out by Page, Witherspoon and Thomas who all stopped him, Tillis then carved out a very decent "world class journey man" career for himself, where he fought literally every contender taking most of them the distance. He wasn't winning any more but he tested all of them. Very respected journeyman.
All champions get knocked, I think they all should to some extent, but it appears with some people there are those who cannot be knocked. Some people are especially sensitive when it comes to Tyson, Foreman and Liston getting thier turn for being knocked. Dempsey and Marciano have their knockers and defenders too. When ever any group of fans come out to defend any particular knock against a champion it must all be measured against what stands up, what is factual, what was the alternative and was it within the control of the champion to achieve the alternative. Tyson is a great champion but so is Liston, Marciano, Foreman and Dempsey. Evidence is out there that is for and against each of them because all of them are below joe Louis and Muhammad Ali.
the only reason he gave him trouble is because he could run faster than him. serious, you could watch that fight to benny hill music and it would pass for one of his sketches
There is no shame in Tyson having a competitive fight at that stage in his development. Every great champion had a learning curve. Marciano, Louis, Ali, Bowe. All of them. Tillis was a step up from the inactive, semi pro guys being fed to Tyson. A live opponent who was coming off distance fights with, Marvis Frazier,Tyrell Biggs and Gerrie Coetzee in the last 12 months. It was bound to be a huge adjustment. It was good for him, it did him more good than those blow outs that people who don't understand boxing like so much.
its wasnt competitive. Unless you are referring to if Tillis had been up against Usain Bolt that night.