Thread: Tyson at welterweight.

Of course he has, Tyson was a heavyweight I'm trolling really, just think it's a bit of a pointless thing to ask what if a big man weighed 150 pounds, or vice versa. The body mechanics of a heavy and a welterweight are so different, you'd end up with completely different guys.

Originally Posted by p4pking

Of course he has, Tyson was a heavyweight I'm trolling really, just think it's a bit of a pointless thing to ask what if a big man weighed 150 pounds, or vice versa. The body mechanics of a heavy and a welterweight are so different, you'd end up with completely different guys.

Who has Pacquiao fought with as many first round kayos?

Who has Pacquiao faced that was undisputed champ in any weight?

Who has he faced with Tysons KO percentage?

He hasnt faced anyone of Tysons greatness.

Originally Posted by ross

Originally Posted by Master

Originally Posted by ross

Originally Posted by Master

Tyson would be very short, if we say the average welter weight is 5 foot 8 inches then Tyson would be 5 foot 3 and other than his punch power most elite welterweights would be able to avoid his punches.

No, if we are talking scaling him down, the man was a phenomenon at heavy, why all of a sudden wouldn't he be physically special at welter?

The massive heavies who had a bigger size advantage couldn't avoid his punches.

Tyson never fought a great heavyweight or the equivalent great welterweight would be Ray Robinson or Leonard. Tyson would not be able to beat them.

Larry Holmes is in everyones top ten?

He was 2 years past his fight with Spinks but its the Way Mike beat him. Holyfield is rated higher than Mike but he struggled against Holmes 4 years later and that included another 3 years out and a win over Mercer.

Ray Robinson lost to LaMotta, Leonard lost to Duran. Pressure fighters. Pressure fighters who didn't have Mikes power, speed or intensity.

@ross you know I am a Tyson fan but p4p he would have been beaten by Robinson at welterweight because no one ever beat him at that weight.

Tyson was successful because he fought, at HW, like a lighter weight fighter. Slipping punches, countering, changing angles, etc...are rarely seen at HW and the big guys tend to be dumb as well as slow. At WW, those skills are pretty common among the top guys. In addition they always fight at a faster pace and are much smarter than HWs. There have been numerous short, hard hitting welters; some did well, others did not. None are among the top guys at that weight, except Armstrong and his style was nothing like that of Tyson.
Tyson did not fight well inside, he did his damage on the way in. More often than not, he tied up in close, or accepted being tied up. That would hurt him at welter, where he'd be far more likely to get hit coming in.
The number punching system, and being around people that 'understood' it is pretty irrelevant in and of itself. Unless you think there is an important difference between saying "1-2-3" and saying "jab, right hand, hook." What hurt Tyson was when his reflexes slowed a bit and then he started standing straight up and walking in. At welter, that would make him Larry Barnes.

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

Tyson was successful because he fought, at HW, like a lighter weight fighter. Slipping punches, countering, changing angles, etc...are rarely seen at HW and the big guys tend to be dumb as well as slow. At WW, those skills are pretty common among the top guys. In addition they always fight at a faster pace and are much smarter than HWs. There have been numerous short, hard hitting welters; some did well, others did not. None are among the top guys at that weight, except Armstrong and his style was nothing like that of Tyson.
Tyson did not fight well inside, he did his damage on the way in. More often than not, he tied up in close, or accepted being tied up. That would hurt him at welter, where he'd be far more likely to get hit coming in.
The number punching system, and being around people that 'understood' it is pretty irrelevant in and of itself. Unless you think there is an important difference between saying "1-2-3" and saying "jab, right hand, hook." What hurt Tyson was when his reflexes slowed a bit and then he started standing straight up and walking in. At welter, that would make him Larry Barnes.

It wasn't just a numbered punching system

Buddy McGirt being interviewed about training Tyson.

"Yep. We've been working together all this week. Mike is going to take Saturday and Sunday off and we go back to the gym again on Monday. Let me tell ya, working with Mike has been really exciting for me AND it's a great learning experience. It's made me realize that every coach has their masterpiece... and Mike Tyson is Cus D'Amato's masterpiece. What Cus taught him... what Cus did with him... is truly amazing. I don't think Cus could have gotten the same results with of any other fighter. I always thought Cus' system was all about the peek-a-boo style. But it's not. It's about positioning yourself to throw punches... and Mike does it VERY well. Mike is extremely gifted and it's incredible to watch him. The other day Mike and I were walking down the street and I told him 'Man, you know... you're Cus D'Amato's masterpiece!' Mike agreed with me, and told me that Cus told him that he's one fighter that he never would have to protect."

Latest boxing News and Events in the USA and around the World

James Kirkland is like mini mike, just less skilled.

Welterweight also

if Mike Tyson was a Mexican jumping bean, I reckon that he'd be able to jump higher than any other Mexican jumping bean. His head movement, speed and combination punching would allow him to jump much higher than beans of all nationalities, let alone Mexican ones.

In fact, even if he was a Mexican jumping bean, his chin and the size of his neck would also allow him to run the 100metres faster than Usain Bolt.

If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bicycle.

Originally Posted by ross

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

Tyson was successful because he fought, at HW, like a lighter weight fighter. Slipping punches, countering, changing angles, etc...are rarely seen at HW and the big guys tend to be dumb as well as slow. At WW, those skills are pretty common among the top guys. In addition they always fight at a faster pace and are much smarter than HWs. There have been numerous short, hard hitting welters; some did well, others did not. None are among the top guys at that weight, except Armstrong and his style was nothing like that of Tyson.
Tyson did not fight well inside, he did his damage on the way in. More often than not, he tied up in close, or accepted being tied up. That would hurt him at welter, where he'd be far more likely to get hit coming in.
The number punching system, and being around people that 'understood' it is pretty irrelevant in and of itself. Unless you think there is an important difference between saying "1-2-3" and saying "jab, right hand, hook." What hurt Tyson was when his reflexes slowed a bit and then he started standing straight up and walking in. At welter, that would make him Larry Barnes.

It wasn't just a numbered punching system

Buddy McGirt being interviewed about training Tyson.

"Yep. We've been working together all this week. Mike is going to take Saturday and Sunday off and we go back to the gym again on Monday. Let me tell ya, working with Mike has been really exciting for me AND it's a great learning experience. It's made me realize that every coach has their masterpiece... and Mike Tyson is Cus D'Amato's masterpiece. What Cus taught him... what Cus did with him... is truly amazing. I don't think Cus could have gotten the same results with of any other fighter. I always thought Cus' system was all about the peek-a-boo style. But it's not. It's about positioning yourself to throw punches... and Mike does it VERY well. Mike is extremely gifted and it's incredible to watch him. The other day Mike and I were walking down the street and I told him 'Man, you know... you're Cus D'Amato's masterpiece!' Mike agreed with me, and told me that Cus told him that he's one fighter that he never would have to protect."

Latest boxing News and Events in the USA and around the World

Exactly what you say when you're on the payroll of a man you know to be mentally fragile.

He had great talent but the dude didn't have it between the ears.

I'm shocked that some don't realize how much better the lighter fighters are. It's not even close.

Originally Posted by Ron Swanson

Originally Posted by ross

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

Tyson was successful because he fought, at HW, like a lighter weight fighter. Slipping punches, countering, changing angles, etc...are rarely seen at HW and the big guys tend to be dumb as well as slow. At WW, those skills are pretty common among the top guys. In addition they always fight at a faster pace and are much smarter than HWs. There have been numerous short, hard hitting welters; some did well, others did not. None are among the top guys at that weight, except Armstrong and his style was nothing like that of Tyson.
Tyson did not fight well inside, he did his damage on the way in. More often than not, he tied up in close, or accepted being tied up. That would hurt him at welter, where he'd be far more likely to get hit coming in.
The number punching system, and being around people that 'understood' it is pretty irrelevant in and of itself. Unless you think there is an important difference between saying "1-2-3" and saying "jab, right hand, hook." What hurt Tyson was when his reflexes slowed a bit and then he started standing straight up and walking in. At welter, that would make him Larry Barnes.

It wasn't just a numbered punching system

Buddy McGirt being interviewed about training Tyson.

"Yep. We've been working together all this week. Mike is going to take Saturday and Sunday off and we go back to the gym again on Monday. Let me tell ya, working with Mike has been really exciting for me AND it's a great learning experience. It's made me realize that every coach has their masterpiece... and Mike Tyson is Cus D'Amato's masterpiece. What Cus taught him... what Cus did with him... is truly amazing. I don't think Cus could have gotten the same results with of any other fighter. I always thought Cus' system was all about the peek-a-boo style. But it's not. It's about positioning yourself to throw punches... and Mike does it VERY well. Mike is extremely gifted and it's incredible to watch him. The other day Mike and I were walking down the street and I told him 'Man, you know... you're Cus D'Amato's masterpiece!' Mike agreed with me, and told me that Cus told him that he's one fighter that he never would have to protect."

Latest boxing News and Events in the USA and around the World

Exactly what you say when you're on the payroll of a man you know to be mentally fragile.

He had great talent but the dude didn't have it between the ears.

I'm shocked that some don't realize how much better the lighter fighters are. It's not even close.

Only Mayweather can compare to Tyson's shear dominance.

Mike also didn't have the luxuries of catch weights. He had to fight people 30lbs heavier than him. His skill set was that amazing that he dealt with these much bigger stronger men easily.

Ask Pacquiao to face froch or Kovalev. Thats the size difference Mike was dealing with.

That's why this is so pointless though Ross, the HW's are a completely different thing because a big man with natural power is going to be able to hurt anyone they fight, they hit exponentially harder just for being that size. How huge a man would it take to soak up Tysons punch the way Froch or Kovalev would do to Pacquiao? Flip that around and imagine PAcquiao did have the ability to hurt a guy that size with one punch, if that were the case he would beat them!

Originally Posted by ross

Originally Posted by Ron Swanson

Originally Posted by ross

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

Tyson was successful because he fought, at HW, like a lighter weight fighter. Slipping punches, countering, changing angles, etc...are rarely seen at HW and the big guys tend to be dumb as well as slow. At WW, those skills are pretty common among the top guys. In addition they always fight at a faster pace and are much smarter than HWs. There have been numerous short, hard hitting welters; some did well, others did not. None are among the top guys at that weight, except Armstrong and his style was nothing like that of Tyson.
Tyson did not fight well inside, he did his damage on the way in. More often than not, he tied up in close, or accepted being tied up. That would hurt him at welter, where he'd be far more likely to get hit coming in.
The number punching system, and being around people that 'understood' it is pretty irrelevant in and of itself. Unless you think there is an important difference between saying "1-2-3" and saying "jab, right hand, hook." What hurt Tyson was when his reflexes slowed a bit and then he started standing straight up and walking in. At welter, that would make him Larry Barnes.

It wasn't just a numbered punching system

Buddy McGirt being interviewed about training Tyson.

"Yep. We've been working together all this week. Mike is going to take Saturday and Sunday off and we go back to the gym again on Monday. Let me tell ya, working with Mike has been really exciting for me AND it's a great learning experience. It's made me realize that every coach has their masterpiece... and Mike Tyson is Cus D'Amato's masterpiece. What Cus taught him... what Cus did with him... is truly amazing. I don't think Cus could have gotten the same results with of any other fighter. I always thought Cus' system was all about the peek-a-boo style. But it's not. It's about positioning yourself to throw punches... and Mike does it VERY well. Mike is extremely gifted and it's incredible to watch him. The other day Mike and I were walking down the street and I told him 'Man, you know... you're Cus D'Amato's masterpiece!' Mike agreed with me, and told me that Cus told him that he's one fighter that he never would have to protect."

Latest boxing News and Events in the USA and around the World

Exactly what you say when you're on the payroll of a man you know to be mentally fragile.

He had great talent but the dude didn't have it between the ears.

I'm shocked that some don't realize how much better the lighter fighters are. It's not even close.

Only Mayweather can compare to Tyson's shear dominance.

Mike also didn't have the luxuries of catch weights. He had to fight people 30lbs heavier than him. His skill set was that amazing that he dealt with these much bigger stronger men easily.

Ask Pacquiao to face froch or Kovalev. Thats the size difference Mike was dealing with.

@ross give it a rest on this one. Tyson was great but p4p he could not live with real great fighters like Robinson, Duran, Whitaker, Leonard and I would add Hearns to that welterweight list.

We are being asked to imagine a scaled down version of Tyson. If he was at heavy, very fast, hard to hit, powerfull and takes a good shot from men 30lb heavier than him, the biggest hardest hitting men in boxing, you have to imagine he has these same attributes at welter where he is fighting men of equal weight and not of 3 or 4 weights above.

Mike was a heavyweight smaller than the size of old heavyweights dealing with modern size heavies. There hasnt been a shorter world heavy weight champ.

Its a hypothetical question but suddenly Mike would lose all his great attributes?

Like I said, the size difference Mike was dealing with, as in weight, is like Pacquaio and mayweather fighting at super middle. Are their skills that much that they could dominate over that much bigger men?

At welter he may be short but he was at heavy, only difference is his opponents are now the same weight and cant hold and lean in with their strength advantage.

If you don't like imaginary hypothetical questions dont look.

Originally Posted by ross

We are being asked to imagine a scaled down version of Tyson. If he was at heavy, very fast, hard to hit, powerfull and takes a good shot from men 30lb heavier than him, the biggest hardest hitting men in boxing, you have to imagine he has these same attributes at welter where he is fighting men of equal weight and not of 3 or 4 weights above.

Mike was a heavyweight smaller than the size of old heavyweights dealing with modern size heavies. There hasnt been a shorter world heavy weight champ.

Its a hypothetical question but suddenly Mike would lose all his great attributes?

Like I said, the size difference Mike was dealing with, as in weight, is like Pacquaio and mayweather fighting at super middle. Are their skills that much that they could dominate over that much bigger men?

At welter he may be short but he was at heavy, only difference is his opponents are now the same weight and cant hold and lean in with their strength advantage.

If you don't like imaginary hypothetical questions dont look.

Yes the fighters I mentioned were greater than anyone Tyson fought ever. They had it all, Duran would have been a bigger, stronger and more ruthless version of Tyson.

Originally Posted by p4pking

Of course he has, Tyson was a heavyweight I'm trolling really, just think it's a bit of a pointless thing to ask what if a big man weighed 150 pounds, or vice versa. The body mechanics of a heavy and a welterweight are so different, you'd end up with completely different guys.

This thread is all about if, if you have some time to waste this is the place to do it. lol