sonny liston no. 2. give me a break. he shouldnt even be on the list if rocky and dempsey arent. your amoron butt fly
-
-
wow, your logic is astounding lol! who did marciano and dempsey beat that liston couldn't beat?Originally posted by blockheadComment
-
Liston could beat any of the fighters that Rocky and Dempsey fought; and their bones would have broken without plaster wrapped hands. Here's an updated list after much deliberation and video observation.
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis (mainly for 11+ years as champ)
3. Sonny Liston
4. Larry Holmes
5. George Foreman
6. Mike Tyson
7. Joe Frazier
8. Rocky Marciano
9. Jack Johnson (How could I forget about the guy who would wipe teeth off of his gloves?)
10. Lennox Lewis
My list will probably change like a flavor of the month, but I feel that this is more accurate than my last.
Comment
-
well, i don't agree with some of it, but at least you're like the only one besides me to have liston high. good job!Originally posted by BrassangelListon could beat any of the fighters that Rocky and Dempsey fought; and their bones would have broken without plaster wrapped hands. Here's an updated list after much deliberation and video observation.
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis (mainly for 11+ years as champ)
3. Sonny Liston
4. Larry Holmes
5. George Foreman
6. Mike Tyson
7. Joe Frazier
8. Rocky Marciano
9. Jack Johnson (How could I forget about the guy who would wipe teeth off of his gloves?)
10. Lennox Lewis
My list will probably change like a flavor of the month, but I feel that this is more accurate than my last.Comment
-
okay here is mine
marciano louis ali (not able to seperate them and rate one over another).
4 dempsey
5 foreman
6liston
7 frazier
8 holmes
9 lewis
10holyComment
-
Your disagreements are just a portion of why our disputes are so interesting.
My list remains the same today.Comment
-
It bugs me how some guys rate Tyson so low. I think when rating who was the best we should rate what they were like in their prime. Tyson's prime was around 1988. He was unbeatable back then. His personal life took its toll, and by 1990 he was only around 60%. After his comeback he was about the same. If he had fought Holyfield in 1988 (and Holyfield was a heavyweight then) Tyson would have destroyed him.
The rest of his losses were when he was over the hill. Lewis? Williams? Mcbride? Gimme a break. Also Tyson was exciting and fun to watch.Comment
-
tyson is a overatted ass, his prime was early 90's late 80's. his personal life took a toll, he was mentally unstable and thats his own fault as a fighter. tyson lost to the first bum that stood up and traded with him, and wasnt scared of him, thats why he keeps losing not cuz he's past his primeComment
-
good list, atleast theres one person that isnt a tyson nuthugger besides meOriginally posted by leffComment
-
What's the difference between the 1988 Tyson that fought Spinks and the 1990 Tyson that fought Douglas?Originally posted by supaduck
Tyson always had a troubles in his personal life, just like every single fighter whose ever stepped into the ring...No fighter is ever 100%, and Tyson certainly wasn't when he stepped into the ring with Spinks, which many consider his "peak" performance;
-His well-publicized marriage to Givens was obviously in trouble at that time in point
-Jimmy Jacobs, whose was Tyson's closest confidant after Cus died, had died just a few months before the Spinks fight and it weighed heavily on Tyson
-Tyson was arguing in court with his other manager, Bill Cayton.
-There were rumblings that Tyson hadn't trained nearly as much as he normally did, which, if you watch the Spinks fight, Mike doesn't look as "cut" as he did in previous fights.
And there were a couple of other things, as well...but because Tyson quickly knocked out a blown up, past his prime Light Heavyweight with bad knees, that constitutes a "prime" Mike Tyson? Whereas the Tyson that fought Douglas isn't considered to be prime (when he actually had LESS outside distractions & rumoured to have not trained as much as normal), just because he lost a fight?
Listen, I've brought up Tyson's poor 1986 performances against the likes of Tillis & Ribalta before, but there are some who say that was a pre-prime version of Tyson. I've also brought up the Douglas fight, as well, and of course we all know that Tyson apologists say that was the post-prime version of him. So if you think he should be judged only "in his prime" what do we have to judge Tyson according to what you think his prime was...a year or two? If so, do you actually think that compares favourably to other great Heavyweights whose primes had lasted 5+ years?
You give me a break!
P.S. Here's a little trivia question for you...
Can you tell me of any other "past his prime" undefeated fighter in history, who at the age of 23 was very nearly unanimously considered to be the #1 p4p fighter in the sport at the time (going in to the Douglas fight 14 out of 15 thought Tyson was the p4p best in the sport, which is more first place votes than he recieved the previous year)?
Or was Tyson SO ****ING special that a completely different ranking criteria should be used when judging him as a fighter?Comment
Comment