Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Calling Mike Tyson the most dangerous Heavyweight Correct?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by SBleeder View Post
    Golata ahead of Jack Johnson? List is a failure.

    Liston, Foreman, Frazier, Ali, Louis, Johnson, Shavers, Sullivan, Jeffries... I'd rather fight Tyson than any of those guys.
    how da fuk is jack johnson indimidating more than tyson? unless your scared of being hugged and jabbed for 12 rounds....sullivan n jeffries only scared punkes....
    Last edited by JAB5239; 12-08-2010, 10:20 PM.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by carlos slim View Post
      how da fuk is jack johnson indimidating more than tyson? unless your scared of being hugged and jabbed for 12 rounds....sullivan n jeffries only scared lil white punkes....
      Reported for racism :loser9:

      Comment


      • #13
        i just know the facts....fact is they beat up the softest whitest contenders....

        Comment


        • #14
          "Dangerous" is a vague term at times. In this context, does dangerous mean the most poweful? The most likely to destroy you? The one most capable of doing damage? The one with the fastest and greatest aggression? And Carlos Slim, Jeffries and Sullivan are hardly scared punks. Unless fighting in the rain for 75 Rounds over 2 hours in the case of Sullivan, or fighting 25 rounds under brutal heat lamps against Tom Sharkey in the case of Jeffries makes one a punk. Jeffries fought for 23 rounds trailing behind Corbett but still knocked him out. Sullivan fought a 39 round bout with Charley Mitchell in the rain and mud, and fought veteran pros when he first got into the game. They are hardly punks. Jim Corbett ocne fought a 61 round war with Peter Jackson. And you call these men scared?

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by Great John L View Post
            "Dangerous" is a vague term at times. In this context, does dangerous mean the most poweful? The most likely to destroy you? The one most capable of doing damage? The one with the fastest and greatest aggression? And Carlos Slim, Jeffries and Sullivan are hardly scared punks. Unless fighting in the rain for 75 Rounds over 2 hours in the case of Sullivan, or fighting 25 rounds under brutal heat lamps against Tom Sharkey in the case of Jeffries makes one a punk. Jeffries fought for 23 rounds trailing behind Corbett but still knocked him out. Sullivan fought a 39 round bout with Charley Mitchell in the rain and mud, and fought veteran pros when he first got into the game. They are hardly punks. Jim Corbett ocne fought a 61 round war with Peter Jackson. And you call these men scared?
            cant fool me by throwing out numbers....back in those days rounds could be anywhere from 10 seconds long...i didnt call them punks i said they only scared those types of guys not smart fighters....i dont think michael spinks would be scared of em...

            Comment


            • #16
              Jeffries fought the best heavyweights of the day. Most of which were better than many of the people Mike fought. Jeffries fought Peter Jackson, beat Corbett twice, Fitzsimmons twice, Tom Sharkey twice, was never knocked down or out in his prime, Gus Ruhlin, Joe Choynski, and Hank Griffin. Sullivan's opposition was not on the level of Jeffries', but he certainly didn't fight bums. He fought and destoryed almsot everyone around, except Jacksoon, whom he drew the color line against due to the politics of the day.

              Comment


              • #17
                I'm throwing out numbers? Carlos Slim, you are definitely short on pre 1910s heavyweight boxing. All of these are true rounds and facts, all recorded in the record books. I don't need to fool you. It's just fact.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Great John L View Post
                  I'm throwing out numbers? Carlos Slim, you are definitely short on pre 1910s heavyweight boxing. All of these are true rounds and facts, all recorded in the record books. I don't need to fool you. It's just fact.
                  when you say someone fought a 70 round fight....doesnt mean it was the thrilla 3 times ova.....rounds werent fixed 3 minutes back then....they ended off simple things like hitting the ropes and clinching....so you cant just say it was a 70 round fight and expect respect off the strength of just that...

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    I'm aware all fights didn't go 3 mintues. But the total time of the fight was in excess of 2 hours. That's more than twice as long as a 15 round Heavyweight Championship fight. It was bareknuckled, only 30 seconds of rest as opposed to the modern 1 minute, and it was pouring rain and the ring was slippery from mud and water. They had to be tough to fight in those conditions.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by Great John L View Post
                      I'm aware all fights didn't go 3 mintues. But the total time of the fight was in excess of 2 hours. That's more than twice as long as a 15 round Heavyweight Championship fight. It was bareknuckled, only 30 seconds of rest as opposed to the modern 1 minute, and it was pouring rain and the ring was slippery from mud and water. They had to be tough to fight in those conditions.
                      It takes a special person to argue otherwise...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP