1988 Mike Tyson who KO'd Spinks vs these opponents

I just said exactly the same thing with slightly different words.

Well clinching is a part of fighting. And "prime Tyson" just didn't fight fighters as good as the one on that list. So the fact that Ferguson or Smith can frustrate Tyson, take him out of his game plan is enough to tell me that a superior fighter could do that whilst having his own success.

Here is where we disagree completely; you genuinely beleive that Calzaghe would destroy Tunney, I think that Tunney would destory Calzaghe. There is no point in going around and around the houses over and over again where this is concerned - I consider the men on that list better than anyone "prime Tyson" actually fought and I would expect some of them to do much, much better than you for that reason.

Why I is Louis "less skilled"? He could fight at all ranges for one thing, something Mike never mastered.

I think Louis is a more accurate puncher than Tyson, he also wasted less.

And if Tyson fought all the men on that list, back to back, I would expect another one

:nut

In what regard am I acting this way?

 

The whole purpose of boxing is to frustrate [your opponent's offense] whilst scoring [with punches].

This doesn't make sense?

My point is that you believe fighters from a before a certain cut-off point in history are less good than their modern counterpoints. I don't believe that. Therefore it's impossible for us to communicate about that issue.

Spinks was very good. The men on the list represent a higher standard of fighter than the fighters that Tyson mixed with, though. You don't believe that because of generational bias, that's fine.

Or compare them in terms of counter-punching, or length of punch, compare them on trapping where Louis is better.

I say it is blatanly the case that Louis has more skills than Tyson.

How can he be a "great" out-fighter whilst "giving up ten inches of reach"?? That's patenlty bull****. Douglas firmly out-boxed him at range. Who did Tyson ever out-box at long range? He spent his life trying to avoid fighting at long range and get into mid-range.

Uppercutting someone doesn't make you a great in-fighter.

Even against static opponents who were two or three levels below him as a boxer Tyson was a pretty bad-infighter.

So did Louis.

I didn't say it was. I said that what you described as an "anomaly", is, in my opinion, pretty inevitable for a fighter of Mike's type/character.

I think he would beat all of them "in the lab", but blow them all out within 5? No. Nope. No question of that actually happening.

 

Yeah, most of them weren't that good though.

Of course!!! Braddock has ONE stoppage loss that was related to punches and that was after shipping an enormous beating to the better-than-Tyson Louis. His chins is proven granite, his durability is proven to a greater extent than maybe anyone Mike faced aside from Holyfield, who thrashed him.

Baer was never stopped during his best years and took one of the most hellish thrashings ever seen in a ring from Joe Louis before quitting against him, he wasn't even knocked out.

That these men aren't as durable as Micheal Spinks is an embarrassing claim.

So the only durable fighters are ones without stoppage losses?!

You always have to take it that one step further, don't you? Baer isn't a brutal puncher? In spite of the fact that he's connected to killing two men with punches?

I think that Charles has a jab as good as any of the men listed, yes. He's also more skilled than the three you list.

You just make it up as you go along!

M Baer 81"
Braddock 75"
Scmeling 76"
B Baer 84"
etc etc


Mike Tyson 71"

So t-rex arm Tyson is outreached by ten inches by two of the above and outreached by every single man on the list.

So what? He has a mix of advantages over these men. He hada mix of advantages over Buster Douglas and a mix of advantages over Bonecrusher Smith. He blew out neither in 5.

You think Mike Tyson counters as well as Joe Louis?!

This video shows Louis's countering skills of beautifully. Your appraisal of Louis is so hopeless that you should definitely be watching the whole thing, but concentrate here upon 1.00 to 1.25. You see some beautiful examples of Louis's superb, subtle countering:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R78hdxpRfws[/ame]

Now, show me Tyson doing something similar. It should be easy. All of his fights are on YouTube.

I don't consider that Tyson out-jabbed bigger men. I believe that he used his jab to cover approaches which allowed him to out-punch bigger men. Which taller men did he out-jab? Out-jab, like Buchanan out-jabbed Laguna not out-jabbed as in, hit a tall guy with some jabs.

Yeah, I think he would have been before knocking them out.

Now, answer the question you ducked with the above waffle. How can Tyson be a "great" out-fighter - your words - whilst giving up "ten inches in reach" - your words - who did Tysone ever out-box at longrange? Out-box. Like Ali outboxed Liston, not out-boxed as in occasionally landed some punches.

Ousthe?

In the third round against Jesse Ferguson? Whilst getting hit with uppercuts and throwing inaffective body-punches? With both fighters active and the referee not breaking them? This is him "resting"? Surely, surely he wasn't that stupid? Surely his stamina wasn't that bad? I think you're very hard on Mike!!

That's just **** you've made up because it suits.

Lewis and Holyfield both ruined him on the inside. Ffs.

7. OK

Holmes was old as **** when Tyson blew him out!!

Tyson would no doubt blow one or two of these guys out pretty sharp, he is that good and that special, but the idea you have that these guys either "fight to survive" or ALL get KO'd in 1-5 rounds is silly, wasn't proven by Mike Tyson's career and isn't a pick that's based in reality, in my opinion.

 

Louis is a better composite puncher than Tyson for my money, although I have them both in the top 10 all time in this department, pound for pound. This is where you lose me. For me, it's so incredibly close, for you, Louis is just a "poor man's Tyson", feeble by comparison. I guess this is what people mean when they call you an agenda poster, because I can't see how you end up where you do based upon the reality.

Pity.

Regardless, Braddock's durability is proven, so is Baer's, your original claim is baseless.

Yeah, we are, but I see it as incredibly close, you see losing to Louis as a reason to beat a fighter over the head. Incredible. I suppose you think LaMotta is vulnerable for having being stopped by Sugar Ray Robinson.

Underated by whom?

The mind just boggles. You know that Cocoa Kid was KO'd by Jimmy Leto but not Charley Burley? You know that Mike Tyson was stopped by Buster Douglas but not Frank Bruno?

Do you even think about what you are writing before you write it? Holy ****.

What about the one punch Ko's then? Your opinion is contrary to contemporary opinion and the opinion of almost everyone I know.

Longer than Tyson.

you are making Charles's fight plan for him now?

EVERY fighter outreaches Tyson

I'm happy that his jab is as good as Williams and his right hand is better than all of the above.

He also enjoys a reach advantage over Mike.

Every single fighter has a reach advantage over him, one of them has an advantage of 13".

Small, weak, unskilled, incredible that these men even won a fight, never mind lifted a title :nut

Do you mean "you're"?

Great breakdown of the footage, by the way.

"Weaking" . What are you on, honestly?

WHO did he outjab? Show me. Outjabbed, not landed some jabs on. I want you to tell me what taller man Tyson out-jabbed to victory. Not generalities like I got the first time I asked the question, names.

I pick him to beat all of them. He certainly didn't have anything like Tyson's longetivty problems.

So if i've got you right, Tyson is a great outfigher but he's never shown this in real life because of his reach disadvantage which you've already said didn't matter in terms of his being a great out-boxer?

What? "Ousthe" because Louis lost to Galento? What?

Some bodyshots are more affevtive than others.

My notes for this round of this fight: "Tyson throwing bodyshots, many are blocked and they don't have his usual pep on them."

I won't be "tasting" them but I can tell by eye that they aren't anything that special and that Tyson was out-boxed by Jesse Ferguson for that short period. I also think a case could be made that Ferguson won the fourth round.

Lewis landed uppercuts on the inside that finished Tyson's bris in the first round. He leaned and bullied Tyson on the inside whenever Tyson got there. Yes, Lewis wanted the fight on the outside. Yes, whenever Tyson got inside he got ****ing owned.

:nut

Yeah, here he is getting beaten on stamina. Nothing to do with hard unanswered punches at all.

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

You struggle a bit with footage, i've noticed, but you should be able to pick out Holyfield handling, spinning, pushing and out-hitting Holyfield at close range here.

The Holmes stoppage is great. What do you want? You seem to want to argue with me about who is better out of Louis and Tyson. I think both are amazing.

Well done. Betwen this and "Bernard Hopkins may not have been absolute prime" I think you might be getting somewhere. I do object to nursing you through two pages of posts twice a week to make it happen though.

 

All aspects of punching. So including speed, combination punching, angles, balance, variety etc etc.

I found that when yous aid "puncher" to people they would tend to think only of power. Composite puncher is every aspect of punching.