Mike Tyson signs to Pryde Fighting

[Jae Hoon]

http://www.pridefc.com/pride2005/index.php?mainpage=news&news_id=814

[master terrence]

I wonder how he will compete outside of boxing.

[Reidar]

It's with boxing rules.

He said he's retired last year after his fight with McBride. He must be really pressed for money.

All of my favorite fighters are washed-up now.

[predecessor]

blah. i want to see him get his butt kicked in a MMA match. not see him ride out his fame and bite another persons ear off in japan.

[LOSTyears]

He must be really pressed for money.Sad thing is, he'll be long dead and probably will still owe money. Really sucks considering he was one of the highest paid boxer's in history. As for this PRIDE gig, I mean all the guy knows is fighting.
Mike is my 2nd favorite boxer, despite the circus he's become I'll always be a fan of his old work. Here's a nice compilation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50hIk46kMNM) of em for those interested.

[Reidar]

Agreed. Regardless of his attitude and crimes, his potential was undeniable in the '80s. He was one of the most promising boxers of his time and deserves recognition for that.

Allegedly, the early death of Cus, his brilliant trainer (who pioneered "peek-a-boo" boxing, the style seen in Hajime No Ippo), is what started his downward spiral.

His power and talent deserved a better fate.

[Leader Desslock]

Allegedly, the early death of Cus, his brilliant trainer (who pioneered "peek-a-boo" boxing, the style seen in Hajime No Ippo), is what started his downward spiral.
I would argue that he was never much of a boxer. He was a brawler. It worked while he was young, but he never had the sort of boxing talent that would carry him into an extended career.

The "charge forward like a bull" approach worked for a while, and he certainly had the punching power to make it work. But it can only work for just so long, you know?

[Hisoka]

I watched his entire career from day 1 and I must say that it was one of the most entertaining rides ever. I went back last year and watched each and every one of his fights over again. Mike Tyson is one of a kind and I hate the fact that his career ended by losing to a tomato can like Kevin McBride. In his prime the guy was a beast and an untoucable force. Like Reidar said, one his trainer/father like figure passed away Mike changed for the worst. He got lazy, involved with the wrong crowd and was all over the media no longer just for his amazing boxing skills. This whole Pride thing is a joke (referring to him fighting there). But as long as people are willing to watch and pay to see him fight then, nothing will change. I mean, people will be saying when Mike is 60 that he could still be the heavyweight champ if he made a comeback... which would be what? His 8th comeback? lol

You can't bring up Tyson without linking this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=M4l0ZyKmeNE). The best interview EVER!

I would argue that he was never much of a boxer. He was a brawler. It worked while he was young, but he never had the sort of boxing talent that would carry him into an extended career.

The "charge forward like a bull" approach worked for a while, and he certainly had the punching power to make it work. But it can only work for just so long, you know?

I disagree. Tyson lost focus and became one of the most depressed individuals known to man. The death of Cus was the beginning of the end. Sure, his style became very exposed, but I don't think it would have followed the same blue print if Cus was younger and still kicking.

[Haro!]

I would argue that he was never much of a boxer. He was a brawler. It worked while he was young, but he never had the sort of boxing talent that would carry him into an extended career.

The "charge forward like a bull" approach worked for a while, and he certainly had the punching power to make it work. But it can only work for just so long, you know?
He had technique if you compare him to other heavyweights of the time and especially compared to present-day heavyweights.

There should be a charity to get Mike out of debt. I'd donate just to give back for all the good memories.

[Reidar]

I would argue that he was never much of a boxer. He was a brawler. It worked while he was young, but he never had the sort of boxing talent that would carry him into an extended career.

The "charge forward like a bull" approach worked for a while, and he certainly had the punching power to make it work. But it can only work for just so long, you know?

Have you seen the level of bobbing and weaving his head was notorious for? That's not charging forward like a bull. Why wouldn't that be able to carry him into an extended career? And how did he not have the talent with the power he exerted?

[Leader Desslock]

...In his prime the guy was a beast and an untoucable force....all over the media no longer just for his amazing boxing skills.
Agreed with the first half, completely disagree with the second half. Name me a fight in which Tyson exhibited even 'above average' boxing skills. I've seen most of his fights, and all I've ever seen him do is: 1) charge in, and 2) hit real hard. There's no skill, no finesse, no strategy. That's not boxing, and in the fights I've seen him try to box, he's gotten taken to school every time. He's either won through brute force or not at all.

... people will be saying when Mike is 60 that he could still be the heavyweight champ if he made a comeback...
He couldn't do it today; people can say what they want, but his championship bouts are history. He'll never be a title contender again.

Have you seen the level of bobbing and weaving his head was notorious for?
Um... what you seem to be mistaking for an elaborate defense, I dismiss as a needless waste of energy that never really prevented him from being hit. Look at his fights and tell me you see an endurance fighter. :rolleyes:

That's not charging forward like a bull. Why wouldn't that be able to carry him into an extended career?
To continue the point above - he never had endurance when he was YOUNG, why should he have it when he gets older and the edge has been taken off his rush and punch strategy? He was a flash in the pan. I knew it after the first few fights I saw him win. And the fights I've seen where he's tried to box have all borne out that impression.

And how did he not have the talent with the power he exerted?
You think he's gonna have the same kind of power when he's 40 that he had when he was 18?! He doesn't have that kind of power NOW. Look at his last couple of fights. They were embarassing. Power alone does not a fighter make. And since that's all he ever had, what's he got left?

[Reidar]

Um... what you seem to be mistaking for an elaborate defense, I dismiss as a needless waste of energy that never really prevented him from being hit. Look at his fights and tell me you see an endurance fighter. :rolleyes:

Bobbing and weaving is a needless waste of energy?

If it was needless, why did they allow him to win?


To continue the point above - he never had endurance when he was YOUNG, why should he have it when he gets older and the edge has been taken off his rush and punch strategy? He was a flash in the pan. I knew it after the first few fights I saw him win. And the fights I've seen where he's tried to box have all borne out that impression.

That had nothing to do with my post that you quoted. I never said anything about him having endurance today. I said that bobbing and weaving isn't charging forward like a bull. It's boxing defense 101, and he excelled in it.

You think he's gonna have the same kind of power when he's 40 that he had when he was 18?! He doesn't have that kind of power NOW. Look at his last couple of fights. They were embarassing.

Of course I don't. Note how I said, "Regardless of his attitude and crimes, his potential was undeniable in the '80s. He was one of the most promising boxers of his time and deserves recognition for that."

Also, power through peek-a-boo stance is just as much a strategy as any other boxing method. Styles are a part of boxing.

I even made mention of how he's washed up with, "All of my favorite fighters are washed-up now." I really have no idea how you're concluding that I'm making any argument about 2006 Tyson.

[Leader Desslock]

Power through peek-a-boo stance is just as much a strategy as any other boxing method. Styles are a part of boxing.
The ability to adapt and counter your opponent is more of a boxing ability than the style you use, in my opinion. He doesn't have that. Never did, or if he did, I never saw it. Did he have a style? Sure. He was a brawler. But he was also a one-trick pony. And now that his trick doesn't work for him, he's done as a professional boxer, in my opinion.

[Reidar]

The style you use is what allows you counter your opponent. In-fighters will react differently than an out-fighter will in the same situation.

I don't see how he can be berated for being a one-trick pony. The reason why Tyson started losing was because he moved away from what worked for him when he fired his defining coach after Cus, Kevin Rooney, and moved on into a different direction.

Rooney's testament to this is seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiVW994jtdk).

[LOSTyears]

You can't bring up Tyson without linking this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=M4l0ZyKmeNE). The best interview EVER!Thats classic ^_^
Thought Mike had an underated jab, after Cus he started using it less and less and mostly relied on throwing bombs. He just got hooked with the wrong people, his old coach really was more like a father to him.
When most people watch his fights they look for the knockout but if you really pick apart his peformance the guy was a decent boxer.

[Leader Desslock]

Bobing and weaving is a needless waste of energy?
Not at all. It's part of a good defense, when used correctly. But I can't think of a single fight that was ever decided by Tyson being "a good defensive fighter", can you?

The fights I've seen where Tyson was knocked back into defensive mode - he lost shortly thereafter. He won by never being knocked back on the defense.

That had nothing to do with my post that you quoted. I never said anything about him having endurance today.
I said it wouldn't work for an extended career. Didn't have to be TODAY, could'a been when he was 30. His style was not conducive to a long-term career.

I said that bobbing and weaving isn't charging forward like a bull. It's boxing defense 101, and he excelled in it.
I disagree. He couldn't manage his energy for an endurance fight. That's short sighted, and hardly indicative of 'excellence' in any form. He moved a lot for the first few rounds until he ran out of steam. That's all.


Hey, I'll give him credit for being what he was. But what he was didn't impress me as a boxer. He was an interesting flash in the pan, nothing more.

My favorite Tyson interview was the one where he was talking about George Foreman. It's funnier to hear it in his voice, but when he talks about "...when George hits you, you really know you been hit." makes me crack up every time.

[Reidar]

Not at all. It's part of a good defense, when used correctly. But I can't think of a single fight that was ever decided by Tyson being "a good defensive fighter", can you?

Yes. Every fight where he's bobbed and weaved to move past his opponent's attacks and break into their guard.

The fights I've seen where Tyson was knocked back into defensive mode - he lost shortly thereafter. He won by never being knocked back on the defense.

What about his fight against Tyrell Biggs, in which he took his fair trade of shots for seven rounds before ending it in a knockout?

I said it wouldn't work for an extended career. Didn't have to be TODAY, could'a been when he was 30. His style was not conducive to a long-term career.

Why does his style entail low endurance? That would be an aspect of the fighter, not the style.

I disagree. He couldn't manage his energy for an endurance fight. That's short sighted, and hardly indicative of 'excellence' in any form. He moved a lot for the first few rounds until he ran out of steam. That's all.

That's the point of boxing: to win. Ali was never a K.O. artist, but he won with his style. Was he also not impressive?

[Leader Desslock]

Yes. Every fight where he's bobbed and weaved to move past his opponent's attacks and break into their guard.
Were we watching the same fights? What I saw was a man (Tyson) who was willing to take a hit on the way in, in order to deliver a power shot to his opponent. That's not defensive boxing. That's relying on that power shot to give you the time you need to recover, or else end the fight entirely.

And while he had the power to make it work, it did. Great. But Tyson's never been called a great defensive boxer.

What about his fight against Tyrell Biggs, in which he took his fair trade of shots for seven rounds before ending it in a knockout?
'Technical' knock out. And yes, a couple of his fights went 10-12 rounds. But the vast majority of them were decided early, and for Tyson, that's a good thing.

The few fights he had that went into the later rounds were decisions or TKOs. The latest clear KO I see is round 5, and that pretty much sums up what i remember about him.

Why does his style entail low endurance? That would be an aspect of the fighter, not the style.
Name me a title boxer who had the energy to sustain Tyson's style into the late rounds, and I'll bother considering that distinction. It's an academic point at best unless we're talking about Saiyan boxing.

Tyson's 'style' (meaning the combination of boxing approches he chose to employ in his bouts) was limited, nonadaptive and consumed a lot more energy than he had to burn for any length of time. His record bears that out. You wanna split hairs, fine. We both know I'm not saying that the one particular style he chose to employ at peak performance for one second of time is inherently a failure in all circumstances.

That's the point of boxing: to win. Ali was never a K.O. artist, but he won with his style. Was he also not impressive?
Ali: 56 Wins, 5 Losses, 37 KOs

I dunno. That's more than half by KO. I'd say that's impressive, even if a person is only impressed by KOs. I was always more impressed by Ali's boxing ability. He knew his strengths, he knew his weaknesses. He adapted to his opponents and won a lot of fights. I'm far more impressed by Ali than Tyson.

In their absolute primes, I think Tyson would've beaten Ali. Ali could not take the kind of punch that Tyson could dish out, and Ali never fought anyone quite like Tyson. I think if they'd have fought in their primes, Tyson would've won the first bout before Ali had time to figure out what to do with him. A rematch bout would've gone either way.

Then again... take a look at their careers. How long was Tyson in his prime? 5 years? Right up until he lost to Douglas? How about Ali ... 15 years? 17?

Tyson never impressed me then, and looking back on his career as a whole, I'm still not impressed. He made a splash. Woo hoo.

[Reidar]

Were we watching the same fights? What I saw was a man (Tyson) who was willing to take a hit on the way in, in order to deliver a power shot to his opponent. That's not defensive boxing. That's relying on that power shot to give you the time you need to recover, or else end the fight entirely.

Him willing to take a hit doesn't undermine his head movement in other situations.

And while he had the power to make it work, it did. Great. But Tyson's never been called a great defensive boxer.

He's called that everytime his movement is praised.

'Technical' knock out. And yes, a couple of his fights went 10-12 rounds. But the vast majority of them were decided early, and for Tyson, that's a good thing.

Nevertheless, that proves that he has been knocked back into defense with victorious results.

The few fights he had that went into the later rounds were decisions or TKOs. The latest clear KO I see is round 5, and that pretty much sums up what i remember about him.

And? A TKO is as legit a win as a KO. What difference does it make?

Name me a title boxer who had the energy to sustain Tyson's style into the late rounds, and I'll bother considering that distinction. It's an academic point at best unless we're talking about Saiyan boxing.

Peekaboo style? Floyd Patterson. KO artist? George Foreman.

Tyson's 'style' (meaning the combination of boxing approches he chose to employ in his bouts) was limited, nonadaptive and consumed a lot more energy than he had to burn for any length of time. His record bears that out. You wanna split hairs, fine. We both know I'm not saying that the one particular style he chose to employ at peak performance for one second of time is inherently a failure in all circumstances.

Actually, I don't know. How was it limited and nonadaptive?


Ali: 56 Wins, 5 Losses, 37 KOs

I dunno. That's more than half by KO. I'd say that's impressive, even if a person is only impressed by KOs. I was always more impressed by Ali's boxing ability. He knew his strengths, he knew his weaknesses. He adapted to his opponents and won a lot of fights. I'm far more impressed by Ali than Tyson.

This is the same Ali that lost for stubbornly reusing the rope-a-dope strategy against Larry Holmes?

Again, how is Tyson less adaptive than other boxers? They all specialize and stand by a particular style.

In their absolute primes, I think Tyson would've beaten Ali. Ali could not take the kind of punch that Tyson could dish out, and Ali never fought anyone quite like Tyson. I think if they'd have fought in their primes, Tyson would've won the first bout before Ali had time to figure out what to do with him. A rematch bout would've gone either way.

Then again... take a look at their careers. How long was Tyson in his prime? 5 years? Right up until he lost to Douglas? How about Ali ... 15 years? 17?

Tyson never impressed me then, and looking back on his career as a whole, I'm still not impressed. He made a splash. Woo hoo.

Regardless of who would beat who, I dont understand how the more efficient fighter merits less praise (going by your scenario).

[Leader Desslock]

You know what? Just from your answers, I can see there's no point. I might as well try to have a discussion about Evangelion's critical failings with Reichu.

You're a Tyson fanboy. I'm happy for you. <pats Reidar on head>

I wish you peace and contentment on your way.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

You know what? Just from your answers, I can see there's no point. I might as well try to have a discussion about Evangelion's critical failings with Reichu.



YES. FINALY SOMEONE CALLS IT!

[Reidar]

The illogic of your posts go well beyond Tyson. I have no qualms in someone not being impressed with somebody I like, but saying that bobbing and weaving is charging in like a bull and that a particular style entails a fighter's endurance isn't subjective in the least.

And for the record, I like Ali a lot more than Tyson.

[Likely]

i keep up with mma and it seems the current word is that tyson has signed a 10 fight contract. sadly, they are all mq rules (boxing) fights with one being held at a pride event. it sucks he wont fight pure mma rules, a lot of people would love to see that, but the guy REALLY needs money so maybe. he has been seen around mma events and mouthed off to bob sapp one time. sapp called him a punk and tyson just said "sign the contract big boy." but that was the end of it because i guess they couldnt agree on rules. tyson vs tank abbott would be gold though.

[Leader Desslock]

...saying that bobbing and weaving isn't defense...
Which I didn't do. I said that "It's part of a good defense, when used correctly." But a fighter that uses it at the expense of iother critical factors (endurance), and who freely disregards it and takes a hit to deliver a power shot - that's not defensive boxing by any definition.

Hell - take any one of his bouts that went badly. You must've heard his OWN CORNER screaming at him to protect himself. Clearly, his own corner didn't think he was fighting defensively enough on those bouts, and that's as obvious as it gets.

...and that a particular style entails a fighter's endurance...
Let's say I want to be a marathoner. The gun fires, the race starts, and I try to sprint 26 miles. I'm gonna fail, because the style I've chosen to employ in my race does not lend itself to an endurance event.

Am I saying that there's something inherently flawed with sprinting? No. It's great for short races. Am I saying that in all cases, sprinting will fail? No. Am I saying anything beyond "that's a bad style for the event?" No.

That's not a subjective call. That's just a fact of running. Saying that it's subjective of me to criticize someone's style who attempts to win marathons by sprinting is... silly. Is it not possible at all to ever critique a fighter's choice of techniques and strategies? 'Cause that's all I'm saying about Tyson. His 'pattern of strategic boxing choices' (since you have a hangup on the word style for some reason) doesn't make him an endurance fighter. That's it. Would he have been capable of making other choices? Maybe. Who cares. He didn't, and as a result, he was never a strong finisher.

Hypothetically speaking, if the human body had unlimited endurance, sprinting would be a great strategy to win marathons. Since the human body DOES have certain limits however, any realistic look at marathon strategies must look at the amount of energy output that the body can support for a period of time equal to finish the race. I can try to push that boundary, but if I push it too far, it'll come back to bite me. Every time.

When Tyson signs up for a 12 round bout, he needs to consider fighting in a manner that lets him got the full 12 rounds. OR, he can take the chance of expending more energy than he can sustain for 12 rounds in order to end the bout early.

The former is a defensive strategy. The latter is less so. Just going on Tyson's stats, guess which he is. Look at any footage of Tyson from the 6th round onwards. He's almost always out of steam, and his record gets worse. He doesn't get late round knockouts.

The illogic of your posts go well beyond Tyson.
Yeah, but listing Foreman as an example of a fighter with the energy to support Tyson's style in the late rounds didn't exactly commend you to the ranks of the Illuminati. ;)

[Reidar]

Which I didn't do. I said that "It's part of a good defense, when used correctly." But a fighter that uses it at the expense of iother critical factors (endurance), and who freely disregards it and takes a hit to deliver a power shot - that's not defensive boxing by any definition.

You just did. I notice the "but", but that will be addressed. You did and are saying that.

And using it at the expense of endurance? Standing around and not bobbing and weaving to avoid attacks is the opposite of both defensive boxing and stamina conservation.

Also, disregarding an opponent's hit to get in your own is a counter used by all boxers, not just Tyson.

Hell - take any one of his bouts that went badly. You must've heard his OWN CORNER screaming at him to protect himself. Clearly, his own corner didn't think he was fighting defensively enough on those bouts, and that's as obvious as it gets.

Why capitalize that as if it's some unique example? All corners shout advice at practically every second.

I never said that he always fights defensively. I said that he doesn't always fight indefensively.

Let's say I want to be a marathoner. The gun fires, the race starts, and I try to sprint 26 miles. I'm gonna fail, because the style I've chosen to employ in my race does not lend itself to an endurance event.

Am I saying that there's something inherently flawed with sprinting? No. It's great for short races. Am I saying that in all cases, sprinting will fail? No. Am I saying anything beyond "that's a bad style for the event?" No.

That's not a subjective call. That's just a fact of running. Saying that it's subjective of me to criticize someone's style who attempts to win marathons by sprinting is... silly. Is it not possible at all to ever critique a fighter's choice of techniques and strategies? 'Cause that's all I'm saying about Tyson. His 'pattern of strategic boxing choices' (since you have a hangup on the word style for some reason) doesn't make him an endurance fighter. That's it. Would he have been capable of making other choices? Maybe. Who cares. He didn't, and as a result, he was never a strong finisher.

That's a terrible analogy. Sprinting in a marathon will make you lose the marathon. Sprinting (metaphorically-speaking, of course) in a boxing match won Tyson his fights. It's subjective in boxing because boxing is completely different from your example.

Hypothetically speaking, if the human body had unlimited endurance, sprinting would be a great strategy to win marathons. Since the human body DOES have certain limits however, any realistic look at marathon strategies must look at the amount of energy output that the body can support for a period of time equal to finish the race. I can try to push that boundary, but if I push it too far, it'll come back to bite me. Every time.

Yes. Yes, in marathon running.

Not in boxing.

Marathon running is a constant, aerobic activity. Boxing is bouts of explosive movement mixed with inactivity.

When Tyson signs up for a 12 round bout, he needs to consider fighting in a manner that lets him got the full 12 rounds. OR, he can take the chance of expending more energy than he can sustain for 12 rounds in order to end the bout early.

The former is a defensive strategy. The latter is less so. Just going on Tyson's stats, guess which he is. Look at any footage of Tyson from the 6th round onwards. He's almost always out of steam, and his record gets worse. He doesn't get late round knockouts.

What does it matter, as long as they're winning TKO's? How does him not getting late knockouts prove any of your point? He's obviously capable of going past that point; saying he's sacrificing a defensive strategy doesn't hold much merit.

Yeah, but listing Foreman as an example of a fighter with the energy to support Tyson's style in the late rounds didn't exactly commend you to the ranks of the Illuminati. ;)

Yes, heavens forbid I name George Foreman, a two-time World boxing Champion who went the ten round distance against Gregorio Peralta.

[Leader Desslock]

Yes, heavens forbid I name George Foreman, a two-time World boxing Champion who went the ten round distance against Gregorio Peralta.
Yep. And he didn't do it with Tyson's style, either.

You're a fanboy. You're arguing against a point I'm not even trying to make. I don't care any more. Good luck with all that.

[Reidar]

Yep. And he didn't do it with Tyson's style, either.

It was obvious that you're not talking about a peekaboo stance with the remark, "His 'pattern of strategic boxing choices' (since you have a hangup on the word style for some reason) doesn't make him an endurance fighter", so the only logical conclusion of "style" (a term you made an attempt to shy away from just before this -- why the turnaround?) is power-hitting.

If that's not the case, the fault lies on you for not concisely getting your conjecture across.

You're a fanboy. You're arguing against a point I'm not even trying to make. I don't care any more. Good luck with all that.

I'm directly and consecutively quoting your statements. You've made every point I've refuted.

You've done this quite a lot in the debates I've seen you in, though. Thanks for your well wishes, but I'd far prefer a reasonable exchange of thoughts instead of pointing fingers and shouting, "Fanboy! You're just like that other one guy!" at every opportunity. If I remember correctly, in our last altercation I was likened to someone who was a fanboy over a flesh-eating disease, or something along those odd lines.

On second thought, that's a pretty funny guy to be modeled after. I take it back; ad hominem me to death.

[Leader Desslock]

... ad hominem me to death.
Maybe we can make a play date between him and the strawmen.

[Reidar]

I thought you were done?

A strawman that comes directly after a quoted statement would be glaringly obvious. Point it out.

[Leader Desslock]

Here's what I see happening...

My point: Tyson put in 100% from the start of a fight, didn't hold anything back, and didn't save energy for the later rounds. He wasn't known in boxing circles as a defensive boxer, nor was he known as an endurance boxer. His career was flashy, but it didn't last, nor did I expect it to, given the manner in which he fought.

What you appear to be saying is "Tyson used Style X,. and there's nothing that specifically prohibits a boxer using Style X from being either an endurance or defensive boxer."

That's an academic straw man. I'm not discussing styles academically, and their relative merits. I'm talking about the actual man, the way he fought, and the way he was perceived.

In his heyday, I didn't hear anybody say that Tyson was a defensive boxer. In his heyday, I didn't hear anyone call Tyson an endurance boxer. I did not perceive anything about him or his particular boxing style that would lead me to call him that myself. Looking back at his record, I see nothing that wuold give me reason to reevaluate my position.

He fought with a simple, brutal style that worked devastatingly well when he had the strength to pull it off. As soon as he got a little older, the edge came off that power shot and he fought some people who were prepared to box him, he lost. As expected. His record shows that he was a flash in the pan, made a bit of a splash in the field, but will never be remembered as one of the greats.

And that's how I rank him. Nothing more.

NOW - if you want to go ahead and maybe pull up some old fight magazines from his prime years that talk about how great a defensive boxer he is, I'd love to see them. If you want to pull up some old boxing mags that talk about "how to increase your endurance like Mike Tyson", I'll be prepared to listen to that.

If you want to bring up academic points about the relative merits of different boxing styles, then that's fine too. Just know that we're no longer talking about Mike Tyson at that point. And if that's the case, have fun kicking over that strawman.


You know - I just remembered what it was the last time you pulled this stuff. All anyone was saying was "that guy looks more like a bodybuilder than a runner" or somesuch, and you were hell bent that no determination along those lines could possibly be made, even though the rest of us knew what we all meant. You were arguing points we weren't making then, too. I thought this sounded familiar, but I couldn't remember the subject.

[Reidar]

Here's what I see happening...

My point: Tyson put in 100% from the start of a fight, didn't hold anything back, and didn't save energy for the later rounds. He wasn't known as a defensive boxer, nor was he known as an endurance boxer. His career was flashy, but it didn't last, nor did I expect it to, given the manner in which he fought.

What you appear to be doing is saying "Tyson used Style X,. and there's nothing that specifically prohibits a boxer using Style X from being either an endurance or defensive boxer."

That's an academic straw man. I'm not discussing styles academically, and their relative merits. I'm talking about the actual man, the way he fought, and the way he was perceived.

Yet you said, "His style was not conducive to a long-term career."

I exhausted the logical possibilities that could be derived from that term. If you meant some weird thing with it, the fault lies on you for not being concise with it.

His style is the way he fights, by the way.

In his heyday, I didn't hear anybody say that Tyson was a defensive boxer. In his heyday, I didn't hear anyone call Tyson an endurance boxer. I did not perceive anything about him or his particular boxing style that would lead me to call him that myself. Looking back at his record, I see nothing that wuold give me reason to reevaluate my position.

I did. I heard people remark on how insanely fast his head movement was. Head movement in boxing isn't an offensive manuever. It's evasive action.

I also never called him an "endurance boxer". Who's strawmanning, exactly?

He fought with a simple, brutal style that worked devastatingly well when he had the strength to pull it off. As soon as he got a little older, the edge came off that power shot and he fought some people who were prepared to box him, he lost. As expected. His record shows that he was a flash in the pan, made a bit of a splash in the field, but will never be remembered as one of the greats.

And that's how I rank him. Nothing more.

I ask how does the footwork, weight-shift, and hip movement that goes behind his brutal KOs come off as simple?

NOW - if you want to go ahead and maybe pull up some old fight magazines from his prime years that talk about how great a defensive boxer he is, I'd love to see them. If you want to pull up some old boxing mags that talk about "how to increase your endurance like Mike Tyson", I'll be prepared to listen to that.

Are you completely disregarding when I said, "He's called that everytime his movement is praised"? Bobbing and weaving is a defensive movement.

If you want to bring up academic points about the relative of differnt boxing styles, then that's fine too. Just know that we're no longer talking about Mike Tyson at that point. And if that's the case, have fun kicking over that strawman.

Exactly. Your remarks extended to well beyond an individual. You were making statements on behalf of entire boxing techniques.

You know - I just remembered what it was the last time you pulled this stuff. All anyone was saying was "that guy looks more like a bodybuilder than a runner" or somesuch, and you were hell bent that no determination along those lines could possibly be made, even though the rest of us knew what we all meant. You were arguing points we weren't making then, too. I thought this sounded familiar, but I couldn't remember the subject.

Actually, I was debating against people saying that a bodybuilder's muscles inhibit his speed. The irony of strawman here is burning my eyes.

Seriously, I'm directly responding to quoted statements. A strawman would be extremely obvious. Copy and paste the statement and then my strawman of a retort to it.

[Leader Desslock]

Yet you said, "His style was not conducive to a long-term career."...His style is the way he fights, by the way.
Okay. So relying on that speed and power punch to exclusion as he appeared to do is the sort of decision that I would expect to fail him when he got a little older. Which, as it turned out, he did, thus abridging his career long before that of his contemporaries.

Does that work a little better for you?

I did. I heard people remark on how insanely fast his head movement was. Head movement in boxing isn't an offensive manuever. It's evasive action.
While I heard people talk about his head movement, never once did the term "defensive boxer" issue from their lips. Far more often it was stated that he was 'bulling his way in', which implies offense. He was fairly notorious for head butting for a while, there. Whenever he got paired with another head butter, it was funny to watch. Two bulls in a china shop.

I also never called him an "endurance boxer". Who's strawmanning, exactly?
Sez you: "Why does his style entail low endurance? That would be an aspect of the fighter, not the style."

I'm only bringing that up as an example of your inclination to take this away from the boxer and talk about styles academically. Which is where YOU seem to be hanging on the word style, if you don't mind me pointing it out. I'm solely trying to talk about "the way he fought", while you're the one talking about "boxing styles" like Peek A Boo and Rope A Dope.

I ask how does the footwork, weight-shift, and hip movement that goes behind his brutal KOs come off as simple?
Academic point on a non-academic remark. Dismissed.

Are you completely disregarding when I said, "He's called that everytime his movement is praised"?
Yes, I am. Because I'm talking about how he was classified as a fighter, not whether or not he engaged in particular motions for the purposes of defense. And as I've stated, I've never heard of Tyson classified in boxing circles as a defensive fighter. I've always heard him classified as an OFFENSIVE fighter, and that had nothing to do with his attitudes and behaviour out of the ring.

[Reidar]

Okay. So relying on that speed and power punch to exclusion as he appeared to do is the sort of decision that I would expect to fail him when he got a little older. Which, as it turned out, he did, thus abridging his career long before that of his contemporaries.

Does that work a little better for you?

Not really. What about heavy hitters like George Foreman and Larry Holmes, who continue to successfully fight in the present?

While I heard people talk about his head movement, never once did the term "defensive boxer" issue from their lips. Far more often it was stated that he was 'bulling his way in', which implies offense. He was fairly notorious for head butting for a while, there. Whenever he got paired with another head butter, it was funny to watch. Two bulls in a china shop.

Yes, but that's what it amounts to when commenting on a defensive maneuver, like head movement.

Sez you: "Why does his style entail low endurance? That would be an aspect of the fighter, not the style."

I'm only bringing that up as an example of your inclination to take this away from the boxer and talk about styles academically. Which is where YOU seem to be hanging on the word style, i you don't mind me pointing it out. I'm solely trying to talk about "the way he fought", while you're the one talking about "boxing styles" like Peek A Boo and Rope A Dope.

Exactly, again. Your comments extended beyond the boxer and to the technique.

Academic point on a non-academic remark. Dismissed.

Illegimately dismissed, I might add. Don't try to misconstrue it. You said he fought with a simple, brutal style. I said that the technique to make that style work isn't simple.

What is simple is the application of my response.

Yes, I am. Because I'm talking about how he was classified as a fighter, not whether or not he engaged in particular motions for the purposes of defense. And as I've stated, I've never heard of Tyson classified in boxing circles as a defensive fighter. I've always heard him classified as an OFFENSIVE fighter, and that had nothing to do with his attitudes and behaviour out of the ring.

You've also heard him classified as excelling in bobbing and weaving, which is defense.

And where does his attitude out of the ring fit into this? When was that even made mention of?

[The Million Dollar Prons]

THEN THE IDE WAS INVOKED AND BOTH REIDAR AND DESSLOCK DIED FOR ARGUING ON THE INTERNET!!

[Leader Desslock]

Not really. What about heavy hitters like George Foreman and Larry Holmes, who continue to successfully fight in the present?
Foreman never fought like Tyson, and Holmes was a more well-rounded boxer. Still a brawler, but he could at least box.

Yes, but that's what it amounts to when commenting on a defensive maneuver, like head movement.
Wrong. There's a difference between saying "that fighter just executed a defensive maneuver" and saying "looking back over his career, I can say he's one of the defensive greats of the sport."

Tyson sometimes did the former. Tyson was never the latter. If you disagree, so be it.

Illegimately dismissed, I might add.
If you feel so, so be it. I was not making any sort of comment about the relative ease of a boxer learning a maneuver. If you read it that way, I can't help you. I'm not getting sucked in again.

You've also heard him classified as excelling in bobbing and weaving, which is defense.
Addressed above. Done. Disagree? Fine.

And where does his attitude out of the ring fit into this? When was that even made mention of?
Joke. :P

[master terrence]

was Evander Hollyfield his only loss :blink:

[Reidar]

Foreman never fought like Tyson, and Holmes was a more well-rounded boxer. Still a brawler, but he could at least box.

Both relied on power to end their matches quickly.

Wrong. There's a difference between saying "that fighter just executed a defensive maneuver" and saying "looking back over his career, I can say he's one of the defensive greats of the sport."

Tyson sometimes did the former. Tyson was never the latter. If you disagree, so be it.

He didn't "sometimes do the former." It was an essential part of his boxing.

If you feel so, so be it. I was not making any sort of comment about the relative ease of a boxer learning a maneuver. If you read it that way, I can't help you. I'm not getting sucked in again.

What? Not in learning it, in executing it.

was Evander Hollyfield his only loss :blink:

No, but the fight was stopped early (unless you're speaking of a different Holyfield match).

[master terrence]

I wonder, what type of boxer do you think tyson is.

Brute cannon fodder?
Infighter, dives in to much?
The float like a butterfly type?


Tyson was touch, fast, skilled. He has also had many ugly scenes.

-hmm, :lol: come to think of it, he must have lost to Lewis considering... Lewis still has the belt -_-;

[Leader Desslock]

Both relied on power to end their matches quickly.
There's no arguing that both Tyson and Foreman had a power shot as their primary weapon. Nobody hit harder than Foreman. Their similarities end there. If Tyson was from the Charging Bull school of boxing, Foreman was from the Immovable Tree school. He moved more when he was young, but blowing his energy on the first few rounds was not a Foreman trait. Also, his style evolved with age to match his strenghts (resilience, power) and weaknesses (speed). Tyson's style never evolved. Other than being at the top of the list of People You Don't Want To Hit You, I don't see the similarities. If you do, fine.

As for Holmes, I'll let his record speak for him. LOTS of his fights went to the middle to late rounds. As I said, he might've been a brawler, but he was also a boxer.

was Evander Hollyfield his only loss?
Tyson's Losses:
1990 - lost to Douglas (KO)
1996 - lost to Holyfield (TKO)
1997 - lost to Holyfield (disqualified)
2002 - pwned by Lewis (KO)
2004 - lost to Williams (KO)
2005 - lost to McBride (TKO)

I wonder, what type of boxer do you think tyson is.
I'd call him a brawler.

[Reidar]

There's no arguing that both Tyson and Foreman had a power shot as their primary weapon. Nobody hit harder than Foreman. Their similarities end there. If Tyson was from the Charging Bull school of boxing, Foreman was from the Immovable Tree school. He moved more when he was young, but blowing his energy on the first few rounds was not a Foreman trait.

This would mean that you're saying that Tyson's lack of stamina derives more from his bobbing and weaving than his attacks.

Also, his style evolved with age to match his strenghts (resilience, power) and weaknesses (speed). Tyson's style never evolved. Other than being at the top of the list of People You Don't Want To Hit You, I don't see the similarities. If you do, fine.

That's the key similarity. If any case of Tyson's lack of stamina were to be made, it would be because of his heavy shots, not because of his bobbing and weaving.

As for Holmes, I'll let his record speak for him. LOTS of his fights went to the middle to late rounds. As I said, he might've been a brawler, but he was also a boxer.

That's the only difference you're naming? Because that would prove my point in answering your question of someone who could fight like Mike but last the distance.

[Leader Desslock]

This would mean that you're saying that Tyson's lack of stamina derives more from his bobbing and weaving than his attacks.
No, it would mean that what I was saying is that Tyson and Foreman aren't particularly similar fighters. That's what I was saying. If you want to argue against something I wasn't saying, knock yourself dead. As I said, I'm done playing that game with you.

That's the key similarity.
Oh my gosh! I just realized another similarity! Both of them threw punches! Whoa, how weird is THAT? They're practically identical! :rolleyes:

That's the only difference you're naming? Because that would prove my point in answering your question of someone who could fight like Mike but last the distance.
As I said, other than being a brawler, I don't think he fought like Mike. Holmes was a boxer who expended his energy at a maintainable level and could box. Tyson did neither. If you think mentioning him proves your point, then give yourself a cookie.

[master terrence]

I think alot of it falls to perspective. If he ended fights in early rounds, it could be because he didn't have the stamina, or atleast didn't manage it for more efficient wins. Maybe not to many fighters tested his stamina. Can you really tell? you don't know what's going on in his head, that has alot to do with pulling on physical stamina. I don't think watching his matches would measure his stamina to well, because you don't know how hard he feels each hit either. You see that he hits with explosive power, but how much effort is in there, maybe he's really putting his body into it, or just swinging wild and fast. I just don't think I have the eye for it- to his reaction to everything. No matter how much stamina, he is going to look tierd by round 8. I's called being human -_-;

[Reidar]

No, it would mean that what I was saying is that Tyson and Foreman aren't particularly similar fighters. That's what I was saying. If you want to argue against something I wasn't saying, knock yourself dead. As I said, I'm done playing that game with you.

This is ridiculous.

"If Tyson was from the Charging Bull school of boxing, Foreman was from the Immovable Tree school. He moved more when he was young, but blowing his energy on the first few rounds was not a Foreman trait."

Having that follow the previous sentence means you're correlating Tyson's charging with blowing his energy.

Oh my gosh! I just realized another similarity! Both of them threw punches! Whoa, how weird is THAT? They're practically identical! :rolleyes:

Reading comprehension is your friend. I can't tell whether it's unintentional or if you're purposely sacrificing that in order to make gags.

"...ther than being at the top of the list of People You Don't Want To Hit You.." is referencing one style. If someone is a lighter puncher, it's reasonable to take a hit in order to counter.

As I said, other than being a brawler, I don't think he fought like Mike. Holmes was a boxer who expended his energy at a maintainable level and could box. Tyson did neither. If you think mentioning him proves your point, then give yourself a cookie.

Right, and I'm asking how? In what instance? The only thing you said was that he fought for the distance, which is the exact same distinction you yourself asked earlier, effectively answering and thus contradicting your own point.

[Leader Desslock]

I think alot of it falls to perspective. ... Can you really tell? ...
If not, then there is no point to people commenting upon the sport at all. We can just turn to read the statistics on what actually happened and let the matter drop beyond that.

This is ridiculous.
On this, at least, we agree. Well, we probably disagree on what 'this' is, but I think we're both in agreement that the word 'ridiculous' would be correctly employed in any description of whatever 'this' is.

[Likely]

ive learned long ago that arguing over the internet is not a good thing. even if you win the argument it wasnt worth it. :lol:

thats not to say debating isnt good but man, theres got to be a stopping point somewhere.

[Reidar]

An argument is an argument. The format of it doesn't change anything.

[master terrence]

Well if it matters, I still think this is a civil discussion. Doesn't look special, an dI don't think your going to get anywhere. For what it is worth though, I'd recomend you pull certain time periods (since Desslock is a fossil), I'm sure some of the fights he refers to are from '95(when he got out of prison).

[LOSTyears]

Wow, its nice to see Mike can still fire up discussion ^_^

I think alot of it falls to perspective. If he ended fights in early rounds, it could be because he didn't have the stamina, or atleast didn't manage it for more efficient wins. Maybe not to many fighters tested his stamina. Can you really tell? you don't know what's going on in his head, that has alot to do with pulling on physical stamina. I don't think watching his matches would measure his stamina to well, because you don't know how hard he feels each hit either. You see that he hits with explosive power, but how much effort is in there, maybe he's really putting his body into it, or just swinging wild and fast. I just don't think I have the eye for it- to his reaction to everything. No matter how much stamina, he is going to look tierd by round 8. I's called being human -_-;Not only that, the peek-a-boo style has been under debate for the fact that it gases boxers out more because of the constrictive posture. You add bobbing and weaving mixed with that explosive power of course your going to have stamina issues. My trainer right now is adapting me to that style and let me tell you it is very taxing, right now until I build up my endurance I couldn't even imagine going 6-8+ rounds with that style. I've gained a huge appreciation for how Mike used the style and managed the energy, the fact that he was able to use it effeciently enough to dismantle his opponents in a short time period is impressive in itself.

One thing I do know from my expierence so far is that you can teach skills but you can't teach an athlete to run farther or faster. Boxers(athletes period) have limits. It doesn't make a boxer any less an athlete if they can only last 6 rounds compared to the one who can go 12. The victor comes from how the practioner manages their own style. In Mike's hayday he managed it very well. At least up until a few fights before Buster, how can you lose to a scrub you know you can beat even knock him down rounds before you get your own @ss knocked out. That fight was ultimatley his destruction, he was never the same.

[master terrence]

I for one couldn't use the peek-a-boo style, not with my skinny arms.

[Gannon]

The majority of Tyson's career, the number one rule for defeating him was to last all the rounds. Now if Tyson is a defensive endurance fighter, it wouldn't make sense for that to be a factor in his opponents' success.

Tyson will never be known for his defensive capabilities, and that's the way it should be. Nomatter what Tyson did right defensively, it would never overshadow the other aspects of his game. If anything Tyson only played his defense card merely to add to his offense, he never did anything at any part of career that would suggest he was a defensive technician.

Could Tyson defend? Certainly. Did Tyson utilize his defense? Sure. Was Tyson a defensive-minded fighter? Hell no.

Tyson was a brawler, pure and simple. All of his fights atest to that. You could even look at footage from his olympic match and see his mentality in the ring. Tyson wanted to KNOCK HIS OPPONENTS OUT. Period. He didn't want to evade them, block them, shuffle around-- he wanted them unconscience. And quite frankly, I don't see anything wrong with that. Without that mentality, Tyson wouldn't be Tyson.

Seriously, can anyone even imagine Tyson as a pure boxer? The very idea is laughable. A defensive Tyson is not Tyson. Even if it was 50 offense and 50 defense it wouldn't be the same. And that my friends, is what made Tyson great (at one point).

[Reidar]

I don't see the reasoning in calling someone a brawler over a boxer. Knocking someone out before early is a part of boxing strategy that Tyson happened to concentrate on. Is Ali something other than a boxer because he never went for instant knockouts? Why does it apply vice versa, then?

[Leader Desslock]

^ And thus the loop begins again.

I'll let someone else take this ride. I've been on long enough.

<hangs up brass ring for the next rider>

[Reidar]

Actually, when I made that point towards you, you took the "You're just a Tyson fanboy" route and it went unaddressed. That's not looping anything.

Different people also bring different points to the table. I see no qualms in bringing up an issue that was undoubtedly lost in the thread.

[Leader Desslock]

^ No, it was addressed, just not in a manner you feel inclined to accept for reasons known best to yourself.

I'm really not sure why you have a problem with blatantly obvious observations when it comes to athletic figures. Someone says "he looks more like a bodybuilder than a runner" - an observation WE all got - and you don't 'get' what we mean. I say "Tyson's not a defensive boxer" - an obvious observation made by countless enthusiasts, boxers and people in the sporting press - and this fails to connect.

Nothing wrong with your perspective differing from the mainstream, I guess, but for someone of your athletic interest, I can't see why you have such a problem understanding the gist of what people are saying. Because you really seem to here, in my opinion.

I mean, one would think you'd followed boxing, right? And yet, you expect me to believe that you've never had exposure to the sentiment that Tyson wasn't a defensive boxer, in the entire time he's been boxing? Seriously?

Nope. I don't believe it. So far as I can tell, you're being intentionally obtuse on the subject for reasons I don't even pretend to guess.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

THEN THE IDE WAS INVOKED BECAUSE DESSLOCK AND REIDAR ARE ARGUING ON THE INTERNET!

Edit: This is the seond time I've said this? Well it's your fault for not stopping the first time.

[Reidar]

Why do you keep saying your done?

It wasn't addressed. Why you took the time to write a follow up but not to simply copy and paste where it was to prove me wrong is beyond me.

Once again, the issue I had in the other topic was people saying that large muscles inhibit speed. That's it. It had nothing to do with any aesthetic matter. You misconstrue and simplify the matter in the same manner with, "I say 'Tyson's not a defensive boxer'". Look back. That's not what I responded to. I responded with, "That's not charging forward like a bull. Why wouldn't that be able to carry him into an extended career? And how did he not have the talent with the power he exerted?". Those were the issues, not, "He's not a defensive boxer".

I have no issue with you believing Tyson not being a defensive boxer. He wasn't one and I never said he was one. I said he is called one everytime his movement is praised; that hardly speaks for him all around. I'd bring up no retort if that was what you'd had said. But it wasn't, despite your claim of it being so. I disagree with saying that he charged forward like a bull in the context that you were speaking of: reckless and brawler-like. One is subjective and the other is not.

[Leader Desslock]

^ Good. We're even. I never said 'reckless'.

Again, you don't know what I mean when I say "brawler"? Nope. Not buying it. This is a common enough term used to describe lots of boxers, not just Tyson. You follow the sport, you know what's meant by it. Don't tell me you've never heard the term and understand what was meant by it. I mean what every commentator who has ever called Tyson a brawler has meant by it.

[Reidar]

I never said that you said "reckless". I said that that was the context in which you were speaking in, which would be the logical assumption after calling him a brawler who charged forward like a bull with "no skill, no finesse, no strategy".

Furthermore, I also never said that I don't know what you mean by "brawler". I said I don't understand why a boxer winning within the confinements of the rule-set would be likened to that. "Brawler" style would be a style of boxing, not a contrast of it. If the commentators were on here, I'd be asking them about it as well. I'm pretty sure that none of them ever said that what he's doing isn't boxing like you did, however.

[Rain]

Will you two quit it already and knock yourselves out by overdosing on sleeping pills?

(I think you both need some sleep.)

[Gannon]

I don't see the reasoning in calling someone a brawler over a boxer. Knocking someone out before early is a part of boxing strategy that Tyson happened to concentrate on. Is Ali something other than a boxer because he never went for instant knockouts? Why does it apply vice versa, then?

No one is calling Tyson a brawler for going for KO's early. He's a brawler because that was his mentality in the ring. There is a traditional mentality going into the ring that boxers have, and Mike Tyson did not.

that's not a bad thing. It's what made him who he is afterall. Mike Tyson is NOT a pure boxer. Plain and simple.

This isn't new termonolgy in sports, anyone who keeps up with just about any mainstream sport knows this is nothing new.

Just like an NBA player can be a scorer, and not a pure shooter. If you know of Allen Iverson I'm sure you've heard people say he's not a pure point-guard (and he isn't). Does that mean he's not an actual point-guard? Nope. Does that mean he's a bad player? Nope.

Try this example for instance: You have your running backs in the NFL right? Well let's say the traditional role for a running back was to have 30-40 carries per game and the mechanics expected of a RB was to be 40 percent blocking, 50 percent running, and 10 percent passing.

Now let's take a third-down/goal-line/power running back who gets 10 carries per game (10 blk/90 run/0 pass), or a hybrid back who shines during passing downs that gets 25 carries a game(5 blk/35 run/60 pass). Yeah, they're both good running backs, but they aren't PURE running backs, meaning the way they operate steers away from the traditional/textbook method of playing that position. But by no means is that a bad thing. Same goes for Mike Tyson.

It's nothing to be ashamed of, that's just the way it is. For the record, there are alot of boxers whose mechanics in one way or another steer away from the general mentality of boxing, and Tyson is one of them. His way just ended up landing him in the "brawler" category.

EDIT:


I said I don't understand why a boxer winning within the confinements of the rule-set would be likened to that. "Brawler" style would be a style of boxing, not a contrast of it. I

Your right, it isn't contrast, but it gives a clearer definition to what it is he does, and is a better fit IMO. Of course, in the grand scheme of things, Mike Tyson IS a boxer, no one is denying that. But as I pointed out earlier, the way he operated in the ring is what places him in that category. It's like a right handed fighter to a south-paw. Same field, different sides of the fence.

[Leader Desslock]

I never said that you said "reckless". I said that that was the context in which you were speaking in, which would be the logical assumption after calling him a brawler who charged forward like a bull with "no skill, no finesse, no strategy".
I have never heard anyone praise Tyson for anything like finesse. Ever. I have yet to see Tyson fight with any strategy beyond The One Punch. I've explained my assessment of his skills (good for the short while they worked).

If you disagree, that's fine. But don't say you don't comprehend what all sorts of other people have said about him for a whole lot of years.

During the commentary of the Tyson<->Lewis fight, sentiments like "Tyson's never been a real boxer... he's met a real boxer in Lewis..." were thrown around. Did they mean that Tyson had never actually thought about the sport of boxing? No. They meant that he wasn't a well-rounded boxer with the ability to adapt and use multiple techniques like his opponent. I understood that. Seems pretty obvious to me, really. If you don't get that - I can't help you. This should not be news to anyone who's followed Tyson's career and the commentary on it, however.

I'm pretty sure that none of them ever said that what he's doing isn't boxing like you did, however.
I've heard plenty of commentators say that "this fighter is a real BOXER" or "he's really not a boxer" about any number of fighters in the ring. When they say someone "isn't a boxer", are they saying "this man is doing things that are just not boxing at all - I don't know - maybe he's making sushi or mowing his lawn... it's not boxing...!"

No. Use your head, man. That's not what they mean when they say it, and that's not what I meant when I said it. You're taking a stance against what hasn't been said. Again.

What they mean is that the fighter is not doing the things that exemplify the sport of boxing, like controlling the pace and direction of the fight, managing his opponent, limiting his opponents' options, keeping his opponent at a disadvantage, scoring the maximum amount of blows at the minimum cost to himself, pacing himself, and.... all the things that are considered 'boxing'.

Tyson was a fighter in the ring who used boxing techniques. He wasn't a "boxer's boxer". He wasn't a man that other boxers sat back and said, "Wow, that man's really demonstrating some of the finer elements of the sport". Instead, they said things like "Whoa, glad that's not me that just got hit." He was a guy with a limited range of boxing skills and a lot of power. That power helped get him past his serious shortcomings as a fighter - for a while. And following his career, I can't say I was surprised when that didn't take him very far as a boxer.

You know, maybe it all comes down to thinking. Tyson was never much of a thinker. Which means that he never really had the mental aspect of boxing. He was a physical fighter only, not a physical and mental one - which would be the ideal "boxer's boxer".

Maybe that's not it. I don't care. Whatever it is, it seems like common sense to me. It evidently does not resound with you.

[Reidar]

Gannon: the athletes in your example are still referred to as basketball players or football players. The terminology difference in boxing is inconsistant with that.

I have never heard anyone praise Tyson for anything like finesse. Ever. I have yet to see Tyson fight with any strategy beyond The One Punch. I've explained my assessment of his skills (good for the short while they worked).

If you disagree, that's fine. But don't say you don't comprehend what all sorts of other people have said about him for a whole lot of years.

One-hit K.O. is still a strategy and is as much a strategy as anything else. How can it not be?

And once again, I never said he was praised for having finesse. He doesn't have to be praised for it to possess it. The technique it takes to generate power is finesse in itself.

During the commentary of the Tyson<->Lewis fight, sentiments like "Tyson's never been a real boxer... he's met a real boxer in Lewis..." were thrown around. Did they mean that Tyson had never actually thought about the sport of boxing? No. They meant that he wasn't a well-rounded boxer with the ability to adapt and use multiple techniques like his opponent. I understood that. Seems pretty obvious to me, really. If you don't get that - I can't help you. This should not be news to anyone who's followed Tyson's career and the commentary on it, however.

Not being a well-rounded boxer =/= not being a real boxer.

I've heard plenty of commentators say that "this fighter is a real BOXER" or "he's really not a boxer" about any number of fighters in the ring. When they say someone "isn't a boxer", are they saying "this man is doing things that are just not boxing at all - I don't know - maybe he's making sushi or mowing his lawn... it's not boxing...!"

No. Use your head, man. That's not what they mean when they say it, and that's not what I meant when I said it. You're taking a stance against what hasn't been said. Again.

It does, but you used extended hyperbole to make it seem ridiculous. They're saying, "He's not boxing, he's brawling."

What they mean is that the fighter is not doing the things that exemplify the sport of boxing, like controlling the pace and direction of the fight, managing his opponent, limiting his opponents' options, keeping his opponent at a disadvantage, scoring the maximum amount of blows at the minimum cost to himself, pacing himself, and.... all the things that are considered 'boxing'.

One hit knockouts are boxing. If they work so that the rest of it is moot, that's still boxing.

Tyson was a fighter in the ring who used boxing techniques. He wasn't a "boxer's boxer". He wasn't a man that other boxers sat back and said, "Wow, that man's really demonstrating some of the finer elements of the sport". Instead, they said things like "Whoa, glad that's not me that just got hit." He was a guy with a limited range of boxing skills and a lot of power. That power helped get him past his serious shortcomings as a fighter - for a while. And following his career, I can't say I was surprised when that didn't take him very far as a boxer.

How do you know this? He ditched using them after he fired Rooney.

[Gannon]

Gannon: the athletes in your example are still referred to as basketball players or football players. The terminology difference in boxing is inconsistant with that.

Last time I checked, Mike Tyson is still referred to a boxer. It seems like your not understanding what people mean when they say brawler. Your making it sound like there is a list for fighters that reads:

Random Bob: Boxer
Random Greg: Boxer
Mike Tyson: Brawler

No one is saying that. And no one is saying that Mike Tyson isn't a real boxer.

I'll say again:
Iverson IS a basketball player, but the WAY HE PLAYS THE SPORT is the reason why he's regarded the way he is.

Running Back A IS a football player, but the WAY HE PLAYS THE SPORT is the reason why he's regarded the way he is.

Mike Tyson IS (was) a boxer, but the WAY HE PLAYED THE SPORT is the reason why he's regarded the way he is.

Sorry, but I don't see the inconsistancy with that.

[Leader Desslock]

One-hit K.O. is still a strategy and is as much a strategy as anything else. How can it not be?
A 'strategic' boxer would be one that can tell when his one 'strategy' isn't working, then modify his 'strategy' to something with a better chance of success. Is One Punch a strategy? Absolutely. Was Tyson a strategic boxer for using his one strategy to the exclusion of all others? Absolutely not.

Tyson was not called a strategic boxer; he was a guy with a plan he thought would work. This isn't semantic legerdemain. You're intelligent enough to see the difference, so I conclude you're deliberately avoiding it. Therefore, point dismissed.

And once again, I never said he was praised for having finesse. He doesn't have to be praised for it to possess it.
No, but then you're saying that you have the power to see that which no commentator has ever found worthy of mention. If you're right, I commend you for your sublime grasp of the subject matter, which clearly exceeds that which the rest of us possess.

Not being a well-rounded boxer =/= not being a real boxer.
Addressed. Strawman. You're taking a position against the literal meaning of an idiomatic expression. Dismissed.

It does, but you used extended hyperbole to make it seem ridiculous. They're saying, "He's not boxing, he's brawling."
And according to you, brawling is just a style of boxing. So we're all talking about boxing, unless you feel you have some exclusive right to use boxing terminology while the rest of us do not. Dismissed.

One hit knockouts are boxing. If they work so that the rest of it is moot, that's still boxing.
Again, you're arguing against the literal translation of an idiomatic expression. Dismissed.

How do you know this? He ditched using them after he fired Rooney.
In that case, the problem is solved. We're not talking about Tyson's hypothetical potential in an ideal universe where he used the optimal combination of tactics and training. We're talking about what he did with what he had, which history records as "a lot for a little while, but not much for very long". Dismissed as academic speculation.

[master terrence]

:lol: I'm not even sure if you guys are arguing anymore. Maybe Reidar will figure out that if he replys or doesn't reply, it holds no consequence. You two are no longer trying to further your knowledge of boxing by discussion. You need to learn how to stop, even if you feel you've..."won" or you're "right". you nkow, "throw in the towel".


I hope Tyson gets his *** kicked in his first fight. Now, Kimbo, he is a real Brawler.

[Soluzar]

One-hit K.O. is still a strategy and is as much a strategy as anything else. How can it not be?
If you're a boxer who fights in a way similar to Tyson, and you come up against a boxer with good speed, and excellent defense, then you will likely find yourself outmatched, because there's less of a chance that your punches will connect. Tyson was always going to lose to a fighter who could move effectively. There just don't happen to be that many of them in his weight, which is why it worked out for him for a long time. There also don't happen to be as many people who can attack as effectively as he did, which means that he required less shots to connect in order to damage his opponent.

Tyson had in his arsenal, and probably still has, several of the most effective punches that the world of boxing has ever seen.They weren't just strong, they were devastating. As soon as he connected one or two of them together, the fight would turn around for most boxers, and they'd end up down for the count.

Now there's a lot more to boxing than that. A sound defense does not consist excusively of a small amount of bobbing and weaving. It also consists of a solid guard, the ability to feint, and to wrongfoot your opponent, and most importantly of all, the ability to move fast enough to be in a position from which your opponent cannot defend and cannot attack. You can't stay in that position for long, but if you can keep doing it repeatedly, you will exhaust your opponent. Not many heavyweights can do that, but Lewis could, and Lewis just plain outclassed Tyson.

[Reidar]

Gannon: I'm not taking it nearly as literally as you're making it out to be; like I've said, I know what's meant by it. The way he played the sport warrants him the title that contrasts what the sport of boxing is. Basketball and football have no such terminology. That's inconsistant.

A 'strategic' boxer would be one that can tell when his one 'strategy' isn't working, then modify his 'strategy' to something with a better chance of success. Is One Punch a strategy? Absolutely. Was Tyson a strategic boxer for using his one strategy to the exclusion of all others? Absolutely not.

Tyson was not called a strategic boxer; he was a guy with a plan he thought would work. This isn't semantic legerdemain. You're intelligent enough to see the difference, so I conclude you're deliberately avoiding it. Therefore, point dismissed.

Who said anything about him being a strategic boxer? I said he doesn't lack strategy. Once again, that hardly speaks for him all around.

No, but then you're saying that you have the power to see that which no commentator has ever found worthy of mention. If you're right, I commend you for your sublime grasp of the subject matter, which clearly exceeds that which the rest of us possess.

Since when were commentators the holder of gospel truth?

Stepping in, rotating the hips, and following up with the arm while having the accuracy throughout all of that power-exchange through the body to connect in the face is finesse in its own right.

Addressed. Strawman. You're taking a position against the literal meaning of an idiomatic expression. Dismissed.

Fallacy of hasty induction. I was using its insinuation, not its literal meaning.

And according to you, brawling is just a style of boxing. So we're all talking about boxing, unless you feel you have some exclusive right to use boxing terminology while the rest of us do not. Dismissed.

Except they're not using it in that manner, and the post was about them. "They're saying, 'He's not boxing, he's brawling."'"

Again, you're arguing against the literal translation of an idiomatic expression. Dismissed.

Wrong. I'm arguing with the insinuation of the term.

In that case, the problem is solved. We're not talking about Tyson's hypothetical potential in an ideal universe where he used the optimal combination of tactics and training. We're talking about what he did with what he had, which history records as "a lot for a little while, but not much for very long". Dismissed as academic speculation.

And you'd be factually incorrect. It got him far in the time that he used it.

[Reidar]

If you're a boxer who fights in a way similar to Tyson, and you come up against a boxer with good speed, and excellent defense, then you will likely find yourself outmatched, because there's less of a chance that your punches will connect. Tyson was always going to lose to a fighter who could move effectively. There just don't happen to be that many of them in his weight, which is why it worked out for him for a long time. There also don't happen to be as many people who can attack as effectively as he did, which means that he required less shots to connect in order to damage his opponent.

Tyson had in his arsenal, and probably still has, several of the most effective punches that the world of boxing has ever seen.They weren't just strong, they were devastating. As soon as he connected one or two of them together, the fight would turn around for most boxers, and they'd end up down for the count.

Now there's a lot more to boxing than that. A sound defense does not consist excusively of a small amount of bobbing and weaving. It also consists of a solid guard, the ability to feint, and to wrongfoot your opponent, and most importantly of all, the ability to move fast enough to be in a position from which your opponent cannot defend and cannot attack. You can't stay in that position for long, but if you can keep doing it repeatedly, you will exhaust your opponent. Not many heavyweights can do that, but Lewis could, and Lewis just plain outclassed Tyson.

I would argue that guys like Biggs and Spinks could move very effectively, and that I wasn't passing off bobbing and weaving as a complete form of defense (which is why I said earlier that it hardly speaks of him all around).

I agree with everything else, including Lewis outclassing him.

[Leader Desslock]

Who said anything about him being a strategic boxer?
Nobody, that I ever heard. Same with finesse. ^_^ I'm glad we agree.

I was using its insinuation, not its literal meaning.
Either way, you were arguing against what you perceived what was implied, not what was actually said or meant, as has been explained to you. Are you done shadow-boxing yet?

And you'd be factually incorrect. It got him far in the time that he used it.
Which is what I said: "a lot for a little while". Once agaiin, I'm glad we agree.

[Reidar]

Nobody, that I ever heard. Same with finesse. ^_^ I'm glad we agree.

Not quite. Earlier you said he has no strategy.

And yes, I know that's not literally saying that he runs in and starts flailing his arms around wildly; I know what you meant by it.

Either way, you were arguing against what you perceived what was implied, not what was actually said or meant, as has been explained to you. Are you done shadow-boxing yet?

I'm going by the perception you gave. The disagreement is his style being of a a less technical method, which is where calling him a brawler comes in. I'm saying that that has a ton of technicalities in its own right, and consequently the contrasting terminology doesn't fit.

Which is what I said: "a lot for a little while". Once agaiin, I'm glad we agree.

And following that was, "...but not much for very long," which ties into what you said earlier about his style no longer working for him.

[Gannon]

Gannon: I'm not taking it nearly as literally as you're making it out to be; like I've said, I know what's meant by it. The way he played the sport warrants him the title that contrasts what the sport of boxing is. Basketball and football have no such terminology. That's inconsistant.

Well if you understand what I meant, then it doesn't matter if the technical terminology is exactly the same. I used examples simply to show you where I was coming from, so as long as you got the gist of what I was saying (as you've stated) the rest is irrelevant.

[Lita]

Its simple his strategy was to unleash hell on his opponent, mike tyson was simply awesome, one of the greatest, i watched his last fights and cheered him on, even though i knew he was nothing, and i mean nothing compared to the real mike tyson..

His fight against berbick is how ill remember him, berbick simply could not handle what was happening, i mean who could, the knockout where he fell 3 times in a row explains everything you need to know..

[LOSTyears]

Not many heavyweights can do that, but Lewis could, and Lewis just plain outclassed Tyson. Thats a little harsh, lets just just say he thoroughly picked him apart(yeah thats better). Thought the fight was ridiculous and overated, before hand Mike was facing pretty much the bottom of the barrel and to get into the ring with a polished Lewis was absurd(even though in the back of my mind I was still rooting for him :P ). I didn't think that fight was a good example of picking apart Mike's style our a crowning achievment for that matter. Mike was no where near the condition of where a world class fighter should be and hadn't been since the 80's. Thought the Holyfield and comeback fight against Rahman(got his @ss rocked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sy0TG_ub3k)) was the pinnacle of Lewis's career, a victory against a washed up Tyson was hardly significant.

[Leader Desslock]

I'm not all "Oh, poor Mikey" about it, though. Tyson was outclassed by Lewis, yes. But Tyson was hardly helpless. One solid shot from Tyson, even in his waning years, could have taken Lewis down. It's not that Tyson couldn't win; it's that Lewis prevented it. And it's the mark of a good boxer that Lewis did not let his guard down or underestimate just how dangerous Tyson's power shot was.

The same could be said of George Foreman, really. Now matter how slow, tired or beat up he might look, gods help the opponent who underestimated the power of that punch.

His fight against berbick is how ill remember him, berbick simply could not handle what was happening...
Who was the guy he lifted off the canvas with a body shot? I can't even remember who it was, but that's the hit I remember. It looked like he teed the guy off - both feet left the canvas.

[Jae Hoon]

Think about it, who did Tyson fight? Really think about it

The answer is

1. A bunch of nobodies

2. People at the end of their career

If you even look back when he was "good" he never really fought anyone at all. 99 percent of his opponents were either ready to retire or scrubs.

[Ikari Warrior]

Man, I learned a lot from this thread, I skimmed pages 4 & 5. I'll just say I agree with Desslock that Tyson was an offensive fighter. I disagree that Tyson will not be recognized as one of the greats of boxing. No defense, endurance, or finesse (from what I've read here), but Tyson could slam into you full force with an unholy punch from hell and floor you. That's talent. It's not skill but it's talent. I'll agree that Tyson was a talented boxer, and I'll equally agree that Tyson was not necessarily skilled relative to other boxing champions.

[Haro!]

He was a heavyweight, there isn't much finesse in that weightclass to speak of so all the opponents he fought were more or less the same.

[LOSTyears]

^There is truth to that, especially with some of the massive lugs we got right now in the division. Heavyweights are not what they used to be.

Ali(favorite) was the closest thing to a finesse heavyweight. With his hands down at his sides the guy focused most of his defense on footwork and cat-like reflexes, his body motion was like a dance very fluid. Power, speed, agility all his attributes in his prime were off the chart.

[Reidar]

Well if you understand what I meant, then it doesn't matter if the technical terminology is exactly the same. I used examples simply to show you where I was coming from, so as long as you got the gist of what I was saying (as you've stated) the rest is irrelevant.

The terminology isn't the same. It's completely different. That's how it's inconsistant.

[Gannon]

The terminology isn't the same. It's completely different. That's how it's inconsistant.

Well if you understand what I meant, then it doesn't matter if the technical terminology is exactly the same. I used examples simply to show you where I was coming from, so as long as you got the gist of what I was saying (as you've stated) the rest is irrelevant.

;)

*Filler*

[Reidar]

I quote: "Well if you understand what I meant, then it doesn't matter if the technical terminology is exactly the same."

"If" is a conditional statement. I'm responding to the postulation: no, the terminology isn't the same.

[Gannon]

I quote: "Well if you understand what I meant, then it doesn't matter if the technical terminology is exactly the same."

"If" is a conditional statement. I'm responding to the postulation: no, the terminology isn't the same.

I know what you were responding to, but it really doesn't make a difference because what I said previously still applies even to what you said afterward; which is why I quoted myself.

as long as you get the gist of what I was saying (as you've stated), the rest is irrelevant

The key line being this.

The terminology isn't the same? Okay. But you got it anyway, so it really doesn't matter now does it? I merely posted to make a point, and the point was made.

Game over.

[Reidar]

I know what you were responding to, but it really doesn't make a difference because what I said previously still applies even to what you said afterward; which is why I quoted myself.

No it doesn't. The terminology isn't the same. That contradicts your "if".


The key line being this.

The terminology isn't the same? Okay. But you got it anyway, so it really doesn't matter now does it? I merely posted to make a point, and the point was made.

Game over.

How would I be disagreeing with it if I didn't get it?

And why do people keep saying quirky little phrases like "dismissed" and "game over", only to return and respond to the points? Weird.

[Gannon]

LMAO @ That.

I know Reidar, I know.

But guess what? We aren't even on the subject of Mike Tyson anymore (LMAO), so there really is no point in continuing onward (At least, in my eyes). So I'm officially done with this conversation. Yeah I know I said I was done one post ago but I admit saying "game over" WAS corny (although humorous), so Gannon had to come back and redeem myself :lol:.

So, my brave knight! Take the final word upon your breast, and conquer this E-battle!

THE POWER...IS YOURS! :lol: (Had to do it--haha)

(I'm just messing wit cha Reidar. We're cool. You know at the end of the day I'm going end up calling you for fitness tips anyway.) ;)

And why do people keep saying quirky little phrases like "dismissed" and "game over", only to return and respond to the points? Weird.

Keep saying quirky little phrases? Find ONE post of mine besides that one where I said that. Didn't think so.

One thing is for certain though: I won't be saying it again :lol: (God I hope no one uses this line against me in the future)

[Reidar]

Desslock said "dismissed". Meanwhile soldiers are dying in the mud in North Korea.

[Leader Desslock]

It was a pun. No - what's that thing that reads the same way backwards as forwards? A palindrome! It was one 'o those. Yeah.