Tweet
Not justified. Ref was only allowing headbutts, not ea r biting. Tyson should have headbutted holyfield.
In boxing headbutts can be accident. But eating ears is premeditated
In boxing headbutts can be accident. But eating ears is premeditated
-
-
The day's most desperate conversation starter with that question.Tyson could always have quit or walked out the ring.But by this stage, he'd forgotten the quote of being a professional that Cus gave:
I believe a man is a professional when he can do what needs to be done no matter how he feels within. An amateur is an amateur in his attitude emotionally. A professional is a professional in the way he thinks and feels and in his ability to execute under the most trying conditions.Comment
-
Blatant fight altering headbutts that create major cuts to eyebrows do deserve the same back or an upper cut low blow if the ref is enabling this to happen. Biting is never an option. Headbutting is cheating but is accepted as ok. Not sure why the double standard exists.Comment
-
Because you can't accidentally bite someone.
Headbutts and low blows can always be seen as excusable acts. How do you tell the difference between a clash of heads and a headbutt? Robbie Barrett certainly can't.
How do you tell the difference between a low blow and one that perhaps was slightly blocked to be low? These things, especially if done in a subtle manner, are actually pretty difficult to detect. Holyfield was really good at butting people and making it look accidental. Tyson was good at throwing elbows. Andre Ward is skilled at all sorts of technically illegal acts. But these things are all plausible as accidents.
Bites are not. You quite literally have to get your mouthpiece out of the way, open your mouth and bite down hard. There's no way to plausibly do this in an accidentally manner. Just like you could plausibly step on someone's foot but you can't plausibly kick them in the nuts. And when it's no longer plausible it can only be classified as pure and simple cheating. Hence the different (not double) standard.Comment
-
Did Tyson go to prison for ****?
What’s the likelyhood of a younger less disciplined version of Tyson with easier tendencies of teen hornyness to have hanged up on one of Atlas’ relatives?
Was it his niece? I thought Tyson approached his daughter. Does it even matter which family member it was?
Why defend that?Comment
-
No doubt that Tyson had emotional issues stemming from his environment and upbringing. Remember that Tyson's dad left when he was 2 and his Mom died at 16 in one of the worst neighborhoods in the USA. Don't be an immature jackass and wish Tyson was murdered. **** me some people on this site want to appear so tough they don't realize they come across as immature heartless morons.
That doesn't excuse all his actions. I believe the Atlas story and Tyson was way out of line. But he wouldn't be the first troubled teenager to try to force himself on a girl and he won't be the last. And remember that sort of thing was a bit more socially expected than today. Like driving drunk the first time wouldn't get you tossed in jail or cause you to lose your license, the expectations of the appetites of a teenage boy were given more leeway as well. I'm not passing judgement on that, just stating a fact.
As for the Desiree Washington case, I'd suggest you do some research. Judge Patricia Gifford was a domestic abuse advocate and should have recused herself from the trial. She was very biased. For instance, she refused to allow Wayne Walker to testify about how Washington had falsely accused him of ****. On the evidence there was almost nothing to convict Tyson, whose defense performed terribly during that trial and angered the jury. There is a very real chance that this was a case of malicious and incorrect prosecution. When someone studies this in depth is should scare the hell out of any young man because using this standard could convict virtually anyone engaging in consensual intercourse.Last edited by Granath; 03-23-2019, 12:10 PM.Comment
Comment