Opinions on the "GOAT" (Boxing)

[Dpeck100]

I am not a boxing aficionado but I will never understand how Tyson is not in the running. He had most opponents beat before the bout and his sheer knockout force was simply unmatchable.

I have a neighbor Burch who is 70 and a good friend and he knows boxing and insists Casuius Clay is the best ever. I say Tyson would have knocked him out. We will never know.

Tyson just demolishing dudes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOHvMqAgcmc

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

I am not a boxing aficionado but I will never understand how Tyson is not in the running. He had most opponents beat before the bout and his sheer knockout force was simply unmatchable.

I have a neighbor Burch who is 70 and a good friend and he knows boxing and insists Casuius Clay is the best ever. I say Tyson would have knocked him out. We will never know.

Tyson just demolishing dudes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOHvMqAgcmc

Tyson could be intimidating and scary, but he was mentally weak and a frontrunner. Similar to Sonny Liston.

Ali would have had him beat halfway through the first press conference.

Todays version of Mike Tyson would probably admit that to you right now.

Drama and Knockouts sell however, which is why Tyson's stuff sells for far more then many others I rate ahead of him.

[Exhibitman]

I agree with Dave's analysis re Ali. Tyson was ready-made for Ali's head games.

I understand the intrigue of a Tyson but his career is dominated with "ifs": if Cus D'Amato had lived five more years, if Kevin Rooney had trained him, if he hadn't used a woman like a toilet seat. His record is not impressive. He beat an old, fat Larry Holmes. The two other HOFers Tyson fought beat him 3x. He clobbered tomato cans, bums of the month, blown up 175# and 200# fighters, and journeymen. Compare that with Louis: He lost to Schmeling in 1935, Charles in 1950 and Marciano in 1951. All three are HOFers. And those last two losses occurred during a comeback he started at age 36 because he needed the money and was a shot fighter; in his prime he lost only once, at age 22, when he got KTFO by Schmeling. In the 16 years from 1934-1948 he went 56-1. In that run he beat HOFers Schmeling, Baer, Braddock, Lewis, Bivins, Conn (2x) and Walcott (2x). Just head and shoulders above Tyson.

[Bored5000]

Guys who were big punchers were made to order for Ali. No heavyweight in boxing history had a better chin than Ali did.

George Foreman was Tyson before there was Tyson from an intimidation and huge punching standpoint. Foreman 40-0 with 37 knockouts and seven years younger than Ali in the "Rumble in the Jungle." George Foreman's biggest punches could not take out Ali, but Tyson would?

Buster Douglas and Evander Holyfield were guys who were not terrified by Tyson, and stood up to him. Ali was not intimidated by Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier and George Foreman; he would not be intimidated by Tyson, either.

[Dpeck100]

I always find it odd at how quickly people can say someone from the 30's was better than someone from the 70's or 80's etc. If you just look at images of athletes that span this time frame you rarely see athletes with physical attributes that compare to more modern day athletes. Whether that is from dietary changes, more vigorous exercise routines, enhanced training regimens, performance enhancing drugs, better lifestyle choices or just human evolution it is what it is.



It is hard for me to conceptually agree that even though they were participating in the same sport it is the same. While Tyson's entire career may leave him coming up short for the top five or top ten, I just don't see how he doesn't garner more respect in the discussion from his time in his prime. As an amateur he was flat out scary, he went on to be the youngest heavyweight champion and left a path of destruction in his wake. From a physical standpoint Tyson was a beast and a monster in the gym. He had the killer instinct that so many humans simply don't posses. He was at a constant disadvantage as he battled drug problems and still flattened opponents. He was a global superstar and had to deal with the pressure of the press and as his star rose so did the purses in boxing and he was now entrenched with the pressure of dealing with so much income.



It just seems like a really tough debate that isn't apples to apples. Just a few weeks ago Francis Ngannou knocked out Alistar Overeem with one punch. He came over to the UFC from the boxing world and has shattered the record for punching power. How can some one compare a boxer from the 50's who had big punching power yet it was no where close to as powerful? Tyson may have fought some bums or journeymen fighters but these weren't just victories but shocking knockouts. You were stepping in the ring with a great white shark and the outcome was that ferocious. When I watch the clips from his prime commentators were skeptical early on but were quick to realize he was special.



Obviously all of these statements in some form have been bounced around in the debate and long time boxing enthusiasts have heard them and have some counter punch as to why they don't matter so no minds will be changed but those are my beliefs.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

That's why Tyson has a following -- he didn't just beat his tomato cans, he demolished them. That makes for great TV but it doesn't mean you're a great boxer. He was a caged animal and when he came up against someone with true skill his frustration took over and he reacted that way.

I understand why people love going to youtube and watching Tyson highlights. People also love watching Kimbo Slice highlights. Doesn't mean they're great boxers.

Arthur

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

I always find it odd at how quickly people can say someone from the 30's was better than someone from the 70's or 80's etc. If you just look at images of athletes that span this time frame you rarely see athletes with physical attributes that compare to more modern day athletes. Whether that is from dietary changes, more vigorous exercise routines, enhanced training regimens, performance enhancing drugs, better lifestyle choices or just human evolution it is what it is.

It is hard for me to conceptually agree that even though they were participating in the same sport it is the same. While Tyson's entire career may leave him coming up short for the top five or top ten, I just don't see how he doesn't garner more respect in the discussion from his time in his prime.

I usually try to look at these all-time great discussions in the context of what the competition was like in that era and the level of dominance. The mid to late 1980s was one of the weakest eras ever for heavyweights. So many of the top fighters from that era either lacked heart, were perpetually out of shape or had drug problems.

But the reason Tyson does not get respect when compared to the all-time great heavyweights is because his resume is so thin when compared to the top heavyweights of all-time. Tyson was absolutely breathtaking to watch and a phenomenon in the 1980s, but he lost convincingly when matched against guys who were not intimidated.

One of the other reasons Tyson does not get much respect in the all-time rankings is that he was so weak mentally and folded up his tent when he could not simply intimidate an opponent into quitting before a fight even began.

[Dpeck100]

I have never commented on the greatest heavyweight of all time in this thread prior to yesterday and I don't recall ever commenting prior in any other thread.

Yes I do think Tyson's appearance is far supperior and I realize that cut muscles isn't the deciding factor in a fight.

I do think it says a lot about his conditioning.

There are plenty of great boxers in MMA and if that was their focus could be very competitive in boxing.

It's funny I am having some work done at my condo and I have on a Tyson tshirt and had him on my big screen and one of the guys asked if I boxed. Said no but love Tyson and think he doesn't get as much credit as he deserves. His comment was I think he was the best.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

I have a neighbor Burch who is 70 and a good friend and he knows boxing and insists Casuius Clay is the best ever. I say Tyson would have knocked him out. We will never know.

Hahahaha!!! When Tyson got put into the ring with solid competition, he couldn't knock any of them out, so how on earth do you think he would have been able to knock out Ali?

Now people always bring up Buster Douglas, but I am not going to go that route because there were a lot of guys Tyson struggled against. Go watch his fight against Mitch Green.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Hahahaha!!! When Tyson got put into the ring with solid competition, he couldn't knock any of them out, so how on earth do you think he would have been able to knock out Ali?

Now people always bring up Buster Douglas, but I am not going to go that route because there were a lot of guys Tyson struggled against. Go watch his fight against Mitch Green.

If you have ever watched MMA you would know better than to laugh. It only takes one Tyson punch to go down if it lands.

He may have lost but none of us will ever know. There were a ton of fighters that said they had Tyson's number only to wind up laying on the canvas.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

It only takes one punch from anyone for anyone to go down. I thought we were talking about skill.

Arthur

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by HasselhoffsCheeseburger

It only takes one punch from anyone for anyone to go down. I thought we were talking about skill.

Arthur

I don't think Tyson was the most well rounded fighter. You might be able to find a few that argue that but I doubt many. I think why myself and legions of others think he belongs in the discussion is he was a total bad ass and could knock out fighters that had more technical skill than him.

A fight is a fight. Randy Couture was more skilled than Brock Lesnar but it didn't change the outcome and Brock laid him out.

In the lower weight classes most of the guys are extremely technically proficient but lack power. I think of the heavyweight division and power trumps proficiency in my book with the danger level of entering the ring with so much larger fighters being so much higher.

You can watch most 155 pound MMA guys go five rounds. Only a select few have knockout power and that is why their popularity is so high. Lighting fast and deadly.

Look at a guy like Floyd Mayweather. Great fighter obviously but he isn't sending anyone to the hospital.

[Exhibitman]

First of all, MMA and boxing are not analogs, so any comparison with MMA is just pointless. Put the best MMA fighter in a boxing ring under the unified commission rules and he will be out of his depth, as MacGregor was. It isn't the same sport. Michael Jordan was one of the greatest basketball players of alltime but was a sucky baseball player. Irrelevant.

Next, let's talk training, nutrition, etc. You cannot assume that a 1930s fighter would be living and training the same in 1990. The man is the same, the training techniques are not. How about we flip it and put Tyson in the gym in 1930 with crappy food, no A/C, rudimentary medicine, etc.

Knockouts are entertaining but are not the whole story. Not even close. 2018 HOFer Vitali Klitschko knocked out 87.3% of his opponents. Tyson knocked out 76% of his. Does that make Vitali better than Tyson?

Then there is how a fighter 'looks'. David, you've resorted to this eyeball test over and over again. How a guy looks is probably the least useful gauge of performance. Old time fighters didn't lift weights; the trainers believed it would make them too tight to box effectively. What they did was fight. A lot. Most of the guys on the top lists who fought in the earlier days had triple digits in total fights:

Henry Armstrong 181
Willie Pep 241
Sugar Ray Robinson 200
Harry Greb 298
Sam Langford 256
Benny Leonard 95 (in 11 years)
Bob Fitzsimmons 99 that we know of, lots of bouts not recorded in Australia on his way up

and so on. My point being, these guys were hard as a coffin nail and nastier than a rattlesnake. They had to be to survive, and the proof is in the way they responded to the roughest, toughest fighters. Louis lost once as a 22 year old; he came back in the rematch and broke Schmeling's back. Holyfield TKO'd Tyson and Tyson reacted in the rematch with a blatant series of fouls that got him disqualified rather than lose again.

Tyson was a killer as long as he was in with a lesser talent or a has-been, but his record against HOFers speaks for itself: 1-3. He is a legitimate HOFer and a legitimate top 20 heavyweight but he is not a top 10 P4P.