Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90339 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
24 wrote:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
Depends on the criteria. If we go pound-for-pound, I'd have to give it to Floyd Mayweather at this time. Dude had everything - speed, quicks, hand-eye coordination, skills, defense, footwork, except "big power" but at his weight class, he wasn't supposed to, and he was undefeated.
Leonard, Hagler, or Duran would have taken him apart.
Only Leonard would have a shot. Hagler & Duran - Not even close to being fast enough to deal with Floyd.
They both "dealt" with Leonard. Hagler, in particular, was much quicker than most think, and was a master at the angles. All three had superior chins, and would not be put off by Floyd's relative lack of power. Floyd would need his bicycle! Seriously, I would love to transport him back to that era, perhaps the best ever (thus far anyway) for the middle weight classes. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 17429 Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject:
24 wrote:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
24 wrote:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
Depends on the criteria. If we go pound-for-pound, I'd have to give it to Floyd Mayweather at this time. Dude had everything - speed, quicks, hand-eye coordination, skills, defense, footwork, except "big power" but at his weight class, he wasn't supposed to, and he was undefeated.
Leonard, Hagler, or Duran would have taken him apart.
Only Leonard would have a shot. Hagler & Duran - Not even close to being fast enough to deal with Floyd.
They both "dealt" with Leonard. Hagler, in particular, was much quicker than most think, and was a master at the angles. All three had superior chins, and would not be put off by Floyd's relative lack of power. Floyd would need his bicycle! Seriously, I would love to transport him back to that era, perhaps the best ever (thus far anyway) for the middle weight classes.
And Leonard wasn't as fast as Floyd. I think you're underestimating how fast Floyd is. Hagler wouldn't have enough speed to maintain pressure on Floyd. So yes, Floyd would stick and move just like Ray did when they met. Floyd would win by decision vs Hagler. _________________
Quote:
Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
Joined: 03 Nov 2005 Posts: 28461 Location: Chillin on the Delaware.. from the Jersey Side
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
I'm pretty sure Oscar had a belt early on when he was ducking some of hose guys. Maybe Doughboy can clarify that.
Alright, in 20 years, when our kids are posting on LG, and this thread is on its 10K page, who do you think they will say has the greater legacy as boxer, Oscar De La Hoya or Floyd Mayweather?
Joined: 20 Apr 2006 Posts: 15294 Location: Southern California
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:43 pm Post subject:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
TACH wrote:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
doughboy90650 wrote:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
doughboy90650 wrote:
Styles make fights. You know that. Mayorga was perfect for Oscar. Dude stands there and takes shots. And after Tito retired him, he comes back and fights Oscar a year later and rusty for a pay day ...... so Mayorga is a bad example.
I just think Floyd, who is still in his prime, had/has the opportunity to really put a stamp on his legacy. Oscar didn't duck people. I will definitely give him that. But Gatti, who had just turned 33 and was definitely on the decline, could have easily been replaced by a Cotto or Margarito. Even when you look at some of Floyd interviews, you can tell he's duckin'.
Eight million dollars he turned down to fight Margarito to fight a Gatti? Huh???
Gatti, Mitchell, Judah and Baldomir < Margarito
Yes, styles make fights, and here we had a dude that smoked about 200 packs a day WHILE training in Mayorga, so any rust from layoffs for him is blown out of proportion.
And ah! Oscar DID in fact duck fights. This was one of the biggest criticisms early on in hs career but he ducked them for the same reasons that Floyd took other fights, yet a lot of people think oscar was scared. Then Oscar decided to try and become the vaunted "Mexican Fighter" that people always accused him of NOT being, and he started taking on ALL COMERS, and to that he got my ULTIMATE RESPECT.
How much did Floyd get to fight Gatti?
Early in his career, I wouldn't call it ducking. I call it fighting lesser opponents to build his record up. By his 15th fight, he fought Paez who was a decent lightweight and then spank one of the Ruelas a year later. I think people wanted him to jump right into fighting the best at 130 right away before his career started. Towards the middle of his career, you might could make a point as he was fighting retirement row, even though they were still decent fighters in Chavez, Camacho and Whitaker, a fight that I thought he lost.
His pay per view number against Gatti generated 16.5 million bones and even if he got 10% of that pie, he still wouldn't have been paid the amount of loot to fight Margarito.
Arum was gonna front Floyd 8 million plus part of the PPV receipts ..... You're looking at a possible 10 to 10.75 million dollar payday. Maybe as high as 12.
He made up for it versus Hatton and Oscar though .... over 40 million for two fights.
I see what Oscar did as ducking because he was taking a gang of criticism for it, but, if you call it what you called it, then Floyd basically did the same thing you called Oscar for doing, just at different parts of their careers.
I won't call it ducking if you are a up and comer.... but if you hold a belt, a duck/dodge certain opponents (i.e. number 1 contender), you are guilty of ducking/dodging.
I'm pretty sure Oscar had a belt early on when he was ducking some of hose guys. Maybe Doughboy can clarify that.
Oscar and Floyd did what most good fighters do. They get their practice in early in their careers versus lesser fighters and by the 14th or 15th fight, they start fighting better opposition.
From fights 1-14, the only decent fighters Oscar fought was Jeff Mayweather and Jorge Paez. He won his first title in 1994 at the Olympic Auditorium after his 12th fight at 130 (WBO). After that, he started fighting better competition. He fought Paez, John John Molina, his best victory early in his career against Ruelas, Jesse Jame Leija and Genaro Hernandez. Not a bad list but it could have been a little better.
Problem with Oscar was he came ten years too late. He would have been in the class with Azumah Nelson, Julio Caesar Chavez and Camacho.
Once he got many fights under his belt, then competition really stepped up: Shane twice, Vargas, declining Chavez twice (still dangerous), Trinadad, Gatti (before Ward trilogy) and a great victory against Ike Quartey.
Last edited by doughboy90650 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 17429 Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:48 pm Post subject:
TACH wrote:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
I'm pretty sure Oscar had a belt early on when he was ducking some of hose guys. Maybe Doughboy can clarify that.
Alright, in 20 years, when our kids are posting on LG, and this thread is on its 10K page, who do you think they will say has the greater legacy as boxer, Oscar De La Hoya or Floyd Mayweather?
LG 2028 is gonna be some funny ish!
Greatest legacy? Oscar, easily. Olympic gold and titles in different classes, fought basically everyone that came his way...But that wasn't what were disputing in this instance nor is it the title of the thread, troop. _________________
Quote:
Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90339 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:42 am Post subject:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
24 wrote:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
24 wrote:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
Depends on the criteria. If we go pound-for-pound, I'd have to give it to Floyd Mayweather at this time. Dude had everything - speed, quicks, hand-eye coordination, skills, defense, footwork, except "big power" but at his weight class, he wasn't supposed to, and he was undefeated.
Leonard, Hagler, or Duran would have taken him apart.
Only Leonard would have a shot. Hagler & Duran - Not even close to being fast enough to deal with Floyd.
They both "dealt" with Leonard. Hagler, in particular, was much quicker than most think, and was a master at the angles. All three had superior chins, and would not be put off by Floyd's relative lack of power. Floyd would need his bicycle! Seriously, I would love to transport him back to that era, perhaps the best ever (thus far anyway) for the middle weight classes.
And Leonard wasn't as fast as Floyd. I think you're underestimating how fast Floyd is. Hagler wouldn't have enough speed to maintain pressure on Floyd. So yes, Floyd would stick and move just like Ray did when they met. Floyd would win by decision vs Hagler.
Leonard was easily faster than floyd. You must be younger than I pegged you for. Fastest hands on any boxer north of flyweight. I believe it was Angelo Dundee who once said Leonard was too fast for most featherweights. Floyd is fast, but he's not leonard or Aaron Pryor fast.
BTW, Hagler was much quicker (and stronger) than Oscar was in his last fight with Floyd, and Oscar didn't exactly have trouble finding floyd when he put his mind to it.
I'm sorry if this is sounding like I'm bashing floyd, because he's a wonderful fighter (if less than stellar as a human). _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 17429 Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:44 am Post subject:
Honestly - and no disrespect - But this isn't even close to being accurate, bro:
Quote:
Leonard was easily faster than floyd.
You, my good friend, must have never seen Floyd Mayweather fight. What you're going on is how fast Sugar looked against slower competitors of his era. Back then, Ray hardly fought guys with speed, especially the speed of Floyd. Ray's speed looked so much more superior than everyone else's that it's easy to think no one else after him was as fast as him. Floyd is faster.
And Floyd is certainly faster than Pryor, easily. In fact, you'll find it a tough task to find a true fight aficianado to agree with you. Hagler isn't faster than Oscar either. Hagler wasn't known for his speed, he was known for his power.
And in their fight, Oscar found nothing but gloves when he went to hit Floyd, that's how much faster Floyd was. In fact, that's what Floyd is known for - his blazing speed. _________________
Quote:
Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90339 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
Honestly - and no disrespect - But this isn't even close to being accurate, bro:
Quote:
Leonard was easily faster than floyd.
You, my good friend, must have never seen Floyd Mayweather fight. What you're going on is how fast Sugar looked against slower competitors of his era. Back then, Ray hardly fought guys with speed, especially the speed of Floyd. Ray's speed looked so much more superior than everyone else's that it's easy to think no one else after him was as fast as him. Floyd is faster.
And Floyd is certainly faster than Pryor, easily. In fact, you'll find it a tough task to find a true fight aficianado to agree with you. Hagler isn't faster than Oscar either. Hagler wasn't known for his speed, he was known for his power.
And in their fight, Oscar found nothing but gloves when he went to hit Floyd, that's how much faster Floyd was. In fact, that's what Floyd is known for - his blazing speed.
Funny, but most experts rank Leonard, Hagler, Prior, and Pernell Whitaker (a slightly richer man's Mayweather IMO) ahead of him, along with guys like Benitez.
Your dispute on speed indicates you haven't seen much boxing before the early 90's (I'm going to guess you're early 30's). Leonard is considered by many to have the fastest hands in boxing history, not counting flyweights. Here's a list of guys in their prime who would have a great chance of beating Mayweather (by no means an exhaustive list either):
Leonard
Hearns
Haggler
Whitaker
Sanchez
Pryor
Benitez
Duran
Arguello _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 20 Apr 2006 Posts: 15294 Location: Southern California
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:34 pm Post subject:
Boxing has too many weight classes. They need to go back to the standard eight. Based on career, whom they fought, record and title run .... in my era
Heavyweight (190 - up) Muhammad Ali (Just off competition and title reigns, sneaky power but was a middleweight in heavyweight body. Stayed too long. Fought everyone.)
Evander Holyfield (Never ducked anyone. Great trilogy with Bowe. Fought everyone. Stayed too long. Took Mike's best shot, nodded his head and smiled)
Mike Tyson (when focused, in shape and prepared, wasn't anyone more deadly. Power of Foreman and speed of Leonard. Prison and no Atlas/Rooney really detoured his legacy. Thanks Don King and Robin Givens)
Lennox Lewis(when in shape would have retired undefeated - McCall and Rahman really stains record. Ducked by Bowe and Tyson)
Larry Holmes (One of the greatest jabs of all time. Sucks that he had no one to fight and came after Ali and before Tyson. Lost in shuffle)
Joe Frazier (Always overlooked, best left hook in boxing. Damn near took Ali's head off. Beat down from Foreman and Ali trilogy -lost 2 of 3- stained his career)
All Time: Joe Lewis
Light Heavyweight (175 - 190 lbs.) Evander Holyfield (Undisputed Cruiserweight champ. Owned this division. Gave up all belts to go the heavyweight)
Joe Calzaghe (running things now and destroyed Left Hook Lacy)
Michael Spinks (ran this division before taking title from Holmes in heavies. Really had no one to fight in light heavies)
All Time: Ezzard Charles, Evander Holyfield or Bob Foster
Middleweight (160 - 175 lbs.) Marvin Hagler (Held all 3 belts, numerous defenses & classic bout with Hitman)
Carlos Monzon (one of the first, true undisputed middleweight champs, seven year title reign)
Roy Jones Jr. (Lightweight in middleweight body, crazy angles and power)
Bernard Hopkins (can't take away 20 title defenses. Defensive fighter and ended Tito's career)
All time: Ray Robinson
Welterweight (140 - 154 lbs.) Ray Leonard (Debated between he and Floyd but gave it to Leonard based on competition. Fought stupidly in Duran I. Fought smarter in Duran II. Came back and broke Hearns down. Remembered watching that on ONTV)
Floyd Mayweather Jr. (Best fights were between 140 and 147, defensive genius, brittle hands lacked power but speed made up for it. Played patty cake with Corrales and Gatti)
Felix Trinadad (knockout artist. Tito was clearly a best. Lost to Oscar though. Should have stayed at 147. Soon as he went to 154 and 160, he got smoked.)
Tommy Hearns (Unlimited power at this weight. Destruction of Roberto Duran was classic, but losses to Leonard and Hagler leaves a stain. Stayed waaaaaaaaaaay too long.)
All time: Ray Robinson
Lightweight (135 lbs.) Roberto Duran (career during the 70's and early 80's, awesome. When he fought at this weight, he owned the division. Once he moved up, Hearns, Hagler and Leonard tapped that ass.)
Pernell Whitaker (was Floyd before Floyd. Slick defensive boxer. Went rounds without getting hit. Lacked power but made opponents looked stupid. Dominated Chavez)
Julio César Chávez (body snatcher. broke fools down internally. Ended Mildred Taylor's career and should have lost that fight though)
Alexis Arguello (take away Aaron Pryor, dude had a perfect career, never should have moved up to fight him.)
Manny Pacquiao (Does damage. Best fighter in the world pound for pound right now with the retirement of Floyd. The new Mexican assassin)
All time: Roberto Duran
Featherweight (126 lbs.) Salvador Sanchez (excellent fighter, life cut short, classic assassin)
Azumah Nelson (never got his rematch against Sanchez, great fight with Gomez)
Wilfredo Gomez (126 pound heavyweight, too much power at this weight)
Barrera and Morales gets recognition from that trilogy they had
All Time: Salvador Sanchez
Bantamweight & Flyweight (112 - 118 lbs.) Marco Antonio Barrera(Baby Faced Assassin was a mini Chavez. Thank God he ended the career of Naseem Hamed)
Junior Jones (two great victories against Barrera)
Erik Morales (Typical Mexican fighter. Left everything in the ring. Pac-Man caught him at the right time.
great fights happen in this weight class but not much name recognition...
Last edited by doughboy90650 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:31 pm; edited 4 times in total
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 17429 Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject:
24 wrote:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
Honestly - and no disrespect - But this isn't even close to being accurate, bro:
Quote:
Leonard was easily faster than floyd.
You, my good friend, must have never seen Floyd Mayweather fight. What you're going on is how fast Sugar looked against slower competitors of his era. Back then, Ray hardly fought guys with speed, especially the speed of Floyd. Ray's speed looked so much more superior than everyone else's that it's easy to think no one else after him was as fast as him. Floyd is faster.
And Floyd is certainly faster than Pryor, easily. In fact, you'll find it a tough task to find a true fight aficianado to agree with you. Hagler isn't faster than Oscar either. Hagler wasn't known for his speed, he was known for his power.
And in their fight, Oscar found nothing but gloves when he went to hit Floyd, that's how much faster Floyd was. In fact, that's what Floyd is known for - his blazing speed.
Funny, but most experts rank Leonard, Hagler, Prior, and Pernell Whitaker (a slightly richer man's Mayweather IMO) ahead of him, along with guys like Benitez.
Your dispute on speed indicates you haven't seen much boxing before the early 90's (I'm going to guess you're early 30's). Leonard is considered by many to have the fastest hands in boxing history, not counting flyweights. Here's a list of guys in their prime who would have a great chance of beating Mayweather (by no means an exhaustive list either):
Leonard
Hearns
Haggler
Whitaker
Sanchez
Pryor
Benitez
Duran
Arguello
Who are these "experts"? And you're going on (hopefully) exactly what I'm going on - observation of these boxers, yet you keep trying to use the term "many experts" without quoting the source of where you're getting these so-called "experts" from. And on that list, depending on what weight Floyd would fight them at, the only 2 that had the speed to compete with him would be Pea and Ray. _________________
Quote:
Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90339 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:02 pm Post subject:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
24 wrote:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
Honestly - and no disrespect - But this isn't even close to being accurate, bro:
Quote:
Leonard was easily faster than floyd.
You, my good friend, must have never seen Floyd Mayweather fight. What you're going on is how fast Sugar looked against slower competitors of his era. Back then, Ray hardly fought guys with speed, especially the speed of Floyd. Ray's speed looked so much more superior than everyone else's that it's easy to think no one else after him was as fast as him. Floyd is faster.
And Floyd is certainly faster than Pryor, easily. In fact, you'll find it a tough task to find a true fight aficianado to agree with you. Hagler isn't faster than Oscar either. Hagler wasn't known for his speed, he was known for his power.
And in their fight, Oscar found nothing but gloves when he went to hit Floyd, that's how much faster Floyd was. In fact, that's what Floyd is known for - his blazing speed.
Funny, but most experts rank Leonard, Hagler, Prior, and Pernell Whitaker (a slightly richer man's Mayweather IMO) ahead of him, along with guys like Benitez.
Your dispute on speed indicates you haven't seen much boxing before the early 90's (I'm going to guess you're early 30's). Leonard is considered by many to have the fastest hands in boxing history, not counting flyweights. Here's a list of guys in their prime who would have a great chance of beating Mayweather (by no means an exhaustive list either):
Leonard
Hearns
Haggler
Whitaker
Sanchez
Pryor
Benitez
Duran
Arguello
Who are these "experts"? And you're going on (hopefully) exactly what I'm going on - observation of these boxers, yet you keep trying to use the term "many experts" without quoting the source of where you're getting these so-called "experts" from. And on that list, depending on what weight Floyd would fight them at, the only 2 that had the speed to compete with him would be Pea and Ray.
Google "top boxers of all time" _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 03 Nov 2005 Posts: 28461 Location: Chillin on the Delaware.. from the Jersey Side
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:42 pm Post subject:
doughboy90650 wrote:
TACH wrote:
^^ I can't say I agree with every single ranking.. but that post is very on point! Great job!!
Thanks. What would you change?
I think Tommy Hearns was better than Felix Trinadad... but I will admit, I saw more of Hearns' fights then Trinadad's (maybe I remember Felix from fighting in the heavier weight classes). Also, where is De La Hoya... De La Hoya and Mayweather are the only men in the history of boxing to win titles (WBC,WBA,IBF,and WBO) in six different weight divisions. As a amateur he has over 200 wins.
I also like Julio Chavez over Sweet Pea.... just my $.02...
BTW it has been announced that De La Hoya and Pacquiao have agreed to fight December 6, 2008 at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, the fight will be at the welterweight limit of 147 lbs. On August 28, 2008 a press conference will be held by Golden Boy Promotions to officially announce the fight.
That might be the first PPV I order in a long long long time!!!!
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 17429 Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject:
Quote:
BTW it has been announced that De La Hoya and Pacquiao have agreed to fight December 6, 2008 at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, the fight will be at the welterweight limit of 147 lbs. On August 28, 2008 a press conference will be held by Golden Boy Promotions to officially announce the fight.
Didn't Pacquio debut at like 105lbs? So he's adding 40lbs from his debut weight and he's around 5'5 and Oscar's 5'10? Oh well. _________________
Quote:
Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
If I had to pick one fighter, I'd go with Sugar Ray Robinson. His ability to span and win championships outside of his weight class was an amazing feat, back when weight classes were fewer and "honest".
You really have to take time into the equation. To illustrate, someone like Jack Johnson might have been awesome had he access to modern training and technique. He had the build to take even more weight and power, and had superb footwork and balance (given that dorky stance back in the day). I've always had a sneaking suspicion he would have been a great heavy weight in the modern era, unlike his peers.
My ideal matchup would have been Rocky Marciano versus Mohammad Ali. Rocky was a tank; he could have taken Ali's deadly jabs and kept going, never losing focus. Ali would have been too wise to get within deadly range of Rocky's immense punching power... Marciano had incredible power stemming from his lower trunk, and had the ability to take out fighters with body punches. Ladies and Gentlemen, that would have been a fight.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90339 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:55 am Post subject:
Here's a pretty good take:
Quote:
TYSON vs. MUHAMMAD ALI:
Obviously in this sort of hypothetical matchup we’ll assume that both fighters are in their prime and enter the ring without injury or distraction. The tale of the tape reveals that Muhammad Ali–rightfully nicknamed “The Greatest”–stands 6′3″, would weigh in somewhere in the low 200’s and has a 80″ reach. Tyson, meanwhile, enters the ring at 5′ 10″, weighing around 218 and with a 71″ reach gives up a huge 9″ advantage to his opponent.
The most significant question about Ali relative to this matchup would be his ability to handle Tyson’s power. Based on his career resume, I’m of the opinion that he would be able to take Tyson’s best shots with relative ease. I often like to tell people that Ali fought Mike Tyson twice–only his name was Sonny Liston. Ali faced no shortage of powerful opponents in addition to the hard hitting Liston–George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Jerry Quarey and the man considered by most boxing cognoscenti as the single hardest puncher in the history of boxing, Earnie Shavers. Tyson’s power wouldn’t faze Ali one bit–he’d faced far more formidable opponents and, more importantly, hard hitters with more skills than Tyson.
Not only was Ali no stranger to power punchers, he could take an insane amount of punishment. The thing that’s always blown me away about Ali’s career is that fact that he was never knocked out. He was only stopped inside the distance once, and that was a stoppage against Larry Holmes in a fight he never should have taken. In other words, the suggestion that Tyson would even have a “puncher’s chance” in this matchup is hard to fathom based on the inability of a veritable “who’s who” of boxing history to KO Ali. Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Shavers, Norton, etc. couldn’t do it. Norton broke Ali’s jaw and still didn’t get a stoppage victory. I’d have a hard time thinking that Tyson could do what these legends couldn’t.
The other quality typically ascribed to Tyson is his ability to intimidate his opponent–guys like Michael Spinks and Lou Savarese appeared to be sapped of their will before the bell even rang. That certainly wouldn’t happen against Ali, a man who conducted himself bravely and resolutely in the ring against the best in the business and on the biggest stage in sports. Furthermore, Ali never lacked for confidence and the notion that he’d be intimidated by Tyson’s scowl is downright laughable. To the contrary, Ali was at his best in the biggest fights–it was his second tier opponents (like Norton and Leon Spinks) that often gave him trouble. In a mega-fight like Tyson/Ali, he’d be at his best.
On the other side of the equation, Ali had the tools to dominate his brawling opponent. His handspeed, defensive ability and movement was insane for a heavyweight. More significantly, there’s the 9″ reach advantage–while not as profound as the 13″ advantage that Lennox Lewis had in his clinical destruction of Tyson it would be much of the same. Lewis, while a solid fighter, is definitely no Ali and his 9″ advantage over Tyson would allow him to dance around the smaller man and pick him apart with his jab.
Then there’s the question of Tyson’s mental toughness. While he demonstrated a lot of heart and courage in taking the beating given to him by Lennox Lewis, his penchant for in-ring “meltdowns” is well documented. Tactically, he’d be no match for “The Greatest”–Tyson knew one way to fight–moving forward and looking for a knockout. Ali, under the tutledge of the great Angelo Dundee, was masterful at tailoring his gameplan for individual fighters. Dundee–like Lewis’ trainer Emmanuel Steward years later–would easily find weaknesses in Tyson’s technique and Ali would have no problem exploiting it.
I was initially going to say that if Ali and Tyson fought 100 times, Ali would win 99 of them. Realistically, however, a focused, in-shape Ali would beat Tyson 100 out of 100. Tyson isn’t a well rounded enough fighter to beat Ali like Joe Frazier did in their first matchup. Ali’s superior reach, mental toughness, speed and ability to take a punch would be too much for “Iron Mike”. It would be similar to the Lennox Lewis/Tyson fight only more so. Ali wins by KO/TKO somewhere around the tenth round.
http://www.prophetfighting.com/?p=424 _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Geez... definitely make that 100 out of 100. Tyson always had trouble fighting opponents with a long reach. Ali's jabs would have reduced Iron Mike's face to a bloody pulp.
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 17429 Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:23 am Post subject:
24 wrote:
Here's a pretty good take:
Quote:
TYSON vs. MUHAMMAD ALI:
Obviously in this sort of hypothetical matchup we’ll assume that both fighters are in their prime and enter the ring without injury or distraction. The tale of the tape reveals that Muhammad Ali–rightfully nicknamed “The Greatest”–stands 6′3″, would weigh in somewhere in the low 200’s and has a 80″ reach. Tyson, meanwhile, enters the ring at 5′ 10″, weighing around 218 and with a 71″ reach gives up a huge 9″ advantage to his opponent.
The most significant question about Ali relative to this matchup would be his ability to handle Tyson’s power. Based on his career resume, I’m of the opinion that he would be able to take Tyson’s best shots with relative ease. I often like to tell people that Ali fought Mike Tyson twice–only his name was Sonny Liston. Ali faced no shortage of powerful opponents in addition to the hard hitting Liston–George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Jerry Quarey and the man considered by most boxing cognoscenti as the single hardest puncher in the history of boxing, Earnie Shavers. Tyson’s power wouldn’t faze Ali one bit–he’d faced far more formidable opponents and, more importantly, hard hitters with more skills than Tyson.
Not only was Ali no stranger to power punchers, he could take an insane amount of punishment. The thing that’s always blown me away about Ali’s career is that fact that he was never knocked out. He was only stopped inside the distance once, and that was a stoppage against Larry Holmes in a fight he never should have taken. In other words, the suggestion that Tyson would even have a “puncher’s chance” in this matchup is hard to fathom based on the inability of a veritable “who’s who” of boxing history to KO Ali. Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Shavers, Norton, etc. couldn’t do it. Norton broke Ali’s jaw and still didn’t get a stoppage victory. I’d have a hard time thinking that Tyson could do what these legends couldn’t.
The other quality typically ascribed to Tyson is his ability to intimidate his opponent–guys like Michael Spinks and Lou Savarese appeared to be sapped of their will before the bell even rang. That certainly wouldn’t happen against Ali, a man who conducted himself bravely and resolutely in the ring against the best in the business and on the biggest stage in sports. Furthermore, Ali never lacked for confidence and the notion that he’d be intimidated by Tyson’s scowl is downright laughable. To the contrary, Ali was at his best in the biggest fights–it was his second tier opponents (like Norton and Leon Spinks) that often gave him trouble. In a mega-fight like Tyson/Ali, he’d be at his best.
On the other side of the equation, Ali had the tools to dominate his brawling opponent. His handspeed, defensive ability and movement was insane for a heavyweight. More significantly, there’s the 9″ reach advantage–while not as profound as the 13″ advantage that Lennox Lewis had in his clinical destruction of Tyson it would be much of the same. Lewis, while a solid fighter, is definitely no Ali and his 9″ advantage over Tyson would allow him to dance around the smaller man and pick him apart with his jab.
Then there’s the question of Tyson’s mental toughness. While he demonstrated a lot of heart and courage in taking the beating given to him by Lennox Lewis, his penchant for in-ring “meltdowns” is well documented. Tactically, he’d be no match for “The Greatest”–Tyson knew one way to fight–moving forward and looking for a knockout. Ali, under the tutledge of the great Angelo Dundee, was masterful at tailoring his gameplan for individual fighters. Dundee–like Lewis’ trainer Emmanuel Steward years later–would easily find weaknesses in Tyson’s technique and Ali would have no problem exploiting it.
I was initially going to say that if Ali and Tyson fought 100 times, Ali would win 99 of them. Realistically, however, a focused, in-shape Ali would beat Tyson 100 out of 100. Tyson isn’t a well rounded enough fighter to beat Ali like Joe Frazier did in their first matchup. Ali’s superior reach, mental toughness, speed and ability to take a punch would be too much for “Iron Mike”. It would be similar to the Lennox Lewis/Tyson fight only more so. Ali wins by KO/TKO somewhere around the tenth round.
To be completely honest, I stopped reading after this statement:
Quote:
The most significant question about Ali relative to this matchup would be his ability to handle Tyson’s power. Based on his career resume, I’m of the opinion that he would be able to take Tyson’s best shots with relative ease.
That dude is an idiot. Period. It's one thing to say 'Ali could withstand Tyson's power' but it's PURELY IDOL/FANSHIP SPEAKING when this clown uses the the phrase "with relative ease". Sorry. He's a fraud. There wasn't even any reason to continue reading at that point. _________________
Quote:
Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 17429 Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:35 am Post subject:
angrypuppy wrote:
Geez... definitely make that 100 out of 100. Tyson always had trouble fighting opponents with a long reach. Ali's jabs would have reduced Iron Mike's face to a bloody pulp.
Nope, not true:
Frank Bruno - 82'' Reach: TKO 5th round, TKO 3rd Round
Razor Ruddock - 82'' Reach: UD, TKO 7th Round
Tony Tubbs - 79'' Reach: TKO 2nd Round
Mitch Green - 82'' Reach: UD
Trevor Berbick - 78'' Reach: TKO 2nd Round
Bonecrusher Smith - 82'' Reach: UD
The thing is, most of Tyson's fights were he was at a reach disadvantage, so to say that he always had trouble with fighters that had reach is far from truth. _________________
Quote:
Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
Joined: 03 Nov 2005 Posts: 28461 Location: Chillin on the Delaware.. from the Jersey Side
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:40 am Post subject:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
To be completely honest, I stopped reading after this statement:
Quote:
The most significant question about Ali relative to this matchup would be his ability to handle Tyson’s power. Based on his career resume, I’m of the opinion that he would be able to take Tyson’s best shots with relative ease.
That dude is an idiot. Period. It's one thing to say 'Ali could withstand Tyson's power' but it's PURELY IDOL/FANSHIP SPEAKING when this clown uses the the phrase "with relative ease". Sorry. He's a fraud. There wasn't even any reason to continue reading at that point.
Give this one a read LB:
Quote:
Is it just me, or are all the lopsided and ridiculous claims that fighters from the 60's and 70's would destroy fighters of the 80's to the present era - and vice versa - getting a little annoying? I mean, seriously. Boxing must not be doing it's job right, because on just about every website across the internet people aren't talking about Roy Jones or John Ruiz, they aren't talking about Lennox Lewis or Vladimir Klitschko.
They're talking about, long behold, "Iron" Mike Tyson and Muhammad Ali.
Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson both defined the eras that they boxed in. In fact, no other two athletes in the sport of boxing have accomplished what these two fighters have. I'm not talking on a statistical standpoint, but more so on a commercial one. You see Ali and Tyson both were able to sell fights like no other.
With television not being an important wave for boxing in the 60's, Muhammad Ali used his mouth and his brash taste to draw people to come watch him, and most of the time it was in hopes that the young Louisville native would get smeared all over the canvas.
Tyson, on the other hand, was marketed as a time bomb. Nobody threw with as much speed or power as a young Mike Tyson, and nobody was able to match the fear that he instilled into his opponents. Most of the time Tyson's opposition was out on their feet before the opening bell. What Mike Tyson did, in reality's sense, of bring back the knock out. The art of knocking someone out had been lost with fighters like Ali, Holmes, Pernell Whitaker, and Michael Spinks. The slow paced decision type fighting won over the older generation of fans, but Mike Tyson was able to bring a new age of people to the sport.
It's fair to say that both Ali and Tyson brought the sport to a high point, and it's also fair to give them both credit for helping the sport when it seemed to be dying off slowly. And while Muhammad Ali has gone down as one of the greatest heavyweights of all-time, and certainly the greatest sports figure/entertainer of all-time, Mike Tyson isn't in the same boat.
Tyson should easily go down as one of the most exciting heavyweights of all-time, but an all-time great is a bit of a stretch. Looking at the credentials, Mike Tyson fought mostly handpicked fighters from a stable of Don King - mostly overweight drug addicts. I'm not one to discredit Tyson for doing so, because it is never a fighter's fault when competition is at an all-time low. Tyson beat the guys he was supposed to and had an impressive run as champion.
But the old saying "You can take the child out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the child" speaks volumes when it comes to "Iron" Mike's career.
Mike Tyson couldn't shake his old childhood habits and it all caught up to him in February of 1990, when a 42-1 underdog named James Douglas knocked him out and took all the invincibility from his championship reign. Since his first pro defeat, Tyson hasn't been able to re establish himself as a major player in the heavyweight division.
While both Ali and Tyson spent time in jail, and away from boxing, Ali came back and proved that the heart of a champion never stopped beating inside of him. Ali took on Joe Frazier after a few fights back - where it was evident he wasn't the same - and even in defeat, he won over the hearts of even his highest critics.
That charm and appeal to the public in a positive sense is what Mike Tyson lacked. Both Ali and Tyson would battle their toughest wars after serving jail time, and yet, Ali would stand on his feet while Tyson started a long journey through quicksand that still has him sinking today.
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 17429 Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:47 am Post subject:
Quote:
Tyson should easily go down as one of the most exciting heavyweights of all-time, but an all-time great is a bit of a stretch. Looking at the credentials, Mike Tyson fought mostly handpicked fighters from a stable of Don King - mostly overweight drug addicts.
Yet another fraud. The net truly needs policing .
Quote:
Mike Tyson couldn't shake his old childhood habits and it all caught up to him in February of 1990, when a 42-1 underdog named James Douglas knocked him out and took all the invincibility from his championship reign. Since his first pro defeat, Tyson hasn't been able to re establish himself as a major player in the heavyweight division.
First off, what does Tyson's "old childhood habits" have to do with him losing to Buster? Mike didn't take Buster seriously, he undertrained - Simple as that? Is that something ONLY relative to Mike? No. Doesn't this clown realize BUSTER WAS A 42-1 UNDERDOG - Maybe THAT'S why Mike didn't take the fight as seriously as he should have? _________________
Quote:
Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
Joined: 03 Nov 2005 Posts: 28461 Location: Chillin on the Delaware.. from the Jersey Side
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:57 am Post subject:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
Geez... definitely make that 100 out of 100. Tyson always had trouble fighting opponents with a long reach. Ali's jabs would have reduced Iron Mike's face to a bloody pulp.
Nope, not true:
Frank Bruno - 82'' Reach: TKO 5th round, TKO 3rd Round
Razor Ruddock - 82'' Reach: UD, TKO 7th Round
Tony Tubbs - 79'' Reach: TKO 2nd Round
Mitch Green - 82'' Reach: UD
Trevor Berbick - 78'' Reach: TKO 2nd Round
Bonecrusher Smith - 82'' Reach: UD
The thing is, most of Tyson's fights were he was at a reach disadvantage, so to say that he always had trouble with fighters that had reach is far from truth.
The list lacks a quality opponent... but then again, Mike doesn't have wins over an above average heavyweight... I don't think he's beat anybody that would be ranked in the Top 100 fighters of all time, let alone top 50..
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 17429 Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:09 pm Post subject:
TACH wrote:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
Geez... definitely make that 100 out of 100. Tyson always had trouble fighting opponents with a long reach. Ali's jabs would have reduced Iron Mike's face to a bloody pulp.
Nope, not true:
Frank Bruno - 82'' Reach: TKO 5th round, TKO 3rd Round
Razor Ruddock - 82'' Reach: UD, TKO 7th Round
Tony Tubbs - 79'' Reach: TKO 2nd Round
Mitch Green - 82'' Reach: UD
Trevor Berbick - 78'' Reach: TKO 2nd Round
Bonecrusher Smith - 82'' Reach: UD
The thing is, most of Tyson's fights were he was at a reach disadvantage, so to say that he always had trouble with fighters that had reach is far from truth.
The list lacks a quality opponent... but then again, Mike doesn't have wins over an above average heavyweight... I don't think he's beat anybody that would be ranked in the Top 100 fighters of all time, let alone top 50..
In your skewed opinion, it does, however, that wasn't what was being discussed. This was in reference to angrypuppy saying Mike "ALWAYS" had trouble with fighters that had reach. I posted that to deem his statement false. _________________
Quote:
Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
LG 2028 is gonna be some funny ish!
