Page 1 of 1
Could Tyson have won the Nobel prize for literature...?
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 12:19
by wouter
if he had ever written a book, preferably a very good one.
I'd say yes, which would make him not only the youngest WBC heavyweight champ ever, but also the only one to have won a Nobel prize OF ANY SORTS. Face it, the Man is a Legend.
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 12:31
by Ezzard
The pre lay-off Tyson with Rooney was well on the way to outwriting all of the major works... The Orestia, The Illiad, The Decameron, Hamlet, Ulysses, The Cantos... People don't realise that the post layoff Tyson couldn't spell like he used to, had lost his meter and was by that point dyslexic...
People on this board make me laugh going on about old-timers and over-rating them. Answer me this: how could a guy with a quill, a pencil, a biro or one of those old crappy typewriters compete with a guy who had a PC and Microsoft Word?
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 12:38
by The Great John L
Ezzard wrote:People on this board make me laugh going on about old-timers and over-rating them. Answer me this: how could a guy with a quill, a pencil, a biro or one of those old crappy typewriters compete with a guy who had a PC and Microsoft Word?
Compete in what way? If you are talking about being able to author quantity, then yes, the modern author has a clear advantage. However, if you are implying that these tools make for better authors, I think you’ve shot yourself in the foot. Read some “modern” novels authored by popular authors, and then compare the quality of writing to an “old-timer” like Emerson or Faulkner.
Actually, it is a good analogy. Certainly “modern” HW’s have the advantage of quantity, as most of them are comparable in size to a modest size office building. The quality comparison is another story. And there are very valid, logical reasons why the quality has dropped.
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 12:47
by JC
The Great John L wrote: Read some “modern” novels authored by popular authors, and then compare the quality of writing to an “old-timer” like Emerson or Faulkner.
Are you kidding me! Ralph Waldo Emerson weighed 160lbs in his prime, when you take into account modern nutrition and training methods there's no way he could write as well as a prime Mike Tyson.
I've
seen Shakespear's books and there nowhere near as long as Tom Clancy's. Anyone saying a 250 page writer like F Scott Fitzgerald could compete with a 600 page writer is a retard.
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 13:08
by Ezzard
The Great John L wrote:Ezzard wrote:People on this board make me laugh going on about old-timers and over-rating them. Answer me this: how could a guy with a quill, a pencil, a biro or one of those old crappy typewriters compete with a guy who had a PC and Microsoft Word?
Compete in what way? If you are talking about being able to author quantity, then yes, the modern author has a clear advantage. However, if you are implying that these tools make for better authors, I think you’ve shot yourself in the foot. Read some “modern” novels authored by popular authors, and then compare the quality of writing to an “old-timer” like Emerson or Faulkner.
Actually, it is a good analogy. Certainly “modern” HW’s have the advantage of quantity, as most of them are comparable in size to a modest size office building. The quality comparison is another story. And there are very valid, logical reasons why the quality has dropped.
Emerson and Faulkner couldn't cross Tyson's t's...
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 13:20
by Sweet Scientist
Although excelling in literature, Mike's real forte was making peace...therefore, the Nobel Peace Prize would be more appropriate
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 13:23
by BoxBuzz
He has promoted the greater understanding of men and women and how we might best respect and honor one another as equals. Mike is truly the Gandhi of the Ring.
Praise be to this living Saint, ....It is my opinion that whether we be champion, contender or pretender, we should all offer our ear to this wise sage.
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 13:29
by Eric the Viking
Ezzard wrote:Emerson and Faulkner couldn't cross Tyson's t's...
When it comes to holding Iron Mike's literary jockstrap:
The Bard was a Re-tard!
Goethe was "unwoethe"!
Moby-Dick isn't worth a lick!
Mark Twain had a Pea Brain!
Yeats was an In-grate!
Tom Clancy is a Nancy!
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 13:30
by BoxBuzz
and Stephen King? budda boom budda bing....
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 14:13
by Sweet Scientist
"...and Mike created the world in seven days..."(Book of Tyson - 3:26)
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 14:29
by Eric the Viking
Sweet Scientist wrote:"...and Mike created the world in seven days..."(Book of Tyson - 3:26)
"...and there was darkness upon the face of the Bolivian ... and He saw that it was good..."
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 15:37
by RazorKO
Is this thread meant to be funny?
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 16:08
by Collins2000
RazorKO wrote:Is this thread meant to be funny?
No, it's deadly serious like that time you stated that Coetzee was the 16th greatest heavyweight who ever lived....
chill out, man
I think I read somewhere that Tyson was the ghostwriter for "How to Win Friends and Influence People".
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 17:39
by MEISINGER
this is the greatest tyson thread in history!!!!!
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 17:54
by silkov
Well persoanally I dont know why Tyson hasnt run for President yet, I mean can he be any worse than Bush??... nope!... damn, why not Tyson as Pope??... he's a natural!...
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 19:20
by enrique
Box Buzz wrote:
"He has promoted the greater understanding of men and women and how we might best respect and honor one another as equals. Mike is truly the Gandhi of the Ring."
But he could not be.... Ghandi was a vegetarian and Mike is a flesh chewer...
He is Shakesperean -"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears..."
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 20:42
by silkov
Posted: 16 Nov 2006, 20:52
by Expug
There are only three truly BAD mofos in the world.
And every year Mike Tyson gets two Christmas cards.
Posted: 17 Nov 2006, 00:03
by birddog
expug wrote:There are only three truly BAD mofos in the world.
And every year Mike Tyson gets two Christmas cards.
Mike tyson may be badder than Chuck Norris. if that can even be thought of, After all Chuck Norris is Chuck Norris
Posted: 17 Nov 2006, 00:24
by pundit
Decagon wrote:silkov wrote:Well persoanally I dont know why Tyson hasnt run for President yet, I mean can he be any worse than Bush??... nope!... damn, why not Tyson as Pope??... he's a natural!...
No, they only take former Nazis as Popes these days. Perhaps if Tyson helped kill a few hundred Jews the way Pope John Paul II did...
(1) You're confusing John Paul II with Benedikt XVII;
(2) Benedikt XVII didn't kill anyone as far as I know -- he was a member of the Nazi youth organization as a teen as most German teens were then, no more no less.
Posted: 17 Nov 2006, 01:21
by pundit
Decagon wrote:No, I'm not. John Paul II colluded with the Nazis in Poland, sending a Jewish girl he was supposedly hiding to Auschwitz. He beautified Alojzije Stepinac (the same thing he did to Mother Theresa), who backed the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Jews, Gypsies and others during World War II. He tried to make a saint out of "Hitler's Pope," Pope Pius XII, who helped a shitload of Nazi war criminals escape to South America. He never decried the genocide of the Balkans.
There has been a disturbing connection between the Vatican and the Nazis for the past 65 years. When John Paul II became pope, there was a strong movement within the Vatican to stop blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus called Vatican II. What do you think happened to that idea when John Paul II took over? John Paul II reversed the Vatican II, maintaining the blame of the Jews as a part of Catholic rituals.
OK, thanks. Need to check that stuff before I can reply.
You seem to have more in your brain than I thought.
Posted: 17 Nov 2006, 13:37
by Eric the Viking
Guys, guys, please let's remember that this thread is all about Mr. Michael Gerard Tyson and his claim to Nobelistic literary greatness -- show some respect!
BTW, if Mike had ever gotten Pope JP2 to face him in the ring, how do you think that fight would've gone? I say PJP2 starts fast, using his "Holy smoke" defense and papal robes and mitre to frustrate Mike, but eventually Mike figures out that the way to beat PJP2 is to force him to bring the fight, at which point Mike feigns weakness, sags on the ropes, goads PJP2 in, eventually PJP2 punches himself out and Mike scores a stunning KO win thanks to his "Pope-a-Dope" strategy. Tyson KO9 PJP2.
"I'm Mike Tython, bitcheth!"
Posted: 17 Nov 2006, 15:21
by Sweet Scientist
OK...time for the serious side of this thread...Mike Tyson (so I'm told by highly reliable insider sources who must remain nameless) died in an accident in December 1989...(I'f you play the Douglass fight backwards, you'll hear, 'Mike is dead...Mike is dead')...his DNA was rapidly cloned using alien technology from Area 51, and a too rapidly formed, cloned duplicate was presented for the Douglas fight and everything thereafter...this will be made public in an upcoming HBO special...watch your local listings...so I guess the original Mike was great, It's that damned clone that screwed everything up...Tyson fanatics now have some serious credibility when they insist how great their guy was, they no longer need excuses for his losses, and the world is a brighter place...
