Mike Tyson's amazing NEGATIVE records

This statistic is actually good, except that it still fails! Ali has 4-1 which counts to a superior percentage. Ali beat Liston, Terrell, Foreman and Spinks. Now, you might say let us keep the bar at 6 fights but then there would be only Tyson and nobody else!

As far as the stat that I gave goes, there are so many champions of the past who suffered three or more losses and yet did not lose all their fights by knockout/DQ.

 

If DAZN was not broadcasting anything during Ali or Holmes era, then possibly not a single person today was born when Jack Dempsey was fighting Gene Tunney. Neither were you born then, nor I. Does this restrict us from commenting about those times?

Anyways I will show you something even older. In 1941 (before Ali was even born), the fight between Tony Zale and Georgie Adams was recognized as an undisputed world title fight and the first one since Mickey Walker. Why? Because the NYSAC had stripped Walker of the title by NYSAC. (This claim is a bit controversial since five other boxers could claim to be undisputed since. You could claim that Freddie Steele was the last undisputed champ even though he was also stripped of the title by the same NYSAC.)

PHELAN TO CHECK ON TITLE RIVALS; Boxing Official to See Zale and Abrams Work Today for Friday's Fight - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Finally since you mentioned Ali, see the fight between Ali and Terrell. Ali was the WBC champion while Terrell was the WBA champion. And the fight was for the undisputed championship. All the posters of the day mentioned that.

Muhammad Ali vs Ernie Terrell [FULL FIGHT] - YouTube

At 1:04:35, Ali was announced as 'the undisputed champion of the world and not STILL the undisputed champion of the world'.

Now, Ali's previous fight was against Cleveland Williams. By your logic, this should have also been for the undisputed championship. But it wasn't. All the posters merely mentioned 'World's heavyweight championship'. Even at the actual fight, no mention of 'undisputed' is recorded. See below:

Vreveal HD remastered Muhammad Ali Vs. Cleveland Big Cat Williams - YouTube

So no, undisputed did not mean what you said.

 

I correct myself. Indeed Tyson has a good positive record. And can be used as a small showcase of his achievements.

 

I gave various sources, backed what I said with evidence, videos, links, posters etc. All you did was you kept on saying 'my rant was correct' and nothing else. Perhaps you should have provided one proof of a fight that was not for all the world titles but was still announced as 'undisputed' (the term is not 120 years old btw), that would have helped.

Bye anyways.

 

Lewis-Holyfield was for the undisputed title. Show me a fight that wasn't for all major titles but was advertised as an undisputed bout. Then your argument will have legs.

 

So, Dazn is wrong, the posters are wrong, the experts are wrong, the articles are wrong, the newspapers are wrong. Only you are correct. And you could not show any evidence and I am an idiot? Look at the person a few comments above who actually came up with some points of his own that were backed by statistics. That is how you counter someone.

In all these years where you claim to have been a fan of boxing and have watched the fights happened, you cannot even make out that pointing the negative records of a boxer is not the same as bashing?

Then I am sorry, I can't help you, nobody can. Continue to pretend that everybody else is wrong and you are the only right person here. And please spare this thread to the lesser mortals.

 

I looked up and found things totally contrary to what you said. And posting half truths or calling me a child, idiot etc. won't prove your point. Riddick Bowe was not ranked #1 by Ring magazine because he was the WBO champ. It was only because of his performance in 1994-95. He was the best heavyweight at that point. Holyfield and Lewis had suffered losses, Tyson had spent three years in prison, Foreman had only one fight that year, Morrison has lost, Mercer's record was bad, so who would be #1 but Bowe (who had three wins)?

And with regards to WBO's status as major championship, see why Rey Mercer lost the title, see why Michael Moorer vacated the heavyweight title, see why Akinwande vacated the title. Look at what other WBO champs did - Hector Camacho, John Molina and the two biggest title trashes - Elvis Alvarez and Ricardo Lopez. WBO title's history (in the 90's) is replete with so many title trashes.

You can go on performing mental gymnastics and try to prove that the WBO was a major sanctioning body in the 1990s when it clearly wasn't. But that is the only way to prove your point - assume 3 + 4 = 9 and prove 9 - 4 = 3. For the rest of the world, the WBO only became a major title only in 2000s.