Will we ever see another Mike Tyson?

[SBleeder]

You pull some names out of a hat for the mere sake of rebuttal. You know full well that's nothing but horse manure...

Um, no. Those two fighters far more-closely tried to imitate Ali than Holmes did.

There was a guy named Terrell Briggs who I remember watching on Friday Night Fights decades ago. He also did a poor imitation of Ali.

Holmes didn't dance, didn't pull straight back to avoid punches, didn't avoid going to the body like the plague.

[rightsideup]

Um, no. Those two fighters far more-closely tried to imitate Ali than Holmes did.

There was a guy named Terrell Briggs who I remember watching on Friday Night Fights decades ago. He also did a poor imitation of Ali.

Holmes didn't dance, didn't pull straight back to avoid punches, didn't avoid going to the body like the plague.

not to start a three way battle of thoughts I think holmes knockdowns came from righthands were Ali's were more from left hooks. Larry did idolize ali but was not a direct image of him.

[SBleeder]

not to start a three way battle of thoughts I think holmes knockdowns came from righthands were Ali's were more from left hooks. Larry did idolize ali but was not a direct image of him.

Holmes had a brutal right uppercut that KO'd fighters.

Ali had a fast, sneaky uppercut that is very underrated, but it wasn't a knockout punch.

[Scott9945]

not to start a three way battle of thoughts I think holmes knockdowns came from righthands were Ali's were more from left hooks. Larry did idolize ali but was not a direct image of him.

That is very true. Ali was vulnerable to left hooks (Banks, Cooper, Frazier). Holmes got badly hurt by some huge rights (Shavers 2x, Snipes, Weaver).

[Bushidō]

doubt it. Just like we'll never have another heavyweight that fights like Ali

[WladsChin]

@New England.


I agree mostly with what you said.. but I think your use of the 'historic' stats logic is flawed in certain areas.


Let me give you a example our economics professor was talking about.

The United States and China are two global super powers... but they are not dominant in terms of luxury car brands: Those falls to Germany and Japan. The reason as our economics professor pointed out is that both the US and China have not invested to much interest in terms of the
luxury automotive market.



BMW-AUDI-LEXUS-MERCEDES ETC.

Now let's say all of a sudden....... both the USA and China started to create Luxury car brands (their version of BMWS-MERCEDES) etc..


Let's say that US and China took over the entire luxury car bracket and forces Germany and Japan out of business.

Germany can than say 'well historically decade after decade we sold the most luxury cars............. the only reason US/China are now dominating this market is because we are now interested in Sports Coupes..... I mean look at the HISTORICAL stats

1990-1995- Germany Top Seller, 95-00 Germany Top Seller... 00-05 Germany top seller... See... historically GERMANY SOLD THE MOST LUXURY CARS. So we produce the best luxury cars............ it's only because we are now selling sports cars .. that's the ONLY reason USA/CHINA have taken over the luxury car market etc...



But the truth of the matter is .. for a variety of economics/social/ reasons both the US and China are now suddenly interested in creating luxury cars...

Of course HISTORICALLY they can't compare in sells to Germany/Japan because they just STARTED building..



Same with the Heavyweights........... of course HISTORICALLY Europe can't compete with the USA.. because they just RECENTLY lifted the curtain and just recently started competing at the highest level.

Over the last 20 years.. Europe already produced 3 ATG'S.. Lewis/Wlad/Vitali.... 2 of these 3 could be considered top 10....... Now imagine another 20 years.. we might see 4-5 more Lennox's.... than the stats will be more even... Won't it?

[rightsideup]

@New England.


I agree mostly with what you said.. but I think your use of the 'historic' stats logic is flawed in certain areas.


Let me give you a example our economics professor was talking about.

The United States and China are two global super powers... but they are not dominant in terms of luxury car brands: Those falls to Germany and Japan. The reason as our economics professor pointed out is that both the US and China have not invested to much interest in terms of the
luxury automotive market.



BMW-AUDI-LEXUS-MERCEDES ETC.

Now let's say all of a sudden....... both the USA and China started to create Luxury car brands (their version of BMWS-MERCEDES) etc..


Let's say that US and China took over the entire luxury car bracket and forces Germany and Japan out of business.

Germany can than say 'well historically decade after decade we sold the most luxury cars............. the only reason US/China are now dominating this market is because we are now interested in Sports Coupes..... I mean look at the HISTORICAL stats

1990-1995- Germany Top Seller, 95-00 Germany Top Seller... 00-05 Germany top seller... See... historically GERMANY SOLD THE MOST LUXURY CARS. So we produce the best luxury cars............ it's only because we are now selling sports cars .. that's the ONLY reason USA/CHINA have taken over the luxury car market etc...



But the truth of the matter is .. for a variety of economics/social/ reasons both the US and China are now suddenly interested in creating luxury cars...

Of course HISTORICALLY they can't compare in sells to Germany/Japan because they just STARTED building..



Same with the Heavyweights........... of course HISTORICALLY Europe can't compete with the USA.. because they just RECENTLY lifted the curtain and just recently started competing at the highest level.

Over the last 20 years.. Europe already produced 3 ATG'S.. Lewis/Wlad/Vitali.... 2 of these 3 could be considered top 10....... Now imagine another 20 years.. we might see 4-5 more Lennox's.... than the stats will be more even... Won't it?

Interesting post all though Lewis developed into a world class amateur in Canada not England and might of been a world class pro quicker if he trained in the states. You are certainly correct on the klits though and we have seen more world class hw's for eastern europe over the recent decades. Welcome to the forum by the way

[MrRolltide91]

I wish we would

[MrRolltide91]

what part of the post is wrong, man? the notion is held by virtually any american who knows boxing. al bernstein, the late emanuel steward, dan rafael, everybody.

i can assure you taht a talent like that would be steered toward football. tyson is the prototypical runningback. under six feet tall, 225ish lbs, and fast. maybe if he was born living next to a boxing gym he might end up boxing, but that's incredibly rare.

taltened american kids are steered into football and basketball. i know you brits are threatened by the idea that american men have supreme talent capable of controlling the division, but it's an argument backed up by the history of the division. the division has historically been dominated by americans, and that domination has only ceased with the rise of the NFL, NBA, and collegiate sports.

go through it. i'll wait. most of the best HW in history have been ameircan. the HW championship was held universally by ameircans until the NFL and NBA, and more importantly collegiate, division 1 athletics (scholarship athletes getting $150-200K educations for free.)


you think the division isn't held by americans now because of the influx of euro talent. news flash: euro talent is f#cking garbage. you wouldn't even think these guys were real if they boxed. deontay wilder is a dime a dozen in college basketball, nevermind the NBA.

All true....

[Roscoe337]

he's not talking only about how good he was, but how he fought.

tyson was a undersized HW with about as big of a punch as you will ever see. his shortcomings (pun intended,) led to him being a very unique fighter. he was a stocky guy with quick feet and lightning upperbody movements who didn't fight inside. instead, tyson got to the middle / inside middle distance, and kept his hands free. joe frazier might have his head on your chest. tyson would have his head a foot or two away from your chest, and his hands free so he could punch with full power.

patterson fought like tyson, but ehe was about 20-30 lbs lighter, and didn't have a great chin.

tyson was a unique quantity. you might see a fighter who flatters the idea of being like tyson, but you're not likely to see one who does everything he could do within the next few generations. maybe ever. you'll need a special type of athlete who heads to a boxing gym from youth. he'll ahve to train under a great technical trainer like d'amato. he'll need to be a student of the game, and study old films, the way tyson did to develop his style. he almost surely won't be american, because talented guys of that size / shape are led almost exclusively to football.

This is a good description. People tend to underestimate WHY Tyson was so good when he was at his best. Heres a clue: Watch tapes of Dempsey. Tyson was a good study! There are guys in the martial arts who pick up a technique the first time they are taught it, and guys who cannot ever get it exactly the way the teacher does it. I picture Mike being a guy who has that body intelligence to look at a tape and get the technique, and then be able to apply it. People forget that Dempsey wrote a book as well, the info is out there for a poor kid from brooklyn