Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bert Sugar quickie on Mike Tyson

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    #1

    Bert Sugar quickie on Mike Tyson

    I just came across earlier and thought I'd share, as I have never seen it. Supposedly this kid emailed Bert Sugar and asked where he ranked Tyson, and this was his reply...

    "Just got my breathing-space after so many days of working. I really appreciate your effort and money of pursuing knowledge to the past by purchasing the book I wrote.

    I'm going directly to your question and after that I will elaborate my own perspective in such a way for you to magnify the greatness of Mike Tyson.

    Here's my top 10 greatest heavyweights, this includes your precarious 1988 Mike Tyson in ATG caliber:

    10.) Larry Holmes (Tied together with Ezzard Charles)

    9.) Evander Holyfield

    8.) Floyd Patterson

    7.) Jack Dempsey

    6.) Lennox Lewis

    5.) Rocky Marciano

    4.) Jack Johnson

    3.) Muhammad Ali

    2.) Joe Louis

    1.) 1988 Mike Tyson

    Notice something? Yes, the heyday of Mike Tyson or the notable 1988 Mike Tyson was my choice of the most complete, most dominant, and most versatile heavyweight boxer of all-time. Also, I put there Larry Holmes in the number 10 and left out Ezzard Charles for the 10B tied position, then I also left out Gene Tunney.

    The reason why Mike Tyson was in a turmoil situation when Don King took over instead of Bill Clayton, that was the starting point.

    It was still okay for quite some time about Don King's management, but when Rooney was fired due to the ego of Don, it was the whole new Tyson like a man forlorn left-out in an isolated island.

    I'm not blaming wholeheartedly the fall of Mike Tyson to Don King, but also the only lack I saw on Mike Tyson even before his slump and snag was his lackadaisical consistency."

    #2
    Oh dear more

    Comment

      #3
      He's right about Bill Cayton. He took care of Tyson's interests and made him super rich whereas King just screwed him. As one example, Cayton wanted Tyson to fight Frank Bruno at Wembley, where there would have been a huge live gate and Tyson would have made a truckload of money. Instead, King had Tyson fight Bruno in Vegas, where there was only a small live gate. Here's what Larry Holmes said back in 1988 when Tyson was about to sign for King. Very prophetic:

      "Tyson says he's mad at Bill Cayton," says Holmes. "Why? Cayton and Jimmy Jacobs, until he died, made Tyson the richest athlete in history. I wish I'd had Bill Cayton when I was fighting. I would have a lot more money. Now Tyson has to decide: Does he want to bite off his nose to spite his face? Does he want to stay with Don King and know that the dollars are not going to be so great? Or does he want to stay with Bill Cayton, the guy who has been with him from day one and has brought him millions and millions of dollars?

      "If he stays with King, he has got to know that those millions are going to get cut down. I think he's making a great mistake. But it's his life and his career, and only he can make that decision. If he's happy with King, then tell him to go for it."

      Comment

        #4
        Originally posted by Kid McCoy View Post
        He's right about Bill Cayton. He took care of Tyson's interests and made him super rich whereas King just screwed him. As one example, Cayton wanted Tyson to fight Frank Bruno at Wembley, where there would have been a huge live gate and Tyson would have made a truckload of money. Instead, King had Tyson fight Bruno in Vegas, where there was only a small live gate. Here's what Larry Holmes said back in 1988 when Tyson was about to sign for King. Very prophetic:



        Good read thanks for sharing

        Comment

          #5
          I think he lost his heart and that was his downfall. As a young man he was determined, you saw obstacles he had to over come and he did it. I think ******* had a lot to do with this.

          Tysons got a good shot at beating any ATG really, because he's not terribly weak in any department, aside from maybe inside fighting. He had an iron chin, decent stamina, a very high workrate esp in the first 5 rounds and possessed incredible hand speed.

          I think the most notable fight is his fight with Larry Holmes. Yea Holmes was older, but Holmes was an ATG, he still went on and did things even after he got owned by Mike. It was that and Holmes acted like a totally defeated man after that fight, saying Tyson was much harder to hit than expected and had very sharp punches.

          prime for prime it's a much closer fight but that's just it, Holmes is an ATG Hw - so it better be.

          Comment

            #6
            Originally posted by them_apples View Post

            I think the most notable fight is his fight with Larry Holmes. Yea Holmes was older, but Holmes was an ATG, he still went on and did things even after he got owned by Mike. It was that and Holmes acted like a totally defeated man after that fight, saying Tyson was much harder to hit than expected and had very sharp punches.

            prime for prime it's a much closer fight but that's just it, Holmes is an ATG Hw - so it better be.
            if a win over a man that was near 40 yrs old and who hadn't fought in 2 yrs is tyson most notable win then it doesnt say much for his resume does it !
            In my humble opinion i cant believe that tyson would of eva beat a fighter like Holmes ...

            Comment

              #7
              Originally posted by Mrpedigree View Post
              if a win over a man that was near 40 yrs old and who hadn't fought in 2 yrs is tyson most notable win then it doesnt say much for his resume does it !
              In my humble opinion i cant believe that tyson would of eva beat a fighter like Holmes ...
              Oh, but Holmes went on to win many fights after he lost to Tyson! (that's the Tyson-hugger argument for why the Holmes win should be given so much significance. Of course, Holyfield beating Tyson when Tyson was the world champion is easily dismissed since Tyson "wasn't the same fighter". And of course, Lennox Lewis beating a 35-year-old Tyson is completely different than Tyson beating a 40-year-old Holmes )
              Last edited by SBleeder; 12-02-2010, 07:35 PM.

              Comment

                #8
                Originally posted by SBleeder View Post
                Oh, but Holmes went on to win many fights after he lost to Tyson! (that's the Tyson-hugger argument for why the Holmes win should be given so much significance. Of course, Holyfield beating Tyson when Tyson was the world champion is easily dismissed since Tyson "wasn't the same fighter". And of course, Lennox Lewis beating a 35-year-old Tyson is completely different than Tyson beating a 40-year-old Holmes )
                The problem with you is that you never make a case, and you talk about Tyson as if he's a C rated fighter which simply is not true. The humorous part is that you mainly only post in Tyson threads, and you never have anything good to say. You're nothing more than a Tyson hating troll who really has no idea what he's talking about.

                Comment

                  #9
                  No offense, but I'm not sure that Sugar really wrote that list. In the 2006 Book called Boxing's Greatest Fighters, written by Sugar, Bert has Tyson ranked 100 in a list of the top 100 greatest fighters of all time, the very lowest rank, beneath Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Sullivan, Jeffries, and even Georges Carpentier and Joe Jeanette and Peter Jackson. So I don't know why he would rank Mike so highly now. Also, in the list of the 100 Greatest boxers of all time put in the book, Lennox Lewis isn't even included, nor is Holyfield in the top 20 best in Bert's list.

                  Comment

                    #10
                    He's welcome to his opinion...

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP