pick a lhw champ to defeat mike tyson

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by downgoesfrazier, May 11, 2011.


Page 7 of 8
  1. Foreman Hook

    Foreman Hook ☆☆☆ G$ora ☆☆☆ Full Member

    8,234
    16
    Jul 30, 2010
    A STACK of ******S in here!! :patsch:patsch

    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
     
    Foreman Hook, May 11, 2011
    Foreman Hook, May 11, 2011
    #91
  2. jdr

    jdr Guest

    no light-heavyweight is beating tyson not even fitz even in the classic forum
     
    jdr, May 12, 2011
    jdr, May 12, 2011
    #92
  3. D.T

    D.T Guest

    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.
     
    D.T, May 12, 2011
    D.T, May 12, 2011
    #93
  4. downgoesfrazier

    downgoesfrazier Guest

    it is the most stupid comment on this thread
     
    downgoesfrazier, May 12, 2011
    downgoesfrazier, May 12, 2011
    #94
  5. downgoesfrazier

    downgoesfrazier Guest

    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
     
    downgoesfrazier, May 12, 2011
    downgoesfrazier, May 12, 2011
    #95
  6. D.T

    D.T Guest

    60s Ali and that's it.
     
    D.T, May 12, 2011
    D.T, May 12, 2011
    #96
  7. Valane

    Valane Active Member Full Member

    1,462
    3
    Sep 11, 2010

    Or old Holy, Douglas and so on.
     
    Valane, May 12, 2011
    Valane, May 12, 2011
    #97
  8. teeto

    teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,075
    56
    Oct 15, 2007
    D.T., oh my
     
    teeto, May 12, 2011
    teeto, May 12, 2011
    #98
  9. D.T

    D.T Guest


    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.
     
    D.T, May 12, 2011
    D.T, May 12, 2011
    #99
  10. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    129
    Aug 13, 2009
    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.
     
    The Mongoose, May 12, 2011
    The Mongoose, May 12, 2011
    #100
  11. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    129
    Aug 13, 2009
    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.
     
    The Mongoose, May 12, 2011
    The Mongoose, May 12, 2011
    #101
  12. sugarsean

    sugarsean Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,496
    14
    Jun 2, 2009
    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.
     
    sugarsean, May 12, 2011
    sugarsean, May 12, 2011
    #102
  13. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    129
    Aug 13, 2009
    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]
     
    The Mongoose, May 12, 2011
    The Mongoose, May 12, 2011
    #103
  14. sugarsean

    sugarsean Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,496
    14
    Jun 2, 2009
    Satterfield's feet are more apart and much more side on and if you can't see that, then I question your vision.
     
    sugarsean, May 12, 2011
    sugarsean, May 12, 2011
    #104
  15. Mike T

    Mike T Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,878
    121
    Jun 13, 2006
    Um...NO
     
    Mike T, May 13, 2011
    Mike T, May 13, 2011
    #105
Page 7 of 8