Boxing

[spud_gun]

On the middleweights, Haggler, Hearns, SRL, Duran were in a different league to the modern ones. Roy Jones at super and De La Hoya would have got a shot at the title, not sure the others you mentioned would have been top 10 in Haggler's day.

James Toney could have hung with Haggler, Hearns, SRL and Duran and Middleweight....if he'd stayed out of Burger King...the fat ****

[spud_gun]

To Zapater

To be fair Tyson fought most of his fights with little to no training,an out of control lifestyle and pretty heavy drug use.
I'd also say you're giving little credit to fighters like Tony Tubbs,Pinklon Thomas,Tony Tucker and Donovan Ruddock who would all be in the mix at the very least if they were fighting today.

You can always tell how much a person knows about boxing by how they rate Mike Tyson.

[fidget]

You can always tell how much a person knows about boxing by how they rate Mike Tyson.

And how would you say I rate him?

[fidget]

James Toney could have hung with Haggler, Hearns, SRL and Duran and Middleweight....if he'd stayed out of Burger King...the fat ****

Completly agree - Toney was an absolute pleasure to watch.
His inside work was on another level.

[spud_gun]

And how would you say I rate him?

You personally? no idea.

I generally find that the more person references Tyson in a boxing conversation the more they overrate him as an actual boxer.

[fidget]

You personally? no idea.

I generally find that the more person references Tyson in a boxing conversation the more they overrate him as an actual boxer.

Thought with you quoting my post where I give Tyson credit meant your comment might be at me.
My estimation of him as a boxer has actually gone up since his retirement.
Undisputed Truth - his autobiography - was a real eye opener.
I had a long running bet with a mate about the outcome of a Lewis - Tyson bout.
He finally paid me nine years after the bet was struck
How do you think the boxers I mentioned would fair against the modern contenders?

[Zapater]

On the middleweights, Haggler, Hearns, SRL, Duran were in a different league to the modern ones. Roy Jones at super and De La Hoya would have got a shot at the title, not sure the others you mentioned would have been top 10 in Haggler's day.

Oscar started as a super featherweight. I think he had one fight as a middleweight, wouldn't consider him as a middleweight by any stretch. As a welter/light middle, very good definitely. That period has to be the best set of middles since the legendary Graziano, Robertson, Tony Zale, LaMotta, Basilio, Marcel Cerdan etc. Even the contenders in the Fab Four era were very good. Look at how many tough fights Hagler had to endure before getting a title shot.

We've had some very good middleweights since, but not a universal cluster. The super middleweight (and light middleweight) division which has been really good since its inception has no doubt stolen some potential middleweight greats.

To Zapater

To be fair Tyson fought most of his fights with little to no training,an out of control lifestyle and pretty heavy drug use.

I'd also say you're giving little credit to fighters like Tony Tubbs,Pinklon Thomas,Tony Tucker and Donovan Ruddock who would all be in the mix at the very least if they were fighting today.

His training and conditioning is irrelevant, we can only judge from what we saw in the ring. Personally I've never thought too much of him, but there are people who know a lot more about boxing than me who put him in the top 10-15 heavies of all time, so that's cool. The Tyson debate will always divide opinion and there's a lot of 'what if' involved. If Cus had lived longer, if he didn't goto prison, if he was more disciplined. Whilst there is some validity to it, I look at what happened. If he had fought and beaten the majority of Ruiz, Tua, Bowe, Holyfield, Lewis, Vitali, Mercer, Briggs etc then we'd have a case. In many ways I look at David Tua as a similar fighter who faced a similar level of opponent, has an extended highlight reel of absurd knockouts but no one rates him as a top all time fighter.


I agree those guys were better than what's out there today, James Tillis and Seldon even, but they're not standout elite fighters that are particularly memorable in the history of boxing. When Tyson met the big names, when both him and then were past their primes he came up short. The fact he couldn't turn it around when things weren't going well doesn't bode well for him when comparing him to the better fighters in other eras.


For the last 30 years or so we've been in the 'super heavyweight' era making it harder to judge how historical greats would have been. These hypotheticals have always been a bit irrelevant to me, but I do find it difficult to believe the likes of Floyd Paterson or Marciano would be able to consistently compete with the likes of Klitschko's. Obviously there are examples of them beating bigger men, but it's not like they were constantly against giants.

Irrespective, for me heavyweights have always been and will always be inferior fighters to smaller men. Super Featherweight to light heavyweight have consistently provided more entertainment for me.

[spud_gun]

Thought with you quoting my post where I give Tyson credit meant your comment might be at me.
My estimation of him as a boxer has actually gone up since his retirement.
Undisputed Truth - his autobiography - was a real eye opener.
I had a long running bet with a mate about the outcome of a Lewis - Tyson bout.
He finally paid me nine years after the bet was struck
How do you think the boxers I mentioned would fair against the modern contenders?

I hope your money was on Lewis. It's shameful just how underrated a boxer he is. He's a genuine top 10 ATG heavyweight from this country yet he or his achievements are very rarely discussed.

I've not seen much of Tubbs, Thomas or Tucker so it's hard to comment how they'd do in this day and age. My abiding memory of Razor Ruddock is Lewis demolishing him in 2 or 3 rounds.

When discussing today's heavyweights and how they'd fair against the fighters of the past i think you've got to take into account the sheer size of the fighters today. We're living in the world of the Super Heavy where you've got 6'9 guys waltzing around like ballerinas.

[spud_gun]

Oscar started as a super featherweight. I think he had one fight as a middleweight, wouldn't consider him as a middleweight by any stretch. As a welter/light middle, very good definitely. That period has to be the best set of middles since the legendary Graziano, Robertson, Tony Zale, LaMotta, Basilio, Marcel Cerdan etc. Even the contenders in the Fab Four era were very good. Look at how many tough fights Hagler had to endure before getting a title shot.

If you haven't already read it then i cannot recommend highly enough Thomas Hauser's 4 Kings.

If you have read it then re-read it. One of the best boxing books you'll read.

[Zapater]

I hope your money was on Lewis. It's shameful just how underrated a boxer he is. He's a genuine top 10 ATG heavyweight from this country yet he or his achievements are very rarely discussed.

I think Lewis' reserved nature and manners didn't make the US audience take to him as much as others, they love loud, flashy and brash, particularly in fighters. For me he's one of the better heavies how he managed to go away from his range fighting setting up his right to get close up. Don't think he gets enough credit for how he pickeda young Vitali apart. He was out of shape, fought him on the inside for long periods. It's a barnstormer. The uppercuts make me shudder, Vitali is as tough as they come.

If you haven't already read it then i cannot recommend highly enough Thomas Hauser's 4 Kings.

If you have read it then re-read it. One of the best boxing books you'll read.

Will try to pick it up, love content on those guys.

My favourite boxing book by far is Raging Bull, much better than the movie, which was also entertaining. Although long stretches of it had nothing to do with boxing at all.

After reading autobiographies/biographies on those guys in the 50s, I dug up as much archive footage and interviews as possible. Fascinating people, almost all of them and ferocious boxers. In their own right, you could dedicate a mini-series or Hollywood blockbuster on plenty of them and they all fought each other.

[Lecter]

Fury best in that division - Can see Wilder forgoing the Fury fight and trying to get AJ before the mandoraty against Ortiz. Shame ,but I can see Fury being locked out as no-one fancies him

The problem I have with Fury is he cant ****ing punch

Hes talented and slick but he has zero punching power so to beat any decent heavyweight its more than likely gonna go the distance and thats always a big risk that he gets one right on the chin

[Lecter]

On the middleweights, Haggler, Hearns, SRL, Duran were in a different league to the modern ones. Roy Jones at super and De La Hoya would have got a shot at the title, not sure the others you mentioned would have been top 10 in Haggler's day.

The first 4 middleweights were amongst the best there has ever been. Still not sure Duran would have beaten Canelo or GGG. SRL and Hagler would beat both of them no problem and Hearns would be just Hearns ie if he hits you you are in trouble if you hit him hes in trouble

[Lecter]

My point is that people say that Mike Tyson is a heavyweight great and what he beat wasn't too much better. Apart from Spinks, Holmes (who was only a million years old), Bruno at a stretch; the other names on his list were decent at best [at the time of the fights]. Lost to Holyfield, stopped by Lewis, dodged Bowe/Tua etc. Sure there were some tough fights on paper against good fighters but other than the above, there aren't any real standout wins.

In sports, particularly boxing it's always 'older is better'. Whilst the mentality is fair enough and I agree to it to some point, it discredits what lots of people are doing now. I remember someone telling me after Golovkin - Canelo 1 that there aren't any exciting middleweights anymore and there haven't been knockouts since Hagler. Where in reality at the time Golovkin had a higher KO% than Hagler. These 'all time' lists from 'experts' always have a huge American bias. The welterweight division from the mid 90s to until after 2010 was exceptional and many of those fighters will be inducted to the hall of fame, but people still claim that Mayweather for example had it easy because there aren't hard fights out there. Mosley, De La Hoya, Cotto, Marquez etc would have been brilliant in any era and people will probably wax lyrical over them in 20 years time.



You're much better at adding than I am. Regardless, I don't feel that Fury has a case for 'robbery'.

I still think Tyson (the early Tyson) was one of the most talented defensive boxers theres ever been

People forget his movement, how difficult he was to hit and how explosive he could be

Would the early Tyson have beaten Holyfield and Lewis I am not sure but the fights would have been much closer

Styles defo make fights and I think a number of the greats might have caused Tyson problems (and vice versa)

[spud_gun]

The first 4 middleweights were amongst the best there has ever been. Still not sure Duran would have beaten Canelo or GGG. SRL and Hagler would beat both of them no problem and Hearns would be just Hearns ie if he hits you you are in trouble if you hit him hes in trouble

Duran wasn't an ATG middleweight.

He was however quite probably the greatest lightweight boxer there has ever been.

[Lecter]

If you haven't already read it then i cannot recommend highly enough Thomas Hauser's 4 Kings.

If you have read it then re-read it. One of the best boxing books you'll read.

4 Kings is a great read and so is his Ali book also