Tyson & Pacquiao

Two fighters whose fans have misconstrued the word "exciting" in place of "great".

It's great to see exciting fighters but that doesn't make them great.
As being so called boring to watch doesn't eliminate any athlete from being considered as great.
If Pac or Tyson were Quarterbacks in the National football ball leagues, they IMO would play like Brett Favre: gun slingers who are either throwing touchdowns or interceptions.
Floyd IMO would be like Joe Montana: no strong arm. Doesn't run out of the pocket, yet wins Super Bowl after super bowl.
ATGs find ways to win.

Tyson per Cuss D'amato didn't have the style to beat certain fighters Holyfield proved it.Whooped his ass once and before he could whoop his ass twice, Tyson bit his way out..
Pac just can't beat JMM or any master counter puncher

PBf. Bhop, Ali, Calzaghe, Holmes, These fighters define ATG.
They find ways to win, even if they have to change styles.
Hell, that's what makes them great.

I Enjoy watching Pac & Tyson. THEY BRING IT!
Yet they have no plan B when needed. That makes them exciting , BUT not GREAT.
Great rebuttals welcome..

Tyson and Pac did the most with what they had. Tyson didn't HAVE to be a pressure fighter like he was trained to by Cus, he could have just been a slow footed slugger, a plodder, but that dynamic attack he had brought him certain advantages: not having to work as much on or worry about defense, the natural rhythm of throwing combinations paired with head movement made him hard to find, the hand speed and power he had were great natural gifts as well as his chin which could take a hammering.

Pac did similar things, but IMO he never had the menace of Tyson, he was more peaceful in the ring never fighting with that scowl or any sense of anger that your could tell. so maybe that set some of his opponents at ease and they were just surprised and overwhelmed by his power and handspeed. Also Pac's footwork has been very good at times which is KEY for a power puncher. Pac COULD have adopted a different style, but he never chose to...he wasn't as limited as Tyson was due to size.


There's certainly a blueprint to beat the D'Mato style, but it's up to a fighter to improvise and be successful regardless and when trouble really shook Tyson to his core he couldn't adapt, he had no plan B. That said with the size of Tyson, with what he's good at doing, what kind of plan B could there have been? His arms were short, he's short, he's not all that heavy especially when compared to a guy like Lennox Lewis, so the intangibles really hamstrung what he could do.....he was very successful in what he did accomplish though.

True.
Tyson's head movement added to his natural gifts. Both Mike & Manny have exceptional hand speed to add to their power.
Surely they aren't one dimensional.
Yet they have both fallen so far from grace when faced with their greatest challenges.
In other words they IMO didn't lose the good fight.
Buster thoroughly out boxed Tyson as Morales did with Pac in fight one.

Freddie roach has no plan b.

Look at the difference in Khan.

Tyson being the youngest to ever win the heavy weight title is definitely a GREAT accomplishment.
Unifying all 3 major titles is another GREAT accomplishment.
But how do I call him an All-time Great when he didn't do anything else of note?
Beating a past it Holmes?
He did destroy Spinks.
His last ten or so years were all smoke in mirrors.Before prison. 1991 he couldn't stop Ruddock the second time."Lennox destroyed Ruddock in two.
1995 oh so sad.
1996-2002 thrashed in both mega fights with holy & Lewis.
And you guys know what i think about Pac& -his so-called 8 division champ thing: An arum magic trick.
Since 2002 till today...fight night Pac has weighed 138 in 2002 & no more than 147- how did he win so many different divisions? fighting for a 154lb title at a catchweight for 150lb , while he nor margarito beat anyone at 154lb to warrant a championship fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Freddie roach has no plan b.

Look at the difference in Khan.

---

Good point.
Roach in fairness did help Pac develop a right hand by Morales #2. That is a major accomplishment for any fighter who already had a style.

Tyson smashed the resistance out of Rudduck he broke his ribs and jaw. Lennox finished off the left overs as he did Tucker.

Tyson blazed like an ATG fighter for a short period. That Tyson would have wiped Holyfield, Buster and other great champions.

When you saw Tyson outboxed finally, that is what I'm talking about when I say "his style was one dimensional". If Tyson couldn't put you down either due to your chin or defense AND you basically does as Wlad does now or as Lennox Lewis did and use your height and reach while you tie up on the inside to get the ref to break and reset you it kills his timing, it kills his ability to work on the inside and make use of his short arms and fast hands, it takes away the uppercut, it wears on his legs and upper body and he's at your mercy. Tyson didn't make those things easy to do or anything, and I'm not discrediting how great he was using that style, but once you take away the inside fight game and you use quality defense then he just can't win rounds. Holyfield didn't even stay at distance, he took Tyson's first huge bomb but then it was a catch and counter, catch and counter, and Tyson couldn't cope.

James Ali Bashir said that Tyson and Donovan Rudduck ruined each other in their 2 matches. They fought about 100 days apart and just beat the shit out of each other.

When you look at Pacquiao his timing is weird when it's on, it's amazing, and when it's off it's well off. Part of that I think is do to his rhythm which is a whole other can of worms to discuss.

Tyson did brake some bones in their second fight, but he also got a lot of point deductions due to his frustrations of not being able to stop Ruddock?

Hard to dispute the idea that Tyson & ,Ruddock may have beaten the fight out of each other.
Really solid points by both of you.

Tyson was disintegrating after Spinks, losing Jacobs and then Rooney, you could see his life and boxing going downhill. He looked awful against Bruno and it was only a matter of time he would be beat. Buster did it and if it was Holyfield he could have done it by 1990.

He was only 24 when he beat Razzor.

Tony Tucker's strategy set the stage for how to give Tyson trouble. Unfortunately, there were no fighters who had the tools carry it out. Biggs, Carl The Tooth Williams, Pinklon Thomas, etc were are big guys, but did have the ability.

Tucker was very similar to Ali in styles. He just didn't have the speed (obviously) and determination. He was very talented though and is rarely mentioned amongst those heavies in the mid-late 80s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Two fighters whose fans have misconstrued the word "exciting" in place of "great".

It's great to see exciting fighters but that doesn't make them great.
As being so called boring to watch doesn't eliminate any athlete from being considered as great.
If Pac or Tyson were Quarterbacks in the National football ball leagues, they IMO would play like Brett Favre: gun slingers who are either throwing touchdowns or interceptions.
Floyd IMO would be like Joe Montana: no strong arm. Doesn't run out of the pocket, yet wins Super Bowl after super bowl.
ATGs find ways to win.

Tyson per Cuss D'amato didn't have the style to beat certain fighters Holyfield proved it.Whooped his ass once and before he could whoop his ass twice, Tyson bit his way out..
Pac just can't beat JMM or any master counter puncher

PBf. Bhop, Ali, Calzaghe, Holmes, These fighters define ATG.
They find ways to win, even if they have to change styles.
Hell, that's what makes them great.

I Enjoy watching Pac & Tyson. THEY BRING IT!
Yet they have no plan B when needed. That makes them exciting , BUT not GREAT.
Great rebuttals welcome..

---

It's an insult to football. Football is a team sport. Quaterbacks, even the elite athletes have to use other players to be great at the game. Boxing is an individual effort.

I think they were both great fighters and their accomplishments pretty much prove that. They may not have superior defensive skills but that also doesn't mean they are not great offensive boxers. There is plenty of context to use the term "Great Fighters" with these two fighters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Tyson was disintegrating after Spinks, losing Jacobs and then Rooney, you could see his life and boxing going downhill. He looked awful against Bruno and it was only a matter of time he would be beat. Buster did it and if it was Holyfield he could have done it by 1990.

He was only 24 when he beat Razzor.

---

Tyson left himself open a few times. He would have gotten rocked by other competent, alert fighters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleepwalker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Tyson was disintegrating after Spinks, losing Jacobs and then Rooney, you could see his life and boxing going downhill. He looked awful against Bruno and it was only a matter of time he would be beat. Buster did it and if it was Holyfield he could have done it by 1990.

He was only 24 when he beat Razzor.

---

Tyson left himself open a few times. He would have gotten rocked by other competent, alert fighters.

---

You could count on one hand the times prime Tyson was caught, uppercut against Tucker and right hand against Bonecrusher as well as left hook against Bruno. That was how good his defence was. Tyson's chin was solid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleepwalker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Tyson was disintegrating after Spinks, losing Jacobs and then Rooney, you could see his life and boxing going downhill. He looked awful against Bruno and it was only a matter of time he would be beat. Buster did it and if it was Holyfield he could have done it by 1990.

He was only 24 when he beat Razzor.

---

Tyson left himself open a few times. He would have gotten rocked by other competent, alert fighters.

---

Yes but at the same time when you threw against Tyson and missed then you knew what was coming after that miss and that kept a lot of guys from throwing punches they could have landed....a lot of it was guys not confident enough of landing clean on Mike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleepwalker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Tyson was disintegrating after Spinks, losing Jacobs and then Rooney, you could see his life and boxing going downhill. He looked awful against Bruno and it was only a matter of time he would be beat. Buster did it and if it was Holyfield he could have done it by 1990.

He was only 24 when he beat Razzor.

---

Tyson left himself open a few times. He would have gotten rocked by other competent, alert fighters.

---

Yes but at the same time when you threw against Tyson and missed then you knew what was coming after that miss and that kept a lot of guys from throwing punches they could have landed....a lot of it was guys not confident enough of landing clean on Mike.

---

Yeah, I forgot to mention FEAR. They were gun shy because they just plain afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleepwalker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleepwalker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Tyson was disintegrating after Spinks, losing Jacobs and then Rooney, you could see his life and boxing going downhill. He looked awful against Bruno and it was only a matter of time he would be beat. Buster did it and if it was Holyfield he could have done it by 1990.

He was only 24 when he beat Razzor.

---

Tyson left himself open a few times. He would have gotten rocked by other competent, alert fighters.

---

Yes but at the same time when you threw against Tyson and missed then you knew what was coming after that miss and that kept a lot of guys from throwing punches they could have landed....a lot of it was guys not confident enough of landing clean on Mike.

---

Yeah, I forgot to mention FEAR. They were gun shy because they just plain afraid.

---

Yes they were. Tyson should have gone to their dressing room and comforted them before they fought.

Those guys came honest by that fear because when he was on Tyson would make any 1 mistake an opponent made a fight ending mistake with his speed and power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Tyson smashed the resistance out of Rudduck he broke his ribs and jaw. Lennox finished off the left overs as he did Tucker.

Tyson blazed like an ATG fighter for a short period. That Tyson would have wiped Holyfield, Buster and other great champions.

---

Tyson's era was too weak.

He would never beat Holyfield or Douglas.

The hype around that trash fighter is pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlimTrae

Two fighters whose fans have misconstrued the word "exciting" in place of "great".

It's great to see exciting fighters but that doesn't make them great.
As being so called boring to watch doesn't eliminate any athlete from being considered as great.
If Pac or Tyson were Quarterbacks in the National football ball leagues, they IMO would play like Brett Favre: gun slingers who are either throwing touchdowns or interceptions.
Floyd IMO would be like Joe Montana: no strong arm. Doesn't run out of the pocket, yet wins Super Bowl after super bowl.
ATGs find ways to win.

Tyson per Cuss D'amato didn't have the style to beat certain fighters Holyfield proved it.Whooped his ass once and before he could whoop his ass twice, Tyson bit his way out..
Pac just can't beat JMM or any master counter puncher

PBf. Bhop, Ali, Calzaghe, Holmes, These fighters define ATG.
They find ways to win, even if they have to change styles.
Hell, that's what makes them great.

I Enjoy watching Pac & Tyson. THEY BRING IT!
Yet they have no plan B when needed. That makes them exciting , BUT not GREAT.
Great rebuttals welcome..

---

It's an insult to football. Football is a team sport. Quaterbacks, even the elite athletes have to use other players to be great at the game. Boxing is an individual effort.

I think they were both great fighters and their accomplishments pretty much prove that. They may not have superior defensive skills but that also doesn't mean they are not great offensive boxers. There is plenty of context to use the term "Great Fighters" with these two fighters.

---

I was referring to the excitement Favre brought.
Maybe you've never seen Favre play live.
He was a thrill to watch. Because he was wreckless.
Pac is also. Remember when he used to throw off balance just to score a point or a ko?
Favre was the first qb to throw off his back foot...regularly.

Just because football is a team sport doesn't mean an athlete from boxing, track, or golf can't have an athlete to compare with an athlete who comes from a team sport.

I missed the great offensive fighter comment.
No offense but I don't partition skills.
Individual or team sport.
Paulie Malinaggi then could be called great if i separate offense from defense.
Greatness can't be someone who has great offense (James Kirkland) but shitty defence.

I am not referring to great defensive or great offensive fighter.
I am referring to All Time Greats v who have both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Tyson smashed the resistance out of Rudduck he broke his ribs and jaw. Lennox finished off the left overs as he did Tucker.

Tyson blazed like an ATG fighter for a short period. That Tyson would have wiped Holyfield, Buster and other great champions.

---

Amen to that

Aggressive fighters are always wildly overrated because they look so good when they win. But they can't adjust like boxers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Swanson

Aggressive fighters are always wildly overrated because they look so good when they win. But they can't adjust like boxers.

---

True.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Swanson

Aggressive fighters are always wildly overrated because they look so good when they win. But they can't adjust like boxers.

---

Precisely why I don't feed into the hype of newcomers who come in knocking out 18 of their first 20 opponents or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Swanson

Aggressive fighters are always wildly overrated because they look so good when they win. But they can't adjust like boxers.

---

Ron goddamnit I think you hit the nail on the head.

Everyone loves the puncher and the brawler, but in the end it'll always be the boxer - the TECHNICIAN - who rules the sport.

It's always the same thing: people see a puncher batter a non-mobile, non-technical guy and start thinking that he can do it to everyone. SMH... :rolleyes:

Some people expected Pac to throw 100 punches a round against Mayweather like he did against Margarito. :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleepwalker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Swanson

Aggressive fighters are always wildly overrated because they look so good when they win. But they can't adjust like boxers.

---

Precisely why I don't feed into the hype of newcomers who come in knocking out 18 of their first 20 opponents or whatever.

---

Exactly!

Fighters can hurt themselves by KO-ing everyone in their path because once a fighter can take their shots they wilt under that "new" pressure of "Holy shit I can't KO this dude" OR they do the Tommy Morrison vs Ray Mercer/Wlad vs Purrity/Brewster throw the kitchen sink at the guy and just have an empty gas tank when the other guy is just absorbing punishment.

It's smart for a fighter to be well rounded, have power, but also be able to box, have some defense. Offensive skills are impressive to watch, but defense wins championships.


I think Gerry Cooney as well as George Foreman had tough times learning to BOX because they had such awesome power they walked through everyone. Their power did not allow them to become prepared to fight Larry Holmes and Muhammad Ali respectively and ditto for Tyson in regards to his fights with Holyfield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleepwalker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Swanson

Aggressive fighters are always wildly overrated because they look so good when they win. But they can't adjust like boxers.

---

Precisely why I don't feed into the hype of newcomers who come in knocking out 18 of their first 20 opponents or whatever.

---

Fuckin right!

We could work our bald buddy Tam up to 100-0 with 100 KOs if we picked the right opponents.

Quality over quantity, and death before dishonour!