ALI VS. TYSON

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Jun 2005, 01:26

THats good stuff man. I actually think Tyson might drop him early, especially if ali gets careless for one moment. but great stuff. I think tyson would last till 13th.

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 17 Jun 2005, 01:32

Sweet Scientist wrote:
6.) Today's fighters aren't "slackers" just because the governing bodies changed championship fights to 12 rounds...it was done to save the lives and long term health of the fighters (not such a bad thing, unless you like to see people maimed or killed).

I definitely have to disagree with you there todays fighters can hardly make it to 12 rounds and they definitely are slackers.

Boxers of the past had no problem going 15 rounds even with broken jaws and broken eye sockets.

Today's fighters gain lots of weight in between fights, this is slacking because they should be staying in shape year round.

They also slack because alot of the fighters to day won't fight in their real weight class. EX: draining weight, ex: Roger Sanders a guy who fights at lightweight, walks around at 165 he said but drains down to make lightweight.

Why not be a man and fight a middleweight or super middleweight?

Because fighters of today are lazy.

jab · Post by **jab** » 17 Jun 2005, 08:01

Sweet Scientist wrote:
jab wrote:In my opinion Marciano would have koed Foreman, Frazier and Ali at their best. Frazier acknowledged than himself, Ali was bested by an old Marciano and Foreman was no different than some of the guys Marciano clobbered to pieces.
Are you insane? Name one guy...JUST ONE...that Marciano fought who was anything resembling George Foreman...I also don't recall Ali being bested by an old Marciano, is that from a dream or something?...There's no way in hell Marciano could get to a young Ali to hit him without getting his eyes swelled shut by jabs and combinations he wouldn't even see coming...Hey, are you sure your not confusing Marciano with Joe Louis or something?

I think it would make for a much more pleasant discussion if you didnt call people insane or other names. Do you not agree? :(

Carmine Vingo, Rex Layne, Walcott, Joe Louis were all tought guys who had more skills, heart, ring smarts and even power than undisciplines, wide looping Foreman. The newer fighters were slack, media hyped baboons, not the tough guys from the day.
The 26 year old Ali was bested by the 46 year old Marciano, 14 years after he retired. A prime Ali versus a long retired, 20 year older Marciano. I do not buy into the Ali hype.

Feel free to disagree as strongly as you want, but I will not reply if you name call again. We can discuss, but it gives me no pleasure to do so if you continue to be rude.

Cheers,

Jab

Gino Dragon · Post by **Gino Dragon** » 17 Jun 2005, 10:36

Ali by UD Ali would make him look like a fool...He would just danced and jabed all the fight...Also he would'nt risk...Tyson was an incredible knocker(was)...But Tyson could win just by a mistake by Ali...

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 17 Jun 2005, 21:38

jab wrote: The 26 year old Ali was bested by the 46 year old Marciano, 14 years after he retired.

Yes...you absolutely ARE insane...that was a god damned sparring session for a computer fight movie...And Ali had more class than to piss pound a 46 year old ex-fighter...only a Marciano fanatic could come up with that one...or an insane person...

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 17 Jun 2005, 21:46

Grimm wrote:
Sweet Scientist wrote:
6.) Today's fighters aren't "slackers" just because the governing bodies changed championship fights to 12 rounds...it was done to save the lives and long term health of the fighters (not such a bad thing, unless you like to see people maimed or killed).

I definitely have to disagree with you there todays fighters can hardly make it to 12 rounds and they definitely are slackers.

Boxers of the past had no problem going 15 rounds even with broken jaws and broken eye sockets.

Today's fighters gain lots of weight in between fights, this is slacking because they should be staying in shape year round.

They also slack because alot of the fighters to day won't fight in their real weight class. EX: draining weight, ex: Roger Sanders a guy who fights at lightweight, walks around at 165 he said but drains down to make lightweight.

Why not be a man and fight a middleweight or super middleweight?

Because fighters of today are lazy.

OK...what about Bernard Hopkins...Ricky Hatton...Zab Judah...Floyd Mayweather...just a bunch of " lazy slackers", eh?

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 17 Jun 2005, 21:57

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:sweet scientist. I AM SORRY THAT ROCKY MARCIANO ISNT A FINISE BOXER STYLIST WHO HITS IN FLUID MOTIONS IM ALSO SORRY HE IS SMALL for a heavyweight. I GUESS HIS TREE TRUNK LEGS AND STEEL FOREARMS ARNT SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

Marciano was flesh & blood like everyone else...you make him out to be something more..."STEEL FOREARMS" "TREE TRUNK LEGS"...maybe they just appeared that way considering the level of competition...37 Year old Joe Louis...39 year old Walcott...42 year old Archie Moore were his 3 biggest fights...

In a way I'm glad he never met a Larry Holmes or a Muhammad Ali...that would have ruined a perfectly good legend...

dnahar32 · Post by **dnahar32** » 17 Jun 2005, 22:17

Sweet Scientist wrote:
Grimm wrote:
Sweet Scientist wrote:
6.) Today's fighters aren't "slackers" just because the governing bodies changed championship fights to 12 rounds...it was done to save the lives and long term health of the fighters (not such a bad thing, unless you like to see people maimed or killed).

I definitely have to disagree with you there todays fighters can hardly make it to 12 rounds and they definitely are slackers.

Boxers of the past had no problem going 15 rounds even with broken jaws and broken eye sockets.

Today's fighters gain lots of weight in between fights, this is slacking because they should be staying in shape year round.

They also slack because alot of the fighters to day won't fight in their real weight class. EX: draining weight, ex: Roger Sanders a guy who fights at lightweight, walks around at 165 he said but drains down to make lightweight.

Why not be a man and fight a middleweight or super middleweight?

Because fighters of today are lazy.
OK...what about Bernard Hopkins...Ricky Hatton...Zab Judah...Floyd Mayweather...just a bunch of " lazy slackers", eh?

I don't think you can just point to a few championship fighters to dispute the notion of "laziness". There is no way Ricky Hatton would have had the luxury to go from 180 to 140 in the 50s for a fight. He wouldn't have had 6 months notice to prepare. Mayweather and Judah have gone up in weight instead of staying at lower weight divisions.

Who's better off, the fighter that fights 6-10 times and gains experience, or the one that fights 2-3 times a year max? I do think that today's fighters are lazier, and they only need to peak for a few fights here and there, and not always against the best opposition (Did Mayweather against Bruseles mean anything?)

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 17 Jun 2005, 22:57

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:FIRST OF, I NEVER SAID HE COULD BEAT JOE LOUIS. JOE LOUIS IS THE GREATEST HEAVYWEIGHT OF ALL TIME. JOE HIMSELF THINKS THE ROCK WOULD BEAT ALI BY THE WAY.

Joe Louis doesn't think anything...he's dead

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: SAME WITH WALCOTT WHO WAS 38 AND WAS STILL IN HIS PRIME. HE GOT HIMSELF PUMPED FOR IT AND DID INCREDIBLY WELL. U CANT USE HIS AGE FOR A REASON HE LOST. THAT IS IF U WATCHED THE FIGHT.

No boxer is "still in his prime" at 38...you lose something by age 38...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: MARCIANO FACED A MASTER BOXER JUST AS GOOD AS HOLMES IN EZZARD CHARLES.

BULL SHIT! Larry Holmes would have totally dominated a 33 - 34 year old Ezzard Charles...would have dominated a younger Ezzard Charles also...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: MARCIANO was different from frazier because marciano COULD HIT WITH BOT HHANDS.

Frazier could hit with both hands too...it's just that his left hook was unreal...and he landed his left hook far more often than Marciano landed his...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: and dont give me that about foreman having good stamina. he had none!!! especially in his prime. he could never go 15 rounds with marciano.

He probably wouldn't have to...he'd have clubbed Marciano out similarly to the way he got Frazier...2 or 3 rounds...Marciano NEVER got hit that hard...George DIDN'T NEED stamina against someone who came at him, those fights didn't last very long...he needed better stamina against good boxers who used movement to extend him into the middle/late rounds...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: IF A YOUNG ALI DOESNT CHOP UP FRAZIER, WHY DOES HE CHOP OF ALI??? SEE UR NOT THAT SMART MAN .

It wasn't a "YOUNG ALI" that fought Frazier...it was Ali after a 3 1/2 year layoff with diminshed speed and reflexes...maybe YOU'RE NOT THAT SMART, MAN...and maybe you should use 'spell check' or proof read your shit, man...

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 17 Jun 2005, 23:26

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Rocky didnt have a fats right hand???? tell that to rex layne. did u see that right hand ???? u probably didnt it was so fast, he also hit la starza with some pretty hard rights. ROCK HAD A WIKED OVERHAND RIGHT AND ALSO THREW HARD SHORT INSIDE PUNCHES LIKE LOUIS. ROCKY ALSO WAS ONE OF THE BEST FINISHERS EVER, WHEN HE GOT HIS OPPONENT HURT, HE STOPRMED AFTER THEM THROWING 1000 PUNCHES THEM FEELING EVERY ONE.

Why not talk about the 1st La Starza fight...you remember...the one that La Starza lost on a questionable, controvesial decision...the one that many ringsiders said was a draw...the one that one of the judges called a draw...the one that many said Rocky lost...why not talk about that one, man...maybe because it wasn't against an old washed up guy he could look good against...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Jun 2005, 00:09

dude, when lastarza fought him the 2nd time he was 25. lastarza said himself rocky got 100% better since the last time he fought him,. remember that was the first top ten contender rocky faced. he was still inexperienced and barely had any training from charley goldman at that time.

jab · Post by **jab** » 18 Jun 2005, 02:49

Sweet Scientist wrote:
jab wrote: The 26 year old Ali was bested by the 46 year old Marciano, 14 years after he retired.
Yes...you absolutely ARE insane...that was a god damned sparring session for a computer fight movie...And Ali had more class than to piss pound a 46 year old ex-fighter...only a Marciano fanatic could come up with that one...or an insane person...

Foul mouth and illogical.

I though you are able of more civilised and articulated discussion. Guess I was wrong. well, keep on rumbling. No point in exchanging views with you.

Fact remains they had some wars and Ali lost them. Your interpretation is not based on any facts. Just on rage and foul mouth eruptions.

Professor X · Post by **Professor X** » 18 Jun 2005, 05:32

Ali TKO8 Tyson...you know, just liked Douglas KTFOed Tyson but quicker

Tyson had a short prime, just like Camacho, Curry, etc etc

Ali was way too (the most) smooth and flowing with a top notch chin, heart and confidence. Tyson is stupid and tests that from the opening bell, because he knows no other way. Tyson was no butterfly, despite his fans ridiculous claims that he was the best heavyweight b-o-x-e-r there ever was (something about head movement and blah, blah, blah).

revporl · Post by **revporl** » 18 Jun 2005, 10:21

Ali reigned (for the most part) supreme in the best era of post war boxing, Marciano and Tyson never had to face a Foreman, a Frazier, a Norton or even a Shavers. Any of those guys would have been to much for Tyson and Maciano, and Ali certainly would have been. I think its a stupid argument, Ali of the 60's would have beaten these 2 in about 8 rounds and the Ali of the 70's would have outpointed them both (or stopped Tyson late on)

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Jun 2005, 14:20

haahahah norton and shavers beating rocky marciano and tyson?????

shavers lost to BOB STALLING.

u have no arguement. never talk again. u overrate the 70s heavyweights way too much.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 18 Jun 2005, 17:03

jab wrote: Fact remains they had some wars and Ali lost them. Your interpretation is not based on any facts. Just on rage and foul mouth eruptions.

OK...one last time...MUHAMMAD ALI AND ROCKY MARCIANO NEVER ACTUALLY FOUGHT...it was a sparring session filmed for a movie...IT WAS NOT A "WAR"...THEY DID NOT HAVE SOME "WARS"...it was mostly faked ACTING, with some semi-realistic looking footage... YOU BASE YOUR OPINION ON HOW SOMEBODY LOOKED IN A SIMULATED COMPUTER FIGHT???- YOU CALL THAT BOXING KNOWLEDGE??? INSANE!!!

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 18 Jun 2005, 17:10

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:dude, when lastarza fought him the 2nd time he was 25. lastarza said himself rocky got 100% better since the last time he fought him,. remember that was the first top ten contender rocky faced. he was still inexperienced and barely had any training from charley goldman at that time.

OK...You've convinced me...
THAT YOU'RE A RELATIVE OF MARCIANO...ONLY A RELATIVE WOULD COME UP WITH SOME OF THAT STUFF!!!

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 18 Jun 2005, 17:20

Professor X wrote:

Tyson had a short prime, just like Camacho, Curry, etc etc

OR...Tyson never actually made it to his real 'prime'...he self destructed because his strong body was betrayed by his pathetically weak mind!!!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Jun 2005, 19:07

I wish i was related to Marciano.

Its called doing immense research on him. first time i saw him fight and foundout where he was from I said hes my favorite fighter. and i liked him even more when i read his books. he had the best demeanor and mentallity. when i go out for big wrestling matches i use his mentallity. he feared nothing and he never made any exuses. at most of the beginning of his career he foiught with a rarely BAD BACK. SO BAD THAT HE COULDNT EVEN DO HIS USUALLY SLEEP ROUINE BEFORE HIS MATC HBECAUSE IT HURT TO MUCH AND HE OFUGHT HUNCHED OVER LIEK THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME.

HE HAD THE FLU AGAINST LEE SAVOLD AND HIS CORNER TRIED TO CALL OF THE FIGHT BUT ROCKY WOULDNT LET THEM. THAT TOUGHNESS IS WHAT CAUSED HIM TO GO UNDEFEATED. HE HAD IT MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE.

LIKE MARCIANO FRAZIER SAID BEFORE, how come u guys dont make a big deal when foreman loses to jimmy young, or prime ali losing to frazier, and geting nearly kaod by cooper. or sonny liston getting beat by marty marshall or dempsey losing to tunny and gettng kaoed by fireman flynn.
i hate to use jack as ann example because i like him but , Furpo (overated by the way, he was big but not that skillfu and didnt hit that hard) knocks down dempsey twice trought the ropes, and dempsey comes back to knock him out when he would have been counted out himself if the people didnt push him up. u give dempsey all the credit in the world for this amazing comeback over a guy we never heard of again.
now marciano gets knocked DOWN by the hardest hitting light_h in history for only a 4 count and gets back up and punishes him and instead of praising him u hodl that aginst him. he was also hit by a left hook that knocked charles out cold the year before and he got up unshaken and knocked him out. u dont praise him for that. BECAUSE ACCORDING TO U BERNARD HOPKINS AND WALCOTT THOUGH 37 WERE BOT HPAST THEIR PRIMES. even though walcott wasnt even a contender until he was 33. its called an EXCEPTION OR LATE BLOOMER.

The_Power · Post by **The_Power** » 18 Jun 2005, 19:10

I also heard that Marciano overcome aids to beat Walcott inbetween rounds 6 and 7.

Joe Louis said numerous times that to overcome aids, made Marciano the greatest of all time.

Anyone confirm this?

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 18 Jun 2005, 19:43

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:I wish i was related to Marciano.

Its called doing immense research on him. first time i saw him fight and foundout where he was from I said hes my favorite fighter. and i liked him even more when i read his books. he had the best demeanor and mentallity. when i go out for big wrestling matches i use his mentallity. he feared nothing and he never made any exuses. at most of the beginning of his career he foiught with a rarely BAD BACK. SO BAD THAT HE COULDNT EVEN DO HIS USUALLY SLEEP ROUINE BEFORE HIS MATC HBECAUSE IT HURT TO MUCH AND HE OFUGHT HUNCHED OVER LIEK THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME.

Just because he's your 'favorite' doesn't make him the best...

HE HAD THE FLU AGAINST LEE SAVOLD AND HIS CORNER TRIED TO CALL OF THE FIGHT BUT ROCKY WOULDNT LET THEM. THAT TOUGHNESS IS WHAT CAUSED HIM TO GO UNDEFEATED. HE HAD IT MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE.

The level of competition is why he went undefeated...he never had to face somebody great who was still in his prime...

LIKE MARCIANO FRAZIER SAID BEFORE, how come u guys dont make a big deal when foreman loses to jimmy young, or prime ali losing to frazier,

As I said previously, it was not a 'prime' Ali that fought Frazier...it was an Ali with diminished skills after a 3 1/2 year layoff...and even with diminished skills, he still won 2 out of 3...How the f*** do you consider a man in his 'prime' that sat for 3 1/2 years?

now marciano gets knocked DOWN by the hardest hitting light_h in history for only a 4 count and gets back up and punishes him and instead of praising him u hodl that aginst him.

No...I don't 'hold that against him'...I just point out that that guy that knocked him down was 42 YEARS OLD! You consider that a reason why Marciano was so great? Because he KO'd a 42 year old? Get real!!! A great champion is EXPECTED to beat a 42 year old!!!

he was also hit by a left hook that knocked charles out cold the year before and he got up unshaken and knocked him out. u dont praise him for that.

If that fight were held today, Charles would have won by TKO...they never would have allowed that fight to continue with Marciano's split nose...Get real!!! And...through 12 rounds, Walcott had a unanimous decision...today Walcott wins!!!

BECAUSE ACCORDING TO U BERNARD HOPKINS AND WALCOTT THOUGH 37 WERE BOT HPAST THEIR PRIMES. even though walcott wasnt even a contender until he was 33. its called an EXCEPTION OR LATE BLOOMER.

It's also called an EMBARRASSMENT to the Marciano legend, that a 39 year old had him beat on points through 12...until he TIRED OUT (which began in round 8 or 9, by the way) and got clipped...

Your bias PROVES YOU'RE RELATED TO HIM...You can't say anything neutral or bad about the guy...NOBODY WAS THAT GOOD...THEY ALL HAD SOME FLAWS AND VULNERABILITIES...and the 5'11" 185 pounder who had to lunge in to throw a punch would be in a world of trouble against somebody big and fast that could box (Holmes/Ali, etc.)

But a relative would never, ever admit that...and rightly so!!! I support my relatives too...

Professor X · Post by **Professor X** » 19 Jun 2005, 06:36

[quote="Sweet Scientist"][quote="Professor X"]

Tyson had a short prime, just like Camacho, Curry, etc etc

[/quote]

OR...Tyson never actually made it to his real 'prime'...he self destructed because his strong body was betrayed by his pathetically weak mind!!![/quote]

Okay. You got me there. Tyson never even reached his mythical prime. But to be fair and honest, if Tyson and Holyfield had fought in '91 (Tyson pulled out of that fight, though, of course), Holyfield would have KO'ed him quicker than he did in '96. No doubt about it. So, I don't know why anybody would think that Tyson could beat Ali, one of the two or three greatest ever (I personally side by Joe Louis as the greatest ever...he was just so far ahead of his time).

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 19 Jun 2005, 21:52

The reason i am more knowledgeable than u sweet scientist and am winning this debate and making u look foolish is because i answer all of ur questions with intelligent responses, while u avoid my questions. I NEVER MAKE HIM OUT TO BE A GOD. I STATED MANY TIMES HIS FLAWS AND I DONT RATE HIM #1. i RATE HIM # 3 WHERE HE BELONGS. U SEEM TO LIKE LARRY HOLMES A LOT U ALWAYS MENTION HIM.

ALI WAS NOT AT HIS PEAK BUT HE WAS STILL TOUGH AT 29 AND STILL IN HIS PRIME. HE HAD TWO TUNEUP FIGHTS AND STILL LOOKED GREAT IN THE FRAZIER FIGHT. IF THEY HAD FOUGHT IN 67 ALI WOULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE QUICK. JUST A LITTLE. and dont give me that bullshit abouyt beating frazier twice. both fighters were well past their prime. those fights dont even count. frazier was finished and ali was fading.

sweetscientist wrote:

If that fight were held today, Charles would have won by TKO...they never would have allowed that fight to continue with Marciano's split nose...Get real!!! And...through 12 rounds, Walcott had a unanimous decision...today Walcott wins!!!

idiot, I TOLD U BEFORE, charles would have lost by a technical decision. it was an ACCIDENTAL ELBOW which by today would go to the scorecards. and marciano was dominating charles and won every round up until that point. marciano would have won on the scorecard 6 rounds to 1 . so that proves that u havnt been viewing my past responses because i stated this at least 3 times but u keep ignoring it.

WALCOTT IS NOT AN OLD MAN. HIS PRIME WAS AT 37!!!!!!! just like hopkins!!!!!!!!!! AND ARCHIE MOORE GOT HIMSELF DETERMINED FOR THAT FIGHT AND REALLY GOT PUMPED AND TRAINED HARD. ARCHIE LOOKED GREAT AT 42 AND HE WAS NEVER THE SAME AFTER LOSING TO MARCIANO. NEITHER WAS CHARLES. ITS BECUASE THEY HAD NOTHING TO LOSE AND EVERYTHING TO GAIN THATS WHY THEY FOUGHT SO WELL. MARCIANO WORE THEM OUT. marciano was also 32 and aging against moore . and only 2 years younger than charles.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 19 Jun 2005, 21:54

Tyson would have knocked out holyfield in 91. he was so much quicker and stil had his head fakes not to mention his AMAZIG POWER. the right he landed on holyfield in the opening seconds would have kaod hoylfield if the fight had taken place 6 years earlier.

i dont think holyfield could stand up to tysons power, even with all that heart.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 20 Jun 2005, 15:10

Hey Brockton, you can sometimes be interesting with your views etc and I like to see someone else who obviously loves the game but why get so heated and indeed obnoxious when others don't agree with your opinions?.
At the end of the day your opinions are just that, opinions and others have their right to hold different ones other than yours... learn to take them with a little more grace dude!... 8)