Prime Mike Tyson ('88.) VS Prime George Foreman ('73.)

What up JT!! Just wanted to pass along the message that Alex Stewart disagrees with you.

Also, Tyson kinda did have a Plan B. He was able to adapt in fights where opponents caught up with him. Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs - the triple T threat. Those were fights where Tyson adapted, whether it was working inside against Tubbs, closing the distance against Thomas and adjusting to out jab Tucker.

I think Tyson showed against Holyfield in '96 that he lacked a Plan B, and that was fairly transparent my friend. He kept going for the KO with a straight right that a blind Holyfield could've read on braille...

But I do see what you're saying. Mike had an attacking style with relentless pressure that could play into Foreman's hands in the land of uppercuts.

But I ask you this: Did Foreman have a Plan B?

 

Do you not know how to read? Where did I say 10 seconds? I said Tyson would have beaten a 13 count the same way Douglas did especially when Tyson was on his feet at 9.
And Tyson was not knocked out clean against Douglas, what fight were you watching?
Foreman was limp on the canvas for 2 seconds and that warranted a stoppage. As I said before the referee in both fights dictated the outcome.
Your delusional view and you putting words in my mouth just ended the conversation.

 

I'm STILL waiting for you to answer this question:

If we're discussing prime vs prime, why is it ok to use the Lyle fight but it isn't ok to use the Douglas fight?

 

The difference is they were clearly both in different conditions when they both got knocked down.

Douglas punched the floor in anger and looked coherent.

Tyson was glassy eyed and looked totally out of it.

Also the referee counted exactly the same for both knockdowns for each fighter there was no favouritism. It's just Tyson was in no fit state to continue where as Douglas clearly was.

 

Ill answer your question but let me explain something first since you dont understand how this works...
Its the time keepers count not the referee’s count thats why he is called the time keeper. The referee first neutralizes the standing opponent then picks up the count from the time keeper. The referee did not do his job and pick up the count from the time keeper thats why the referee was off by 3 hence a 13 count. Seconds have nothing to do with it.

 

If your referring to that youtube video of the side by side count then that doesn't hold water since that video is chopped and edited.
The Timekeeper was ahead by 3 on the count when Douglas was knocked down which makes it a 13 count.

 

It isn't the time keepers job to keep track of the count when a fighter is down, it's the ref's job. Ask any trainer or anyone on the forum. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Now answer the ****ing question or **** off.

 

What? Lol! You obviously dont know how it works. You can watch pretty much any fight when a boxer is knocked down. First the ref neutralizes the opponent then looks directly at the time keeper and picks up the count.
Whats the point of having a timekeeper then if its not to keep time? What time is he keeping? Why is the time keepers name mentioned along with the 3 judges during the announcements?
Ask any trainer or people on the forum? Lol. I dont need to because I know how it works.

 

This is from the manual
(m) The knockdown timekeeper shall count each second for knockdowns by striking the floor of the ring or a wooden striking-board with a hammer or wooden mallet and, by stating in a loud voice, the elapse of each second.

 

timekeeper
(5) When a boxer is knocked down, the timekeeper shall assist with starting and maintaining an accurate count by striking the edge of the ring platform once each second with a hammer or other equipment or signaling method.

 

Also from the manual-
Boxing matches have an official timekeeper who starts counting seconds as soon as a boxer is on the ground. At the same time, the referee pauses the fight, sends the other standing boxer to a neutral corner, and then picks up the count from the timekeeper.

 

The ref starts the count at 1. They don't ask the timekeeper how long the fighter has been down.

 

I just pointed out facts from the rules and regulations manual and you still dont get it?
I just realized Im dealing with somone with Tyson Derangement Syndrome.

 

Show me a single fight where the ref asks the time keeper what was the count and starts from 4 instead of starting from 1.

 

Are you a complete moron or a troll or both? How your on a boxing forum is baffling to me.