Top 10 Greatest KOs

#7 and #6 are the best.

 

What does the bulking up have to do with anything? The question was whether Holy was the best fighter Mike had fought up to that point.

I'd say that he was.

 

So now it's up to that point?

It can certainly be argued that he was, though I think the margin is exaggerated.

The bulking up has to do with whether Holyfield did it with steroids and HGH...something that was speculated to have caused his need for Benny Hinn-healing...as he was considered by many in the sport to be "manufactured".

The reason it's relevant is because smaller Holyfield, who was right at or below 210, who was put down by Cooper and Bowe, wasn't as equpped to fight Tyson as the bigger/stronger version who did fight him in the mid-90's.

It doesn't matter, though, because that version of Tyson never fought any version of Holyfield.

So you can use the post-prison version to draw conclusions about the pre-prison one, but I don't.

 

Yep. Up to that point.

'Prime' Tyson is a strawman. Yes we lost what were most likely his best years but we can't assume that he wouldn't have lost during that time. He was looking like fighting Evander before prison and it's a shame we never saw it.

You can use his pre-prison Tyson to draw conclusions about his career in general which is the trap that so many people fall into. It's the same phenomenon that occurs when you have any mythical matchup involving Ibeabuchi.

I almost did it. I just wrote a massive post about this like the old days but you know what? I deleted it. It isn't worth it so let's just agree to disagree.

 

Your use of strawman is quite strained, and I don't even know what you're talking about here.

You're comparing Mike Tyson to Ike Ibeabuchi?

Based on what...Ibeabuchi's win over David Tua? Hasim Rahman won more rounds against Tua than he did.

If that's the kind of reasoning you were using, it's probably a good thing you deleted it.

Tyson was established, he'd had over 40 fights, and actually reached the champinship level...and you're comparing him to a guy with half as many fights, and of whom, most fans have probably only seen 1-2 of his fights?

How old are you?

 

I'm 31.

I never compared Tyson to Ike. I'm comparing the air of mystique and overration of Tyson to Ibeabuchi. You ever see Ike brought up in a mythical matchup? He gets put over alot of great boxers and really, there's no evidence to rate him so high. He gets some kind of pass because he went inside before we could see the best of him. Mike is given the same pass.

What I was saying in bold is that when talking about his prime, it's almost assumed that he goes unbeaten during that time. Based on what exactly? His stellar list of boxers defeated? When Mike fought Evander it was the best boxer he had ever faced. Somehow Mike is given good chances against a guy like Ali?

That's why I said it isn't worth it. Before he went to jail, Mike was already slipping but alot of guys don't see that. Mike was a great boxer with a shitload of talent but he was never going to stay at his peak level over a long period of time. He just didn't have the discipline.

He got me and millons of other people to watch boxing but he's simply never been as good as his hype.

How old are you?

 

this thread has shifted and i am late to the party but imo "Greatest KOs" should mean the most impressive KOs - and that factors in the quality of opposition. Mercer KO Morrison is about as brutal a highlight reel you can find but Morrison is hardly the poster boy for rock hard chins. IMO these are the most impressive kos of all time:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson KO5 Gene Fullmer
2. Hitman Hearns KO2 Roberto Duran
3. Bob Foster KO10 Henry Hank
4. Riddick Bowe KO8 Evander Holyfield
5. Sandy Saddler KO4 Willie Pep
6. Michael Nunn KO1 Sumbu Kalambay
7. Rubin Carter KO1 Emile Griffith
8. Edwin Rosario KO2 Livingstone Bramble
9. Mark Johnson KO1 Arthur Johnson
10. Bob Foster KO4 Dick Tiger

Honorable Mention: Valdez KO7 Briscoe, Zamora KO2 Pedroza, Tyson KO4 Holmes, Foster KO4 Quarry

 

You said "we lost what were most likely his best years". That makes no sense to me.

Listen, I don't know what Ali has to do with anything, or what you think arguing against Tyson's hype has to do with anything.

I was in Sacramento when Ibeabuchi beat Tua...ground zero of the myth that is the President, and I have no idea what he has to do with this discussion either.

 

Some nice KOs there, good list, although I never really knew where the kalambay KO fitted, given kalambay's durability its very impressive, but it didn't appear impressive as KOs go, it looked like he just caught him cold, just one of those freak early KOs which dot a few otherwise tough elite boxers' records...

 

Mike was sent to jail while still young. That's what I mean.

Fine forget everything else and answer these two questions:

1: Was Holyfield the best boxer Mike had faced up to that point?

2: How old are you?

 

true, and that's somethign to consider and maybe tweak the list accordingly... there are a couple freakish KOs that could be considered flukes on there - Johnson KO1 johnson, certainly Carter KO1 Griffith, and the Nunn KO fits too.

but going off of pure durability of the opponent i don;t know how one can argue with putting that on a list of most impressive KO wins... even if it is probably the most flukish of them all considering Nunn's "power"

 

Let's start with another question, how much better was the Tyson who went to prison than the Tyson who came out of it?

 

Ya Gotta LOVE the Ol' "Answer a Question w/a Question" Cop-Out....


REED:hammert:

 

Let's see. I answered your questions but when asked you choose not to answer mine.

I won't bother wasting anymore time.

 

You could have given me the heads up. :fightme:

 

Because you want to argue in generalities, which are pointless.

You came in on a discussion that was already going on, and instead of trying to build off of that, you talk about how people think Tyson is unbeatable, and bring up mythical match-ups with Muhammad Ali and the myth of Ike Ibeabuchi.

It's easy to argue against generalities, and it's all irrelevant.

Holyfield was probably the best opponent Tyson fought up to that point.

If you think that's a more important factor than how much worse Tyson had become after prison, then explain it.

Explain why four years off out of the ring - and not just out of the ring, but locked up - during a fighters mid-late 20's wouldn't cause it.

And then explain how four years off and fights against McNeely, Mathis Jr., Bruno and Seldon help prepare a fighter for what you argue is the "best opponent up to that point."

It can just as easily be argued that if Holyfield fought Tyson before he went to prison, that would be considered the best opponent he fought up to that point...if not in his career, if not up to 1999....better than guys like Riddick Bowe and Michael Moorer, who he lost to.

In fact, even if with the prison and lack of quality comeback fights, Tyson still ranks as one of the best opponnts Holyfield fought, up to that point and in his career.

He's probably very high on that list.

So back to my question, better was the Tyson who went to prison than the Tyson who came out of it