Tyson vs Mirko

im not taking sides because i kind of agree with both of you. Boxing, does need a lot of practise, i see kids coming down to the boxing club all the time thinking they are ali after about 4 months. It takes longer and, yes i would say that boxing has much crisper technique than most cage fighters/ k-1 fighters. Boxers, and just boxers, will as a general have better punches than cage fighters, because thats all they can do, they cant kick etc. so they have to make sure that they have very good hands.

On the other hand, i think that teaching tyson/a good boxer a sprawl and some ground work would make him win against cage fighters. Like boxers do, cage fighters will see that the opponent has good hands, and knows some ground work. So,unless he knows he also has as good/better hands that the opponent he will try and take it to the floor, where he feels more comfortable. Boxers and cage fighters are both good fighters.
I think if both the fighters are good, its more to do with the person, so thats why tyson would have been a great cage fighter.
Then again, tyson was known for his amazing hands, not chin. He may be devastating with 4 oz gloves, but then again, so are other fighters, so its hard to tell what might happen.

I sometimes think that if tyson had trained in other things like muay thai, and some ground work, he might end up something like Melvin Manhoef?

Van...calm down :P

You're taking this far too personally. I respect you, Von and Munky all equally highly, and you guys all bring some of the best ideas to this board. You should know better by now than to think Von and I are just boxing nuts who hate MMA. I love the sport, because I feel that Mixed Martial Artists are THE greatest fighters and more importantly, athletes, in the world, bar none. I'll never deny that. But I also don't deny that a TOP level boxer will win the majority of his fights. The whole "puncher's chance" cliche is one phrase that has always bothered me. A puncher is TRYING to knock you out. That's what he does. That's like saying a wrestler has a "GnP'ers chance" or a BJJ practitioner has a "submission artist's chance." It's true that any punch can knock someone out, but to demean their losses to chance is taking away the credit they (generally) deserve.

I don't think you're giving Belfort enough credit :P He was an olympic backup for Brazil or whoever. He was potentially one of the greatest MMAists of all time when he first burst onto the scene. But he turned into one of those wasted talents for some unknown reason. The guy was unstoppable, and then he just kind of lost it and never got it back (kind of like BJ Penn who I honestly feel is THE most talented individual p4p to ever fight EVER, and MANY people agree with me....how he loses is beyond me).

As for Jens, I agree. I guess it is a bit misleading...he has a wrestler's background, and didn't start a boxing career until more recently. But he has always fought like a boxer in the cage. So maybe he's a bad example (or on the other hand, maybe he's the best example of how a boxer should act in MMA?).

As for Couture....maybe you need to watch the fight again :P There is a lot more to boxing than punching...you know that. Did you miss the head movement? The footwork? And last time I checked, the best way to counter a MUCH larger opponent is to either get inside and work the body (and Randy did get inside) or to slip the punches and counter with a big overhand (which he did consistently).
With Tim..."put on his back so many times"? I can think of 3 fights where he's been put on his back. First was with Arlovski where he lost via submission. Second was with Arlovski where he recovered and knocked Arlovski out. Third was against Couture where he ate that first punch with a vengeance. Other than that, he's done VERY well for himself with his boxing (which is still second rate, at best).

Lesse...what else...

The whole "boxer who trains elsewhere isn't a boxer anymore" thing. I think we're just looking at it differently here. To me, Matt Hughes is a wrestler. BJ Penn is a BJJer. St Pierre is a TKD practitioner. I've always viewed a persons background as their default style. Because the sport is in its infancy, VERY few people grew up learning MMA as a whole, but rather learned one martial art and incorporated others years later. This will be, and indeed already is, changing. Kids nowadays are starting to learn "MMA" instead of TKD or BJJ or whatever, and even the TKD and BJJ, etc gyms are beginning to teach MMA with a focus on said art.

Lastly, I've never said that anybody can just pick up any art that isn't boxing. I spent a few months training BJJ and Kyokoushin Karate. I STILL get my ass kicked by those people. I don't doubt that a boxer could NEVER out grapple a BJJ practitioner, just like a BJJ will never outbox a boxer (all within reason...of course it will happen from time to time). Basically, I guess my point on the whole thing is that if a boxer's sprawl fails and he gets taken down, with the current ruleset in MMA, he still has the chance to just hold his opponent to him until they get stood up. That isn't very hard to teach at all. However, if a grapplers standup fails, he can't just hold his opponent until the ref puts them on the ground. So maybe what I'm saying is there's more leeway for a boxer to fail than a grappler to fail at the opposite art. I dunno...hard to explain it, but maybe you can catch what I'm trying to say.

And the real last thing...I don't think Tyson was a good boxer. He was an insane puncher with some okay boxing. But the thing is that he had the power necessary to REALLY make the transition to MMA striking successfully. A guy like Ali would have a MUCH tougher time in MMA than a guy like Tyson, because Ali didn't have that "one hitter quitter" that Tyson did. Ali was more of an accumulation of strikes kind of guy, while Tyson landed that ONE good one and dropped you. The more time Ali spent building up the punishment, the more time a grappler would have to take him down and put him out.

My issue is simply this...The day of a MMA fighter that is simply great in one area dominating is quickly ending. Matt Hughes is as dominant fighter that MMA has seen but lets be honest his standup skills are pretty weak. GSP has a background in karate but is also tremendous on the ground as well as a pretty outstanding takedown defense. He soundly whipped matt and barring a miracle will do it again. Hence w/o alot of cross training I think a boxer in a MMA ring against comparable talent gets completely owned. I mean honestly think of how many clinches there are per round in an average boxing match. You don't even need to get that close for a single leg takedown. Maybe Jeremy Williams will continue his evolution and we can see what a top(well sorta) level boxer with good training can do.

I've seen what happens when someone is not trained to check a kick. That being said Tyson would win the boxing match cause, well . . . he's the boxer. Any other kind of fight? Mirko by LHK immediatly following the bell.

vanchilds, the fact that u think tyson was/is overatted as a boxer shows u dont nuttin about the sweet science or tyson. jus watch his fights in his prime. he had everything. i cant be bothered at this present moment explaining why i think he was a really well rounded fighter cos i feel i will waste my time with someone who probably doesnt know how to throw a jab.

Normally I wouldn't be bothered by somone with such a poor grasp of the English language nor do I typically get goaded into posting about a boxer on an MMA forum, but since you have decided to tell me I know nothing about boxing, tyson or have any combat training I just don't think I can resist

Here is my longwinded thought on Tyson that I've posted before


man it seems like this is discussed weekly. I have very mixed feelings about Tyson's placement in history. Tyson's wins are against mostly average to decent fighters. Not that this is his fault and not that many fighters(marciano, Louis,holmes etc) don't have the same dilemma in regards to their legacy. I think quite often it wasn't who he beat but the electrifying way he did it. I often ask myself if Tyson was a defensive master who out pointed and embarrassed fighters would we feel the same way? If he was the pernell whitaker of the HW era would he have such a fan base? Tyson embodied what we as fans want in our champion. I think people quite often get wrapped up in the sheer entertainment value of Tyson. His wins over Berbick, Smith, Tucker, Ruddock, tubbs, thomas, biggs etc are impressive in that he cleaned out a division and in the manner he did them but the actual opposition is really just slightly better than average. Tyson has two great wins: the destruction of Spinks and Holmes. Although Holmes went on to several more decent wins I don't think anyone will argue that he was the same man who himself had cleaned out a division. And I don't think we will ever know why spinks gave such a sorry performance never the less the man is blown up LHW not a legit great HW. The biggest problem with grading Tyson's career is that his "prime" was so short. He didn't face any truly good HW's in their prime until late in his career. Obviously Tyson's management decisions and personal demons had a lot to do with his decline as a fighter, but this is a part of who Tyson was as a fighter. He simply didn't have the dedication and focus of other great HW's. I look at him alot like Bowe. They both had all the skills to be ATG's but couldn't capitalize. I don't judge Tyson's career after the Lewis fighter b/c it was obvious he didn't care. That being said whether he came in poorly prepared or not he was beaten soundly by douglas, holy, and Lewis. Great fighters rise to the occasion and Tyson didn't. When he met fighters who weren't intimidated, were bigger, had a decent jab and could back him up and tie him up he was definately frustrated. You dont get to count Tyson's great hand speed and head movement but not his fragile mental psyche and emotional problems. It is not only the great physical tools that make Ali/Robinson/Leonard etc ATG it is their pure dedication to being a fighter. Tyson is one of the greatest power punchers ever, and arguably the most exciting fighter ever. He will stand as an icon in boxing of what might of been, but in my personal oppinion not an all time great fighter and hugely overrated.

So Lacy I guess maybe I know a little more than you gave me credit for. If you think Tyson is the greatest then you are more than welcome to your opinion and are obviously not alone in it, but his legacy has huge holes in it. And as far as my personal experience fighting maybe you should do a little homework before deciding to bag on someone you know nothing about.

Tyson in his prime (this is late 80's- early 90's) would compete under the rules at the time which to my understanding there weren't any. Now he was 215+ solid muscle and is by far the most street hardened boxer to ever be successful. he hit hard, fast, and had a mean streak in him derived from the new york streets. It would take one hell of an athlete on his best night to take out tyson in a ruleless mma match.

would of been great to see tyson in mma but he'd be like a shark in sand. keep in mind a shark can still bite your head off even if its in sands, but the longer it goes the bigger the chance tyson loses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julius Rain

would of been great to see tyson in mma but he'd be like a shark in sand. keep in mind a shark can still bite your head off even if its in sands, but the longer it goes the bigger the chance tyson loses.

---

that's the case with all his fights regardless of what the set up is.

Okay, let me end this thread. First off, Crocop was a failed boxer. Tyson in his prime was a legendary boxer. Now crocop witha couple years of cross training became a legit threat in mma. I dont see why tyson couldn't. Im not saying every boxer could cuz most will fail, but there will be crocops and even more scarier there will be a tyson.

BTW crocop was 40-5 and his last amateur boxign match was at european amateur championship when he was knocked the fuck out!!!! This was 1995

Gotta say, Tyson is pretty much a perfect matchup for Mirko. Mirko has ALWAYS had trouble with anyone who can get inside on him. He fights from a distance. Everyone who presses the action against him has done pretty well. Even that big galoot Sapp wasnt getting terribly hurt until Mirko landed that sweet straight and fractured his orbital. He managed to keep Mirko from planting and launching the LHK effectively until he gassed and lost the pressure. Fedor was able to beat Mirko by swarming him and stopping him from getting the LHK off effectively. Gonzaga did the same thing for the most part. Granted, both guys then took Mirko down, but that's just because they have an even larger advantage there than they did by swarming him, ground being their bread and butter.

I believe that unless Tyson gasses and loses the pressure, he would have a relatively easy win on his hands.


EDIT: Wow....didnt even realize this was a wicked old thread that I had posted in several times :P

40-5 and losing the european amateur championship match is a failure?

yeah, really. lol.

I can;t remember my original answer but I'd say that if Tyson tried to out-box him, Mike would lose as Mirko could attack the thigs, get mike to drop his hands, then the LHK. But mike was too fierce, aggressive, mean, fast, etc. He'd get in on Mirko in a hurry. Mirko, not being accustomed to that (to that extent) couldn't fend Mike off.

Mike easily wins that one regardless of venue and rules.

The guys that would have the best chace would be the olympic wrestlers b/c they're SO strong. But like I'd said so many times, you still godda get by his deadly and deadly accurate hands, THEN muscle him to the ground, and mike was no weakling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heavy D

40-5 and losing the european amateur championship match is a failure?

---

i should have said 1st rd of the european amateur/.. yes it is a failure...

is ricardo williams a failure.....?

YEs