As long as you stand up to Mike Tyson you can beat him

Lol why does every Tyson thread turn into some keyboard warrior nonsense

 

You were doing so well!!!!

 

LOL. I wonder how many keys came flying out of his board as he smashed out that vitriol. His mouse probably copped a hiding too.....for looking at him the wrong way.

 

I have a long history with Sangy!!!

Pretty sure i told him one time i could envision all the spittle spraying all over his keyboard as he typed his retort.

Jesus H Christ the abuse he and i swapped a couple of times years ago. It ended up with him banned and he 100% thought i dobbed him in but i didn't as I've dished out far too much over 15 odd years to be that hypocritical !! Perhaps just a case of seniority

We are great now and i am somewhat sympathetic as Tyson PERHAPS has just as many haters and detractors as he has nut huggers. It certainly triggers him.

If anything Tyson has become a tad underrated in here and suffers from the blinding support of some of his fans. Many a time they've riled me up to the point of triggering them (from a position of reasonable strength tho) and this no doubt more than once involved Sanga!

I'm not quite in full alignment with your earlier expanded post but don't quite have the topic passion to get into a drawn out exchange of idea's. I don't agree Tillis perhaps showed the blueprint basically and Tyson was far enough above his conquests for their supposed form to be scrutinized. I don't remember too many proffering up excuses but it's all good.

Regarding Sangria he's a good'un but can be triggered per Tyson but he's come a long way!!!!

Good to have you in here mat!!!

 

Taking a fight like that, at a level Douglas had not fought at before, and winning it as the late sub on just 3 days notice also deserves commending doesn’t it?

James Douglas 230 lbs beat Greg Page 236 lbs by UD in round 10 of 10

• Date: 1986-01-17
• Location: The Omni, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
• Judge: 97-94

Page was knocked down in the 6th round.

Source: Louisville Courier-Journal

 

Of course you're right. But you'll never convince them with this logic.
Obviously, if Tyson is allowed excuses for 'bad lifestyle' and 'outside the ring problems' etc. etc. ... then other top fighters should get the same allowances. For example, about half the guys Tyson beat in his prime years.
That's fair.
Fairness, equality, equals, equal standards.... don't dare apply them on this forum, you'll be labelled a hater and a biased (for being unbiased!).

But people have their favourites, and they often resort to "perception at the time" type of arguments. So, if Tyson loses to a 5-1 or 10-1 underdog or whatever, 42-1 even !, it has to be written off simply because it went against the perceptions people were/are comfortable with.

 

True enough. Cobb was the draw tho.

I'm going to look deeper on that KD as it's VERY hard to verify if not impossible. I need two sources. 2-10 are on film but the youtube version was dropped. Still dubious.

 

There'in lay the beauty of being the dominant ATG type performer - you are given the benefit of the doubt especially if there is evidence to back it up. Tyson laid out top contender after top contender and established a pattern. Many others did too. There's any amount of anecdotal evidence available per Tyson's prep. There's also any amount per Douglas. I have little doubt if Tyson got the rematch which he absolutely deserved after his dominance of the division he would have set the record straight no matter what Douglas turned up.

Lets not forget you completely discount Douglas coming in at 246 pounds against Holyfield as not mattering.

We see great athletes beaten all the time when a little off their games.

Unfortunately boxing isn't measurable like, say, sprinting.

 

Nothing wrong with disagreeing. It makes the forum go round and I hear you on not necessarily wanting to get bogged down or feeling obliged to respond to each and every post, if at all, even when you mightn't agree with what your reading.

So he's come a long way, eh, but still not quite there? LOL.

Serious question, how many times can you be banned and how long does it last each time? t's not something that I'm striving for, just curious.

 

There's no need for "benefit of the doubt", because there is no doubt.
Douglas beat Tyson. The idea that it somehow doesn't count because Tyson beat some other guys, is plainly silly.

In what way do you mean?
Douglas was too heavy against Holyfield.
I give Holyfield credit for beating him.
I give Douglas credit for beating Tyson.
I give Tyson credit for beating Berbick etc.

Sure.
But if I was to say "Pinklon Thomas was at least a little off his game", or "Tucker's hand injury is well documented", "Tubbs's prep was so awful his trainer walked out on him" .... you will say it doesn't matter at all, there's no way you'd entertain the possibility that prime Tyson got at all lucky to catch them at a bad time.
They obviously don't reach your threshold for "great athlete", so you offer them none of the allowances you rush to heap on the favourites.

I respect how you can be so openly biased and how you advocate favouritism so strongly though, JT.

 

No, not that usual to see them systematically beaten up like that. Louis-Schmeling, yes, but otherwise it's mostly 1 punch KO's or gassing late. ATGs in prime age being dominated from start to finish isn't very usual. Frazier-Foreman is another example, but how many thinks even the best version of Frazier would have fared substantially better?

It's actually perhaps more usual with old, out of shape ATGs edging out a controversial decision or some such (a come from behind stoppage in the case of Lewis-Vitaly).

 

I' have no idea on banning as I've been lucky enough to have been left alone.

Two long term members were perma banned many months back but both have eventually been let back in under different usernames and perhaps a shorter leash. Minor bans seem to last days or not many weeks.

My tips would be to stay away from abbreviations that bypass the swear filter as that is instantly "bannable", stay away from any sort of racial posts even if innocent and don't push ones luck in the General forum as it's moderated by non classic forum moderators who don't give a hoot about ones reputation or value in other forums. Overly racial and political topics seem the most dangerous to get involved in.

@McGrain is the bee's knee's on this topic and more than fair IMO!!! You've established yourself as a high level poster in no time and I'm sure you need not worry but a few guidelines can't hurt.

Bear in mind previous policies have favored long term posters over newbies if need be.

 

Due to it not being that usual at all perhaps there is a story in that......

 

The greats often seem to pull it off even when they're out of shape. And even when they don't, they keep it respectable.

I'm not saying that I'm sure that a similarly motivated Douglas would do that to an in top shape Tyson in a rematch, but I think it's an even longer reach to say that Tyson wins. He came in at a fairly standard weight and got his ass handed to him. When that happens you have to be well open to the thought that it wasn't a one off.

 

The fact that Tyson was 5'10 and had a 71 inch reach, against Douglas at 6'4 and 83 inch reach, I would have thought would give some pause for thought too, when viewing exactly how Douglas did beat him.
Usually that would be seen as a factor.

"But Tyson beat guys that size before, and after!" I hear them protest .... yeah, but, it still is what it is.
Limitations, disadvantages. Tyson was short.
Tyson was special, had to be, to beat guys like that size so often and so clearly anyway. But I don't see why it's seen as almost unbelievable that one of them did in fact find the key to using those advantages.