pick a lhw champ to defeat mike tyson

A STACK of ******S in here!! atschatsch

Holyfeild was NOT a Lighthvy! :deal

His First 4 fights he ABOVE 175 but below 180.

His next 14 fights he ABOVE 180 but below 191.

His next 39 fight he ABOVE 201.

More a Heavy then anything else. :deal

 

no light-heavyweight is beating tyson not even fitz even in the classic forum

 

If I had to add together all the LHWs that could beat Tyson, I would come up with a total of 0.


In all honesty, only 1 fighter in history can beat a prime Mike Tyson.

 

it is the most stupid comment on this thread

 

evander holyfield never was a natural hw, he trained very hard his musculature to be a hw, evander trained weights like a mad man in his prime and he weighed barely 208 pounds and he was 6´2 1/2, exactly the same height of joe louis, louis was a fighter from the 30s and he weighed 207 pounds naturally he never trained weights, if you put both fighters in the same era ,joe louis would be clearly heavier than holyfield. and joe louis was not exactly a monster. at amateur he was not a hw.evander was a natural cruiser but he fought at lhw too

 

60s Ali and that's it.

 

Or old Holy, Douglas and so on.

 

D.T., oh my

 

lol


Who besides 60s Ali could beat '88 Tyson?

He would KO Louis, Lewis, Johnson, Dempsey, Holmes, Jeffries, Frazier.
He would UD Foreman and Holyfield.

 

Applying pressure by weaving low...and bobbing from side to side. :think

His stance, footwork, is also similar and the angles of those quick mid range hooks.

There is more to this than you are willing to bend. It doesn't mean Satterfield is as great as Tyson to concede he approached the Charles fight in a similar matter. Seriously, you have eyes, pretending that Satterfield/Charles has no relationship whatsoever to Tyson is a "head in the sand" move. The man doesn't have to be an exact clone of Tyson to draw a hyphothetical conclusion.

 

P4P ****, Satterfield KOed tough men of comparable size to the 80s Heavies. Williams, Holman, and Valdez would be right at home in that decade. There is no question he has one punch HW power.

And again....Charles against a quick pressure fighter who is bobbing and weaving low, looking to score with left hooks and combinations is highly relevant. Satterfield may not be as durable or quick as Tyson, but there is relevance here.

We know Charles also stopped the durable 200 lbish two handed pressure fighter Elmer Ray as well, who was written to be as quick as a middleweight. So Charles folding just because Tyson is bigger and faster, doesn't sit well with me.

Tyson in contrast doesn't have much to go on, Old Holmes, Biggs, Tubbs...traditional outside boxers, Mike was designed to break down. Charles, Moore,..completely different animals that were extinct by the 70s as great talents took a more nurtured path to success. Again, food for thought.

 

His stance is nothing like Mike's, his feet are more spread out, he's much more side on than Tyson, not similar, its clear from the film.

 

Certainly not, what an odd thing to write. As with most power punchers, both men are employing a similiar wide leg stance, especially when in range. If you can't see that, I'm really going to have to question your vision.

Plain as day...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SbHh9D9wKw&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXz8CZDE7XI[/ame]

Now the real difference in there stance, is Satterfield keeps his gloves lower while Mike resets with both gloves tight to his chin at all times in that peek a boo. That's it. Hardly "nothing" alike, not exact duplicates, but certainly similar. This is a demonstration of Charles against a low crouching bobbing and weaving two handed power puncher minus the peek a boo.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuMxhz67e7E[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPHofYgReog[/ame]

 

Satterfield's feet are more apart and much more side on and if you can't see that, then I question your vision.

 

Um...NO