Best Fighter of the 80s: Tyson, Leonard, Hagler or Chavez?

[Collins2000]

finding myself wiping a tear from eye.............just a nostalgia moment I'm sure it will pass... .....it's almost like...well like "UnoWho" is still here.....at least in spirit.

Unlike your old buddy, decagon, I only bollock someone these days when they repeatedly disparage a fighter. If he'd followed that rule he might still be here boring you with his dumbass stories about his kidney stones. Yawn.

In fact, ringlicker's only 'contribution' to this place is to continually berate fighters. You find that odd, buzzy? Personally, I think it stinks.



Oh, yeah, and, unlike that eejit Decagon, I don't resort to racial abuse.

I was sort of kidding....ok kids...lets all help put the fire out...and then...NO MORE PLAYING WITH MATCHES!

That was Decagon's excuse too.

[Syntax Error]

Out of this list, it's Chavez for me.

Leonard spent too much time in retirement.

Hagler is worthy of a shout & you can't really fault him, except for his muted display against Duran & the way he allowed a rusty Sugar Ray Leonard to mug him.

Tyson - most exciting fighter of the decade, but I get the feeling that if he had fought Evander Holyfield in 1988/9, when Holy was hankering after the fight, the Tyson legend (or myth, depending on which side of the fence you sit on) was not be quite as great as it is now.

[Elton John]

Hagler. He did more and was in there with better people. His performances were better than the others and set higher standards for himself.

Spinks is next.

Holmes looked too ragged after '82.

Duran was fighter of the 70's with Ali but lost it after beating Ray Leonard.

Pryor was headed for superstardom but seemingly ducked Johnny Bumphus and his career never recovered.

Tyson was nothing more than a slugger and i was never impressed with Leonard.

Chavez was in the shadow of Hector Camacho. Curry' management wasn't careful enough with his career and things got too hot for him. By 1987 Donald went from supposed superstar to steppingstone.

So my top three are Hagler, Spinks and Hearns.

[kapectate333]

Tyson, by far

[ringsider]

Blah,blah,blah.....

Chavez was in the shadow of Hector Camacho.

Blah,blah,blah....

What are you stoned?

[chiricahua]

Well hagler and tyson are the best ones for me.
Hagler crushed hearns like a maggot and people forget that,the decision with sugar is controversial and he defeated duran.
Tyson with cus d'amato style simply was invincible so i don't see anybody in the 80's able to beat him if he stays with rooney and cus d'amato fighting system principles.

[Ezzard]

Well hagler and tyson are the best ones for me.
Hagler crushed hearns like a maggot and people forget that,the decision with sugar is controversial and he defeated duran.
Tyson with cus d'amato style simply was invincible so i don't see anybody in the 80's able to beat him if he stays with rooney and cus d'amato fighting system principles.

Well the peek-a-boo has its problems. If it was invincible then all boxers would use it. Tyson was exciting but not unbeatable.

[Syntax Error]

Well hagler and tyson are the best ones for me.
Hagler crushed hearns like a maggot and people forget that,the decision with sugar is controversial and he defeated duran.
Tyson with cus d'amato style simply was invincible so i don't see anybody in the 80's able to beat him if he stays with rooney and cus d'amato fighting system principles.

I wouldn't say that Tyson was invincible.

Tony Tucker might have beaten Tyson if he had a bit more belief & if Boneclutcher Smith wasn't such an Audley Harrison, he might have shocked the world & these fights occurred during Tyson's peek-a-boo pomp days.

Evander Holyfield was chasing a Tyson fight in 1988/9 & it is my belief that he would have shocked Tyson to the core had that fight happened when he wanted it to.

[Ezzard]

Well hagler and tyson are the best ones for me.
Hagler crushed hearns like a maggot and people forget that,the decision with sugar is controversial and he defeated duran.
Tyson with cus d'amato style simply was invincible so i don't see anybody in the 80's able to beat him if he stays with rooney and cus d'amato fighting system principles.

I wouldn't say that Tyson was invincible.

Tony Tucker might have beaten Tyson if he had a bit more belief & if Boneclutcher Smith wasn't such an Audley Harrison, he might have shocked the world & these fights occurred during Tyson's peek-a-boo pomp days.

Evander Holyfield was chasing a Tyson fight in 1988/9 & it is my belief that he would have shocked Tyson to the core had that fight happened when he wanted it to.

Agree, and lets not forget the fights with Tillis and Green.

Tyson was good and exciting, but invincible... No fighter is invincible

[observer1]

I Personally believe Tyson would have Schooled Holyfield 88/89.

Rooney wanted Tyson To fight him, but but Don King insisted on Picking the Fights

[Goodnight, Irene]

Agreed, Observer.

Look at the way Holyfield fights. Whether he's boxing or fighting, he gets hit plenty. The way the Bert Cooper near-disaster went helps to convince me Holyfield would have failed against the Tyson of the late 80's, & not many people agree with us on that, but Holyfield would want to prove himself & start slugging. It wouldn't work to his advantage. Cooper gave him all he could handle. To say Cooper is a poor man's Tyson is to bestow him with a very kind compliment. He wasn't even close. He sure was close to taking Holyfield out as well.

He also showed at least something of a weakness or aversion to consistent bodypunching against Bowe & Tyson is an underrated bodypuncher. The combination of speed, power & alarming precision in offense would be the difference. Holyfield gets stopped on his feet.

Not too many will agree though. It's become quite fashionable to say Holyfield would have always beaten Tyson. Not likely, IMO.

[Ezzard]

Holyfield was too durable and too strong willed for Tyson.

I don't go with the 2 different Tyson's argument.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Will didn't do much for Joe Frazier against George Foreman when he was being hit repeatedly. Except serve to deliver him more punishment.

Unlike Foreman, Tyson does not miss as often as he lands. He does not wing or loop. He even has an edge in handspeed over Holyfield. & Holyfield, like Frazier before him, is one of the more hittable Heavyweight champions.

To win Holyfield has to achieve one of two things...

A) Outbox Tyson - Better movers with slicker footwork & a greater dedication to keep moving no matter what tried, & failed.

B) Outfight Tyson - With what? He hasn't the arsenal. It's respectable, but not enough against the younger version of Tyson. Cooper took his senses away with a single blow. Foreman & Holmes have him plenty to deal with. In all respects, Tyson is superior to these guys.

As I said, it's quite the fashionable thing nowadays to argue Holyfield would have always had Tyson's number --- but no Heavyweight who gets hit that much, has that little defense, & is so utterly committed to slugging it out regardless of the opponent --- ain't beating a Heavyweight champion with arguably the best power-to-handspeed ratio in division history, a very sturdy chin, reasonable stamina, surprising defense, & first-class killer instinct.

This Tyson also had what the 96-97 version lacked --- a genuine desire to win, & to fulfil D'Amato's prophecy.

Tyson TKO5 Holyfield.

[Ezzard]

Will didn't do much for Joe Frazier against George Foreman when he was being hit repeatedly. Except serve to deliver him more punishment.

Unlike Foreman, Tyson does not miss as often as he lands. He does not wing or loop. He even has an edge in handspeed over Holyfield. & Holyfield, like Frazier before him, is one of the more hittable Heavyweight champions.

To win Holyfield has to achieve one of two things...

A) Outbox Tyson - Better movers with slicker footwork & a greater dedication to keep moving no matter what tried, & failed.

B) Outfight Tyson - With what? He hasn't the arsenal. It's respectable, but not enough against the younger version of Tyson. Cooper took his senses away with a single blow. Foreman & Holmes have him plenty to deal with. In all respects, Tyson is superior to these guys.

As I said, it's quite the fashionable thing nowadays to argue Holyfield would have always had Tyson's number --- but no Heavyweight who gets hit that much, has that little defense, & is so utterly committed to slugging it out regardless of the opponent --- ain't beating a Heavyweight champion with arguably the best power-to-handspeed ratio in division history, a very sturdy chin, reasonable stamina, surprising defense, & first-class killer instinct.

This Tyson also had what the 96-97 version lacked --- a genuine desire to win, & to fulfil D'Amato's prophecy.

Tyson TKO5 Holyfield.

At the time I would have agreed with you, but we didn't really know then what the two men were made of back then.

Tyson's shortcomings were not physical. He had the talent. What he didn't have was Holyfield's mental strength. He was also a poorer inside fighter than Holyfield.

The desire to win only lasted for 4-5 rounds, after that Tyson always became frustrated and vulnerable.

To win Holyfield has to do two things (1) Show up not intimidated by Tyson (as this actually intimidates Tyson himself). Well this is a given.

And (2) take what Tyson dishes out and come back with more of his own. A few rounds of this and Tyson would become less and less effective as the doubts in his mind got stronger and stronger.

[chiricahua]

Well hagler and tyson are the best ones for me.
Hagler crushed hearns like a maggot and people forget that,the decision with sugar is controversial and he defeated duran.
Tyson with cus d'amato style simply was invincible so i don't see anybody in the 80's able to beat him if he stays with rooney and cus d'amato fighting system principles.

Well the peek-a-boo has its problems. If it was invincible then all boxers would use it. Tyson was exciting but not unbeatable.

Regular peek-a-boo is different from cus d'amato peek-a-boo, in my opinion cus d'amato peek-a-boo is invincible.
All boxers can't use cus d'amato style coz only atlas joey rooney and another guy know this style.Cus d'amato said with his style and routine tyson would be invincible and honestly i agree with him.

I wouldn't say that Tyson was invincible.

Tony Tucker might have beaten Tyson if he had a bit more belief & if Boneclutcher Smith wasn't such an Audley Harrison, he might have shocked the world & these fights occurred during Tyson's peek-a-boo pomp days.

Evander Holyfield was chasing a Tyson fight in 1988/9 & it is my belief that he would have shocked Tyson to the core had that fight happened when he wanted it to

You are 100% wrong about the tucker and bonesmith fights Hank Kaplan, speaking of the young Tyson, wrote in Boxing Digest, “He has the best defense(created by cus d'amato) seen in the heavyweight division in many years.” Tyson had excellent fundamentals, he showed good balance, exceptional head movement, kept his hands high, ducked and bent at the waist to remain in punching position and he slipped, blocked and countered punches very well. Tony Tucker and Bonecrusher Smith each managed to land only one significant punch in their entire fights against Tyson.
Tucker and bone could only survive against tyson after the fights themselves stated the obvious.
Again no, kevin rooney wanted to make a fight against mr.holy but dumb king delayed the fight.
Do you know what holy said after the fight tyson stewart?
He said " i have plenty of time to fight against tyson and tyson was very impressive tonight".
Holyfield couldn't even ko an even older holmes and tyson destroyed him easily before the headlines were too much for holmes.
Prime tyson was much better than holyfield.
Cus d'amato style has an answer for everything including headbutts.

Agree, and lets not forget the fights with Tillis and Green

If you want we can speak about the difficult fights others greats like ali had against even worse foes.Every fighter has bad days simply no one can perform 100% in every fight,however everybody has lesser performances in boxing history,it is wrong to use this logic against tyson coz works against every single fighter.
sugar ray leonard after the fight said tillis and green behavior was only to survive plus 1 day before the fight with tillis tyson was in the hospital with fever.

Holyfield was too durable and too strong willed for Tyson.

Too durable?
He made 35 heavyweight fights with a record of 42-9 defeats yes he is durable but he loses a lot and tyson has more fights in less time than holy.

He was also a poorer inside fighter than Holyfield.

The desire to win only lasted for 4-5 rounds, after that Tyson always became frustrated and vulnerable.

To win Holyfield has to do two things (1) Show up not intimidated by Tyson (as this actually intimidates Tyson himself). Well this is a given.

And (2) take what Tyson dishes out and come back with more of his own. A few rounds of this and Tyson would become less and less effective as the doubts in his mind got stronger and stronger.

Tyson was better inside than holyfield actually rooney explained how to beat holy inside game with Cus d'amato system in an interview .Watch the film of Tyson work over Jesse Ferguson; his body punching is incredible and just as workman like as that of a prime Joe Frazier.
Tyson had several fights where he defeated his foes in more than 3 4 5 or 9 that later rounds factor is BS against tyson.
The intimidation factor is BS and the doubts in his mind got stronger and stronger is BS again always the same excuses when tyson defeated tucker bone ruddock,etc in 12 rounds.By the way atlas said that before the fight with spinks and look what happened.
Tyson is remembered by some more for his late career failures, when his skills and desire had long vanished, than for his early success. Mike Tyson was good enough at his youthful peak to be considered among the best heavyweights in history.

[Ezzard]

So any time Tyson loses it's BS. Tyson lost twice to Holyfield who was more shop worn and more past it.

You talk about excuses but they're all coming from the Tyson camp.

The peek-a-boo did little for his against Douglas. Tysonw as a tremendous offensive fighter but his limitations were always there.

The argument is always that Tyson KO'd people earlier than others. That really means very little.

[chiricahua]

So any time Tyson loses it's BS. Tyson lost twice to Holyfield who was more shop worn and more past it.

You talk about excuses but they're all coming from the Tyson camp.

The peek-a-boo did little for his against Douglas. Tysonw as a tremendous offensive fighter but his limitations were always there.

The argument is always that Tyson KO'd people earlier than others. That really means very little.

You refuse to listen the truth all the boxing historians agree after rooney tyson boxing skills declined noticeably and after prison tyson was a marketing product.
Tyson violated all the Cus D'Amato peek-a-boo principles in the fight against douglas,simply you don't know what are the rules but i know,plus kevin wasn't there anymore and he never had a normal training for that fight unless you consider a good boxing training sex with japanese girls.
Cus D'amato fighting system doesn't have flaws.

[Ezzard]

So any time Tyson loses it's BS. Tyson lost twice to Holyfield who was more shop worn and more past it.

You talk about excuses but they're all coming from the Tyson camp.

The peek-a-boo did little for his against Douglas. Tysonw as a tremendous offensive fighter but his limitations were always there.

The argument is always that Tyson KO'd people earlier than others. That really means very little.

You refuse to listen the truth all the boxing historians agree after rooney tyson boxing skills declined noticeably and after prison tyson was a marketing product.
Tyson violated all the Cus D'Amato peek-a-boo principles in the fight against douglas,simply you don't know what are the rules but i know,plus kevin wasn't there anymore and he never had a normal training for that fight unless you consider a good boxing training sex with japanese girls.
Cus D'amato fighting system doesn't have flaws.

No they don't all agree. If you don't accept this then name all of them and quote them.

The post Rooney nonsense is spouted again and again.

Here are a few points.

1) If Rooney was so great a trainer where are the rest of his great champions?

2) If D'Amato's peek-a-boo had no flaws then where are all the other great champs, or even average fighters that the peek-a-boo turned into champs?

3) Tyson was doing nothing different with those Japanese girls. He was supposed to have been treated for a STD prior to the Berbick fight.

4) Tyson was always doing ridiculous things and showing mental fragility, look at the scruffle with Mitch Green.

[chiricahua]

So any time Tyson loses it's BS. Tyson lost twice to Holyfield who was more shop worn and more past it.

You talk about excuses but they're all coming from the Tyson camp.

The peek-a-boo did little for his against Douglas. Tysonw as a tremendous offensive fighter but his limitations were always there.

The argument is always that Tyson KO'd people earlier than others. That really means very little.

You refuse to listen the truth all the boxing historians agree after rooney tyson boxing skills declined noticeably and after prison tyson was a marketing product.
Tyson violated all the Cus D'Amato peek-a-boo principles in the fight against douglas,simply you don't know what are the rules but i know,plus kevin wasn't there anymore and he never had a normal training for that fight unless you consider a good boxing training sex with japanese girls.
Cus D'amato fighting system doesn't have flaws.

No they don't all agree. If you don't accept this then name all of them and quote them.

The post Rooney nonsense is spouted again and again.

Here are a few points.

1) If Rooney was so great a trainer where are the rest of his great champions?

2) If D'Amato's peek-a-boo had no flaws then where are all the other great champs, or even average fighters that the peek-a-boo turned into champs?

3) Tyson was doing nothing different with those Japanese girls. He was supposed to have been treated for a STD prior to the Berbick fight.

4) Tyson was always doing ridiculous things and showing mental fragility, look at the scruffle with Mitch Green.

Go on, quote them but don't forget, the majority is with tyson,there is a large consensus about this who favours tyson even champions like lennox stated how terrible young mike was.There isn't post Rooney nonsense,but there is nonsense like if tyson ko a fighter in the early rounds the guy was intimidated and to beat tyson the other fighter only needs to survive the first 4-5 rounds and tyson will become frustrated,however tyson defeated fighters in 12 or 10 rounds but then he got lucky or he had scruffles who show how weak he was but he won clearly the fight by comfortably unanimous decision OK doesn't matter we are talking about tyson BS is the rule.However people say the same nonsense all the time including with george but evander couldn't ko an old george.
Old george koed moorer in the round 10 and moorer defeated evander.
1-Where are the other champions?
Are you joking?
Rooney is still young.Cus D'Amato the best trainer of all time only had 3 world champions and tyson came only in his later years in the 70's.
Rooney made a good job with vinnie,but for you rooney is a bad coach simply coz he isn't in the boxing system like dundee or steward where the boxing managers and promoters give them champions or top fighters.
But how many great fighters they build since the beginning?
2-look you don't understand nothing about cus d'amato system so you don't know what you are talking about,man.
To become a successeful fighter with this system you can't be tall. The right size is between 5 11 or 6 0 and you need to be fast or powerfull or both mike had both patterson only had speed,so if you don't have any of them forget it.
It's not easy to find a puncher with hand speed and the right size.
3-rooney wasn't there without rooney the cus d'amato principles were completely ignored tyson had bums in his corner and about this there is a large consensus even Atlas who hates tyson agrees with this.
4-he won the fight, green tried to survive and clinch the whole fight,i don't know where is mental fragility,sugar didn't see any of this and the tv comments don't talk about it only you.
The fact is mike with rooney= invincible and better but only for the few who understand Cus system all the others can't understand the difference ,coz they don't know the style even the punch technique is different even Atlas stated tyson's technique declined however you call the few experts who understand this style stupid, there is a big difference between tyson with cus system and tyson without him or doing it in the wrong way tyson himself spoke about this in an interview.

When hurt or on the ropes you kill your sight lines and the rolling you need will make you loll and lose leverage (if you'll excuse my brilliant use of alliteration, it just happend). As you are doing this your centre is open and the opponent can use straight shots to pound you.

Wrong cus had a specific answer to that ex:duck the punch with a specific drill and use counter punches to smash the opponent.

This whole Cus, Atlas, Rooney + Tyson = Invincible does not wash. Cus saw a chance to get a legacy with Tyson, failed to turn him into a man, failed to round him as human and left his a pre-programmed fighter unable to turn a fight

Unable to turn a fight without them.

Once you get beyond youth it is a bane.

No, with 22 or 24 years old with the right physical habillity punch power both sides and speed you can do it.

As for no one being able to teach it, it is a tight guard, lateral movement and a gyroscopic movement from the waist

Wrong again Cus created a specific punch technique,footwork drills and slip drills.You forgot the Willie combinations too.
Again only 3 man can teach you this system Atlas Rooney and Joey however there are some more who worked with them who can give you a good basis about it.

That is a mistake. It is not invincible. Tyson got defeated using it, ergo it is flawed

No it is invincible if you are able to respect/apply the principles during the fight.Tyson never got defeated using it properly.
It is not flawed if you have power both sides speed and slip with perfection,of course if you miss the principles you can lose but if you don't miss the winner will be you.

[Ezzard]

No, I asked you to quote the historians. You're the one making the claim; you provide the evidence.

Rooney and Atlas know boxing but they're hardly boxing royalty.

So Foreman KO'd Moorer, Moorer beat Holyfield and, what's more Holyfield couldn't KO George. BUT, hang on, Holyfield beat Douglas who beat Tyson. And, wait a minute, Holyfield beat Tyson twice... Oh, I get it though, that wasn't the real Tyson. The real Tyson evaporated the moment Douglas doubled his jab into Mike's face. The real Tyson only existed in the 2 rounds it took him to demolish Berbick, as well as the imaginations of his die-hard fans who somehow fuse their hopes and dreams with a fighter whose physical talents promised more than his psyche could deliver.

In many respects D'Amato was a great boxing man; in another he was a guru passing down his knowledge that was so wonderful, epoch making and paradigm breaking that nobody else bothered to take it up...after all, where are all these D'Amato-alikes...

Tyson was an exciting fighter. He was a great offensive fighter who would have given anyone a fight... But give it up and ask yourself how you can rate his achievements with the greatest the division has to offer and still look yourself in the eye every morning.

[chiricahua]

No, I asked you to quote the historians. You're the one making the claim; you provide the evidence.

Rooney and Atlas know boxing but they're hardly boxing royalty.

So Foreman KO'd Moorer, Moorer beat Holyfield and, what's more Holyfield couldn't KO George. BUT, hang on, Holyfield beat Douglas who beat Tyson. And, wait a minute, Holyfield beat Tyson twice... Oh, I get it though, that wasn't the real Tyson. The real Tyson evaporated the moment Douglas doubled his jab into Mike's face. The real Tyson only existed in the 2 rounds it took him to demolish Berbick, as well as the imaginations of his die-hard fans who somehow fuse their hopes and dreams with a fighter whose physical talents promised more than his psyche could deliver.

In many respects D'Amato was a great boxing man; in another he was a guru passing down his knowledge that was so wonderful, epoch making and paradigm breaking that nobody else bothered to take it up...after all, where are all these D'Amato-alikes...

Tyson was an exciting fighter. He was a great offensive fighter who would have given anyone a fight... But give it up and ask yourself how you can rate his achievements with the greatest the division has to offer and still look yourself in the eye every morning.

No they don't all agree. If you don't accept this then name all of them and quote them-your line but i can quote them,Herb Goldman bert sugar,etc.where are your guys?The real Tyson evaporated when rooney left period if you can't accept this forget it.
There are special requirements to learn this style and i already explained you that but if you can't follow forget it.You are a die-hard holyfield fan the headbutt master the dirtiest fighter george and lennox ever faced their own words.Where are the Ali Foreman frazier alikes today?????
Prime Holyfield lost twice against bowe couldn't ko an old holmes,lost against ruiz lewis and several chumps he fought in only 35 heavyweight fights but he is good coz he defeated tyson which is a fraud lol mcbride williams defeated tyson too, even the great fighters agree tyson was a joke after prison holy doesn't have anybody else to claim how good he was.No one except tyson but tyson was weak and not great which means holy never defeated a great fighter,lol,so how do you rate holy in this case.Wait holy defeated a fat douglas but how many guys defeated douglas?
Wait a lot of guys.
Nobody talks how holy fitness which was bad improved after mr.lee haney help -a bodybuilder,lol obviously the talk theme was poetry
he can't also explain how a man with his name age and adress bought steroids too.If tyson isn't great holy never defeated anyone great Anyone.

Who is the boxing royalty for you steward dundee???
never forget before the fight against foreman ali asked Cus how to beat him,by the way check the youtube cus ali chat.

Brilliant. Why didn't I think of that. Well, for a start you duck, your arse hits the rope middle, you get hit with a straight shot, your arse hits the apron, your arse is beaten.

Terry d you are funny lol. you eat what??? lol if it is so easy how the hell tyson was such a successful fighter and straight isn't an answer or else everyone could use it but let me guess you weren't there to advise the other guys - terry d the unknown genius better than cus d'amato the legend lol the straight as an answer is dumb and pathetic coz you know that was the easiest thing to avoid with cus system but it seems a lot of fighters forgot to use the straight and tyson crushed their dirty arses lol

You are saying the teachings are so great yet Tyson was unable to remember the drills, evidently they did not make a huge impression, no? He was unable to turn a fight full-stop and time would have told on that.

Even when you learn well a style details are everything and for that you need a coach who understands the style not trainers with a big mouth who can't even recognize the difference between regular peek-a-boo and cus d'amato system.

How old was Tyson when he lost? Between that age bracket? So still young and he got pounded like a dirty girl during an orgy scene.

Wtf i was talking about a new guy who learns this style for the first time don't forget your own quotes.

I could teach this system. It was smoke and mirrors, "1,5,6,7 and 9 off the jab which in this case we'll make a 17 with the feint being 28.4". It was nonsense. The slips were one side, then the other side. That is the essence of the slip. If you slipped left, left, left, right, right and left you'd look like you was doing the funky chicken and get walloped with rights and lefts.

No you can't coz you are ignorant about this style,you don't know how willie works and your numbers are wrong '
Your essence is not enough and it is incomplete there is a reason why they call this a system there are specific rules to follow your essence is basic and pathetic don't compare yourself with a genius like Cus and the things you said about left, left, left, right, right and left are pathetic and obvious everyone can understand that and it proves how ignorant you are about this style.

In that case the principles were flawed, perfect principles are taught perfectly and stick that way. Tyson was defeated because he was a man-child in a man's sport. Was brought up by a guy who only saw him as a means rather than an end and lost the only trainer who could keep his feet on the ground, Atlas, but even with him it was a moot point as Tyson was a deeply flawed fighter with a deeply flawed style of boxing.

Tyson was defeated coz he hadn't character and became too arrogant and lazy to follow what cus teached him.
Sure you know more about boxing than Cus coz Cus said this style was invincible.

[wouter]

Sure you know more about boxing than Cus coz Cus said this style was invincible.

What would happen if two fighters using D'Amato's peekaboo style fought eachother?

[chiricahua]

Sure you know more about boxing than Cus coz Cus said this style was invincible.

What would happen if two fighters using D'Amato's peekaboo style fought eachother?

The faster and stronger boxer would be the winner,so if you put patterson and tyson in the ring tyson would be the winner coz he was stronger and faster than patterson.

[wouter]

Sure you know more about boxing than Cus coz Cus said this style was invincible.

What would happen if two fighters using D'Amato's peekaboo style fought eachother?

The faster and stronger boxer would be the winner,so if you put patterson and tyson in the ring tyson would be the winner coz he was stronger and faster than patterson.

So the faster and stronger boxer is more invincible than the other?

[chiricahua]

What would happen if two fighters using D'Amato's peekaboo style fought eachother?

The faster and stronger boxer would be the winner,so if you put patterson and tyson in the ring tyson would be the winner coz he was stronger and faster than patterson.

So the faster and stronger boxer is more invincible than the other?

D you have problems with rules now:lol:.
Obviously there are better fighters than others in the same style and the best in this kind of style is the one who has more speed and power it is very difficult to understand isn't it?
The user determines who is the better fighter and the better is the one who has more speed and power like i said before the one who can use this style in his full potential is the boxer with more power and speed.
Get it...hmmm not yet?