Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by BlackCloud, May 25, 2021.
No need, I like talking to you.
I was talking about a shot like the one Cooper hit him in 63.
His physical appearance and the testimony of those that were close to him.
The Census shows him to be around 2 years older. Personally, I believe it's even more than that.
But that is the thing, we must look at all the circumstances of a fight: how old the 2 contestants were, how close was each to his prime/best, how prepared were they for the fight, etc. Sure, sometimes boxers/their camp come up with silly excuses (like Wilder after Fury beat his arse), but I don't think it is that hard for the boxing community to judge if those are valid or not.
We have had countless examples were boxer's losses can be somewhat explained by them being past their prime or not properly prepared: Jeffries vs Jackson, Dempsey vs Tunney, Louis vs Marciano, Moore vs Ali, Liston vs Ali, Ali vs Holmes, Tyson vs Douglas, Douglas vs Holyfield, Lewis vs Rahman, Tyson vs Lewis, etc
I just signed up a few weeks ago. Anyway, why would anyone want to come back to a forum he's been banned from ?!
They hit him with plenty of those, Liston and Foreman were both much harder punchers than Cooper and their track record proves it.
Tells us nothing, some people just look older than they really are.
I'm going to need you to be more specific here. Both Liston and his mother stated that he was born in 1932. Why would people in his training camp or whoever be more reliable sources? What information would they have access to which amounted to anything more than speculation?
Ok, so that's actually something. But it can hardly be seen as conclusive. He's absent from the family's 1930 census, and the census records aren't even consistent about how many children the family actually had. It's entirely possible his birth might have gotten mixed up with one of his siblings on that census.
You make these crazy comparisons. 35 year old Jeffries coming back from 5 years retirement, ancient Louis, Moore and Ali...
Tyson was in his prime. Yes, he says he was partying, but guys like Thomas, Tubbs and Biggs were all deep into coke and dope, so if Tyson's loss to Douglas doesn't count then the same goes for many of his wins.
Comparisons to ancient guys like Jeffries vs Johnson, Louis vs Marciano and Ali vs Holmes just doesn't fly. It's a bit crazy actually.
If he was distracted by girls and drugs (and that's an if), that just goes for that era in general, so...
I don't think those feelings are returned mate
Why ? This is supposed to be a forum where we discuss and debate different opinions.
My point wasn't that Tyson's loss doesn't count, but that it should not be used to judge how he'd do in hypothetical matchups. since he wasn't at 100 %.
And my comparisons are not crazy at all. Some of the guys I mentioned lost when they were past their best, and some lost cause they did not prepare properly, like in Tyson's case. Lewis was in his prime when Rahman beat him, but that does not mean he should be judged on that fight.
I know they are bigger punchers, but you don't seem to understand the point that I am making. If they are bigger punchers, as we both agree, and if they hit him with plenty of those, how come they did not manage to floor him yet Cooper did ?!
It's a clear contradiction. The only logical explanation is the punches they landed on him were not similar at all to the shot Cooper landed. All they hit him with were glancing blows. Foreman mostly hit his body.
Liston came from an illiterate family and was one himself, he had no clue what year he was actually born in. He simply chose may 1932 as his birth date cause it suited his career. Even nowadays, some athletes lie about their age.
He appears in the 1940 Census as being 10, that makes him 2 years older than stated.
It shows he can be taken out with one punch, but he proved in the rematch that wasn't going to be the result every time, if anyone had any doubt. Tyson never got the chance to prove that against Douglas, but I belive most would give him the benefit of a doubt anyhow.
Anyhow, it's not an accidence that you repeatedly compare a loss Tyson suffered in his physical prime to an average contender to ghosts of Jeffries, Holmes and Ali losing to prime ATGs. It's that detachement from reality that we see time and time again from Tyson fans. So if you're not an alt of previous posters, it actually is a somewhat eerily resemblance to them.
Tyson was dominated in his prime by a mediocre fighter in the big picture. Yes, Wlad and Lewis had comparable losses an if you want to bring up Wlad-Brewster or Lewis-McCall, by all means do. But Ali-Holmes, Louis-Marciano, Jeffries-Johnson...? Come on, man.
Tyson was also dominated twice by someone, albeit an ATG, that was at least as past prime as he was. That is fairly unique, though. Actually, Tyson is the only one in my top 10 that that has happened to, so I'm giving him allowances if anything.
I enjoyed watching Tyson, but I also enjoy watching countless other boxers (swarmers and brawlers in general). I do not see him as being invincible, so there is no bias on my part. Douglas might as well have beaten him even if Tyson was at 100%, we'll never know. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna pretend he was.
That is true, but I'm not talking about being past prime in a physical sense, but in terms of skills.
It is quite obvious Tyson's skills degraded continuously after the dismantling of the original team he became a pro with. We can see a somewhat similar thing to Ali in the early 70s. When you're out of the game for a few years, you need time to adjust. Your reflexes and fighting instincts are not quite the same. Ali had a few fights before his showdown with Frazier, but he still wasn't at 100%. Tyson had even less, just a couple of rounds, that certainly wasn't enough to get him back to his best.
From a physical stand point, Tyson was pretty fine in 96, but skill wise, he was a shell of the great boxer he once was.
Normally, Holyfield should have been in worse physical shape given he was 34 to Tyson's 30, but he compensated with the aid of PEDs. What Holyfield did have however was vast experience and his skillset intact.
I understand your point perfectly, I just don't think there's any validity to it whatsoever. Do you really think Cooper's punch was the hardest Ali was ever hit in his career? You understand that there are other factors to knockdowns than just power and chin? Anyone can be floored by a punch they aren't prepared for or don't see coming or are off balance for. How do you explain Lennox Lewis getting sparked with one punch by Hasim Rahman and Oliver McCall when he was able to take flush shots from Tommy Morrison and David Tua? At that stage in his career, Ali was still pretty green, and by most accounts, didn't actually take Cooper that seriously as an opponent and was entirely focused on the prospect of securing a Liston fight.
And again, if you think that Liston and Foreman only hit him with glancing blows, you haven't watched the fights closely enough. Both hit him clean on the jaw with hard punches, Foreman actually quite a few times, it's there on the footage. Foreman himself commented that he became mentally beaten in the fight when he landed his hardest punch flush on Ali's chin and Ali just laughed at him.
Sure, but that can't be seen as conclusive proof that he was born earlier. And I'm still waiting on those "testimonies from those close to him".
Except he's absent in that 1930 census, so that still doesn't really prove anything.
No, Holy was past his prime. To say something else is another fairy tale.
This is all out of the playbook of Tyson excuses. I've done this discussions dozens of times and have no need to continue this one any more.
"Is THAT all you got, George?"
I really enjoyed your truthful post, I actually saw the second Ali vs Cooper fight live on ABC's Wide World Of Sports, Ali took Henry's left hook like just another punch, May 21 1966, TKO 6.