BOXING KOs

[Attack Fell Terrier 864]

Does my head in how people talk about how Lewis destroyed him, that'd be like putting Pele as he is now in the current Brazil team and saying he's shit cos he doesn't make the grade.

 

No its not......Tyson was the younger man in his fight with Lewis.........being " washed up " or " mentally weak " has never been an excuse for greatness in sport with anyone apart from Mike Tyson !.......Why people refuse to look at the facts when judging Tysons boxing career i dont know,thats the trouble when the general public delve into an athletes private life it clouds their judgement of the person as a mere athlete......like i said before the ,s were an impressionable time for British boxing fans and he fitted the bill just perfect.

 

I agree 100% Tyson was good but is without a doubt the most over hyped fighter ever.

[rob190364 2,594]

Does my head in how people talk about how Lewis destroyed him, that'd be like putting Pele as he is now in the current Brazil team and saying he's shit cos he doesn't make the grade.

 

No its not......Tyson was the younger man in his fight with Lewis.........being " washed up " or " mentally weak " has never been an excuse for greatness in sport with anyone apart from Mike Tyson !.......Why people refuse to look at the facts when judging Tysons boxing career i dont know,thats the trouble when the general public delve into an athletes private life it clouds their judgement of the person as a mere athlete......like i said before the ,s were an impressionable time for British boxing fans and he fitted the bill just perfect.

nothing to do with age, it's to do with point in career and circumstances at the time. George Best was a similar story, proper class when young then rapidly declined at an age when most top players were still doing the business. I'm not going to get into the debate either because it's been done millions of times and is pointless because no one will ever know and there will never be a conclusive answer......and I can't be arsed Just opinions bud, and that's mine.

[gnasher16 31,490]

nothing to do with age, it's to do with point in career and circumstances at the time. George Best was a similar story, proper class when young then rapidly declined at an age when most top players were still doing the business. I'm not going to get into the debate either because it's been done millions of times and is pointless because no one will ever know and there will never be a conclusive answer......and I can't be arsed Just opinions bud, and that's mine.

 

You keep makng comparsons to footballers ...footballs a team sport,without 10 other players George Best would never have a European Cup medal.....wthout 10 others Pele would never have won the World Cup......Pele could have played badly and still been a world cup winner !

Thats what puts sports like boxing apart from others theres no room for bad performances or excuses its just you in there and if you dont perform for whatever reason its no excuse......as George Foreman once said after the Ali loss...." give me any excuse you want,my shoes were too tight,it was just him and me in there he won and i didnt "

 

Point of career and circumstances eh.........well heres the facts of Tyson v Douglas......Douglas was 6 years the older man,Douglas was a very up and down type fighter,Douglas mother and close family friend had died 3 weeks before the fight...........

Whos point of career and circumstances were more diffcult ?....................Ive come to the conclusion some folk only see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe never mind silly little things like facts......still each to their own

Edited August 29, 2011 by gnasher16

[jasper65 6]

the 70's and 80's was exciting times on the boxing calendar. lots of bignamed fighters competeing for less belts about these days, I've lost count how many heavyweight belts are up for grabs these days. plus you got more boxing for your money back then, 15 rounds of boxing as apposed to 12 rounds.

 

lets go back to 82, Leonard vs Hearns round 14, most boxers these days can't go 12 round let alone 14 yet Leonard dug deep and opend up with combinations late in a fight most fighters can't maintain in round 1 . I also can't see any fighters about these days that you can compare to a Marvin Haggler, a Leonard, Hearns, pernel Whitaker or arron prior plus many more! any of these fighters would pretty much clean up these days.

 

Ok I know Boxing don't get the same press as back then, but back then it was the fighters that made the hype! people wanted to watch them and people payed big money to see them, these days its frankly becoming laughable and loseing the caracters and up and coming talent that was around in the 70's and 80's.

 

before anyone spits their dummy out its only my opinion , I'm sure many will think otherwise

 

Jasp

[gnasher16 31,490]

The thing is people are attracted to colourful characters.....Tyson was a colourful character,so was Aaron Pryor and Whittaker.......but i bet apart from Alexis Arguello you couldnt even name another opponent Aaron Pryor ever fought without looking them up ?............Being a colourful character dont make you a great fighter,.....Aaron Pryor couldnt be mentioned in the same breath as Zale/Graziano before him or Mayweather/Paquiao today.......but we still remember his name.....we remember he was a coke head in and out of prison and his famous pointing of the glove before fights,he had a catchy nickname " the hawk ".....none of that makes him a great fighter though.......Mayweather/Paquiao/Delahoya would have all played with him......same go,s for Tyson theres 2 or 3 fighters since and plenty before who would have destroyed him.....but we all know every last detail about him because he was such a unique character.

Contests went from 15 to 12 rounds for safety sake after Duk Koo Kims death so anything that improves safety is fine with me you cant really knock the sport for that......but Leonard had his fair share of stinkers as well,as did Hagler or Hearns its just that together they produced great fights......

I believe Floyd Mayweather and Manny Paquiao are every bit as good if not better than those fighters......problem is they are not as colourful as human beings,and of course every colourful fighter needs a colourful opponent to attain greatness and for us to remember them.....in Britain where would Nigel Benn have been without Chris Eubank.....where would Ali have been without Frazier,where would Hagler Leonard Duran Hearns have been without each other .....Mayweather and Paquiao havent had those rivalries it dont mean they are any less of fighters.

In my opinion Ray Robinson was the greatest fighter who ever lived,by some distance......but most folk dont remember much about him,they certainly couldnt tell you where he came from or his fighting record without looking it up.....yet we know the name of Mike Tysons wife,mother,trainer,pigeons his entire life story off by heart yet he couldnt have lived with Ray Robinson as a fighter..................................i guess these are just the times we live in

Edited August 29, 2011 by gnasher16

[marshman 7,758]

I don't think I said the fighters from the 80s were the best of all time . What I actually said was that the fighters from the 80s are better than we have today , and I dint think I'm looking through Rose tinted glasses when I say that!

[gnasher16 31,490]

i think your right there jasper if you lived in the 80s you seen the best fighters that ever lived

 

I was originally replying to the above Marshman.......i think you came in after..............nice to hear your thoughts anyway chief

Edited August 29, 2011 by gnasher16

[marshman 7,758]

Fair play I'm enjoying your views though

 

[jasper65 6]

The thing is people are attracted to colourful characters.....Tyson was a colourful character,so was Aaron Pryor and Whittaker.......but i bet apart from Alexis Arguello you couldnt even name another opponent Aaron Pryor ever fought without looking them up ?............Being a colourful character dont make you a great fighter,.....Aaron Pryor couldnt be mentioned in the same breath as Zale/Graziano before him or Mayweather/Paquiao today.......but we still remember his name.....we remember he was a coke head in and out of prison and his famous pointing of the glove before fights,he had a catchy nickname " the hawk ".....none of that makes him a great fighter though.......Mayweather/Paquiao/Delahoya would have all played with him......same go,s for Tyson theres 2 or 3 fighters since and plenty before who would have destroyed him.....but we all know every last detail about him because he was such a unique character.

Contests went from 15 to 12 rounds for safety sake after Duk Koo Kims death so anything that improves safety is fine with me you cant really knock the sport for that......but Leonard had his fair share of stinkers as well,as did Hagler or Hearns its just that together they produced great fights......

I believe Floyd Mayweather and Manny Paquiao are every bit as good if not better than those fighters......problem is they are not as colourful as human beings,and of course every colourful fighter needs a colourful opponent to attain greatness and for us to remember them.....in Britain where would Nigel Benn have been without Chris Eubank.....where would Ali have been without Frazier,where would Hagler Leonard Duran Hearns have been without each other .....Mayweather and Paquiao havent had those rivalries it dont mean they are any less of fighters.

In my opinion Ray Robinson was the greatest fighter who ever lived,by some distance......but most folk dont remember much about him,they certainly couldnt tell you where he came from or his fighting record without looking it up.....yet we know the name of Mike Tysons wife,mother,trainer,pigeons his entire life story off by heart yet he couldnt have lived with Ray Robinson as a fighter..................................i guess these are just the times we live in

 

Fair Points Gnash , different times and different eras. I don't think the hype is quite what it used to be, I remember the Haggler vs Leonard fight being promoted bigtime, these days if there is a big fight on it seems alot more below ground so to speak. It could well also be me as I loved the boxing in the 80's and some part of the 90's, if I'm honest I don't follow fighters these days and have no idea who's who or weight they fight at, I even thought Barry Mcguigan was still fighting .

 

I'm thinking alot of the this Pay to View didn't help matters. it was grand when you could sit down on a staurday afternoon and watch Dickie Davis on world of sport showing some great boxing highlights, or stay up until the early hours and watch fights live on BBC or ITV.

 

Jasp

[LAZYBSTARD 225]

i think your right there jasper if you lived in the 80s you seen the best fighters that ever lived

 

I was originally replying to the above Marshman.......i think you came in after..............nice to hear your thoughts anyway chief

well gnasher i wasnt about in the 40s and 50s and i think tyson was a bit more than a colourful character i dont think he was the best ever but at that time he unified the title something no one had done before and as for hagler he was dodged for years and he knocked sweet f**k out of minter and i dont thing he was beat by anyone after he got the title and that includes leonard were i think he was robbed

[the_stig 6,614]

i think your right there jasper if you lived in the 80s you seen the best fighters that ever lived

 

I was originally replying to the above Marshman.......i think you came in after..............nice to hear your thoughts anyway chief

well gnasher i wasnt about in the 40s and 50s and i think tyson was a bit more than a colourful character i dont think he was the best ever but at that time he unified the title something no one had done before and as for hagler he was dodged for years and he knocked sweet f**k out of minter and i dont thing he was beat by anyone after he got the title and that includes leonard were i think he was robbed

i know tony sibson -- he could`nt wait to get in the ring with hagler he really thought he could beat him ... sibo still hates the fact that herrol `the limbo dancer` graham would`nt get in the ring with him .. Edited August 29, 2011 by the_stig

[tag 29]

the only person that beat tyson was himself ............. ( and don king) ......

[gnasher16 31,490]

well gnasher i wasnt about in the 40s and 50s and i think tyson was a bit more than a colourful character i dont think he was the best ever but at that time he unified the title something no one had done before and as for hagler he was dodged for years and he knocked sweet f**k out of minter and i dont thing he was beat by anyone after he got the title and that includes leonard were i think he was robbed

 

I wasnt around in the 40,s and 50,s either whats that got to do with anything......best fighters that ever lived.....means best fighters that ever lived,and they were your words.

 

Tyson was the best for a couple of years during probably the worst era of heavyweight boxing in history.....make all the excuses for him you like when 2 top notch heavyweights came along he was beaten easily by both of them.......In any other era than the one he fought in Tyson would possibly not have won a world title at all.....he didnt hit anywhere near as hard as Earnie Shavers and he never won a world title.

For me Hagler was in the top 5 middleweights of all time.....but to say he beat Leonard,no way.....very few people i know gave Hagler more than 3 rounds,he was beaten in every single department out thought and out fought as the saying go,s.

[gnasher16 31,490]

]i know tony sibson -- he could`nt wait to get in the ring with hagler he really thought he could beat him ... sibo still hates the fact that herrol `the limbo dancer` graham would`nt get in the ring with him ..

 

I remember that fight well Stig Sibson just never got into the fight he was the stronger man and harder puncher but Hagler stayed on the outside and picked him off with ease......i seem to remember there had been a freak snowstorm in Massachusets that year and Sibson couldnt get out of his room for the week before the fight......thats as good excuse as any

Hope he,s doing well these days he,s from my time and was always well respected down these parts.....i still dont think he beat our Mark Kaylor but as they say...." he got the decision "

[marshman 7,758]

I've just had a look at ring magazine top 100 and mike is rated at 72 . This is why I think it's all a mater of opinion . Sonny liston is rated at 71! And it's my opinion that mike in his prime would have smashed Sony! IMHO . So who do u think could have beat mike in his prime?