|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32768
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LuxuryBrown wrote: | | TACH wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Geez... definitely make that 100 out of 100. Tyson always had trouble fighting opponents with a long reach. Ali's jabs would have reduced Iron Mike's face to a bloody pulp. |
Nope, not true:
Frank Bruno - 82'' Reach: TKO 5th round, TKO 3rd Round
Razor Ruddock - 82'' Reach: UD, TKO 7th Round
Tony Tubbs - 79'' Reach: TKO 2nd Round
Mitch Green - 82'' Reach: UD
Trevor Berbick - 78'' Reach: TKO 2nd Round
Bonecrusher Smith - 82'' Reach: UD
The thing is, most of Tyson's fights were he was at a reach disadvantage, so to say that he always had trouble with fighters that had reach is far from truth. |
The list lacks a quality opponent... but then again, Mike doesn't have wins over an above average heavyweight... I don't think he's beat anybody that would be ranked in the Top 100 fighters of all time, let alone top 50.. |
In your skewed opinion, it does, however, that wasn't what was being discussed. This was in reference to angrypuppy saying Mike "ALWAYS" had trouble with fighters that had reach. I posted that to deem his statement false. |
I should have qualified by stating quality opposition, though prior to beating Tyson, Buster Douglas (84" reach) wasn't considered quality opposition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TACH
Retired Number
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 28461
Location: Chillin on the Delaware.. from the Jersey Side
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^^ Skewed?  Who were Tyson top 3 opponents? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TACH wrote: | | ^^ Skewed? Who were Tyson top 3 opponents? |
Dawg, c'mon - How long have you known me here? Now you know DAYUM WELL you ain't gonna ask me a question and think I'm gonna let you get away without answering MY question I posed to you earlier that you never answered. Now, answer my question and I will gladly answer yours. Simple as that. 
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TACH
Retired Number
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 28461
Location: Chillin on the Delaware.. from the Jersey Side
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And I produced the Teddy Atlas interview were he basically said Mike was a mental midget. I'm not going to look through (even if I could find them) 20 or so fights against nobodies. You can, I'm not... but I did produce a nice interview, with his former trainer that talked about Tyson and his weak mind. He even predicted the Tyson biting Holyfield before the fight even started.... face it, Mike had the mind and mental make up of a child. Everybody else but you seems to understand that....
So again, who were Mike Tyson's Top 3 opponents? Would any of them be ranked in the Top 50 Boxers of all times? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TACH wrote: | And I produced the Teddy Atlas interview were he basically said Mike was a mental midget. I'm not going to look through (even if I could find them) 20 or so fights against nobodies. You can, I'm not... but I did produce a nice interview, with his former trainer that talked about Tyson and his weak mind. He even predicted the Tyson biting Holyfield before the fight even started.... face it, Mike had the mind and mental make up of a child. Everybody else but you seems to understand that....
So again, who were Mike Tyson's Top 3 opponents? Would any of them be ranked in the Top 50 Boxers of all times? |
Ok, I'll even do this for you:
Show me where I said "Show me an INTERVIEW where Mike is called a mental midget" and then we can DEFINITELY move on!
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TACH
Retired Number
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 28461
Location: Chillin on the Delaware.. from the Jersey Side
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ^^ Again, I posted an interview from one of his former trainers... did you not watch the video... is Teddy Atlas lying? What is so hard to comprehend here... you asked for proof in a fight, I gave proof from somebody knew Mike better than most people of this planet. Face it, the guy was a mental midget, even his own corner said so... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^^ C'mon, dawg. Stop stalling. Name a fight. Where did Tyson exhibit "mental midget" from 86-91 during a fight? Just name 1.
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TACH
Retired Number
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 28461
Location: Chillin on the Delaware.. from the Jersey Side
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 
But I understand, you deflect from the interview because you have nothing to come back with, just like you won't name Mike's Top 3 opponents, because, to use one of your earlier phrases, they were 'tomato cans'; less then steller comp...
Ali over Mike... just like most people and boxing aficionados think... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90310
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LuxuryBrown wrote: | | ^^ C'mon, dawg. Stop stalling. Name a fight. Where did Tyson exhibit "mental midget" from 86-91 during a fight? Just name 1. |
You're the one stalling here. 86-91 is a period where you know that Tyson fought no one of note. Beat a bunch of has-beens and never-will-bes, establishing and capitalizing on a very choreographed "invincible killer" reputation, to the point where most guys were running at the first bell.
When he met a guy who was unafraid of him, and forced him to actually fight a complete fight (I mean that in terms of skill, not duration), he got tagged. Don't give me the "he didn't train properly" excuse either. That's on him, wasting his own prime.
After that, his invincibility was gone (he was never invincible anyway, hence the effort to exaggerate his strengths), and every good fighter thereafter ate him alive. He was only invincible if you believed he was, and his skills (along with his heart) didn't measure up if you didn't fear him, and could take advantage of his weaknesses- namely that he became both winded and frustrated if he couldn't get you early, and he had virtually no semblance of the skills and discipline required to outpoint a good boxer that he couldn't knock out.
Mike was the quintessential bully: beat up all the neighborhood kids to the point that they all ran from him and told "ghost stories" about him, until one of them, inexplicably, turned around and fought back.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90310
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | Here's a pretty good take:
| Quote: | TYSON vs. MUHAMMAD ALI:
Obviously in this sort of hypothetical matchup we’ll assume that both fighters are in their prime and enter the ring without injury or distraction. The tale of the tape reveals that Muhammad Ali–rightfully nicknamed “The Greatest”–stands 6′3″, would weigh in somewhere in the low 200’s and has a 80″ reach. Tyson, meanwhile, enters the ring at 5′ 10″, weighing around 218 and with a 71″ reach gives up a huge 9″ advantage to his opponent.
The most significant question about Ali relative to this matchup would be his ability to handle Tyson’s power. Based on his career resume, I’m of the opinion that he would be able to take Tyson’s best shots with relative ease. I often like to tell people that Ali fought Mike Tyson twice–only his name was Sonny Liston. Ali faced no shortage of powerful opponents in addition to the hard hitting Liston–George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Jerry Quarey and the man considered by most boxing cognoscenti as the single hardest puncher in the history of boxing, Earnie Shavers. Tyson’s power wouldn’t faze Ali one bit–he’d faced far more formidable opponents and, more importantly, hard hitters with more skills than Tyson.
Not only was Ali no stranger to power punchers, he could take an insane amount of punishment. The thing that’s always blown me away about Ali’s career is that fact that he was never knocked out. He was only stopped inside the distance once, and that was a stoppage against Larry Holmes in a fight he never should have taken. In other words, the suggestion that Tyson would even have a “puncher’s chance” in this matchup is hard to fathom based on the inability of a veritable “who’s who” of boxing history to KO Ali. Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Shavers, Norton, etc. couldn’t do it. Norton broke Ali’s jaw and still didn’t get a stoppage victory. I’d have a hard time thinking that Tyson could do what these legends couldn’t.
The other quality typically ascribed to Tyson is his ability to intimidate his opponent–guys like Michael Spinks and Lou Savarese appeared to be sapped of their will before the bell even rang. That certainly wouldn’t happen against Ali, a man who conducted himself bravely and resolutely in the ring against the best in the business and on the biggest stage in sports. Furthermore, Ali never lacked for confidence and the notion that he’d be intimidated by Tyson’s scowl is downright laughable. To the contrary, Ali was at his best in the biggest fights–it was his second tier opponents (like Norton and Leon Spinks) that often gave him trouble. In a mega-fight like Tyson/Ali, he’d be at his best.
On the other side of the equation, Ali had the tools to dominate his brawling opponent. His handspeed, defensive ability and movement was insane for a heavyweight. More significantly, there’s the 9″ reach advantage–while not as profound as the 13″ advantage that Lennox Lewis had in his clinical destruction of Tyson it would be much of the same. Lewis, while a solid fighter, is definitely no Ali and his 9″ advantage over Tyson would allow him to dance around the smaller man and pick him apart with his jab.
Then there’s the question of Tyson’s mental toughness. While he demonstrated a lot of heart and courage in taking the beating given to him by Lennox Lewis, his penchant for in-ring “meltdowns” is well documented. Tactically, he’d be no match for “The Greatest”–Tyson knew one way to fight–moving forward and looking for a knockout. Ali, under the tutledge of the great Angelo Dundee, was masterful at tailoring his gameplan for individual fighters. Dundee–like Lewis’ trainer Emmanuel Steward years later–would easily find weaknesses in Tyson’s technique and Ali would have no problem exploiting it.
I was initially going to say that if Ali and Tyson fought 100 times, Ali would win 99 of them. Realistically, however, a focused, in-shape Ali would beat Tyson 100 out of 100. Tyson isn’t a well rounded enough fighter to beat Ali like Joe Frazier did in their first matchup. Ali’s superior reach, mental toughness, speed and ability to take a punch would be too much for “Iron Mike”. It would be similar to the Lennox Lewis/Tyson fight only more so. Ali wins by KO/TKO somewhere around the tenth round. |
http://www.prophetfighting.com/?p=424 |
To be completely honest, I stopped reading after this statement:
| Quote: | | The most significant question about Ali relative to this matchup would be his ability to handle Tyson’s power. Based on his career resume, I’m of the opinion that he would be able to take Tyson’s best shots with relative ease. |
That dude is an idiot. Period. It's one thing to say 'Ali could withstand Tyson's power' but it's PURELY IDOL/FANSHIP SPEAKING when this clown uses the the phrase "with relative ease". Sorry. He's a fraud. There wasn't even any reason to continue reading at that point. |
Come on Lux, that's just transparent misdirection. You don't want to deal with the very rational analysis in that piece, so you go after what you see as the weakest element, and fake righteous umbrage, the better to not have to deal with the arguments made.
BTW, considering how many of the greatest punchers of all time took a shot at Ali's chin, while the opinion you so vigorously dispute is subjective, at least it has some solid factual evidence behind it.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TACH wrote: |
But I understand, you deflect from the interview because you have nothing to come back with, just like you won't name Mike's Top 3 opponents, because, to use one of your earlier phrases, they were 'tomato cans'; less then steller comp...
Ali over Mike... just like most people and boxing aficionados think... |
1 fight. You win. Deal? Nope. You won't accept. Because you'll lose.
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | ^^ C'mon, dawg. Stop stalling. Name a fight. Where did Tyson exhibit "mental midget" from 86-91 during a fight? Just name 1. |
You're the one stalling here. 86-91 is a period where you know that Tyson fought no one of note. Beat a bunch of has-beens and never-will-bes, establishing and capitalizing on a very choreographed "invincible killer" reputation, to the point where most guys were running at the first bell.
When he met a guy who was unafraid of him, and forced him to actually fight a complete fight (I mean that in terms of skill, not duration), he got tagged. Don't give me the "he didn't train properly" excuse either. That's on him, wasting his own prime.
After that, his invincibility was gone (he was never invincible anyway, hence the effort to exaggerate his strengths), and every good fighter thereafter ate him alive. He was only invincible if you believed he was, and his skills (along with his heart) didn't measure up if you didn't fear him, and could take advantage of his weaknesses- namely that he became both winded and frustrated if he couldn't get you early, and he had virtually no semblance of the skills and discipline required to outpoint a good boxer that he couldn't knock out.
Mike was the quintessential bully: beat up all the neighborhood kids to the point that they all ran from him and told "ghost stories" about him, until one of them, inexplicably, turned around and fought back. |
C'mon, Deuce-fo'! You're better than that! You know what the discussion's about - Stick to it. Stop losing focus. What was the ORIGINAL QUESTION ASKED?
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | Here's a pretty good take:
| Quote: | TYSON vs. MUHAMMAD ALI:
Obviously in this sort of hypothetical matchup we’ll assume that both fighters are in their prime and enter the ring without injury or distraction. The tale of the tape reveals that Muhammad Ali–rightfully nicknamed “The Greatest”–stands 6′3″, would weigh in somewhere in the low 200’s and has a 80″ reach. Tyson, meanwhile, enters the ring at 5′ 10″, weighing around 218 and with a 71″ reach gives up a huge 9″ advantage to his opponent.
The most significant question about Ali relative to this matchup would be his ability to handle Tyson’s power. Based on his career resume, I’m of the opinion that he would be able to take Tyson’s best shots with relative ease. I often like to tell people that Ali fought Mike Tyson twice–only his name was Sonny Liston. Ali faced no shortage of powerful opponents in addition to the hard hitting Liston–George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Jerry Quarey and the man considered by most boxing cognoscenti as the single hardest puncher in the history of boxing, Earnie Shavers. Tyson’s power wouldn’t faze Ali one bit–he’d faced far more formidable opponents and, more importantly, hard hitters with more skills than Tyson.
Not only was Ali no stranger to power punchers, he could take an insane amount of punishment. The thing that’s always blown me away about Ali’s career is that fact that he was never knocked out. He was only stopped inside the distance once, and that was a stoppage against Larry Holmes in a fight he never should have taken. In other words, the suggestion that Tyson would even have a “puncher’s chance” in this matchup is hard to fathom based on the inability of a veritable “who’s who” of boxing history to KO Ali. Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Shavers, Norton, etc. couldn’t do it. Norton broke Ali’s jaw and still didn’t get a stoppage victory. I’d have a hard time thinking that Tyson could do what these legends couldn’t.
The other quality typically ascribed to Tyson is his ability to intimidate his opponent–guys like Michael Spinks and Lou Savarese appeared to be sapped of their will before the bell even rang. That certainly wouldn’t happen against Ali, a man who conducted himself bravely and resolutely in the ring against the best in the business and on the biggest stage in sports. Furthermore, Ali never lacked for confidence and the notion that he’d be intimidated by Tyson’s scowl is downright laughable. To the contrary, Ali was at his best in the biggest fights–it was his second tier opponents (like Norton and Leon Spinks) that often gave him trouble. In a mega-fight like Tyson/Ali, he’d be at his best.
On the other side of the equation, Ali had the tools to dominate his brawling opponent. His handspeed, defensive ability and movement was insane for a heavyweight. More significantly, there’s the 9″ reach advantage–while not as profound as the 13″ advantage that Lennox Lewis had in his clinical destruction of Tyson it would be much of the same. Lewis, while a solid fighter, is definitely no Ali and his 9″ advantage over Tyson would allow him to dance around the smaller man and pick him apart with his jab.
Then there’s the question of Tyson’s mental toughness. While he demonstrated a lot of heart and courage in taking the beating given to him by Lennox Lewis, his penchant for in-ring “meltdowns” is well documented. Tactically, he’d be no match for “The Greatest”–Tyson knew one way to fight–moving forward and looking for a knockout. Ali, under the tutledge of the great Angelo Dundee, was masterful at tailoring his gameplan for individual fighters. Dundee–like Lewis’ trainer Emmanuel Steward years later–would easily find weaknesses in Tyson’s technique and Ali would have no problem exploiting it.
I was initially going to say that if Ali and Tyson fought 100 times, Ali would win 99 of them. Realistically, however, a focused, in-shape Ali would beat Tyson 100 out of 100. Tyson isn’t a well rounded enough fighter to beat Ali like Joe Frazier did in their first matchup. Ali’s superior reach, mental toughness, speed and ability to take a punch would be too much for “Iron Mike”. It would be similar to the Lennox Lewis/Tyson fight only more so. Ali wins by KO/TKO somewhere around the tenth round. |
http://www.prophetfighting.com/?p=424 |
To be completely honest, I stopped reading after this statement:
| Quote: | | The most significant question about Ali relative to this matchup would be his ability to handle Tyson’s power. Based on his career resume, I’m of the opinion that he would be able to take Tyson’s best shots with relative ease. |
That dude is an idiot. Period. It's one thing to say 'Ali could withstand Tyson's power' but it's PURELY IDOL/FANSHIP SPEAKING when this clown uses the the phrase "with relative ease". Sorry. He's a fraud. There wasn't even any reason to continue reading at that point. |
Come on Lux, that's just transparent misdirection. You don't want to deal with the very rational analysis in that piece, so you go after what you see as the weakest element, and fake righteous umbrage, the better to not have to deal with the arguments made.
BTW, considering how many of the greatest punchers of all time took a shot at Ali's chin, while the opinion you so vigorously dispute is subjective, at least it has some solid factual evidence behind it. |
Sorry, bruh, but if YOU honestly believe what that clown has written as "rational," then you're no better than he is in his wack assessment of Ali v. Mike. That's real.
The mere fact that you haven't even considered Cooper, Banks, and Wepner as LESSER PUNCHERS AND FIGHTERS than Mike proves you're looking at it from the same fanship as that author did. Ridiculous.
You're gonna sit here and tell me that Ali got knocked down by Wepner, Banks, and Cooper but you believe he can handle Tyson's punches "with relative ease"? You ain't serious about that and you know it.
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90310
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | ^^ C'mon, dawg. Stop stalling. Name a fight. Where did Tyson exhibit "mental midget" from 86-91 during a fight? Just name 1. |
You're the one stalling here. 86-91 is a period where you know that Tyson fought no one of note. Beat a bunch of has-beens and never-will-bes, establishing and capitalizing on a very choreographed "invincible killer" reputation, to the point where most guys were running at the first bell.
When he met a guy who was unafraid of him, and forced him to actually fight a complete fight (I mean that in terms of skill, not duration), he got tagged. Don't give me the "he didn't train properly" excuse either. That's on him, wasting his own prime.
After that, his invincibility was gone (he was never invincible anyway, hence the effort to exaggerate his strengths), and every good fighter thereafter ate him alive. He was only invincible if you believed he was, and his skills (along with his heart) didn't measure up if you didn't fear him, and could take advantage of his weaknesses- namely that he became both winded and frustrated if he couldn't get you early, and he had virtually no semblance of the skills and discipline required to outpoint a good boxer that he couldn't knock out.
Mike was the quintessential bully: beat up all the neighborhood kids to the point that they all ran from him and told "ghost stories" about him, until one of them, inexplicably, turned around and fought back. |
C'mon, Deuce-fo'! You're better than that! You know what the discussion's about - Stick to it. Stop losing focus. What was the ORIGINAL QUESTION ASKED? |
Again, you (not Tach) are stipulating 86-91, an artificially truncated prime period, done so to eliminate any real talented boxer faced by Mike. Certainly disingenuous, since you are choosing to pick a very minor side issue, modify it after the fact, and pretend you hold high ground overall.
I'm focussed on the issue: Ali would, by most objective viewers' opinion, beat Mike Tyson. These petty detours are your way of trying to blur the focus of that central argument, because you are in a distinct minority, and have a similar lack of factual evidence to support your view.
In this way, I think you're fighting very much like your idol: Lots of bluster and aggression, but leaning more and more to frustrated, wild punches as plan A (run over the opposition) doesn't work...
Maybe you need some rest bro?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | ^^ C'mon, dawg. Stop stalling. Name a fight. Where did Tyson exhibit "mental midget" from 86-91 during a fight? Just name 1. |
You're the one stalling here. 86-91 is a period where you know that Tyson fought no one of note. Beat a bunch of has-beens and never-will-bes, establishing and capitalizing on a very choreographed "invincible killer" reputation, to the point where most guys were running at the first bell.
When he met a guy who was unafraid of him, and forced him to actually fight a complete fight (I mean that in terms of skill, not duration), he got tagged. Don't give me the "he didn't train properly" excuse either. That's on him, wasting his own prime.
After that, his invincibility was gone (he was never invincible anyway, hence the effort to exaggerate his strengths), and every good fighter thereafter ate him alive. He was only invincible if you believed he was, and his skills (along with his heart) didn't measure up if you didn't fear him, and could take advantage of his weaknesses- namely that he became both winded and frustrated if he couldn't get you early, and he had virtually no semblance of the skills and discipline required to outpoint a good boxer that he couldn't knock out.
Mike was the quintessential bully: beat up all the neighborhood kids to the point that they all ran from him and told "ghost stories" about him, until one of them, inexplicably, turned around and fought back. |
C'mon, Deuce-fo'! You're better than that! You know what the discussion's about - Stick to it. Stop losing focus. What was the ORIGINAL QUESTION ASKED? |
Again, you (not Tach) are stipulating 86-91, an artificially truncated prime period, done so to eliminate any real talented boxer faced by Mike. Certainly disingenuous, since you are choosing to pick a very minor side issue, modify it after the fact, and pretend you hold high ground overall.
I'm focussed on the issue: Ali would, by most objective viewers' opinion, beat Mike Tyson. These petty detours are your way of trying to blur the focus of that central argument, because you are in a distinct minority, and have a similar lack of factual evidence to support your view.
In this way, I think you're fighting very much like your idol: Lots of bluster and aggression, but leaning more and more to frustrated, wild punches as plan A (run over the opposition) doesn't work...
Maybe you need some rest bro? |
Again, you don't wanna face the reality at hand: Wepner - Weaker than Tyson. Wepner - Knocks down Ali. Ali - Can handle any punch Tyson threw at him. Sorry, dawg, but that's about as ridiculous and illogical as it can POSSIBLY get and why you're subscribing to that ridiculousness is beyond me because that's CERTAINLY not the Two-Four "I" know.
Then let's do this then: 24, tell me when was Mike Tyson's prime as a boxer? In other words, what period was he at the apex of his skills/game?
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90310
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | 24 wrote: | | LuxuryBrown wrote: | | ^^ C'mon, dawg. Stop stalling. Name a fight. Where did Tyson exhibit "mental midget" from 86-91 during a fight? Just name 1. |
You're the one stalling here. 86-91 is a period where you know that Tyson fought no one of note. Beat a bunch of has-beens and never-will-bes, establishing and capitalizing on a very choreographed "invincible killer" reputation, to the point where most guys were running at the first bell.
When he met a guy who was unafraid of him, and forced him to actually fight a complete fight (I mean that in terms of skill, not duration), he got tagged. Don't give me the "he didn't train properly" excuse either. That's on him, wasting his own prime.
After that, his invincibility was gone (he was never invincible anyway, hence the effort to exaggerate his strengths), and every good fighter thereafter ate him alive. He was only invincible if you believed he was, and his skills (along with his heart) didn't measure up if you didn't fear him, and could take advantage of his weaknesses- namely that he became both winded and frustrated if he couldn't get you early, and he had virtually no semblance of the skills and discipline required to outpoint a good boxer that he couldn't knock out.
Mike was the quintessential bully: beat up all the neighborhood kids to the point that they all ran from him and told "ghost stories" about him, until one of them, inexplicably, turned around and fought back. |
C'mon, Deuce-fo'! You're better than that! You know what the discussion's about - Stick to it. Stop losing focus. What was the ORIGINAL QUESTION ASKED? |
Again, you (not Tach) are stipulating 86-91, an artificially truncated prime period, done so to eliminate any real talented boxer faced by Mike. Certainly disingenuous, since you are choosing to pick a very minor side issue, modify it after the fact, and pretend you hold high ground overall.
I'm focussed on the issue: Ali would, by most objective viewers' opinion, beat Mike Tyson. These petty detours are your way of trying to blur the focus of that central argument, because you are in a distinct minority, and have a similar lack of factual evidence to support your view.
In this way, I think you're fighting very much like your idol: Lots of bluster and aggression, but leaning more and more to frustrated, wild punches as plan A (run over the opposition) doesn't work...
Maybe you need some rest bro? |
Again, you don't wanna face the reality at hand: Wepner - Weaker than Tyson. Wepner - Knocks down Ali. Ali - Can handle any punch Tyson threw at him. Sorry, dawg, but that's about as ridiculous and illogical as it can POSSIBLY get and why you're subscribing to that ridiculousness is beyond me because that's CERTAINLY not the Two-Four "I" know.
Then let's do this then: 24, tell me when was Mike Tyson's prime as a boxer? In other words, what period was he at the apex of his skills/game? |
Did Wepner knock Ali out? Did Norton? Frazier? Foreman? Shavers? Quarry? Liston? I just listed 6 boxers (i didn't include Wepner ) that were better than anyone Tyson ever beat (including post-prime Liston). Most of them were better fighters than Tyson ever fought. At least 4 of them hit as hard or harder than Tyson.
Yeah, Ali got dropped by a couple journeymen in fights where he was screwing around, but he didn't lose those fights, and he didn't get knocked out.
I get your point about Tyson's prime, but while it's fair to say he was at the top of his game pre 91, it was really Douglas defeating him that started him downward, not any decline in skills or physical ability. Physically, he was prime into the late 90's. Mentally, he was done in 92. In reality, the only difference in 92 vs 91 was mental, both on his and his opponents' part. It was inevitable that someone would exploit his weakness, because it was always there.
Tyson's prime ended because a boxer of far inferior skill and chin stood up and took him. Yeah, he under-trained for an opponent he didn't respect. But that was him squandering his prime, not being past it. Ali took a few guys lightly in his prime, but he didn't get knocked unconscious by them.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Did Wepner knock Ali out? Did Norton? Frazier? Foreman? Shavers? Quarry? Liston? I just listed 6 boxers (i didn't include Wepner ) that were better than anyone Tyson ever beat |
Now, were ANYONE of those that knocked Ali down better than Tyson?
And how was he "screwing around"? Where's the evidence of that? Are you saying he was taunting and sticking his tongue out and not taking the fighters seriously? Sounds an awful like an excuse - in fact - it IS.
Look, there's no shame in ANY fighter getting knocked down, the point is, he got knocked down by lesser fighters than Tyson - a man KNOWN for knocking people out. That's why I think it's ridiculous for people to avoid and dance around that KEY FACT that Mike could knock Ali out.
So again: Knowing what we know about the 2 fighters - Prime Tyson (86-91) would definitely be able to hit/knock down/knock out Prime Ali. Anyone who can't see that is simply idolizing Ali into myth. The only way Ali avoids any of that is if he sticks and moves and holds whenever Mike gets in close. The bottomline is, Mike is gonna get at least one shot in. It's inevitable.
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90310
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LuxuryBrown wrote: | | Quote: | | Did Wepner knock Ali out? Did Norton? Frazier? Foreman? Shavers? Quarry? Liston? I just listed 6 boxers (i didn't include Wepner ) that were better than anyone Tyson ever beat |
Now, were ANYONE of those that knocked Ali down better than Tyson?
And how was he "screwing around"? Where's the evidence of that? Are you saying he was taunting and sticking his tongue out and not taking the fighters seriously? Sounds an awful like an excuse - in fact - it IS.
Look, there's no shame in ANY fighter getting knocked down, the point is, he got knocked down by lesser fighters than Tyson - a man KNOWN for knocking people out. That's why I think it's ridiculous for people to avoid and dance around that KEY FACT that Mike could knock Ali out.
So again: Knowing what we know about the 2 fighters - Prime Tyson (86-91) would definitely be able to hit/knock down/knock out Prime Ali. Anyone who can't see that is simply idolizing Ali into myth. The only way Ali avoids any of that is if he sticks and moves and holds whenever Mike gets in close. The bottomline is, Mike is gonna get at least one shot in. It's inevitable. |
Again, you ignore the basis of a debate, to present evidence of one's claims. You say that anyone who disagrees with the opinion that Tyson would knock out Ali, an opinion largely bereft of cogent evidence or anything beyond mythological hero-worship of Tyson, not to mention an opinion widely disputed by boxing cognoscenti, is simply idolizing Ali.
I could respond that anyone who doesn't see, or rather guarantee Ali winning is stupid. This doesn't get us anywhere, it merely creates a dogmatic standoff.
Ali was never knocked out by a myriad of guys who hit as hard or harder than Tyson. He was knocked down by a couple guys he didn't take seriously. This is no excuse, merely an acknowledgement that the great Ali sometimes didn't take nobodies seriously enough in the ring. He did, however, take his training seriously enough so that, unlike Tyson, he could get back up and finish them off.
Common sense tells us Ali would take Tyson seriously (as I suspect Mike would take Ali), and the evidence tells us that when serious, he didn't get knocked out by punchers of Mike's caliber. And he took some great shots from them.
You cite Mike's speed, but fail to notice it was only straight-line speed. Mike simply leaped at his opponent, used his peekaboo style to ward off blows on the way in, and hit them til they dropped. You also fail to see that those fighters mostly ran from him, or when they stood and fought, were not of sufficient skill to beat him. Nobody until Douglas worked the angles, shifting deftly sideways and launching shots from the oblique angle, forcing mike to move and turn laterally, something he was unfamiliar and wholely inadequate at.
Everything we know tells us that Ali's speed, reach, smarts, and fantastic footwork would have him emulating that gameplan, only with superior talent. He would hit Mike from all angles, often while slipping and moving away from his power. It's possible that Mike might get him with a shot, even knock him down, but there's no evidence that Ali wouldn't get back up and methodically take him apart. We know Ali had a superior chin to any fighter Mike fought during your truncated period, and in fact to any fighter Tyson fought, ever.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Ali was never knocked out by a myriad of guys who hit as hard or harder than Tyson. He was knocked down by a couple guys he didn't take seriously. |
See, this is where you seem to be having an issue at...How do you KNOW he didn't take them seriously? You can't possibly know this, bro. You weren't there. That's why everything else you're saying falls short of logic.
You're maning excuses as opposed to saying "Ali just simply got caught. Period." Why is that so hard for you (or anyone else that just can't admit it) to believe that? Why does it have to be some sort of divine intervention that happened and these dudes knocked Ali down? That's why I call it "Ali Idolization." Every fighter gets caught. Fighters that have taken other fighters VERY SERIOUS have been caught. It happens. It's SUPPOSED to happen - IT'S BOXING.
You don't see me making excuses as to why Buster beat Tyson. I gave the facts that happened in the fight and facts that have been well documented:
- Tyson didn't take him seriously and he undertrained and was out of shape
- Buster's mother had just passed and he said that he had nothing to lose at that point but to fight his ass off in honor of her memory
Again, ALL that's well documented. That was the recipe for an upset and it happened.
But even still, let's stick to your claim that he didn't take them seriously...Are you saying he didn't take Joe Frazier seriously? Joe knocked him down as well.
And we went over what Ali would do and we went over what Tyson would do. The truth of what we know is, Mike - DURING HIS PRIME - would have been the fastest and most powerful fighter Ali had faced while Ali - during his prime - would have been the fastest and most skilled fighter that Tyson has faced.
What we also know is, Ali has been knocked down by lesser fighters than Tyson: FACT. And you keep mentioning Ali's chin? You do realize that you can get knocked down/out with shots to the temple and, as Tyson has proven, it's possible to get knocked down/out by a body shot, so I wouldn't keep harping on this "superior chin" issue.
Again, for the 17th time, to sit here and think that Ali WOULDN'T taste any of Tyson's speed and power, yet he tasted the lesser power and lesser speed of the other fighters that knocked him down, is utterly ridiculous and truly disrespectful of the fight game as a whole.
Now, unless anyone's gonna come up with something new and argument-changing, this topic has ran its course. One.
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TACH
Retired Number
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 28461
Location: Chillin on the Delaware.. from the Jersey Side
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doughboy90650
Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 15294
Location: Southern California
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TACH wrote: | | doughboy90650 wrote: | | TACH wrote: | | ^^ I can't say I agree with every single ranking.. but that post is very on point! Great job!! |
Thanks. What would you change? |
I think Tommy Hearns was better than Felix Trinadad... but I will admit, I saw more of Hearns' fights then Trinadad's (maybe I remember Felix from fighting in the heavier weight classes). Also, where is De La Hoya... De La Hoya and Mayweather are the only men in the history of boxing to win titles (WBC,WBA,IBF,and WBO) in six different weight divisions. As a amateur he has over 200 wins.
I also like Julio Chavez over Sweet Pea.... just my $.02...
BTW it has been announced that De La Hoya and Pacquiao have agreed to fight December 6, 2008 at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, the fight will be at the welterweight limit of 147 lbs. On August 28, 2008 a press conference will be held by Golden Boy Promotions to officially announce the fight.
That might be the first PPV I order in a long long long time!!!! |
I think Tommy is a better fighter as well, I agree with you on that one. But at this weight Tito was deadly. I think they both made a minor mistake moving up, even though they had to. Once they moved up, their loss column got bigger. Hearns fight with Hagler was the best fight ever. Wasn't a damn jab thrown the whole fight. And B-Hop and Winky just manhandled Tito at 160.
I got Floyd at 147 because I think his victories over Oscar, Baldomir, Judah and Hatton @ 147 was greater than his victories washed up, one style, slow ass Gatti, Corrales and Castillo @ 140. Floyd lost that first fight with Castillo.
Sweet Pea and Chavez were a tie but I got Whitaker over Chavez because he won that fight with Chavez and got robbed. Put on an absolute boxing clinic especially defensively.
I didn't know where to really slot Oscar. @ 147 those 2 loses to Tito and Mosley stuck with me, even though he should won that Tito fight. Probably put him under Hearns in the Welterweight Division or behind Arguello in the Light weight Division. I think both of them would get in Oscar's ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SlimJerz24
Sixth Man
Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mayweather |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tyson's "Greatest Hits" marathon on ESPN Classics right now. The best KOer in the sweet science.
_________________
| Quote: | Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ldm138
Starting Rotation
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Posts: 198
Location: California
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cesar chavez |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Predator
Starting Rotation
Joined: 04 Jun 2008
Posts: 436
Location: San Jose
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rehashing on an earlier argument, I do think Hagler's speed was underrated. He was enough to keep up with Sugar Ray and really should've won their fights. But the thing of it was that he could also hit like a truck. I think he would've taken Mayweather, who is a great fighter in his own right.
But this is the fun of debating past eras.
_________________
"Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are."
John Wooden |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
