Your top boxer and why ?

GarethSouthgate said:
I used to think Tyson was the best until I looked beyond the highlight reels and also looked at the wars other boxers had.

He was obviously ridiculously good but also caught the public imagination and the hype that goes along with it. I guess that hype remains because he didn't have a typical career and spent his peak years inside (did he duck also?).
Click to expand...

Yeah he ducked foreman. He also uses the old prison thing to cover up how bad he was against the elite fighters who destroyed him. Ali spent his beast years in prison and completely changed his style and dominated the best period of heavyweight boxing ever which is why he is untouchable as the greatest heavyweight ever
 
sniperone said:
He’s overrated and nowhere near top 10 of all time and was absolutely destroyed by the top tier fighters of his day.


Out of curiosity what is your top ten heavyweights of all time .
Click to expand...

When people say he's the GOAT they definitely overrate him, rating him top 10 is not though. Who are the 10 fighters you think beat him prime for prime?

Top 10 ofcourse depends on if you're talking head to head or achievements for their era. I'll personally go with head to head in no order because styles make fights:

Lennox/Ali/Holmes (not the version Tyson faced)/Holyfield/Usyk/Fury/Wlad/Vitali/Tyson/Foreman/Louis as a top 11 ability wise without wanting to take any 1 out. Bowe possibly should be there but I'm inclined to think he matched up better with Holyfield more so than he'd line up against other styles. Frazier beat Ali but I don't think he beats any of those men. Liston was dominant in the 60s but he's very slow with very questionable heart. All together they'd make up my top 14 I think. Although maybe someone like Ike Ibeabuchi could beat Frazier and Louis, maybe if he didn't go insane he could have beaten Wlad down the line. Maybe he could have beaten Vitali or even Lennox. I tend to think that's stretching it but he seemed to have it all.

With styles make fights, for instance, I'm pretty sure Wlad beats Holyfield but probably loses to Tyson. If Wlad dominates Tyson he could win, but if he starts to take any form of punishment, you can't see a way how he survives

I also think Louis struggles with many jab and move types from the 60s onwards and especially in the 80s. Foreman throughout his career had problems with guys who were fast and hard. Both of those 2 could have loads of problems with lesser contenders who had plenty of speed and defensive ability. I mean they did in their own eras

I haven't rated Jack Johnson top 10 but he might have beat Louis, because Louis was more mechanical and Johnson could see flaws in his game. It's worth noting in a phone conversation before they ever fought both Ali and Frazier both rated Jack Johnson the no1 of all time, according to the transcript in one of Ali's biographies. Funnily enough, in the 70s I believe Gene Tunney said Jess Willard was better than Muhammed Ali
 
Junglist said:
I'm with @sniperone on this. Tyson is an incredibly exciting fighter to watch and his highlights and the definition of show reel....

But, and it's something that can't be ignored, whenever he came up agaisnt someone as good as himself, he stumbled. He has somehow garnered this incredible mystique where people, 30 years after he was fighting, make him out to be some type of Demi-God.

Holyfield, a career cruiserweight, handled Tyson. To think Usyk wouldn't be able to do the same is bonkers.
Click to expand...

This is an ignorant post. Holyfield started at cruserweight and was the best cruser of all time at that point. He moved up much earlier age than Usyk when he was about 26. Then he got help from the best drugs advisors he could get his hands on, I forget all the names but 1 was 8 time Mr Olympia Lee Haney. He also got caught ordering human growth hormone online.

Not only that Holyfield had an almighty chin and recovery ability. He had incredible inside fighting ability too. Usyk doesn't have any of those traits.

Usyk likes to fight at range and doesn't have the same physicality, chin or inside ability. He might beat Tyson if he can evade Tyson all night. If Tyson get's inside a few times Usyk's ******. All the people who beat Tyson had top class uppercuts to keep him off them. Usyk doesn't have this.
 
W
ANDREW GREEN said:
This is an ignorant post. Holyfield started at cruserweight and was the best cruser of all time at that point. He moved up much earlier age than Usyk when he was about 26. Then he got help from the best drugs advisors he could get his hands on, I forget all the names but 1 was 8 time Mr Olympia Lee Haney. He also got caught ordering human growth hormone online.

Not only that Holyfield had an almighty chin and recovery ability. He had incredible inside fighting ability too. Usyk doesn't have any of those traits.

Usyk likes to fight at range and doesn't have the same physicality, chin or inside ability. He might beat Tyson if he can evade Tyson all night. If Tyson get's inside a few times Usyk's ******. All the people who beat Tyson had top class uppercuts to keep him off them. Usyk doesn't have this.
Click to expand...

We get it you’re a Tyson fan . But sorry to say he was absolutely destroyed by Holyfield and resorted to bitting him lol .
And Lenox Lewis gave him a serious beating and both are way above Tyson in all time great list . Infact lennox Lewis could easy be in the top five and Tyson probably only just makes top 20 . He thought a lot of bums and journeymen fighters and hand picked opponents that he could easy beat . He was above average and beat above average fighters like Bruno,tubs etc but against elite boxers he was absolutely battered
 
sniperone said:
W


We get it you’re a Tyson fan . But sorry to say he was absolutely destroyed by Holyfield and resorted to bitting him lol .
And Lenox Lewis gave him a serious beating and both are way above Tyson in all time great list . Infact lennox Lewis could easy be in the top five and Tyson probably only just makes top 20 . He thought a lot of bums and journeymen fighters and hand picked opponents that he could easy beat . He was above average and beat above average fighters like Bruno,tubs etc but against elite boxers he was absolutely battered
Click to expand...

We can do this for pretty much every heavyweight who boxed over 2 decades though

What's your Top 20? You keep talking about it after all
 
Junglist said:
Avenged them though. I can't even hold the Rahman fight agaisnt him. He was too bust enjoying being a movie star

Plus, the rematch has one of my favourite heavyweight KOs. The sound of those punches. Oh boy.
Click to expand...
Sure. He was a great fighter - not the best though in my opinion.

Tyson was best for me in his prime.
 
As not a big boxing fan I'd go with either Tyson, watching him as I was growing up he just looked so scary to fight or Naz as his fights were always spectacular.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom