Intimidation. Sonny Liston.

[BKM-]

Does this make a lesser man of me? I think that preserving enthusiasm for a juvenile hero is a good thing

I don't, and every young poster should look at this and learn from your mistakes. And to answer your first question: Yes.

Lets just leave it at that.

[Tatabanya]

Lol you're having a meltdown, old man. You keep coming back to edit your posts, just before this one you wanted to wrap this up but you're still getting triggered, proving me right about Mike Tyson being your religion and that you're just a casual.

You almost, almost showed some maturity but you keep proving me right. Deep down you're still that kid who is obsessed with the phony Tyson aura. You are a great reminder to me that I did the right thing by growing out of that phase. You can even find old posts of me here in the mid to late 2000s sounding as ignorant as you. I will never end up like you and that is a victory in life.

Haha, you're a nice kid after all. A meltdown for a Tyson-Holyfield discussion? There's a lot of serious stuff in life you haven't lived yet that may cause a meltdown, buddy. I was here all the time, given that I have nothing better to do at the moment; so I was remembering some older results of your heroes, that's why I tweaked my post. I want to be sure about what I write rather than acting on impulse, even if sometimes I do exactly that.

I always have a great time "fighting" with people like your good self on boxing threads, because they're often (at least partially) revelatory about the person I'm talking to. Believe it or not, I like your attitude, though you might want to learn some manners. But I remember myself at 30, and I was ******ly stubborn like you on many issues.

I was never offended by what you wrote until now, and I'm sure that we'd have great laughs if we met in person. Fighting on a thread is just a game, and I've learned to like it. Until one gets personal, that is. You've got to be careful in that regard. I laugh at your insults, but I'm sure in real life someone could get you hurt if you refer to them in that fashion.

I'm proud of being like I am, and I would be even prouder if the young readers here learned from my attitude rather than your juvenile bigotry. But I accept everything you said, no problem. I know where I stand, and am perfectly OK with that.

[billeau2]

You're forgetting that Tysom never reached his prime, while Holy was a finished product. That being said, for all the decades he fought, for as complete a fighter he was, no one ever feared Holyfield like they feared a Mike Tyson who wasn't even old enough to legally drink beer.

Had Gus lived, you best believe they would've taught mike how to fight on the inside, and off the backfoot. And how to pace himself better.

Holyfield, conversely, HAD to develop that skill if he wanted to fight the big boys. He could fight inside, but even then that was his life line against a faded Tyson. Like you said elsewhere, Tyson had lost his desire to fight at that point. Holyfield was finally able to face his boogeyman.

Im not forgetting anything. Im describing HOW something was done.

[billeau2]

Don't focus too much on the advancing the line by slipping and weaving.

I embedded the video to start at a specific point, where Rooney is applying forward pressure and pushing in on the fighter. Just to show that the D'Amato style does have a response to that.

Which is not so much a pivot but a "twist" in Peekaboo parlance.* Which would then be followed by a "spring" to completely get around the forward pressing Rooney.


*Note: Cus hated the term Peekaboo. He referred to the style he taught as Tight Defense.

Semantic distinctions are appropriate. You can see Dempsey do the same type of movement and you can see Tyson doing it...I wish I could pull the tape.

yes this is a response. It does not mean it is not a relative weakness though. I do want to acknowledge that this is indeed a response.

The problem is the timing. To make the crash effective it is done when a person is about to throw leather. So when Tyson is getting set to punch, in comes Holly. When it catches you at that point it presents some difficulty. The first time it happened Tyson's camp could have figured out something...

Conventional boxing wisdom is that one can time a person coming in... It can happen. Wilder did it to Tito (sort of) the second fight KO. Tito was getting ready to reassert himself when he was caught.

I think if I was coaching I would teach the fighter to twist like Rooney does, and also to use feints. Feints to disguise when I was setting up to punch, Feints combined with side stepping even.

[billeau2]

Yeah, and maybe Liston allowed Williams to have his way early, so that he'd blow his wad early. If that was the plan, it worked beautifully.

But Holyfield was more skilled and experienced than anyone Liston ever faced. If he found a way to back up the bigger and more offensively overwhelming Tyson, he'd find a way to get inside on Liston.

Holyfield lacked liston's power. And he didn't have the mobility of a Clay. But he is one of the best inside fighters in Heavyweight history. And the most experienced and tested after Ali.

Show me where Williams backed Liston up on his heels like Holly did to Tyson ok? Ill wait. Williams is at puncher's length, he does not ever attempt to come in and make Liston punch with his weight on his heels. Do I have to post the second one also? and are you going to tell me how good, or bad, such and such a fighter is? or are you going to understand that the point made is HOW Holly did what he did to Tyson.

[BKM-]

Semantic distinctions are appropriate. You can see Dempsey do the same type of movement and you can see Tyson doing it...I wish I could pull the tape.

yes this is a response. It does not mean it is not a relative weakness though. I do want to acknowledge that this is indeed a response.

The problem is the timing. To make the crash effective it is done when a person is about to throw leather. So when Tyson is getting set to punch, in comes Holly. When it catches you at that point it presents some difficulty. The first time it happened Tyson's camp could have figured out something...

Conventional boxing wisdom is that one can time a person coming in... It can happen. Wilder did it to Tito (sort of) the second fight KO. Tito was getting ready to reassert himself when he was caught.

I think if I was coaching I would teach the fighter to twist like Rooney does, and also to use feints. Feints to disguise when I was setting up to punch, Feints combined with side stepping even.

I gotta ask you this one, do you think Tyson could have benefited from Greco Roman wrestling training? Like How Golovkin has incorporated it into his training.

His weakness in the clinch was so severe that I can't see any other way for him to overcome this. He had zero leverage in the grappling department, it's almost bizarre because he obviously had a strong body otherwise and I wonder why it was never adressed in his original team either. He was pushed back with such ease, no wonder Evander completely man handled him even with his skinny legs.

Unfortunately the 19th century/early 20th century styles of training was already long gone by then. Boxers of the past were much stronger physically than today I believe, the further you go back in time the more wrestling/grappling based it was.

There is a brilliant breakdown video of Foreman-Frazier where it's described how Foreman was using very old school grappling techniques in his style, it was brilliant.

I think it's the only thing that could have helped the Peek a Booboo style. This would be more sustainable in a long fight, unlike that explosive movement in the video posted earlier.

[billeau2]

Of course it's sustainable. You just have to be in great shape.

That is one of the requirements of the Tight Defense style.

This debate you two are having is a good one. Its interesting that fighters who depend on head and shoulder movements usually have a time in their career when it gets tougher to maintain those movements. I am talking about fighters who use that movement reflexively, like Frazier, Tyson, Dempsey.

Fighters like Marciano used it as a specific response, and not as an offensive weapon when charging down a line of attack. Archie Moore and james Toney who studied Moore, use the movements in the shoulder roll specifically as a way to set up a counter. Mayweather had his own understanding of the shoulder roll, and early in his career used very short, consise movements.

[billeau2]

I could find evidence of incompetence in many boxing "experts", you see. Most of them are half my age, several of them DKSAB. You rely too much on officiality.

You use Rocky Balboa as a signature. Does that mean that you're trapped in a child-like mindset? Of course, the answer is no. You have preferences and opinions, like all of us. But for some reason you stigmatize Tyson and his fans, just because you happen to be a Holyfield fan. I have watched fights for over four decades and studied boxing on videos, books and magazines of all kinds. Let me tell you, genuine experts do this rather than posting "all-time great top 10" lists.

If I was speaking about another fighter I was fond of, Dwight Muhammad Qawi (rightly quoted as a great even in this very thread) I'm sure that I would be attacked by Michael Spinks fans telling me that he kicked Qawi's ass. I loved Azumah Nelson madly, too, when I was younger. Does this make a lesser man of me? I think that preserving enthusiasm for a juvenile hero is a good thing, as opposed to spiteful commentary on a boxing thread. Especially if that enthusiasm is based on actual facts, and not vacuous myths.

That's how "experts" work nowadays.

I am no boxing expert but your statements about Tyson are echoed by many pundits who know their stuff. Tyson at a conceptual best would be a dangerous fight for any ATG. What many fail to realize about Tyson, is that like Liston, who was illiterate (Mike was not illiterate), Tyson was very smart. Both men studied their craft.

Tyson to many was a stronger version of Dempsey at his best. Tyson had very fast feet, so he could come in off a line and be on top of a man with reach in a split second. Tyson also shows all kinds of skills in the tape. I wish I had the tape of him doing pivots, just like Dempsey did. And he had two hands of equal dynamite! As far as size, its an interesting issue as to how that would affect him versus bigger men.

[billeau2]

You would discredit them because they point out all the flaws in Tyson. They deal with truth, not childhood heroism. You can point out all the years you've been watching this great sport, it only adds to the tragedy of your evolution, because you still think something as asinine as "Prime Tyson would have no problem whatsoever with Lewis and Holyfield", an embarassing unveilling of willing incompetence, I describe it that way because I know you're intelligent enough not to believe that, you simply choose to believe it based on love not truth.

My thoughts aren't because I'm a Holyfield fanboy or Tyson hater. I never fail to atleast back up my beliefs with technical analysis. Substance over flash, every time. Evander and Lennox are "boring" to casuals. Tyson's flashy unsustainable moves are spectacular to them. But what's more effective? I know the truth now and I will know 26 years from now when I'm your age.

Come on BKM... You should reconsider some of these opinions. Look at tape. You can see things. Lewis, Holly and Tyson were three fighters that many experts think were exceptional and ATG. There are many measures of greatness and ability.

[billeau2]

I gotta ask you this one, do you think Tyson could have benefited from Greco Roman wrestling training? Like How Golovkin has incorporated it into his training.

His weakness in the clinch was so severe that I can't see any other way for him to overcome this. He had zero leverage in the grappling department, it's almost bizarre because he obviously had a strong body otherwise and I wonder why it was never adressed in his original team either. He was pushed back with such ease, no wonder Evander completely man handled him even with his skinny legs.

Unfortunately the 19th century/early 20th century styles of training was already long gone by then. Boxers of the past were much stronger physically than today I believe, the further you go back in time the more wrestling/grappling based it was.

There is a brilliant breakdown video of Foreman-Frazier where it's described how Foreman was using very old school grappling techniques in his style, it was brilliant.

I think it's the only thing that could have helped the Peek a Booboo style. This would be more sustainable in a long fight, unlike that explosive movement in the video posted earlier.

Someone could have just worked with him on lowering his center and even sprawling. One of the things untrained people do when grabbed, or pushed back is try to make themselves bigger lol! I mean they try to get straighter which is the opposite of what one should do. When something opposes your momentum it is best to sink to preserve the center, or move to a new center.

Where does this come from? Through the ages, when we were in the jungle and started to get less robust and more tall, we would come into conflicts with other predators who had to decide whether they should attack us, or not... So what is the best thing to do? If you look bigger the predator will think twice right? So when that horrid smallish tiger looking thing is eyeing us? We would straighten our spine up, throw out arms out wide, yell... make us look big and strong! This also puts our hands in a position where we can optimally hit down on something. That is the way we hit before we developed the capacity to even make a fist. Like other primates fighting... Watch how they hit down using gravity and weight. And the tool is our forearm which is like our own billy club.

Thousands of years later, we instinctively push up when we are grappled, instead of pushing down. Tyson could have learned this after the first fight actually.