Liston / Tyson

First topic message reminder :

Well as I have done my first post in a very long time ranting over boxnation i thought i would post some thing about boxing that does not make me want to puke. I remember on the old 606 someone else posting this same articule and it brought up a few good responces. Who out of Sonny Liston or Mike Tyson would you rather face? Which of them do you think inspired the most fear?

For me I would have to say Liston. For all of Tysons rants, raves (leg biting) and other antics, i dont think any of them could match up to that blank haunted look of Liston as he stared across the ring at you. Thoughts?

captain carrantuohil wrote:Don't completely agree there, Scott. Tysonking wasn't the only person on these boards who was totally unwilling to accept that Tyson at his peak could have beaten by anyone who ever lived, although I have mercifully forgotten the names of some of the others of his ilk.

Damonknight would be the fellow you're looking for Captain, although it has to be said he at least argued Mikes corner with a good deal more grace, intelligence and good humour than Tyson king ever mustered.

You may be right about the folk with multiple aliases - I gave up years ago trying to decipher who was who. The extraordinary Waingro isn't a wind-up merchant though (I don't think), and as you will see earlier on this thread, is happy to extol Tyson by comparison with other fighters, without apparently having the slightest clue about anything to do with them whatever.

How many of the sensible posters here tend to suggest that Tyson was simply a media invention, though? Surely those who dismiss him as a myth on these boards are generally also the WUMS of whom you speak?

captain carrantuohil wrote:You may be right about the folk with multiple aliases - I gave up years ago trying to decipher who was who. The extraordinary Waingro isn't a wind-up merchant though (I don't think), and as you will see earlier on this thread, is happy to extol Tyson by comparison with other fighters, without apparently having the slightest clue about anything to do with them whatever.

How many of the sensible posters here tend to suggest that Tyson was simply a media invention, though? Surely those who dismiss him as a myth on these boards are generally also the WUMS of whom you speak?

Dunno, do you consider coxy a sensible poster? He'd pick almost anyone to beat Tyson (or Roy Jones). Imperial Ghosty wrote off Tyson as a puncher. Many people have said that all you need was to not be scared of him and you would win, it's almost as much of a cliché as PRIME Tyson beating Godzilla.

I think even some of the best posters are unfairly dismissive of his opposition which, while missing top level names is fairly solid, as while his longevity is short in relation to time, he made quite a number of defenses and came back to win a title.

Damonknight, thank you, Jeff. The possessor of a syndrome something like Tourette's, where mention of the word 'Tyson' would have him frothing at the mouth.

My guess is that most of the saner folk would have Tyson somewhere between about 9 and 14 on the heavyweight lists, Scott. Some, although not many, might have him lower, but I would imagine that plenty more would have him higher.

Not every Tyson fan is an idiot, but every idiot is a Tyson fan.

HumanWindmill wrote:Not every Tyson fan is an idiot, but every idiot is a Tyson fan.

Hmm, wonder which side of that I fall on...

I'm pretty sure that you know the answer to that one, just as everybody else does.

HumanWindmill wrote:I'm pretty sure that you know the answer to that one, just as everybody else does.

They sure do.

Tyson gets more allowance than the gypsies around the corner (the few that have left Dale Farm have come here). Naz,Conteh,Mccallum, Curry, Taylor, all examples of people who are just as much/are more "could-have-beens" than Tyson, yet get neither the apologies or the allowances even though some would find them more deserving. Namely, Mccallum and Taylor.

Tyson makes it to 12 or 15 for me. But I acknowledge that he could beat some of the people higher than him. Also ex-boxers are people who have been punched in their eads all their life. Don't listen to em, unless its insight rather than legacy. Boxers judge how they himself would do aainst Tyson and he frighten them. Those he doesn't frighten - Frazier - he thinks Tyson is Poopie and that he would knock him out in 3.

Use your own brain and stop letting emotion cloud it.

sorry lads, ashes are clogging up my keyboard

I think a big part of the stigma with Tyson is he was one of the first modern boxers to really explode across the media and impact or capture the imagination of non boxing fans. There are only a handful of fighters wh have done this really and are universal household names. The result is his legacy far outstrips his actual paper record and the casual non boxing fan tends to vastly overrate him as a result.

I would agree with Scottrf though that even moderate or knowledgeable posters can be guilty of dismissing him or succumbing to other cliches about him such as the one where he would lose if his opponent was not intimidated of him.

The nature of his career means theres a great deal of speculation and blanks to be filled about how good he was and how good he could have been. Some people challenge any benefit of the doubt given to him as making excuses for him but I think its reasonable to speculate on the ifs, buts and maybes and given his incarceration and mental problems theres no real definative answer to them or how it impacted on his second, far less spectacular career. Theres no doubt for instance that his big fights came along at the wrong time for him and as such it very difficult to say exactly how relevant they are to his pre prison version.

I tend to seperate his all time standing (anywhere between 11-15 for me) with everything else. My take is that all time ratings primarily rank acheivement and is grounded what can be tangibly measured. Things like actual ability, percieved ability, potential or any any other kind of instrument that lends itself to broad speculation are largely removed from the equation and very much secondary to the more tangible aspects. With this in mind its hard to rank Tyson in the top ten because to do so relies on very generous speculaltion without solid proof.

But on the other hand I dont think it neccessarily should revoke the right to speculate. Because Tyson isoutside the top ten for instance does not neccessarily mean he would lose to all of those ranked above him, or that at his blistering best in the 80s he may well have possessed the actual talent to and potential to rank alot higher.

My own opinion is that the Tyson in the 80s was a much different fighter to his second version. Mentally, emotionally and ability wise. A whole different package really. I think unfortunately we never got to see this version in with the likes of Holyfield, Bowe or Lewis and the later version was inferior and much less mentally sound and stable. I think with Tyson it was always likely he was going to have a shortish peak though as I just cant imagine him having a long career of being able to keep mentally focused and emotionally stable. He was bound to self destruct somewhere.

I agree with Scott and manos, here.

It took me a while to warm to Tyson. When he first burst onto the scene I thought he was all hype and would be found out. He kept winning, and doing so with style and panache, and somewhere along the line I figured that maybe he was the real deal, after all.

The crash, when it came, and the tendency of a certain type of football supporter to repeatedly describe him as God with boxing gloves on and make every excuse imaginable, first irritated me and then bored me senseless and to the point where I did my best to forget all about him. It's only during the last couple of years, during which I've enjoyed revisiting his career and watching the fights again, that I've truly been able to form a balanced opinion about him.

What he achieved in such a short time and at such a young age was remarkable. Only Jeffries, Louis and maybe Dempsey and Liston ever truly decimated the heavyweight division with such ruthless aplomb and Tyson unified the title in so doing. There were some very good fighters who fell by the wayside - Tucker and Pinklon Thomas, for example - and the quality of his opposition wasn't nearly so shoddy as is sometimes suggested.

To top it all off, his overall talent can't really be denied. The speed and the power, coupled with handspeed to rival Ali, Patterson or Louis, made for a pretty devastating arsenal. No doubt that his combos could sometimes be a wee bit stiff and appear ' rehearsed ' and no doubt, either, that he lacked the wonderful accuracy of Louis but, nevertheless, that which he had was better than most.

Of course, the mental fragility had always been there and would prove his undoing. From the early days when he said " No one will like me if I lose " to sometime later, when he acknowledged " I have the world's biggest ego but no self esteem " it's clear - in hindsight - that one defeat might trigger a catastrophic meltdown. Boxing was his domain. He was king of that castle, and to lose one fight would strike at his very identity, which is precisely what happened.

Tyson sneaks into my top ten because his talent and achievements weigh more in my mind than do his failings and also because, head to head, it's impossible for me to find more than a handful whom I would strongly tip to beat him.

He'll probably be dividing opinion fifty years from now, just as Jack Dempsey does today.

Only thing I would add Windy, and I am willing to be corrected on this is splitting opinion for Dempsey does appear to be something of a new phenomena, from what I have read on him in his day he was very much regarded as the real deal.

rowley wrote:Only thing I would add Windy, and I am willing to be corrected on this is splitting opinion for Dempsey does appear to be something of a new phenomena, from what I have read on him in his day he was very much regarded as the real deal.

Absolutely, jeff.

In the early fifties, Dempsey was voted by the members of the worldwide press to be the greatest fighter, p4p, of all time. Even into the early sixties, when I started reading Ring magazine, he was still routinely named ahead of Joe Louis in the heavyweight pantheon. It's a relatively modern trend that has seen his stock plummet.

"Let me emphasize again that you will feel very awkward when you first try the moves in long-range straight punching. I stress that
awkwardness for two reasons: (1) so that you won't figure you're a hopeless palooka, and (2) so that you'll pay no attention to wisecracks of
friends or sideline experts who watch your early flounderings. Remember: He laughs last who hits hardest."

Jack Dempsey - Championship fighting: Explosive punching.

Cracks me up everytime

HumanWindmill wrote:

rowley wrote:Only thing I would add Windy, and I am willing to be corrected on this is splitting opinion for Dempsey does appear to be something of a new phenomena, from what I have read on him in his day he was very much regarded as the real deal.

Absolutely, jeff.

In the early fifties, Dempsey was voted by the members of the worldwide press to be the greatest fighter, p4p, of all time. Even into the early sixties, when I started reading Ring magazine, he was still routinely named ahead of Joe Louis in the heavyweight pantheon. It's a relatively modern trend that has seen his stock plummet.

Would you say his stock has plummeted? I still think Dempsey is held in high regard but since the 50s and 60s there have been so many good heavyweights that his slide from the top two or three spots has been quite natural rather than what I would consider a shift in opinion on his merits.

It seems strange that after the careers of both Louis and Demspey had finished that any sane person could consider Dempsey to have the better career. Even those who genuinely felt Dempsey was the better fighter and would beat Louis would find it hard to argue that Dempseys acheivements stood above Louis. To me it highlights that perceptions in any era can be skewed and Dempsey was the darling of those days.

Problem is, manos, that the folks who were rating Dempsey above Louis at that time were pretty hard bitten and very well respected. I was only a kid, so I couldn't possibly have made an informed opinion at the time, but these guys represented the assembled brains of boxing, and had seen them from ringside.

Along with the majority, I rate Louis ahead of Dempsey, and could argue the reasons why with reasonable confidence, but the fact that there has been such a large opinion swing over the past half a century, coupled to the fact that many now dismiss Dempsey as a raw slugger, would suggest that his stock has, indeed, fallen.

HumanWindmill wrote:Problem is, manos, that the folks who were rating Dempsey above Louis at that time were pretty hard bitten and very well respected. I was only a kid, so I couldn't possibly have made an informed opinion at the time, but these guys represented the assembled brains of boxing, and had seen them from ringside.

Along with the majority, I rate Louis ahead of Dempsey, and could argue the reasons why with reasonable confidence, but the fact that there has been such a large opinion swing over the past half a century, coupled to the fact that many now dismiss Dempsey as a raw slugger, would suggest that his stock has, indeed, fallen.

Im pretty much in the camp that theres Ali and Louis and then everyone else. I think the margins seperating the rest of the pack are pretty small. But you have to consider that people from the Dempsey era would most likely not have witnessed the likes of Holmes, Tyson, Lewis or even seen the curtain come down on the careers of Ali, Frazier and Foreman so they dont have the benefits that we in the present have of looking back, despite having the benefits of witnessing these gus live at the time.

Cant help feeling that Dempseys popularity drove much of the opinion of the day much like Tysons reputation and popularity did. Just cant see how in comparing the careers of Dempsey and Louis one could conclude Dempseys was better. The only rationale of the day would be the feeling that Dempsey was just the much better fighter notwithstanding respective records. But as I said above, rating fighters on what you think their actual ability was as opposed to what they actually acheived would create very different lists. For instance I think at the peak of their powers Tyson would beat Marciano but I couldnt rank him ahead of Marciano in an overall list based on what they acheived. Unless back then the lists were much more influenced by "who was better" rather than "who acheived more" theres very little to suggest Dempsey had a better career. His popularity would lend itself to the former argument so I suspect that whats influenced it the most.

I think there are perceptions now that Dempsey was alot cruder than he was but I still see him ranked almost always in the top 8 fighters in credible lists and the differences between him and the likes of Foreman, Holmes, Johnson or even Lewis are probably not all that great.

Pretty much agree with everything you say there, manos, and especially the bits about Ali / Louis / daylight and the different lists derived from assessing ability and achievement.

Tyson was quality I dont get why people are saying he isnt. Imo he is the 3rd or 4th best heavyweight it is close between him and Marciano I reckon Tyson had more skill but Marciano never lost so its hard to say who would win. I think Lewis would knock Marciano out so maybe he is lucky he wasnt around when Lewis was Tyson was not so so lucky he had quality fighters like Lewis around and also went to jail which didnt help I reckon if he was around in Marcianos time he would be unbeaten.

I don't think anyone has said he's not quality Waingo. Everyone seems to have him ranked within the top 15 HWs of all time, and most have him higher than that if based only on talent/potential rather than results/ overall career. The concensus seems to be that whilst he is sometimes overated by the more casual fan due to the explosive nature of his wins, he was still one of the most talented HWs, cleaned up the division, and won 11 or 12 world title fights, seems to me most of us on here have him rated about right.

Waingro wrote:Tyson was quality I dont get why people are saying he isnt. Imo he is the 3rd or 4th best heavyweight it is close between him and Marciano I reckon Tyson had more skill but Marciano never lost so its hard to say who would win. I think Lewis would knock Marciano out so maybe he is lucky he wasnt around when Lewis was Tyson was not so so lucky he had quality fighters like Lewis around and also went to jail which didnt help I reckon if he was around in Marcianos time he would be unbeaten.

Steven?

Liston stops Tyson late for me...If Douglas can do that to him I would hate to think what a GREAT heavyweight like Liston could do.