Intimidation. Sonny Liston.

[BKM-]

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

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

It really isn't, none of his flashy explosive moves are. It's a 12 round fight, 36 minutes. He's muscle bound and it uses too much energy. It's a very flawed system.

If you look at Tyson's highlight videos where he executes the moves well in the early rounds of his fights, it may appear he can do it all day.

Then you watch his entire fights and you see the same thing every time: the flashy moves decrease and are almost non-existent by the middle of the fight.

You know why? because the Tight Defend Style is designed to KO the opponents early and if it goes the distance, it should have accumulated enough points by the latter portion of the fight when Tyson is fading rapidly. It's not a style designed for long gruelling fights, that's why he loses to all the greats who would take him to deep waters.

[Tatabanya]

I let it be earlier when you mentioned your age. But this post shows me something unfortunate. Those young Tyson fanboys I was talking about, you're showing that most of them never grow up. I was like them when I started posting on this site in my mid teens and I grew out of it, but most seem to be trapped in a child-like mindset.

At 56 years old you're still talking like them, the same old claims about mythical "prime Tyson" and that he would have "no problem whatsoever" against Lewis and Holyfield, a statement that can't even be called a joke. The overwhelming majority of boxing experts would pick Lewis and Holyfield to beat Tyson at any point in his overrated career, and most of them don't rank Tyson in the top 10 HW's either.

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.

[ShoulderRoll]

It really isn't, none of his flashy explosive moves are. It's a 12 round fight, 36 minutes. He's muscle bound and it uses too much energy. It's a very flawed system.

If you look at Tyson's highlight videos where he executes the moves well in the early rounds of his fights, it may appear he can do it all day.

Then you watch his entire fights and you see the same thing every time: the flashy moves decrease and are almost non-existent by the middle of the fight.

You know why? because the Tight Defend Style is designed to KO the opponents early and if it goes the distance, it should have accumulated enough points by the latter portion of the fight when Tyson is fading rapidly. It's not a style designed for long gruelling fights, that's why he loses to all the greats who would take him to deep waters.

Mike Tyson isn't the only example of a fighter using the Cus D'Amato style successfully.

There's also Floyd Patterson and Jose Torres. Who also became world champions just like Tyson did.

Not bad for a supposedly "very flawed system" I would say.

[BKM-]

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. 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.

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.

[Willie Pep 229]

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.

To like to watch an exciting fighter makes one a "casual"?

A touch of overbreadth in that opinion, no?

"Casual" certainly the most overused 'expert' word on this board.

[Tatabanya]

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.

Your use of terms such as "asinine" and "tragedy of your evolution" made me laugh hard. Can't you see the arrogant pompousness of your language just for a minute?

I'll say it again: there is no "truth" based on personal opinion. Your "truth" equals mine, or that of any idiotically biased fan, or so-called boxing expert. I already told you that I rate Holyfield highly, and that he deserved to win their first fight. That alone tells that I'm not blinded by childhood heroism as you call it.

But when it comes to the 1986-88 version of Tyson, you only consider a segment of experts, namely those who have a preference for Holyfield and Lewis. At least an equal number of specialists - including many former fighters, who sure know something more than you and I in terms of "technical analysis" - will tell you the exact opposite of what, in your presumption, is the "truth".

The "facts" are different. Facts are Holyfield winning two fights against a lesser version of Tyson. This is incontrovertible. All the rest is mere hypothesis, or opinion.

However, my (final) opinion remains the same: you're completely influenced by religious issues. Now, THAT is unfortunate.

[Tatabanya]

To like to watch an exciting fighter makes one a "casual"?

A touch of overbreadth in that opinion, no?

"Casual" certainly the most overused 'expert' word on this board.

Leave the "men of God" alone, buddy. Their opinions are dictated by the Heaven.

[BKM-]

@ Tatabanya lol religion? The only relevance to that is that it made Evander fearless in the ring, it has no other relevance in this thread other than Mike Tyson being your religion.

I have to stick by what I said despite the insults. No, a middle aged man who has been watching boxing for as long as you claim should believe anything but "Prime Tyson easily beats Lewis and Holyfield". It's definitely a tragedy. Imagine the wisdom you could have attained in all those years. Honestly, no jokes, I think it's a waste.

To like to watch an exciting fighter makes one a "casual"?

A touch of overbreadth in that opinion, no?

"Casual" certainly the most overused 'expert' word on this board.

It's a pretty accurate term for Tyson fans, those type of people mostly watch Tyson videos and not many other fighters/fights if any.

I can imagine if that's all you watch you would think Tyson despite all of his limitations would easily beat some of the best heavyweights ever, like the old man I was talking to earlier who after several decades still thinks in those terms.

But the more you watch others, the more you'll realize how beatable and limited he was.

[Tatabanya]

It's a pretty accurate term for Tyson fans, those type of people mostly watch Tyson videos and not many other fighters/fights if any.

I can imagine if that's all you watch you would think Tyson despite all of his limitations would easily beat some of the best heavyweights ever, like the old man I was talking to earlier who after several decades still thinks in those terms.

But the more you watch others, the more you'll realize how beatable and limited he was.

Those "best heavyweights ever" lost to people such as Oliver McCall, Hasim Rahman, Michael Moorer, John Ruiz. Most definitely lesser fighters than the younger (*) version of Mike Tyson.

In detail, Holyfield struggled with the likes of Bert Cooper and Bobby Czyz, was whitewashed by former middleweights (James Toney and Chris Byrd, though that was an older Evander, in truth) and only beat a decrepit Larry Holmes on points.

At his presumed best, Holyfield lost twice to Rid**** Bowe and Lewis himself (the draw was in fact a loss). So, aside from beating a reduced version of Tyson, what exactly has Holyfield done of such magnitude?

Sorry, I could not resist given that Tyson is "my religion". My actual religion is facts. You're just a Tyson hater, and a bigot.

(*) Spare me quotes of Danny Williams and Kevin McBride, please.

[BKM-]

Those "best heavyweights ever" lost to people such as Oliver McCall, Hasim Rahman, Michael Moorer, John Ruiz. Most definitely lesser fighters than the younger (*) version of Mike Tyson.

In detail, Holyfield struggled with the likes of Bert Cooper and Bobby Czyz, was whitewashed by former middleweights (James Toney and Chris Byrd, though that was an older Evander, in truth) and only beat a decrepit Larry Holmes on points.

At his presumed best, Holyfield lost twice to Rid**** Bowe and Lewis himself (the draw was in fact a loss). So, aside from beating a reduced version of Tyson, what exactly has Holyfield done of such magnitude?

Sorry, I could not resist given that Tyson is "my religion". My actual religion is facts. You're just a Tyson hater, and a bigot.

(*) Spare me quotes of Danny Williams and Kevin McBride, please.

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.