What did Tyson do against Berbick that he didn´t do vs Ruddock . . he was THE SAME FIGHTER, if anything a better fighter from more top flight experience and clearly in his physical prime in 1991.
I see no you´ve moved to Mcgovrn since your cuevas argument was smashed to bits. Terry not only started fighting professional at 17 (under much tougher conditions then Mike EVER fought under) but he was a raging alchoholic. Tyson liked to have a good time but you´ll get no-one saying he was dabbling with any illegal substances in the late 80s . . he kept in good shape and compared to the crack fiends he was fighting was a real gym rat.
Mike Tyson vs Joe Louis
-
Graham Brett
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 260
- Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 09:24
Re: re
You have probably hit the nail on the head. Although I would rate Louis above Ali.barry wrote:In my opinion, Louis never faced anyone that compares to Tyson! That being said, I think Louis was the second greatest heavyweight ever, but the Tyson of 1986-1988 could have beaten any heavyweight in history, including Ali! Forget all about the Tyson that returned from prison, he wasn't half the fighter he was beforehand. His losses gainst Holyfield were not Tyson at his best, but he took a viscious ass-kicking for 11 rounds, and even an old Tyson was not taken out in one, or two rounds, The Lewis loss means very little in all-time significance, after all...Tyson was about 15 years past his prime when he faced Lewis!
I think Liston would have given Tyson the most problems, but the Tyson of 86-89 could have beaten all the other HW champs.
Note I say could, not would.
-
Graham Brett
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 260
- Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 09:24
Re: re
Tyson wasnt shot when he fought Douglas, but he was ill prepared.barry wrote:>>>You're actually trying to convince us that Tyson was shot when he fought Douglas?<<<
You are completely delusional! Show me one time where I, or anyone else for that matter ever mentioned that Tyson was shot when he fought Douglas! You don’t have a rational argument that answers, or reputes anything that I have said, so you try to make up shit! No one has ever said that Tyson was shot and what I have said all along is that the Tyson who fought Douglas and all opponents after, was not prime-Tyson and anyone who thinks he was in his prime at that time either are complete idiots, or really just don’t know anything about Tyson except the little that they have read, or watched, almost all of which pertains to his career after prison, no one has given any good examples otherwise!
It's got to be Mike...both at their peaks. My reason being that Joe was there to be hit and he was easier to hit than a lot of other Heavies. Fair enough Mike too could be hit, but at his best he was a master parry/slip fighter. Plus Tyson we all know was possibly the hardest/fastest hitter the division has ever seen. Power and speed so deadly combined. Louis was rocked throughout his career by guys who were nowhere near as powerful as Tyson. Tyson also proved how good his chin was and I'm debatable as to Louis's chin. Tyson by early KO....
Tyson was in no way prepared when he fought Douglas. He was not a shot fighter, sure hell he would have only been 24 at that time. It was his lack of preparation and the Loss of the key to his greatness (K Rooney). Also the fact that KING was on the scene. Douglas didn't beat Tyson. Tyson beat himself
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
Dempsey, are you honestly trying to say that Tyson in Tokyo was the same fighter that Beat Berbick, Spinks, Biggs, Tubbs, Holmes, Bruno 1 etc. If you are, you're so far off the mark mate. If you actually watched the Douglas fight, it's so plain to see Tyson is ponderous, unfit, off balance. The guy wasn't the least bit prepared and like I've already said, the loss of Rooney was the big factor.... cop on Dempsey and be a little realistic....
-
Manos de Oro
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 12:10
The reasons he was ponderous and off balance was down to the quality of the jab he was in with. Those are the exact two criteria to look for from someone who is on the receiving end of a quality jab.walshb wrote:If you actually watched the Douglas fight, it's so plain to see Tyson is ponderous, (...), off balance
Fitness wise I'm not so sure - he still looked alright physically - it's not like he blew up 40lbs between his last fight. And he did train for the fight (Greg Page was getting the better of him in sparring, as Carl Williams had done when he was an up-and-comer), it's not like he did a Benitez and left off 'training' till a couple days before the fight.
The one thing I question about him in the Douglas fight is his mental strength. In retrospect, when we've all seen how his career has panned out, I think it was just a case of him being exposed as an on-top fighter. In fights he's been in where it has turned into a grinder he has won one - Ruddock 2, and lost 3 (if you include the Williams loss). There's a case for including the Holyfield rematch in there too - Holyfield's notorious headbutting would piss anyone off - but I really think it was the sight of his own blood that got to him in that fight. Again, the mark of an on-top figher.
On the general subject of Tyson Holmes.
In the 1988 matchup, holmes gave a clear blueprint on how he would have taken apart Tyson in his prime in my opinion.
Pushing out the jab and moving around Tyson at times left him totally baffled, the speed of Holmes' shots confused Tyson who failed to avoid the old jab of Holmes. When he swung, he inevitably missed and failed to land any notable solid power punches until Holmes' Old legs gave up on him.
We have seen that a Prime Holmes could go 15/12 rounds no problem, his jab was faster and had more pop, and he would have been able to use his right hand far more often and effectively - We would have seen a more effective 'third roundesque' performance from Holmes round after round.
10 rounds in, the right would land and land and eventually Mike would sink to the canvas.
Holmes TKO10/11 Tyson.
Holmes won the third round on 2 cards, but im pretty sure he was losing on points even before the stoppage/Yep. Even past his prime and on a couple weeks' notice, he was leading on points vs. Tyson before getting caught.
Forget the scorecard, Holmes Lost that fight by a very long way indeed, Holmes won one round on my card, and drew a couple others.As late as '95 he only lost by close SD to Oliver McCall in a fight for the WBC title.
In the 1988 matchup, holmes gave a clear blueprint on how he would have taken apart Tyson in his prime in my opinion.
Pushing out the jab and moving around Tyson at times left him totally baffled, the speed of Holmes' shots confused Tyson who failed to avoid the old jab of Holmes. When he swung, he inevitably missed and failed to land any notable solid power punches until Holmes' Old legs gave up on him.
We have seen that a Prime Holmes could go 15/12 rounds no problem, his jab was faster and had more pop, and he would have been able to use his right hand far more often and effectively - We would have seen a more effective 'third roundesque' performance from Holmes round after round.
10 rounds in, the right would land and land and eventually Mike would sink to the canvas.
Holmes TKO10/11 Tyson.
re
>>>>I see no you´ve moved to Mcgovrn since your cuevas argument was smashed to bits. Terry not only started fighting professional at 17 (under much tougher conditions then Mike EVER fought under) but he was a raging alchoholic. Tyson liked to have a good time but you´ll get no-one saying he was dabbling with any illegal substances in the late 80s . . he kept in good shape and compared to the crack fiends he was fighting was a real gym rat.<<<<
dempseyfire---For starters, you haven’t smashed shit…the Cuevas statement stands, just as all of my other statements do, I was just listing yet another example describing the meaning of a phrase of mine, which you are still childishly having problems understanding! Next you are a complete moron, no maybe not a moron, just someone that hates Tyson and would do anything, even nearly retarded things to discredit him and his career in any way, which is your right to do. As to your statement on McGovern it shows exactly how much you don’t know! McGovern never was a raging alcoholic, he slowly disappated into drinking after his two daughters died and after his career went downhill, but he was never a raging alcoholic! There is very little that you could enlighten me about, but you on the other hand need a lot of enlightening on a lot of things!
Tantum---Tyson was shot after Holyfield beat his ass, but as I have said all along, the post-prison Tyson was not half the fighter he was prior!
Graham—I agree, he was ill-prepared for Douglas and as such it was not Tyson in his prime, but his career was pretty much downhill from there, with a few ups along the way!
dempseyfire---For starters, you haven’t smashed shit…the Cuevas statement stands, just as all of my other statements do, I was just listing yet another example describing the meaning of a phrase of mine, which you are still childishly having problems understanding! Next you are a complete moron, no maybe not a moron, just someone that hates Tyson and would do anything, even nearly retarded things to discredit him and his career in any way, which is your right to do. As to your statement on McGovern it shows exactly how much you don’t know! McGovern never was a raging alcoholic, he slowly disappated into drinking after his two daughters died and after his career went downhill, but he was never a raging alcoholic! There is very little that you could enlighten me about, but you on the other hand need a lot of enlightening on a lot of things!
Tantum---Tyson was shot after Holyfield beat his ass, but as I have said all along, the post-prison Tyson was not half the fighter he was prior!
Graham—I agree, he was ill-prepared for Douglas and as such it was not Tyson in his prime, but his career was pretty much downhill from there, with a few ups along the way!
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
SO I hate Tyson b-c I accept the Douglas loss as a legit loss by a fighter in his prime?? You are unbelievable and far from me not liking Tyson (I actually consider myself a fan of his) you seem to be one of a long line of people who got so swung up by the hype and legend of Tyson (Im assuming you had the posters on your wall as a teenager and prob. still do) that you cant see the wood through the trees.
How is Cuevas, a fighter who turned pro at 14 (!) and engaged in numerous wars and ring wear comparable to a Tyson who was backed by very wealthy individuals and carefully guided to the HW title at age 20, who then fought on for several years taking limited amounts of punishment from his often intimidated opponents before losing to Douglas? Your cries of me being a moron only show how feeble your argument is and that you are frankly full of shit.
How is Cuevas, a fighter who turned pro at 14 (!) and engaged in numerous wars and ring wear comparable to a Tyson who was backed by very wealthy individuals and carefully guided to the HW title at age 20, who then fought on for several years taking limited amounts of punishment from his often intimidated opponents before losing to Douglas? Your cries of me being a moron only show how feeble your argument is and that you are frankly full of shit.
re
You cannot even understand the context of the sentences that I write! Might I suggest some refresher courses in English! Someone said give an example of a fighter who was “over the hill” at a young age and one of the names I listed was Pipino Cuevas because he was shot at 21, other than that you have made up shit in your sad, strange and weak little mind about what I mean, or even what I am saying, so that is something that you will have to work out for yourself, but I’m guessing that you are very young, so you have plenty of time to work things out! As far as posters, all I have is photos of pre-1940 boxers and pre-1940 fights framed up on my walls, so you can keep the teen-idol poster stuff all to yourself!