Tweet
I think if Mike didn't get so much money at a young age, he would have been a different person.
He could have been on the same level as Ali if it didn't go wrong.
He could have been on the same level as Ali if it didn't go wrong.
-
-
I think Tyson probably would've had a longer reign at the top, but ultimately would've self-destructed. Tyson was just too damaged a person with too many demons.
It's not as if Tyson never got into trouble with Cus either. Some of it was covered up and they worked to keep Tyson's image clean even after Cus died, but Tyson had his problems then as well.Comment
-
And if you think he wasn't you're a deluded KoolAid drinking nuthugger making excuses as to why your boy got his ass kicked.
And I pointed out that many boxing historians (ie. people who know more about boxing than you do, not that that's any great feat) have made the argument that Louis was a harder puncher.
That's flat out wrong. Hand speed and explosiveness are of equal importance. As Angelo Dundee has said over and over again "it's the punch you don't see coming that get's you out of there".
Your chin doesn't suddenly go away simply because you're past prime so the Douglas and Holyfield knockdowns are relivent since we're talking about his chin not the decline in his overall abilities. Further, Douglas WAS prime Tyson and I'm sick of hearing Mike's nuthuggers bleat like sheep that he was washed up so the loss doesn't count. Get over it: He got his ass whipped and no amount of fanboi winging is going to change it
PoetComment
-
Pathetic. And you call yourself a boxing fan?
Bert Sugar rates Willie Pep ahead of Muhammad Ali and Aaron Pryor ahead of Bernard Hopkins. Do I care what he thinks?
This is probably the funniest thing you've said so far, as you contradict yourself while trying to look smart.
1) Explosiveness is another term for power in boxing. But how would you know? You never held a pair of boxing gloves in your hands.
2) The formula for power is 1/2 mass x velocity x velocity (1/2mv2).
In order to maximize your velocity, you need to be in close, which is something that Tyson did while Louis did not.
As for mass (in this case, the arm), Tyson's was bigger and more compact compared to Louis'. You can check their measurements for proof, if you want.
Point = Tyson had more power
With a decrease in his overall abilities, specifically defense, he was easier to hit. The Douglas knockout was after 9 rounds of heavy punches to the face and the Holyfield knockdown was with a body shot (I saw him off balance but I gave it to Holyfield) but he didn't knock him out. The referee stopped the fight, even though I thought it was a bit too early.
And I'm not a "fanboi". I simply think realistically, compared to you who in a fantasy world wishes he could be Louis' best friend.
I'm done debating, seeing as there's no point. You understanding reality is like a Mexican believing Puerto Ricans are better or the other way around. It just ain't happening.Comment
-
A better one than you as you're simply a simpering idiot.
I said boxing historians not Bert Sugar. That's beside the point, you sound like one of those dip**** high school kids who think they're smarter than their teachers when in reality they don't know **** all.
More proof you don't know **** about boxing. Earnie Shavers had more raw power than anyone but next to no speed or explosiveness.
False. Ask any boxing trainer and they'll tell you that your maximum power is at the end of your punch at full extension. The closer you get inside that extension the less power your punches have which is why long arm fighters are at a dissadvantage on the inside. Further, you've just proved you've never watched Tyson very carefully because if you had you would have known that Tyson never liked fighting inside and avoided it when he could: He fought at mid-range where he could get maximum leverage on his punches. Try actually WATCHING his fights instead of pulling your pud over them.
Sorry Junior, that crap of size = power doesn't wash since Tyson routinely weighed less than his opponents but punched harder than all but a select few such as Bruno (who also lacked speed and explosiveness btw).
Not the issue, the issue was chin and nothing else.
And the Schmeling knockout was after 8 rounds of heavy punches to the face.
Are you on drugs? The dude was defenseless and Evander was teeing off on him. Hell, it could have been stopped SOONER with no legitimate complaints.
You're acting like one.
No, you think like someone of little intelligence who can grasp certain primitive concepts but nothing that would require any higher brain functions that are routine for, say, a typical special-ed class.
I don't debate with morons so there was NO "debate". I haven't been talking to you I've been talking AT you. As for YOU'RE undertstanding of reality.....let's just say semi-lucid winos and junkies have a better grasp of reality than you have
PoetComment
-
I'll just reply because it's fun arguing with you.
Looks like I've hurt your feelings. You're 41 yet you have the sensitivity of a 12 year old girl.
I was giving an example of why I don't care what other historians think.
The Bert Sugar example is to show that, while he may be an "historian", he has flaws and so do many others. They're not robots. They're people. But, of course, you wouldn't understand that.
It's also funny how you keep referring to me as a kid. If I was a kid, at least I'm smarter than your gigantic ass.
You say false like you actually know what you're talking about when you really don't. You've most likely never been to a gym and never put on a pair of gloves.
And if you had proper vision, you would know that Tyson knocked out his opponents while he was close. Here's three examples:
Tyson knew how to shift his weight (body) in the appropriate way to execute more power.
The issue is your ******ity.
Was he knocked out on the ground?
Thought so.
Please don't compare me to you. We're nothing alike.
Definition of debate: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal
If winos and junkies have a better grasp of reality than me, your grasp of reality is equivalent to a table's.Comment
-
I'll just reply because it's fun arguing with you.
Looks like I've hurt your feelings. You're 41 yet you have the sensitivity of a 12 year old girl.
I was giving an example of why I don't care what other historians think.
The Bert Sugar example is to show that, while he may be an "historian", he has flaws and so do many others. They're not robots. They're people. But, of course, you wouldn't understand that.
It's also funny how you keep referring to me as a kid. If I was a kid, at least I'm smarter than your gigantic ass.
You say false like you actually know what you're talking about when you really don't. You've most likely never been to a gym and never put on a pair of gloves.
And if you had proper vision, you would know that Tyson knocked out his opponents while he was close. Here's three examples:
Tyson knew how to shift his weight (body) in the appropriate way to execute more power.
The issue is your ******ity.
Was he knocked out on the ground?
Thought so.
Please don't compare me to you. We're nothing alike.
Definition of debate: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal
If winos and junkies have a better grasp of reality than me, your grasp of reality is equivalent to a table's.
Guess I better call him a wahmbulance It's been a while since I've had some mental lightweight resort to the "I know you but what am I" game 
Too damn funny!
PoetComment
-
I guess I finally hit a soft spot on you. You now resort to acting as if I'm the one that hurts. I've seen it too many times.
It's clear I got the better of the debate.Comment
-
Tyson still woulda crashed eventually, but not as soon or as hard as he did.Comment
-
I think Mike didnt do it, If Joe Egan said he believed Mike didnt do it, then I believe it too.Comment
Comment