What fighters do you admit to being biased for and against?

That's all good in well, but his prime was too short to put him up there with guys who did it over a longer period of time. Boxing is not just about physical talent, but also mental fortitude. Tyson lacked this. He had a shitload of talent. However, he lacked many of the other qualities that make a great fighter.

 

What do you make of him talking retirement every time someone mentions Cotto in an interview? And then coming back once again to have a rematch with a past his prime fighter he's already beaten? If SRL was a cherry-picker, he picked the best. At this stage, I can't say the same about Floyd, even though I used to defense him. He needs Cotto though, not a washed up DLH that he's already beaten.

 

For: Ali, Mayweather, Mosley, Jones Jr, Taylor, JMM and Juan Diaz.

Against: Cal, Pavlik, Tarver.

 

Agreed. I also think because of his lack of great power, he may have trouble with Hearns. Neither Duran or SRL give him much trouble IMO. He would have roughed up Leonard and timed him. And Duran was far too small.

I think Nunn could have given Hopkins trouble as well.

 

SRL was the king of retirements. He did it 5 times. He held a ceromony and invited Hagler. He talked about how a fight between the two would be great, then totally played the **** out of Hagler and said it wouldn't happen. He cherry picked, and had the rules bent in his favor, a title of off Lonsdale. He fought two past prime fighters at 160 and 168 that he already beat. C'mon man, let's not act like SRL's **** didn't stink.

 

He was the most dominant due to his power above everything else. Although he was tremendously skilled in other areas. And he convincingly beat his opponents over a 3 1/2 year span as good as any heavyweight before or since. I wouldn't say his reign was better than Holmes', but it's certainly debateable. Holmes never had Tyson's power, yet stopped 9 opponents in succession. I'm sure that record still stands. Holmes beat a younger Berbick, and Smith was pretty much close to his prime when he fought Holmes. Maybe Tyson never fought the Cobb's and Frank's, but his opposition isn't beyond dispute over Holmes'. And what impresses me about Holmes' reign, he managed to stay at the top for 7 years, with the help from a couple of controversial decisions it must be said. But he never had the power Tyson did to end fights as convincingly, certainly not as regularly. Advantage Tyson.

Personal life and bad habits, thats his fault. Another part of being great is keeping yourself in check away from the ring. And what can make matters better for one having troubles and bad habits away from the ring, make sure you win when you get in the ring.

Never forget when Tyson got into the ring against Douglas in Tokyo, the poor performance wasn't just down to him not being mentally ready, out of shape, and being past his prime. Douglas done everything well too offset Tyson.

 

It still amazes me today how Tyson was past his prime at 23 years of age.

 

In my initial post, I alslo mentioned most dominant and impressive reign. Not neccessarily the best reign of opponents.

Otherwise, you're on point, though I believe Tyson at his best would've handled Douglas, even on that night. But everything just feel perfectly into place that night. Everything right for Douglas, everything wrong for Mike. It seemed like one of those things where the stars aligned perfectly.

 

And regarding Tyson's showing against Douglas. If Tyson was in there that night with any other heavyweight apart from Douglas, he would have looked his normal self IMO. A ponderous clumsy looking heavyweight with limited speed and skills like Bruno and it would have went about 5 rounds.

 

For: Hopkins, Jones, Whitaker and Holyfield (tho I try to be as unbiased as possible, I tend to lean toward these I guess)

Against: Noone I can think of. Tho there are some fans of certain fighters that make me want to hit said fighter with a bus, just to shut them up...other than that tho....

 

For: (and reasons why people may believe so)

Povetkin - because I have been a fan of his since 2006 and I'm 100% confident that he will beat Klitschko and prove to have an iron chin. I really don't think I'm biased for him though. It seems crazy to me that nobody is giving him a chance against the very vulnerable Wlad.

Barrera - because I have rewatched the fight 10+ times and if you score round 7 of MAB-JMM counting the knockdown and not counting the point deduction, I believe Barrera deserves the nod in an extremely close fight.

Jones - because even though he's not my favorite fighter I believe he's the greatest fighter of all time (not considering accomplishments) and am probably the only poster in here that thinks RJJ vs Bob Foster is a 55/45 fight.

Hearns - because I think he would have beaten Leonard in a rematch if they fought right after their first fight when they were still in their primes and think Hearns is the greater fighter of the two.

Guzman - because I think he's one of the greatest 122 pounders of all time despite having a **** resume there and would pick him over Pac, JMM, and even Juan Diaz.

Tyson, Arce, Maskaev


Against:

Klitschkos - both very overrated to me, Wlad's victories since his loss to Brewster are extremely overrated. Wlad in particular pisses me off because of his clinching and history of not being able to dig deep in tough fights.

Marciano - I rate him very low and think almost everything about him is overrated.. definitely not his heart/toughness though.

Leonard - the Hearns thing, plus all the Leonard boxing politics **** during the 1980's makes me dislike him, but I do recognize his obvious greatness and love watching him fight.

Diaconu - just kidding, it's a fact that he is barely B level.

 

Well...............

Most Brits tend to support Ricky Hatton and Joe Calzaghe, though a small minority despise them, Ricky for being a 'coward' - not sure I agree, whilst Joe for making 20 odd defences instead of seeking super fights - valid point, but more the fault of his promoter than the man himself.

 

Who knows, maybe people like him because he's Romanian, or bold...:think

 

Yeah, that definitely qualifies you as biased.