Who is the most Overrated fighter in history????

First topic message reminder :

Simple question...........who does history love way too much..

Agree in one respect, Truss. For a universally acclaimed great Heavyweight who often ranks highly in people's 'who beats who?' lists, Foreman's performance in Zaire was incredibly one-dimensional and lacking in ideas. I think, because it was Ali on the other end, it's often viewed as more justifiable than Tyson-Douglas etc, but there's no doubt that Ali did 'expose' Foreman in more ways than one. Let's face it, although it was Ali's greatest result and showed how kidology can play a part in a fight, it wasn't one of his finer performances by any means from a purely boxing perspective, but it didn't need to be really, because Foreman was so predictable and played right in to his hands.

Agreed Mate..

Think it also shows how sometimes people with great power arrogantly assume that it will get them out of any hole they dig themselves in and feel a reluctance to learn when is best to use it......

Hate to bring him up but Curry started to think he could just turn up and knock people out.......

Starling once commented that the run from Mccrory, Rodriguez back to Jones and Rocca all kayos...

was the worst thing that happened to him.....got lazy and arrogant..

88Chris05 wrote:Agree in one respect, Truss. For a universally acclaimed great Heavyweight who often ranks highly in people's 'who beats who?' lists, Foreman's performance in Zaire was incredibly one-dimensional and lacking in ideas. I think, because it was Ali on the other end, it's often viewed as more justifiable than Tyson-Douglas etc, but there's no doubt that Ali did 'expose' Foreman in more ways than one. Let's face it, although it was Ali's greatest result and showed how kidology can play a part in a fight, it wasn't one of his finer performances by any means from a purely boxing perspective, but it didn't need to be really, because Foreman was so predictable and played right in to his hands.

I think I need to paraphrase Rowley here. He often says that anyone who calls Wlad predictable and boring and lament the fact that he doesn't throw hooks or uppercuts and sits on the back foot even when his opponent is being pushed around with ease should direct their ire at the opponent as the onus is on them to take Wlad to places he didn't want to go. Similarly it was Ali upon whom the onus was to find a way past Foremans mad attack. Foreman had trained to cut down the ring and was cornering lighter fighters like he was he wrath of god and there was nowhere to hide. Despite what everyone else has said since, Ali actually playing to George's strength was inconceivable and had he voiced it would have got a contemptuous backhand slap from Dundee. George didn't need to change because Ali was right where he wanted him, everyone knew it, except Ali was hyper intelligent in the ring and had outthought EVERYONE. Far as George was concerned, he was doing exactly what was required. What Ali ought to have done is got on his bike and every so often lobbed a couple of rocks at him. what he did do was akin to putting down his bike and his rocks and electing to wrestle with a grizzly bear or so we thought. Its either a great strategy that threw out conventional wisdom after sodomising it or it was an inept one from George.

I think this is one of those times when looking at it without putting it into the context makes it look worse than it is. George wouldn't make it into any p4p top 10 but at Heavy he is top 5 for now and quite easily. Maybe a slight overrating but not enough that he gets rated over anyone he wouldn't be above anyway.

Brilliant post, Shah.

I see what you're saying in the sense that, going in to the fight, Foreman pushing Ali to the ropes and letting go with his heavy artillery was seemingly the perfect game plan, whereas resting on the ropes, trying to absorb the blows coming his way and banking on Foreman gassing himself out was seemingly the very worst game plan Ali could possibly have conceived.

But I'm mindful of a quote taken from Foreman about the fight in Thomas Hauser's 'Life and Times' book on Ali: "I was the aggressor, but I knew that in some way I was losing."

If Foreman is being sincere with that quote, then it suggests to me that any belief he had that he was doing the right thing by clubbing away frantically like that must have started disappearing somewhere around the fifth round, which is about the time he started to look a little weary and sluggish and when Ali started coming out of his defensive shell a little more often to counter.

In short, while I agree he'd have been convinced that he was doing the right thing in the early going of the fight, I doubt he'd still have felt that way after a few rounds or so and, if that's the case, then it's notable how he showed an inability to change his tactics mid-fight to try and swing the momentum.

As I said, me bringing Foreman up for consideration was really just a bit of Devil's Advocate and I'd still have him # 5 or 6 in the Heavyweights, but it's interesting to see the arguments for and against.

Foreman was such a force, he only needed one dimension. Even that almost did for Ali, the greatest heavyweight of all time (and the beating he absorbed took it's toll on him physically -- he was never the same fighter again).

I think in terms of guile, nerve and intuition it was one of Ali's finest boxing performances. His timing was incredible.

Jimmy Young wouldn't have beaten that Foreman. George lost a step after that fight also, mentally more than physically.

Ali wasn't the same Ali in 74 as he was 11 years ago when he won it off liston...

So your argument is a little disingenuous.......

The rest is supposition..

Is that a response to me Truss? I don't get it?

I'm suggesting the Ali in Zaire was past his best......Most people reckon he'd lost to Norton twice before it..

He pulled it all together that night. I doubt the young, coltish Ali could have contended with Foreman's brute strength. In fact, I'm pretty sure Ali admitted as much. He had to condition himself for years in the gym, learning how to absorb punishment.

Struggling to see how I was being disingenuous.

No way was it one of Ali's best Boxing performances........

He lay on the ropes and got battered and waited till Foreman punched himself out....

Williams, Folley and Liston are his best performances...

Foreman was terrible against Ali...Just swinging aimlessly like a drunk in a bar..

It is a terrible fight to to be fair.

hazharrison wrote:Foreman was such a force, he only needed one dimension. Even that almost did for Ali, the greatest heavyweight of all time (and the beating he absorbed took it's toll on him physically -- he was never the same fighter again).

I think in terms of guile, nerve and intuition it was one of Ali's finest boxing performances. His timing was incredible.

Jimmy Young wouldn't have beaten that Foreman. George lost a step after that fight also, mentally more than physically.

The same applies to Tyson in that case. The Tyson who ran through all those HW would have destroyed Douglas had he gotten his head together.

Agter he sparked Holmes, Larry said that no man would beat him. Only a woman would. He was so correct.

Bit of an over-simplification. Ali's ability to operate in the tightest of spaces and time Foreman so artfully was nothing short of miraculous.

He showed a bit of everything in that fight.

And I don't get your point on Tyson? Does anyone really feel that Douglas would have beaten the Tyson from the Berbick fight? I don't know anyone.

Perhaps, perhaps not. You sounded emphatic that Foreman would have beaten Young. You make excuses for Foreman's loss but not Tyson's loss given that Tyson has several issues building up to the fight.

I reckon the Tyson who cut through Tyrell Biggs, Pinklon Thomas and others would have beaten up Douglas pretty easily.

As do I, so I fail to see your point?

Apologies. I misread the post above.

But the point is Tyson gets marked down and rightly so. George's loss to Young is almost airbrushed away.

I'd say Tyson has the better excuse. Young was a fine tactician and would always have given Foreman trouble. I'm just not sure anyone other than THAT Ali could have derailed biggest baddest George.

Tyson was a shell of the man he once had been against Buster and he still almost pulled it out of the bag (and took a heroic shellacking). Buster almost didn't get up. He hauled himself up at 9.9 and was fortunate the bell rang before Tyson hit him again. And Buster was great that night.

hazharrison wrote:.

And I don't get your point on Tyson? Does anyone really feel that Douglas would have beaten the Tyson from the Berbick fight? I don't know anyone.

No disrespect intended Haz but that is like saying "Does anyone feel blar blar could have beaten Khan from the Salita fight?

I think a fairer question would be... does anyone think the "Berbick-Tyson" (or anyone else for that matter) could have beaten the "Tokyo-Douglas" ?

Whats Tysons excuse for being a shell though? I think he is rightly marked down for supposedly being washed up at the age of 25 for one of million reasons offered.

I dont actually think its as straight forward as Tyson from Berbick definately beats the Douglas that showed up that night. Because Douglas was superb that night while Berbick is and was always average. Hence some of the questions around Tyson regarding his ability to win against an opponent of the calibre Douglas was that night.

Foreman does get an easier ride for the Young defeat but he has the kind of wins to fall back on that Tyson doesnt really have. And even a fat old George put up a better fight against Holyfield than Tyson managed.

Isn't that what I said?!!!

hazharrison wrote:Isn't that what I said?!!!

No flies on you

Douglas was superb, and he only just managed to beat down a thoroughly off-key and disinterested Tyson. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest a motivated Tyson would have rallied to overcome a spirited challenge from Buster. Tyson from 86-88 was a superb fighting machine -- pound for pound number one during that time A FLIPPING HEAVYWEIGHT.

Tyson's second career is used to often to beat him over the head with. The original version was a far superior animal to the resurrected one. This myth that he folded under fire doesn't quite hold true -- check out the Ruddock fights where he pretty much just walked through Razor's fearsome attack. Also, the Holyfield that fought Foreman was more lightweight than the souped up version that fought Tyson (increased bulk, punching power, strength).

TheMackemMawler wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Isn't that what I said?!!!

No flies on you

Thanks for your contribution.

TheMackemMawler wrote:

hazharrison wrote:.

And I don't get your point on Tyson? Does anyone really feel that Douglas would have beaten the Tyson from the Berbick fight? I don't know anyone.

No disrespect intended Haz but that is like saying "Does anyone feel blar blar could have beaten Khan from the Salita fight?

I think a fairer question would be... does anyone think the "Berbick-Tyson" (or anyone else for that matter) could have beaten the "Tokyo-Douglas" ?

hazharrison wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Isn't that what I said?!!!

No flies on you

Thanks for your contribution.

I'll make it clearer...

My first point; Douglas won therefore the questions need to asked of Tyson, not Douglas. The Tyson who fought Berbick hadn't fought an enormously talented and focused freight train before. We'll never know how he'd have performed against "Tokyo-Douglas".

My second point; you can't pit a version of fighter against another fighter when the fighter in question quickly demolished his opponent in the fight in question. For example, how would the Paccy who KO'd Hatton have performed against Barrera, or the Prescott that beat Khan performed against Mitchell? We didn't see enough of the winner of those fights to draw any conclusions one way or the other about how they'd perform in past or subsequent fights.

Fascinating discussion guys, and have really enjoyed reading it. That's the first thing.

I think the distinction between post-Ali Foreman losing to Young and the disaster that was the Tyson who fought Douglas is that while George's air of invincibility was broken by a miraculous one-off performance by Ali (I'd liken it to Benn's against McLellan, not for the style of the boxing, but the fact that this was a guy throwing every last ounce he had left in the tank into a single fight), Tyson made a conscious choice to ditch everyone he had worked with who had any sort of competence about them. He chose to go off with Don King, stop living the life and party hard.

George's 1990s achievements have to be factored in as well when considering his overall rating. In relative terms, they were stratospheres above what Tyson, 28 years old when he left prison, managed to achieve post-1996. His later career was pretty much a circus, and again he chose to become a shot fighter faster than might ever have been the case.

Ironically, the Douglas disaster might be the one occasion where Tyson found himself in an adverse situation, took his lumps and had a real go at turning the thing around, It is probably his bravest and most admirable performance in a perverse way.

Should a tendency to quit and a total lack of dedication to the sport weigh heavily against an elite competitor when we're rating him? Yes IMO.

manos de piedra wrote:Whats Tysons excuse for being a shell though? I think he is rightly marked down for supposedly being washed up at the age of 25 for one of million reasons offered.

I dont actually think its as straight forward as Tyson from Berbick definately beats the Douglas that showed up that night. Because Douglas was superb that night while Berbick is and was always average. Hence some of the questions around Tyson regarding his ability to win against an opponent of the calibre Douglas was that night.

Foreman does get an easier ride for the Young defeat but he has the kind of wins to fall back on that Tyson doesnt really have. And even a fat old George put up a better fight against Holyfield than Tyson managed.

Two excuses. Robin Givens and Ruth Roper.

Tson was an accident waiting to happen. Reform school, insecure character with all his whims and desires catered for. Offerred no boundaries growing because his handlers and later foster father wanted to breed a champion. He is not an animal but was brought up to be like one. A fighting machine who knew no boundaries in and out of the ring. Burning the candle at both ends caught up. All his so called friends were just there for the ride and didn't give a hoot about him. In fact I doubt anyone in his life gave a damn about him.

But I dont think its even considered that Tyson on that night was not the same fighter of 12 months previously. Heck the version that beat Bruno was decidedly average.

I dont think its as straight as the Tyson from Berbick also. Hence I added Thomas, Biggs and others.

Mate you are making a lot of assumptions about D'amato and the people around Tyson......

They gave him a home...Ewald for one was like a Mother figure to him..they gave him love. For sure Roper had a reputation of a cunning gold digger but sometimes people have to own up to their own mistakes....

Intelligent businessmen get duped by Women as do Intelligent businesswoman by Men...all the time

Lot's of people get brought up in care and lot's of people turn out okay.....

Tyson was still being used after incarceration...by the thugs he used to walk to the ring with and Don King..Where are they now??

However I agree that Givens/Roper's need to be in control which got rid of Rooney which was the worst thing that could have happened..but it was his decision!!

I imagine people around Tyson told him to be wary of Givens and he didn't heed their advice...something professional people don't take all the time as well.

He didn't have the greatest start in life but he doen't blame that for his problems and he doesn't blame Roper.....neither should anybody else...

We all have choices...he chose poorly..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mate you are making a lot of assumptions about D'amato and the people around Tyson......

They gave him a home...Ewald for one was like a Mother figure to him..they gave him love. For sure Roper had a reputation of a cunning gold digger but sometimes people have to own up to their own mistakes....

Intelligent businessmen get duped by Women as do Intelligent businesswoman by Men...all the time

Lot's of people get brought up in care and lot's of people turn out okay.....

Tyson was still being used after incarceration...by the thugs he used to walk to the ring with and Don King..Where are they now??

However I agree that Givens/Roper's need to be in control which got rid of Rooney which was the worst thing that could have happened..but it was his decision!!

I imagine people around Tyson told him to be wary of Givens and he didn't heed their advice...something professional people don't take all the time as well.

He didn't have the greatest start in life but he doen't blame that for his problems and he doesn't blame Roper.....neither should anybody else...

We all have choices...he chose poorly..

It's not assumptions. It is what has been written about him. Teddy Atlas said as much about Cus. Great trainer, philosopher but he saw a champion in Tyson and allowed nothing to get in his way even if it means paying off women who Tyson abused.

Think we need to factor in that in boxing terms, Tyson was a child star. Rarely do things turn out well for kids put under the microscope to the extent he was (look at the state of some of these Hollywood kid stars). He was the heavyweight champ back when it still meant something. The last guy who held universal appeal. It would have taken a man of enormous character to have weathered all that acclaim.

As Truss says, though, it's all on him, which he accepts.

As for the comment further up: Tyson came within a whisker, a milisecond of stopping Douglas after not having prepared a lick -- physically or mentally. He'd already beaten better fighters than Buster. I didn't single out the Berbick win because he did away with him so quickly, rather due to the fact he was mentally switched on that night, as he was against Spinks, Holmes, Tubbs and Biggs. He didn't even need to be that to have beaten Douglas. The Tyson from the Ruddock fights would have fared better -- the flat footed brawler version of a once great champion.

The fact that it took a super human effort to derail a woefully prepared Tyson speaks volumes with regard to his quality, in my book.

In which case, can we start giving Lewis some love when Vitali's superhuman effort against a woefully prepared Lennox actually came up short?

As for Tyson, Tucker nullified him with his jab when Mike was near the top of him game (sadly Tony did very little else) so to suggest that version of Mike walks through Tokyo Buster is something of a stretch.

Teddy Atlas was sacked by D'amato............AZ

Not too much of a stretch that he will be a bit negative..

I agree Haz......I think it's easy to forget that Tyson was built up to gigantic proportions....So when he lost he got hammered more than most....

Bigger you are the harder you fall...

Tucker caught him with an uppercut......and then ran like a thief.....Bonecrusher nullified him as well..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Teddy Atlas was sacked by D'amato............AZ

Not too much of a stretch that he will be a bit negative..

I agree Haz......I think it's easy to forget that Tyson was built up to gigantic proportions....So when he lost he got hammered more than most....

Bigger you are the harder you fall...

Tucker caught him with an uppercut......and then ran like a thief.....Bonecrusher nullified him as well..

Didn't really want to mention Bonecrusher as he pretty much refused to engage as opposed to sticking a jab in Mike's face.

Well he did win one more round than Bonecrusher..

DAVE667 wrote:In which case, can we start giving Lewis some love when Vitali's superhuman effort against a woefully prepared Lennox actually came up short?

As for Tyson, Tucker nullified him with his jab when Mike was near the top of him game (sadly Tony did very little else) so to suggest that version of Mike walks through Tokyo Buster is something of a stretch.

And Tyson still scored a shut-out.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Teddy Atlas was sacked by D'amato............AZ

Not too much of a stretch that he will be a bit negative..

I agree Haz......I think it's easy to forget that Tyson was built up to gigantic proportions....So when he lost he got hammered more than most....

Bigger you are the harder you fall...

Tucker caught him with an uppercut......and then ran like a thief.....Bonecrusher nullified him as well..

After he tried to instill some discipline into Tyson. One of Cus' fomer light HW champ (forget his name) said as much. Tyson was allowed to break rules that others were not allowed to do. Like the stret kid he was, he realised he could get away with things and continued. Cus showed him live because he was a damn good fighter and Cus knew it.

It doesn't matter why he was sacked..just the fact he was....

Doesn't make him an impartial witness..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:It doesn't matter why he was sacked..just the fact he was....

Doesn't make him an impartial witness..

Others have corroborated what he said.

At the end of the day the blame has to lay solely on Tysons door just like it does with every other boxer.

DAVE667 wrote:In which case, can we start giving Lewis some love when Vitali's superhuman effort against a woefully prepared Lennox actually came up short?

As for Tyson, Tucker nullified him with his jab when Mike was near the top of him game (sadly Tony did very little else) so to suggest that version of Mike walks through Tokyo Buster is something of a stretch.

Tucker 'Nullified' Tyson with his jab, yet lost 118-113, 119-111, 117-112?

Agree with your overall point though, that Douglas would have been a tough night's work for Tyson regardless of his (Tyson's) physical / mental condition.

I actually think 'Tokyo Douglas' would have given most any heavyweight a tough contest.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:At the end of the day the blame has to lay solely on Tysons door just like it does with every other boxer.

Of course he does. Free will and all that. But he was more or less a ferrel child turned into a ferrel adolodcent and then a ferrel adult. No guidance whatsoever.

DAVE667 wrote:In which case, can we start giving Lewis some love when Vitali's superhuman effort against a woefully prepared Lennox actually came up short?

As for Tyson, Tucker nullified him with his jab when Mike was near the top of him game (sadly Tony did very little else) so to suggest that version of Mike walks through Tokyo Buster is something of a stretch.

I don't agree that Tucker nullified him with the jab. He just got on his bike and Tyson looked largely disinterested (didn't he have a load of women in the crowd on each side of the ring that he kept gawping at)?

I don't think he walks through Douglas, either. I think he weathers a game challenge to stop him late, though. On form, and for a limited time only, Tyson was a great heavyweight.

No guidance whatsoever.............

Making assumptions again..

I agree Haz....Tyson was a great heavyweight..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No guidance whatsoever.............

Making assumptions again..

I agree Haz....Tyson was a great heavyweight..

What? It's all documented and even Tyson himself has said as much that he was wild and didn't have any control.

I have no argument with the fact that Tyson had behaviour issues....Just with the fact he had no GUIDANCE whatsoever.....

I imagine he did..... but didn't take it....

D'amato, Camille Ewald..... I'm sure tried guiding him.......as did Rooney.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I have no argument with the fact that Tyson had behaviour issues....Just with the fact he had no GUIDANCE whatsoever.....

I imagine he did..... but didn't take it....

D'amato, Camille Ewald..... I'm sure tried guiding him.......as did Rooney.

I believe it was Jose Torres who also wrote that Cus gave Tyson free reign to do as he pleased. In short, no guidance. If you're told not to abuse a woman that is guidance. But if you go ahead and abuse that woman and she is then bought off and told to keep quiet about it, that is displaying to the person that he can do whatever he wants. According to several sources including Tyson himself, Atlas and Torres, that is what happened.

"It's displaying to the person he can do whatever he wants......."

Sorry but there is nothing to suggest he wasn't told in explicit terms that what he did was wrong.....I imagine My parents wouldn't want me to go to jail and would try to resolve a damaging situation....I know I wouldn't want to see my Son arrested..

Not all black and white........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"It's displaying to the person he can do whatever he wants......."

Sorry but there is nothing to suggest he wasn't told in explicit terms that what he did was wrong.....I imagine My parents wouldn't want me to go to jail and would try to resolve a damaging situation....I know I wouldn't want to see my Son arrested..

Not all black and white........

Pointing a gun at his head is pretty explicit.

and that's acceptable behaviour???

Sounds to me like teddy atlas wasn't given any guidelines!!

Good grief. Are you impersonating victorgargo? Don't go all American on me here.