wlvrne wrote:geez, this guy. seems he always has to have the last word on a topic. just because you label yourself a "scientist", doesn't mean you are one.
Some things are pretty obvious...you don't need to be a scientist...
...and your PM's about blow jobs and tongueing assholes are higly inappropriate...why don't you post that stuff here so they can throw you the fornicate out...
Sweet Scientist wrote:Boy, that shows a lot of class...you really should delete that one...
wlvrne wrote:geez, this guy. seems he always has to have the last word on a topic. just because you label yourself a "scientist", doesn't mean you are one.
Some things are pretty obvious...you don't need to be a scientist...
...and your PM's about blow jobs and tongueing assholes are higly inappropriate...why don't you post that stuff here so they can throw you the fornicate out...
Sweet Scientist wrote:Boy, that shows a lot of class...you really should delete that one...
HMMM.......
No, I'm serious...not like you when it was a joke in bad taste...I'm serious...he really did that shit!!!
Sweet Scientist wrote:
Some things are pretty obvious...you don't need to be a scientist...
...and your PM's about blow jobs and tongueing assholes are higly inappropriate...why don't you post that stuff here so they can throw you the fornicate out...
Sweet Scientist wrote:Boy, that shows a lot of class...you really should delete that one...
HMMM.......
No, I'm serious...not like you when it was a joke in bad taste...I'm serious...he really did that shit!!!
No, I'm serious...not like you when it was a joke in bad taste...I'm serious...he really did that shit!!!
If you encourage vile, vulgar PM's or posts...with blatant sexual references, then there's something wrong with you...I can see getting into a heated discussion, and maybe getting carried away defending a legitimate position....but calling someone a 'faggot' (like you seem to like to do) or sending PM's suggesting a person should go perform vile, disgusting things is just fornicating sick...
I will discuss things, defend my position...but I don't suggest who you (or anyone else) should have homosexual sex with via numerous PM's...
I don't even want to be down this road in the first place...why can't some people just behave...argue legitimate points all you want, instead of completely losing it everytime someone challenges your position?
...and posting stuff like 'Gatti would suffer fatal injuries if he fought Mancini' or 'Chamberlain would have beat Ali'...are very strange positions that you have to know are going to be vigorously challenged...
...like I said earlier...some of this 'Class of 2005' leave a lot to be desired...
after watching some boxing highlights last night I need to say that a PRIME Tyson would have beat a prime Holmes more like he did when Tyson fought Pinklon Thomas or Tony Tucker. Holmes would have moved more than Berbick did. However good Holmes' jab was, Tyson would have slipped it and worked his body and eventually wear him down.
wlvrne wrote:after watching some boxing highlights last night I need to say that a PRIME Tyson would have beat a prime Holmes more like he did when Tyson fought Pinklon Thomas or Tony Tucker. Holmes would have moved more than Berbick did. However good Holmes' jab was, Tyson would have slipped it and worked his body and eventually wear him down.
Oh boy, I'm with you and everything but you should've just left the highlights part out, Tyson haters are going to feed on that.
When Holmes fought Tyson, he was nearly 40, and Tyson was at his peak.
Furthermore, Holmes trained for about 2 weeks for the bout, and had been out of the ring for 2 years, he was a fighter who relied on relflexes and timing, and having a long layoff and little training was a stupid move on Larry's part. The Holmes who fought Holyfield was probably in better nick than the guy who fought Tyson that night.
Larry had the heart of a lion, a great chin, great stamina, and when hurt, amazing powers of recovery. He took a flush shot from Shavers, got up and went on to stop him.
Look at what Douglas, a lesser version of Holmes did, and you have a pretty good idea of what Holmes would have done, only better.
To say that Tyson would have done Holmes in his prime, based on beating an old, out of shape and ring rusty version, is like saying that Williams or McBride would have beaten Tyson just the same in his prime.
Tyson would have always had a chance due to his power, but you would have to favour Holmes' heart, ring smarts, and overall skills to work for him and either win a fairly wide decision or stop Tyson over the last third.
wlvrne wrote:after watching some boxing highlights last night I need to say that a PRIME Tyson would have beat a prime Holmes more like he did when Tyson fought Pinklon Thomas or Tony Tucker. Holmes would have moved more than Berbick did. However good Holmes' jab was, Tyson would have slipped it and worked his body and eventually wear him down.
Oh boy, I'm with you and everything but you should've just left the highlights part out, Tyson haters are going to feed on that.
Last edited by cultus on 27 Jul 2005, 18:24, edited 1 time in total.
jamesmcdonnell wrote:When Holmes fought Tyson, he was nearly 40, and Tyson was at his peak.
Furthermore, Holmes trained for about 2 weeks for the bout, and had been out of the ring for 2 years, he was a fighter who relied on relflexes and timing, and having a long layoff and little training was a stupid move on Larry's part. The Holmes who fought Holyfield was probably in better nick than the guy who fought Tyson that night.
Larry had the heart of a lion, a great chin, great stamina, and when hurt, amazing powers of recovery. He took a flush shot from Shavers, got up and went on to stop him.
Look at what Douglas, a lesser version of Holmes did, and you have a pretty good idea of what Holmes would have done, only better.
To say that Tyson would have done Holmes in his prime, based on beating an old, out of shape and ring rusty version, is like saying that Williams or McBride would have beaten Tyson just the same in his prime.
Tyson would have always had a chance due to his power, but you would have to favour Holmes' heart, ring smarts, and overall skills to work for him and either win a fairly wide decision or stop Tyson over the last third.
yeess.. Tyson vs Douglas was the moment of truth - you understand the reasons for Holmes losing to Tyson.. that he was inactive and stuff like that but you don't accept that Tyson didn't train against Buster, was mentally zero and partyd all three days in Japan. It goes both ways pal.. I see no reason here what so ever. Tyson won the way he was suppose.. nobody after that TKO-d Holmes... and he outboxed Holmes pretty good.. being 5'11..
cultus wrote:
yeess.. Tyson vs Douglas was the moment of truth - you understand the reasons for Holmes losing to Tyson.. that he was inactive and stuff like that but you don't accept that Tyson didn't train against Buster, was mentally zero and partyd all three days in Japan.
Yeah...that's 3 good reasons you just gave...3 good reasons why he couldn't beat anybody great...'didn't know how to train'...'mentally zero'...'partied all the time'...
...that's your hero...in your words (why he never won a big fight after age 24)...
'didn't know how to train'...'mentally zero'...'partied all the time'...
I could add much more...but we'll just use your words to describe 24 year old, prime Mike Tyson...what was that again?
'didn't know how to train'...'mentally zero'...'partied all the time'...
cultus wrote:
yeess.. Tyson vs Douglas was the moment of truth - you understand the reasons for Holmes losing to Tyson.. that he was inactive and stuff like that but you don't accept that Tyson didn't train against Buster, was mentally zero and partyd all three days in Japan.
Yeah...that's 3 good reasons you just gave...3 good reasons why he couldn't beat anybody great...'didn't know how to train'...'mentally zero'...'partied all the time'...
...that's your hero...in your words (why he never won a big fight after age 24)...
'didn't know how to train'...'mentally zero'...'partied all the time'...
I could add much more...but we'll just use your words to describe 24 year old, prime Mike Tyson...what was that again?
'didn't know how to train'...'mentally zero'...'partied all the time'...
By George, I think you've got it...
aaa... heh , wasn't I talking strictly about the douglas fight. Is there's something wrong with you ? you are makeing pretty good posting about everything else but seem to go all nuts and freaky on Tyson...
If your making a case for mental durability, toughness of mind and character, and serious minded about boxing Holmes wins on all counts for the run of his carreer.
People have made such a case for Holmes that it probably makes the most ardent Tyson advocate worry about the "prime" outcome. If you actually read all the given reasonings.
I stand by my thoughts that Tyson gets the job done 2 out of three times, but the more times they fight the more Larry Learns and the cockier and crazier Tyson gets and sooner or Later Larry "learns" Mike and eventually gets his number. Would it get done inside of one fight? Inside of a single 12 or 15 round event? I'm still thinking Larry does not figure his man out that quick, as Tyson does not give give that much time for formal education. That's still my take but damn it you guys are getting to me on this one.
And let me now further refine my response to the first 2 out of 3. But who gets a third chance after 2 losses to someone?
I'm givin ground on this, I hate doing that, I should never have dragged out that Bonecrusher Smith fight.
cultus wrote:
yeess.. Tyson vs Douglas was the moment of truth - you understand the reasons for Holmes losing to Tyson.. that he was inactive and stuff like that but you don't accept that Tyson didn't train against Buster, was mentally zero and partyd all three days in Japan.
Yeah...that's 3 good reasons you just gave...3 good reasons why he couldn't beat anybody great...'didn't know how to train'...'mentally zero'...'partied all the time'...
...that's your hero...in your words (why he never won a big fight after age 24)...
'didn't know how to train'...'mentally zero'...'partied all the time'...
I could add much more...but we'll just use your words to describe 24 year old, prime Mike Tyson...what was that again?
'didn't know how to train'...'mentally zero'...'partied all the time'...
By George, I think you've got it...
aaa... heh , wasn't I talking strictly about the douglas fight. Is there's something wrong with you ? you are makeing pretty good posting about everything else but seem to go all nuts and freaky on Tyson...
...just quoting you....'didn't know how to train'...mentally zero'...'partied all the time'...
Sweet Scientist wrote:
Yeah...that's 3 good reasons you just gave...3 good reasons why he couldn't beat anybody great...'didn't know how to train'...'mentally zero'...'partied all the time'...
...that's your hero...in your words (why he never won a big fight after age 24)...
'didn't know how to train'...'mentally zero'...'partied all the time'...
I could add much more...but we'll just use your words to describe 24 year old, prime Mike Tyson...what was that again?
'didn't know how to train'...'mentally zero'...'partied all the time'...
By George, I think you've got it...
aaa... heh , wasn't I talking strictly about the douglas fight. Is there's something wrong with you ? you are makeing pretty good posting about everything else but seem to go all nuts and freaky on Tyson...
...just quoting you....'didn't know how to train'...mentally zero'...'partied all the time'...
cultus wrote:
aaa... heh , wasn't I talking strictly about the douglas fight. Is there's something wrong with you ? you are makeing pretty good posting about everything else but seem to go all nuts and freaky on Tyson...
...just quoting you....'didn't know how to train'...mentally zero'...'partied all the time'...
...can't argue with you there...
no you can't arque with me, thats true
...that's right...just remember...'didn't know how to train'...'mentally zero'...'partied all the time'...
...3 big reasons why he couldn't beat the all time greats...
...3 big reasons why he loses to Holmes...
...3 big reasons why he loses to everybody in the all time top 10...
...'didn't know how to train'...'mentally zero'...'partied all the time'...
...those 3 statements sure as hell don't apply to any other great heavyweight...then again, no great heavyweight was past their prime at age 24 either...no great heavyweight had so many problems and excuses...
till the spinks fight he trained but after the spinks fight!!! the press had given him such a hard time accuseing him of this and that and he lost respect for the status of th Undisputed Heavywight Champion of the world. I absolutely understand why he stated after the spinks fight that he would retire... he lost the interest.. and didn't take boxing seriously again in his life. ... I understand that you and most Tyson haters do think that in that Douglas fight he was at his peak... but things couldn't be more wrong.. the peak Tyson was gone... no combos, no bodywork, no discipline... only oneshot waiting guy who only managed to land ONE clear shot in the entire fight. But still on .. if you compare that Tyson to the one who fought Hollyfield then the one who fought hollyfield was no Tyson at alll... if you'd watch and comapre these fight you'd understand...
peace... man
I agree with you Cultus but sadly empirically speaking it is the Same Mike Tyson. Just a Mike Tyson making bad choices and having bad outcomes. So you have to judge his whole body of work.
At their peak I think Tyson wins I have said that. But I would still rate Larry Higher because his body of work was better. And even if they would have been "timelime peers" Holmes would have dominated the era because of how short Tysons "prime" was.
Anyone follow my tangent here? Also I would rate Holmes Higher on the all time board.
- you understand the reasons for Holmes losing to Tyson.. that he was inactive and stuff like that but you don't accept that Tyson didn't train against Buster, was mentally zero and partyd all three days in Japan. It goes both ways pal.. I see no reason here what so ever. Tyson won the way he was suppose.. nobody after that TKO-d Holmes... and he outboxed Holmes pretty good.. being 5'11..
