If Cus Damato Lived And Continued To Train Tyson

[StarshipTrooper]

WTF, that is out of order. Margairto had ****ing cerement in his damn gloves.

He fought his heart out, but when your fighting someone who is already heavy handed and has got hardened wraps on, what do you expect?

To call Cotto a quitter is a **** out of order.

Especailly from a man who writes poetry and has never boxed a day in his life. You ****ing fat turd.

Coming from someone with cement in his head given the asinine posts you pollute this forum with on a daily basis. Next!

Poet

[JAB5239]

You can't say she lied, you don't have any proof to back up this statement.

Don King was maybe greedy but Tyson never won more money before he worked with King.

I've met Desiree. Knew her brother from the University of Rhode Island. There is no proof, you're right. But trust me, she was a lying conniving whore. Very manipulating.

[mickey malone]

I have to disagree with you there. The way you're portraying Tyson would make him by far the best Heavyweight ever which I do not think he was ever capable of being even if he maxed out his potential. He was a great fighter, he could have been greater than he was, but he never could have been better than the likes of Ali, Louis, Johnson, Holmes, ect. Give him credit for being a great fighter but don't overrate him.....leave that to his mindless KoolAid drinking cultists: You're smarter than that.

Poet

No, I'm just merely speculating on what would/could have happened, if he'd stayed focused..
I wouldn't say the thought of him beating Marciano's record would have been too far out of the question..
I may have been a bit generous by saying, he would'a stayed unbeaten until he was 35, but with regard to 49-0, had he stayed in shape & beaten Douglas, he'd have been 46-0 going into the 1st Holyfield fight.. Taking into consideration, he'd already lost 3 years of his prime by then, I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption..

I agree with regard to Ali, Louis and Holmes.. Not so sure about Johnson though..
If everything had of gone smoothly, I'd say Tyson had the ability to be the 4th best HW whoever lived.. I also think I may have slightly overrated him on my sig list, but not in this post..

[StarshipTrooper]

No, I'm just merely speculating on what would/could have happened, if he'd stayed focused..
I wouldn't say the thought of him beating Marciano's record would have been too far out of the question..
I may have been a bit generous by saying, he would'a stayed unbeaten until he was 35, but with regard to 49-0, had he stayed in shape & beaten Douglas, he'd have been 46-0 going into the 1st Holyfield fight.. Taking into consideration, he'd already lost 3 years of his prime by then, I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption..

I agree with regard to Ali, Louis and Holmes.. Not so sure about Johnson though..
If everything had of gone smoothly, I'd say Tyson had the ability to be the 4th best HW whoever lived.. I also think I may have slightly overrated him on my sig list, but not in this post..

I figure if Tyson hadn't gone to hell and he got by Douglas (no given in my book considering the way Buster fought that night) then he would have been looking at a fight with Foreman and potential trilogies with Holyfield and Bowe. Now Mike should win a tough decision over Foreman considering how slow George was by that point. Then I see Tyson losing 2 out of 3 in a trilogy with Holyfield and losing 1 out of 3 against Bowe. That would put him at 3 losses before 1995 with a .500 record (3-3) against his two biggest rivals. Post 1995 you have possible dates against Mercer, Tua, and Ibeabuchi not to mention the rising Lewis. I'm assuming that Tyson would be past-prime after 1995 though. A great record? Sure, but ultimately his abilities didn't stack up to the top-5 Heavyweight ATGs even assuming he reached and maintained his full potential.

Poet

[Junito-Rulez]

Only if he had a gun. Now take a knee and tap out like your boy Cotto.

Poet

Well, if you think Jack Johnson and Louis would beat that man:



you're ****in nuts. Be realistic, i think you don't even believe that ****. You're just trying to be elitist.

I rank both higher than Tyson but a fighter like Jack Johnson used techniques that wouldn't work nowadays, even a Lamon Brewster would beat him. Jack Johnson's combos were pretty wide and his footwork was non existent. If he had trouble KOing old rusty, unskilled Jeffries, how would he do against a skilled, powerful, bob and weaver like Tyson.

Joe Louis is too small to beat someone like a prime Tyson, he would get KOed. Louis got knocked down multiple times against Joe Walcott who wasn't half of the athlete and the puncher Tyson was.

I don't answer to the knee ****, it's childish.

[StarshipTrooper]

Well, if you think Jack Johnson and Louis would beat that man:

you're ****in nuts. Be realistic, i think you don't even believe that ****. You're just trying to be elitist.

I rank both higher than Tyson but a fighter like Jack Johnson used techniques that wouldn't work nowadays, even a Lamon Brewster would beat him. Jack Johnson's combos were pretty wide and his footwork was non existent. If he had trouble KOing old rusty, unskilled Jeffries, how would he do against a skilled, powerful, bob and weaver like Tyson.

Joe Louis is too small to beat someone like a prime Tyson, he would get KOed. Louis got knocked down multiple times against Joe Walcott who wasn't half of the athlete and the puncher Tyson was.

I don't answer to the knee ****, it's childish.

If you think a flabby tub of goo like Lamon Brewster would beat ANYONE from back then you're smoking crack.

Second, these comparisons aren't made in a vacuum: If that's what you're doing you're wasting your time because you're comparing apples to oranges. In a head to head matchup Louis fights him in Tyson's era or Tyson fights him in Louis' era (or Johnson's either way). Which means that Louis gets the same training and nutrition that 1980s fighters got OR Tyson has to make do with the training and nutrition that 1940s fighters got (which means Tyson winds up weighing in at about 200 pounds btw). You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If you make these comparisons in a vacuum than what you're really comparing is eras NOT fighters and since the whole point of these exercises is to compare fighters to each other.....

PS. I've most likely seen more prime Tyson than YOU have so the video is nothing I haven't seen many times before. Those things may make the Tyson cultists drool but they don't impress me that much.

Poet

[Junito-Rulez]

If you think a flabby tub of goo like Lamon Brewster would beat ANYONE from back then you're smoking crack.

Second, these comparisons aren't made in a vacuum: If that's what you're doing you're wasting your time because you're comparing apples to oranges. In a head to head matchup Louis fights him in Tyson's era or Tyson fights him in Louis' era (or Johnson's either way). Which means that Louis gets the same training and nutrition that 1980s fighters got OR Tyson has to make do with the training and nutrition that 1940s fighters got (which means Tyson winds up weighing in at about 200 pounds btw). You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If you make these comparisons in a vacuum than what you're really comparing is eras NOT fighters and since the whole point of these exercises is to compare fighters to each other.....

PS. I've most likely seen more prime Tyson than YOU have so the video is nothing I haven't seen many times before. Those things may make the Tyson cultists drool but they don't impress me that much.

Poet

I never said Tyson was any better than Louis or Johnson. I just said he would kill them if he fought them. You basically answered he would need a gun. I think they would be the one who would.

I agree that those three fighters didn't have the same tools and the same workouts. That's why we can't really compare them that way.
When i do P4P lists, i compare guys on their resume and what they accomplished in their eras. Vitali would kill Louis or Patterson, but they're much greater than him. Mayweather would kill Joe Gans, but Gans did more in his era as a ligtweight,etc..

PS: I saw prime Tyson in videos but not live. Too young for that.

[mickey malone]

I figure if Tyson hadn't gone to hell and he got by Douglas (no given in my book considering the way Buster fought that night) then he would have been looking at a fight with Foreman and potential trilogies with Holyfield and Bowe. Now Mike should win a tough decision over Foreman considering how slow George was by that point. Then I see Tyson losing 2 out of 3 in a trilogy with Holyfield and losing 1 out of 3 against Bowe. That would put him at 3 losses before 1995 with a .500 record (3-3) against his two biggest rivals. Post 1995 you have possible dates against Mercer, Tua, and Ibeabuchi not to mention the rising Lewis. I'm assuming that Tyson would be past-prime after 1995 though. A great record? Sure, but ultimately his abilities didn't stack up to the top-5 Heavyweight ATGs even assuming he reached and maintained his full potential.

Poet

Yeah, boxing politics suggests that would have happened, and I think you're pretty close to the mark, regards predictions to.. But had he been able to pad his record in the way that say, Louis and Marciano did, it would have been quite concievable, given the extra 3 years of course..
I obviously rate him a bit higher than you do, but seriously, have you ever seen a guy over 200 with so much combination of speed and power?.. I haven't..
On top of this, he had a pretty good chin, plus he'd have fought with more heart to, had it not been badly broken..
He'd have been too much for Mercer, Tua, Ibeabuchi or the Lennox Lewis who fought Frank Bruno..
Holyfield, I just feel, kind of always had his number and would have been like Hearns's Barkley or Ali's Norton.. But with your predictions being, a victory over Foreman, 2/3 over Bowe and 1/3 Holyfield, concluded with his other achievements, would NOT be enough to elevate him into the top 5?? C'mon Poet, You know it makes sense!

[StarshipTrooper]

I never said Tyson was any better than Louis or Johnson.

I just said he would kill them if he fought them. You basically answered he would need a gun. I think they would be the one who would.

Aren't those two statements contradictory then?

When i do P4P lists, i compare guys on their resume and what they accomplished in their eras. Vitali would kill Louis or Patterson, but they're much greater than him. Mayweather would kill Joe Gans, but Gans did more in his era as a ligtweight,etc..

Based on.....what then? What, given Vitali's known abilities, are you basing the statement that he would "kill" Louis? The same with Mayweather - Gans (especially given Mayweather's inability to "kill" a Featherweight in his last fight).

Poet

[masta]

Second, these comparisons aren't made in a vacuum: If that's what you're doing you're wasting your time because you're comparing apples to oranges. In a head to head matchup Louis fights him in Tyson's era or Tyson fights him in Louis' era (or Johnson's either way). Which means that Louis gets the same training and nutrition that 1980s fighters got OR Tyson has to make do with the training and nutrition that 1940s fighters got (which means Tyson winds up weighing in at about 200 pounds btw). You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If you make these comparisons in a vacuum than what you're really comparing is eras NOT fighters and since the whole point of these exercises is to compare fighters to each other.....

Prime Tyson's training routine doesn't involve any futuristic machines or methods compared to the 1940's. His diet was pretty simple, also.

Really, he would've been the same fighter had he been in the 1940's.