Mike Tyson is TBE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Adamek would beat a prime Tucker. You need to take another sabatical.

Maybe we are picking on you liking Arreloa, I like him too, but do not elevate him to be a great.

Of course Tyson is not TBE, that would be Ali. ;)

---

I'm not elevating him to being a great. I clearly distinguish between fighters I like, great fighters now, ad great fighters historically.

We don't KNOW if Mike could be TBE but we can be sure as hell that Muhammad Ali isn't.

I can't think of many top 10 fighters in the last 20 years that Muhammad Ali could beat!

The ONLY reason anybody even considers Muhammad Ali against current competition, is because he and his opponents were once CALLED Heavyweights at different points in history. That's the only thing they have in common.

The 60's/70's HW division is analogous to today's Cruiser division.

It then becomes completely clear that todays Cruisers are faster, stronger, more athletic and better skilled in general than the "cruisers" of those times.

Mike Tyson and Chris Arreola are natural HW's as we describe them today, they never boxed professionally sub200.

You make such a big issue about weight but Adamek acheived relative good success beating todays atheletic super heavyweights.

Name me a fighter Ali could not beat?

Are you related to Bill Paxmon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

You make such a big issue about weight but Adamek acheived relative good success beating todays atheletic super heavyweights.

Name me a fighter Ali could not beat?

Are you related to Bill Paxmon?

---

I don't know who Bill Paxmon is LOL

Basically ALL of them.

A shorter list would be the guys that Muhammad Ali MAYBE could beat. But you would just deny anyway.

Take for example your quip just now about Adamek. Adamek fought at HW around 215-220lbs. And he was absolutely ripped like no opponent in the golden era ever was (not even Norton).

Adamek is effectively the same size (except height) as Geroge Foreman, the STRONGEST boxer of the 70's! but with a far higher quality of weight (Geroge was actually a little on the skinny side) and more importantly, Adamek has real boxing skills whereas Foreman is perhaps one of the least skilled champion boxers (atleast in the 70's). What you call a "small boxer today" would have been a mammoth in Ali's times.

And then there's Mormeck. What was a disgraceful mismatch for Wladimir, dubbed "too small to compete" was effectively bigger than Ali, Frazier, Norton and only 1lb less than the average fighting weight of Foreman, except faster, better skilled and more athletic than any of those guys.

If Muhammad Ali had ever fought Tomasz Adamek or Jean MArc Mormeck, they would have been regarded as possibly the BEST opponents he had ever faced and would be both heralded as a proof of the superiority of that era and YOU WOULD BE LAUGHING STILLL at how todays supersized HW's couldn't match the "skills" of such fine specimens as Adamek and Mormeck which don't exist anymore.

They are viewed as limitingly small competitiors TODAY, NOT with regards to yesterday.

Your rating Muhammad Ali, who in reality suffered 11! losses (featherfist Berbick, Holmes, bum-beater/cruiser cruncher chinny Shavers, bum cruiser featherfist Young, chinny Norton x3, handicapped featherfist chinny Frazier x2, bum green cruiser Spinks and Ron Lyle. In addition to these, which half were ripped off, he never scored a proper KO against a decent opponent and received assistance in many other fights and pleanty of other gifts.

There is no other boxer with such a manufactured career as above. From start of career, right through to finish!

If ANY current boxer ever lost to such opponents as these today even ONCE, they would be bummified beyond measure by every boxing board and you know it!

Such boxers DO still exist. Today we call it "cruiserweight". And in the case of bummy records, we call it "amateur". ;)

You are quite mad.

Adamek more ripped than George Foreman who was skinny.

You are making this stuff up right? ;)

http://cultureboxe.files.wordpress.c...06/mormeck.jpg

http://fightnews.com/Boxing/adamekklitschko4.jpg

http://www.georgeforeman.com/templat...bio_champ1.png

Everyone knows that Foreman is a "naturally" bigger heavyweight than either Mormeck and Adamek, 2-3 inches longer with much higher growth potential. I would judge (duh) that he had a bigger punch, but that's about it (Mormeck is actually known as a cruiser power puncher- had Mormeck been in the 70's, his power would have been rated as one of the hardest in the division as well!).

What's in question though is not potential size but ACTUAL. Focussing purely on Foreman 70's (Foreman 90's was body built and massively ballooned out, obviously far larger and a different fighter anyways).

Adamek looks leaner than Foreman to me with thicker core and torso muscles. Which should come as no surprise since Adamek even reached 223lbs on a shorter frame than Foreman. Foreman DID have bigger arms, that's given. Considering Foreman's 70's success relied upon very strong arm punches, that's not surprising either. To me, apart from that, Foreman holds some water weight, and is, for his height and about 220lbs, not exactly skinny (obviously) but also not built up around the torso/core as is often described when people generally think of Foreman.

The picture of Mormeck (which was labelled a "fat" and "tiny" bum) reveals a boxer who nobody can mistake as being more heavily built. Only a fraction lighter than George himself, yet MUCH leaner and on a shorter frame too.

And these are some of the smallest boxers you will ever see competing today.

I'm not trying to make an issue out of a "little" bit of weight, I'm pressing the issue out of a LOT of weight.

You cannot go on to claim that weight is not as important as I'm making out because, despite being a cruiser era mainly in the 60's/70's...

George Foreman outweighed 90% of his opponents!
Muhammad Ali outweighed 70% of his opponents!

Adamek and Mormeck at HW, despite being heavier or the same size were ALWAYS outweighed!

Testament to quality.

Muscle definition and build does not dictate who is a puncher. Mormeck may have the muscle and Adamek the conditioning but neither were bigger punchers as heavyweight. Foreman had natural power.

Max Power / Max Stupidity

Great physical tools and sharp training methods but his biggest weakness was his brain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruthless rocco

Max Power / Max Stupidity

---

You neglected to mention Manny and peds in your post, are you alright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruthless rocco

Max Power / Max Stupidity

---

You neglected to mention Manny and peds in your post, are you alright.

---

It is a Tyson thread that is why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruthless rocco

Max Power / Max Stupidity

---

You neglected to mention Manny and peds in your post, are you alright.

---

It is a Tyson thread that is why.

---

Oh, so now you stick up for my nemesis, well for now on I got Max Powers back.

1. Cus D. had taught the peekaboo system before Tyson. Mike perfected it & the numbers system, but it wasn't a perfect system.
2. Since Evander didn't have power, how else did he defeat Tyson other than (timing) his head movement?
3. To compare Adamak to Evander? Adamak was in a life and death slug match with Paul Briggs. Twice. 2nd fight Briggs busted him up.
Schooled by Dawson. When Adamak was called a slugger vs LHW's he started boxing when he turned CW, then HW because he couldn't knock out big mofos.
Who gave Evander fits as a Cruiser? No one.

And Arreola didnt fight like the guys who went the distance with Tyson. BUSTER stuck and moved, the others clinched & hugged their way back in Tyson's early fights that went the distance. ARREOLAS style of stand and trade is suicide against a young Tyson.
Tyson IMO had an exciting style, but we never saw it against Tua.
And remember his camp paid step aside money to Lennox Lewis.

Lastly Tyson's style wasn't suited for boxing which is why he wasn't successful as an amatuer...no Olympics
Tyson was an exciting fighter who was limited, but those limitations wouldnt have been a problem for fat chaloopa eating Arreola.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

1. Cus D. had taught the peekaboo system before Tyson. Mike perfected it & the numbers system, but it wasn't a perfect system.
2. Since Evander didn't have power, how else did he defeat Tyson other than (timing) his head movement?
3. To compare Adamak to Evander? Adamak was in a life and death slug match with Paul Briggs. Twice. 2nd fight Briggs busted him up.
Schooled by Dawson. When Adamak was called a slugger vs LHW's he started boxing when he turned CW, then HW because he couldn't knock out big mofos.
Who gave Evander fits as a Cruiser? No one.

And Arreola didnt fight like the guys who went the distance with Tyson. BUSTER stuck and moved, the others clinched & hugged their way back in Tyson's early fights that went the distance. ARREOLAS style of stand and trade is suicide against a young Tyson.
Tyson IMO had an exciting style, but we never saw it against Tua.
And remember his camp paid step aside money to Lennox Lewis.

Lastly Tyson's style wasn't suited for boxing which is why he wasn't successful as an amatuer...no Olympics
Tyson was an exciting fighter who was limited, but those limitations wouldnt have been a problem for fat chaloopa eating Arreola.

---

1. No comment. Trivial stuff
2. Holy spirit.
3. Agree. Adamek sucks
4. Areala sucks
5. Tua was very one dimensional. Yes, maybe in 10 fights against Mike, he could KO him once or twice, but Tyson had more to offer than just leaping left hook and his punches were shorter. Mike should have beaten him 9 out 10.
6. Tyson was a bit too young for Olymptics. If he went there at 19-20, he would not just KD-KO his opponents, he would KILL them. He would be HW Lomachenko in amateurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Muscle definition and build does not dictate who is a puncher. Mormeck may have the muscle and Adamek the conditioning but neither were bigger punchers as heavyweight. Foreman had natural power.

---

Did I claim that Adamek or Mormeck were bigger punches than Foreman?

I purposely left that one out for a reason my man.

What I will claim is that Adamek and Mormeck are FAR better boxers than the 70's Foreman, and maybe even the 90's ones!

Adamek and Mormeck could have performed comparably vs old George as Moorer did. Sure, Foreman knocked Moorer out but anybody who watched the fight seen that former light HW beat Foreman's brains out and it was mainly through Moorers stupidity that he got caught!

As for 70's Foreman, it would be customary for nostalgists to declare that Foreman batters them senselss without any analysis.

But featherfist plodder/hugger Ali, who could not see a punch coming if you wrote him a letter about it beat him.

But bummy cruiser featherfist Jimmy Young beat him.

These guys even wobbled and knocked Foreman out! (albeit via gassing but that's no excuse).

So please don't try to sell me that 70's Foreman would not be SERIOUSLY challenged by Adamek or Mormeck. 70's Foreman was JUST a puncher and could barely even box!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

1. Cus D. had taught the peekaboo system before Tyson. Mike perfected it & the numbers system, but it wasn't a perfect system.
2. Since Evander didn't have power, how else did he defeat Tyson other than (timing) his head movement?
3. To compare Adamak to Evander? Adamak was in a life and death slug match with Paul Briggs. Twice. 2nd fight Briggs busted him up.
Schooled by Dawson. When Adamak was called a slugger vs LHW's he started boxing when he turned CW, then HW because he couldn't knock out big mofos.
Who gave Evander fits as a Cruiser? No one.

And Arreola didnt fight like the guys who went the distance with Tyson. BUSTER stuck and moved, the others clinched & hugged their way back in Tyson's early fights that went the distance. ARREOLAS style of stand and trade is suicide against a young Tyson.
Tyson IMO had an exciting style, but we never saw it against Tua.
And remember his camp paid step aside money to Lennox Lewis.

Lastly Tyson's style wasn't suited for boxing which is why he wasn't successful as an amatuer...no Olympics
Tyson was an exciting fighter who was limited, but those limitations wouldnt have been a problem for fat chaloopa eating Arreola.

---

1. Cus's system wasn't very good for a featherfist light heavy trying to box against much harder punching guy like Liston or longer, faster, bigger one like Clay. For Tyson it was an exceptional system combined with his athletic talents.

2. Evander beat Tyson by being taller and rangier than him, and by being STRONGER than Tyson (he was roided to the gills). He had a chin to withstand Tyson and he used his physical advantages to tie Tyson up and force him backwards and attack him where he was better. Smart plan.

3. Adamek has a great record vs good+big opponents just like Evander with a solid chin too and a warrior spirit as well. Adamek struggled ey? Holyfield was in wars at CW too (Dwight Kwai) and his HW record is 26-10! Some of these losses are to inferior opponents. Moorer for example is no better than bloody Adamek and he BEAT Holyfield!

4. No Arreola is not like the guys that beat or survived Tyson. Apart from Lewis and Holyfield, he is MUCH better. Every fighter that fought Tyson adjusted their game, but you think Arreola couldn't make a slight adjustment? This is a guy with a solid boxing pedigree for Christ sake! He knows what he is doing! If you seen Tyson up alongside Arreola, it would be clear that Mike has some work. And you know what, of course Mike has good chances to KO him, Stiverne did it! That's anything but guaranteed though.

Tyson could bloody box. what your referring to is obviously not how he can possibly fight in the modern HW division because all of his opponents are so much taller than him. He HAS to fight like that.

Tyson's only real limitation imo was his height against taller+better skilled boxers who could keep him at bay.