Questions For Tyson Fans

[Hawkins]

Before I start this, let me say I am not trying to start a war or words nor am I flaming anyone. I will also say I am a Tyson fan, just not of the way some of his fans like to portray him or themselves.

On to the questions...



Why is it that it's ok for Tyson's fans to run other champions( Holmes, Louis & Marciano ) into the ground for being in weak eras of the division's history. Yet they will not acknowledge the weakness of the era Tyson fought in?

Why is it that other fighters are buried for fighting past champs and fighters for fighting over-the-hill former champions, yet Tyson is lauded for having defeated an old Larry Holmes?

Why is it that when other heavyweights fight, and defeat, incoming LH challengers they are criticized for not fighting heavyweights yet Tyson is praised for fighting Spinks?

Why is it that when other champions get defeated by underdogs they are again buried, yet Tyson fans have endless excuses for the reasons Douglas won the fight other than he was the better fighter that night?

[sleazyfellow]

Thats how boxing goes usually, a younger more skilled boxer comes up and beats the tested fighters and the hardcore fans stop and say "well hes past his prime" which is true really. Thats just the way it is.

[The Iron Man]

I try to see myself as a fair supporter which i think i am. I only bring up those things when some1 tries to use the arguements against him being a great fighter. Because he didnt fight in the weakest era neither the strongest.

Sorry i gotta leave write the rest l8er

[BKM-]

I'm not one of those fans, but i'll try to answer some of your questions.

Why is it that it's ok for Tyson's fans to run other champions( Holmes, Louis & Marciano ) into the ground for being in weak eras of the division's history. Yet they will not acknowledge the weakness of the era Tyson fought in?

Don't they say that about those Champions after people say Tyson fought in a weak era? So in that way they're responding to the same old junk of 'Tyson dominated the weakest era ever' I guess. Or not.

Why is it that other fighters are buried for fighting past champs and fighters for fighting over-the-hill former champions, yet Tyson is lauded for having defeated an old Larry Holmes?

I think because Holmes still had a lot left in him when Tyson destroyed him. One of his best wins was way after Tyson, and he continued to give good, sometimes great fighters a run for their money. Can't really say the same for old Ali, Louis, Liston etc.

Why is it that when other heavyweights fight, and defeat, incoming LH challengers they are criticized for not fighting heavyweights yet Tyson is praised for fighting Spinks?

Good one. Got them there.

Why is it that when other champions get defeated by underdogs they are again buried, yet Tyson fans have endless excuses for the reasons Douglas won the fight other than he was the better fighter that night?

They get can't over Tyson being beaten badly in his prime, what makes it worse is that Tyson was 1 second away from a win.

[Hawkins]

Take a look around at any of the multitude of threads about Mike Tyson in this very section of the forum. You'll see alot (not all) of people making valid points about Mike's legacy, yet it is countered by some of the most asinine arguments in an attempt to validate supposed 'facts' regarding Mike's career.

As the assertation that people try to Mike out to not be great, that's simply not true. I think Mike is an all-time great, just not in the top ten. His career was sidetracked, and ultimately derailed, before he could make it into the top 10 IMO.

But thats beside the point, I would just like to know, why such extremities are used when defending Tyson. Being loyal to a favorite fighter is admirable, but wrappng them in invalid information just makes you look unknowledgable.

Granted, there are alot of Tyson fans able to carry on a intelligent debate without resorting to silly extremes but they are overwhelmed by the ones making these largely disproportionate claims.

Hawk

[Jim Jeffries]

Take a look around at any of the multitude of threads about Mike Tyson in this very section of the forum. You'll see alot (not all) of people making valid points about Mike's legacy, yet it is countered by some of the most asinine arguments in an attempt to validate supposed 'facts' regarding Mike's career.

As the assertation that people try to Mike out to not be great, that's simply not true. I think Mike is an all-time great, just not in the top ten. His career was sidetracked, and ultimately derailed, before he could make it into the top 10 IMO.

But thats beside the point, I would just like to know, why such extremities are used when defending Tyson. Being loyal to a favorite fighter is admirable, but wrappng them in invalid information just makes you look unknowledgable.

Granted, there are alot of Tyson fans able to carry on a intelligent debate without resorting to silly extremes but they are overwhelmed by the ones making these largely disproportionate claims.

Hawk

I think Mike is an all time great as well, somewhere between 10 and 15. He gets points for being youngest HW champ ever, for quickly unifying the division, and for being exciting to watch, with excellent speed for a heavy and the ability to throw punches in bunches and good power. My problem is with people that have him in the top 3 of all time and saying he could have beat anyone in his prime.

[hhascup]

Here's ome interesting STATS I have on Tyson as well as some other Heavyweight Champions:

Tyson fought 33 different opponents a total of 36 times, in his 58 bouts, that were rated in the Top 10 at one time or another. Percentage wise he only trails Ali, Louis, Holyfield and Michael Spinks (who fought mostly Light Heavyweights).

He average record of his opponents was:

W-22.27586 - L-03.53448 - D-0.29 - which is one of the highest win/lost percentage wise.

Some others are as follows:

Tyson---33/36/58 - W-22.27586 - L-03.53448 - D-0.29
Ali-------38/49/61 - W-33.229 --- L-05.2459 -- D-1.1967
Louis----43/54/71 - W-38.09859 - L-10.225 --- D-2.6338
Holmes--31/35/75 - W-19.85333 - L-05.093 --- D-0.667
Lewis----23/26/44 - W-25.1136 - L-05.227 ---- D-0.50
Frazier---13/19/37 - W-26.0278 -- L-05.093 --- D-0.945
Foreman-23/27/81 - W-20.778 --- L-07.54 ---- D-1.037
Liston---18/22/54 - W-22.2037 -- L-08.148 --- D-1.833
Marciano-13/16/49 - W-29.73469 - L-10.16 --- D-1.7755

[metalinmybrain]

Before I start this, let me say I am not trying to start a war or words nor am I flaming anyone. I will also say I am a Tyson fan, just not of the way some of his fans like to portray him or themselves.

On to the questions...



Why is it that it's ok for Tyson's fans to run other champions( Holmes, Louis & Marciano ) into the ground for being in weak eras of the division's history. Yet they will not acknowledge the weakness of the era Tyson fought in?

Why is it that other fighters are buried for fighting past champs and fighters for fighting over-the-hill former champions, yet Tyson is lauded for having defeated an old Larry Holmes?

Why is it that when other heavyweights fight, and defeat, incoming LH challengers they are criticized for not fighting heavyweights yet Tyson is praised for fighting Spinks?

Why is it that when other champions get defeated by underdogs they are again buried, yet Tyson fans have endless excuses for the reasons Douglas won the fight other than he was the better fighter that night?

First and foremost, you just gave yourself away quickly.

You say older fighters one in particular Rocky Marciano is being prosecuted as fighting over the hill fighters, but mention the time Tyson faced Larry Holmes. You forgot to mention that Marciano faced a hand full and got away with it, with only one great standing out as a legit heavyweight in Joe Louis who might I add was fighting for money and not the spirit. Holmes didn't need money and kept fighting long after facing Tyson, went the distance with Holyfield Mercer and Smith with no problems, might I add he was much much more older than Moore could have ever been against Marciano at the time he faced him.

That sums up this question by you, Spinks is an exception because he was undefeated and like I have mentioned earlier, it's kind of hard for a fighter who has never been beaten to take in the concept of losing a fight. He has never lost so how is he to know what it feels like, mentally Spinks was all there, that was until he got hit. Charles Walcott Moore all these light heavies were beaten and out on their feet long before facing Marciano. Not only that, but all of these man faced Marciano in his era. Holmes era was the 80's, everyone knows that he just got outpointed by a fighter who was tailor made to destroy the boxer if you will.

With all this being said, I have a question for you Hawkins.

I myself can say that I am a huge Marciano fan, he is of Italian heritage and so am I. One thing that intrigues me most about his career, is that is was souly based on fighters that didn't pose a big threat at the time for Marciano. What would have happened to Rocky Marciano had he stayed a bit longer to defend his title against Floyd Patterson? Rocky would have been 33 years of age and still very capable of the greatness he supposedly contained. Besides that, I thought Marciano preferred light heavyweights as oppose to great heavyweights? Sure Marciano commentated for the Patterson - Moore fight, but he did it in a respectful manner of Floyd Patterson's skills. I honestly believe that Marciano tasted his first time of fear. Scared of an up and coming Floyd Patterson who had the skills to break down almost anyone who stood before him. He was rocked by Archie Moore a very old one I might add, so what do you think a younger faster more durable Floyd Patterson would have done better that Moore could not success upon. How would have Marciano dealt with a flurry of punches hitting his face with the speeds of second to none and accuracy to leave him cut and battered. I think Patterson would have cleaned Marciano's clock and given him his first lose, great move Rocky.......great move!

[metalinmybrain]

Here's ome interesting STATS I have on Tyson as well as some other Heavyweight Champions:

Tyson fought 33 different opponents a total of 36 times, in his 58 bouts, that were rated in the Top 10 at one time or another. Percentage wise he only trails Ali, Louis, Holyfield and Michael Spinks (who fought mostly Light Heavyweights).

He average record of his opponents was:

W-22.27586 - L-03.53448 - D-0.29 - which is one of the highest win/lost percentage wise.

Some others are as follows:

Tyson---33/36/58 - W-22.27586 - L-03.53448 - D-0.29
Ali-------38/49/61 - W-33.229 --- L-05.2459 -- D-1.1967
Louis----43/54/71 - W-38.09859 - L-10.225 --- D-2.6338
Holmes--31/35/75 - W-19.85333 - L-05.093 --- D-0.667
Lewis----23/26/44 - W-25.1136 - L-05.227 ---- D-0.50
Frazier---13/19/37 - W-26.0278 -- L-05.093 --- D-0.945
Foreman-23/27/81 - W-20.778 --- L-07.54 ---- D-1.037
Liston---18/22/54 - W-22.2037 -- L-08.148 --- D-1.833
Marciano-13/16/49 - W-29.73469 - L-10.16 --- D-1.7755

Great work on calculating the following.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

I think Mike is an all-time great, just not in the top ten. His career was sidetracked, and ultimately derailed, before he could make it into the top 10 IMO.

You seem pretty knowledgeable about boxing history, but to say Tyson didn't make it into the top 10, you must be comparing entire careers. Because certainly, you could not name 10 other heavyweight champions that could have beaten Tyson. If you can, we have some serious differences here. LOL