My Opinions

Here you'll find my opinions on various aspects of the sport.







My Opinions on...



The Heavyweight Division


People always ask me why I usually focus in on the Heavyweight division. Although I like all the weight divisions (even the Cruiserweights and Strawweights), the Heavyweight division still stands above them all, at least in my opinion. While the Heavyweights may not be the most skilled division, they are definately not the worst. [In fact, the two worst skilled divisions are the Strawweights and the Cruiserweights. In the Cruiserweights, a champion is rarely seen winning more than three defenses. And the Strawweight division, last time I checked, only contains 172 active fighters (and only about half of that number have a win).] Well then, why do I like the Heavy- weights? Is it because there are more knockouts? Is it because of the contrastings sizes of the fighters? Is it because the fighters actually come into the ring weighing the same amount as they weighed-in as? Is it because of the unpredictable nature of the Heavyweight division? Yes and no. While I prefer watching a fight where there is at least a chance of one fighter winning by knockout, I still don't mind watching fights that contain nothing of the sort (Zaragoza-McCullough, for example). The different sizes of the fighters make the Heavyweight division interesting. The much lighter Evander Holyfield was competitive in all three of his brawls with the much bigger Riddick Bowe. One of the many interesting aspects of the Heavyweight division is that a fighter can weigh anywhere from 195 pounds. Also, another reason that I like the Heavyweights is because the fighters aren't "fake," like in other divisions. What I mean by this is that you'll never see a 220 heavy- weight balloon up to 260 by fight-time. It's almost rediculous when David Kamau, in his Welterweight title fight with Oscar De La Hoya, came to the ring as a Middleweight. In addition, the unpredictable nature (I'm not talking about biting, hugging or crying) of the division adds to it's glamour. An average Heavyweight fight is more likely to end in a knockout, than is the average fight in a lower weight division. Why is this? Because "mass + speed = force." Although the smaller fighters tend to be faster, the bigger ones always have much more mass. However, those are not the main reasons that I prefer the Heavyweights. The main reason I prefer the Heavyweights is that they are easy to keep track of. The Heavyweights get more exposure (television and otherwise) and thus, they are more widely known. I can name far more fighters in the Heavyweight division than in any other. Because of this reason, I'm able to keep track of them much easier. Imagine trying to maintain a Top 50 Strawweight section. I couldn't name fifty Strawweights if my life depended on it. Even in the Welterweight division, (which is a favorite of mine) it would be nearly impossible to maintain a Top 50. Heavyweight prospects are always, in my opinion, more interesting than those of other divisions. I'll site two 1992 Olypians for an example; Chris Byrd and Vernon Forrest. Both of these fighters are among the top prospects in their division, undefeated and are good bets to win a world title. However, it is Byrd who captures the public's eye (and he is a light-hitting Heavyweight). Look at the newsgroups and discussion boards, you'll find entire threads devoted to discussing Byrd, yet finding one about Forrest is unlikely. There's just something about the HW's that captivates the attention of the public, not to mention the fans. While there are a few fans that insist that the HW's are talentless, fat slobs and would rather watch a Virgil Hill-Henry Maske rematch than a showdown between Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis. But for the rest of the world, the HW's remain as Boxing's featured attraction.

Mike Tyson's place in History


Now that ear-biting controversy has calmed down, I would like to discuss Tyson's place in history. Tyson "was" a great fighter. He was the youngest Heavyweight champ and the first to unify all three of belts. When Tyson was in his prime (pre-Frank Bruno I), he was one of the best Heavyweights of all time. He was no Ali, but so what. Look back at some of his old fights, when he actually used head movement. At that time he was a devastating fighter. His dominanation of the division brought Boxing's popularity back up after the retirement of Ali. Going through his title fights, look at some of the people he beat and the manner in which he beat them; Trevor Berbick (KO 2), Pinklon Thomas (KO 6), Bonecrusher Smith (WD 12), Tony Tucker (WD 12), Tyrell Biggs (KO 4), Larry Holmes (KO 4), Tony Tubbs (KO 2), Michael Spinks (KO 1), Frank Bruno (KO 5), Carl Williams (KO 1). Then Tyson met Buster Douglas in a warm-up fight before he was supposed to fight Evander Holyfield. Tyson was defeated by Douglas, but at that time, Mike was past his prime. Tyson continued on with his career with wins over Henry Tillman (KO 1) and Alex Stewart (KO 1). Then he met rising Heavyweight Donovan "Razor" Ruddock. Ruddock gave Tyson hell in their two fights (KO 7 and WD 12), but Tyson was on top at the end of both of them. Tyson was then convicted of rape and sent to prison. Comeback fights were fought against Peter McNeeley (WDQ 1) and Buster Mathis, jr. (KO 3). Then Tyson won two titles against two terrified opponents; Frank Bruno (KO 3) and Bruce Seldon (KO 1). He then met Evander Holyfield and everybody knows what happened from here. Overall, Tyson deserves a place in the Top 10 Heavyweights of all time. Many people are saying that he doesn't belong there because of his three losses. I've always believed that a fighter's greatness should be judged by his performances while he's in his prime. Look at some of the greats. Ali lost to Berbick and Louis lost to Ezzard Charles. These greats lost to inferior opponents way past their prime. Do these these losses hurt their standings? No, so Tyson's post-prime performances shouldn't hurt him. In fact, his second career has only hurt his standing and it really shouldn't. In fact, in his 4 comeback wins, he has won 2 world titles. That should count for something. I have looked at the "all-time Top 10 Heavyweights" lists of several people and on only one of them did I see Tyson. On every one of these lists, I saw Sonny Liston. Seriously, what did Liston do that was so amazing. He beat Patterson twice and got beat twice by Ali. In my opinion, Tyson deserves to be ranked higher than Liston.


Don King


Don King is a crook and occasionally a murderer. He has currently murdered at least one man, ripped off several(if not all) of his clients and is being sued by several people. Several years ago, King brutally beat a man (reportidly with the butt of a pistol) who owed him some money. When the police came and pulled him off the man, he broke free and kicked the guy a couple of times. The man died soon after. King was convicted of murder, but he only served three years! Supposedly, the judge (who sentenced King) was later arrested for connections with the Mob. I've also heard rumors that he's killed second person. Not only has he murdered, but King has also ripped off several of his clients. The most notable was 2-Time Heavyweight Champ Tim Witherspoon. However, Witherspoon sued King and won at least a million dollars. Besides having the abilities to murder and steal, King also has the uncanny ability of "influencing" the ratings. When Peter McNeeley fought Tyson, he was ranked #10 by the WBC and #7 by the WBA. If anybody remembers, McNeeley's last opponent before he fought Tyson was Frankie Hines(who currently holds the record for the number of knockout losses) and Pete was paid $200 for the fight. And Tyson was miraculously ranked #1 by both the WBC and IBF, before he even fought McNeeley! Did King have something to do with these rankings? What do you think? [After watching the HBO movie "Don King: Only in America," I realized that my suspicions were correct and King did kill another man. It was ruled that King killed the man in "self-defense."]


The Governing Bodies


The "Governing Bodies" are a load of crap. Right now, all their rules are a bunch of nonsense. Look at some of the things they make their champions do, especially Mandatory Defenses. Mandatory Defenses are pointless. They make the champion waste his time, fighting (more often than not) a guy who doesn't deserve to be in the top 10, let alone #1. This is particularly troublesome with a guy with two (or more) championships. He has to waste most of his time, fighting against the mandatory challengers of all the organizations that he holds the belts for. For example, look at Virgil Hill. Hill, who had the IBF/WBA Light-Heavyweight titles, was scheduled to fight the WBO champ Dariusz Michalczewski. But, the IBF ordered a mandatory fight with William Guthrie in mid July. However, Hill lost to Michalczewski and the IBF still demanded that the mandatory defense be made by mid July. But since Michalczewski won the title in mid June, he didn't have enough time to prepare for the fight and he was stripped. But it got worse for Dariusz, the WBA belt was also stripped from him soon thereafter. The WBA's excuse was that Michalczewski didn't want to give up the WBO title. So now, it appears that the organizations are against unifying the titles and would rather stay independent. Also, the ratings of these organizations are a bunch of rubbish. Currently, Joe Bugner is ranked #11 by the WBA. Bugner was beaten to a pulp by Scott Welch about a year ago and he's only fought twice since. And those two fights were against fighters who were nobodies (one had an impressive record of 23-10-1 and the other was 14-9-1). In addition to that, Bugner has been very unactive(he's only fought once since July 5, 1996). These organizations seem to get more corrupt every day and I'm getting sick of it.


If you have a topic that you'd like me to discuss, E-Mail Me.




Go Back to Main Page


This page hosted by

Get your own Free Home Page