View Full Version : No boxer could have beat Mike Tyson on the 22nd of November, 1986


Pages : 1 [2]

Yaman
07-21-2006, 08:24 AM
Charles, Walcott, Patterson and Ali were all faster than him. And don't call me a moron, I have a thousand times the boxing knowledge you do, so you are only insulting yourself. Frazier a plodder? Hell, what fights of his have you seen?

Watch Frazier against the likes of Chuvalo, Quarry, Ramos, Ellis and Foster. He is a machine. Let alone the Frazier of Ali 1. Frazier moves very quickly on his feet. Watch some footage before you embarass yourself. If you would get Tyson's balls out of your mouth, and watched other fighters too, you would see he isn't God.

You do realise that Tyson had about 30/40 pounds of muscle on those Cruiserweights(yeah yeah, they were heavyweights. Very small ones so you cant compare)? He was HUGE for his size. The only one faster was Ali, and he was a true heavyweight like Tyson.

Roy Jones was faster as a HW than Tyson and Ali or those other fighters you mentioned. He was even heavier than them, but you didn't mention him did you? No, because size is a big factor.

Yaman
07-21-2006, 08:27 AM
Spaghetti legs? What **** are you on about? Frazier's chin was solid, it probably wasn't quite as good as Tyson's though. But he didn't have spaghetti legs. The major difference between the two is heart. Frazier had so much it was ridiculous, Tyson had barely any. But you are right (like I said initially), that Tyson's handspeed is faster in terms of throwing multiple punches (i.e. combinations), but in terms of the single left hook, which was Joe's money punch, I think Frazier was on par with Tyson.

Never questioned Frazier's chin, i was comparing him to Tyson's chin because thats what the other poster was doing. Spaghetti legs, chicken dance, whatever. I won be sarcastic next time like you say ''Get Tyson's balls out of your mouth''. He was wobbling against some of his opponents who cant even compare to punching power with Frank Bruno, Razor Ruddock or even Douglass and James Smith.

Yes? :)

catskills23
07-21-2006, 08:45 AM
Never questioned Frazier's chin, i was comparing him to Tyson's chin because thats what the other poster was doing. Spaghetti legs, chicken dance, whatever. I won be sarcastic next time like you say ''Get Tyson's balls out of your mouth''. He was wobbling against some of his opponents who cant even compare to punching power with Frank Bruno, Razor Ruddock or even Douglass and James Smith.

Yes? :)

Yaman tyson started his career out as a southpaw .why did tyson change from southpaw?.

Yaman
07-21-2006, 08:55 AM
Yaman tyson started his career out as a southpaw .why did tyson change from southpaw?.

I dunno really. I heard that his left was so good that Cus or Rooney wanted him to use it as a jab. Therefor he would be powerfull with both hands fighting this way.

catskills23
07-21-2006, 08:59 AM
I dunno really. I heard that his left was so good that Cus or Rooney wanted him to use it as a jab. Therefor he would be powerfull with both hands fighting this way.

is it because its vey difficult to fight soutpaw when your a short heavyweight?. would tyson of generated more power if stayed southpaw . would it being impossible for him to utilise the peek a boo style if he stayed southpaw.

hellfire508
07-21-2006, 09:50 AM
Never questioned Frazier's chin, i was comparing him to Tyson's chin because thats what the other poster was doing. Spaghetti legs, chicken dance, whatever. I won be sarcastic next time like you say ''Get Tyson's balls out of your mouth''. He was wobbling against some of his opponents who cant even compare to punching power with Frank Bruno, Razor Ruddock or even Douglass and James Smith.

Yes? :)

No. Ruddock probably not. He hit damn hard.

Which opponents are you referring to anyway? Anyone who can stay on his feet for 41 rounds against Muhammad Ali, under non-stop punishment, has good legs. Any lesser figher would have fallen in the 14th of Manila especially, thats for sure.

hellfire508
07-21-2006, 09:52 AM
Charles no, Walcott no, Patterson hands yes but feet no, ali faster with hands and feet.

Charles, yes. Walcott, yes. Patterson, yes. Watch the film. Just because they don't constantly rush forward, doesn't mean they weren't fast on their feet. Ever seen Walcott's tricky footwork? He invented the shuffle you know.

Southpaw Stinger
07-21-2006, 09:52 AM
Any lesser figher would have fallen in the 14th of Manila especially, thats for sure

Damn right. The amount of punishment he soaked up and he was practically blind and yet still standing despite the onslaught.

catskills23
07-21-2006, 10:44 AM
Charles, yes. Walcott, yes. Patterson, yes. Watch the film. Just because they don't constantly rush forward, doesn't mean they weren't fast on their feet. Ever seen Walcott's tricky footwork? He invented the shuffle you know.

thats your opinion. i disagree . Have you seen sparring footage . Tyson was quicker in sparring than he was in the ring .

Yaman
07-21-2006, 10:46 AM
Damn right. The amount of punishment he soaked up and he was practically blind and yet still standing despite the onslaught.

One word..HEART. That what kept him up. Ali was a slapper. He had no power and he still staggered Frazier a lot of times.

Yaman
07-21-2006, 10:48 AM
Charles, yes. Walcott, yes. Patterson, yes. Watch the film. Just because they don't constantly rush forward, doesn't mean they weren't fast on their feet. Ever seen Walcott's tricky footwork? He invented the shuffle you know.


Former Middleweights are obviously faster than a ripped 5,11 220lb heavyweight :rolleyes: . You cant compare those guys. Give me a break.

Mike Tyson77
07-21-2006, 02:19 PM
I remember the first time I saw Tyson vs. berbick. I couldnt believe what I was seeing. Tyson hit Berbick with one punch and Berbick started falling all over the ring. Good times :boxing:

dempseyfan
07-21-2006, 04:40 PM
On any given day any fighter is beatable, there is no such thing as an unbeatable fighter.

dempseyfan
07-21-2006, 04:42 PM
Just like the schoolyard/bar room "badass" there is always someone badder waiting to show you just that.

hellfire508
07-21-2006, 08:01 PM
Former Middleweights are obviously faster than a ripped 5,11 220lb heavyweight :rolleyes: . You cant compare those guys. Give me a break.

Oh why not? Tyson is "as fast as a middleweight". "All the experts acknowledged this". :rolleyes:

And when was Walcott a light fighter? In his first couple of fights? He made his debut when he was 16, and a few years later he was over 185 pounds. How many people are fully grown by 16? Not many. "Oh but Mike Tyson was 700lbs when he was 12...". I don't care. Ali was 6"3 and 210 in his prime, but was a light-heavy at 18. Does this mean he was a blow up light-heavy? I don't care what they USED to be, its what they were in their prime. Charles was prime at light-heavy, I'll admit that, though at his peak at heavy he weighed 190. Patterson and Walcott were at their peak at heavyweight clearly... so you are talking out of your ass.
"No, George Foreman is not a good win for Ali, because when he was 5, he only weighed 50 pounds."

hellfire508
07-21-2006, 08:10 PM
I remember the first time I saw Tyson vs. berbick. I couldnt believe what I was seeing. Tyson hit Berbick with one punch and Berbick started falling all over the ring. Good times :boxing:

Yeah it was funny, but it still doesn't top Zab's chicken dance. That was ownage.

luistwentyone
07-21-2006, 11:37 PM
sorry Cassius but Iron Mike Tyson IS the Greatest of all time.

Verstyle
07-21-2006, 11:41 PM
Charles, Walcott, Patterson and Ali were all faster than him. And don't call me a moron, I have a thousand times the boxing knowledge you do, so you are only insulting yourself. Frazier a plodder? Hell, what fights of his have you seen?

Watch Frazier against the likes of Chuvalo, Quarry, Ramos, Ellis and Foster. He is a machine. Let alone the Frazier of Ali 1. Frazier moves very quickly on his feet. Watch some footage before you embarass yourself. If you would get Tyson's balls out of your mouth, and watched other fighters too, you would see he isn't God.


HA.okay.........

Verstyle
07-21-2006, 11:43 PM
Who is the delusional clown? I take it you've never seen the likes of Robinson, Monzon etc. in action?


your stating natural fast middleweights. hell throw in sugar ray leonard while u at it. he pretty much meant average.hell actually no he had welterweight hands be honest with u

-Antonio-
07-22-2006, 12:27 AM
Ive heard a lot of experts say that the Buster Dougles that beat Tyson would have beaten any heavyweight in history. I know for a fact Bert Sugar said it.

micky_knox
07-22-2006, 06:08 AM
Ive heard a lot of experts say that the Buster Dougles that beat Tyson would have beaten any heavyweight in history. I know for a fact Bert Sugar said it.
i doubt that.........tyson was an easy target that night.....
fair play to buster,but he wasnt anything special

Yaman
07-22-2006, 06:40 AM
Oh why not? Tyson is "as fast as a middleweight". "All the experts acknowledged this". :rolleyes:

And when was Walcott a light fighter? In his first couple of fights? He made his debut when he was 16, and a few years later he was over 185 pounds. How many people are fully grown by 16? Not many. "Oh but Mike Tyson was 700lbs when he was 12...". I don't care. Ali was 6"3 and 210 in his prime, but was a light-heavy at 18. Does this mean he was a blow up light-heavy? I don't care what they USED to be, its what they were in their prime. Charles was prime at light-heavy, I'll admit that, though at his peak at heavy he weighed 190 . Patterson and Walcott were at their peak at heavyweight clearly... so you are talking out of your ass.
"No, George Foreman is not a good win for Ali, because when he was 5, he only weighed 50 pounds."

And now admit that naturally small men are faster than someone who is huge for his size. Are you that stupid? Do you want me to explain why there are weight classes? And how weight can affect a fighter in many ways? 30 to 40 pounds is a lot. Maybe i should explain you why aswell because you're truly delusional.

Again, Tyson was the second fastest HEAVYWEIGHT of all time. Skinny 180/190 former Middleweights dont count against a bulked up natural 220lb of muscle standing in at 5,11.

SABBATH
07-22-2006, 07:32 PM
Tyson was the second fastest HEAVYWEIGHT of all time. Skinny 180/190 former Middleweights dont count against a bulked up natural 220lb of muscle standing in at 5,11. Tyson wasn't natural, he was a steroid user. Compare these two pictures of when he was juicing and when he wasn't.
http://www.boxnews.com.ua/photos/92/mike-tyson40.jpg

And today off the juice.....

http://www.canadastarboxing.com/Photos/Mike-Tyson-02-0503b.JPG

K-DOGG
07-22-2006, 07:37 PM
i doubt that.........tyson was an easy target that night.....
fair play to buster,but he wasnt anything special

He was on February 10th, 1990. ;)

Hard Boiled HK
07-22-2006, 09:30 PM
forman was nothing but power,however tyson had power along with speed

Power = Force x Velocity

Now that the definition of power has been defined, Tyson's punch power is very comparable with Foreman's, isn't it? I say they are equal, with Tyson's punches having less force than Foreman's but with much greater speed.

If people say Tyson's punches has as much force as Foreman's but with much more speed (believe me, I have heard it before), then they are biased morons. With their logic, Tyson would have the hardest punch in history. Even all you Tyson lovers know it's not true.

Dempsey 1919
07-22-2006, 11:31 PM
Tyson wasn't natural, he was a steroid user. Compare these two pictures of when he was juicing and when he wasn't.
http://www.boxnews.com.ua/photos/92/mike-tyson40.jpg

And today off the juice.....

http://www.canadastarboxing.com/Photos/Mike-Tyson-02-0503b.JPG

No, he wasn't. Not in his prime.

Big G Foreman
07-23-2006, 02:34 AM
Yeah this kid is right nobody could beat a prime Tyson besides Douglas,Holyfield,Lewis,Foreman,Ali,Frazier,Ron Lyle,A prime Holmes,Ray Mercer,either Klitchko,Sam Peter,David Tua,Ike Ibeabuchi, and just about any other heavyweight who wasn't paid by Don King to take a dive for him or was just a complete bum.

hellfire508
07-23-2006, 04:35 AM
your stating natural fast middleweights. hell throw in sugar ray leonard while u at it. he pretty much meant average.hell actually no he had welterweight hands be honest with u

Oh give it a rest you nutcase.

hellfire508
07-23-2006, 04:37 AM
And now admit that naturally small men are faster than someone who is huge for his size. Are you that stupid? Do you want me to explain why there are weight classes? And how weight can affect a fighter in many ways? 30 to 40 pounds is a lot. Maybe i should explain you why aswell because you're truly delusional.

Again, Tyson was the second fastest HEAVYWEIGHT of all time. Skinny 180/190 former Middleweights dont count against a bulked up natural 220lb of muscle standing in at 5,11.

Look you stupid ****, they were heavyweights, are you that stupid? Walcott, Charles and Patterson were the heavyweight champions of the world. Are you too ****ing slow to understand this? Dumb ****.

In case you forgot... a former "skinny" light-heavyweight kicked Tyson's ass. Evander Holyfield ring any bells?

Yaman
07-23-2006, 08:36 AM
Look you stupid ****, they were heavyweights, are you that stupid? Walcott, Charles and Patterson were the heavyweight champions of the world. Are you too ****ing slow to understand this? Dumb ****.

In case you forgot... a former "skinny" light-heavyweight kicked Tyson's ass. Evander Holyfield ring any bells?

Temper.. :D . This dickhead got proven wrong now.

You're even slower than i thought. I dont care if they were HWs FOR THEIR TIMES. Like i said(Your brain damage must have ignored this) they were small ''heavyweights'' compared to the newer eras. Are you that stupid? Did you not catch up with the rest of the world? You probably lived in a cave or something. It is a fact that Tyson was 40/30 pounds heavier than those guys. Its a fact that weight effects fighters in many ways. But i still wont expect you to understand something that simple.

And oh yeah..Evander still had 30/40 pounds on the tiny HW's :)
Is there anything else you want me to shatter in pieces in this argument? :bottle:

Yaman
07-23-2006, 08:40 AM
Tyson wasn't natural, he was a steroid user.

Say that about Tyson's prime and you'll hear 9 out of 10 experts tell you wrong. You know damn well that Tyson was a freak of nature. He was around 190/200lb in his teen years, and he never lifted any weights, wich is proven in interviews from people who were close to him. Tyson could gain weight easily. He had a harder time losing weight. I guess you also didn't catch up on the thread title that was talking about 86 Tyson who fought Berbick. Not the near 40 year old who fought Mcbride. Nice try though.

micky_knox
07-23-2006, 08:43 AM
Power = Force x Velocity

Now that the definition of power has been defined, Tyson's punch power is very comparable with Foreman's, isn't it? I say they are equal, with Tyson's punches having less force than Foreman's but with much greater speed.

If people say Tyson's punches has as much force as Foreman's but with much more speed (believe me, I have heard it before), then they are biased morons. With their logic, Tyson would have the hardest punch in history. Even all you Tyson lovers know it's not true.
i never siad tyson was as powerful as foreman.........im just they they both had vast amounts of power.......

and sabbath .............tyson wasnt a steroid user.
you can bet with his history he would be tested after every fight.......
its a joke to suggest that

micky_knox
07-23-2006, 08:44 AM
Say that about Tyson's prime and you'll hear 9 out of 10 experts tell you wrong. You know damn well that Tyson was a freak of nature. He was around 190/200lb in his teen years, and he never lifted any weights, wich is proven in interviews from people who were close to him. Tyson could gain weight easily. He had a harder time losing weight. I guess you also didn't catch up on the thread title that was talking about 86 Tyson who fought Berbick. Not the near 40 year old who fought Mcbride. Nice try though.

that wasnt even a nice try

that was a pathetic attempt to discredit mike by a typical tyson hater

SABBATH
07-23-2006, 09:14 AM
tyson wasnt a steroid user.
you can bet with his history he would be tested after every fight.......
Boxing commissions don't test for steroid use during Tyson's era. Tommy Morrison recently admitted he fought his whole career while on steroids. When Tyson left prison he was reputed to have weighed 190 lbs. Don King joked that he was a cruiswerweight. Pictures of Tyson just out of prison confirm that he looked noticeably smaller. A 'natural' 220 pounder doesn't lose 30 pounds of muscle that easily.

Tyson used to "blow-up" in between fights when he was younger another sign of steroid use. Now that Tyson isn't fighting anymore and is no longer juicing, his weight is down to probably under 215 or 210 now with a softer look and higher body fat %.

.http://espn-att.starwave.com/media/box/2000/0914/photo/a_Tyson_i.jpg

micky_knox
07-23-2006, 09:25 AM
show me the real evidence

he spent 3 years in jail.....he could easily lose the muscle.anybody can physically deteriorate in jail .lol

lots od fighters blow up between fights.........are you saying hatton is a steroid user?

the only evidence you have is in your mind.......it like me accusing ali of using steroids,just because nobody can disprove it dosnt mean that i hae proved it correct....its nonsence
i totally do not agree he was a steroid user...at all....

Yaman
07-23-2006, 10:55 AM
Boxing commissions don't test for steroid use during Tyson's era. Tommy Morrison recently admitted he fought his whole career while on steroids. When Tyson left prison he was reputed to have weighed 190 lbs. Don King joked that he was a cruiswerweight. Pictures of Tyson just out of prison confirm that he looked noticeably smaller. A 'natural' 220 pounder doesn't lose 30 pounds of muscle that easily.

Tyson used to "blow-up" in between fights when he was younger another sign of steroid use. Now that Tyson isn't fighting anymore and is no longer juicing, his weight is down to probably under 215 or 210 now with a softer look and higher body fat %.

.http://espn-att.starwave.com/media/box/2000/0914/photo/a_Tyson_i.jpg

He's around 240lb nowadays as its obvious :rolleyes:

Tyson ate a lot. He had to work out to get back to 220. It was his natural body weight.

Nobody takes Tommy Morrison serious about anything. Except you ofcource. Or Don King joking about him being a Cruiserweight. We all know what kind of expert he is!

''reputed to have weighed 190''. Is that evidence or something? Thats something you WANT to believe.

I know you hate Tyson, but come on. There are limitations.

realheavyhands
07-23-2006, 12:15 PM
Boxing commissions don't test for steroid use during Tyson's era. Tommy Morrison recently admitted he fought his whole career while on steroids. When Tyson left prison he was reputed to have weighed 190 lbs. Don King joked that he was a cruiswerweight. Pictures of Tyson just out of prison confirm that he looked noticeably smaller. A 'natural' 220 pounder doesn't lose 30 pounds of muscle that easily.

Tyson used to "blow-up" in between fights when he was younger another sign of steroid use. Now that Tyson isn't fighting anymore and is no longer juicing, his weight is down to probably under 215 or 210 now with a softer look and higher body fat %.

.http://espn-att.starwave.com/media/box/2000/0914/photo/a_Tyson_i.jpgtyson never blew up between fights untill buster douglas

SABBATH
07-23-2006, 12:17 PM
He's around 240lb nowadays as its obvious :rolleyes:

Tyson ate a lot. He had to work out to get back to 220. It was his natural body weight.

Nobody takes Tommy Morrison serious about anything. Except you ofcource. Or Don King joking about him being a Cruiserweight. We all know what kind of expert he is!

''reputed to have weighed 190''. Is that evidence or something? Thats something you WANT to believe.

I know you hate Tyson, but come on. There are limitations.Look at this recent picture. There is no way Tyson is 240. I have pictures of Tyson in a boxing magazine at the time when he was released from prison and he was small. Of course I say 'reputed' because I didn't weigh him, but I've seen the pictures and he was substantially smaller than he was in his return fight against Peter McNeeley.

http://www.canadastarboxing.com/Photos/Mike-Tyson-02-0503b.JPG

micky_knox
07-23-2006, 12:18 PM
Look at this recent picture. There is no way Tyson is 240. I have pictures of Tyson in a boxing magazine at the time when he was released from prison and he was small. Of course I say 'reputed' because I didn't weigh him, but I've seen the pictures and he was substantially smaller than he was in his return fight against Peter McNeeley.

http://www.canadastarboxing.com/Photos/Mike-Tyson-02-0503b.JPG
and how does this proove he was on steroids?

lol

this is based on fantasy

SABBATH
07-23-2006, 12:23 PM
and how does this proove he was on steroids?

lol

this is based on fantasy Because 40 year old natural heavyweight champions don't traditionally shrink in size when they stop fighting. Louis, Frazier, Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Bowe etc....all get larger because they're not training down. Why do you think Tyson's in the ring and out of the ring behaviour was so irrational? Ever hear of roid rage?

micky_knox
07-23-2006, 12:39 PM
Because 40 year old natural heavyweight champions don't traditionally shrink in size when they stop fighting. Louis, Frazier, Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Bowe etc....all get larger because they're not training down. Why do you think Tyson's in the ring and out of the ring behaviour was so irrational? Ever hear of roid rage?


if you mean he has lost muscle mass its because he isnt training anymore.........and he will soon blow out again and put a lot of fat on.........roid rage???....you considering you know absolutly everything about boxing should know that mike allways had a temper....

you have absolutly nothing to base your asumptions on...you just decided in your own head he took steroids becosue you dont like him and want to discredit him anyway you can.......

Southpaw Stinger
07-23-2006, 01:48 PM
Tyson's in the ring and out of the ring behaviour was so irrational? Ever hear of roid rage?

You have to remember that Tyson had a temper even as a young child (which I can relate to lol) And I don't think Tyson would be on steroids as a kid.

Verstyle
07-23-2006, 01:54 PM
Because 40 year old natural heavyweight champions don't traditionally shrink in size when they stop fighting. Louis, Frazier, Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Bowe etc....all get larger because they're not training down. Why do you think Tyson's in the ring and out of the ring behaviour was so irrational? Ever hear of roid rage?


that was an idiot responsse i hope u come back on here and realize how stupid u jus sounded.i know ppl that r naturally built.it does happen. ;)

Yaman
07-23-2006, 02:07 PM
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/3471/lewislg0115xw.jpg

This is a teenage Mike Tyson(Lenox Lewis is on the picture aswell). As you can see he was already huge at a young age. It looks like he's around 200lb+ already. He never lifted weights and sure as hell was not on roids.

http://tysontalk.com/Media/sainttropez/TYSON8.jpg

This is last year or so. I think after the Mcbride fight. He looks like 240lb.

micky_knox
07-23-2006, 02:29 PM
You have to remember that Tyson had a temper even as a young child (which I can relate to lol) And I don't think Tyson would be on steroids as a kid.

yup


that was an idiot responsse i hope u come back on here and realize how stupid u jus sounded.i know ppl that r naturally built.it does happen. ;)
hehe

i agree

hellfire508
07-23-2006, 09:06 PM
Temper.. :D . This dickhead got proven wrong now.

You're even slower than i thought. I dont care if they were HWs FOR THEIR TIMES. Like i said(Your brain damage must have ignored this) they were small ''heavyweights'' compared to the newer eras. Are you that stupid? Did you not catch up with the rest of the world? You probably lived in a cave or something. It is a fact that Tyson was 40/30 pounds heavier than those guys. Its a fact that weight effects fighters in many ways. But i still wont expect you to understand something that simple.

And oh yeah..Evander still had 30/40 pounds on the tiny HW's :)
Is there anything else you want me to shatter in pieces in this argument? :bottle:

So let me get this straight... even though they fought at the same weight, we must discount their faster hands because they were "smaller" heavyweights? You are a complete braindead fool. Well, I guess that because Mike Tyson is 100 pounds lighter than Valuev, we must discount his handspeed. He isn't a "real" heavyweight compared to Valuev, he is just a little peewee. Same with Ali, sure his hands were fast, but he was a featherweight compared to Valuev, so we can't include him in the list. HA! Loser.

Verstyle
07-23-2006, 09:09 PM
So let me get this straight... even though they fought at the same weight, we must discount their faster hands because they were "smaller" heavyweights? You are a complete braindead fool. Well, I guess that because Mike Tyson is 100 pounds lighter than Valuev, we must discount his handspeed. He isn't a "real" heavyweight compared to Valuev, he is just a little peewee. Same with Ali, sure his hands were fast, but he was a featherweight compared to Valuev, so we can't include him in the list. HA! Loser.


we all know valuev is not normal. the guy ways over 300lbs and is over 7feet tall.how many boxers do u see go around like that to make it normal? thats a bad comparision although it isnt my argument

hellfire508
07-23-2006, 09:16 PM
we all know valuev is not normal. the guy ways over 300lbs and is over 7feet tall.how many boxers do u see go around like that to make it normal? thats a bad comparision although it isnt my argument

Yeah I know. I was just making a point. There are plenty of fighters 30-40 pounds heavier than Tyson. Basically, all I'm saying is that his argument is horse****, because at heavyweight, weight shouldn't affect criteria. Fact of the matter is: Walcott, Charles and Patterson were all heavyweight champions, who would give alot of great HWs fits. Walcott weighed up to 200 pounds, as did Patterson, as did Charles. They all weighed 200 pounds several times (or close to it tens of times). How are they not heavyweights? With modern training, they would be 210-220 pounds. Your argument is **** Yaman, you are a fool.

Verstyle
07-23-2006, 09:18 PM
Yeah I know. I was just making a point. There are plenty of fighters 30-40 pounds heavier than Tyson. Basically, all I'm saying is that his argument is horse****, because at heavyweight, weight shouldn't affect criteria. Fact of the matter is: Walcott, Charles and Patterson were all heavyweight champions, who would give alot of great HWs fits. Walcott weighed up to 200 pounds, as did Patterson, as did Charles. They all weighed 200 pounds several times (or close to it tens of times). How are they not heavyweights? With modern training, they would be 210-220 pounds. Your argument is **** Yaman, you are a fool.


so why do ppl give tyson so much **** for fighting a "blown up" michael spinks when he weighed like 209

hellfire508
07-23-2006, 09:39 PM
so why do ppl give tyson so much **** for fighting a "blown up" michael spinks when he weighed like 209

Not sure. I don't give him ****. Spinks was good heavyweight, (a better light-heavyweight), but still a good heavyweight. They are the same people that give Marciano **** for beating Walcott, Charles and Moore. The 'blown-up' argument is bull****, because 95% of the time, they are still in excellent shape. James Toney is in the 5%.

In saying that, some fighters do adjust to the higher weight better than others. Spinks, Charles etc. adjusted well. Someone like Bob Foster is an example of someone who struggled at the higher weight.

SABBATH
07-23-2006, 11:05 PM
you have absolutly nothing to base your asumptions on...you just decided in your own head he took steroids becosue you dont like him and want to discredit him anyway you can....... A young Mike Tyson before steroids...

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/229500/229900jOrN_w.jpg

Verstyle
07-23-2006, 11:08 PM
A young Mike Tyson before steroids...

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/229500/229900jOrN_w.jpg


u know damn well he didnt take steriods. he hit the weights when he went to prison and continued out of prison

SABBATH
07-23-2006, 11:21 PM
Recent picture off the juice...

http://www.rhettpalmer.com/images/photos/mike_tyson.jpg

Look at his much smaller neck, skinny forearms and narrow shoulders

Verstyle
07-23-2006, 11:23 PM
Recent picture off the juice...

http://www.rhettpalmer.com/images/photos/mike_tyson.jpg


ok i absolutly know your playing now.dont know if others will though

Dempsey 1919
07-24-2006, 03:09 AM
Tyson didn't take steriods.

micky_knox
07-24-2006, 07:59 AM
ok i absolutly know your playing now.dont know if others will though
he has to be playing.

he isnt that stupid to believe it himself

Yaman
07-24-2006, 08:36 AM
Yeah I know. I was just making a point. There are plenty of fighters 30-40 pounds heavier than Tyson. Basically, all I'm saying is that his argument is horse****, because at heavyweight, weight shouldn't affect criteria. Fact of the matter is: Walcott, Charles and Patterson were all heavyweight champions, who would give alot of great HWs fits. Walcott weighed up to 200 pounds, as did Patterson, as did Charles. They all weighed 200 pounds several times (or close to it tens of times). How are they not heavyweights? With modern training, they would be 210-220 pounds. Your argument is **** Yaman, you are a fool.

God, you're the biggest dickhead i've ever seen around here. Is there no brain inside your concrete skull? Listen up fool. The bigger you are, the slower you become. Is that too hard to think about? You want me to explain it even better? Pm me if so.

Today, and even in Tyson's area there were Cruiserweights the same size as Walcott, Charles etc. But why dont people mention them in the fastest HW list? Thats right, because they were naturally smaller, thus making them faster. Your argument of guys outweiging Tyson by 30/40 is bull aswell. Because you wont be fast when you're over 240lb. But you will be when you weigh less than 190.

You're the tool once again.

Yaman
07-24-2006, 08:46 AM
he has to be playing.

he isnt that stupid to believe it himself

Smasher is probably an alt. He went into these kind of posts months ago and he was banned. Lets hope it happens again :D

micky_knox
07-24-2006, 08:57 AM
Smasher is probably an alt. He went into these kind of posts months ago and he was banned. Lets hope it happens again :D
indeed

lets hope :)

hellfire508
07-24-2006, 09:19 AM
God, you're the biggest dickhead i've ever seen around here. Is there no brain inside your concrete skull? Listen up fool. The bigger you are, the slower you become. Is that too hard to think about? You want me to explain it even better? Pm me if so.

Today, and even in Tyson's area there were Cruiserweights the same size as Walcott, Charles etc. But why dont people mention them in the fastest HW list? Thats right, because they were naturally smaller, thus making them faster. Your argument of guys outweiging Tyson by 30/40 is bull aswell. Because you wont be fast when you're over 240lb. But you will be when you weigh less than 190.

You're the tool once again.

Oh my god! Did you go to school? What education DO you have? I honestly don't think you were born with a fully functional brain!

The people who were "as big as Walcott and Charles" who fought in the cruiserweight division during Tyson's era, aren't mentioned in heavyweight lists because THEY DIDN'T FIGHT AT HEAVYWEIGHT YOU ****ING TOOL!

"The bigger you are, the slower you become". No **** sherlock. Did you figure that out on your own? What I'm saying is the heavies who weighed around 240 who had quick hands, therefore had quicker hands than Tyson because they were heavier. That is what your argument suggests!!!

When someone argues with me about Walcott having faster hands than Ali, I don't say, "Oh but Ali weighed more, so its bull****". Why? Because the heavyweight division has no weight limit, because its minimum weight is deemed to be the weight where a fighter can be competitive with a fighter any weight above them? Understand? Therefore it doesn't matter what you weigh in that division, you are still a heavyweight.

Now, POUND FOR POUND, Tyson had faster hands that Walcott, or Charles. However, as heavyweights, Walcott had faster hands. GET IT? Just like, POUND FOR POUND, Rocky Marciano hit harder than Mike Tyson, but as heavyweights in general, Tyson hit harder? OKAY? Can that tiny little ball of snot inside your head comprehend this?

P.S... they were over 200 many times... get over it.

SABBATH
07-24-2006, 09:24 AM
Recent picture off the juice...

http://www.rhettpalmer.com/images/photos/mike_tyson.jpg

Look at his much smaller neck, skinny forearms and narrow shouldersAnother recent picture at 190 lbs with small shoulders and a 17 inch neck...
http://allboxing.ru/archives/RU_and_MikeTyson.jpg

micky_knox
07-24-2006, 09:40 AM
Another recent picture at 190 lbs with small shoulders and a 17 inch neck...
http://allboxing.ru/archives/RU_and_MikeTyson.jpg
nobody cares anymore

Yaman
07-24-2006, 09:50 AM
Oh my god! Did you go to school? What education DO you have? I honestly don't think you were born with a fully functional brain!

The people who were "as big as Walcott and Charles" who fought in the cruiserweight division during Tyson's era, aren't mentioned in heavyweight lists because THEY DIDN'T FIGHT AT HEAVYWEIGHT YOU ****ING TOOL!

"The bigger you are, the slower you become". No **** sherlock. Did you figure that out on your own? What I'm saying is the heavies who weighed around 240 who had quick hands, therefore had quicker hands than Tyson because they were heavier. That is what your argument suggests!!!

When someone argues with me about Walcott having faster hands than Ali, I don't say, "Oh but Ali weighed more, so its bull****". Why? Because the heavyweight division has no weight limit, because its minimum weight is deemed to be the weight where a fighter can be competitive with a fighter any weight above them? Understand? Therefore it doesn't matter what you weigh in that division, you are still a heavyweight.

Now, POUND FOR POUND, Tyson had faster hands that Walcott, or Charles. However, as heavyweights, Walcott had faster hands. GET IT? Just like, POUND FOR POUND, Rocky Marciano hit harder than Mike Tyson, but as heavyweights in general, Tyson hit harder? OKAY? Can that tiny little ball of snot inside your head comprehend this?

P.S... they were over 200 many times... get over it.

Temper.. :D I see you just saw the light because of my post.

Its all about weights dickhead. Most of their opponents were Cruiserweights. Maybe not as small as the fighters Charles or Wallcott fought, but they weren't real heavyweights. And like i said(And listen well, because your concrete skull with rotten brains may catch this) THEY WERE SMALLER THAN TYSON AND FOUGHT SMALLER FIGHTERS THAN TYSON. Therefor you cant compare them P4P with Tyson. Since weights dont matter to you, Roy Jones Was the fastest HW of all time. But you wouldn't say that about Roy would you? Because he fought smaller opponents most of his career. Owned.

So can you just think for a second about their size and weight ONLY. Not the rules of the heavyweight division, how many HW belts they won in those eras, how they were listed in all time lists. Those are just false arguments that dont have anything to do with my posts. Typical Ali nuthugger that makes things up and tries to make it a slanging argument :)

So according to you, Roy Jones is the fastest HW of all time because he was as small as Charles and Wallcott, but just forget about his weight and size. Its doesnt matter that they weren't heavyweights. Im done with you. Your worthless Ali nuthugging posts shouldn't be on this forum. your arguments has been shattered anyway. Read the bold parts everytime you feel like disagreeing ok? :)

hellfire508
07-24-2006, 08:18 PM
Temper.. :D I see you just saw the light because of my post.

Its all about weights dickhead. Most of their opponents were Cruiserweights. Maybe not as small as the fighters Charles or Wallcott fought, but they weren't real heavyweights. And like i said(And listen well, because your concrete skull with rotten brains may catch this) THEY WERE SMALLER THAN TYSON AND FOUGHT SMALLER FIGHTERS THAN TYSON. Therefor you cant compare them P4P with Tyson. Since weights dont matter to you, Roy Jones Was the fastest HW of all time. But you wouldn't say that about Roy would you? Because he fought smaller opponents most of his career. Owned.

So can you just think for a second about their size and weight ONLY. Not the rules of the heavyweight division, how many HW belts they won in those eras, how they were listed in all time lists. Those are just false arguments that dont have anything to do with my posts. Typical Ali nuthugger that makes things up and tries to make it a slanging argument :)

So according to you, Roy Jones is the fastest HW of all time because he was as small as Charles and Wallcott, but just forget about his weight and size. Its doesnt matter that they weren't heavyweights. Im done with you. Your worthless Ali nuthugging posts shouldn't be on this forum. your arguments has been shattered anyway. Read the bold parts everytime you feel like disagreeing ok? :)

You can't just "forget about the rules" like you say. The rules are the rules.

But I'll play it your way, as you are too one-dimensional to think outside your slanted viewpoint. Roy Jones the fastest heavyweight? No. Why? Because he had 53 fights, and fought just one fight at heavyweight. Does that make him a heavyweight? No. Did he stay at heavyweight after that fight? No. When you spend 52 fights at 160, 168 and 175, and 1 fight at HW, you are not a heavyweight, ESPECIALLY when you go back down in weight. However, if you say, "the heavyweight version of Jones had the fastest hands in HW history", that is a legit argument. But personally, I wouldn't rank him in lists, unless you were going by versions of fighters. (eg. 1. Jones against Ruiz, 2. Ali against London.. etc).

I just read the bit where I got "owned" apparently. :rolleyes: . Because he fought smaller opponents most of his career? No. Its because he fought at lower WEIGHT CLASSES most of his career. Not just MOST, 98% of his pro career was spent at lower weights. You know how many Charles had at heavyweight? Something like 70 fights!!!! He is a legit heavyweight. So by your argument, Dempsey, Marciano etc. are not heavyweights, therefore cannot be ranked in lists, because they were sub-200? Hell, they both weighed less than Walcott and Charles most of their careers! Mike Tyson's hero, Jack Dempsey, was never a legit heavyweight... get a new hero Mike.

Yes, its official people. Rocky Marciano, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson (who weighed under 200 several times), and maybe even Joe Louis can no longer be ranked in ATG lists, cos they weren't heavyweights... as well as Charles and Walcott.

Dempsey 1919
07-24-2006, 08:49 PM
You can't just "forget about the rules" like you say. The rules are the rules.

But I'll play it your way, as you are too one-dimensional to think outside your slanted viewpoint. Roy Jones the fastest heavyweight? No. Why? Because he had 53 fights, and fought just one fight at heavyweight. Does that make him a heavyweight? No. Did he stay at heavyweight after that fight? No. When you spend 52 fights at 160, 168 and 175, and 1 fight at HW, you are not a heavyweight, ESPECIALLY when you go back down in weight. However, if you say, "the heavyweight version of Jones had the fastest hands in HW history", that is a legit argument. But personally, I wouldn't rank him in lists, unless you were going by versions of fighters. (eg. 1. Jones against Ruiz, 2. Ali against London.. etc).

I just read the bit where I got "owned" apparently. :rolleyes: . Because he fought smaller opponents most of his career? No. Its because he fought at lower WEIGHT CLASSES most of his career. Not just MOST, 98% of his pro career was spent at lower weights. You know how many Charles had at heavyweight? Something like 70 fights!!!! He is a legit heavyweight. So by your argument, Dempsey, Marciano etc. are not heavyweights, therefore cannot be ranked in lists, because they were sub-200? Hell, they both weighed less than Walcott and Charles most of their careers! Mike Tyson's hero, Jack Dempsey, was never a legit heavyweight... get a new hero Mike.

Yes, its official people. Rocky Marciano, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson (who weighed under 200 several times), and maybe even Joe Louis can no longer be ranked in ATG lists, cos they weren't heavyweights... as well as Charles and Walcott.

good post. Yaman is owned! :D

Southpaw Stinger
07-24-2006, 09:58 PM
You can't just "forget about the rules" like you say. The rules are the rules.

But I'll play it your way, as you are too one-dimensional to think outside your slanted viewpoint. Roy Jones the fastest heavyweight? No. Why? Because he had 53 fights, and fought just one fight at heavyweight. Does that make him a heavyweight? No. Did he stay at heavyweight after that fight? No. When you spend 52 fights at 160, 168 and 175, and 1 fight at HW, you are not a heavyweight, ESPECIALLY when you go back down in weight. However, if you say, "the heavyweight version of Jones had the fastest hands in HW history", that is a legit argument. But personally, I wouldn't rank him in lists, unless you were going by versions of fighters. (eg. 1. Jones against Ruiz, 2. Ali against London.. etc).

I just read the bit where I got "owned" apparently. :rolleyes: . Because he fought smaller opponents most of his career? No. Its because he fought at lower WEIGHT CLASSES most of his career. Not just MOST, 98% of his pro career was spent at lower weights. You know how many Charles had at heavyweight? Something like 70 fights!!!! He is a legit heavyweight. So by your argument, Dempsey, Marciano etc. are not heavyweights, therefore cannot be ranked in lists, because they were sub-200? Hell, they both weighed less than Walcott and Charles most of their careers! Mike Tyson's hero, Jack Dempsey, was never a legit heavyweight... get a new hero Mike.

Yes, its official people. Rocky Marciano, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson (who weighed under 200 several times), and maybe even Joe Louis can no longer be ranked in ATG lists, cos they weren't heavyweights... as well as Charles and Walcott.

Indeed Yaman was owned. But he'll make a comeback.

Yaman
07-25-2006, 05:59 PM
You can't just "forget about the rules" like you say. The rules are the rules.

But I'll play it your way, as you are too one-dimensional to think outside your slanted viewpoint. Roy Jones the fastest heavyweight? No. Why? Because he had 53 fights, and fought just one fight at heavyweight. Does that make him a heavyweight? No. Did he stay at heavyweight after that fight? No. When you spend 52 fights at 160, 168 and 175, and 1 fight at HW, you are not a heavyweight, ESPECIALLY when you go back down in weight. However, if you say, "the heavyweight version of Jones had the fastest hands in HW history", that is a legit argument. But personally, I wouldn't rank him in lists, unless you were going by versions of fighters. (eg. 1. Jones against Ruiz, 2. Ali against London.. etc).

I just read the bit where I got "owned" apparently. :rolleyes: . Because he fought smaller opponents most of his career? No. Its because he fought at lower WEIGHT CLASSES most of his career. Not just MOST, 98% of his pro career was spent at lower weights. You know how many Charles had at heavyweight? Something like 70 fights!!!! He is a legit heavyweight. So by your argument, Dempsey, Marciano etc. are not heavyweights, therefore cannot be ranked in lists, because they were sub-200? Hell, they both weighed less than Walcott and Charles most of their careers! Mike Tyson's hero, Jack Dempsey, was never a legit heavyweight... get a new hero Mike.

Yes, its official people. Rocky Marciano, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson (who weighed under 200 several times), and maybe even Joe Louis can no longer be ranked in ATG lists, cos they weren't heavyweights... as well as Charles and Walcott.

rules are rules in different conversations. When discussing P4P, some rules dont count, wich you point out everytime when i tell you to stop kidding yourself. For example, Tyson had nearly 40 pounds on Wallcott, Charles etc. Sure they fought some heavyweights that were pretty big..but what does that have to do with P4P? Isn't it obvious that Mike is something more special when it comes down to speed? and when we're talking about the modern Heavyweights, they are ATLEAST over 215 pounds. Muhammad Ali just squeezes in there with those guys. Thats why i said that you cant compare those guys to Tyson, because 1: size difference that favors the oldies in many ways, and 2: Ali's and Tyson's era start out with diffirent kind of fighters. Thats why you cant compare them to Iron Mike.

Funny how you point out Roy Jones' fight as a heavyweight and compare them to Charles. But in the end, Roy was a heavyweight because he COULD have fought more fights at heavy. Since you dont care about pound for pound, i guess even this arguments supports mine :o .

''Charles was a legit HW''. But hellfire, aren't we comparing him to Tyson? Oh yeah thats right. Wich means that Tyson was the bigger man, fought the bigger guys, and still is as fast as him. Wich means that you cant compare him to Tyson p4p.

Thank you. I was in a better mood this time :) Good for you.

Yaman
07-25-2006, 06:02 PM
good post. Yaman is owned! :D

Sure i am. I mean thats why i just supported my argument with solid facts ;) .

Indeed Yaman was owned. But he'll make a comeback.

Would you like to join us mate?

catskills23
07-25-2006, 06:28 PM
rules are rules in different conversations. When discussing P4P, some rules dont count, wich you point out everytime when i tell you to stop kidding yourself. For example, Tyson had nearly 40 pounds on Wallcott, Charles etc. Sure they fought some heavyweights that were pretty big..but what does that have to do with P4P? Isn't it obvious that Mike is something more special when it comes down to speed? and when we're talking about the modern Heavyweights, they are ATLEAST over 215 pounds. Muhammad Ali just squeezes in there with those guys. Thats why i said that you cant compare those guys to Tyson, because 1: size difference that favors the oldies in many ways, and 2: Ali's and Tyson's era start out with diffirent kind of fighters. Thats why you cant compare them to Iron Mike.

Funny how you point out Roy Jones' fight as a heavyweight and compare them to Charles. But in the end, Roy was a heavyweight because he COULD have fought more fights at heavy. Since you dont care about pound for pound, i guess even this arguments supports mine :o .

''Charles was a legit HW''. But hellfire, aren't we comparing him to Tyson? Oh yeah thats right. Wich means that Tyson was the bigger man, fought the bigger guys, and still is as fast as him. Wich means that you cant compare him to Tyson p4p.

Thank you. I was in a better mood this time :) Good for you.

tyson was faster than charles or walcott. The only heavyweight faster than tyson was ali.Tyson could throw a four punch combination in a second.

Southpaw Stinger
07-25-2006, 07:35 PM
Sure i am. I mean thats why i just supported my argument with solid facts ;) .



Would you like to join us mate?

I told you he'd be back! :boxing:

hellfire508
07-25-2006, 10:54 PM
rules are rules in different conversations. When discussing P4P, some rules dont count, wich you point out everytime when i tell you to stop kidding yourself. For example, Tyson had nearly 40 pounds on Wallcott, Charles etc. Sure they fought some heavyweights that were pretty big..but what does that have to do with P4P? Isn't it obvious that Mike is something more special when it comes down to speed? and when we're talking about the modern Heavyweights, they are ATLEAST over 215 pounds. Muhammad Ali just squeezes in there with those guys. Thats why i said that you cant compare those guys to Tyson, because 1: size difference that favors the oldies in many ways, and 2: Ali's and Tyson's era start out with diffirent kind of fighters. Thats why you cant compare them to Iron Mike.

Funny how you point out Roy Jones' fight as a heavyweight and compare them to Charles. But in the end, Roy was a heavyweight because he COULD have fought more fights at heavy. Since you dont care about pound for pound, i guess even this arguments supports mine :o .

''Charles was a legit HW''. But hellfire, aren't we comparing him to Tyson? Oh yeah thats right. Wich means that Tyson was the bigger man, fought the bigger guys, and still is as fast as him. Wich means that you cant compare him to Tyson p4p.

Thank you. I was in a better mood this time :) Good for you.

Tyson did not have 40 pounds on them. Tyson weighed between 215 and 220 at his best. Walcott, at his best, weighed between 195 and 200. That's 20 pounds difference. Charles was a little lighter, though got up past 200 at the end of his career.

I don't see what you're saying with P4P, I didn't even mention P4P in that post.

NOW you are saying "Mike is something more special when in comes to speed". NOW you say that, when you have been owned. Yes, he was "more special" in terms of speed because he was heavier. However, how "special" you are does not alter your ranking on a speed list. The fact remains, those guys were heavyweights, and Walcott in particular was as fast, if not faster (especially footspeed) than Tyson. Now you say Muhammad Ali only JUST squeezes in with those guys. Ok, Ali isn't a legit heavyweight everybody, because he weighed under 215 in his prime! At his peak, he was between 205 and 213ish. Wow Muhammad, all this time people called you the greatest HW, you weren't even a HW!!

I don't care if Jones COULD have fought more at heavyweight. The fact is.. he DIDNT!! Ray Robinson could have fought more at light-heavyweight, but he didn't... would you include him on LHW lists? Of course not! Then you said, "Since you dont care about pound for pound, i guess even this arguments supports mine". What the **** does that mean? You are talking out of your ass. Grasping at straws aren't we?

This is your last little quote: "''Charles was a legit HW''. But hellfire, aren't we comparing him to Tyson? Oh yeah thats right. Wich means that Tyson was the bigger man, fought the bigger guys, and still is as fast as him. Wich means that you cant compare him to Tyson p4p."

No, we are not comparing him to Tyson. We are talking about the fastest heavyweights. Not the fastest guys at heavyweight P4P. The fastest heavyweights. Is that too difficult to understand? I've already said Tyson was obviously faster P4P, but when was that EVER the argument? You really do suck at debating. And if you are going to use the "P4P faster" argument, I can turn it around on "P4P hits harder" any time. So, good day to you. :)

Verstyle
07-25-2006, 11:55 PM
tyson was faster than charles or walcott. The only heavyweight faster than tyson was ali.Tyson could throw a four punch combination in a second.


actually i think alot of ppl can do that

sleazyfellow
07-26-2006, 01:13 AM
u ppl these days are used to this BIG ass heavyweights...u dont even take the time to reflect that these 200 pound guys of the past were big for their day n age

Hard Boiled HK
07-27-2006, 08:20 PM
tyson was faster than charles or walcott. The only heavyweight faster than tyson was ali.Tyson could throw a four punch combination in a second.

Floyd Patterson can easily do that, and I personally think he had faster hands than Tyson.

hellfire508
07-27-2006, 10:46 PM
Floyd Patterson can easily do that, and I personally think he had faster hands than Tyson.

What a stupid thing to say. He wasn't even a heavyweight. :rolleyes:

Hard Boiled HK
07-27-2006, 11:48 PM
What a stupid thing to say. He wasn't even a heavyweight. :rolleyes:

Two time heavyweight champion of the world. That's enough qualification to be a heavyweight.

micky_knox
07-28-2006, 06:42 AM
Floyd Patterson can easily do that, and I personally think he had faster hands than Tyson.
hmmmmmmmm
from what ive seen thats not true.......i will be honest and say that ive not seen many of pattersons fights,however from what i have seen id say he wasnt as fast as tyson...

hellfire508
07-28-2006, 09:32 AM
Two time heavyweight champion of the world. That's enough qualification to be a heavyweight.

I was being sarcastic. That's what this entire argument has been about.