You either love Tyson or you don't the people that don't like Tyson will disregard the fact that Tyson obviously wasn't training like he should have been during the buster fight. And he just really didn't have the fire or the need to please anybody like he had before cus died and before he got rid of Rooney the people who hate mike will disregard the fact that all his other losses he was way out of his prime and just a shadow of his former self. with mikes fighting style you have to be in tip t
@ferrarimike23 every time a fighter loses, his fans claim it's because he was old, or he wasn't trained, or he was on drugs, or whatever excuse you want. Tyson was the typical bully that seemed invincible until he lost. If you go back and look, his weaknesses were always there, waiting for the right fighter on the right night to exploit them. There's a reason Mike never regained the lineal title. He wasn't nearly as good as we thought he was when he was KOing bums in the late 1980's.
You can believe what you want body. But Tyson was way out of his prime with 2 of those fighters and with buster he just didn't have the fire to execute offensively or defensively and by your analogy you must not watch much combat sports. Suppose a man wins then a rematch happens and the otherguy wins it happens all the time that proves you can control 90% of a fight the other 10% is luck sometimes you get caught other times u dont
As for this fight, well using a ten point must system, I had Tillis by a point. On another day I might score it a draw. On another day I might have Tyson by a point. Either way, very little in it. Tillis' work was much cleaner and he did the superior boxing, but he was a little too lazy at key points, too. Tyson perhaps got a little bit lucky here, but no shame in this. Most fighters get a dubious verdict in their favour and he'd have learned more from this than he would from 5 first round KOs.
All i'm saying is when Tyson did lose it was a series of big blows, like cutting down a sequoia. Pre King he was disciplined and could dish out far more than he could receive, he had a concrete jaw, that 20 inch neck was there for a reason.
Its justified to say the end of his prime was when king, horne, holloway and all those other slime stiffs took over
@JuggernautBitch17 Ali was 5 times the boxer Tillis was, and Tillis' style caused Tyson heaps of problems because he couldn't get the power shots off vs someone who moved as much as Tillis did. Ali's movement/footwork/handspeed was much better, his reflexes on another level altogether, his jab was better, and he was exceptional at putting combinations together at the right time. It's very hard to see anything other than a comfortable Ali win based on this fight with Tillis.
@lakecora23 Given that Tillis kept the fight close and frustrated Tyson at times, a prime Ali or Holmes would take Tyson apart. Douglas did take a prime Tyson apart and no you don't get to arbitrarily pick the moment before his first loss as the convenient for argument's sake end of his prime. Rangy fighters that could move always gave Tyson trouble. Even Tony Tucker. Before broke his hand in the 4th round, he was even with Tyson and even hurt him.
@mongoose704 tyson had a roll over his cup pad around his waist. he wasn't in shape or ready. and he did knock douglas down for 11 seconds. watch the fight. but douglas did KO tyson. i can accept that.
@lighterbuds Tyson was one pound heavier than he was in his fight with Spinks. There are no "fat rolls." That's more exaggerated Tyson camp damage control after Douglas forever destroyed the myth of Tyson. Rooney did mention that Tyson appeared to not be in "top shape" but that's a far cry from being as out of shape as Tyson apologists claim. If we was so out of shape, he wouldn't have lasted five rounds because Douglas was pounding the crap out of him.
@ghns1133 , you're just making things up. Tyson fans bang on about "oh, he was in terrrible shape for Douglas. He didn't train. He was partying two days before the fight & doing cocaine." There is absolutely no proof of this, and there was no speculation of it beforehand. Simply an excuse for Tyson getting his arse handed to him. As for your claim that he had to lose 40 lb in two weeks before the fight...Jesus, just listen to yourself. Say it slowly and you'll realise how stupid you sound.
it was in a book called the "last great fight". plus there have been plenty of reportas that saids mike looked overwieht leading up to his fight with douglas. a
do you have any idea how stupid u sound(retard voice)
ifu dont belive what im saying than just agree to disagree and shut the fuck up
@ghns1133, I've read that book, and it's nothing but conjecture, speculation and fantasy. Awful book. Yeah, Tyson was 260 lb two weeks before the fight and 220 lb on fight night. Of course he was. No need to get so touchy, by the way. That time of the month or something?
@iljn1988 Tyson himself saiying that he did nothing but f**k japanese girls and have a few training sessions before a crowd and press.And this he said in the movie from 2009 where he owns his mistakes and in no way tries to blame anyone else but himself for what happened.is that proof good enough?"Tyson"(2009 J.Toback) A great and brutally honest docu. on Tyson WITH Tyson
@EVILSPAWN1000, I've seen it, and as I said, Tyson just saying it afterwards doesn't make it true. Most fighters make up excuses afterwards if they get beaten. If Tyson was in the awful shape some claim he wouldn't have made it to the second half of the fight, because Douglas was hammering him. Doesn't excuse the loss, just saying.
@iljn1988 Well,it`s funny how Tysons skills (not even slowly) eroded after Rooney left.His FIRST FIGHT (Bruno) without Rooney u could see canges for the worse.I`m not gonna take away anything from Douglas,he fought a spectacular fight that night.And all things concidered:Tyson HAD the mantion,he HAD 10 supercars,he HAD "everything" including the idea that he was untouchable and indestructibe.And now at 45 he says this.Many men have whooped him since then.Why would he make excuses 4 that 1 fight?
@iljn1988 Athletes always try to find tactical reasons for losing, because that's how athletes think. It's not necessarily about making excuses - they tend naturally to assume the reasons for losing are things under their control. In reality there are often elements of a matchup that strongly favor one fighter over the other. In-shape Douglas was a bad matchup for Tyson, as was Holyfield, as was Lennox Lewis. Any fighter who was big, accurate, and durable was a major problem for Mike.
@RaulGroom ..........You're wrong. Mike Tyson took down big in shape fighters like, Frank Bruno and James BONE "CRUSHER" Smith. He knocked out Trevor Berbick. They were all big, accurate, and durable. And they loss.
I'm not saying great fighters knock out all their opponents, I'm just saying morrison made tillis look bad, and tillis made tyson look mediocre, nothing special.
Tyson couldn't take this guy or mitch green out, so tyson's promoters set him up with softer opposition, thus resulting in many KO's against softer opponents. Tyson was good, but not great, just overrated, like all you tyson dick licks on here!
In the 8th round, So just because Tyson had A COUPLE of long rounded fights this means that he is a bad fighter? No, It means he is even better. He can Knock people stone cold from the 1st to the 15th round.
It was a well phrased paragraph you just set out, But all fiction my friend.
Tillis was very experience at this point compare to Tyson.
Every young fighter has tough early fights. Everybody is saying that if Tillis who moved like Ali gave Tyson a tough time but Mildenberger and Cooper gave Ali trouble so wouldnt Tyson do to?
in younger days and i would put my mony also on foreman in older days foreman would have win tyson.tyson is too small of sze to have somthing to do do foreman,in younger days foreman just knock him off within 3 rounds in older tyes hee needed much more but he would have been doing same in later rounds!
I imagine you are ESL which is fine I will try and decipher what you mean. I disagree obviously from my earlier posts.
If you look at early tyson fights his speed, power, and defensive work, then look at old vids of other fighters you mention when they were being built up Tyson had it all, the complete package and was far more impressive. That is why he accrued such a following.
Other points Jessie Ferguson lasted six rounds with Mike untill disqualified by the ref for excessive holding/ giving up the fight. Riddick Bowe knocked him out in the second. Is Riddick Bowe a better KO artist then Tyson no, but Fergusson tried to fight Bowe instead of hit and hold leaving himself open. If Tillis fought more (not saying he did horrible) instead of hit and hold he probably would of gotten KOed as well. It is amazing Tyson earned so many KO's considering the way most fought him.
If prime Tyson could beat prime Ali and vice versa is the only point still in contention because it is a matter of speculation. All your other nonsense I have crushed with direct to the point posts. I know it is tough for you to accept sad but true. You tried to attack my view on Tyson's prime when I flat out said it. Proved you wrong. Your out right incorrect statements on slipping. I proved you wrong. I could go on listing but there is no point.
I would type in a direct link but it will not take. So if you want to see your argument that you have so feverishly yet feebly laid out get laid to rest watch Mike training vids
50 seconds into the one titled
Mike Tyson Training Hightlight Reel ( then webpage plug). You will see Mike moving forward and slipping what the peekaboo defense teaches proving what you stated as fact false. I cite this post as proving you suck.
Here is the final nail in your 5yr olds elementry physics and punch slipping farce.
StevenR74 Tyson training vid.
In this vid Prime Mike is being trained to slip jabs on the move to get inside. So according to your logic Prime Mike just proved he breaks the laws of physics why would you doubt he could beat Ali who is burdened by physics?
In that video Tyson is constently moving forward while slipping agreed? (I cite this post without a shadow of a doubt proving you wrong.)
If tillis who fought like ali could irritate the hell outta tyson in this fight where he is in his prime period, i just don't see mike ever beating a prime ali in a dream match
I have produced proof from the past ten to fifteen times throughout this time we have had. You are just too retarded to notice Do you have amnesia is everyday a new one to you. Do you forget everything we have written only to get reminded when your email receives my responses. Because it seems you just want to continue losing. Why would I want to bring up new subjects with you when you obviously could not handle the old one?
hahaha you are a failure Crambo, your examples are pathetic and most of these comments are just full of your usual crap "Your arguments are weak" "I have shot you down" , Give me a break. Anyone reading the comments knows what has become of your case for Tyson. You should have stuck to insulting instead of actually trying to recall something and engaging in the debate lol.
Far from dumbfoundingly retarded I would say that my comments have simply shot you down.
You said Ali would loose because back pedaling fighters can't compete with him, I responded by telling you that it was two back pedelling fighters that did the best against him in his prime. You tried to rescue yourself by saying it wasn't his prime and i showed you why that was B.S.
You see i don't just claim to have shot your arguments down, i show you exactly how i did
I did not just say backpedaling fighters could not handle him. (Citing something stupid that you do right now.) I stated Mike Tyson eats up fighters that go backwards. Which is taken from Jim Lampley and Larry Merchent so they agree with me and they know a lot more about boxing than us. Citing another thing that proves your stupid. What you said in the middle chunk of your retarded post never happend. I never said that his fight vs Tillis was not his prime. Shall I cite more nonsense from you?
I just shot down one of your arguments here. I guess since I have to take you by the hand and point out all your stupid nonsense after pointing out all your stupid nonsense to you.
I don't care if Queen Elizabeth said it, the claim has been falsified. You didn't say this was not his prime? You suggested as much by arguing vigorously that a prime could last for any length of time in which a fighter is at his very best.
In any case, if you claim you were not arguing that this was not his prime than my former claim stands. If Tillis can't KO a C level fighter like Tilis he wont KO Ali and he sure is not going to outpoint him.
I never suggested it considering I flat out said when his prime ended and it was after this fight took place hence he was in his prime during this fight. Again why you fail is because you make uneducated, idiotic assumptions that are flat out wrong.
Tyson was in his prime and he could KO Tillis it just did not happen when they fought. Tillis held constantly and Tyson still won convincingly at 19 years old and early in his second year of fighting who do you expect him to fight? Muhammed Ali could not KO Buster Mathis in 71 yet Ron Lyle did it in three rounds in 72 does that make Lyle better than Ali no. There are too many factors but just because Tyson did not happen to KO Tillis does not mean he would not be able to defeat Ali in his prime.
Like Ali not being able to KO Mathis yet Lyle doing it with ease yet Muhammed Ali put Lyle away late in their fight. My point is sometimes those KO's just don't happen.
Ali did not fight true contenders until his fourth or so year of being a pro. That Uk heavyweight champ ??? where he predicted the round he would win and Sonny Liston. Another point though in his prime Tyson was still a work in progress as a young fighter improving untill he fucked it all up.
look fight with shaver old shaver aganst same man!and then look fight with old foreman aganst holyfiled!the old man didnt take even a rest between the rounds but the same man holyfiled knock off tyson easly!tyson was just attacker without much skills so foreman challanged him openly 3 times tyson declined!do u think that ali had no skills to fight with tyson if he had enough skills to fight with foreman!joke indeed!
Many Boxers and boxing analysis say that Tyson's first fight with Bruno is where he looked beatable, and I agree completely. It is where he went from being a complete package to just another slugger but with faster handspeed and phenominal power. Experts even said Tyson's punches hit so hard they sound different in his prime Tyson was a beast, a surreal physical specimin that would of been a nightmare for most any fighter. That is why he had such a huge following.
Well Boxing commentators may have criticized his performance in the Bruno fight but I would say most still consider it part of his prime. However let's just say his prime ended with the Bruno fight, my real point was that his earlier fights, such as this one, are all definitely classified by them as part of his prime. Only you place them outside of his prime.
I said Analyists and you are right most consider the end of his prime when he lost to douglas but the truth is he was on a downward spiral steadily after axed Rooney. He had his moments post Rooney but they were not the norm, And since he never fought as well as he did 88 and before it is technically the end of his prime.He was still knocking out opponents in spectacular fashion but he looked very beatable cause he charged in head first throwing bombs to the head trying to end it in one punch.
Cite something you said that was stupid are you fucking serious. Are you retarded? That is all I have been doing this whole time. Just go back and read my posts one of them was a shortened list of all the stupid shit you have said.
You must continually refer to the past because you don't have anything, all you can do is insult. if you were to produce proof from the past then you would be forced to actually give arguments and debate. Unlike you I don't waste WHOLE POSTS on insults, all my posts are arguments, arguments which shoot down yours and on command i can recall them AGAIN and show you what i did as I have below.
Your posts are weak arguments that make no sense. I stopped bringing up new shit with you because all I am doing is replying to your stupid posts. I said this already you retard. As for continually refering to the past we have been talking about the same subject for how many days straight you will not let it slip in to the past because you are determined yet lack the intelligence to formulate a decent argument. So I will bring up all your past failures in this present encounter.
Are you retarded? All I have done this entire time is cite all the shit you have said that is dumbfoundingly retarded, one of my posts was a sampler of some of the retarded stuff you have said. I will site this post of yours as retarded. And I do not need to look up Reductio Ad Abusurdium I know what it means but has nothing to do with that post where you flat out contradicted yourself.
Shall I cite the shit you said that was stupid or you could go back and read your own posts.
Good lord you are lame. There was nothing vague about my posts. Page ten of the comments right now I point out one of your stupid posts saying it makes no sense. That was directly to the point . I repeat your false hypothesis on slipping punches and phyisics your false definition of the word prime, your post that flat out was dumb as shit and you agreed in your next post that you did not make sense and tried defending it telling me to look up a latin phrase I already know.
Boxing experts consider the career prime of the fighter Mike Tyson to be his entire early career, none of them argue that 1988 ALONE was his prime. This is because they understand the concept of a prime, Only YOU argue that a prime is "whenever your doing the best no matter how long". The reason they don't argue this is because they are rational and are not interested in defending the invincibility myth of a particular fighter at all costs.
I never said 88 was his prime alone how about you show me where I said that you blathering moron. 89 marked the decline.
Hows that simple and it rhymes so it will be easier to remember for you. And if you knew anything about boxing experts and what they say about Tysons career you could do something constructive with your life.
Look we can settle this very easily. A SHORT ARMED Mike Tyson is not going to be able to use pure speed to land head shots on Prime Ali at such a frequency that he knocks him out. That would have to be a frequency greater than what we see Tillis getting hit with here without being KOed. That is unless you want to argue that Tyson ALSO started hitting harder in 1988. You seem far more skilled in insult games than you are in actual debate.
hahaha, I don't know why I thought i could expect a mature exchange with a tyson fanatic, their ridiculous view of their hero tells you they aren't exactly attached to reality.
By the way, have you looked up the Latin phrase "Reductio AD Absurdum" yet? so that you can understand why the logical consequences of an absurd argument are themselves absurd?
I get the distinct impression that i am not in an exchange with someone terribly fond of books but what the heck, you might just take a shot at this and learn something new.
His career did not end the moment he stopped looking good he continued winning vs Bruno up until Douglas. But his skills were eroding as quick as his personal life. You would know that was my stance but instead of debating jumped into the already finished discussion like a whirlwind of fragmented thought and self righteousness. That is why I insult you because you have nothing to offer aside from self made up hypothesis with half assed delivery culminating into a fallacy of an argument.
Did i say he lost the moment he stopped looking good? if i was talking about him loosing would i not have simply said "he lost" instead of "he stopped looking good". You MUST argue that at any point in which Tyson does not perform perfectly he was not yet in, or past his prime in the self delusional way that you do, i know your schtick well, don't worry.
You obviously don't know my schtick because you think I Idolize Tyson which is wrong and to continue an answer on one of your earlier queries I have gunned down all of your points in the fact that your points put your own assumptions about me who you do not know and debate against that. Half the shit you have attacked me with I never said you assumed that is why you are a miserable failure.
Ofcourse you didn't say you idolize Tyson, I infer it from your behavior.
Only someone who idolizes another person can fail to see their flaws (and don't talk to me about a 1996 version of Tyson who's flaws you will admit to, i'm talking about the version of Tyson you think is God).
ome on, it's too late in the discussion we know what you believe at this point. No one in the history of the world would have been able to last with Tyson during some mysteriously allusive career prime that coincidentally ended the moment he stopped looking good.
I think i just realized why you insult so much, if i had to use such simplistically circular logic to maintain a mythology about the invincibility of the object of some personal hero fixation, I would have no other choice.
When you slip a punch you rotate your torso shifting to the side. You can not rotate your torso and shift to the side while sending your full body weight forward onto your front leg (which is what you do when you are walking).
Now you can walk, quickly stop and slip a punch.
This is physiology for a 5 year old, but on a more technical note, it is what makes the stick and move method troublesome.
By the way, Ali never danced too much with Frazier because he knew he had to save energy.
You can advance while slipping punches with slight head movements and shoulder shifts, I used to use lateral movement with my upper body while advancing on opponents in Jiu Jitsu tourneys and in my wrestling days to cross them up, My friend was a pro boxer and I used to spar with him and he would slip my punches while advancing to initiate a body attack. Sorry pal your wrong. Just watch this fight or even sad way past his prime Tyson vs Golota Tyson moves forward on Golota while slipping shots.
Well you can go on leaving posts talking about how wonderfully you debate, however if you happen to come up with another point of substance i will address it.
You have gunned down all my point? really? name one point you gunned down? You will ofcourse fail because this test requires that you do something other than name call
What you have done is to ridiculously insist that we ignore every Tyson fight in which he does not perform perfectly (so that we cannot possibly find any flaws that would render him beatable) and then given us a circular definition of a "career prime" to justify this
Have you come up with a coherent definition of a prime?
Ok your incorrect physics, your complete incorrect definition of slipping punches, tearing apart your posts and laughing when you try to correct the flaws I point out, your incorrect definition of prime, shall I go on?
All you've done is claim that it is possible, and pointed out instances where Boxers have actually stalked, then stopped to slip.
When you slip you rotate your torso and shift your upper body weight to the side (if you disagree look up what a slip is). When you walk you propel your full body weight forward. You cannot continuously shift the weight of your upper body from side to side while propeling your full body weight forward because your torso is half of your full body weight.
The reason why he stoppend moving while slipping is because the opponent stopped to throw punches. Which is the norm because punching with out your feet planted is for the most part much less effective. But in this fight there are times when he moves forward and slips as with many others. Remember you dont have to stop and dosey doe to slip a punch if you make a straight or jab miss or glance with a head shift or quick shoulder duck and turn while advancing you have slipped the punch.
I didn't say you had to stop and "Dose Do", . To shift your head to the side you have to shift your torso and your torso cannot be moving in one direction (to the side) while your entire body is moving in another (forward).
What is throwing you off is the fact that many fighters can execute this process very quickly.
Still the more stick and move action someone gives you the more difficult the process becomes.
Well anyone would be horrible at debating someone so absurd that they actually try to argue simple facts of human physiology with them. If a person will not recognize common sense facts how can you gain ground against them? perhaps you think that is a brilliant debating strategy, it isn't'.
Ofcourse Lateral movement is possible while you advance, but traditional Boxing slipping technique is not possible AT THE VERY INSTANT you are advancing, the body dosen't work like that.
Look at Ali, Frazier, Quarry, Foreman....they all got up off the canvas to win fights. Tyson never did. EVER! So, for anyone who thinks Tyson was the greatest....if his knee ever touched the canvas he lost. Greatest?! I think not! So should you!
I never said he was the greatest, I am pointing out his potential that was squandered, and in the fights he lost by KO aside from the tail end last two fights so Lewis and Douglas he absorbed tremendous punishment pretty much while standing still I cannot really blame anyone for not beating the count after an asswhooping like that.
Come on, it's too late in the discussion we know what you believe at this point. No one in the history of the world would have been able to last with Tyson during some mysteriously allusive career prime that coincidentally ended the moment he stopped looking good.
I think i just realized why you insult so much, if i had to use such simplistically circular logic to maintain a mythology about the invincibility of the object of some personal hero fixation, I would have no other choice.
Uh genius, an insult by it's vey nature claims to communicate why it is insulting. If for example you call someone "stupid", you are by that very act claiming that you have offered the insult because the person lacks intelligence. if you call someone insane you claim to insult because they lack sanity. The issue is what lies behind the claim.
What lies behind the claim here is a juvenile mind whose only resource for debate are rather enfeebled attempts and insult and wit.
I have plently of Boxing knowledge madame you should do some research and look up some of my other posts with Onieracraft I had a big back and forth with him except he like I has boxing knowledge so we had an intellegent debate you are just a blathering ignoramous not worth the calories it takes to type these messages.
Declining Tyson murdered Frank Bruno who would of beaten Lennox Lewis if he did not gas in the 7th or 8th, Declining Tyson murdered Stewart who was making a fool of Holyfield in there 1st fight until head butted into oblivion to have the fight stopped. I know styles make fights ala Fraizer beats ali Foreman beats Frazier Ali beats Foreman. But what it does show is the guys Tyson was fighting were not bums.
My issue is that you are terrible at debating little missy your points are anything but direct . Making me assume I am either debating with a severe ADD Child who was probably dropped. Which could not be the case since we are talking of old boxers... (see I can figure that out on my own unlike you.) So my only deduction is you are a lonely sod with nothing better to do, depressed to the core hence your zig zag train of concentration trying to make yourself feel better by pointless ranting.
You should note that in order to make your case you have to offer a fighter to me like Alex stewart whose only claim to fame is having been competetive with Holyfield. Being unsuccessfully competitive with ONE FIGHTER does not make a top contender, and so i wouldn't use Stewart to try to prove anything.
Lewis beat Bruno 2 rounds after Tyson, you can spin the fight however you like. Tyson even arguably took harder shots from Bruno although he was ofcourse not hurt by them.
How Tyson is fighting is a direct result of how Tillis is fighting him, in his fight two months before he has all the head movement in the world because Zouski was a more stationary fighter.. I'm debating a Boxing novice.
Please everyone held Tyson, Tillis is not planting a flag here. The fact that there was a book on Mike Tyson and everyone stuck to trying to Illegally hold to stave off his offense should tell you something. But judging by your ridiculous posts I doubt you have the ability to learn.
I lack the resources sure buddy. You started this pal looking for a fight unfortunate your paltry ammo reserves are spent yet you still slapping away with those limp wrists.
What in the world are you talking about? are looking at the fight above us?
Tucker and Tillis were both dancers that didn't back their opponents up but gave them movement and they did better than anyone Tyson faced before Douglas....oh yeah, those two fights were off nights for Tyson (tucker Tillis)
we can only judge him by his three fights in 1988.
I said this fight Tyson was off with his head movement to someone else. You had nothing to do with this debate son. And still you have nothing to contribute because you babble like an Asylum patient. And his fight vs Tucker and Tillis were not even close on the scorecards I repeat not even CLOSE ON THE SCORECARDS. So what if he did not knock them out he still dominated the fights. I am not ridiculous I am sane. Now go back to your crushed meds in your applesauce induced coma you came out of.
Crambo In how many Tyson fights that went this late does Tyson consistently keep up his head movement?
If he knocks the guy out early it isn't an issue.
There are also some simple facts about the body you don't seem to get. If someone is giving you ALOT of movement like Tillis is you have to stalk them and you can't move your head while your walking. This is one of the natural advantages of the stick and move Boxing method Tillis didn't run from, or stand with Tyson, he stuck and moved.
You can't move your head while your walking? Well maybe you can't walk and move your head but the rest of the human race can. Paquiao does it Tyson did it, it is part of the peekaboo defense. Are you done yet or do I have to keep shutting down your pointless rants with common sense.
No neither Paquiano nor any other fighter facing an opponent who sticks and moves can move their head while they stalk, it is text book Boxing 101, of which you are apparently ignorant, and I am done deabating with someone who confidently argues about things concerning which they have an apparent lack of fundamental knowledge.
Dude you have no clue what you are talking about, What did Tua do to Ruiz stalked him slipped a punch and knocked Ruiz out, Frazier constantly stalked while shuffling and manuvering. Slugger punchers stalk. What do you think Tyson was doing in this fight when he was knocked Tillis down he slipped a punch and he slips punches while stalking during this fight. I said earlier his head movement was not as good this fight but it was still there. So the fight you are "watching" proves you wrong.
You can stalk a fighter but you must stop walking in order to slip a punch...are you sober
?
The bottom line is, overall head movement is decreased in an opponent when a fighter employs a stick and move strategy. By the way have you looked up the latin phrase "Reductio Ad Absurdum" yet in order to understand the simple idea that the logical conclusion of an absurd premise is itself absurd?
Ofcourse you haven't, you would rather B.S. and cat fight like your a chick.
When you slip a punch you rotate your torso shifting to the side. You can not rotate your torso and shift to the side while sending your full body weight forward onto your front leg (which is what you do when you are walking).
Now you can walk, quickly stop and slip a punch.
This is physiology for a 5 year old, but on a more technical note, it is what makes the stick and move method troublesome.
By the way, Ali never danced too much with Frazier because he knew he had to save energy.
I'm not hard pressed to find guys that would beat Tyson at all: Muhammed Ali, George Foreman (within three or four rounds) These are the fighters who would definately beat him, onto the fighters that would probably beat him. Evander Holyfield and Sonny Liston.
With in Three or four rounds sure buddy. Ali would be a good fight but he fights going backwards which Tyson Eats up backpedaling boxers in his prime. Forman too slow along with Frazier. Liston is worse than Foreman or Frazier.
But it is all up to interpretation because Tyson's Prime ended too soon. If Tyson stayed with Kevin Rooney I guarantee we would not be having this argument due to Tyson not staining his legacy.
Quite frankly, I don't even know why I am arguing with YOU , you obviously aren't a real boxing fan, your a delusional Tyson fanatic that lines up everything in his reasoning to perfectly coincide with the idea of the man's invincibility, throwing out any evidence to the contrary no matter how outstanding.
My arguments are outlandish? my argument is simply your absurd argument taken to it's logical conclusion (with a little comedy added for effect)
If there is no time limit we could say that Douglas was unbeatable on the night he beat Tyson, and that was his prime. But wait we couldn't say that because Tyson wasn't prime, if he was, he wouldn't have lost. But what made Tyson so great? the fact that he beat Trevor Berbick? But Trevor Berbick was past his prime, if he wasn't past his prime he wouldn't have lost to Tyson, because only fighters that are past their prime lose fights; or maybe I'm wrong, and this logic only applies to Tyson.
In the end there are apparently no great fighters in boxing history because they all beat fighters that were past their primes. if the fighters they beat hadn't been past their primes they wouldn't have lost, because your prime is when your doing your best no matter how long it lasts,.
My argument is not ridiculous about the prime of a fighter it is what Prime means your the one making shit up. Read what you just typed. "I know that post does not make sense yet it is the logical conclusion" and Ill stop right there you admit it does not make sense yet call it logical. Sir you are a rambling whirlwind of nonsensical nonsense. I would love to debate with you but you cannot back up your points with anything rational.
I said I was leaving out the rest in the quotes cause it is needless to repeat your inane babble. Your post made no sense at all try and defend it all you want you just look more ignorant.
The post made sense to someone with a basic education in elementary logic.
Look up the term "Reductio Ad Absurdum"
I have rarely met anyone who was as unflinchingly confident in their overestimate of their own intelligence as you my friend.
The only thing more ridiculous than your blind adoration of Tyson is how you fill entire posts with long drawn out insults full of similies and all sorts of unusal references and then accuse ME of offering insults. You're an interesting fellow.
One I use long drawn out similies and unusual references so obviously I have a grasp in basic education and logic unfortunately your posts lack these.
Your arguments are outlandish and stupid with lame ifs. Prime is determined in the time when you fight your best, your best years you can lose and be in your prime if you are perfoming at your peak.
Why am I wasting my time typing to this babbling loon.
I am not a Tyson zombie I don't even think Tyson is in the same Legendary League as Ali or Frazier but I am sane enough to know that when he was in his prime he was and would of been a terror to anyone who stepped into the ring with him.
lol man be honest, you already showed your cards. You're not arguing that Tyson would be a terror to anyone who fought him, you are arguing that no Boxer who ever lived could have beaten him.
If this is not what your arguing give me a name.
You have already claimed Ali, Foreman and Liston would be killed.
Stop trying to save face, the word "legendary" means nothing. You have contributed nothing to this discussion but mindless praise for Mike Tyson and very childish personal attacks.
Because I have to work for a living. And you were the one who threw insults first and flat out attacked me for no reason. Your arguments are rediculous cause you put words in my mouth. I said Foreman and Frazier were too Slow I did not say they would get killed I said Ali would be a good fight. Your arguing ability is horrible. As for legendary I am not trying to save face I said it earlier in a back in forth with Oniercraft. So do your self a favor and stop while your behind.
Crambo You have clearly failed in your attempt to rescue your heroes credentials. Now if you have also failed to grasp how, then you are free to reread my posts untill you can, it matters not to me either way. Clearly all you have at this points are insults and I am not interested in trading insults with children so i will take my leave.
My hero is Vinz Clortho Keymaster of Gozer lord of the Subullia. I just hate when others down play on the potential greatness Mike could of aspired to if he stayed the path. And I have not failed anything little missy especially against your foolish banter. Bar none Mike was one of if not the most feared Heavyweights in the sport and you can't really say he was ever exposed because he was a mess far before his first loss came. So I have to prove nothing just shed light on the subject.
I attacked you first? cite my first attack then what was it? I only attacked your position, you began the personal attacks You seem to be still concealing your position, you refuse to state outright whether or not you believe Ali, Liston, Foreman and every fighter who ever lived would fall before the guy who knocked out light heavyweight sensation Michael Spinks.
Calling me a fanatic and a zombie implying I do not have a mind of my own and just blindly follow. Which if were true makes you look pretty sad since you are failing miserably.
You either love Tyson or you don't the people that don't like Tyson will disregard the fact that Tyson obviously wasn't training like he should have been during the buster fight. And he just really didn't have the fire or the need to please anybody like he had before cus died and before he got rid of Rooney the people who hate mike will disregard the fact that all his other losses he was way out of his prime and just a shadow of his former self. with mikes fighting style you have to be in tip t
ferrarimike23 3 months ago
@ferrarimike23 every time a fighter loses, his fans claim it's because he was old, or he wasn't trained, or he was on drugs, or whatever excuse you want. Tyson was the typical bully that seemed invincible until he lost. If you go back and look, his weaknesses were always there, waiting for the right fighter on the right night to exploit them. There's a reason Mike never regained the lineal title. He wasn't nearly as good as we thought he was when he was KOing bums in the late 1980's.
RaulGroom 2 months ago
Raul
You can believe what you want body. But Tyson was way out of his prime with 2 of those fighters and with buster he just didn't have the fire to execute offensively or defensively and by your analogy you must not watch much combat sports. Suppose a man wins then a rematch happens and the otherguy wins it happens all the time that proves you can control 90% of a fight the other 10% is luck sometimes you get caught other times u dont
ferrarimike23 3 months ago
As for this fight, well using a ten point must system, I had Tillis by a point. On another day I might score it a draw. On another day I might have Tyson by a point. Either way, very little in it. Tillis' work was much cleaner and he did the superior boxing, but he was a little too lazy at key points, too. Tyson perhaps got a little bit lucky here, but no shame in this. Most fighters get a dubious verdict in their favour and he'd have learned more from this than he would from 5 first round KOs.
iljn1988 7 months ago
if they had compubox back then i believe tillis landed more punches by round and percentage, definetly more jabs. tyson got aboxing lession.
topshelf7 7 months ago
That was a Great fight!
kcuf7 8 months ago
Hadnt seen this befor, thank you- Great fight, you could really see the boxing ability Tyson had, not just those of him as a puncher
azasell9 9 months ago
Tillman dominated round ten.
karmafuzz77 9 months ago
All i'm saying is when Tyson did lose it was a series of big blows, like cutting down a sequoia. Pre King he was disciplined and could dish out far more than he could receive, he had a concrete jaw, that 20 inch neck was there for a reason.
Its justified to say the end of his prime was when king, horne, holloway and all those other slime stiffs took over
lakecora23 9 months ago
This shouldve been a draw; this was an excellent fight showing how to box a shorter, aggressive person
svp2010 9 months ago
Tillis Lost. Bottom line. He was dominated. Why are people praising him for SURVIVING. That doesn't mean Ali would win just because Tillis survived.
Ali might Survive too. ;) winning is a completely different discussion.
JuggernautBitch17 11 months ago
@JuggernautBitch17 Ali was 5 times the boxer Tillis was, and Tillis' style caused Tyson heaps of problems because he couldn't get the power shots off vs someone who moved as much as Tillis did. Ali's movement/footwork/handspeed was much better, his reflexes on another level altogether, his jab was better, and he was exceptional at putting combinations together at the right time. It's very hard to see anything other than a comfortable Ali win based on this fight with Tillis.
tmonkey123 11 months ago
Tyson was never in danger, with Rooney he could grind and that would've been bad news for Douglas, holy and lewis
lakecora23 1 year ago
@lakecora23 Given that Tillis kept the fight close and frustrated Tyson at times, a prime Ali or Holmes would take Tyson apart. Douglas did take a prime Tyson apart and no you don't get to arbitrarily pick the moment before his first loss as the convenient for argument's sake end of his prime. Rangy fighters that could move always gave Tyson trouble. Even Tony Tucker. Before broke his hand in the 4th round, he was even with Tyson and even hurt him.
mongoose704 9 months ago
@mongoose704 tyson had a roll over his cup pad around his waist. he wasn't in shape or ready. and he did knock douglas down for 11 seconds. watch the fight. but douglas did KO tyson. i can accept that.
lighterbuds 9 months ago
@lighterbuds Tyson was one pound heavier than he was in his fight with Spinks. There are no "fat rolls." That's more exaggerated Tyson camp damage control after Douglas forever destroyed the myth of Tyson. Rooney did mention that Tyson appeared to not be in "top shape" but that's a far cry from being as out of shape as Tyson apologists claim. If we was so out of shape, he wouldn't have lasted five rounds because Douglas was pounding the crap out of him.
mongoose704 8 months ago
@mongoose704 he lost 40 pouns in two weaks for that fight.
ghns1133 8 months ago
@ghns1133 , you're just making things up. Tyson fans bang on about "oh, he was in terrrible shape for Douglas. He didn't train. He was partying two days before the fight & doing cocaine." There is absolutely no proof of this, and there was no speculation of it beforehand. Simply an excuse for Tyson getting his arse handed to him. As for your claim that he had to lose 40 lb in two weeks before the fight...Jesus, just listen to yourself. Say it slowly and you'll realise how stupid you sound.
iljn1988 7 months ago
@iljn1988
it was in a book called the "last great fight". plus there have been plenty of reportas that saids mike looked overwieht leading up to his fight with douglas. a
do you have any idea how stupid u sound(retard voice)
ifu dont belive what im saying than just agree to disagree and shut the fuck up
ghns1133 7 months ago
@ghns1133, I've read that book, and it's nothing but conjecture, speculation and fantasy. Awful book. Yeah, Tyson was 260 lb two weeks before the fight and 220 lb on fight night. Of course he was. No need to get so touchy, by the way. That time of the month or something?
iljn1988 7 months ago
@iljn1988
ur the one who said "do u have any idea how stupid i sound" so what did u expect? for me to want to be your new bff?
ghns1133 7 months ago
@iljn1988 Tyson himself saiying that he did nothing but f**k japanese girls and have a few training sessions before a crowd and press.And this he said in the movie from 2009 where he owns his mistakes and in no way tries to blame anyone else but himself for what happened.is that proof good enough?"Tyson"(2009 J.Toback) A great and brutally honest docu. on Tyson WITH Tyson
EVILSPAWN1000 6 months ago
@EVILSPAWN1000, I've seen it, and as I said, Tyson just saying it afterwards doesn't make it true. Most fighters make up excuses afterwards if they get beaten. If Tyson was in the awful shape some claim he wouldn't have made it to the second half of the fight, because Douglas was hammering him. Doesn't excuse the loss, just saying.
iljn1988 6 months ago
@iljn1988 Well,it`s funny how Tysons skills (not even slowly) eroded after Rooney left.His FIRST FIGHT (Bruno) without Rooney u could see canges for the worse.I`m not gonna take away anything from Douglas,he fought a spectacular fight that night.And all things concidered:Tyson HAD the mantion,he HAD 10 supercars,he HAD "everything" including the idea that he was untouchable and indestructibe.And now at 45 he says this.Many men have whooped him since then.Why would he make excuses 4 that 1 fight?
EVILSPAWN1000 6 months ago
@iljn1988 Athletes always try to find tactical reasons for losing, because that's how athletes think. It's not necessarily about making excuses - they tend naturally to assume the reasons for losing are things under their control. In reality there are often elements of a matchup that strongly favor one fighter over the other. In-shape Douglas was a bad matchup for Tyson, as was Holyfield, as was Lennox Lewis. Any fighter who was big, accurate, and durable was a major problem for Mike.
RaulGroom 6 months ago
@RaulGroom ..........You're wrong. Mike Tyson took down big in shape fighters like, Frank Bruno and James BONE "CRUSHER" Smith. He knocked out Trevor Berbick. They were all big, accurate, and durable. And they loss.
chrissline77 2 months ago
iron
lolointro1 1 year ago
Don't get me wrong all Tyson bashers. Here Tyson is only 19 y.o. He wasn't great boxer yet he was fightihng great.
danceswithwolvesful 1 year ago
lotz tyson haters 19 yr old kid tu tu tut.
jimpurdie 1 year ago
don't get me wrong Tyson lovers I DO like Tyson, but watch this fight, and think what a prime Larry Homes or Ali would have done to Tyson...
farrell360 1 year ago
@farrell360 Exactly
apestaartje321 1 year ago
if this had gone 15 rounds tillis would have done him. he exposed flaws in tyson
sugzinho 1 year ago
they booing but don't know why it was a good fight
mazilin2 1 year ago
on mike tysons greatest hits it looked as though tillis lost one or two teeth in the fight
does anyone know if this was true
newall7 1 year ago
Tyson is 20 years old... and when he was 20 years old he was UNSTOPABLE. A BEEEAST!!!!!!!!
Earl2Aron 1 year ago
8:20 sec says it all.
crawhip7 2 years ago
I'm not saying great fighters knock out all their opponents, I'm just saying morrison made tillis look bad, and tillis made tyson look mediocre, nothing special.
InnerIced 2 years ago
Tyson couldn't take this guy or mitch green out, so tyson's promoters set him up with softer opposition, thus resulting in many KO's against softer opponents. Tyson was good, but not great, just overrated, like all you tyson dick licks on here!
InnerIced 2 years ago
Name me 5 of the greatest heavyweight hitters that have knocked out all their opponents? This is to you, Innerlced.
mystyal 2 years ago
@InnerIced
He did take This guy out.
In the 8th round, So just because Tyson had A COUPLE of long rounded fights this means that he is a bad fighter? No, It means he is even better. He can Knock people stone cold from the 1st to the 15th round.
It was a well phrased paragraph you just set out, But all fiction my friend.
PkingSoFast 2 years ago
@InnerIced i agree completely
messier991102 11 months ago
it would be interesting to see what would happen if the fight carried on to 12 or 15 rounds.
trailstar1 2 years ago
Tillis was very experience at this point compare to Tyson.
Every young fighter has tough early fights. Everybody is saying that if Tillis who moved like Ali gave Tyson a tough time but Mildenberger and Cooper gave Ali trouble so wouldnt Tyson do to?
KiidDynamiteReturns 2 years ago
This guy James Tillis looks like an Ali knockoff, even the way he moves.
999966699 2 years ago
in younger days and i would put my mony also on foreman in older days foreman would have win tyson.tyson is too small of sze to have somthing to do do foreman,in younger days foreman just knock him off within 3 rounds in older tyes hee needed much more but he would have been doing same in later rounds!
supralee 2 years ago
I imagine you are ESL which is fine I will try and decipher what you mean. I disagree obviously from my earlier posts.
If you look at early tyson fights his speed, power, and defensive work, then look at old vids of other fighters you mention when they were being built up Tyson had it all, the complete package and was far more impressive. That is why he accrued such a following.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Other points Jessie Ferguson lasted six rounds with Mike untill disqualified by the ref for excessive holding/ giving up the fight. Riddick Bowe knocked him out in the second. Is Riddick Bowe a better KO artist then Tyson no, but Fergusson tried to fight Bowe instead of hit and hold leaving himself open. If Tillis fought more (not saying he did horrible) instead of hit and hold he probably would of gotten KOed as well. It is amazing Tyson earned so many KO's considering the way most fought him.
Crambo77 2 years ago
If prime Tyson could beat prime Ali and vice versa is the only point still in contention because it is a matter of speculation. All your other nonsense I have crushed with direct to the point posts. I know it is tough for you to accept sad but true. You tried to attack my view on Tyson's prime when I flat out said it. Proved you wrong. Your out right incorrect statements on slipping. I proved you wrong. I could go on listing but there is no point.
Crambo77 2 years ago
I would type in a direct link but it will not take. So if you want to see your argument that you have so feverishly yet feebly laid out get laid to rest watch Mike training vids
50 seconds into the one titled
Mike Tyson Training Hightlight Reel ( then webpage plug). You will see Mike moving forward and slipping what the peekaboo defense teaches proving what you stated as fact false. I cite this post as proving you suck.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Here is the final nail in your 5yr olds elementry physics and punch slipping farce.
StevenR74 Tyson training vid.
In this vid Prime Mike is being trained to slip jabs on the move to get inside. So according to your logic Prime Mike just proved he breaks the laws of physics why would you doubt he could beat Ali who is burdened by physics?
In that video Tyson is constently moving forward while slipping agreed? (I cite this post without a shadow of a doubt proving you wrong.)
Crambo77 2 years ago
Califacience you are a loser I come back from vacation to see you still failing.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Tillis is doing really good here.
onlineboxingdotnet 2 years ago
If tillis who fought like ali could irritate the hell outta tyson in this fight where he is in his prime period, i just don't see mike ever beating a prime ali in a dream match
overdozerecords 2 years ago
I have produced proof from the past ten to fifteen times throughout this time we have had. You are just too retarded to notice Do you have amnesia is everyday a new one to you. Do you forget everything we have written only to get reminded when your email receives my responses. Because it seems you just want to continue losing. Why would I want to bring up new subjects with you when you obviously could not handle the old one?
Crambo77 2 years ago
hahaha you are a failure Crambo, your examples are pathetic and most of these comments are just full of your usual crap "Your arguments are weak" "I have shot you down" , Give me a break. Anyone reading the comments knows what has become of your case for Tyson. You should have stuck to insulting instead of actually trying to recall something and engaging in the debate lol.
Califacience 2 years ago
I didn't think so.
Califacience 2 years ago
Comment removed
Califacience 2 years ago
Comment removed
Califacience 2 years ago
Far from dumbfoundingly retarded I would say that my comments have simply shot you down.
You said Ali would loose because back pedaling fighters can't compete with him, I responded by telling you that it was two back pedelling fighters that did the best against him in his prime. You tried to rescue yourself by saying it wasn't his prime and i showed you why that was B.S.
You see i don't just claim to have shot your arguments down, i show you exactly how i did
:).
Califacience 2 years ago
I did not just say backpedaling fighters could not handle him. (Citing something stupid that you do right now.) I stated Mike Tyson eats up fighters that go backwards. Which is taken from Jim Lampley and Larry Merchent so they agree with me and they know a lot more about boxing than us. Citing another thing that proves your stupid. What you said in the middle chunk of your retarded post never happend. I never said that his fight vs Tillis was not his prime. Shall I cite more nonsense from you?
Crambo77 2 years ago
I just shot down one of your arguments here. I guess since I have to take you by the hand and point out all your stupid nonsense after pointing out all your stupid nonsense to you.
Crambo77 2 years ago
I don't care if Queen Elizabeth said it, the claim has been falsified. You didn't say this was not his prime? You suggested as much by arguing vigorously that a prime could last for any length of time in which a fighter is at his very best.
In any case, if you claim you were not arguing that this was not his prime than my former claim stands. If Tillis can't KO a C level fighter like Tilis he wont KO Ali and he sure is not going to outpoint him.
Califacience 2 years ago
I never suggested it considering I flat out said when his prime ended and it was after this fight took place hence he was in his prime during this fight. Again why you fail is because you make uneducated, idiotic assumptions that are flat out wrong.
I cite this post proving your an ignoramous.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Tyson was in his prime and he could KO Tillis it just did not happen when they fought. Tillis held constantly and Tyson still won convincingly at 19 years old and early in his second year of fighting who do you expect him to fight? Muhammed Ali could not KO Buster Mathis in 71 yet Ron Lyle did it in three rounds in 72 does that make Lyle better than Ali no. There are too many factors but just because Tyson did not happen to KO Tillis does not mean he would not be able to defeat Ali in his prime.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Like Ali not being able to KO Mathis yet Lyle doing it with ease yet Muhammed Ali put Lyle away late in their fight. My point is sometimes those KO's just don't happen.
Ali did not fight true contenders until his fourth or so year of being a pro. That Uk heavyweight champ ??? where he predicted the round he would win and Sonny Liston. Another point though in his prime Tyson was still a work in progress as a young fighter improving untill he fucked it all up.
Crambo77 2 years ago
look fight with shaver old shaver aganst same man!and then look fight with old foreman aganst holyfiled!the old man didnt take even a rest between the rounds but the same man holyfiled knock off tyson easly!tyson was just attacker without much skills so foreman challanged him openly 3 times tyson declined!do u think that ali had no skills to fight with tyson if he had enough skills to fight with foreman!joke indeed!
supralee 2 years ago
Many Boxers and boxing analysis say that Tyson's first fight with Bruno is where he looked beatable, and I agree completely. It is where he went from being a complete package to just another slugger but with faster handspeed and phenominal power. Experts even said Tyson's punches hit so hard they sound different in his prime Tyson was a beast, a surreal physical specimin that would of been a nightmare for most any fighter. That is why he had such a huge following.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Well Boxing commentators may have criticized his performance in the Bruno fight but I would say most still consider it part of his prime. However let's just say his prime ended with the Bruno fight, my real point was that his earlier fights, such as this one, are all definitely classified by them as part of his prime. Only you place them outside of his prime.
Califacience 2 years ago
I said Analyists and you are right most consider the end of his prime when he lost to douglas but the truth is he was on a downward spiral steadily after axed Rooney. He had his moments post Rooney but they were not the norm, And since he never fought as well as he did 88 and before it is technically the end of his prime.He was still knocking out opponents in spectacular fashion but he looked very beatable cause he charged in head first throwing bombs to the head trying to end it in one punch.
Crambo77 2 years ago
I will say that was the first thing you have posted that was not dumbfoundingly retarded. So you were awarded with an actual answer.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Crambo you love to speak in ambiguities don't you? Cite something i said that was "dumb foundingly stupid"?
if you cannot, then this is just empty Ad Hominem
if you are referring to the line about the logical conclusion of an absurd premise being itself absurd, I WILL ASK YOU AGAIN.
Have you looked up the term "Reductio Ad Absurdum"?
a comment is not "dumbfoundingly retarded" simply because you don't have enough of an education in Formal Logic to understand it.
Califacience 2 years ago
Cite something you said that was stupid are you fucking serious. Are you retarded? That is all I have been doing this whole time. Just go back and read my posts one of them was a shortened list of all the stupid shit you have said.
Crambo77 2 years ago
As I said before, you won't cite anything.
You must continually refer to the past because you don't have anything, all you can do is insult. if you were to produce proof from the past then you would be forced to actually give arguments and debate. Unlike you I don't waste WHOLE POSTS on insults, all my posts are arguments, arguments which shoot down yours and on command i can recall them AGAIN and show you what i did as I have below.
Califacience 2 years ago
Your posts are weak arguments that make no sense. I stopped bringing up new shit with you because all I am doing is replying to your stupid posts. I said this already you retard. As for continually refering to the past we have been talking about the same subject for how many days straight you will not let it slip in to the past because you are determined yet lack the intelligence to formulate a decent argument. So I will bring up all your past failures in this present encounter.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Are you retarded? All I have done this entire time is cite all the shit you have said that is dumbfoundingly retarded, one of my posts was a sampler of some of the retarded stuff you have said. I will site this post of yours as retarded. And I do not need to look up Reductio Ad Abusurdium I know what it means but has nothing to do with that post where you flat out contradicted yourself.
Shall I cite the shit you said that was stupid or you could go back and read your own posts.
Crambo77 2 years ago
HAHAHAHAHA!! you still aren't citing anything, just vaguely referring to the past. Yes site "that" or anything else you can.
Califacience 2 years ago
Good lord you are lame. There was nothing vague about my posts. Page ten of the comments right now I point out one of your stupid posts saying it makes no sense. That was directly to the point . I repeat your false hypothesis on slipping punches and phyisics your false definition of the word prime, your post that flat out was dumb as shit and you agreed in your next post that you did not make sense and tried defending it telling me to look up a latin phrase I already know.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Boxing experts consider the career prime of the fighter Mike Tyson to be his entire early career, none of them argue that 1988 ALONE was his prime. This is because they understand the concept of a prime, Only YOU argue that a prime is "whenever your doing the best no matter how long". The reason they don't argue this is because they are rational and are not interested in defending the invincibility myth of a particular fighter at all costs.
You reason like an infatuated child not a man.
Califacience 2 years ago
I never said 88 was his prime alone how about you show me where I said that you blathering moron. 89 marked the decline.
Hows that simple and it rhymes so it will be easier to remember for you. And if you knew anything about boxing experts and what they say about Tysons career you could do something constructive with your life.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Comment removed
Califacience 2 years ago
George Foreman murders your hero in an early knock out.
Califacience 2 years ago
Look we can settle this very easily. A SHORT ARMED Mike Tyson is not going to be able to use pure speed to land head shots on Prime Ali at such a frequency that he knocks him out. That would have to be a frequency greater than what we see Tillis getting hit with here without being KOed. That is unless you want to argue that Tyson ALSO started hitting harder in 1988. You seem far more skilled in insult games than you are in actual debate.
Califacience 2 years ago
hahaha, I don't know why I thought i could expect a mature exchange with a tyson fanatic, their ridiculous view of their hero tells you they aren't exactly attached to reality.
Califacience 2 years ago
By the way, have you looked up the Latin phrase "Reductio AD Absurdum" yet? so that you can understand why the logical consequences of an absurd argument are themselves absurd?
I get the distinct impression that i am not in an exchange with someone terribly fond of books but what the heck, you might just take a shot at this and learn something new.
Califacience 2 years ago
His career did not end the moment he stopped looking good he continued winning vs Bruno up until Douglas. But his skills were eroding as quick as his personal life. You would know that was my stance but instead of debating jumped into the already finished discussion like a whirlwind of fragmented thought and self righteousness. That is why I insult you because you have nothing to offer aside from self made up hypothesis with half assed delivery culminating into a fallacy of an argument.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Comment removed
Califacience 2 years ago
Did i say he lost the moment he stopped looking good? if i was talking about him loosing would i not have simply said "he lost" instead of "he stopped looking good". You MUST argue that at any point in which Tyson does not perform perfectly he was not yet in, or past his prime in the self delusional way that you do, i know your schtick well, don't worry.
Califacience 2 years ago
You obviously don't know my schtick because you think I Idolize Tyson which is wrong and to continue an answer on one of your earlier queries I have gunned down all of your points in the fact that your points put your own assumptions about me who you do not know and debate against that. Half the shit you have attacked me with I never said you assumed that is why you are a miserable failure.
Crambo77 2 years ago
And that is a fact..
Crambo77 2 years ago
Ofcourse you didn't say you idolize Tyson, I infer it from your behavior.
Only someone who idolizes another person can fail to see their flaws (and don't talk to me about a 1996 version of Tyson who's flaws you will admit to, i'm talking about the version of Tyson you think is God).
Califacience 2 years ago
I don't think he is god it does not take god to beat Muhammed Ali, nor Foreman.
Crambo77 2 years ago
No but you believe it takes a god to beat Tyson, so he might as well be one.
Califacience 2 years ago
No I don't there you go putting words in my mouth and taking things to ridiculous proportions.
I will cite this as stupid.
Crambo77 2 years ago
ome on, it's too late in the discussion we know what you believe at this point. No one in the history of the world would have been able to last with Tyson during some mysteriously allusive career prime that coincidentally ended the moment he stopped looking good.
I think i just realized why you insult so much, if i had to use such simplistically circular logic to maintain a mythology about the invincibility of the object of some personal hero fixation, I would have no other choice.
Califacience 2 years ago
I insult so much because you are absurd. And and easy target.
Crambo77 2 years ago
When you slip a punch you rotate your torso shifting to the side. You can not rotate your torso and shift to the side while sending your full body weight forward onto your front leg (which is what you do when you are walking).
Now you can walk, quickly stop and slip a punch.
This is physiology for a 5 year old, but on a more technical note, it is what makes the stick and move method troublesome.
By the way, Ali never danced too much with Frazier because he knew he had to save energy.
Califacience 2 years ago
Comment removed
Crambo77 2 years ago
You can advance while slipping punches with slight head movements and shoulder shifts, I used to use lateral movement with my upper body while advancing on opponents in Jiu Jitsu tourneys and in my wrestling days to cross them up, My friend was a pro boxer and I used to spar with him and he would slip my punches while advancing to initiate a body attack. Sorry pal your wrong. Just watch this fight or even sad way past his prime Tyson vs Golota Tyson moves forward on Golota while slipping shots.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Well you can go on leaving posts talking about how wonderfully you debate, however if you happen to come up with another point of substance i will address it.
Califacience 2 years ago
I don't have to come up with any other points I have already gunned down all of yours. All I am doing now is replying to your idiotic comments.
Crambo77 2 years ago
You have gunned down all my point? really? name one point you gunned down? You will ofcourse fail because this test requires that you do something other than name call
What you have done is to ridiculously insist that we ignore every Tyson fight in which he does not perform perfectly (so that we cannot possibly find any flaws that would render him beatable) and then given us a circular definition of a "career prime" to justify this
Have you come up with a coherent definition of a prime?
Califacience 2 years ago
Ok your incorrect physics, your complete incorrect definition of slipping punches, tearing apart your posts and laughing when you try to correct the flaws I point out, your incorrect definition of prime, shall I go on?
Crambo77 2 years ago
All you've done is claim that it is possible, and pointed out instances where Boxers have actually stalked, then stopped to slip.
When you slip you rotate your torso and shift your upper body weight to the side (if you disagree look up what a slip is). When you walk you propel your full body weight forward. You cannot continuously shift the weight of your upper body from side to side while propeling your full body weight forward because your torso is half of your full body weight.
Califacience 2 years ago
The reason why he stoppend moving while slipping is because the opponent stopped to throw punches. Which is the norm because punching with out your feet planted is for the most part much less effective. But in this fight there are times when he moves forward and slips as with many others. Remember you dont have to stop and dosey doe to slip a punch if you make a straight or jab miss or glance with a head shift or quick shoulder duck and turn while advancing you have slipped the punch.
Crambo77 2 years ago
I didn't say you had to stop and "Dose Do", . To shift your head to the side you have to shift your torso and your torso cannot be moving in one direction (to the side) while your entire body is moving in another (forward).
What is throwing you off is the fact that many fighters can execute this process very quickly.
Still the more stick and move action someone gives you the more difficult the process becomes.
Califacience 2 years ago
I never mentioned how wonderfully I debate just how terrible you are.
Anything else?
Crambo77 2 years ago
I never mentioned how wonderfully I debate only how horrible you are at it.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Well anyone would be horrible at debating someone so absurd that they actually try to argue simple facts of human physiology with them. If a person will not recognize common sense facts how can you gain ground against them? perhaps you think that is a brilliant debating strategy, it isn't'.
Ofcourse Lateral movement is possible while you advance, but traditional Boxing slipping technique is not possible AT THE VERY INSTANT you are advancing, the body dosen't work like that.
Califacience 2 years ago
You must walk, stop and slip the shot, and then keep walking. it takes alot of discipline to keep that up if someone is sticking and moving
Califacience 2 years ago
Nope you can slip on the move it is absolutely possible it happens in this fight it happens in many fights You are flat out wrong and thats a fact.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Look at Ali, Frazier, Quarry, Foreman....they all got up off the canvas to win fights. Tyson never did. EVER! So, for anyone who thinks Tyson was the greatest....if his knee ever touched the canvas he lost. Greatest?! I think not! So should you!
triggert531 2 years ago
I never said he was the greatest, I am pointing out his potential that was squandered, and in the fights he lost by KO aside from the tail end last two fights so Lewis and Douglas he absorbed tremendous punishment pretty much while standing still I cannot really blame anyone for not beating the count after an asswhooping like that.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Come on, it's too late in the discussion we know what you believe at this point. No one in the history of the world would have been able to last with Tyson during some mysteriously allusive career prime that coincidentally ended the moment he stopped looking good.
I think i just realized why you insult so much, if i had to use such simplistically circular logic to maintain a mythology about the invincibility of the object of some personal hero fixation, I would have no other choice.
Califacience 2 years ago
You should not have to realize why I insult I flat out tell you.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Uh genius, an insult by it's vey nature claims to communicate why it is insulting. If for example you call someone "stupid", you are by that very act claiming that you have offered the insult because the person lacks intelligence. if you call someone insane you claim to insult because they lack sanity. The issue is what lies behind the claim.
What lies behind the claim here is a juvenile mind whose only resource for debate are rather enfeebled attempts and insult and wit.
Califacience 2 years ago
I have plently of Boxing knowledge madame you should do some research and look up some of my other posts with Onieracraft I had a big back and forth with him except he like I has boxing knowledge so we had an intellegent debate you are just a blathering ignoramous not worth the calories it takes to type these messages.
Crambo77 2 years ago
*point
Califacience 2 years ago
Declining Tyson murdered Frank Bruno who would of beaten Lennox Lewis if he did not gas in the 7th or 8th, Declining Tyson murdered Stewart who was making a fool of Holyfield in there 1st fight until head butted into oblivion to have the fight stopped. I know styles make fights ala Fraizer beats ali Foreman beats Frazier Ali beats Foreman. But what it does show is the guys Tyson was fighting were not bums.
Crambo77 2 years ago
My issue is that you are terrible at debating little missy your points are anything but direct . Making me assume I am either debating with a severe ADD Child who was probably dropped. Which could not be the case since we are talking of old boxers... (see I can figure that out on my own unlike you.) So my only deduction is you are a lonely sod with nothing better to do, depressed to the core hence your zig zag train of concentration trying to make yourself feel better by pointless ranting.
Crambo77 2 years ago
You should note that in order to make your case you have to offer a fighter to me like Alex stewart whose only claim to fame is having been competetive with Holyfield. Being unsuccessfully competitive with ONE FIGHTER does not make a top contender, and so i wouldn't use Stewart to try to prove anything.
Lewis beat Bruno 2 rounds after Tyson, you can spin the fight however you like. Tyson even arguably took harder shots from Bruno although he was ofcourse not hurt by them.
Califacience 2 years ago
Mike Tyson is underrated by many and overrated by many, but one thing is sure, he was an unforgettable force within the heavyweight division.
Onieracraft 2 years ago
By the way, I'll be waiting for you to get back to me about showing a fight from Tyson where he keeps up his head movement in a match this long.
I'm sure i'll only get silly insults and excuses for my trouble, but what the heck?.
anastamotic 2 years ago
Eh, computer was logged off my account for that last comment but it was me.
Califacience 2 years ago
Silly insults in response to stupid posts.
Crambo77 2 years ago
How Tyson is fighting is a direct result of how Tillis is fighting him, in his fight two months before he has all the head movement in the world because Zouski was a more stationary fighter.. I'm debating a Boxing novice.
Well I guess most Tyson fanatics are.
Califacience 2 years ago
Please everyone held Tyson, Tillis is not planting a flag here. The fact that there was a book on Mike Tyson and everyone stuck to trying to Illegally hold to stave off his offense should tell you something. But judging by your ridiculous posts I doubt you have the ability to learn.
Crambo77 2 years ago
This post seems to suggest that you are not even familar with the term "stick and move", and so i ask myself again, why was I even talking to you
Califacience 2 years ago
If I am a boxing novice than you sir fail at life cause you are losing a debate with a novice.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Losing a debate? nah this isn't a debate, You lack the resources for a debate so you turned it into a cat fight.
Califacience 2 years ago
I lack the resources sure buddy. You started this pal looking for a fight unfortunate your paltry ammo reserves are spent yet you still slapping away with those limp wrists.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Comment removed
Califacience 2 years ago
What in the world are you talking about? are looking at the fight above us?
Tucker and Tillis were both dancers that didn't back their opponents up but gave them movement and they did better than anyone Tyson faced before Douglas....oh yeah, those two fights were off nights for Tyson (tucker Tillis)
we can only judge him by his three fights in 1988.
hahaha you are ridiculous, i'm out for now.
Califacience 2 years ago
I said this fight Tyson was off with his head movement to someone else. You had nothing to do with this debate son. And still you have nothing to contribute because you babble like an Asylum patient. And his fight vs Tucker and Tillis were not even close on the scorecards I repeat not even CLOSE ON THE SCORECARDS. So what if he did not knock them out he still dominated the fights. I am not ridiculous I am sane. Now go back to your crushed meds in your applesauce induced coma you came out of.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Crambo In how many Tyson fights that went this late does Tyson consistently keep up his head movement?
If he knocks the guy out early it isn't an issue.
There are also some simple facts about the body you don't seem to get. If someone is giving you ALOT of movement like Tillis is you have to stalk them and you can't move your head while your walking. This is one of the natural advantages of the stick and move Boxing method Tillis didn't run from, or stand with Tyson, he stuck and moved.
Califacience 2 years ago
You can't move your head while your walking? Well maybe you can't walk and move your head but the rest of the human race can. Paquiao does it Tyson did it, it is part of the peekaboo defense. Are you done yet or do I have to keep shutting down your pointless rants with common sense.
Crambo77 2 years ago
No neither Paquiano nor any other fighter facing an opponent who sticks and moves can move their head while they stalk, it is text book Boxing 101, of which you are apparently ignorant, and I am done deabating with someone who confidently argues about things concerning which they have an apparent lack of fundamental knowledge.
Califacience 2 years ago
Dude you have no clue what you are talking about, What did Tua do to Ruiz stalked him slipped a punch and knocked Ruiz out, Frazier constantly stalked while shuffling and manuvering. Slugger punchers stalk. What do you think Tyson was doing in this fight when he was knocked Tillis down he slipped a punch and he slips punches while stalking during this fight. I said earlier his head movement was not as good this fight but it was still there. So the fight you are "watching" proves you wrong.
Crambo77 2 years ago
You can stalk a fighter but you must stop walking in order to slip a punch...are you sober
?
The bottom line is, overall head movement is decreased in an opponent when a fighter employs a stick and move strategy. By the way have you looked up the latin phrase "Reductio Ad Absurdum" yet in order to understand the simple idea that the logical conclusion of an absurd premise is itself absurd?
Ofcourse you haven't, you would rather B.S. and cat fight like your a chick.
Califacience 2 years ago
When you slip a punch you rotate your torso shifting to the side. You can not rotate your torso and shift to the side while sending your full body weight forward onto your front leg (which is what you do when you are walking).
Now you can walk, quickly stop and slip a punch.
This is physiology for a 5 year old, but on a more technical note, it is what makes the stick and move method troublesome.
By the way, Ali never danced too much with Frazier because he knew he had to save energy.
Califacience 2 years ago
Oh yeah and...Buster Douglas in his "prime"
Califacience 2 years ago
Would of been crushed by a Prime Tyson.
Crambo77 2 years ago
I'm not hard pressed to find guys that would beat Tyson at all: Muhammed Ali, George Foreman (within three or four rounds) These are the fighters who would definately beat him, onto the fighters that would probably beat him. Evander Holyfield and Sonny Liston.
Califacience 2 years ago
With in Three or four rounds sure buddy. Ali would be a good fight but he fights going backwards which Tyson Eats up backpedaling boxers in his prime. Forman too slow along with Frazier. Liston is worse than Foreman or Frazier.
But it is all up to interpretation because Tyson's Prime ended too soon. If Tyson stayed with Kevin Rooney I guarantee we would not be having this argument due to Tyson not staining his legacy.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Quite frankly, I don't even know why I am arguing with YOU , you obviously aren't a real boxing fan, your a delusional Tyson fanatic that lines up everything in his reasoning to perfectly coincide with the idea of the man's invincibility, throwing out any evidence to the contrary no matter how outstanding.
My arguments are outlandish? my argument is simply your absurd argument taken to it's logical conclusion (with a little comedy added for effect)
Califacience 2 years ago
Wow the I know you are but what am I stance. Whew killer zing there sister.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Comment removed
Califacience 2 years ago
If there is no time limit we could say that Douglas was unbeatable on the night he beat Tyson, and that was his prime. But wait we couldn't say that because Tyson wasn't prime, if he was, he wouldn't have lost. But what made Tyson so great? the fact that he beat Trevor Berbick? But Trevor Berbick was past his prime, if he wasn't past his prime he wouldn't have lost to Tyson, because only fighters that are past their prime lose fights; or maybe I'm wrong, and this logic only applies to Tyson.
Califacience 2 years ago
In the end there are apparently no great fighters in boxing history because they all beat fighters that were past their primes. if the fighters they beat hadn't been past their primes they wouldn't have lost, because your prime is when your doing your best no matter how long it lasts,.
Califacience 2 years ago
This makes no sense. And you think tyson Fanatics are crazy do you read before you post?
Crambo77 2 years ago
I know that post dosen't make sense, it's sarcasm, and it's the logical conclusion to your ridiculous argument about the prime of a fighter.
Califacience 2 years ago
My argument is not ridiculous about the prime of a fighter it is what Prime means your the one making shit up. Read what you just typed. "I know that post does not make sense yet it is the logical conclusion" and Ill stop right there you admit it does not make sense yet call it logical. Sir you are a rambling whirlwind of nonsensical nonsense. I would love to debate with you but you cannot back up your points with anything rational.
Crambo77 2 years ago
*sigh* young man when you leave out words from quotes very bad things happen. Here is the original quote.
"I know the post does not make sense, it is sarcasm, and it is the logical conclusion of your ridiculous argument".
the logical conclusion of a ridiculous argument is itself ridiculous.
Am I going too fast for you?
Name calling? did you not refer to me as a "loon" before I typed any of that? My names are atleast relevant to the discussion.
What am i talking to a 12 year old?
Califacience 2 years ago
I said I was leaving out the rest in the quotes cause it is needless to repeat your inane babble. Your post made no sense at all try and defend it all you want you just look more ignorant.
Crambo77 2 years ago
The post made sense to someone with a basic education in elementary logic.
Look up the term "Reductio Ad Absurdum"
I have rarely met anyone who was as unflinchingly confident in their overestimate of their own intelligence as you my friend.
The only thing more ridiculous than your blind adoration of Tyson is how you fill entire posts with long drawn out insults full of similies and all sorts of unusal references and then accuse ME of offering insults. You're an interesting fellow.
Califacience 2 years ago
One I use long drawn out similies and unusual references so obviously I have a grasp in basic education and logic unfortunately your posts lack these.
Crambo77 2 years ago
babble? is that what you call an idea which that shallow pate of yours is incapable of grasping and containing?
Califacience 2 years ago
Your arguments are outlandish and stupid with lame ifs. Prime is determined in the time when you fight your best, your best years you can lose and be in your prime if you are perfoming at your peak.
Why am I wasting my time typing to this babbling loon.
Crambo77 2 years ago
How do we know when a particular fighter is performing at his peak Tyson zombie?
Califacience 2 years ago
I am not a Tyson zombie I don't even think Tyson is in the same Legendary League as Ali or Frazier but I am sane enough to know that when he was in his prime he was and would of been a terror to anyone who stepped into the ring with him.
Crambo77 2 years ago
lol man be honest, you already showed your cards. You're not arguing that Tyson would be a terror to anyone who fought him, you are arguing that no Boxer who ever lived could have beaten him.
If this is not what your arguing give me a name.
You have already claimed Ali, Foreman and Liston would be killed.
Stop trying to save face, the word "legendary" means nothing. You have contributed nothing to this discussion but mindless praise for Mike Tyson and very childish personal attacks.
Califacience 2 years ago
Because I have to work for a living. And you were the one who threw insults first and flat out attacked me for no reason. Your arguments are rediculous cause you put words in my mouth. I said Foreman and Frazier were too Slow I did not say they would get killed I said Ali would be a good fight. Your arguing ability is horrible. As for legendary I am not trying to save face I said it earlier in a back in forth with Oniercraft. So do your self a favor and stop while your behind.
Crambo77 2 years ago
Crambo You have clearly failed in your attempt to rescue your heroes credentials. Now if you have also failed to grasp how, then you are free to reread my posts untill you can, it matters not to me either way. Clearly all you have at this points are insults and I am not interested in trading insults with children so i will take my leave.
Califacience 2 years ago
My hero is Vinz Clortho Keymaster of Gozer lord of the Subullia. I just hate when others down play on the potential greatness Mike could of aspired to if he stayed the path. And I have not failed anything little missy especially against your foolish banter. Bar none Mike was one of if not the most feared Heavyweights in the sport and you can't really say he was ever exposed because he was a mess far before his first loss came. So I have to prove nothing just shed light on the subject.
Crambo77 2 years ago
I attacked you first? cite my first attack then what was it? I only attacked your position, you began the personal attacks You seem to be still concealing your position, you refuse to state outright whether or not you believe Ali, Liston, Foreman and every fighter who ever lived would fall before the guy who knocked out light heavyweight sensation Michael Spinks.
Califacience 2 years ago
Calling me a fanatic and a zombie implying I do not have a mind of my own and just blindly follow. Which if were true makes you look pretty sad since you are failing miserably.
Crambo77 2 years ago
If i was failing you wouldn't have to tell me wouldn't you?
You used the term "Loon" to describe me before i used the "Tyson Zombie" term, check the back log.
Califacience 2 years ago