Young Tyson footage.

Rocky Balboa · Post by **Rocky Balboa** » 01 Feb 2008, 11:34

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6zlaIl0yh0

Just been on youtube & this caight my eye. For such a young individual, Tyson level of skill & performance were remarkable. So good a fighter at such a tender age.

H2H, who would you favour to beat Tyson? Personally, I think H2H, Mike's right up there with the very best. Just my opinion though.

Anyway, just thought I'd post a link to the video as some might like to see the footage!

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 01 Feb 2008, 13:23

Most heavyweights are late developers.

Tyson was the opposite.

That's why he went downhill at a realtively young age.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Feb 2008, 13:37

Wouldn't that be credited to Cus and his devotion to development of Tyson's potential? Granted Tyson had to have it to begin with but it was Cus that honed it so quickly.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 01 Feb 2008, 14:04

BoxBuzz wrote:Wouldn't that be credited to Cus and his devotion to development of Tyson's potential? Granted Tyson had to have it to begin with but it was Cus that honed it so quickly.

'Cus' never trained anyone.

'Cus' cultivated the retard newsmen who write what fills up clueless buzz' 'library.'

Between 'Cus,' Angelo Dundee, and Eddie Futch,

buzz has a complete helping of phonies, gasbags and self promoters.

Now that 'Cus' is gone, buzz tries to carry on his posthumous self-promotion for him.

Go to it, buzz.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Feb 2008, 15:55

granberry wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:Wouldn't that be credited to Cus and his devotion to development of Tyson's potential? Granted Tyson had to have it to begin with but it was Cus that honed it so quickly.
'Cus' never trained anyone.

'Cus' cultivated the retard newsmen who write what fills up clueless buzz' 'library.'

Between 'Cus,' Angelo Dundee, and Eddie Futch,

buzz has a complete helping of phonies, gasbags and self promoters.

Now that 'Cus' is gone, buzz tries to carry on his posthumous self-promotion for him.

Go to it, buzz.

Your attacks are always the same...can we get some variety going? You seem to be turning into a Johnny one note....or one of those "Johnny on the Spots".

However I never said he trained him, but wasn't it Cus that sort of provided an environment under which he could be trained? As well as motivating and inspiring him to pursue his boxing goals? He sure watched over him and from what Mike himself says Cus set the expectations for his success.

granberry part of being a great boxer is mental and things of the spirit....you've got to WANT to pursue the fundamentals before you will be any good at it. You need someone to light a fire in your soul And you have to be passionate to get to top level.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 01 Feb 2008, 16:37

Even more than Larry Holmes, and as good as Tyson was at his best, how good he looked was exaggerated by the fact of who he was fighting. Still, I think at his best he was a great fighter, more or less, and could have beaten some greats head to head. But I don't think he in his prime would have beaten Holyfield and Lewis, at least I wouldn't favor him.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Feb 2008, 16:46

I Feel Fine wrote:Even more than Larry Holmes, and as good as Tyson was at his best, how good he looked was exaggerated by the fact of who he was fighting. Still, I think at his best he was a great fighter, more or less, and could have beaten some greats head to head. But I don't think he in his prime would have beaten Holyfield and Lewis, at least I wouldn't favor him.

Sounds reasonable to me and I fundamentally agree however granberry has weighed in on this and thinks Tyson would prevail prime vs prime.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 01 Feb 2008, 17:00

BoxBuzz wrote:
I Feel Fine wrote:Even more than Larry Holmes, and as good as Tyson was at his best, how good he looked was exaggerated by the fact of who he was fighting. Still, I think at his best he was a great fighter, more or less, and could have beaten some greats head to head. But I don't think he in his prime would have beaten Holyfield and Lewis, at least I wouldn't favor him.
Sounds reasonable to me and I fundamentally agree however granberry has weighed in on this and thinks Tyson would prevail prime vs prime.

Ah, yes. Dingleberry locutus est, causa finita est

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » 01 Feb 2008, 17:21

I personally think, Prime v Prime... Tyson comes out on Top..

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Feb 2008, 17:54

I think there's room for different viewpoints in this one easily.

However the one thing Tyson would never have over Holyfield would be the use of fear over this opponent. Holyfield was never intimidated by Tyson the way so many were.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 01 Feb 2008, 18:20

I really see a peak Lewis vs peak Tyson as a pick'em fight. One thing, is that Lennox NEVER put together a performance like Buster did in Tokyo. And a prime Tyson was much more forminable than a 245 lb David Tua.

BudW · Post by **BudW** » 01 Feb 2008, 23:05

Tyson the most over rated fighter in many a year.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 01 Feb 2008, 23:15

BudW wrote:Tyson the most over rated fighter in many a year.

3rd most over-rated ever. 2nd is that drug-crazed wife-beater Ray Leonard. And 1st is that Cassius Clay character who fooled you all!

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 02 Feb 2008, 00:10

Tyson's speed of hand & foot would have been absolutely fatal to Lewis in a prime-to-prime meeting.

ebeneezer · Post by **ebeneezer** » 02 Feb 2008, 00:32

granberry wrote: buzz has a complete helping of phonies, gasbags and self promoters.

Pot. Kettle. Black

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 02 Feb 2008, 00:58

ebeneezer wrote:
granberry wrote: buzz has a complete helping of phonies, gasbags and self promoters.
Pot. Kettle. Black

lol! Check out what I just punched in in the 'Number thread. Poor old Gran is getting it from all angles...

Diamond WEAPON · Post by **Diamond WEAPON** » 02 Feb 2008, 03:30

I mentioned it in a current scene thread yesterday but I believe there can be two ways one can rate a fighter. By ability (whether it be prime or post-prime or whatever but usually ppl think prime) and by achievement and while Tyson didn't necessarily achieve an incredible amount compared to some other fighters I'd say his ability during his prime was truly transcendant and although most are misguided, I can see why some fanboys like to say Tyson would've annihilated any fighter ever. prime-4-prime Tyson is easily one of the best HWs in history. I'd take a Prime Tyson over a Prime Holyfield and a Prime Lewis but at the same time I could imagine a less-accomplished fighter like a Prime Tua or maybe a Prime Ibeabuchi being all wrong for Iron Mike's style. In a Prime-4-Prime sense I could easily see certain fighters beat others who are regarded as being "Greater" historically because for the most part "Greatness" is determined by achievement with ability taking a lesser role.

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 02 Feb 2008, 09:03

BoxBuzz wrote:I think there's room for different viewpoints in this one easily.

However the one thing Tyson would never have over Holyfield would be the use of fear over this opponent. Holyfield was never intimidated by Tyson the way so many were.

You've just nailed the essence of Tyson the fighter. Whoever said boxing was 90% mental and 10% physical had it right. For this reason Tyson would have lost 9 out of 10 against history's top HW's that weren't intimidated

theone · Post by **theone** » 02 Feb 2008, 09:49

bollox wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:I think there's room for different viewpoints in this one easily.

However the one thing Tyson would never have over Holyfield would be the use of fear over this opponent. Holyfield was never intimidated by Tyson the way so many were.
You've just nailed the essence of Tyson the fighter. Whoever said boxing was 90% mental and 10% physical had it right. For this reason Tyson would have lost 9 out of 10 against history's top HW's that weren't intimidated

I think the last line was greatly overstating the point. The fact that Holyfield wasn't intimidated by Tyson surely helped him, but was only one of the factors that made him better. Evander's chin, counter punching, power, and clinching style were as or even more important.
A lack of fear MAY, and I repeat MAY make it a short night for fighters with styles like Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, or even Louis.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 02 Feb 2008, 13:58

Diamond WEAPON wrote:I mentioned it in a current scene thread yesterday but I believe there can be two ways one can rate a fighter. By ability (whether it be prime or post-prime or whatever but usually ppl think prime) and by achievement and while Tyson didn't necessarily achieve an incredible amount compared to some other fighters I'd say his ability during his prime was truly transcendant and although most are misguided, I can see why some fanboys like to say Tyson would've annihilated any fighter ever. prime-4-prime Tyson is easily one of the best HWs in history. I'd take a Prime Tyson over a Prime Holyfield and a Prime Lewis but at the same time I could imagine a less-accomplished fighter like a Prime Tua or maybe a Prime Ibeabuchi being all wrong for Iron Mike's style. In a Prime-4-Prime sense I could easily see certain fighters beat others who are regarded as being "Greater" historically because for the most part "Greatness" is determined by achievement with ability taking a lesser role.

Excellent post.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 02 Feb 2008, 14:15

theone wrote:
I think the last line was greatly overstating the point. The fact that Holyfield wasn't intimidated by Tyson surely helped him, but was only one of the factors that made him better. Evander's chin, counter punching, power, and clinching style were as or even more important.

theone LEFT OUT the fact that

billygoat Holyfield BUTTED Tyson to "win" both fights.

What a "boxer" billygoat Holyfield was !

Especially with the top of his head.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 02 Feb 2008, 16:15

granberry wrote:
theone wrote:
I think the last line was greatly overstating the point. The fact that Holyfield wasn't intimidated by Tyson surely helped him, but was only one of the factors that made him better. Evander's chin, counter punching, power, and clinching style were as or even more important.
theone LEFT OUT the fact that

billygoat Holyfield BUTTED Tyson to "win" both fights.

What a "boxer" billygoat Holyfield was !

Especially with the top of his head.

Good point....as we know Tyson never lowered himself to stray from "the code". Honor, honor and honor to the rules of boxing and life is, and will ever remain, Tyson's legacy...

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 02 Feb 2008, 16:33

BoxBuzz wrote:
granberry wrote:
theone wrote:
I think the last line was greatly overstating the point. The fact that Holyfield wasn't intimidated by Tyson surely helped him, but was only one of the factors that made him better. Evander's chin, counter punching, power, and clinching style were as or even more important.
theone LEFT OUT the fact that

billygoat Holyfield BUTTED Tyson to "win" both fights.

What a "boxer" billygoat Holyfield was !

Especially with the top of his head.
Good point....as we know Tyson never lowered himself to stray from "the code". Honor, honor and honor to the rules of boxing and life is, and will ever remain, Tyson's legacy...

Hey. attempting to break an opponent's arm in a clinch is quite within the rules. ok? :x

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 02 Feb 2008, 17:32

Billygoat Holyfield 'won' both his 'fights' with Tyson with the deciding "blow" being a butt EACH time.

TWO IN A ROW is no accident.

Billygoat Holyfield did not "attempt" to butt.

He DID butt.

Only halfwits who don't know the basic rules of boxing could give Holyfield any credit for butting his way to "victory."

The same halfwits who thinks it's just great for Holmes to thumb his way to "victory" against Scott Frank and Scot LeDoux,

for Duran to thumb Davey Moore

for Hagler to thumb Roldan

for Hagler to butt Antofermo ten seconds into their second fight

for Sugar Ray Leonard to punch after the bell in every fight he had

for Ali to grab behind the head and grab behind the head and grab behind the head and grab behind the head as his basic "boxing" technique.

What a great bunch of "boxers' you worship, halfwits.

.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 02 Feb 2008, 17:43

granberry wrote:Billygoat Holyfield 'won' both his 'fights' with Tyson with the deciding "blow" being a butt EACH time.

TWO IN A ROW is no accident.

Billygoat Holyfield did not "attempt" to butt.

He DID butt.

Only halfwits who don't know the basic rules of boxing could give Holyfield any credit for butting his way to "victory."

The same halfwits who thinks it's just great for Holmes to thumb his way to "victory" against Scott Frank and Scot LeDoux,

for Duran to thumb Davey Moore

for Hagler to thumb Roldan

for Hagler to butt Antofermo ten seconds into their second fight

for Sugar Ray Leonard to punch after the bell in every fight he had

for Ali to grab behind the head and grab behind the head and grab behind the head and grab behind the head as his basic "boxing" technique.

What a great bunch of "boxers' you worship, halfwits.

.

uh....it's a tough sport granberry, you can't get your panties in an bundle when things get tough. "protect yourself at all times" is one of the last bits of good info given before all hell breaks loose. Then it's up to the ref and judges and the fighters as to what takes place. granberry is just another face in the crowd, sort of like the rest of us.....

You don't stop the football game and award it to the offending team upon every infraction of the rules. Your going to have to let go of your feminine side and reimbrace your masculinity and accept some of the natural ways that "the cookie crumbles" in life. Including the management or mismanagement of infractions. It is after all "managed conflict" as is most every sport.

You can't spend your life lamenting that the "immaculate reception" may have had some suspicious circumstances and that perhaps the Steelers should never have won the game..

Most of us have moved on.