Page 2 of 3
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 00:13
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Collins2000 wrote:Brocky, if you think the 12 rounds that Tyson went with Boneclutcher were 'hard', I suggest you sit down with your Dad and have him take you through what is actually happening.
Here's a review of that joke of a fight:
Las Vegas, Nevada. 7 March 1987. In a ring still stained with blood from the desperately fought heavyweight match that preceded it, Mike Tyson, World Boxing Council champion, at twenty the youngest heavyweight titleholder in boxing history, brings the fight for unification of the title to James "Bonecrusher" Smith, World Boxing Association champion, at thirty-three an aging athlete, and, yet more telling, the only heavyweight titleholder in boxing history to have graduated from college—but Smith will have none of it. He clinches, he backs away, he walks away, he clinches again, hugging his frustrated and increasingly infuriated opponent like a drowning man hugging something—anything—that floats. Referee Mills Lane calls "Break!" repeatedly during the twelve long rounds of this very long fight but Smith seems not to hear; or, hearing, will not obey. For the most part his expression is blank, with the blankness of fear, a stark unmitigated fear without shame, yet shameful to witness. "Fight!" the crowd shouts. "Do something!" In the ringside seats close by me Smith's fellow boxers Trevor Berbick (former WBC heavyweight champion) and Edwin Rosario (WBA lightweight champion) are particularly vocal, as if in an agony of professional discomfort. For it seems that the superbly conditioned Smith, who had performed so dramatically only three months ago in Madison Square Garden, knocking out Tim Witherspoon in the first round of his WBA title defense, is now, suddenly, not a boxer: though in that elevated and garishly spotlighted ring with another man, contracted for $1 million to fight him, performing in front of a crowd of some 13,600 people in the Hilton's newly erected outdoor stadium, and how many millions of television viewers, he cannot or will not fight. His instinct is merely to survive to get through twelve rounds with no injuries more serious than a bleeding left eye and a bad swelling on the right side of his face; and to go back, professionally disgraced, to his wife, family, and plans for the future ("Being a champion opens lots of doors—I'd like to get a real estate license, maybe sell insurance") in Magnolia, North Carolina.
well i if i did say it, i didnt mean to because tyson defintley did not go 12 hard rounds with bonecrusher. tyson came to fight but bonecrusher came to survive. what was supposed to be a "dempsey firpo" match turned into a boneclutcher fest. still tyson deserves credit for shutting out bonecrusher winning every round.
however, tyson and ruddock fights, though not gruelling were competitive hard 12 rounders where clearly ruddock and tucker came to fight unlike bonecrusher.
the word "hard pace" in my sense does not mean fraizer-ali. thats gruelling. "hard pace " in my sense means a competive fight where both men came to fight and did there best and got in some good licks.
tyson clearly dominated tucker and douglas, but he still went at a "hard pace" for 12 rounds.
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 00:15
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
out of all the tyson fights, i still have trouble sitting down and studying film of that bonecrusher fight it was so boring. i dont think i ever managed to last the entire fight.
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 00:23
by Collins2000
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Collins2000 wrote:Brocky, if you think the 12 rounds that Tyson went with Boneclutcher were 'hard', I suggest you sit down with your Dad and have him take you through what is actually happening.
Here's a review of that joke of a fight:
Las Vegas, Nevada. 7 March 1987. In a ring still stained with blood from the desperately fought heavyweight match that preceded it, Mike Tyson, World Boxing Council champion, at twenty the youngest heavyweight titleholder in boxing history, brings the fight for unification of the title to James "Bonecrusher" Smith, World Boxing Association champion, at thirty-three an aging athlete, and, yet more telling, the only heavyweight titleholder in boxing history to have graduated from college—but Smith will have none of it. He clinches, he backs away, he walks away, he clinches again, hugging his frustrated and increasingly infuriated opponent like a drowning man hugging something—anything—that floats. Referee Mills Lane calls "Break!" repeatedly during the twelve long rounds of this very long fight but Smith seems not to hear; or, hearing, will not obey. For the most part his expression is blank, with the blankness of fear, a stark unmitigated fear without shame, yet shameful to witness. "Fight!" the crowd shouts. "Do something!" In the ringside seats close by me Smith's fellow boxers Trevor Berbick (former WBC heavyweight champion) and Edwin Rosario (WBA lightweight champion) are particularly vocal, as if in an agony of professional discomfort. For it seems that the superbly conditioned Smith, who had performed so dramatically only three months ago in Madison Square Garden, knocking out Tim Witherspoon in the first round of his WBA title defense, is now, suddenly, not a boxer: though in that elevated and garishly spotlighted ring with another man, contracted for $1 million to fight him, performing in front of a crowd of some 13,600 people in the Hilton's newly erected outdoor stadium, and how many millions of television viewers, he cannot or will not fight. His instinct is merely to survive to get through twelve rounds with no injuries more serious than a bleeding left eye and a bad swelling on the right side of his face; and to go back, professionally disgraced, to his wife, family, and plans for the future ("Being a champion opens lots of doors—I'd like to get a real estate license, maybe sell insurance") in Magnolia, North Carolina.
well i if i did say it, i didnt mean to because tyson defintley did not go 12 hard rounds with bonecrusher. tyson came to fight but bonecrusher came to survive. what was supposed to be a "dempsey firpo" match turned into a boneclutcher fest. still tyson deserves credit for shutting out bonecrusher winning every round.
however, tyson and ruddock fights, though not gruelling were competitive hard 12 rounders where clearly ruddock and tucker came to fight unlike bonecrusher.
the word "hard pace" in my sense does not mean fraizer-ali. thats gruelling. "hard pace " in my sense means a competive fight where both men came to fight and did there best and got in some good licks.
tyson clearly dominated tucker and douglas, but he still went at a "hard pace" for 12 rounds.
Well, you did say
" foreman throughout his career showed horrible stamina. 5 round stamina. well unlike george, tyson showed against tucker, bonecrusher, etc that not only could he go 12 rounds, but he could do 12 hard rounds and nearly shut people out in the process. "
I can only go by what you say.
Was the Tucker fight "12 hard rounds"? Well, Tucker did land a good uppercut in the first but not a great deal after that. Tyson won pretty handily and I don't recall it being particularly hard. Elaborate a bit for me, Brocky, on what was so 'hard' about those particular 12 rounds.
The 2nd Ruddock fight was entertaining but Tyson had him figured out by the half way mark and there was nothing particularly hard about the 2nd half of the bout was there? Ruddock was reduced to throwing that hook/uppercut thing and Tyson had him all worked out.

Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 00:33
by Collins2000
Sports Illustrated didn't seem to think the Tucker fight was a hard 12 rounds either:
Undaunted by Tucker's first-round flurry, Tyson, who earned $2.5 million for the bout (Tucker made $1.9 million), began moving in behind a hard jab. In the early rounds he hammered the body; then he moved up to the head. Rockets crashed against Tucker's head, some of which he ignored. Others he minimized with a disdainful shake of his head.
"Aw, he stopped fighting after the fifth round," said Tyson. "After that he was just in there to survive."
No matter. Neither man really hurt the other.
...
Tucker went the distance by running and clinching, and you can't take the title that way. Tyson did what he had to do, and he won handily in the view of all three judges (Phil Newman, 119-111; Julio Roldan, 118-113; and Bill Graham, 116-112).

re
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 07:49
by barry
>>>Who did Tyson go 12 hard rounds with in his prime?<<<<
Who did Foreman go 12 hard rounds with in his prime?
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 08:22
by silkov
Foreman went 10 fast rounds with Peralta twice before he won the title, but he generally didn't need to go far because he stopped his opposition, unless they were Ali. I think Tyson would be made for George, like Frazier Tyson couldn't fight going backwards, Foreman would force him back with his jab and pummel him. Foreman had the chin to take the shots Tyson would get in early, but once Tyson has tasted Georges power and a few jabs his will would break and Foreman would win by ko or stoppage in about 3 rounds.
The fact that Tyson avoided fighting a 40+ year old Foreman says it all...
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 09:03
by SteveO
It's not too late - maybe they could still get it on!
Foreman KO3 Tyson
Re: re
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 14:02
by Collins2000
barry wrote:>>>Who did Tyson go 12 hard rounds with in his prime?<<<<
Who did Foreman go 12 hard rounds with in his prime?
No one said Foreman did. Brocky stated Tyson did several times. Can you help him out with some names, mate?

Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 15:00
by RazorKO
A very hard match up
Foreman has a good chance of winning as fighters comming towards him would be very comfortable for George to handle so he can swing his powerful shots as Tyson comes in as Foreman generally has problems with fighters than run....but Tyson will be there infront of him. Foreman TKO 4-5
But on the other hand Tyson could win as based on the Lyle fight - Tyson hits harder and much faster than Lyle...plus Tyson has better defensive skills and is not as easy to hit which would suprise Foreman. Tyson already proved he can take a punch from a man who nearly hits just as hard as Foreman in Ruddock and Tyson shook it off as if it was nothing and that was Tyson who was slipping away from his prime. Tyson KO 5
Tyson vs Old Foreman? Tyson definetly wins this and I just cant believe people are saying 90's Foreman wins, people really have to stop their intese hatred of Tyson and START to anaylise him fairly as all this bias is just idotic.As we know, Old Foreman suffered a terrible beating on the hands of Alex Stewart but Tyson however knocked Stewart out in a round. Old Foreman was too slow to be in a chance with Tyson and old Foreman also became on the whole an arm puncher so now he hasnt even got the power to stun Tyson. But saying that Foreman had an excellent chin so Tyson swarms all over him stopping him on his feet.
Tyson TKO 3
re
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 18:21
by barry
>>>Who did Tyson even go eight hard rounds with in his prime?<<<
No one...didn't have to, he knocked everybody out before then!
re
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 18:38
by barry
Still crying about last week aren't you? Really eats at you doesn't it, that's pretty obvious to all of us!
Re: re
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 19:21
by Collins2000
barry wrote:Still crying about last week aren't you? Really eats at you doesn't it, that's pretty obvious to all of us!
barry, stick to boxing talk, please. save the sarcasm for PM.

re
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 19:24
by barry
Collins2000:
You need to tell that to your buddy instead of me...I'm just stating the facts...oh, I forgot, your still sore to!
Come on guys, you're about to lose the last little-bit of footing that you have on this forum...and like I said, you're doing it to yourselves! Now get over me and try to move on with your life because you both only have a thread to hold on to!
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 19:42
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
tyson never had a gruelling fight, but he certainly went 12 competive rounds with razor ruddock at a good pace
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 19:54
by Collins2000
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:tyson never had a gruelling fight, but he certainly went 12 competive rounds with razor ruddock at a good pace
He never had a grueling fight that he came out on top in, you mean. Trust us, Brocky. We know this era like you know the 40's and 50's. In fact, best if you stick to that era as you sound far more knowledgable when you talk about fights 95% of us haven't seen.
Yes, the Ruddock fights were reasonably competitive. But then again, what are those 2 words you always say about Ruddock? "David Jaco" isn't it? So, what does that say about Tyson?
On another matter, one far dearer to your heart, which Ezzard Charles fights exist in great quality ie where you can actually see what is happening? I started to watch the Coley Wallace one last night. I trust the guy I got it from when he tells me it is as good quality as exists for that bout but, fekk Brocky, how can you determine much from such poorly filmed stuff?

Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 20:04
by BoxBuzz
Wow Collins you have a point I had never pondered and it only further cements my thinking. Was Mike ever in trouble and rallied even once? Did he ever win a single war? I sure can't think of one, was the Ruddock fight the closest thing to such an event?
Foreman came from behind more than once both in life and in some fights.
Once Tyson was down....he dogged out.
re
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 20:26
by barry
>>>Foreman came from behind more than once both in life and in some fights.<<<
But he was never in a grueling, long distance fight either! In his prime he came back from the Lyle fight, which was a real life and death struggle, but Lyle is nowhere near what Tyson was!
>>>Once Tyson was down....he dogged out.<<<
Well that was not until he was so past his prime that he should not be any where near a ring! Tyson never dogged out in his prime and a young Tyson took a punch better than a young Foreman did!
Foreman would come in with those wide, mummy-like rights and Tyson would be inside landing his brutal hooks and uppercuts before Foreman could get anything done. Foreman needed room to punch, and he needed a lot of room to punch effectively, which he most certainly would not get with Tyson. The old Foreman knew how to work his jab, but the young Foreman was no where near as wise and people cannot have the best of both worlds when trying to make the argument. Prime Foreman was undisciplined and tired very easy and if he did not knock his opponent out early then he looked terrible, well maybe not terrible, but very far from impressive and the fact that he had such difficulty with small, faster heavyweights like Peralta and Jimmy Young, well someone as quick as Tyson would be all over him, but the difference between Peralta, Young and Tyson is that Tyson could take a guys head off. Tyson just had too many advantages over Foreman and unless Foreman scored a quick early knockout, then he would have been taken apart by Tyson!
Re: re
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 20:39
by Collins2000
barry wrote:>>>Foreman came from behind more than once both in life and in some fights.<<<
But he was never in a grueling, long distance fight either! In his prime he came back from the Lyle fight, which was a real life and death struggle, but Lyle is nowhere near what Tyson was!
>>>Once Tyson was down....he dogged out.<<<
Well that was not until he was so past his prime that he should not be any where near a ring! Tyson never dogged out in his prime and a young Tyson took a punch better than a young Foreman did!
Foreman would come in with those wide, mummy-like rights and Tyson would be inside landing his brutal hooks and uppercuts before Foreman could get anything done. Foreman needed room to punch, and he needed a lot of room to punch effectively, which he most certainly would not get with Tyson. The old Foreman knew how to work his jab, but the young Foreman was no where near as wise and people cannot have the best of both worlds when trying to make the argument. Prime Foreman was undisciplined and tired very easy and if he did not knock his opponent out early then he looked terrible, well maybe not terrible, but very far from impressive and the fact that he had such difficulty with small, faster heavyweights like Peralta and Jimmy Young, well someone as quick as Tyson would be all over him, but the difference between Peralta, Young and Tyson is that Tyson could take a guys head off. Tyson just had too many advantages over Foreman and unless Foreman scored a quick early knockout, then he would have been taken apart by Tyson!
There is some merit in what you say. But if a moderately talented guy like Douglas could dominate a peak Tyson for round after round and even when Tyson landed his best punch still get up to win by stoppage (forget the long count, it's just an excuse and I know you hate excuses, barry), I have difficulty with your description of Tyson as some sort of brutal wrecking machine that would have a field day against Foreman. Tyson looked great against guys who didn't fight back either though fear or lack of ability but he didn't look that special when the other bloke showed a bit of backbone.

re
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 20:41
by barry
>>>Um, once again... you said something stupid, and once again, I corrected you. I'm the one trying to discuss boxing. You're the one who's trying to perpetuate this bullshit.<<<
Decagon:
O-kay, one more time and your gone...No more warnings, no more playing around with you, your crybaby routine has gotten old and it is too time consuming to bother with.
It is exactly like I said a couple of days ago...you make it through one day alright, but then the next you are right back to your same, lame-ass tune...every other day.
Now this is the very last time, say something else trying to provoke one of your childish arguments and all of your posts will be gone...now that's a lot of posts, so you better wisen up and get over it! I have given you more than enough chances to act like a grown up, but you just continue!
It was pretty sad how the other day you tried to get some recognition from Harry Otty by telling him that you mentioned his name in another thread, like he, or anyone else really gives a shit. I’m just guessing, and Harry has too much class to state otherwise, but I would guess that it gave him kind of a nauseous feeling to have someone like you try to associate yourself with him because you have a long, long, long way to go before you will even be on the same wavelength as he. I would say good try, but it looked exactly like what it was…desperation and you continue with that same desperation right here in this thread!
If you want some recognition, quit making statements that are so incorrect that they are ridiculous. It is so plainly obvious to most people that you are clueless in at least 75% of the statements you make. The best thing you can do is quit responding to the things you know not and stick to what you do know, which from what you have demonstrated from last September until now is not much! You should take some time off, work on your game and then come back with an open mind after you realize that you don’t know everything, then and only then will you ever start to absorb anything useful!
You can do that, or you can leave permanently, the choice is up to you because you are out of chances...now for the very last time, you can move on past me and your childish grudge, or you can get yourself banned with the next childish attempt...grow up!
re
Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 20:45
by barry
Collins2000:
I'm not saying that I disagree with you totally, but I just don't see Foreman winning the bout unless he landed a big punch early! The Douglas loass was no different than Foremans loss to Jimmy Young...fighters have very bad nights when they do not come in prepared...and neither Tyson, or Foreman were prepared for those two bout. I just think Tyson had too many advantages over Foreman, but that's my opinion, just like anyone else...it's not fact!
Re: re
Posted: 24 Jan 2006, 00:23
by The Great John L
barry wrote:Foreman would come in with those wide, mummy-like rights and Tyson would be inside landing his brutal hooks and uppercuts before Foreman could get anything done. Foreman needed room to punch, and he needed a lot of room to punch effectively, which he most certainly would not get with Tyson.
Foreman was a fair sight better than this comment makes him out. While he did often times throw wide arching shots, it was mainly when an opponent was hurt, or totally over matched. Foreman would have pushed and slapped Tyson around a bit before he got the right angle to deliver a few bombs at which point Tyson would start bouncing around very similar to Frazier. The difference of course is that Joe kept getting up and I think Tyson would stay down after about the second KD.
re
Posted: 24 Jan 2006, 00:44
by barry
There's a big, big difference between Tyson and Frazier and I certainly do not see Foreman doing any kind of slapping on Tyson that he may have done to others...if Foreman did not come out throwing bombs to start then Tyson would just demolish him as Tyson certainly would be throwing bombs...only more compact and with a lot more speed than Foreman could muster and if Foreman could not throw and land something heavy at the start then Tyson would just go right through him!
Re: re
Posted: 24 Jan 2006, 01:36
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Decagon wrote:barry wrote:There's a big, big difference between Tyson and Frazier
Yeah. No quit in Frazier. He never molested an 11-year-old, or bit an opponent's ear off.
nope
tyson
- is a better two fisted puncher, he has KO power in both hands
- tyson has faster handspeed, throws better and more unprediactable combinations, throws more accurate punches
- tyson has better defense and head movement and is greater counterpuncher
- tyson is more unpredictable on offense and defense
- tyson has better boxing skills and better jab
re
Posted: 24 Jan 2006, 01:47
by barry
That sounds about right BB...glad you mentioned things that actually were about what mattered in the ring and not outside of it!
Re: re
Posted: 24 Jan 2006, 06:42
by RazorKO
barry wrote:That sounds about right BB...glad you mentioned things that actually were about what mattered in the ring and not outside of it!
Exactly Barry, people just judge Tyson out of the ring and use it as a pittiful excuse to put him down as a fighter. And to the people who dont analise him fairly - Hate Tyson the man but dont you ever hate him for the skills he showed in the ring
PERIOD