Mike Tyson - shockingly underrated by all and sundry!!

First topic message reminder :

Just read on another thread that "Foreman beats Tyson easily"....apparently prime Tyson gets beaten easily off Holy and Lewis too!!..

Some perspective...Mike Tyson certainly in 86/87/88 was awesome....certainly much faster than Foreman, Holy and Lewis!!

Also very hard with his head movement to hit cleanly.....carried clubbing power that wiped out the durable Berbick, Holmes and Thomas!! Guys that didn't get knocked out and in a lot of ways bargained on their durability....

"Foreman beats Tyson in 2 rounds".....Nobody had an easy night against Tyson and let's face it.. he's a better all round fighter than Foreman...

Personally in their primes I wouldn't give Foreman a prayer....He wouldn't be able to get off!! Tyson wasn't Frazier..he was more rounded than him...he gave angles...had blinding speed etc...(but that's my opinion)

For me a prime Tyson gets beaten by Ali for sure and you can call other fights pickem.......

I'm not looking to start an argument guys but please before you say all and sundry beat him..(Lewis lost to Mccall...Holy struggled with Stewart and Dokes..lost to Bowe!!)..Please remember just what a fighter he was in his all-too-short prime....

Less of this Foreman, Holy, Lewis play with him nonsense!!

I know he's easy to hate..but please be fair.....

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Think you've got Foreman and Liston the wrong way round there, he went on to become a bit of a joke in his comeback but in the 70's Foreman was a hard man no two ways about it, he was a brooding hostile man intent on wreaking havoc, no acting whatsoever.

I understand that, but I am talking about his genuine personality, not the persona he tried to project in the ring/to the public. Fundamentally he was a nice guy, Liston never gave that impression simply due to the life he led prior to and during his career. That is not to say he wasn't a good man, I think he was really misunderstood myself, but the public and outside people (i.e. other boxers) were never shown that side of him.

I've seen videos of Forman when he was 23-25ish visiting schools and talking to kids about boxing and giving them adivce on technique etc. He was really just a normal guy. His persona was basically copied from Liston to create an advantage. Liston was the real deal, people thought he was indestructable.

Means Jack.......

Not talking about 5ft 8 etc etc Nonpareil again are we...

The biggest middleweight in history!!!

Definitely a heavy in a middles body If you ask me!!

Fundamentally he went on to become a nice man but at the time he was hell bent on causing destruction in the ring, what he does outside of boxing isn't all that important, when it came to the sport itself he was a mean mean man.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Fundamentally he went on to become a nice man but at the time he was hell bent on causing destruction in the ring, what he does outside of boxing isn't all that important, when it came to the sport itself he was a mean mean man.

Like I said, I agree with that. What I'm getting at is their personal mentality, what they are thinking in their head at a given moment, i.e. who they really are. Foreman admitted that as the Frazier fight was starting his legs were trembling, thats how scared he was. Can you imagine Liston ever being intimidated by any boxer? With his background? I know people will cite clay/ali but I believe the NOI had a lot to do with that, plus the fact that clay did just act crazy which is not something anyone would expect from a boxer, not in them days, and arguably not since.

Think the intimidation factor of Liston is over rated, Ali tore that apart over both fights.

So would you say Foreman was more intimidating than Liston?

Hard as Foreman hit people, Liston scored KO's with jabs.

Wasn't overplayed when he destroyed the scared stiff Patterson twice!!!

Ali seemed a little jumpy too ...beforehand as well..

Nearly didn't let the fight go ahead because of his heart rate!!

Leave it out..

NathanDB10 wrote:So would you say Foreman was more intimidating than Liston?

Hard as Foreman hit people, Liston scored KO's with jabs.

No offence to Patterson but he had no chin, Foreman was the more intimidating for what he was capable of doing inside the ring.

Are you suggesting Liston hits harder?

I would say its close, yes. Foreman may have hit slightly harder in single punches, but Liston had far more skill. He could probably land two shots for everyone one of Foreman.

He was a lot more accurate as well.

I always have Foreman and Shavers head and shoulders above everyone else in the division for punch power, what he did to Chuvalo, Frazier and Norton was quite frightening.

No offence to Patterson but he had no chin!!!!!!! Come on...

So he wasn't scared then!!!!

Okay..

Read the comment it was in response to before acting like a child.

You're abusing because your argument stinks.....

Liston was up against an unbeaten gold medallist...who was considered highly skilled and was a huge 6-1 favorite..

WHY???

I agree that Foreman was a massive puncher, but so was Liston. People tend to forget just how hard he hit, probably because his best punches looked innocous-i.e. a jab. Look what he did to Williams for example.

Foreman looked like a hard puncher because he launched a punch ten miles away from his waist, and then it sent someone flying. Liston was far more measured. Ergo, it didn't look quite as destructive-like Louis, he didn't take that many wild swings. People still hit the floor hard though.

Truss the fact is you act like a spoilt brat the second someone disagrees with you, grow up for christ sake.

For sheer brute power it has to be Foreman by a fair distance for me.

I think people should look at Liston's career pre-clay. He was probably pushing 40 by the time of that fight.

Try judging him on fights like Williams, Harris, Folley, Valdez etc when he was at his peak.

When have I acted like a spoilt brat...

I encourage all opinions.....even ill considered ones...

Liston was thought invincible back then...not for you to go against convention from the time to say he wasn't hugely intimidating...

Patterson was beaten well before the fight started as you well know..

Where have I ever said he wasn't intimidating?

I've said that Liston taking Patterson out with a jab must be taken in context of who the opponent was.

"Intimidation factor is overrated"......

My point is he was hugely intimidating....and how do you know it was overrated...

Come on.......

Don't think he was as intimidating as Foreman was my point.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Don't think he was as intimidating as Foreman was my point.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that point then.

Good talking to you.

NathanDB10 wrote:When you apply that to Foreman's fights when he was knocked down-Ali, Lyle, Young, all those KD's were due to an accumilation of punches, and none of those boxers were massive punchers. Therefore, I think Tyson would have a better chance than many.

Can't agree with this bit. Foreman said Lyle was the hardest puncher he ever faced with Williams and Cooney in second.

As for the Liston's power v Foreman's power debate I don't think there was much difference. Foreman swung his punches, threw more haymakers, whereas Liston threw more correct punches that happened to knock people out more often than not. Liston's finishing ability is quite underrated too. Usually when fighter A hurts fighter B he throws in everything and the kitchen sink but most of it misses. When Liston had a guy hurt he barely missed a shot until the guy was on the canvas.

Very true..