How much of Mike Tyson's success was due to his genes and how much to his training?

You claimed Tyson's physical abilities made him what he was. I just showed you a guy with indisputably better physical abilities. You agree that a boxer would beat him at boxing. Therefore, physical abilities are not necessarily the most important factor in a fighters success.

Actually I checked Pudz' background and he boxed for 7 years as a young amateur. But yeah, regardless, the point is that a better trainer can get better results. We all saw how Steward was better for Wlad than Sdunek. I don't think you have to be a genius to see that d'Amato made Tyson what he was.

 

I claimed that a fighter with Tyson's physical talents trained by a regular pro trainer probably fares a lot better than a physically unexceptional heavyweight trained by Legendary Great Trainer Cus D'Amato. You disagreed because washed-up Tyson took 5 rounds to knock out Frans Botha in 1999 (After not fighting for a year and a half following two bad losses...a knockout and an ear-biting meltdown).

You did no such thing. Is that what you were trying to do??

Obviously, all things being equal. Just like guys with better physical talent get better results, all things being equal.

Cus molded Tyson into the fighter he became but any number of trainers probably could have given Tyson the training and skills he needed to become a successful professional boxer.

Without hard-hitting, fast-handed physical phenoms like Tyson and Patterson though, would Cus ever have produced any heavyweight contenders?

 

He was totally absorbed in to boxing like no other fighter before or since, he was honed by a fanatical man that built and bred him for fighting imo from a young age. He didn't develop in other areas of his personality down to it, he was brought up like a Pit Bull by D'Amato..I think its a combination of genes but more how he was brought up by D'Amato for his success...

 

Frans Botha is a successful professional boxer. Just saying.

 

I don't think anybody is arguing that point.

 

Son, do some research before laying out your opinions like this. Bodies are different, organs are different and yes, brains are different.

Are you stuck with what you start out with? No. A brain can be developed the same as muscles.

 

Leonardo Da Vinci must have had one hell of an upbringing.

 

I agree it's not germane to the forum, but I hope you're not suggesting my comments got ugly. I'm a little worried some people might have misread them, but my position is as about far from the "race realist" one as you can possibly get.

 

He did, actually. On the other hand Galileo's father did everything in his power to prevent his son from finding out about the very existence of mathematics in an effort steer him into some other career (I forget which) but obviously it didn't take.

 

Indisputably? I don't really see how that follows. If you're right, then there's a very strong argument to be made that fighters should be training much more like competitive weightlifters. Seems implausible to me.

 

Then the actual IQ tests are bogus, because you're obviously, significantly smarter than that.

100 minimum.