General Sports Chit Chat

[JTrader]

Bruno V's Tyson 1989.

 

[Gumping]

What is your earliest recollection of boxing JT ?

Mine is getting up in the early hours of the morning with my father to listen to Cassius Clay fight Sonny Liston ( 1st fight ) on the wireless.

Actually, that's not quite true because I can remember the fight where Henry Cooper knocked Clay down.

(I'm not JT - sorry to disappoint!)

But my earliest experience was Tyson knocking out Witherspoon. I honestly thought that guy was invincible back then. I was probably right too - the only person that could beat Tyson was Tyson. And he did.........

 

[Gumping]

I just like normal, responsible, clean, sports people who never get involved in any controversy.

I don't mind if they earn zillions of millions as long as they behave like decent people with a good attitude.

A couple of names spring to mind.... Ryan Giggs and Paul Scholes.

But definitely not John Terry.

Agreed.

Holyfield might have been a good boxing role model - until his last comeback at least!

 

[yacarob1]

I think Muhammed Ali vs Tyson...both in their prime...would have been a hell of a fight and I am not sure who would have come out on top.

 

[yacarob1]

Holyfield might have been a good boxing role model - until his last comeback at least!

Evander Holyfield was a great fighter and role model....just a pity he doesn't know when to quit.

 

[Gumping]

I think Muhammed Ali vs Tyson...both in their prime...would have been a hell of a fight and I am not sure who would have come out on top.

Yeah, Tyson would have come across a bit like Smokin' Joe - a head-down, come-forward slugger. And him and Ali had an.........interesting trilogy.

 

[yacarob1]

I reckon Tyson would have been too much for Joe but Ali, with his speed and skill would have been better equipped to handle him.

Sadly we will never know.

 

[JTrader]

Tyson V Ali in the same era, would not be the same as contemplating Ali in his prime against Tyson in his prime. Ali would have been a bigger, stronger athlete, due to advancements in training methods and sports science.

I've seen Tyson in person, from 3 metres away. Very broad shoulders, surprisingly short looking for 5ft 11.5inch, but he has that wild untamed look of a lion in his eyes that would tell any sane person not to mess!

 

[yacarob1]

Tyson V Ali in the same era, would not be the same as contemplating Ali in his prime against Tyson in his prime. Ali would have been a bigger, stronger athlete, due to advancements in training methods and sports science.

I've seen Tyson in person, from 3 metres away. Very broad shoulders, surprisingly short looking for 5ft 11.5inch, but he has that wild untamed look of a lion in his eyes that would tell any sane person not to mess!

Yes good point about same era etc.

A physically stronger and fitter Ali would probably have been more than capable of seeing off Tyson.

He may have needed to wear ear protectors though as Holyfield would testify.

 

[yacarob1]

Tyson V Ali in the same era, would not be the same as contemplating Ali in his prime against Tyson in his prime. Ali would have been a bigger, stronger athlete, due to advancements in training methods and sports science.

Could we possibly use this theory to assume that Audley Harrison, as he is today, would have beaten Muhammed Ali in his prime ?

 

[Gumping]

Could we possibly use this theory to assume that Audley Harrison, as he is today, would have beaten Muhammed Ali in his prime ?

Erm...well...

Audley beat Danny Williams.

Danny beat Mike Tyson

Mike Tyson beat Trevor Berbick.

Trevor Berbick beat Ali.

So Audley would blatantly have whupped Ali's @$$!

 

[yacarob1]

Your logic is flawless.

Are we to assume therefore that Harrison was born after his time ?

 

[Gumping]

Your logic is flawless.

Are we to assume therefore that Harrison was born after his time ?

his career would certainly have been over much more quickly had he been around with more illustrious heavyweight talent than we currently have.

 

[yacarob1]

his career would certainly have been over much more quickly had he been around with more illustrious heavyweight talent than we currently have.

Not only his career but probably his life too.

 

[JTrader]

50 Greatest Boxers of All-Time

A load of crap if you ask me, but again, only an opinion.

 

[Gumping]

50 Greatest Boxers of All-Time

A load of crap if you ask me, but again, only an opinion.

Not sure it's meant to be a video. I'm also not sure about the content, since I've heard of very few of these boxers. Why is De La Hoya voted higher than Mayweather? Sure, he was happy to make the big fights and get around, and he was popular but he never beat any world-class opponents.

Of course the other point is that Joe Pesci with a baseball bat could probably beat them all to a bloody pulp

 

[JTrader]

I deleted the video as the link was dead.The espn link is crap, and i'm not sure how old it is. But regardless of era's & judging people in their era only without comparison, surely preference has to go to the modern day era, as due to advancements, fighters are fitter, stronger, leaner athletes........

Looking back, Naseem achieved most of what he could. He got beat once narrowly on points, came back 13 months later aged 28 & won the European featherweight title in may 2002. Like Jim Watt said in that link i posted - he fought everyone he was supposed to, didn't duck anyone, unified most of the titles the best he could, and thats all you can judge a boxer on - in their era. 15 or so defences in 5.5 years is not a bad reign as world champ.
I think he retired as he was bored, had the cash (£30,000,000ish), had a family, was getting older and much of his appeal was based on him being a cocky young kid from sheffield who was tearing apart the boxing world. Also, perhaps in a post 9/11 world, he faced a challenge of remaining a popular muslim figure, particularly in the US, where a fair few of any of his future fights would have been held.

 

[Gumping]

I deleted the video as the link was dead.The espn link is crap, and i'm not sure how old it is. But regardless of era's & judging people in their era only without comparison, surely preference has to go to the modern day era, as due to advancements, fighters are fitter, stronger, leaner athletes........

Looking back, Naseem achieved most of what he could. He got beat once narrowly on points, came back 13 months later aged 28 & won the European featherweight title in may 2002. Like Jim Watt said in that link i posted - he fought everyone he was supposed to, didn't duck anyone, unified most of the titles the best he could, and thats all you can judge a boxer on - in their era. 15 or so defences in 5.5 years is not a bad reign as world champ.
I think he retired as he was bored, had the cash (£30,000,000ish), had a family, was getting older and much of his appeal was based on him being a cocky young kid from sheffield who was tearing apart the boxing world. Also, perhaps in a post 9/11 world, he faced a challenge of remaining a popular muslim figure, particularly in the US, where a fair few of any of his future fights would have been held.

True. Floyd Mayweather decided to retire at 28 cos there was no-one else to beat. I reckon Naz could have done a few superfights - maybe 1 or 2 more and retired a legend. As it was, he'll be remembered as a disappointment.

 

[yacarob1]

Can you think of any boxer who got very badly beaten like Khan early in his career and then came roaring back to win the World Title ?

I'm struggling with this.

 

[Gumping]

Can you think of any boxer who got very badly beaten like Khan early in his career and then came roaring back to win the World Title ?

I'm struggling with this.

David Haye?

Dunno about badly but he was beaten by some respectable journeyman early in his career.
Bernard Hopkins lost his first fight.

And Rocky Balboa lost 25% of his fights!