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

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:44 pm

First topic message reminder :

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

by Guest Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:42 pm

When I talk about Tucker nullifying Tyson, I mean he prevented Tyson from being the marauding swarmer we'd all come to expect. yes, he scored a shutout but at no stage did he look like blowing Tucker away 9who's negativity had a huge part to play in this) however, the point is that Tyson was shown to be, dare I say, one dimensional, by both Tucker and Smith and therefore, to suggest that he would have torn through Douglas in his prime is a pretty big assumption.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:43 pm

Your argument sucks Az.........Now If you going to start insulting me then you obviously realise it too.......

by Imperial Ghosty Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:48 pm

I agree with Truss' premise here, were I to do something shall we say very wrong that despite teaching me otherwise my parents would have moved heaven and hell to ensure nothing came of it. I would do exactly the same thing for my daughter and I imagine a lot of parents would do likewise doesn't mean we're encouraging them or ignoring what they've done.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:48 pm

Not a big assumption at all.......and it isn't easy to knock out a guy bent on survival....

Hector Camacho against DelaHoya and Chavez....Olajide against Hearns!!

Tyson was level on the scorecards in Tokyo.....and he offered nothing in the way of head movement, combination punching or sharpness that he did back in 86/87...

so it's not a big assumption...more of a small one.

Tokyo was Buster's best and Tyson's worse and it was still close..

Don't believe Buster could have replicated that performance because he was a slob....

A slob with great talent.. but a slob..hence the reason Holy was favorite against him..

by **ShahenshahG** Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:50 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not a big assumption at all.......and it isn't easy to knock out a guy bent on survival....

Hector Camacho against DelaHoya and Chavez....Olajide against Hearns!!

Tyson was level on the scorecards in Tokyo.....and he offered nothing in the way of head movement, combination punching or sharpness that he did back in 86/87...
so it's not a big assumption...more of a small one.

Tokyo was Buster's best and Tyson's worse and it was still close..

Don't believe Buster could have replicated that performance because he was a slob....

A slob with great talent.. but a slob..hence the reason Holy was favorite against him..

bahahahahahahhahahhahahahahhaahhahahahahh

by Imperial Ghosty Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:51 pm

Truss you know very well that fight wasn't at all close, aside from the knockdown in the 8th it was all Douglas, Tysons star name got him rounds he didn't deserve.

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:52 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Your argument sucks Az.........Now If you going to start insulting me then you obviously realise it too.......

I have given you sources who claim that Tyson had NO GUIDANCE. You have said that 1) Atlas was fired so his opinion has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Fair point. 2) Jose Torres said similar things to Atlas that Tyson was given lattitude that others in the Catskills were not given and victims were bought off. 3) Tyson himself has said he was given little guidance and was taken advantage off all his life although he blames himself for what he did.

You claim I am making assumptions. You're debating just like victor.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:54 pm

It's the quality of the sources....You've given me a guy that was sacked by D'amato and a former fighter who worked for him...

They have no idea what went on in private time between D'amato, Ewald and Tyson...

Enough of the insults and read Ghosty's impartial view....He agrees with me..

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:55 pm

Ghosty you are debating like Victorcargo!! Wink

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:56 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I agree with Truss' premise here, were I to do something shall we say very wrong that despite teaching me otherwise my parents would have moved heaven and hell to ensure nothing came of it. I would do exactly the same thing for my daughter and I imagine a lot of parents would do likewise doesn't mean we're encouraging them or ignoring what they've done.

How is that offering guidance if you buy off the victim? It wasn't as though it was a one off. Tyson was a repeat offender.

Every child needs guidance. When they break the rules they need discipline or some sort of sanctions. Tyson got nothing. He assaulted a school teacher. He was moved out of that school to another. No sanction on him according to Torres. Other fighters who broke the rules were disciplined and had priveleges taken from them. Not Tyson.

If that is guidance, then keep it.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:58 pm

Think we are wasting our time Ghosty.....

After all the care workers and his adopted parents never spoke to him.....

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:59 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:It's the quality of the sources....You've given me a guy that was sacked by D'amato and a former fighter who worked for him...

They have no idea what went on in private time between D'amato, Ewald and Tyson...

Enough of the insults and read Ghosty's impartial view....He agrees with me..

What axe has the firmer fighter got against Cus then? Of course I dont know what went on in private and what Camille said to him. But those guys had a better insight that you or I and Tyson himself knew what was said to him in private. For him to say he had little guidance is pretty telling.

Plenty of other scribes, behavioural specialists, et al have said similar things also.

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:00 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think we are wasting our time Ghosty.....

After all the care workers and his adopted parents never spoke to him.....

Tophat said you did not read what he wrote before launching another of your blusters. It seems the same applies here.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:02 pm

Oh no.. more insults.........

Can't win an argument then insult people....

Not interested in Tophat...more interested in Ghosty's opinion.. Wink

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:08 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Oh no.. more insults.........

Can't win an argument then insult people....

Not interested in Tophat...more interested in Ghosty's opinion..

No insults. My point has been backed up with good sources including the person in question. Yours is supposition.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:13 pm

Dear oh dear....

You are making the charge he had ho guidance......

My rebuttal is that your sources.........a sacked individual and a former employee who was there intermittently/sporadicly is no evidence at all...

Get it!! Rolling Eyes

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:17 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Dear oh dear....

You are making the charge he had ho guidance......

My rebuttal is that your sources.........a sacked individual and a former employee who was there intermittently/sporadicly is no evidence at all...

Get it!!

And Tyson himself.

The former employee has no axe to grind. If several people including independant people and the affected person himself says he had no guidance, I tend to believe that. Perhaps you know better than Tyson himself when he said he had no guidance.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:21 pm

The former employee isn't privy to time spent between D'amato and Ewald and Tyson..........

So he can't state legitimately on the amount of guidance or lack of!!

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:22 pm

Anyway, lets kill this nonsense. He was given great guidance. And any parent would repeatedly buy off the victims of their kids abuses and allow their kid to break all rules and go unpunished. Great guidance. thumbsup

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:23 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The former employee isn't privy to time spent between D'amato and Ewald and Tyson..........

So he can't state legitimately on the amount of guidance or lack of!!

Tyson is privvy to it. If he says he had little guidance, I suppose he's making excused. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:24 pm

The Kennedy's and Bush's (not to mention the British Royal family) have done it for years and everything has been fine hasn't it?

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:28 pm

Little guidance now.......instead of no guidance... Rolling Eyes

D'amato and Ewald thought they did their best........and occasional visitor torres and sacked employee atlas would hardly hold up to scrutiny..end of!!

Dave don't what you are talking about...Mate.

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:33 pm

Are you privvy to what Cus and Ewald thought? You're making an assumption.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:36 pm

You who are making the charge.....and assuming....

I'm defending..

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:38 pm

Your defence is based on assumptions. Nothing more that guesswork. I am not assuming account. Assumptions presumes there are no sources.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:41 pm

I'm not making the charge so I don't have to assume anything....

Torres who visited D'amato sporadically and Atlas who was fired and could be said to be partial are your two witnesses......

You can't prove D'amato didn't offer guidance...on THAT EVIDENCE!!

I don't have to prove anything I didn't make the CHARGE!! Rolling Eyes

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:47 pm

Of course I can't prove guidance. Who can? It is not a criminal case where the case is settled on "beyond reasonable doubt". One has to look on the balance of probability.

Moreover I am not making a charge but repeating and agreeing that Tyson had NO GUIDANCE. It doesn't take a great deal of intelligence to suggest that if you pay off the victim and the abuser continues to abuse and you pay off other victims, then you are not really offering guidance regardles sof what you say to the indivisual.

Action speaks louder than words and in this case the action was to buy off the victim.

Maybe talking boxing philosoply to Tyson whilst he has his hand up a woman's crotch is guidance in your book, but to mine it is condoning abuse. By paying off the victims repeatedly (which is what Cus did) he was condoning Tyson's abuse of women and offering little to NO GUIDANCE.

by Gentleman01 Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:54 pm

DAVE667 wrote:When I talk about Tucker nullifying Tyson, I mean he prevented Tyson from being the marauding swarmer we'd all come to expect. yes, he scored a shutout but at no stage did he look like blowing Tucker away 9who's negativity had a huge part to play in this) however, the point is that Tyson was shown to be, dare I say, one dimensional, by both Tucker and Smith and therefore, to suggest that he would have torn through Douglas in his prime is a pretty big assumption.

I don't really agree with this.

Being 'one-dimensional' implies that a fighter is unable to shift his game plan or his approach if it is necesarry to do so. If you are scoring shutouts without really getting out of second gear, whilst barely taking a punch, then there is clearly no need to change approach. It may be the case that Tyson is one-dimensional, but I don't think that in this circumstance you can conclude as such based purely on his performances against Tucker and Smith.

by Rowley Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:57 pm

Don’t think it can be said Tyson had no guidance, although one can certainly question the quality of some of the guidance he certainly had it.

Remember reading a biography of Tyson that stated when King started making overtures to Mike and poisoning him against Jacobs and Cayton saying they were ripping him off they got Dun and Bradstreet in to audit their financial dealings with Mike and D&B produced a report showing that Cayton and Jacobs had actually overpaid Mike by nigh on quarter of a million dollars. If that is not good guidance and advice would struggle to imagine what would qualify. Him choosing to ignore it does not lessen the quality of it.

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:07 pm

Rowley wrote:Don’t think it can be said Tyson had no guidance, although one can certainly question the quality of some of the guidance he certainly had it.

Remember reading a biography of Tyson that stated when King started making overtures to Mike and poisoning him against Jacobs and Cayton saying they were ripping him off they got Dun and Bradstreet in to audit their financial dealings with Mike and D&B produced a report showing that Cayton and Jacobs had actually overpaid Mike by nigh on quarter of a million dollars. If that is not good guidance and advice would struggle to imagine what would qualify. Him choosing to ignore it does not lessen the quality of it.

Financial reward is not guidance. Jacobs and Cayton did very well for Tyson and always had the feeling that they actually cared for him and wanted the best for him. But to me, based on what I have read, the others wanted the best for him so they can be rewarded for it. If that meant cutting corners on his emotional development, so be it.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:46 pm

Stubborn till the end...

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:34 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Stubborn till the end...

Especially when the respondant is coming back with victor type responses.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:39 pm

I won the argument Az..... Cool

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:42 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I won the argument Az.....

You had no argument as usual but if it makes you happy....knock yourself out.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:43 pm

If it's as easy as knocking you out.....I'd prefer a bigger snack..

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:45 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If it's as easy as knocking you out.....I'd prefer a bigger snack..

go for it. Argue with nothing and claim victory. wonderful. thumbsup

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:47 pm

Rowley..Ghosty both agreed with me....which made it 3-1....

But whatever kiddo....I'll still respect you. Cool

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:58 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Rowley..Ghosty both agreed with me....which made it 3-1....

But whatever kiddo....I'll still respect you.

You dont even know your position.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:01 pm

69........

My position is that you can't prove Tyson wasn't guided....Like it has been all day!!

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:20 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:69........

My position is that you can't prove Tyson wasn't guided....Like it has been all day!!

Fair enough. If testimony from 2 associates and the person in question is not enough, then you win. Especially when your argument on the whole is "that is not enough proof" even after I clarified it by saying that 'on the balance of probability'.

Way to go victor clone.

by TheMackemMawler Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:59 pm

Cus knew a great fighter when he saw one, he also saw a vulnerable guy ready to be exploited.

Cus knew a great fighter when he saw one, he also saw a vulnerable guy that needed guidance using the "Carl Rogers client centered approach".

Choose which you believe.

by azania Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:26 pm

I don;t think its as cut and dried as that. He saw a great fighter and didn't let anything stand in the way of creating a great fighter.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:56 pm

Bobby Czyz
---------------

Couldn't pick up a copy of Ko magazine in the 80's without his mug on it..or an interview inside!!

Who did he ever really beat??? Lost to Hamsho, Andries, williams........

Used to irk me listening to him telling everybody how he would dominate etc.....

when you knew he was ordinary.

by **88Chris05** Fri Mar 08, 2013 2:04 pm

Well he's a bit of a joke figure to some now, Truss, so it's been more than made up for in recent years! Great showing against Williams first time out in fairness, even if he did lose.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri Mar 08, 2013 2:15 pm

He was a big 6/1 favorite Chris......Williams had lost four times and was considered a trialhorse..

by **88Chris05** Fri Mar 08, 2013 2:18 pm

True, but bookies have been known to get it wrong from time to time, Truss! Williams was evidently a much better fighter than his record at the time suggested and, as you say, people had probably been getting a bit carried away with Czyz.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri Mar 08, 2013 2:20 pm

Think the magazines were..........but anybody who saw Hamsho-Czyz weren't.....

Williams wasn't that good..

by **ShahenshahG** Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:39 pm

88Chris05 wrote: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.

Again very little to argue with but i''ll try my hardest! had Foreman managed to knock him out and said that afterwards it would have been used as evidence for supreme focus and force of will. I think when Ali is the opponent and so with Leonard or Robinson or Tunney, Moore etc, you have to give the opponent a little more leeway because whats good for the goose isnt always good for the gander with them. Ali against Foreman and Liston, Leonard against Hearns/Benitez etc. Theyve got willpower/intelligence or whatever you want to call it by the ton and they step out of the ordinary. Foreman wasnt one of those despite his crushing of moorers face and what he did really ought to have worked, what Hearns did ought to have been able to see him through. I think its just a little unfair that Foreman should be held in lower esteem because his opponent was so great, so tough and possessing an almost supernatural will to win.

by horizontalhero Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:22 pm

I think that Foreman was lucky in that his two best wins were against highly rated fighters ( Frazier and Norton) that happened to be tailor made for him, plus his power masked his considerable short comings- he was slow, he punches were arching and telegraphed, his foot work was slow and his defence was poor, lacked stamina, and was one dimensional. His win/ lose ratio in title fights is one of the poorest amongst those heavyweights considered ATGs. I have no problem with anyone considering Tyson his superior in either ability or record. Ali, Louis,Holmes, Tyson, Lewis, Liston all would have had his number as far as I'm concerned.

by **ShahenshahG** Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:37 pm

horizontalhero wrote:I think that Foreman was lucky in that his two best wins were against highly rated fighters ( Frazier and Norton) that happened to be tailor made for him, plus his power masked his considerable short comings- he was slow, he punches were arching and telegraphed, his foot work was slow and his defence was poor, lacked stamina, and was one dimensional. His win/ lose ratio in title fights is one of the poorest amongst those heavyweights considered ATGs. I have no problem with anyone considering Tyson his superior in either ability or record. Ali, Louis,Holmes, Tyson, Lewis, Liston all would have had his number as far as I'm concerned.

Tyson wasn't tailor made for him? Or Louis of the poor footwork? Holmes who was hit and hit often against Cooney? Ali, liston and Lewis maybe but those others would struggle. Particularly Tyson who was mentally weak and terrified of fat foreman.

by Sponsored content