I'm tired of reading post like, "you don't know **** about boxing", and "you only follow one boxer and what goes around him".. We can't really tell who knows **** about this sport unless we discuss certain topics.. How about if we discuss the classics.. :smoke Let's discuss this.. 1. Evander Holyfield is the first boxer to really beat Mike Tyson.. 2. What's your opinion on Hearn's allegation on Leonard.. I stand neutral on that one.. :smoke This is interesting.. :hey Really interesting.. :hey I'd like to see what ESB thinks.. :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:
Er, no he wasn't ? What else do you want me to say on the subject ? Is it a trick question ?Are you on about the long count ? Cos the fact remains Tyson lost that fight.
I don't know who that AxlRose guy is, and I don't give a ****.. No offense buddy, if he is reading this.. Can you please post things that are in connection with the OP? Because right now, I want to know who really knows their ****.. :hey
The idea is how they would respond with the question.. Since you already mentioned it on the first reply of this thread, I guess that would now become the primary concern of the discussion with this issue.. :yep As far as I can remember, Tyson was badly out-boxed by Douglas.. Douglas came there with his A game despite the fact that all the experts that time did not give him a chance to last 5 rounds.. Douglas proved them wrong.. And then we all know what happened between Douglas and Holyfield.. :deal Tyson knocked down Douglas in the 8th round.. The referee immediately counted 9 the moment he got up.. I could count up to 14 until Douglas stood up.. :smoke Rules are rules buddy.. When you can't get up within 10 seconds, you lost by a KO.. :deal
I believed the longcount thing for a long time... don't know why, because when I saw it again a couple of years ago it seemed like a normal count to me. James was just lucky the bell sounded directly after, and that's that. He won, and he won within the rules. It was a shocker, but he really beat Mike that night and there was nothing fishy about it. In hindsight the Holyfield win is actually more fishy as Douglas' win because of the BALCO case.
I already posted the video there buddy.. :hey And I'm trying really hard not to mention about the PEDs here.. :yep I guess, I can't help it.. I agree with you that Buster Douglas really beat Mike Tyson, if it wasn't for the controversial 14 seconds count.. :deal
It's a ten -count, not ten seconds. When Tyson went down, Mayran counted at the exact same speed for Douglas as he did for Tyson. Douglas beat that count, and likely could have beaten a quicker count given that he pounded the mat in frustration only a couple of seconds after he hit the mat. Tyson didn't beat that count...and likely wouldn't have beaten a slower count to one hundred. Unlike Buster....Tyson was done.:deal Edit: In retrospect, Tyson might have cleared the mat just before Mayran's ten count, but he still wasn't in any position to fight, methinks. Still, Tyson fans could claim a premature stoppage if they really wanted to. It wouldn't be any more valid than arguing a long count, imo, but they could do it if they wanted...
The basis of the count is the amount of time it takes to complete it. Very rarely are counts exactly ten seconds in length. As long as the official tolls the count at the same pace each time, then it's a non-issue. Douglas KO 10 Tyson. :deal
