"1965 Swedish Candy Clay" now "1968 Dutch Gum Clay"??
 

I was curious to see this listing on eBay this morning.

Is this accurate? Should this now be considered a 1968 issue, rather than 1965? I don't know enough about it to say either way, but would love to hear what others think.

The seller's comments about PSA moving the 1965 Clay pops, into the 1968 Dutch Gum listing, seem to be accurate.

I think it's this set.
http://www.moviecard.com/valgum/dut-unnumset3.html

Yep Peter, that's it - I am wondering why PSA no longer is referring to it as 1965 Swedish Candy. The reference to that set seems to be gone from the PSA pop reports entirely.

I don't think there is a Swedish Candy set. As you know PSA has countless date and labelling errors, I am just surprised they fixed one. People are continuing to sell 1973 Michael Jackson cards as his rookie due to PSA mislabeling it 1969, for example, drives me crazy. And I love all the Elvis cards dated 1950, years before he performed.

The card is listed by TPGs and some guides as a 1965 Swedish card, but it is found in the 1968 TV issue. Another TPG mess.

At least PSA now reflects the proper date of issuance. If only they were that proactive with the sports cards that have been given wrong dates.

Thanks guys - obviously good to know on this one, since a 1965 vs. 1968 issue for Clay makes a big difference. I was unaware of the issue on this one....

When I bought mine I assumed it was 65. Fortunately I didn't pay that much, it was many years ago.

I know the guy who is probably the world's leading authority on music cards, which are a nightmare of misdating and misidentification. He says all his efforts to get PSA to make corrections have failed.

Prices are up huge on these the past couple of years, and I'm sure they'll still sell strong. You'll remain way up on your original purchase price...

Yeah, Clay/Ali and Tyson are probably the two most bankable fighters, with Pacquiao and Canelo not quite in their class but close behind.

1965 or 1968, it is still one of the nicest looking Clay/Ali cards of the era.

How do you explain Tyson, with all the personal controversy, plus in the end he certainly did not achieve what he might have? Why are his cards especially the rookie so popular?

It's mostly because of the controversy, the charisma, the personality.

People are still fascinated by his aura of invisibility when he was first coming up, same as they were by Sonny Liston before him.

Tyson had much more charisma then Liston outside of the ring however, and that's translated into interest, while living boxing fans still remember Tyson's first big run of dominance.

He's also vocal, interesting, and starting with The Hangover

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...n-Hangover.gif

did a great job of building his brand. He used to do the National but hasn't since his other ventures took off.

The other thing with his RC specifically is that it is available in very large numbers relative to the 1960 Hemmets Clay. You can buy both today, but you have your choice of Tyson cards.

I think Tyson is one of the greatest redemption stories in sports and his speaking tour was fascinating.

I collect in this order -
1. Tyson
2. Clay/Ali
3. Louis

I consider Tyson and Ali the greatest of all-time and give the nod more to Tyson, his demons kept him from fighting for what would have likely been the cement of his prime. I watched his entire career, and I think his view to the youth of America now and what he has become post-career will give him the pantheon of top of the charts to youth collectors. Only he has the ability to derail the freight train his popularity has become.

With the death of US heavyweight boxing as the other sports now meet and exceed the income for elite athletes, the heavyweight class will stay in the hands of foreign fighters barring a drastic change. He will be the last of the US Heavyweight World Champs of any historic meaning.

Even as it sits, without a current united belt and with no chance of one as Oleksandr Usyk is currently defending his country only the past has a real focus. Tyson is the master of the living past champs and it's not close.

More speculation

He is not a man I would have picked for redemption. It is indeed fascinating.

Ali was also deprived of the prime of his career, 1967-70. For my money, prime Ali beats prime Tyson every time, just the way he handled Liston.

I can completely accept that thought pattern and have them close. I give the advantage to Tyson based on having an ideal fight style to beat Ali. His combo tricks developed to enter too close for defense on larger fighters would have devastated Ali's defense by entering his zone consistently. His height weakness was a consistent strength. Could Ali have learned how to fight Tyson? Sure, but the first fight would have been nothing he had seen in his career. Liston was just power and a statue within close proximity in comp to Tyson. Just my thoughts.

Here's a new video of a 56 year old Tyson at likely half to 1/3rd of his prime speed showing how to close space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmJJK7Ac4Fk

I mean who knows, but Ali did beat Foreman at a time when Foreman was considered invincible.

I understand why Tyson is heavily collected and I don't disagree with the reasons, but there's several living Heavyweights I'd rank above him.

Lennox
Holyfield
Holmes

maybe even Foreman

I'd rank Tyson above both Klitschko brothers historically, but I think prime Tyson would have had his hands full with Vitali.

Prime Tyson would have likely knocked out Wlad, but slightly past prime Tyson would have had his hands full with him also. Especially the later version of Wlad that learned how stay out of danger on the inside by leaning his full body weight onto his opponent, and wearing his guy down that way. Tyson would have become super frustrated if he couldn't find the space to knock him out early.

An ancient George Foreman came close to knocking out Holyfield in his prime, or at least rattled him pretty badly. How good could he have been? He always struck me, and admittedly I am not an expert, as an amazing athlete but not the world's most skilled boxer. My memory of Holyfield Foreman is that even though Foreman was well past his prime and outmatched, you could see his boxing skills were superior.

I think if young George Foreman had been as smart and patient as old George Foreman, we might be having an entirely different conversation about All-Time Greatest, then we are right now.

As far as Holyfield goes, guy was just a grinder. Small Heavyweight that over-achieved and held his own or straight up beat guys much bigger then him.

Tyson might have been shorter, but there's no question he was always a Heavyweight. Tyson was weighing in at 214 lb's at 18 years old. Holyfield was fighting at under 180 at 22 yrs. old and didn't even leave the Cruiserweight division until he was almost 26.

Ali did fight Tyson...or a better version of Tyson. His name was Joe Frazier. The main difference I see between the two is mental. Tyson was a head case, especially after Cus D'Amato died and the women started doing a number on him. Ali would have gotten soooo far into his psyche. Also, Ali was lightning fast in his prime. When Frazier got him, Ali had lost a step, yet it was still very close. Tyson got inside of immobile fighters. He never faced anything like Ali's speed and movement. Plus, I have to question Tyson's capacity to cope with adversity. After all, he did get so frustrated with Holyfield that he decided to go Hannibal the Cannibal on him. I think Ali would have cut him to pieces and driven him nuts at the same time. tyson cannot cut off the ring and close on a fighter he can't catch. My only question is which ear of Ali's he'd have bitten off.

As far as Holyfield and Louis go, well, they did beat Tyson. So did Buster Douglas, and that was pre-prison.

In terms of cards, I honestly do not understand why Tyson is as popular as he is, but I am not complaining. I still have a few tough, early Tyson cards to slab and sell off.

Yeah, Foreman never should have lost to Ali.