Re: Bert Sugar on Mike Tyson, his legacy and chances against the Klitchko's
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Tyson "quit" vs Holyfield because Evander was THE first top challenge Tyson fought that was in his prime.
Fighters who fight tall don't usually get caught with uppercuts, just my view.
Just left hooks and right hands.
Re: Bert Sugar on Mike Tyson, his legacy and chances against the Klitchko's
[QUOTE=El Kabong;1020119]Tyson "quit" vs Holyfield because Evander was THE first top challenge Tyson fought that was in his prime.[QUOTE]
To be fair, I wouldnt have Tyson in HIS Prime at the time he fought Holyfield tho. If the Tyson that fought Bruno the first time faced Evander, then it have have been a different outcome.
Re: Bert Sugar on Mike Tyson, his legacy and chances against the Klitchko's
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Tyson "quit" vs Holyfield because Evander was THE first top challenge Tyson fought that was in his prime.
Fighters who fight tall don't usually get caught with uppercuts, just my view.
Can't agree 100%. Lets remember Iron Michael fought his fucking ass off against Holyfield 9 months BEFORE the fight in which he quit. He certainly never gave up until the bitter end in that great great heavyweight brawl. their 1st fight Nov. 1996. He may have lost but he proved himself a true warrior in that fight. Got his head almost decapitated in the 10th I believe and came out for the 11th. Not many would have been able to continue.
Re: Bert Sugar on Mike Tyson, his legacy and chances against the Klitchko's
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Tyson "quit" vs Holyfield because Evander was THE first top challenge Tyson fought that was in his prime.
Fighters who fight tall don't usually get caught with uppercuts, just my view.
Can't agree 100%. Lets remember Iron Michael fought his fucking ass off against Holyfield 9 months BEFORE the fight in which he quit. He certainly never gave up until the bitter end in that great great heavyweight brawl. their 1st fight Nov. 1996. He may have lost but he proved himself a true warrior in that fight. Got his head almost decapitated in the 10th I believe and came out for the 11th. Not many would have been able to continue.
Exactly.
Re: Bert Sugar on Mike Tyson, his legacy and chances against the Klitchko's
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Tyson "quit" vs Holyfield because Evander was THE first top challenge Tyson fought that was in his prime.
Fighters who fight tall don't usually get caught with uppercuts, just my view.
What fighter have the Klits ever fought to that standard? Haye? Past prime Lewis? no one!
Vitali the guy who everyone overrates lost to Lewis, Lewis was there for the taking and Vitali still couldn't get the job done! Wladmir is the better of the two and has the better resume and his best win is Sam Peter or Haye.
Vitali quit when the going got tough against Byrd! Tyson V the Klits is a mismatch The Klits V Bruno is an epic fight.
Re: Bert Sugar on Mike Tyson, his legacy and chances against the Klitchko's
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Please, someone rational go through step by step how to beat a Prime Mike Tyson, just for shits and giggles explain it.
....Of course there will be the guys who assume there's just no way, no how, anything outside of running over Tyson with a tank would even slow the guy down much less lead to his defeat, but humor me. How does one stop the Cus D'Mato style?
The D'Amato style/system is a very good way to fight if you can master it. I remember Tyson went to train with Buddy MgGirt not long before he finished for good and Buddy said he found that the D'Amato style was surprising in that he thought it was all about the peekabo style (not getting hit) but infact it was about repositioning yourself for the next punch with each you throw. Also, Cus's other famous heavy Floyd Patterson was said by the man himself to be Alis most skillfull opponent.
Cus must have turned in his grave when he watched King creep in on the scene and slowly ruin his (imature and impressionable) masterpiece. If Mike had Cus for another ten years I think the first fiter to really trouble him would have been Bowe because I truly believe that the Tyson that worked for openings and bothered with defence would have been far too much for Holyfield. I also dont think Lewis would have becomema champ as early as he did but I do think Mike would have slowed down or lost interest at some point and a Douglas type fight would have been inevitable but much further down the road, probably a further 5 years and everyone would have been bitching (just like they do now) before hand that the division was dead because Mike had no real chalengers as even Larry Holmes a man he knocked out 7 years ealier is beating and pushing the top contenders.
Re: Bert Sugar on Mike Tyson, his legacy and chances against the Klitchko's
I have to laugh at these old fogies trying to rewrite history. Boring, "chessmatch" heavyweight boxing started with Lennox and the Klitschkos? LOL! Have you ever heard and seen of a little known guy by the name of, hmm, JACK JOHNSON? Have you seen footage of Jack fight? TOTAL cerebral chess match, and that was 100 years ago!
Look back at even the golden era of the HW division. Sure Ali was the greatest, but have you watched all of his fights? They weren't all "Thrilla in Manilla" or "Rumble in the Jungle", a lot of them were mind-numbingly boring! Why? Because he did the SAME THING that people crap on the Klitschkos for, i.e. playing the chessmatch, controlling the fight with his jab and superior skill/athletics, not aggressively going for the finish, ect.
The Klitschkos are boring because they don't "put themselves in danger". LOL, you show me a boxer who voluntarily puts himself in danger and I'll show you a club fighter. That's the name of the game, HIT AND NOT GET HIT. It's the same thing Ali did, the only difference is Ali had guys close to his level he fought every now and then who forced him into these exciting fights. The Klitschko's are head and shoulders (literally and figuratively) above everyone in the division and don't have anyone around to make an appealing fight for them. David Haye was supposed to be the guy to do that, but we all know how that turned out.
Don't blame the Klitschkos, blame the rest of the suckers who don't have enough to give them a compelling fight.
Re: Bert Sugar on Mike Tyson, his legacy and chances against the Klitchko's
As far as Mike vs the Klitschko's, Tyson had the power to flatten ANYONE in the history of boxing, and the kind of speed to land those missles.
However I question what kind of success he would have had against opponents so much taller, with such good foot movement, range, and jabbing capabilities.
Could Mike have knocked both guys out? Certainly. But if you think he would just walk in on them and blow them out like they were Michael Johnson or David Jaco or some shit, you're crazy.
Re: Bert Sugar on Mike Tyson, his legacy and chances against the Klitchko's
I think we can agree to disagree, both brothers are very good but have never beaten anyone of note. Vitali had the chance to and he lost so you can' give credit to these guys for how you think they may have stood up.
The Holmes that Tyson beat had more left in the tank than the Lewis that Vitali fought, Razor Rudock was better than Haye and Peter, Tim wither spoon and Bruno are miles better than Tony Thompson and Thomas Adamek and there is no one of the quality of a Michael spinks on the record of the brothers Grim why do they deserve credit when they have beaten no one of note?
