Boxing Forum - Boxing Discussion Forums banner

141 - 160 of 185 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,687 Posts
Joe Louis
Muhammad Ali
Lennox Lewis
Jack Johnson
Larry Holmes
Jack Dempsey
Harry Wills
George Foreman
Mike Tyson
Sam Langford

That would be my top 10.
I see where you come from but I'm not sure about leaving Marciano out of it. True he fought alot of bus drivers, but I just dont see a strong case for guys like Tyson being ahead of him like that.

I'm trying to dig more on Sonny Liston's resume now, I'll see if I can get something out of there. Liston is pretty intriguing.
 

·
The Professor
Joined
·
8,572 Posts
Discussion Starter #142
I see where you come from but I'm not sure about leaving Marciano out of it. True he fought alot of bus drivers, but I just dont see a strong case for guys like Tyson being ahead of him like that.

I'm trying to dig more on Sonny Liston's resume now, I'll see if I can get something out of there. Liston is pretty intriguing.
No need...already covered in this thread. The man had a great resume for relatively short window of time he was an elite fighter. Patterson (x2), Folley, Machen, Williams (x2) at the top of the list. ALL prime fighters.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,687 Posts
No need...already covered in this thread. The man had a great resume for relatively short window of time he was an elite fighter. Patterson (x2), Folley, Machen, Williams (x2) at the top of the list. ALL prime fighters.
I mean.. I'll try to watch more of his fights... To know what happened in those fights I need to watch it :thumbsup:
 

·
Beautiful Man
Joined
·
3,552 Posts
Mike Tyson to me,would be in the top 50,but not Top 20. He has fought 2 and a half year pretty good.
But to me it needs more to be an all time great,than a short period.it needs concistency
 

·
The Professor
Joined
·
8,572 Posts
Discussion Starter #146
Mike Tyson to me,would be in the top 50,but not Top 20. He has fought 2 and a half year pretty good.
But to me it needs more to be an all time great,than a short period.it needs concistency
Uh, the man's record is still pretty damn good dude for a guy that had such a short prime. His post prime is as good as guys primes like Ezzard Charles (Heavyweight only) could have managed if they fought in his era. So yes he fell off early, but not for a LONG time could non-elite fighters beat him. Most of the consistent greats would actually get losses on their records from the frank brunos of the world.

And yes, im aware this doesn't explain the douglass fight, but that's a story you should already know.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,687 Posts
Uh, the man's record is still pretty damn good dude for a guy that had such a short prime. His post prime is as good as guys primes like Ezzard Charles (Heavyweight only) could have managed if they fought in his era. So yes he fell off early, but not for a LONG time could non-elite fighters beat him. Most of the consistent greats would actually get losses on their records from the frank brunos of the world.

And yes, im aware this doesn't explain the douglass fight, but that's a story you should already know.
No.. Most wouldnt lose to Frank Bruno.. Eventually they'd lose to high/medium lvl contenders, but not Bruno :thumbsup::laugh:
 

·
The Professor
Joined
·
8,572 Posts
Discussion Starter #148 (Edited)
No.. Most wouldnt lose to Frank Bruno.. Eventually they'd lose to high/medium lvl contenders, but not Bruno :thumbsup::laugh:
Losing to Bruno is the same thing as losing to Earnie Shavers. Shavers beat Ken Norton last time I checked. A decent amount of people rate Norton in the top 20.

Also, I said "Brunos", not "Bruno". I'm refering to his quality level. Styles make fights, guys on his level with different styles beat other people. Like Jimmy Young beat George Foreman.
 

·
Beautiful Man
Joined
·
3,552 Posts
Tyson was a power puncher with good head movement,nothing more.
when its about boxing Lennox Lewis shows him what it is

and Tyson fought 96 % of his fights against no ones.this is fact
 

·
The Professor
Joined
·
8,572 Posts
Discussion Starter #150
Tyson was a power puncher with good head movement,nothing more.
when its about boxing Lennox Lewis shows him what it is

and Tyson fought 96 % of his fights against no ones.this is fact
Tyson was only like a decade past his prime when he met Lewis. :facepalm:

96%? No. He fought nearly 30 noteworthy opponents, and some of them multiple times. That's more than half of his total fights. That's a LOT better than most fighters can say.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,687 Posts
Losing to Bruno is the same thing as losing to Earnie Shavers. Shavers beat Ken Norton last time I checked. A decent amount of people rate Norton in the top 20.

Also, I said "Brunos", not "Bruno". I'm refering to his quality level. Styles make fights, guys on his level with different styles beat other people. Like Jimmy Young beat George Foreman.
I know.. I was just commenting on Bruno...

And I think losing to shavers would be a little easier, as he was dangerous early..
 

·
Spike Spiegel
Joined
·
7,078 Posts
Tyson was a power puncher with good head movement,nothing more.
when its about boxing Lennox Lewis shows him what it is

and Tyson fought 96 % of his fights against no ones.this is fact
Wrong. 96% of 60 is about 56 or 57, which would mean that out of the 60 fights that Tyson was involved in (he has two NCs) aside from 3 or 4 guys, the rest were meaningless.

Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield, Larry Holmes, Michael Spinks, Andrew Golota, Orlin Norris, Francois Botha, Frank Bruno, Razor Ruddock, Bruce Seldon, Carl Williams, Tony Tubbs, Tyrell Biggs, Tony Tucker, Bonecrusher Smith, Trevor Berbick, Pinklon Thomas, Marvis Frazier, James Tillis, Mitch Green, Jesse Ferguson, Buster Douglas, Henry Tillman, Alex Stewart, Brian Nielsen, Lou Savarese, Buster Mathis Jr and Clifford Etienne.

If you ask me those are all pretty notable opponents. Considering he lost to only 3 of the guys on that list I'd say he had a pretty damn good career. Great footwork, head movement, devastating punchpower, great handspeed, solid use of the fundamentals in his early years, good chin, good stamina..

Taking all that into account I'd say Tyson was pretty damn good.
 

·
The Marvelous One
Joined
·
609 Posts
Liston's prime was as good as anyone's. Skills and resume wise.
With the tools that Liston had like that jab and power and his reach I really think that if he had better training or wasn't involved in outside problems he could of easily been the greatest HW ever. of course thats just my opinion and its pointless to say this now, I just think he had the best tools out of any HW
 

·
Beautiful Man
Joined
·
3,552 Posts
Wrong. 96% of 60 is about 56 or 57, which would mean that out of the 60 fights that Tyson was involved in (he has two NCs) aside from 3 or 4 guys, the rest were meaningless.

Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield, Larry Holmes, Michael Spinks, Andrew Golota, Orlin Norris, Francois Botha, Frank Bruno, Razor Ruddock, Bruce Seldon, Carl Williams, Tony Tubbs, Tyrell Biggs, Tony Tucker, Bonecrusher Smith, Trevor Berbick, Pinklon Thomas, Marvis Frazier, James Tillis, Mitch Green, Jesse Ferguson, Buster Douglas, Henry Tillman, Alex Stewart, Brian Nielsen, Lou Savarese, Buster Mathis Jr and Clifford Etienne.

If you ask me those are all pretty notable opponents. Considering he lost to only 3 of the guys on that list I'd say he had a pretty damn good career. Great footwork, head movement, devastating punchpower, great handspeed, solid use of the fundamentals in his early years, good chin, good stamina..

Taking all that into account I'd say Tyson was pretty damn good.
if you ask me,those have been food,nothing more.never heard about them more.
a lot of poeple have been fascinated of Tysons punching power as i said before.
I am go with the facts,this guy has power,but to be an alltime great it needs more than that.

so John Ruiz is an alltime great too,with this argumentation,and Rahman either
 

·
The Professor
Joined
·
8,572 Posts
Discussion Starter #158
if you ask me,those have been food,nothing more.never heard about them more.
a lot of poeple have been fascinated of Tysons punching power as i said before.
I am go with the facts,this guy has power,but to be an alltime great it needs more than that.

so John Ruiz is an alltime great too,with this argumentation,and Rahman either
That's because you don't follow boxing close enough. Tyson constantly fought top contenders. CONSTANTLY and CONSISTENTLY. The man took as few bum fights as anyone. You try to discredit all these top contenders Tyson beat, but guess what? You end up discrediting the majority of Holyfield's and Lewis' career at the same time.

Your closing argument is weak, nothing anyone has said would imply Rahman or Ruiz are ATGs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
best heavyweight gene tunney

From what footage we've got ,Tunney had everything clever mover, fast jab with a solid punch,the first boxer to study his opponents on film,only 1 defeat in ,I think ,90 odd contests,(to a Hall of Famer!).Muhammad Ali in disguise 40 years before!
 

·
The Professor
Joined
·
8,572 Posts
Discussion Starter #160
From what footage we've got ,Tunney had everything clever mover, fast jab with a solid punch,the first boxer to study his opponents on film,only 1 defeat in ,I think ,90 odd contests,(to a Hall of Famer!).Muhammad Ali in disguise 40 years before!
He still ducked Jack Sharkey. :cop:

This thread broke the 10k view mark. Not bad...
 
141 - 160 of 185 Posts
Top