Originally Posted by Surf-Bat
Not nonsense at all. In fact it underscores my point. Just because you have superior skills it doesn't mean that you can apply them with any degree of success against someone who is so much bigger, stronger, FASTER and harder-hitting than you are. The thought of Tunney trying to apply his "science" against an elemental force like Tyson is laughable to me. He'd get completely overwhelmed.
Tillis, Tucker and Douglas were also far bigger, stronger and harder-hitting than Tunney. And you overrate Tunney when you refer to him being some sort of sublime pugilistic "mechanic". I realize that this is the popular notion of him. But if you really study his career you realize that he wasn't. A tough and capable boxer, yes. But some untouchable heavyweight Willie Pep? Endowed with the mechanical genius of Archie Moore? Not even close.
Tunney was also bigger then Tyson. What's the point? You grossly overestimate Tysons abilities in speed, footwork, and boxing ability, assuming he had any real advantage in these departments, and rely only on Tysons advantage in brute strength while ignoring the one greatest flaw, his inability to deal with adversity. This is where you argument fails. Tyson demonstrated on any number of occasions that when the going got tough, he quit. His bout with Douglas and his bouts with Holyfield demonstrate this perfectly. Your boy had all the tools, except for one, he had little Heart.