boxing today vs boxing 30 years ago

a reply to: alldaylong

Find me another boxer, trainer, or promoter who thinks Mike Tyson was a bad boxer...thugs can't win boxing matches in case your wondering. They need to know how to box to do that. That is not an opinion.

Your post seems to think there was a time when boxing was a total gentleman's sport. I can point towards it's early bare knuckle days to show you differently. Some fighters choose a gentlemans path others don't. It's always been that way. The more you tie their pay to their ability to sell fights the more your going to get trash talk.

a reply to: luthier

Find me another boxer, trainer, or promoter who thinks Mike Tyson was a bad boxer.

Your wish is my command.

We can start with Larry Holmes.

Boxing veteran Holmes came back from retirement to have another go at the title against reigning champ Tyson. Holmes had promised to knock Tyson out stating that Tyson was a dirty fighter not worthy to hold the title. The fight proved him wrong as Tyson punished him with Holmes unable to

www.theuppercut.tv...

a reply to: alldaylong

So an opponent of Tysons said he was a dirty fighter before a fight?

Do you understand the fight game?

Did he say he was a bad boxer?

Did you read the article you gave me?

Have you read this?
www.saratogian.com...

the biggest problem with boxing is all the politics that go on for fight matchups, the plethora of divisions and orgs within boxing, and tons of champions all within the same weight class. its a giant Clusterf*ck and that is the reason imo why people dont watch it nearly as much anymore. i mean we have the WBO, WBC, IBF, WBA, the ring, and lineal. heres a link to all the current champs just to give u an idea how crazy it is
Current Champions

a reply to: TheScale

Good point.

a reply to: luthier

Have you read this?

Have you read this ?

bleacherreport.com...

a reply to: alldaylong

You mean the one paragraph that calls him a dirty fighter because he bit another dirty fighters ear off. Was there any reference of him cheating besides his obvious melt down?

Give it a rest bud. Nobody who knows anything about boxing thinks Mike Tyson was a bad boxer and only won because he was dirty.

He was a mess. He was taken out of an orphanage at 14 to start becoming a pro boxer, and was abused by his manager and promoter. So yeah when he became the undisputed heavy weight champ and a millionaire he didn't have the support to help him become a whole person.

Edit from 12 to 14.

alldaylong, what do you think about his record and the fact he was tuning dudes up in the first round time after time when he was 19-20 years old?

a reply to: TinySickTears

Not much dirty stuff can happen in 8 seconds

The recent Joshua v klitschko was the first boxing match i have enjoyed in years...like many others MMA caught my eye and boxing just wasn't cutting the mustard anymore.

Of course this is just my opinion but i do believe those saying Tyson wasn't a great boxer are just flat out wrong...yes he lost the plot later in his career but jail time and a serious mismanagement of both him and his funds will do that to a man...but that doesn't change the fact that he could box with the best of them just watch his highlights from his early days in the 80's and you will see a beast in action.

en.wikipedia.org... dempsey was pretty good in his day

www.thesportster.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

Ancient Greek boxing (Greek: πυγμαχία pygmachia, "fist fighting") dates back to at least the 8th century BCE (Homer's Iliad), and was practiced in a variety of social contexts in different Greek city-states. Most extant sources about ancient Greek boxing are fragmentary or legendary, making it difficult to reconstruct the rules, customs and history surrounding this activity in great detail. Still, it is clear that gloved boxing bouts were a significant part of ancient Greek athletic culture throughout the early classical period.

pretty sure some of the old ancient times boxers would have been able to compete in the modern ages with out the whole steroid controversies and drug testing we have now

ejmas.com... some of their equipment possibly not safe for work due to the frescos and art at link as they boxed nude in ye old days

www.atrium-media.com... covers boxing in antiquity as a whole

Unarmed combat was most likely practiced by humans since before we were humans. In Western culture it is the Greeks who are first credited with taming the practice for sport. Known as “Pygmahia” or “fistfighting”, the ancient Greeks asserted that the sport was invented by Apollo, the sun god. In this tradition, the first mortal Champion Of The World was a prince named Forvanta. He represented mankind in the first recorded Championship; a match between man and god. Forvanta challenged Apollo and for this outrage Apollo killed the human Champion during their match. Other victims of Apollos were Phorbas, a mortal boxer who challenged travellers wishing to pass through Delphi (he was also killed) and none other than the god of war Aries, who fell victim to the sun god at the mythic first Olympic games but lived to tell the tale. Other mythological practitioners of the sport included Herakles, Tydeus, Polydeusus and Theseus. The first known boxing artifacts derive from ancient Crete, dating 1600 BC. The sport receives its first literary mention in Homer’s “The Iliad” (circa 800 BC), in the 23rd chapter, wherein Epeus (builder of the Trojan horse) and Euryalus (a Captain of the Argonauts) hold a contest at the funeral of Patroclus. Patroclus was Achilles’ squire and had met his end in his master’s armour at the hands of Apollo and Hector during the Trojan War (1200 BC). The passage presents the sport of boxing as having already achieved a near modern sophistication - complete with rules and even seconds - and as with today’s version of the sport, the jaw is ever the target. The Olympic games were reputed to have been founded by the gods, and were brought to this mortal coil by one Aethlius (from whose name is derived todays word “Athlete”) as a challenge to his sons. After a period wherein their practice was ceased, they were ‘revived’ by Iphitus and Lycurgus, two descendants of Herakles, in 766 BC as a means of replacing war with sport in the ancient world. These games featured only one event: The Stadion (chariot) race. Further events were added as the centuries passed. It wasn’t until 688 BC, at the 23rd Olympic games, that mankind first officially practiced the sport of boxing at an international level (as the Olympic games were open to all Greek-speaking males and one needed not be Greek by birth). The ideal boxer at the time was aggressive and the bouts - fought naked save for hands wrapped in hard leather thongs called “cesti” - went until one of the two contenders signalled submission by raising his opened hand, or by taking a knee. An umpire was on-hand to ensure that the winner recognised this surrender. The first recorded Champion was Onomastos of Smyrna. He won the title in the 23rd games and thereafter set the rules for the sport, which were the first in recorded history.

so the latter guy named in the article pretty much wrote the book or at least the rules so to speak
from same link

Boxing did not take place in a ring, which meant there was no opportunity for cornering - rather, the Greeks placed portable barriers such as ladders or sticks on the ground to set the boundaries. These objects could be moved closer until fighters were forced to stand toe-to-toe. Because all fights were outdoors, a common tactic was to gain an advantage by standing so the sun was in an opponent's eyes. There were no weight classes, no rounds and no time limit. Some fights lasted for days. If both fighters agreed, they could end the fight by “klimax’ whereby each fighter took turns striking the other, without pretense of defence by either, until a winner was decided. Athletes were selected by their city-states to represent their people, and although there were no weight classes it was obvious that size, height, weight, reach and strength were all advantages, therefore it was normally only the largest men who were chosen to represent their city-states in this sport. The punching of the time was crude, and did not feature the straight punches normally seen today, but instead consisted mainly of wild hooks and hammer-like blows, mostly to the head. When defending, style and grace of movement were highly valued. Greek boxers trained for months before the games, because encounters between athletes armed with such terrible weapons as the cestus were bound to result in very serious injuries. In the days of Onomastos, courage was also valued and it was said that a fighter of the time named Eurydamas swallowed his own broken teeth rather than show that he was hurt. His opponent, disheartened that his best punches were having no effect, signalled defeat. The rules of Onomastos were strict: No wrestling, grappling, kicking nor biting were allowed, and the contest ended when one combatant was knocked out or signalled submission It was this last rule, according to Plutarch, that had boxing banned in Sparta by its philosopher-king Lycurgus, since Spartans never surrendered. It was also strictly forbidden to intentionally kill an adversary, on pain of losing the match. Rhodes, Aegina, Arcadia and Elis produced most of the Olympic victors in boxing.

Boxing has lacked any truly great heavyweights for a long time now and that's hurt the sport. Your average casual fan doesn't want to see 125 pounders throwing hands, no matter how good they are. Boxing needs the next Mike Tyson to step up soon.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: alldaylong

thats bull#.

tyson was an amazing fighter man...he was tuning dudes up with the quickness and he was very young too. he was a force.
after the whole going to jail thing he was different and especially after Cus died...he was not the same after that. Cus was like his father man.....

tyson was a great fighter...as good as any other heavyweight that has ever laced up and better than most

Who did Tyson beat?

It's hard to judge him in a historical context, as the level of the competitors he fought was not extraordinary.

Yes, he was a good boxer, fast, hard to hit, and a heavy puncher, but the thing is he fought over the hill has beens or nobodies.

a reply to: D8Tee

well he won two gold medals in the olympics...thats impressive in itself.

mitch green...19-6
trevor berbick....49-11
larry holmes...69-6
michael spinks....31-1
frank bruno...40-5

those guys were not nobodies....

i think the level of people he fought and beat(and how decisive his wins were) were every bit as good as holyfield, lewis, klitchko, bowe.

tyson was no joke...i think a lot of people that do not think much of him feel that way cause they dont like him personally and thats fine....if thats youre opinion then youre not wrong....

his record speaks for itself and his opinions were every bit as competent as the guys the above beat.

he was ferocious...he was fast...he was a tight fighter and he was explosive.

i think when most people try to list the greatest heavyweights the list usually looks something like marciano, ali, foreman, klitchko, tyson.....

something like that

we can never know for sure but in my opinion tyson in his prime against any heavy in their prime tyson wins 5 out of 10.
just my opinion

originally posted by: Tuomptonite
Boxing has lacked any truly great heavyweights for a long time now and that's hurt the sport. Your average casual fan doesn't want to see 125 pounders throwing hands, no matter how good they are. Boxing needs the next Mike Tyson to step up soon.

i agree. i think there are a lot of people(me included) love to watch the light weight fighters. those guys are fast man...they great fighters like the ones mentioned earlier put on great fights.
people still want to see the heavies bang it out though. they are always the big draw but the negative is a good deal of heavies are slow and while they may have solid records they are not awesome to watch....
my opinion

Tyson was an incredible boxer. His head movement, ability to move forward and apply pressure to get inside, throwing his whole weight into his hooks and uppercuts and finding the angle to break through his opponent's guard in the pocket were next level. He had probably the strongest legs of any boxer too. Definite master of peek a boo.

a reply to: TinySickTears

mitch green...19-6
trevor berbick....49-11
larry holmes...69-6
michael spinks....31-1
frank bruno...40-5

Mitch Green? A guy who lost to Trevor Berbick, a Canadian Champ?

Holmes, WAY past his prime, came out of a two year retirement?

Michael Spinks ? A freakin' former light heavyweight who practically ran out of the ring to get away from Tyson?

Frank Bruno, a guy who never held a belt other than the European one?

Hell Tyson wasn't even able to beat a former Cruiser in Holyfield. Holyfield is an incredible boxer and everything, but an all time best heavyweight should have no trouble dispatching an all time cruiser.

Tyson's done zero outside of laying beatings on tomato cans.

Ring Magazines Bill Caplan put tyson at number 17, thats telling.

17. Mike Tyson. Why is he so low on the list? He had fast combinations, pulverizing power and was the great intimidator. He netted over 300 million dollars in purses (that he spent) because this anti-hero had record-breaking drawing power. So why isn’t he in the top 15? Iron Mike, another D’Amato creation, was the world’s greatest front runner. Never once did he walk through fire and win. He never came from behind to win. He never rose from the deck to win. Lack of heart? Lack of character? I don’t know. You tell me.

Link

a reply to: D8Tee

ok.
if you say so.
im a fan and not a fight scholar. in my opinion(as i have been saying. not fact) tyson is one of the greatest of all time and most people feel the same way
i hold fast that tyson in his prime beats any boxer of any era 5 out of 10
does not mean he is THE best but he is ONE of the best

and that snippet says why? cause he never came from behind to win...he didnt come from behind cause he dominated his opponents

originally posted by: TinySickTears
this is something i have been thinking on a lot today. i have been watching old fights and clips of guys from when i was coming up and # man.....seems like boxing was stacked in the late 70's up to the late 80's..
compared to now what do you think?
does not matter the division.

i can think of recent guys that were killing it
de la hoya
klitchko
mayweather
pacquaio
jone jr
hopkins

those guys come to mind....

then i think about guys from the era i mentioned.....
i just watched the hagler vs hearns fight....holy hell man that was one of the best fights ever....

imo and i admit i was a huge fan back then cause my dad and i used to watch it when he was still alive. it just about ended for me when my dad died and tyson fell off....for the most part i mean...
what i am getting at is i did not watch the guys listed like i did the early 80's guys. just caught pieces....

it seems to me though that the guys from the late 70's and early 80's and possibly a trickle into the very early part of the 90's had something special...
am i off in my thinking?

when i think of great boxers the guys that come to mind are for the most part not the guys i listed...
more like
hagler
spinks
hearns
duran
tyson
holmes
liston
norton

what do you think?

maybe it is nostalgia for me cause i grew up on those guys with my dad and #....

what do you think?

THANK YOU for omitting "Sugar" Ray Leonard...
The guy was hepped up on coke for most of his career. Took a lot of shots to the face when he couldn't even feel it.
And yeah, Hagler won that one I don't care that Vegas bookies tainted the judges.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: D8Tee

ok.
if you say so.
im a fan and not a fight scholar. in my opinion(as i have been saying. not fact) tyson is one of the greatest of all time and most people feel the same way
i hold fast that tyson in his prime beats any boxer of any era 5 out of 10
does not mean he is THE best but he is ONE of the best

I agree with you, guy had amazing skills and I'd never say he wasn't one of the best fighters to ever step in the ring.

Just saying that his level of competition makes it hard to judge in a historical sense.

Would he have beat an Ali or a Frasier?

Certainly a possibility.

Can i get behind the statement that in his prime he'd beat any boxer of any era 5 out of 10 times? I might even put it higher, I'm a huge Tyson fan.