Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by MoneyMay1, Aug 18, 2021.
Erase hindsight by sending me a link to Dominick Guinn?
Correct. It’s a bizarre hill to choose to die on.
If you knew the sport like I do, you'd know that Tyson had disguised his newfound vulnerabilities after prison by ending his fights quickly.
Btw, that reminds me: Foreman didn't legitimately win a 12 rounder until he fought Lou Savarese.
He stuck around too long. After the 2nd Tyson fight Ring magazine rated him as the #3 All time HW. Even if he had retired after the Lewis fights he would've had only 4 career losses (all to lineal HW champions) and have the distinction of beating or drawing with every opponent he faced.
Tyson's style was never really suited for long drawn out wars, not even in the 80's. The few occasions he did go the distance his opponents such as Smith, Green, Tucker, etc had a very low punch output and held a lot so it was target practice, clinch, reset in relatively boring affairs.
Again I ask what is the significance of Tyson choosing to try and end his fights quickly? The promoters wanted to know if Tyson still had it before attempting to hype up a PPV event, and he went out and destroyed two belt holders in Seldon and Bruno in just a few rounds. There wasn't much else you could ask of him aside from beating someone in the top 10. So again I ask if it would have been "Better" for him to struggle in another ugly 12 round fight to prove he hadn't lost a step? Tyson wasn't known for that to begin with and had a high KO%
It seems you penalize punchers with made up rules and standards whenever it's convenient for your argument.
Like him or not, dismissing Ruiz as just a bum invalidates your argument in serious discussion.
I’m saying 95/96 Tyson didn’t have it in him to do a 12 round war like he did with Ruddock.
Probably not, but you were implying that Tyson did not prove he hadn't lost a step because he didn't go 12 after coming out of prison. That's all hindsight. At the time he destroyed two belt holders in one sided blowouts. Meanwhile, Holyfield was 4 years older, had been in more wars, and looked like dog sh!t struggling with Moorer in a life and death war and getting battered by Bowe so on paper it would make no sense to bet on Holyfield at the time. It's an underrated win.
And hindsight is more accurate.
But yes, Tyson was still better than everyone in the division except Holyfield and Lewis at that point. Still not on the level of even 91 Tyson though.
He still was legitimately top ten material if not too five for the Lewis fight while we’re at it.
Maybe u shouldn’t count losses to byrd / Donald and Ruiz when Holyfield was a million yrs past his prime !!! Maybe u should count his prime yrs as heavyweight 28 yrs of age to 35 yrs of age bro !!! U sound very young
Barely got by foreman and Holmes ? 10 rds 2 holy over foreman??? Barely ??
Ok so if he was better than 99% of the division and a top 3 HW, how can you say he lost a step after prison and that it was clear he had no chance of beating Holyfield?
There's just no way you can't give Holyfield credit for that win, he really should have lost on paper and Tyson was terrorizing the division once again despite losing some of his speed and timing while Holyfield was older and declining.
You’re talking to yourself at this point.
I give Holyfield credit for beating a faded Tyson while juiced to the eyeballs.
Almost all. He took PEDs and he headbutted.
If you saw almost all of his fights then you should know why he was courageous weather he was juicing or not.